Consumer Perception of French Retailers’ Commitment to Sustainable Development 12 Valérie Charrière*, Associate Professor, LIRSA Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers 40, rue des Jeûneurs - 75002 Paris Phone: + 33 (0) 1 40 27 29 78 Email 1:
[email protected] Email 2:
[email protected] Sophie Morin-Delerm**, Associate Professor, LIRSA Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers 40, rue des Jeûneurs - 75002 Paris Phone: + 33 (0) 1 40 27 29 78 Email 1:
[email protected] Email 2:
[email protected]
* Valérie Charrière worked for a consumer (Kantar/TNS Worldpanel) and retailer panel company (IRI Symphony) as statistician before being in charge of Monoprix Loyalty program. Since 2002, Dr Valerie Charrière has been Associate Professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers where she is teaching quantitative marketing. She is conducting research on sustainable development, consumer behavior and retail at LIRSA-Cnam Laboratory. Email:
[email protected] ** Sophie Morin-Delerm is Associate Professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers in Paris and she is a member of the LIRSA-Cnam Laboratory. Dr Sophie MorinDelerm specializes in sustainable development. She has studied sustainable development reports in retailing as well as in higher education institutions and she has written about how SD reports are communication tools used to legitimize practices in firms/organizations. Her research also takes place in the field of marketing and product innovation, especially in issues concerning the evaluation of the potential success of a new product. Email:
[email protected]
1
Under the financial support of ANR (the National Research Agency), “The regulatory potential of CSR”. 2 A first version of this paper was previously accepted at the ISFAM World Conference, July 8-10, 2010.
Consumer Perception of French Retailers’ Commitment to Sustainable Development Abstract The purpose of this paper is to show if and how French consumers perceive retailers’ commitment to sustainable development and whether certain retailers seem better positioned in this area than others. Purpose –
We first conducted a documentary analysis, after which we choose qualitative research (two focus groups). Finally, we launched a quantitative (646 questionnaires) study. Methodology –
The paper demonstrates that retailers’ efforts in sustainable development are not obvious for French consumers. Even if very few retailers are clearly committed to sustainable development most of them, even the more dynamic, are suffering from a lack of credibility in this domain. We focused on the perception of Monoprix’s commitment to sustainable development as this retailer is unique in that it has been innovative in different ways for the last 80 years and was the first French retailer involved in sustainable development, as early as 1998. Findings –
The interest of the research is the identification of what, if any, image consumers have of retailers’ commitment to sustainable development. According to the results we obtained, some practical implications can be seen for Monoprix, on the one hand, and for affluent consumers, on the other. Practical implications –
Classic limitations are mentioned: the size and composition of the sample, the mode of administration. Research limitations –
This research highlights the positioning of French retailers according to consumers’ perception of their commitment to sustainable development. Originality/value – Key Words:
sustainable development, retailers’ commitment, consumers, perception,
sensitivity.
1
Consumer Perception of French Retailers’ Commitment to Sustainable Development Different crises of the past decades (whether environmental, health or finance related) have had a great impact on consumers and the way they buy. The public consequences of their private choices are increasingly taken into account (Hetzel and Morin-Delerm, 2002, 2004; François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence, 2006). In France, retailers have faced a decline in sales and a slowdown of this market which is evaluated at approximately 72B€3. The decline is mostly observed for the hypermarkets. Their market shares between the first half of 2007 and the first half of 2008 has drop down of 0.4 % in comparison with the market share of proximity stores that has increased of 2.4 %. Since then, counter-performances of the hypermarkets have been confirmed repeatedly. This can be interpreted as demonstrating consumers’ loss of buying power or else a disaffection towards large retailers and their practices (Gildea, 1994). The first phenomenon may very well catalyze the second. According to the IRI (2008, 2009, 2010)4, with gasoline becoming increasingly expensive, the consumer is trying to minimize its expenses by limiting unnecessary purchases and reducing car trips. Because of these new consumer requirements as well as poor retailer image, the latter have chosen to communicate about their responsible commitments5, putting in place a sustainable development policy (Dion, Wolff, Bey et al., 2008). Retailers are now aware that they are appraised not only on their financial, but also on their societal, performance (Lavorata, Morin-Delerm and Pierre, 2008). Thus, in France for instance, Monoprix, created in response to the 1929 crisis (Furlough, 1993; Cliquet, 2000 ; Charrière, 2011), became the first retailer to sell, in 1998, products coming from fair trade. Monoprix was also the first retailer to communicate in 2002 on the theme: “Development yes, but only if sustainable”. In 2004 as well, Carrefour (2nd world-wide retailer) launched the campaign: “Consume better, it’s urgent”. But is this sustainable development policy compatible with retailer image? In 1975, Dornoff, Tankersley and Clint already asked in their article if “Do retailers practice social responsibility?” Thirty years later, in 2004, a survey conducted by IPSOS and ADEME in France showed that 53% of consumers believed that “large retailers do not facilitate sustainable development by their actions”. Another IPSOS study6, made in UK in 2007, shows that 41% of consumers think that retailers are only making slight changes and still “have a long way to go”. 79% of consumers agree that it’s not enough for retailers to say that they are ethical: they need to prove it too. Does that still hold true for consumer perceptions in France? According to Lapeyre and Bonnefont (2004), sustainable development is not only “a la mode” but rather consists of a will to be part of a societal movement, building a sustainable 3
IRI France, Retail study, June 2008. Economic Outlook 2008, 2009, 2010, Shopper 2010. 5 Dates of the first Reports on Sustainable Development of the following large French retailers: Monoprix in 2001 (charter in 2000), Carrefour and Auchan in 2002, Casino in 2003. 6 IPSOS Study 2008, Ipsos-MORI Sustainability Issues In The Retail Sector Report. The online Omnibus study was among 1,131 members of the British public aged 16-64, conducted 13-17 March 2007. 4
2
relationship between the retailer’s brand and its customers (Girod, 2003). Nowadays, responsible initiatives driven by retailers can be considered as a legitimating process (Arnold, Handelman and Tigert, 1996; Gabriel, 2003) with, undoubtedly, the ultimate goal of achieving growth in spite of a sluggish global economic environment. While the hypermarket French model is facing difficulties, we will attempt to understand and evaluate if French consumers perceive retailers’ commitment towards sustainable development. Several frameworks have been used. Sustainable Development has generated several works, agreements as well as controversy (Aggeri, Pezet, Abrassart et al, 2005; Gendron, 2006; Igalens, 2008; Pecqueux, 2008), but today, the reference, in terms of definition, is still the World Commission on Environment and Development, the “Brundtland Report” (1987). It states: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As the purpose of this paper is not a debate on sustainable development, we have decided to use this original definition. Today, interest in sustainable development implies interest in Stakeholder Theory as well. This theory – often approached in a flexible way (Pesqueux, 2006) – shows the organization as a constellation of competitive and concurrent interests (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Moore, 1999). It considers individuals and groups that may influence the organization, and also management’s behavior towards those individuals and groups (Freeman, 1984). The underlying postulate is that answering the interests of stakeholders allows the preservation of cooperation and the achievement of performance (Clarkson, 1995; Jones, 1995; Jones and Wick, 1999; Kochan and Rubinstein, 2000). In this article, stakeholder theory is the foundation of the research as this theory would guarantee better relationships for consumers with their retailers in diverse and complementary domains (economic, environmental and social) (Whysall, 2000; Lapeyre and Bonnefont, 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya and Korschun, 2006; Swaen and Chumpitaz, 2008), and for the retailers, a better image, market share gain and revenue increase. Finally, our work also relies upon Legitimacy Theories. Suchman (1995) notes that the multiplicity of legitimacy processes gives leaders important room to maneuver in their environment. Agreeing with Dowling and Pfeffer (1975), as well as Richardson (1987), he claims that all legitimacy strategies mainly rely upon a communication policy. Thus, when a retailer is becoming involved in sustainable development, it is building its legitimacy in that domain (“legitimacy acquisition”) through a communication policy as well as by practicing “good behavior”. It thereby reinstates its overall legitimacy (“legitimacy reconstruction”) while hoping to improve both consumer (Sireix, Pontier and Schaer, 2004; Lapeyre and Bonnefont, 2004; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill, 2006; Binninger and Robert, 2008; Swaen and Chumpitaz, 2008) and stakeholders trust. We conducted our work by triangulating three complementary research methods: first an analysis of the theoretical and management corpus centered on sustainable development and its links between consumers and retailers, then a qualitative analysis, followed finally by a quantitative investigation. The results are detailed below. This article is split into four parts. The first part focuses on the academic and management literature in the field of sustainable development, showing the growing interest of researchers and managers for this theme. The second part is dedicated to research method, first qualitative
3
then quantitative. In the third part, we will present the findings of the research in two steps: first the results of the qualitative study, then, the quantitative research. We will try to answer the question: Do French consumers perceive retailers’ commitment to sustainable development, and if so, how? We will analyze whether the differences between retailers remain stable through the different criteria used. In particular, the image of Monoprix towards sustainable development will be studied7. Finally, after discussing the findings and limitations of the research, we will focus on the practical implications. LITERATURE REVIEW An in-depth analysis of management and academic literature regarding sustainable development, on the one hand, and retailers’ involvement on the other, has been conducted. Related topics such as responsibility (Lauriol, 2004; Pasquero, 2005; Thierry, 2005; Binninger and Robert, 2008; Barthel, 2006), trust (Guibert, 1999; Sireix, Pontier and Schaer, 2004; Lapeyre and Bonnefont, 2004; Swaen and Chumpitaz, 2008) and consumer resistance (Penaloza and Price, 1993; Roux, 2007; Aouina-Mejri and Benhallam, 2009) have also been investigated. Furthermore, we studied the theoretical corpus of the frameworks used (Stakeholder Theory and Legitimacy Theories). Consumers and Sustainable Development Sanctified at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and publicized since then, the term sustainable development has, today, come into general use. The survey conducted at the end of 2008 by IPSOS8 shows that 97% of the French population say that they have heard of “sustainable development” whereas in 2006, one third of the population did not know what the expression meant. According to the TNS World Panel (November 2009)9, between July 2008 and July 2009, 85 % of French households have bought at least once a sustainable product; that is to say one million more households than the previous year. This literature review reveals that the subject of sustainable development is attracting the interest of a greater and greater number of researchers. Nevertheless, its outline is blurry and its meaning ambiguous (Garriga and Mele, 2004; Pesqueux, 2008). Hence, to establish the link between the individual/consumer and sustainable development, it is necessary to refer to several research flows in management sciences. Binninger and Robert (2005) have listed the works in which the individual is defined by his sensitivity or concern towards the environment (environmentally concerned consumer, ecologically concerned consumer) or society (socially conscious consumer (Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Webster, 1975), ethical consumer (Dubuisson-Quellier, 2009)). The interest of these research streams lies in approaching – through converging but nonexhaustive ways – the characteristics of the relationship between consumer and sustainable development with a focus on ecological consumption, and the link between consumption and concern for the environment. 7
Monoprix has been innovative in several ways (see Appendix A) and have put in place volunteer strategies to face each transition period, whether economic or social (Charrière, 2011). It was, for example, the first to commit to sustainable development (as early as 1998, before its Report went public, with the sale of fair trade coffee). 8 Survey performed over a sample of 1015 people, representative of the French population of 18 and older according to the quotas method. The survey took place between November 28 and December 2, 2008, on-line in a self-administered mode. 9 Press release, November 2009, TNS Worldpanel.
4
In parallel to the literature on sustainable development we, along with numerous researchers (Kasser and Sheldon, 2000; Arndt, Solomon, Kasser and Sheldon, 2004; Urien, 2005; Binninger and Robert, 2005), have observed that over the past 15 years economists, managers and sociologists are focusing on the growing anxiety of individuals. This anxiety is rising due to, among other reasons, multiple phenomena such as health crisis (“mad cow”, contaminated blood, polemics about GMOs…), natural catastrophes (tsunami, earthquakes, mudslides…), pollution-related issues (allergies, ozone hole…) or economic/financial issues (Enron, subprimes, speculation in oil prices …). These multiple issues have led the consumers to think about their consumption and its consequences (Hetzel and Morin-Delerm, 2002; 2004; Dubuisson-Quellier, 2009), gradually becoming true citizen-consumers, selecting products that are not only health and eco-aware but that also demonstrate respect for the manufacturing and distribution conditions. According to two studies conducted in April 2009, 20% of French consumers have embraced responsible behavior (Ethicity10, and 39% claim that they have bought more biological products than the year before (the Benchmark Group11). This evolution seems to show that consumers are integrating – consciously or unconsciously – in their attitudes and consumption behaviors, the different components of sustainable development (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill, 2006). Retailers and Sustainable Development While in 2004, 61% of the French12 trusted companies to act on environmental and social issues, six years later, only 41,3% give companies credit for their struggle in favor of a more responsible planet. More radically, 66% of A and B occupational categories and 63% of C, no longer have faith in the commitment of firms on this subject. Retailers, and particularly hypermarket brands, do not generate any more enthusiasm. They are facing a chronic problem of image related to their business model. They often find themselves at the center of a debate between consumers (to whom they wish to offer the greatest diversity of products for a competitive price) and producers (whom are blamed for forcing bankruptcy through their purchasing policy) (Lavorata, Morin-Delerm and Pierre, 2008). Retailers are also criticized about transportation of goods, customers having to travel far to buy what they need, generation of trash (excessive packaging, plastic bags, nonrecyclable or too perishable products…), production methods encouraged by the management methods of suppliers (deforestation, decline of biodiversity…), etc. From the social point of view, this sector is being blamed for often improper income, difficult, and sometimes hazardous, work conditions, instability and weak social welfare programs… (Piacentini, MacFadyen and Eadie, 2000; Memery, Megicks and Williams, 2005; Brabet et al.,2007; Wagner, Bicen and Hall, 2008). Retailers have begun to expose their societal commitments through corporate communication (Jones, Comfort and Hillier, 2005a), 2005b)). However, Gabriel (2003) points out that legitimacy only comes through visible, credible and acceptable actions. According to this author, communication based on actions such as sponsoring or patronage is hence preferred to corporate communication that lacks credibility as it comes without evidence of commitment. 10
Ethicity, April 2009, The French and sustainable consumption – survey. Benchmark Group, April 2009, Consumption and crisis. On-line survey performed in April 2009 on 4,073 consumers. Sample corrected on the basis of the French socio-demographic structure by sex, age and occupational categories. 12 According to TNS Media Intelligence (2004-2008), op. cit. 11
5
Being aware of what is at stake (Capron and Quairel-Lanoizelée, 2004; Robert-Demontrond and Bezaudin-Peric, 2004; Matagne, 2005) and concerned about their reputation and their societal legitimacy, retailers are leading several initiatives, such as the Week of Sustainable Development initiated in 200313, the selection of products with environment and social labels (organic food, fair products, local products), the institution of codes of conduct, the promotion of a certain level of transparency using reporting, partnerships with NGOs… At the international level, it is true that strict application of the principles of sustainable development seems difficult. The integration of “societal frames of references”14 (RobertDemontrond and Bezaudin-Peric, 2004), or more widely, ethical marketing should reinforce both the image (Barthel, 2006) and the legitimacy (Gabriel, 2003) of retailers in terms of their actions towards sustainable development. Observation of retailer practices shows that the legitimacy strategies put in place rely upon an adaptation, and a manipulation, mechanism of the environment. In this way, retailers are adjusting to the standards of their sector (normative and mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983)) so as to acquire moral legitimacy. This adjustment relies, partly, upon the search for collaboration/cooperation with suppliers (Messeghem, 2005), NGOs and consumers (improving the relationship (Cova and Roncaglio, 1999)). Moreover, the approach of companies often comes with a manipulation mechanism of the environment through the creation of ad hoc organizations (internal auditors evaluating their partners), aimed to promote sustainable development. We observe that specific communication aims to achieve pragmatic legitimacy. This means, on one hand, borrowing of terminology and practices proving support of practices of sustainable development (satisfaction of stakeholders), and on the other, an offering based upon sustainable products (local, fair, organic) as a communication vector enabling brands to differentiate from their competition. In “a competitive environment where sales battles are won on the image field” (Lipovetsky, 1992) and where differentiation assets are scarce, ethical commitment as an image (Tixier, 2002; Vernier, 2005; Lavorata, 2008) and a legitimacy vector (Gabriel, 2003) may provide a competitive advantage. Positioning as Perceived by Consumers: Is the Retailers’ Image Compatible with Sustainable Development? As Aouina-Mejri and Benhallam (2009) put it, the majority of Anglo-Saxon studies conducted on the consequences of actions in favor of sustainable development by companies generally result in positive consumer reaction. But, this positive consumer reaction noted in the previous research is questioned. Indeed, the IPSOS15 study from the UK showed that 75% of consumers agree with the sentence “a lot of companies nowadays pretend to be ethical just 13
During the week dedicated to sustainable development, each actor is invited to suggest an action that will demonstrate good practice in terms of sustainable development; the purpose is to explain and demonstrate sustainable development from all its angles (economic, social and environmental) and in all sectors. 14 The Global Compact standard designs a framework for sustainable development and the way to apply it, but it does not show which option is to be applied by retailers. With ICS, retailers decided to create their own frame of references instead of integrating a well-known standard like, for instance, SA 8000. 15 IPSOS Study 2008, Ipsos-MORI Sustainability Issues In The Retail Sector Report.
6
to charge higher prices or to sell more products”. Even though consumer attitudes towards socially responsible practices of companies are rather favorable, some researchers have also noted their complexity (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Sen and Battacharya, 2001; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill, 2006). Thus the consumer, increasingly concerned about the practices and strategies of companies from which he purchases products (David, Kline and Dai, 2005; Oppewal, Alexander and Sullivan, 2006) may, if he is disappointed, turn away from them. Societal strategies run the risk of being perceived as opportunistic and may disappoint if it turns out that a gap exists between marketing statements and societal realities (Menon and Menon, 1997; Webb and Mohr, 1998). The aim of our research is to both complete and pursue previous research. The methodology is presented below. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Qualitative Study In a second step, we conducted a qualitative analysis. Two focus groups (Templeton, 1994), each gathering twelve individuals, were conducted on April 1, 2009, during the heart of the financial crisis. The first group worked on sustainable development, its representations and perceived evolutions. The second group examined retailers, the topography of their offer and what is expected of them. Each focus group meeting lasted three hours and was filmed. The sustainable development topic and the perception of retailers’ commitment on this theme seemed to be appropriate for the methodology inherent in focus groups. Indeed, sustainable development is both “à la mode” as well as fundamental (Lapeyre and Bonnefont, 2004). This dual affiliation needs to be clarified and we wanted to listen to consumers on these subjects to better determine their attitudes and behaviors towards sustainable development. Besides, retailers, once powerful and incontrovertible, today arouse growing suspicion. On the same topic, it appeared essential to gather the opinion of the participants on retailers (focus group #2). The decision to use focus groups was not driven by an assumed superiority of the method (by the way, strongly questioned by Fern (1982)) but rather by necessity in order to collect as much information as possible in a limited time (Lapeyre and Bonnefont, 2004). It has also been proven (Fern, 1983) that the focus group moderator does not necessarily have to be a technical expert. As researchers specialized in marketing, we received help, in this qualitative part, from a psychologist who is an expert in conducting individual and group interviews. Samples are made up of 2x12 individuals, with a majority of young professionals (24-45 years old). They do not constitute a statistically representative sample, but have been chosen for their diverse experiences, values and consumption habits. Furthermore, the individuals are, at the same time, sufficiently remote from (no particular fervor and little risk of pressuring others towards conformity (Asch, 1973)) but interested in the subject (current concern). Each group answered a questionnaire basically following an “Interview Guide” (see Appendix B), with the list of the main subjects to discuss. Taken into account the semistructured approach of a focus group, we limited ourselves to guide the groups towards the discussion theme and, in case of a drift, re-orient the group according to the interview guide. In addition, we were careful to balance roles within the groups between leaders and followers.
7
The focus group results were processed jointly with the specialist of qualitative studies. The films of both group meetings were manually transcribed. For each group, we led a content analysis predominantly based on the interpretation of syntactic, lexical and thematic recurrences. To achieve that, we followed the guidelines that are traditionally recognized for this type of analysis (Weber, 1990; Huberman and Miles, 1991; Paillé and Mucchielli, 2008). The video enabled us to enrich the analysis by taking into account, with necessary precautions, non-verbal data. Quantitative Study In a third step, based on the results collected during the focus group activity, a questionnaire was built and tested. It was put on-line for a period of one month, from April 14 through May 14, 2009. 700 individuals, recruited according to the “snowball” sampling, answered the survey. After processing, 646 questionnaires were analyzed. The sample is made up of individuals over 20 years of age (we deliberately excluded the less than 20 because there were only 15 of them) belonging to broad range of occupational categories. We observed, nevertheless, an under-representation of 50+ years and an over-representation of executive populations (A & B occupational categories). The objective of the quantitative study was, in its first part, to determine what consumers mean by “sustainable development” and to what items in particular their definition applies. Here, we processed multiple-choice questions with simple statistical analysis, proposing 13 non-exclusive response modalities. In the second part, the purpose of the questionnaire was to reveal, according to certain features (sensitivity to sustainable development, age…), the perception that those consumers have of the different retailers listed. Each brand was evaluated on a differential semantic scale of 1 through 4 (Q8: on a scale ranging from 1. Not visible at all to 4. Highly visible, are the following retailers driving visible actions towards sustainable development?). In this part of the research, the retailers are the variables. Finally, beyond knowledge of consumer perceptions and attitudes, retailer managers need to have a good understanding of the competitive structure of the market and who their main competitors are. Competition among retailers has been apprehended in terms of effective consumer perception concerning the retailers’ commitment to sustainable development. The mapping of brand competition is based on variable clustering methods. There are two main methods: hierarchical methods (either agglomerative or divisive) and direct partitioning methods (Stan and Saporta, 2010). Partitioning methods usually require the number of groups to be defined beforehand, so we could not use them. In the agglomerative, hierarchical clustering methods, there are the methods derived from clustering of statistical units (Nakache and Confais, 2005), and the VARHCA method (Vigneau and Qannari, 2003). Various dissimilarity measures can be used, based on the classic correlation coefficient. A good partition is such that the variables of the same class are correlated as much as possible, and two variables belonging to different classes are correlated as little as possible. We hence had to use those variables as metrics. In our study, we assert that two retailers X and Y belong to the same class if they are perceived in the same manner by individuals. Thus, when an individual believes that brand X is clearly acting for sustainable development, he will also believe that brand Y is clearly acting for sustainable development.
8
Saporta (2006) then Stan and Saporta (2010) maintain that we can use the correlation between variables in a principal component analysis (PCA). The following strategies of aggregation are classic: single linkage, average linkage, and Ward’s criterion. We ran a PCA, using as variables the ones measuring the brands’ visibility in terms of their activity in sustainable development. We then applied an agglomerative hierarchical clustering method using the correlation between the variables and the principal components of PCA. Validity of this retailer cluster is assessed by comparing the result of a clustering using the divisive hierarchical method. The best known divisive method is SAS VARCLUS. In the first step, all variables are in a single cluster. One performs a PCA with all obvious variables. If there is only one principal component with an eigenvalue greater than 1, there is only one cluster. Otherwise, the first cluster is split into two clusters by finding the first two principal components, performing a quartimax orthoblic rotation, and assigning each variable to the rotated component with which it has the higher squared correlation (SAS guide). If the second eigenvalue of a group is greater than 1, this group is divided in its turn, according to the same method, and so on, until each group has only one principal component (Saporta, 2006). RESULTS The studies, qualitative as well as quantitative, conducted in April, 2009 (in other words, six months after the survey made by IPSOS in France), show similar and complementary outcomes to those obtained by research companies. Qualitative Results From the focus group sessions, it appears that our participants know and understand (at least partially) the expression “sustainable development”. More precisely, they mention the notions and concepts associated with it, and underline the stakes for the different stakeholders (suppliers, distributors and consumers) and for society as a whole. During the focus groups, the intensity of the debate was remarkable, as well as the hopes generated by sustainable development and the disillusions that the participants link to it. Analysis of the content confirms that first impression. Like other organizations, retailer brands are aware of the consequences of the communication of their acts on the behavioral response of different stakeholders, in particular consumers. Barthel (2006) showed the effectiveness of implementing an ethical positioning strategy upon the perception of the brand by the consumer. Nonetheless, and it is confirmed in the debates that took place in our second focus group (see Appendix B), consumers analyze with skepticism retailers’ commitment to sustainable development. Their main concern is the level of “sincerity” (recurrent semantic) of retailers and their deeper motives (Cuzacq, Lavorata and Morin-Delerm, 2007). Given the speeches and practices on sustainable development by retailers, the participants of the group often use the word “suspicion” as opposed to “sincere”. Some retailer brands appear to be particularly far from sustainable development precepts: hard-discount retailers, even though they all offer organic products today, are heavily criticized. As for the more classic brands, they generate skepticism, with the exception of Monoprix. That brand, according to half of the participants of the second focus group, seems to make noticeable efforts towards sustainable development. The participants all note the poor image of retailers and their
9
difficult compatibility with the sustainable development precepts. According to these participants, retailers are defined by “poor work conditions for employees/cashiers”, their responsibility for “small businesses vanishing”, “poor relationship with suppliers and producers”, their “ways to exploit consumers” and their “frantic search of profit”. As a whole, our participants seem to agree that retailers are first and foremost “profit-driven”, sustainable development being just a means to “do business”. The Benchmark Group16 survey, performed at the same period, confirms this as 44% of those polled perceive retailers’ commitment to sustainable development as a way to sell at higher prices. In this way, our findings go along with the IPSOS UK survey results17. Swaen and Chumpitaz (2008) emphasize the risk of misuse of communication about sustainable development: if consumers “get the feeling that the company communicates on CSR in the simple purpose to raise profits, they will be less likely to take it into account in their perception of the company and its products”. This applies particularly to retailers (Schramm-Klein and Zentes, 2008). Recognizing the potential effect of SD communication on attitudinal and behavioral responses of various stakeholders including consumers, retailers perceive that their commitment to sustainable development is observed in terms of the gap that separates incantations from achievements in the mid-to-long term. A societal commitment seen as a sincere act, without intent to manipulate, could allow the retailers to revive growth. Quantitative Results Preliminary remarks: - Five questions extracted from our quantitative survey, plus signaling questions, were selected to undergo statistic processing; - Eight French retailers with various characteristics were selected after the focus groups: Carrefour Market/Carrefour City, Casino supermarkets, Champion, Ed, Franprix, Leader Price, Monoprix and Naturalia. This choice was driven by three main reasons : - Implanted in the city centers, they are all proximity stores - They were the most frequently quoted during the preliminary qualitative survey, as much for a weak, as for a strong, perceived commitment to sustainable development; - They have a broad presence on the French national territory (850 Carrefour Market and Carrefour City; 480 Casino supermarkets; 200 Champion that will be renamed Carrefour Market by mid-2010; 820 Ed; 637 Franprix; 471 Leader Price; 310 Monoprix and 40 Naturalia18). • Simple Statistical Analyses Among our 646 participants, in response to the quantitative survey question: “As far as you are concerned, sustainable development infers…”(13 response modalities in total), 80% associate sustainable development with “nature protection”, 78% with “recycling” and 74% with “renewable energy use”. Together with the environment side, sustainable development also strongly suggests solidarity and social balance. Thus, one participant out of two associates it with “fair trade”, 40% with “help to developing countries”, one out of four with “respect of minorities”, with “respect of suppliers and employees” and “improved work conditions”. It seems that our participants also associated sustainable development with
16
Benchmark Group, April 2009, Consumption and crisis. IPSOS Study 2008, Ipsos-MORI Sustainability Issues In The Retail Sector Report. 18 Figures collected on retailer web sites in June 2009. 17
10
economic issues less than was found in the IPSOS19 survey. Indeed, only 1 individual out of 10 chose the modalities “degrowth” and “access for all to essential goods, products and services”. To complete this overview, our survey confirms that the youngest (20 to 40 year olds) mainly associate sustainable development with environment protection (for 65% of them, sustainable development is really about “environment” and only 22% believe that it means an “increase of inequalities”). The over-50 feel as concerned about “nature deterioration” (48%) as an “increase of inequalities” (40%). Thus, among those for whom the stake of sustainable development is an “increase of disparities”, 60% are over 50. With current knowledge, it seems difficult to interpret this piece of information. We can possibly assume that they are worried about their children’s future, but our work today cannot answer that question. Finally, what is striking remains the “sensitivity to sustainable development” claimed by the participants: 79% of the sample pretend to be “sensitive” to “very sensitive”, while 20% pretend to be “moderately sensitive” to sustainable development. We observe that not only do individuals hear the expression “sustainable development” but they also feel concerned by the subject (in total, 99% of the polled are at least “moderately sensitive” to sustainable development). The conceptual definition of sensitivity (Gierl and Stumpp, 1999), as well as the principle of a sensitivity oriented towards ecological behavior (Giannelloni, 1998) or more specifically towards sustainable development, (Binninger and Robert, 2005) show that sensitivity to sustainable development cannot be considered as a monolithic entity. Considering these remarks, an individual who is sensitive to sustainable development will evaluate the retailers’ commitment in this field with specific acuity and through a multidimensional perspective. • Advanced Statistical Analyses Principal Components Analysis (PCA) After having conducted simple analysis, we performed a “principal components analysis” with, as active variables, questions targeted at measuring the visibility of the sustainable development actions conducted by retailers20. Insert : Figure 1: Correlations Circle
The first two components explain 68% of variability. The first two eigenvalues are both greater than one. On the screen plot of eigenvalues, there is an elbow just after the second eigenvalue. There is usual size effect for the first axis. It opposes individuals that gave a worse grade than the rest of the sample to the selected retailers, with those that give a better grade21 than the 19
IPSOS Survey performed over a sample of 1015 people, representative of the French population of 18 and older according to the quotas method. The survey took place between November 28 and December 2, 2008, on-line in a self-administered mode. 20
Each retailer was evaluated on an even differential semantic scale ranging from 1 to 4 (Q8: on a scale ranging from 1. Not visible at all to 4. Highly visible, are the following retailers - which you know of – driving visible actions towards sustainable development?) 21 We kept the additional variables when the test value between the variable and the principal component is higher than 1.96 or below -1.96.
11
rest of the sample. Thus, the first component (axis) opposes individuals that give lower grades than the rest of the population (negative side) to the commitment to sustainable development with individuals that grant better grades (positive side). On the negative side of the C1 axis, these individuals more strictly evaluate the commitment of selected retailer brands to sustainable development. For instance, to the question “In your opinion, what does sustainable development encompass?”, the individuals scoring most severely mainly base their judgment on “energy savings” (among 13 possible answers). In the same fashion, the most demanding believe that a brand is creating sustainable development if “the work conditions are satisfactory to the employees”. Signs of environmental or economic commitments are not meaningful. For those consumers, the two main motives for the brands to engage in sustainable development are “sales” and to “improve brand image”. Those “harsh” consumers see sustainable development as a tool and not as a true purpose (the more societal motives reach non-significant scores). In general, these consumers are men without children. Table 1: Test Values of Illustrative Variables on C1 Negative Side of Axis C1 Modality Labels Test Value Q1 : What In my opinion, sustainable -2.13 development is energy savings. Q7 : In my opinion, a retailer is committed to sustainable development if the work conditions are satisfactory to the employees.
Evidence of -2.63
Q10: For retailers, the deeper motive for sustainable development is sales. For retailers, the deeper motive for sustainable development is to improve brand image.
Perceived -3.73
Man No children in household
Positive Side of Axis C1 Modality Labels Test Value Sustainable development encompasses In my opinion, sustainable 4.31 development means helping developing countries. Commitment to sustainable development In my opinion, a retailer is 4.48 committed to sustainable development if it sells responsible private brands. In my opinion, a retailer is 2.26 committed to sustainable development if it participates in humanitarian aid. Motivation
-2.85 Description -2.76 -2.12
Woman
2.00
On the positive side of the C1 axis, we observe, on the contrary, individuals grading the commitment to sustainable development of selected brands with greater leniency. Here, we note that questions on “evidence of commitment to sustainable development” as well as those about “what sustainable development encompasses” are linked to fair trade. For those questions, the modalities whose values are significant suggest generosity and help to poor countries. On the positive side of C1, consumers analyze the commitment of the brands to sustainable development as selfless.
12
Looking at those results only, these individuals turn out to be women. ! This first axis seems to be opposing individuals who do not see see a sustainable positioning of any of the retailers versus those who do perceive it. The second component underlines an opposition between: - On the positive side, individuals that grade Naturalia more favorably than the rest of the population and grade Leader Price and Ed brands more unfavorably than the rest of the population. For these individuals, those two hard-discount retailers are not doing anything for sustainable development; - On the negative side, individuals grade hard-discount retailers (Leader Price and Ed) higher than the rest of the population, and grade Naturalia lower than the rest. On the negative side of C2, those that positively judge the commitment of hard-discount retailers towards sustainable development claim that the most important aspect for them is “increase of inequalities”. For them, retailers organize sustainable development in order to save money (less packaging, end of plastic bags…) and these savings seem to benefit the entire population. On the other hand, enlightened by that stake, “expensive” retailers are graded harshly. They are typically mature men living in small towns. Table 2: Test Values of Illustrative Variables on C2 Negative Side of Axis C2 Modality Labels Test Value Q1 : What
Q2 :
Sensitivity
Q3 :
What is at stake ? -2.42
What concerns me the most is an increase of inequalities. Q7 :
Q10: For retailers, the deeper motive to do sustainable development is to save money Man Age: from 51 to 60 Less than 10,000 inhabitants
Evidence of
Perceived -2.58 Description -2.21 -5.09 -3.44
Positive Side of Axis C2 Modality Labels Test Value sustainable development encompasses In my opinion, sustainable 2.64 development means fair trade. In my opinion, sustainable 2.01 development means respect of suppliers. to sustainable development I am very sensitive to sustainable 2.41 development. What concerns me most What concerns me the most is the damage to the environment. commitment to sustainable In my opinion, a retailer is committed to sustainable development if plastic bags are no longer available. Motivation
Woman Age: from 30 to 40 Age : from 40 to 50 Presence of children in household
2.09 development 2.54
2.17 3 2.31 2.63
On the positive side of C2, we have, on the contrary, individuals evaluating Naturalia in a more favorable way than the rest of the population and grading hard-discount retailers
13
(Leader Price and Ed) more harshly. These individuals are “very sensitive” to sustainable development. For those participants who like the Naturalia retailer (positioned for a long time on organic and fair products), we notice that the modalities that get significant scores imply an altruistic (fair trade and respect of suppliers) and environmental (suppression of plastic bags and damage to the environment) approach to sustainable development. Participants here are women between 30 and 50, with children. ! This second axis seems to represent an opposition between two dimensions of sustainable development: the economic and ecological dimension, with the corresponding retailer brands (hard-discount versus Naturalia). Let us emphasize that hard-discount brand retailers like Ed and Leader Price are correlated more with axis #1 than axis #2. The same goes for Monoprix whose position is more difficult to interpret. Is that brand closer to Carrefour or Naturalia? A classification of brands based on the first components will enable us to determine which one is closer to Monoprix. Typologies of Retailers After an analysis of the modalities of studied retailers with significant scores (positive or negative) on axis #1 and #2 that reveal some positioning elements, we are better able to visualize the perception consumers have of retailers concerning their commitment to sustainable development. Besides a global display of French retailers, one of our objectives here is to locate the legitimacy of Monoprix – engaged for a long time in innovative strategies (such as sustainable development)22 (Charrière, 2011) – compared to the other city center retailers. For the entire sample, the results of the ascending hierarchical classification (agglomerative hierarchical clustering method) produce the following dendogram (Fig. 2). Insert : Figure 2: Dendogram - visualization of retailers’ positioning Four roots can be separated: - Leader Price and Ed (hard discount) - Casino, Franprix and Champion - Monoprix and Carrefour City/Carrefour Market - Naturalia (engaged for a long time in organic and health products) Isolated from other retailers, the legitimacy of this last brand, with respect to its commitment to sustainable development, is clear. Monoprix, in spite of its innovating position (its relatively old commitment to sustainable development), is not associated with Naturalia but rather with retailers who communicate on sustainable development and have a relatively high price point. Validity of this clustering method is assessed by comparing the results of a divided hierarchical clustering method. We use VARCLUS SAS method, PCA with rotation (Table 3).
22
Half of the participants of focus group #2 spontaneously indicated certain particularities of this retailer.
14
Table 3: Results of the Quartimax Rotation Before rotation Casino Carrefour Champion Ed Franprix Leader Price Monoprix Naturalia
C1 0.85 0.79 0.83 0.75 0.67 0.79 0.70 0.32
After rotation C2 0.05 0.27 -0.08 -0.49 0.02 -0.43 0.42 0.70
C1 0.84 0.74 0.83 0.82 0.66 0.85 0.63 0.22
C2 0.17 0.38 0.04 -0.38 0.12 -0.31 0.51 0.74
At the end of PCA with rotation, the specificity of Naturalia with regards to the remaining retailers is confirmed at the first step of the algorithm. Indeed, all retailers with the exception of Naturalia are more correlated with C1 than C2. We also observe that Monoprix is closer to Naturalia than all other retailers. We decided to stop the algorithm because we chose to pay specific attention to Monoprix and its possible proximity with Naturalia in terms of consumers’ perception of their commitment to sustainable development. As a result, we did not perform the second PCA with Casino, Carrefour, Champion, Ed, Franprix or Leader Price. After implementing both methods, we confirm that consumers’ perception of Monoprix’s commitment to sustainable development is one of a “classic” retailer. But what about specific targets? Are the proximities between retailers the same for the different population categories? For instance, we wanted to check whether the perceived positioning of Monoprix towards its commitment to sustainable development was specific to the “very sensitive to sustainable development” population (Fig. 3). Insert Figure 3 : Dendogram - visualization of retailers’ positioning according to the “very sensitive to sustainable development” population In this category, the results of the agglomerative hierarchical clustering method produce a dendogram that shows: - Naturalia is one of a kind - Monoprix is together with Carrefour - All other retailers are comparable. These results are in accordance with our intuition that the “very sensitive” are demanding and well-informed individuals regarding the actual practices of retailers. Naturalia (city-centered and generalist) has first and foremost always been promoting the “respect of health and the environment”. In this context, the singular position of Naturalia is justified. When the “very sensitive” associate Monoprix and Carrefour, it seems that it is the efficiency of the communication on sustainable development that they have in common (Lavorata, MorinDelerm, Pierre, 2008). For the next step, we focused our analysis on the 50+ population. Vernier (2005) showed that the 50+ have different expectations and perceptions from the rest of the population regarding retailers. François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence (2006) observe as well the influence of age on attitude towards sustainable development. These interrogations have led
15
us to perform a hierarchical classification of retailers on the 50+ population. Among the 50+, is Monoprix associated more with Naturalia or with other retailers (as for the majority of the population)? According to this second dendogram (Fig. 3), Monoprix appears closer to Naturalia than to the remaining retailers (this can also be seen as early as the first step with the divide hierarchical method). In effect, this result seems in coherence with the joint history of Monoprix and the 50+. Indeed, over the past years, the latter observed that Monoprix – undoubtedly more than other retailers – contributed to their quest for a better life. FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH Benefits for Researchers and Practitioners The literature provides information about sustainable development practices within organizations in general, and retailers in particular, but does not link these behaviors to consumer perception. It does not help us, for instance, in understanding whether or not the customers of retailers consider that their retailers are actually acting in favor of sustainable development. Moreover, and to our knowledge, there exists no research that highlights the positioning of retailers with respect to one another, on the perception of their commitment to sustainable development. From a practical point of view, the interest of the research is the identification of the image that consumers have of retailers’ commitment to sustainable development. The Monoprix positioning is particularly interesting. That retailer is sometimes perceived as very involved in sustainable development, and sometimes as a less involved retailer. Often ahead of its time (Charrière, 2011), Monoprix benefits from its dynamism and its innovative nature, yet it is also a victim of its “communicating retailer” image whose acts are sometimes in contradiction with its facade. The recent purchase of Naturalia, as well as many other responsible actions (see Appendix A) may well reinforce its commitment to sustainable development, as seen by the consumers, and thus increase its legitimacy in this field. Moreover, our research particularly focused on the perception of A & B occupational categories. These categories of consumers have turned out to be, in their quasi-entirety, sensitive to sustainable development. This means, for French retailers, that communicating, and leading concrete actions in favor of, sustainable development creates a competitive advantage that should bring these consumers, with high purchasing power, back to them. Limitations of the research Our survey was conducted using a relatively large, but not necessarily representative, sample. The way it was built – based on the “snowball” sampling – generated an overrepresentativeness of executives and an under-representativeness of 50+. The rectification applied, according to the rules of the art, reduced these biases. The on-line administration mode has many advantages and drawbacks. We would like to insist on one point: in the case of an on-line quantitative survey, it is proven that people aged 50 and over (even more particularly the 65+) are under-represented (Trocchia and Janda, 2000). Hence, based on statistics from INSEE23, we rectified the sample so that its structure could match – on the age variable – the INSEE numbers.
23
National Institute of Statistics and Economic Study.
16
Outside of a real purchasing situation, data is essentially declarative. Nevertheless, questions apply to the perception of consumers (and not their behavior), which reduces this potential bias. Finally, at this phase of the research, while we did not specially demonstrate a relationship with trust, more precisely the trust of consumers towards retailers, the trust concept is inseparable from the reasoning that underscores our study (Sireix, Pontier and Schaer, 2004; Lapeyre and Bonnefont, 2004; Swaen and Chumpitaz, 2008). Also, we did not question the notion of responsibility (Lauriol, 2004; Pasquero, 2005; Thierry, 2005; Binninger and Robert, 2008; Barthel, 2006), and, more particularly, the responsibility of retailers towards stakeholders in general and consumers, in particular. These two points will be addressed in a second step of our work to come. CONCLUSIONS This article represents the first stone of an edifice under construction. First, it underlines that consumers do not easily give “good points” to retailers for their sustainable development policy. The research shows that sustainable development policy conducted by retailers has no visible impact either on their positioning or on consumers’ attendance. In addition, certain retailers, who nevertheless seem more more dynamic than the others, do not benefit from the indulgence of consumers. The issue is two-fold: - Will a “true” sustainable development policy be able to increase the legitimacy of certain retailers? - And for the future, not to be accused of instrumentalizing sustainable development, what would be those acts demonstrating real commitment to sustainable development and thus, become the key to reconquering consumer-citizens? In order to answer this dual question, we anticipate organizing the same on-line questionnaire, as well as its analysis, each year. The longitudinal approach will emphasize the evolution of consumers’ perception of the retailers’ commitment to sustainable development. We shall show possible changes of French retailers positioning towards sustainable development, and demonstrate if an improvement of the perceived commitment implies an increase in consumer attendance. In addition, some of the survey questions not yet processed for this research should allow us to stress the characteristics on which consumers evaluate retailers’ commitment to sustainable development. We thus hope to suggest to retailers the action levers to use (and not only communication ones) for sustainable development. Based upon coherent choices and including sustainable development in their strategic axis, retailers should be able to improve their image and, more particularly, their positioning with respect to sustainable development. Georges Lewi, founder of the Branding Experts Center Institute, also states that: “In order to satisfy consumer requests in terms of ethics, retailers should respect their customers as human beings and not only as consumers”24. This is, by all means, one of the key success factors to increased growth.
24
Verbatim extracted from the commentary on the results of the barometer “Companies and Sustainable Development” carried out by Florescens, 2008.
17
References Aggeri, F., Pezet, E., Abrassart, C. and Acquier, A. (2005), Organiser le développement durable, Vuibert, Paris. Anderson, W.T. and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), “The socially conscious consumer”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 23-31. Aouina-Mejri, C. and Benhallam, M. (2009), “Résistance du consommateur face à l’argument citoyen des enseignes de distribution françaises: une étude exploratoire”, Actes des Journées de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne, Dijon. Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T. and Sheldon, K.M. (2004), “The Urge to splurge: a Terror Management Account of Materialism and Consumer Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), pp. 198-212. Arnold, S.J., Handelman, J.M. and Tigert, D.J. (1996), “Organizational legitimacy and retail store patronage”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, pp. 229-39. Asch, S. (1973), “Effect of group pressure upon the modification and distorsion of judgments”, in Kassarjian H.H., Perspectives in consumer behavior, E Scott, Foresman & Co, Glenview, Illinois, pp. 315-324. Barthel, P. (2006), “Stratégie de marketing relationnel et outil de construction d’un positionnement éthique vis-à- vis du consommateur”, Congrès AFM, Nantes. Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), “The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 46-53. Binninger, A.-S. and Robert, I. (2006), “La relation consommateur – développement durable: une nouvelle composante dans le cadre de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises”, Revue Management et Avenir, No. 4, pp. 57-68. Binninger, A-S and Robert, I. (2005), “Consommation et développement durable: vers une segmentation des sensibilités et des comportements”, 1er Congrès RIODD, December, Créteil. Binninger, A-S, (2008), “Exploring the relationships between retail brands and consumer store loyalty”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 94-110. Brabet, J., Lavorata L., Maurel, O. and Morin-Delerm, S. (2007), “Vers une cartographie du champ de la RSE dans la grande distribution”, 2ème Congrès du RIODD, Montpellier, France. Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, January, pp. 68-84. Capron, M. and Quairel-Lanoizelé, F. (2004), Mythes et réalités de l'entreprise responsable. Acteurs. Enjeux. Stratégies, Paris, La Découverte. Charrière, V. (2011), “Innovation and life cycle in mass retailing. The case of Monoprix” in Innovation and entrepreneuship, editors Morin-Delerm S. and Bloch A., EskaPublishing. Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117. Cliquet, G. (2000), “Large Format Retailers: A French Tradition Despite Reactions”, Journal of retailing and consumer services, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 183-195. Cova, B. and Roncaglio, M. (1999), “Repérer et soutenir des tribus de consommateurs”, Décisions Marketing, 16, pp. 7-15. Cuzacq, N., Lavorata, L. and Morin-Delerm, S. (2007), “Le rapport développement durable: outil de pilotage ou de communication pour les entreprises? Le cas de la grande distribution”, Entreprise Ethique, 26, pp. 51-65. David, P., Kline, S. and Dai, Y. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: a dual-process model”, Journal of Public Relations
18
Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 291-313. DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp. 147-160. Dion, M., Wolff, D., Bey, C. and al. (2008), Le développement durable. Théories et applications au management, Dunod, Paris. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91. Dornoff, R.J., Tankersley, C.B. and Clint, B. (1975), “Do retailers practice social responsibility?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 33-42. Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organisational legitimacy: Social values and organisational behaviour”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122-136. Draetta, L. (2003), “Le décalage entre attitudes et comportement en matière de protection de l’environnement” in Développement durable et participation publique, editors Gendron, C. and Vaillancourt, J-G., Montréal, Les presses de l’Université de Montréal, pp. 79-89. Dubuisson-Quellier, S. (2009), La consommation engagée, No. 5, Collection Contester - Les Presses de Sciences Po. Fern, E. (1982), “The use of focus group for idea generation: the effect of group size, acquaintenceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, feb., pp. 1-13. Fern, E. (1983), “Focus group, review of some contradictory evidence, implications and suggestions for review research”, Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research, Vol.10, pp. 121-126. Folkes, V.S. and Kamins, M.A. (1999), “Effects of information about firms’ ethical and unethical actions on consumers’ attitudes”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 243-259. François-Lecompte, A. and Valette-Florence, P. (2006), “Mieux connaître le consommateur socialement responsable”, Décisions Marketing, No. 41, January-March, pp. 67-80. Freeman, R.E. (1984), “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston. Furlough, E. (1993), Selling the American way in interwar France : prix unique and the salons des arts menagers”, Journal of Social History, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 491-519. Gabriel, P. (2003), “Le marketing comme moyen de légitimation des entreprises dans une perspective de développement durable”, Décisions Marketing, Vol. 29, pp. 67-76. Garriga, E. and Mele, D. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-71. Gendron, C. (2006), Le développement durable comme compromis. La modernisation écologique à l’ère de la mondialisation, Presses Université du Quebec. Giannelloni, J.-L. (1998), “Les comportements liés à la protection de l’environnement et leurs déterminants: un état des recherches en marketing”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 49-72. Gierl, H. and Stumpp, S. (1999), “L’influence des convictions de contrôle et des attitudes globales sur le comportement écologique du consommateur”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 72-83. Gildea, R.L. (1994), “Consumer survey confirms corporate social action affects buying decisions”, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 20-1. Girod, S. (2003), “Branding in European retailing: a corporate social responsibility perspective”, European Retail Digest, Vol. 38, pp. 1-6. Guibert, N. (1999), “La confiance en marketing. Fondement et application”, Vol.14 No. 1, Recherches et Applications Marketing. Hetzel, P. and Morin-Delerm, S. (2002), “L’encastrement institutionnel et relationnel comme grille de lecture de la relation entreprise –consommateur” in La construction sociale de
19
l’entreprise. Autour des travaux de Mark Granovetter , editor Huault I., Editions EMS Management et Société, Sept. Hetzel, P. and Morin-Delerm, S. (2004), “La relation entreprise-consommateur: de plus en plus complexe? ”, Revue Entreprise Ethique, No. 21, Oct. Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. (1991), Analyse des données qualitatives, De Boeck. Igalens, J. (2008), “RSE et développement durable”, in Management, editor Schmidt G., Coll Sciences Humaines. Jones, T.M. (1995), “Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 404-437. Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C. (1999), “Convergent Stakeholder Theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 206-221. Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2005a), “Corporate social responsibility and the UK’s top ten retailers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 882-92. Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2005b), “Corporate social responsibility as a means of marketing to and communicating with customers within stores: a case study of UK foodretailers”, Management Research News, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 47-56. Kasser, T. and Sheldon, K.M. (2000), “Of wealth and death: materialism, mortality salience and consumption behavior”, Psychological Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 348-351. Kochan, T.A. and Rubinstein S.A. (2000). “Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 367-386. Lapeyre, A. and Bonnefont, A. (2004), “Communication d’enseigne en développement durable: la difficile confiance des consommateurs, essai de modélisation – Campagne publicitaire Carrefour 2004”, 10emes Journées de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne, November, Dijon. Lauriol, J. (2004), “Le développement durable à la recherche d’un corps de doctrine”, Revue Française de Gestion, No. 152, pp. 137-150. Lavorata, L. (2008), “Perception des pratiques éthiques des enseignes généralistes: une étude auprès des clients” , Revue Française du Marketing, No. 208, 3/5, pp. 65-81. Lavorata, L., Morin-Delerm, S. and Pierre, F. (2008), “Les rapports de développement durable de deux majors de la grande distribution: comparaison des discours de WalMart et Carrefour”, Congrès du RIODD, June. Lipovetsky, G. (1992), Le Crépuscule du devoir, Paris, Gallimard. Maignan, I. (2001), “Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a crosscultural comparison”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-72. Matagne, P. (Coord.) (2005), Les enjeux du développement durable, L'Harmattan. Memery, J.,Megicks, P. and Williams, J. (2005), “Ethical and social responsibility in grocery shopping: a preliminary typology”, Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 399412. Menon, A. and Menon, A. (1997), “Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as Market Strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, January, pp. 51-67. Messeghem, K. (2005), “Les distributeurs en quête de légitimité: le cas des accords de cooperation avec les PME”, Décisions Marketing, No. 39, July-Sept, pp. 57-66. Moore, G. (1999), “Tinged Shareholder Theory: Or what's so special about stakeholders?”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117–127. Nakache, J.P. and Confais, J. (2005), Approche Pragmatique de la Classification – Arbres hiérarchiques, partitionnements, Technip, Paris. Oppewal, H., Alexander, A. and Sullivan, P. (2006), “Consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility in town shopping centers and their influence on shopping evaluations”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 261-74. ORSE (2003), Analyse comparative d’indicateurs de développement durable, October.
20
Paillé, P. and Mucchielli, A. (2008), L’analyse qualitative, Armand Colin. Pasquero, J. (2005), Responsabilité sociale et environnementale de l’entreprise, editors Turcotte M.F. B. and Salmon A., PUQ, Québec. Peñaloza, L. and Price, L. (1993), “Consumer resistance : a conceptual overview”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp.123-128. Pesqueux, Y. (2006), “Pour une évaluation critique de la théorie des parties prenantes” in Bonnafous Boucher M. and Pesqueux Y. (editors) Décider avec les parties prenantes, La Découverte, pp. 19-40. Pesqueux, Y. (2008), “Le développement durable: une « théorie » floue et ambiguë”, Dialogues en pratiques territoriales, Saint Antonin Noble Val (Tarn-et-Garonne), pp. 17-18 October. Piacentini, M., MacFadyen, L. and Eadie, D. (2000), “Corporate social responsibility in food retailing”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 28 Nos 11/12, pp. 459-70. Richardson, A.J. (1987), “Accounting as a legitimating institution”, Accounting Organization and Society, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 341-355. Robert-Demontrond, P. and Bezaudin-Peric, S. (2004), “Le concept de référentiels sociétaux: principes et enjeux de leur intégration en tant que critère d’achat par la grande distribution”, Journées Nationales des IAE, Lyon. Roux, D. (2007), “La résistance du consommateur: proposition d’un cadre d’analyse”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 52-80. Saporta, G. (2006), Probabilités, analyse des données et statistique, 2nd edition, Technip, Paris. Schramm-Klein, H. et Zentes, J. (2008), “CRS of retail companies: is it relevant for consumer’s purchasing behavior”, 11eme Colloque Etienne Thil, La Rochelle. Sen, S and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good is always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-243. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2006), “The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 158-66. Sireix, L., Pontier, S. and Schaer, B. (2004), “Orientation de la confiance et choix du circuit de distribution. Le cas des produits biologiques”, Congrès AFM, Saint Malo. Stan, V. and Saporta, G. (2010), “Conjoint Use of Variables Clustering and PLS Structural Equations Modeling”, in Handbook of Partial Least Squares, editors Esposito Vinzi, Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics, Suchman, L. (1995), “Making work visible”, Communications of the ACM, Sept, pp. 56-64. Swaen, V. and Chumpitaz, R.C., (2008), “L’impact de la responsabilité sociétale de l’entreprise sur la confiance des consommateurs”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 7-35. Templeton, J.F. (1994), The focus group, Irwin, Chicago, pp. 235-244. Thierry, P. (2005), “Marketing et responsabilité sociétale de l’entreprise: entre civisme et cynisme”, Décisions Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 59-69. Tixier, M. (2002), “Comment communiquer sur l’engagement sociétal des entreprises ?”, Entreprise Ethique, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-23. Trocchia, P. J. and Janda, S. (2000), “A phenomenological investigation of Internet usage among older individuals”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 605-616. Urien, B. (2005), “Une situation de saillance de mort encourage t-elle les consommateurs à adopter un comportement écologique? Une analyse au regard de la théorie du management de la terreur”, Congrès AFM, mai, Nancy. Vernier, M.-F. (2005), “Développement durable, RSE, éthique: le marketing sous pression. Le cas de la grande distribution, ” Congrès AIMS.
21
Vigneau, E. and Qannari, E. (2003), “Clustering of variables around latent components”, Simulation and Computation, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1131-1150. Wagner, T., Bicen, P. et Hall, R.Z. (2008), “The dark side of retailing: towards a scale of corporate social irresponsibility”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 124-142. Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), “A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: from skeptics to socially concerned”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 226-38. Weber,R.P. (1990), Basic content analysis , Sage University paper, No. 49, 2nd edition, London. Webster, F.E. (1975), “Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 188-96. Whysall, P. (2000), “Addressing ethical issues in retailing: a stakeholder perspective”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 305-18. Web sites: SAS OnlineDoc – Version 8, « The VARCLUS Procedure ». www. novethic.fr Sustainable Development Reports of retailers presented on their sites.
22
Appendix A – List of “Anti-crisis” strategies put in place by Monoprix - 1932: Birth of the new format (1st store in Rouen) with the mission to make necessary products accessible (everything less than 10 Francs) with a good price/value ratio; - 1947: Creation of the 1st own brand to increase the accessibility of products right after World War II; - Starting in the 70s, Monoprix gives up its positioning as a “People’s Store” and decides to sell quality products for relatively higher prices (10 to 15% higher than in hypermarkets); - 1986: Creation of the Monoprix Gourmet brand while “mad cow” disease hits the first herds in the UK; - 1990: Monoprix is the 1st brand to offer organic products and environmental quality products (Green Monoprix); - 1993: Gulf War consequences (unemployment rising in France) associated with the arrival of harddiscount brands drive Monoprix towards lowering its prices significantly: 4% off brand products, 12.5% off textile products and, finally, 6% off cosmetics. In total, the price gap goes down to 6% compared to hypermarkets and 4% compared to supermarkets in 1994 (from over 15% in 1992). These changes come along with a new line: “Monoprix: for a better life while spending less”; - 1994: Monoprix Bio brand launch, confirmation of Monoprix positioning on “accessible quality”, as related to growing health concern; - 1996: While two British die of the “mad cow” disease, scientists are announcing the possible transmission of the disease to human beings through consumption of infected meat. Monoprix then launches an ad campaign that shows butchers from different stores with their signature and the slogan: “Monoprix signs and commits”; - 1998: 1st brand to sell products coming from fair trade; - 2000: Sustainable Development Chart. Management promotes sustainable development as a strategic axis; - 2001: 1st Report on Sustainable Development coming from a retailer; - 2004: Launch of fabric foldaway and multi-usage bags for less than 1 euro; - 2008: Purchase of Naturalia; commitments to decrease the carbon imprint (truck fleet and freight); - Slogan on “sustainable development” on its web site (under “labels and partnerships”): “Pioneer and innovating, Monoprix has been acting in favor of sustainable for over 15 years now”.
23
Appendix B – Interview Guide for Focus Groups (filmed) The first Focus Group worked on notions of sustainable development and on its perceived evolutions 1. Introduction General subject of the meeting: sustainable development 2. Representations of sustainable development and related topics - Spontaneous recall, images, associated notions/concepts - Past, present and future of sustainable development - Level of relevance of sustainable development today - Stakes associated with sustainable development? Is it a necessity? - Companies, activities, partners (suppliers, distributors, consumers), private and public sector … involved, or not, in sustainable development - Benefits and costs for companies, partners (suppliers, distributors, consumers), private and public sector, society, environment … 3. Decomposition of the notion of sustainable development - Deeper investigation of the polysemy of expressions - Analysis of the ecological, social and environmental aspects - Weight and relations between each aspect 4. Conclusion - Future of sustainable development, initiatives, partnerships - Summary by the participants of the highlights of the discussion
The second Focus Group worked on retailers and sustainable development 1. Introduction General subject of the meeting: retailers and sustainable development 2. Representations of sustainable development and links with retailers - Spontaneous recall of retailers and sustainable development - List of all retailers (Food and non-food, generalists and specialized) associated with sustainable development, gathering into families based upon common characteristics of sustainable development - Mapping creation, topography of status and positioning allocated to each brand in terms of its involvement in sustainable development - Initiatives intended for the consumer inside the store, product offering, services offering, relationship with suppliers and communication. 3.
Identification of the most significant evidence of commitment to sustainable development - Consumer expectations in terms of sustainable development - What lies within sustainable development and what are the respective weights of environmental, social and economic aspects? - The level of interest for each of the aspects and how it applies to the different brands - The similarity between the brands initiatives and the consumers’ real expectations 4. Limits perceived in the commitment of consumers and retailers - Priorities in: environment, social and economic areas - Acceptable constraints, both economic and non-economic. 5. Conclusion - Sustainable Development: a sales argument or a real issue? - Summary by the participants of the highlights of the discussion
24
