The impact of socioeconomic status on preferences for sustainable luxury brands

Abstract

As consumers become more aware of and concerned about the environmental impact of their consumption choices, an increasing number of luxury brands are now engaging in sustainability practices. This study examines factors influencing the effectiveness of embedding sustainability in luxury brands. Specifically, the research focus is the effect of childhood socioeconomic status on moderating consumer preferences for sustainable (vs. regular, nonsustainable) luxury brands. Four experimental studies using different product categories and luxury brands show that preferences for sustainable (vs. regular, nonsustainable) luxury brands are stronger among consumers with relatively low (vs. high) childhood socioeconomic status (Studies 1–4). Notably, these preference patterns are driven by differences in the perceived importance of cooperation in the community among consumers with low versus high childhood socioeconomic status (Study 3). However, these divergent patterns are attenuated when consumption involves the nonluxury brand category (Study 2), and when consumers experience a high‐threat environment (e.g., the COVID‐19 pandemic; Study 4). As such, the findings of this study contribute to the literature by shedding light on the conditions under which consumers show preferences for sustainable (vs. regular, nonsustainable) luxury brands, establishing a theoretically grounded mediator (importance of cooperation in the community) and moderator (perceived environmental threat).

When sustainability backfires: A review on the unintended negative side‐effects of product and service sustainability on consumer behavior

“…In the case of luxury and fashion brands, sustainability undermines the perception of quality (Dekhili et al, 2019), esthetic appeal (Burke et al, 2014; Ramirez, 2013), trendiness (McNeill & Moore, 2015), and desirability (Sipila et al, 2020). Overall, luxury and sustainability are seen as incompatible (Dekhili et al, 2019; Sipila et al, 2020): luxury brands marketed as sustainable suffer from a lower brand attitude and decreased perceptions of luxury (Janssen et al, 2014; Kim et al, 2020).…”

“…Overall, luxury and sustainability are seen as incompatible (Dekhili et al, 2019;Sipila et al, 2020): luxury brands marketed as sustainable suffer from a lower brand attitude and decreased perceptions of luxury (Janssen et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2020).…”

Sweat it for sustainability: Impact of physical activity/exercise on sustainable consumption

“…Lastly, consumers' pursuit of sustainable consumption would depend on a lot of factors other than physical activity, such as their socioeconomic status (Kim et al, 2022), narcissism and faith in humanity (Bowen et al, 2022), generational cohort (Casalegno et al, 2022), and mindfulness (Kaur & Luchs, 2021). The integration of such consumer‐related factors that shape sustainable consumption along with physical activity should be pursued by future research.…”

“…Covid 19 pandemic has motivated stakeholders to share data (Viglia et al, 2021), and future research works may leverage on this understanding to request/collect consumer data on variables such as body mass index to assess the roles of such variables of salience (Bollimbala et al, 2019) in determining consumers' fitness and its impact on their consumption behaviors. Lastly, consumers' pursuit of sustainable consumption would depend on a lot of factors other than physical activity, such as their socioeconomic status (Kim et al, 2022), narcissism and faith in humanity (Bowen et al, 2022), generational cohort (Casalegno et al, 2022, and mindfulness (Kaur & Luchs, 2021). The integration of such consumer-related factors that shape sustainable consumption along with physical activity should be pursued by future research.…”

Scarcity Enhances Outcome Evaluation in the Present: Electroencephalography Evidence

“…Previous research indicated that poverty or scarcity could impede human cognitive function [ 9 ], capturing attention with high resource demand and less susceptibility to other contexts [ 10 ]. Poverty could also play an important role in the decision-making area [ 1 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 ], such as marketing and purchase intention [ 4 , 6 , 14 ], sustainable choices [ 15 , 16 ], risk-taking [ 17 ], reproductive health [ 18 ], and loans [ 12 ].…”