Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine Western consumers' levels of general environmental knowledge and specific knowledge related to carbon offsets and the relationships between specific types of environmental knowledge and consumers' related behaviors.Design/methodology/approachThe study surveyed consumers from Australia (n=345) and the USA (n=340) who were sourced through national online panels. The analysis looks at differences between knowledge and behaviors, both across the samples as well as whether there are differences between consumers with high and low levels of environmental and carbon offset knowledge, and whether demographics impact on knowledge levels.FindingsThe results found that consumers had higher levels of general knowledge than carbon offset knowledge and the two types of knowledge were not related. ANOVA results considering country differences and demographic factors found that general knowledge was affected by education, age and gender, with carbon knowledge being affected by education. Environmental behavior was affected by age and gender as well, and no demographic factors influenced carbon‐related behavior. Respondent's location (i.e. USA or Australia) did not influence knowledge or behaviors, but interacted with education in regard to carbon knowledge and behavior.Social implicationsThis research suggests that consumers are not acting on their carbon knowledge, which may be due to the debate surrounding carbon issues and/or because the information is based on complex scientific foundations, which the average consumer may have difficulty grasping, regardless of country.Originality/valueThis is one of the first pieces of academic research to explore consumers' understanding of carbon‐related information and how this knowledge impacts behavior. It also proposes a measure for evaluating carbon offset knowledge, which could be used to broaden environmental knowledge assessments.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of country of origin (COO) sub‐components (i.e. design, assembly and parts), as well as the extent to which consumer ethnocentrism tendencies interact with these COO sub‐components for young Chinese consumers with regards to product quality assessments and purchase intentions.Design/methodology/approachA 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental design was used to examine the effects of the three sub‐components of COO with two levels of sourcing location – Home (China) and Foreign (Germany), for two high involvement products (an automobile and a digital camera). Chinese students in China represented the sample of 272 respondents. MANOVA was used to examine the direct effects and interactions of the three COO components, as well as ethnocentrism, measured using the CETSCALE.FindingsIt was found that the three COO sub‐components did not influence young Chinese consumers' evaluation of product quality or purchase intentions. In addition, consumers' level of ethnocentrism also did not have a direct effect on perceived product quality or purchase intentions. There was only one statistically significant interaction effect between ethnocentrism and country of parts for one of the two products. As such, COO dimensions and young Chinese consumers' ethnocentrism appears to have limited influence on their assessments of product quality or purchase intentions. This may occur because young Chinese consumers perceive that hybrid products are the norm for high involvement products in China as these products are all these consumers have experienced.Originality/valueThe findings of this research dispute the commonly held belief and evidence that sub‐components of COO have an impact on the perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. Young Chinese consumers may be different to consumers from western countries because they have been extensively exposed to hybrid products. Given the size and growth potential of China, young Chinese are an important, under‐researched segment within the Chinese market.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the global contribution of academics to marketing literature between 1999 and 2003, based on an examination of the location of academics institution of employment, as reported in published works. The data is used to evaluate the global dispersion of publishing.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses the method of content analysis where the authorship of all articles in 20 leading marketing journals between 1999 and 2003 is examined. An empirical examination of performance was undertaken across geographic regions. There was also an examination of whether the quality of journal affected regional performance.FindingsThe research found that there is a significant "bias" of authorship within the 20 journals examined, with the majority of works published by academics at institutions in North America. There is some variation in regional performance based on the type of journal examined.Research limitations/implicationsThere was no attempt to empirically examine why differences might exist. The study only focused on a sample of 20 English language journals over five years. These journals have been included in studies that list the leading marketing journal for US and European academics.Practical implicationsThe research suggests that there may in fact be regional differences in publishing behaviour. It is unclear if these differences relate to variations in the "objectives" of institutions within each country or other factors, such as the North American publish‐or‐perish mentality. The research posits that a marketing knowledge may be unnecessarily restricted, if there is a bias against non‐North American perspectives.Originality/valueWhile there have been other works examining research performance of institutions, there has been limited examination in marketing on the nation in which authors work and none have used a broad cross‐section of journals. This work takes a global "snapshot" of national research performance within marketing.