Manufacturers are increasingly producing and promoting sustainable products (i.e., products that have a positive social and/or environmental impact). However, relatively little is known about how product sustainability affects consumers' preferences. The authors propose that sustainability may not always be an asset, even if most consumers care about social and environmental issues. The degree to which sustainability enhances preference depends on the type of benefit consumers most value for the product category in question. In this research, the authors demonstrate that consumers associate higher product ethicality with gentleness-related attributes and lower product ethicality with strength-related attributes. As a consequence of these associations, the positive effect of product sustainability on consumer preferences is reduced when strength-related attributes are valued, sometimes even resulting in preferences for less sustainable product alternatives (i.e., the "sustainability liability"). Conversely, when gentleness-related attributes are valued, sustainability enhances preference. In addition, the authors show that the potential negative impact of sustainability on product preferences can be attenuated using explicit cues about product strength.

Artificial intelligence (AI) helps companies offer important benefits to consumers, such as health monitoring with wearable devices, advice with recommender systems, peace of mind with smart household products, and convenience with voice-activated virtual assistants. However, although AI can be seen as a neutral tool to be evaluated on efficiency and accuracy, this approach does not consider the social and individual challenges that can occur when AI is deployed. This research aims to bridge these two perspectives: on one side, the authors acknowledge the value that embedding AI technology into products and services can provide to consumers. On the other side, the authors build on and integrate sociological and psychological scholarship to examine some of the costs consumers experience in their interactions with AI. In doing so, the authors identify four types of consumer experiences with AI: (1) data capture, (2) classification, (3) delegation, and (4) social. This approach allows the authors to discuss policy and managerial avenues to address the ways in which consumers may fail to experience value in organizations’ investments into AI and to lay out an agenda for future research.

We analyze the direct and indirect effects of two critical-component supply-disruption attributes (CONTROLL-ABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY) on supplier non-retention post disruption. Using a scenario-based role-playing experiment with 253 purchasing professionals, we find that the likelihood that a recovery lead (i.e., the individual assigned to the disruption-recovery task) recommends non-retention of an incumbent critical-component supplier post disruption is higher when the recovery lead perceives that the supplier, rather than nature, had control over the supply disruption. Moreover, this direct effect is partially explained by the amount of ANGER that the recovery lead feels due to the supply disruption. Neither the direct nor the indirect effect of RESPONSIBILITY on supplier non-retention post disruption is, however, detected. This paper is among the first to offer theoretical and empirical evidence that supplier non-retention in a supply-disruption context is a function of who had control over the supply disruption. Furthermore, this paper considers the effects of emotions and illustrates that supply-management decisions are not based solely on rational (i.e., cognitive) processes but also on emotional processes. Finally, this paper challenges conceptual arguments about the association between supplier selection and retention, at least in the supply-disruption context and with regard to the individual participating in both tasks. Our findings also have several managerial implications for supplying and buying firms.

This research investigates the mechanism by which the aesthetic premium placed on produce contributes to consumers’ rejection of safe, edible, yet aesthetically unattractive, fruits and vegetables, which results in both financial loss to retailers and food waste. Further, the authors identify a novel way in which the devaluation of such produce can be reduced. Five experiments demonstrate that consumers devalue unattractive produce because of altered self-perceptions: merely imagining the consumption of unattractive produce negatively affects how consumers view themselves, lowering their willingness to pay for unattractive produce relative to equivalently safe but more attractive alternatives. This discrepancy in willingness to pay for unattractive versus attractive produce can be reduced by altering the self-diagnostic signal of consumer choices and boosting consumers’ self-esteem. An experiment in the field demonstrates the effectiveness of using easily implementable in-store messaging to boost consumers’ self-esteem in ways that increase consumers’ positive self-perceptions and, subsequently, their willingness to choose unattractive produce. This research, therefore, suggests low-cost yet effective strategies retailers can use to market unattractive produce, potentially raising retailer profits while reducing food waste.