While numerous studies have focused on industry responsibility for sustainable consumption, few have explored consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption (CRSC). Drawing on construal-level theory, this study investigates how CRSC affects local brand purchase likelihood (LBPL) in the context of Mexico, an emerging market. It emphasizes the mediating effects of local brand attitude (LBA) and local brand social signaling value (LBSSV) and explores how materialism and ethnocentrism moderate these relationships.
Data were collected from 430 respondents in Mexico through an online survey, using stratified sampling to ensure demographic representation. Structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM version 4.1) was used to test our hypotheses.
The results reveal a direct positive impact of CRSC on LBPL, mediated by LBSSV and LBA, both of which strengthen this relationship. Ethnocentrism and materialism both moderate the direct effect of CRSC on LBPL and the relationship between CRSC and LBA, but do not moderate the LBSSV mediation effect.
This research reframes CRSC from an abstract moral concept into an active driver of consumer choices that renders local brands more appealing, given their tangible, immediate benefits, particularly in emerging markets like Mexico, where sustainability consciousness is growing.
This study offers valuable insights, from a construal level perspective, into developing effective local brand marketing strategies targeting consumers with a strong sense of personal responsibility. The findings have practical implications for promoting local consumption and responsible consumer behavior in emerging economies and enhance our understanding of consumers' attitudes to and evaluations of local brands.
1. Introduction
In recent years, the relevance of consumer responsibility has escalated, amid growing concerns regarding the planet's environmental situation, impacting society, industry, governments and policymakers alike (Sarkis and Zhu, 2018). The Sustainable Development Strategy 2020 of the European Union (EU) highlights critical environmental issues such as sustainable transportation, sustainable consumption and production, conservation and natural resources management (Villegas Pinuer et al., 2021). These initiatives underscore the urgency of addressing environmental degradation, which has resulted from various factors, including pollution generated by industries and individuals, the use of fossil fuels and the release of greenhouse gases (United Nations, 2023). To confront these challenges effectively, collective action is essential, as emphasized by the United Nations (UN) Global Compact, which aims to integrate sustainability into business strategies as well as responsible consumer behavior.
The emergence of “responsibilizing” can be traced back to substantial shifts in consumer identity and governance since the mid-twentieth century. In the 1950s, consumers were largely perceived through the lens of the Welfare State and the New Deal, which framed them as citizens entitled to universal rights. However, this perspective underwent a radical transformation with the rise of neoliberal ideologies that emphasized individual autonomy and moral agency. Scholars such as Foucault (1978) and Shamir (2008) highlight the transition from direct government intervention to a model that encourages consumers to assume personal responsibility for their health and consumption choices.
Giesler and Veresiu (2014) further develop the concept of the responsible consumer as a socially constructed identity shaped by governmental processes. They argue that responsible consumption should be viewed as a moralistic identity project, where consumers acknowledge the environmental and social implications of their choices. Their analysis underscores the role of political economy in shaping these identities, critiquing prior research for focusing predominantly on individual experiences. To illustrate how consumers cultivate moral identities and manage their ethical consumption, they introduce the personalization, authorization, capabilization and transformation (PACT) framework, reflecting contemporary discourses in line with neoliberal ideals that frame social, financial and environmental issues as individual responsibilities.
In this scenario, consumer behavior has shifted significantly. A report by NielsenIQ (2023) indicates, for example, that 81% of American consumers prioritize sustainability in their daily lives. This trend reflects a growing environmental awareness among consumers (De Canio, 2023), leading to changes in purchasing habits to favor sustainable, biodegradable and environmentally friendly products (ElHaffar et al., 2020). While corporations undeniably contribute to environmental issues, individuals play a critical role in the context of overconsumption. Thus, the collaboration between organizations and individuals is vital, as environmental responsibility should not be viewed as solely the domain of corporations.
Despite the increasing awareness and intent to consume sustainably, previous research has identified a gap between sustainable consumption attitudes and actual behaviors (Čapienė et al., 2022; Indriani et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2022). This disparity has been attributed to factors such as company and brand attributes, social influences and individual characteristics (Lafferty, 2007; Luchs et al., 2010; Pappas et al., 2015). In this context, consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption (CRSC) has emerged as a significant predictor of sustainable behaviors, particularly among consumers who exhibit positive attitudes toward sustainability and a strong sense of personal responsibility (Luchs et al., 2015). While various studies have investigated sustainable consumption predictors (Quoquab and Mohammad, 2020; Wang et al., 2019), few studies have focused on CRSC as a determinant of local brand purchase likelihood (LBPL), particularly when local brands demonstrate substantial economic, environmental, social and human welfare benefits (Arenas-Gaitán et al., 2020; Schönhart et al., 2009).
To contribute to this line of inquiry, the present study was conducted in Mexico, an emerging market where local brands coexist with strong global brand competition, and where sustainability consciousness among consumers is steadily increasing. Mexico offers a compelling context due to its unique intersection of socioeconomic development, environmental challenges and rich local production culture. By focusing on Mexican consumers, we aim to explore how CRSC influences support for local brands in a setting that is both representative of broader emerging market dynamics and locally grounded in sustainability discourse.
The theoretical foundation of this study is grounded in construal-level theory (CLT), which posits that individuals' processing varies according to their psychological distance from the object, event or person considered (Trope and Liberman, 2010). High construal levels involve abstract thinking, while low levels reflect more concrete thinking. Although existing research has examined how construal levels influence product perceptions, consumer–brand relationships and advertising effectiveness (e.g. Kim et al., 2019; Septianto et al., 2022), there remains limited exploration of their impact on local brand preferences. Our study aims to fill this gap by investigating how CRSC affects consumers' evaluations and LBPL, emphasizing the emotional connections that arise from reduced psychological distance and the moral considerations associated with purchasing local products.
To guide this study, we propose the following research questions:
How does CRSC directly influence LBPL among consumers?
What roles do local brand attitude (LBA) and local brand social signaling value (LBSSV) play in mediating the relationship between CRSC and LBPL?
How do ethnocentrism and materialism moderate the impact of CRSC on consumer preferences for local brands, particularly in the context of sustainable consumption?
Based on these questions, the primary objective of this research is to examine how CRSC influences LBPL. Specifically, we aim to investigate the mediating roles of LBA and LBSSV in this relationship and explore the moderating effects of consumer ethnocentrism (CE) and materialism, with empirical evidence from Mexico.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
2.1 Literature review on sustainable consumption and research gaps
To explore the novelty of our research, we conducted a comprehensive review of the Web of Science database using “sustainable consumption” as a keyword and covering publications from 2020 to 2024. In defining the scope of our literature review, we adopted a focused five-year window (2020–2024) to capture the most recent developments in the field of sustainable consumption, particularly those directly related to CRSC and local brand preference. As Linnenluecke et al. (2020) emphasize, when a research field is already well-established and populated by numerous publications, it can be more fruitful to concentrate on recent literature published “since a specific date,” particularly in a narrowly defined subfield. Given the substantial growth of sustainability research in recent years, our approach allows for the identification of up-to-date conceptual refinements, emergent constructs and current research gaps. Moreover, this restricted time frame ensures the review's relevance to contemporary consumer behavior, especially in light of significant changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing interest in localism and ethical consumption. While we acknowledge this focus as a limitation in terms of historical coverage, we believe it enhances the thematic precision and managerial relevance of our review. This search yielded 149 relevant articles.
In our bibliometric analysis employing Bibliometrix in R Studio, we identified key journals, authors and keywords that have shaped the discourse around sustainable consumption in recent years. The journal Sustainability emerged as the leading source, contributing 27 articles, followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production, contributing 11. Among the most prolific authors, Banyte, J. led with five articles, while Ahn, J. and Dovaliene, A., each contributed four. In terms of thematic trends, “sustainable consumption” was the most frequently occurring keyword, appearing in 42 articles, followed by “sustainability” (17 occurrences) and “circular economy” (11 occurrences).
Our co-occurrence analysis of keywords revealed a noteworthy gap (see Figure 1): no substantial connection between sustainable consumption and brand-related concepts has been established.
The network diagram shows clusters of colored nodes. The nodes are densely connected by lines. In the top right, two orange nodes are labeled “consumer behavior” and “products.” On the far right, eight blue nodes are labeled “attitudes,” “consumers,” “customer engagement,” “knowledge,” “values,” “framework,” “performance,” “green,” and “consumers.” In the bottom center, three green nodes are labeled “consumption,” “behavior,” and “customer.” In the lower left, six red nodes are labeled “customer satisfaction,” “model,” “quality,” “loyalty,” “management,” and “perceived value.” the top center, eleven purple nodes are labeled “perceptions,” “intentions,” “planned behavior,” “satisfaction,” “impact,” “determinants,” “antecedents,” “trust,” “intention,” “market,” and “sustainable consumption”.Article keyword co-occurrences
The network diagram shows clusters of colored nodes. The nodes are densely connected by lines. In the top right, two orange nodes are labeled “consumer behavior” and “products.” On the far right, eight blue nodes are labeled “attitudes,” “consumers,” “customer engagement,” “knowledge,” “values,” “framework,” “performance,” “green,” and “consumers.” In the bottom center, three green nodes are labeled “consumption,” “behavior,” and “customer.” In the lower left, six red nodes are labeled “customer satisfaction,” “model,” “quality,” “loyalty,” “management,” and “perceived value.” the top center, eleven purple nodes are labeled “perceptions,” “intentions,” “planned behavior,” “satisfaction,” “impact,” “determinants,” “antecedents,” “trust,” “intention,” “market,” and “sustainable consumption”.Article keyword co-occurrences
This visualization underscores a research gap that points to limited exploration of sustainable consumption in the context of branding, despite evidence that suggests a misalignment between sustainable consumption attitudes and actual purchase behaviors (Čapienė et al., 2022; Indriani et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2022).
Prior studies have identified various factors that contribute to this attitude-behavior gap in sustainable consumption, including company and brand attributes, social influences and individual characteristics (Lafferty, 2007; Luchs et al., 2010; Pappas et al., 2015). Within this framework, CRSC has recently emerged as a pivotal factor in promoting sustainable behaviors, especially among consumers who already hold positive sustainability attitudes and a heightened sense of personal responsibility (Luchs et al., 2015).
While there is a body of research exploring predictors of sustainable consumption behavior broadly (Quoquab and Mohammad, 2020; Wang et al., 2019), fewer studies have investigated CRSC as a driver of LBPL. This gap is especially significant on considering that local brands frequently deliver tangible economic, environmental, social and human welfare benefits (Arenas-Gaitán et al., 2020; Schönhart et al., 2009).
Our research, therefore, aims to address this gap by examining how CRSC can predict consumer preferences for local brands, specifically in cases where these brands embody core sustainability values.
2.2 Consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption
At first glance, it might appear that marketing goals and beliefs conflict with sustainability. Conventional marketing focuses on expansion, encourages the relentless pursuit of satisfying wants and needs, and often assumes that resources are abundant (White et al., 2019). One of the most recognized benefits of adopting a sustainable business focus is the improvement of the company's image and brand. However, there are several additional benefits, including the discovery of new products and markets, the utilization of emerging technologies, the stimulation of innovation, the enhancement of organizational efficiency and the motivation and retention of employees (Hopkins et al., 2009).
Although many companies are making efforts to be more sustainable, this is not just the corporations' responsibility; it should be evident to most stakeholders that it is crucial to invest efforts in implementing a culture and behaviors that promote sustainability. As one of the key stakeholders, consumers play a decisive role in achieving sustainable consumption (Canal-Simón et al., 2024).
CRSC (Luchs et al., 2015), based on Schwartz's (1977) concept of personal norms, reflects the sense of responsibility felt by consumers that motivates them to act in accordance with their self-oriented values as well as pro-social or pro-environmental values. Previous studies have found a gap between sustainable consumption attitudes and behavior (Čapienė et al., 2022; Indriani et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2022). This gap can be explained by diverse factors, including the attributes of companies and brands that moderate consumer response (Lafferty, 2007), social factors (Čapienė et al., 2022; Hosta and Zabkar, 2021) and individual factors (Pappas et al., 2015; Pappas and Pappas, 2014). More recently, Luchs et al. (2015) introduced consumer responsibility into the sustainable consumption attitude–behavior gap as an independent predictor of sustainable consumption behaviors when consumers have a positive attitude toward sustainability and a sense of personal responsibility.
To better understand “responsibility”, Luchs et al. (2015) framed four perspectives: (1) responsibility as cognition, when consumers purchase or consume in responsible ways, thereby enhancing personal gains; (2) responsibility as emotion, which is primarily guilt as the recognition of negative outcomes and pride as the recognition of positive outcomes related to their consuming actions; (3) responsibility as a moral imperative, when consumers consume what they ought to, regardless of the personal benefit; and (4) responsibility as socioculturally shaped by education and responsibility-making processes that lead people to consume.
In summary, the CRSC refers to the sense of responsibility or obligation that consumers feel to align their consumption patterns with their personal values and promote values that benefit society and the environment.
2.3 Local brand purchase likelihood: a construal-level theory perspective
CLT suggests that individuals create an abstract mental construal of distal objects. This means that people evaluate, make decisions, form judgments and process information differently based on their psychological distance from the object, event or person being considered (Trope and Liberman, 2010). Psychological distance, a subjective experience of proximity or remoteness, is composed of four distance dimensions: spatial, social, temporal and hypothetical. Therefore, high construal levels involve abstract and decontextualized thinking, whereas low construal levels entail concrete and contextualized thinking. Things, objects or events that involve someone personally with a high probability are perceived as psychologically close, whereas those that involve others, are uncertain or occur in the future or at a distance are considered to be psychologically distant events (Liberman and Trope, 2003).
Research has shown that different distance dimensions affect mental construal and, in turn, influence cognitive processes, decision-making and behaviors (Trope et al., 2007). In this sense, CLT has been applied to understand aspects of consumer behavior, including consumer–brand relationships, country-of-origin effects, environmental threats and advertising effectiveness to promote sustainable behaviors (e.g. Carmi and Kimhi, 2015; Kim et al., 2019; Septianto et al., 2022). Studies have revealed that different construal levels are associated with different product features, such as feasibility with low construal levels and desirability features with high construal levels (Zhang et al., 2019). Other studies have shown that a country's image is linked with higher construal levels compared to a product's image, and high cultural distance also elicits high construal levels (Septianto et al., 2022). A body of research has shown that advertising is more effective when advertisers tailor their appeals with high construal levels to distant consumers and low construal levels to close consumers (e.g. Kim et al., 2019). Therefore, understanding construal levels can be useful in optimizing advertising strategies and product positioning for different consumer segments.
Although previous research has proposed that psychological distance affects mental construal levels, which in turn influences product evaluations and decision-making process, there is a lack of empirical research on the role of consumer construal levels on local brand preferences. Some researchers have suggested that local brands may be perceived to have specific attributes that focus on feasibility features, leading to concrete processing and attention to detailed features of these brands (Gürhan-Canli et al., 2018). Local brands are closer to consumers' lifestyle values, preferences and behaviors, and so reduce psychological distance. This proximity may result in consumers' reduced abstract thinking and increased focus on the immediate, tangible and desirable aspects of local products, making them more likely to buy local brands than global ones (De Vries and Fennis, 2019). However, a gap remains in understanding how consumers' personal characteristics, and their perceptions of local brands, are related to the likelihood of purchasing these brands due to their proximity and personal relevance, attributed to the lower construal level between consumers and local brands. In this context, CRSC serves as a psychological construct that shapes individuals' perceived distance from sustainable choices, thereby influencing how concretely or abstractly they view local brands. We posit that for consumers who feel a stronger sense of responsibility for sustainability, their perception of local brands aligns more closely with immediate, concrete action (low psychological distance), enhancing purchase likelihood.
Consumer behavior regarding a brand is also analyzed through preference for local brands (Liu et al., 2021), willingness to buy (Dodds et al., 1991; Swoboda et al., 2012) and purchases of local (rather than global) brands (Canal-Simón et al., 2024; Nainala and Matam, 2023; Riefler, 2020). Local brands are often considered more environmentally friendly due to their proximity, as they produce less waste and consume fewer resources. In addition, local brands have a more positive impact on the local community by providing more job opportunities and contributing to the economic growth of the region (Arenas-Gaitán et al., 2020). Finally, local brands are perceived as more sustainable, unlike global brands, because their consumption can be replicated across the globe without harming the planet's carrying capacity.
As consumers with high CRSC are more likely to prioritize the tangible benefits of supporting local business, such as environmental friendliness and community impact, they are more likely to perceive local brands with a lesser psychological distance, as their values in terms of responsibility and preferences lead them to an increased probability of purchasing local brands over global alternatives. Therefore, consumers with a higher CRSC should develop a LBPL. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
CRSC has a positive impact on LBPL.
2.4 Local brand attitude
Understanding attitudes is essential when analyzing behavior because attitudes significantly shape people's thoughts, emotions and behaviors (Batra et al., 2000). Theoretical evidence demonstrates how these attitudes impact brand purchase likelihood (Lopez-Lomelí et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2022; Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010; Watson and Wright, 2000), loyalty (Saini and Singh, 2020), positioning (Nijssen and Douglas, 2011; Teng et al., 2022) and acceptance of products and brands (Steenkamp, 2019).
Brand attitude refers to consumers' emotional response to a brand based on their emotional preference. As consumer attitudes are relatively stable and long-lasting, the buying decisions they make reflect the formation of their brand attitude and their intention to purchase (Lee et al., 2023).
Attitudes are general evaluations based on beliefs or affective reactions that can predict behaviors (Ajzen, 1987, 1991; Watson and Wright, 2000). As local and non-local brands have different effects on consumers' attitudes (Batra et al., 2000), there are different studies related to local and global products (Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010), environmental behavior (Miller et al., 2022), environmentally sustainable behavior (Paswan et al., 2017), mediation between environmental knowledge and purchase intention (Indriani et al., 2019), sustainable consumption (Čapienė et al., 2022), consumers' coolness perception and attitudes (Im et al., 2015), and attitudes toward a global or local consumer culture (Steenkamp, 2019).
For this study, we conceptualize LBA as a general evaluation based on beliefs or affective reactions to a local brand. For this reason, we propose a model including a hierarchy of three outcome variables based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), belief–attitude-behavior model (i.e. CRSC), LBA and LBPL. However, a gap still remains between what consumers claim to believe about sustainable consumption and their actual actions (Feldmann and Hamm, 2015).
Diverse research has proven the impact of brand attitude and LBA on purchase likelihood; in our study, we expect to demonstrate the antecedent role of CRSC and the mediation effect of LBA on LBPL. Consumers with high CRSC tend to perceive local brands as being more closely aligned with their values and preferences and are more likely to engage in concrete thinking that prioritizes the sustainable, tangible aspects of the brand, ultimately shaping consumers' attitude toward the local brand. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
CRSC impacts LBA
LBA impacts LBPL.
LBA mediates the relationship between CRSC and LBPL.
2.5 Local brand social signaling value
Local brands play a significant role in communicating attributes that establish an emotional connection with consumers. According to signaling theory (Erdem and Swait, 1998), local brands send signals of authenticity (Safeer et al., 2022), credibility (Mandler et al., 2021), heritage (Song and Kim, 2021) and community engagement (Dass et al., 2019); these factors are increasingly valued by consumers seeking unique, distinctive and meaningful brands closely tied to local culture, values and traditions (Steenkamp, 2019). Local brands that emphasize their support for local communities, use traditional production methods and locally sourced ingredients or highlight their roots in local culture or tradition are more likely to connect with consumers who feel a responsibility to minimize the negative environmental and social impacts of their consumption. Therefore, individuals with high CRSC are more likely to perceive local brands as having concrete attributes, such as environmental responsibility and community engagement, that align with their sustainability values. This connection will reduce psychological distance, leading consumers to focus on the immediate benefits of local products and increasing the likelihood of purchase. We expect to demonstrate the antecedent role of CRSC and the mediation effect of the LBSSV on LBPL, and thus hypothesize that:
CRSC impacts the LBSSV.
The LBSSV impacts LBPL.
The local brands social signaling value (LBSSV) mediates the relationship between CRSC and LBPL.
2.6 Ethnocentrism and materialism
Building on the direct and mediated relationships proposed in Hypotheses 1 through 7, we now introduce two consumer traits – ethnocentrism and materialism – as potential moderating variables. These individual-level characteristics may shape the strength of the effects already hypothesized, particularly in how CRSC influences LBA, local brand social signaling value (LBSSV) and ultimately LBPL. In line with prior research suggesting that ethnocentrism enhances preference for domestic brands and that materialism may hinder pro-environmental behaviors, we expect these traits to amplify or attenuate the proposed effects of CRSC. Next, we develop our arguments.
Ethnocentrism is the tendency of consumers to prefer products or services that come from their own country while showing reluctance toward buying foreign brands (Özturan, 2023). This predisposition is rooted in cultural associations and attitudes. Thus, CE emphasizes the ethics and responsibility of purchasing locally produced products over foreign-made ones, as well as consumers' loyalty to items manufactured in their home country (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Ethnocentric consumers believe that buying imported products is wrong, as such behavior is believed to harm the domestic economy, cause job losses and be unpatriotic (Shimp and Sharma, 1987).
Although consumers in some countries are ethnocentric due to love for their country (patriotism) and in others due to their feelings of economic and national dominance (nationalism), ethnocentrism has an important effect on consumer behavior (Balabanis et al., 2001; Casado-Aranda et al., 2020; Sharma, 2015).
CE has not yet been analyzed in the context of consumer social responsibility. Some findings have examined whether CE acts as a boundary condition in the relationship between perceived brand localness and its resulting outcomes, which include purchase intention, quality and prestige perceptions (Halkias et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021; Swoboda et al., 2012). Empirical evidence suggests that ethnocentric consumers prefer local brands over cosmopolitan brands (Lopez-Lomelí et al., 2019), which impacts their willingness to purchase them. CE, due to strong cultural ties and sense of loyalty toward products made in the home country, will reduce the psychological distance from local brands, given concrete aspects such as their authenticity, cultural relevance and economic impact. This evaluation will impact attitudes and preferences regarding these brands, enhancing consumers' willingness to purchase them. CE can positively moderate the relationship between CRSC and LBA, LBSSV and LBPL, and we therefore hypothesize as follows:
CE positively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBA.
CE positively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBPL.
CE positively moderates the relationship between CRSC and the LBSSV.
Materialism is another factor that impacts consumer choices (Richins and Dawson, 1992; van Boven et al., 2010), reflecting the fact that consumers' attachment to material possessions also plays a role in their satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Belk, 1985, 1988; Ger and Belk, 1996). Consumer materialism (CM) refers to the significance that consumers place on worldly possessions. At extreme levels, possessions become the most crucial aspect of an individual's life and are considered to be the primary sources of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Ger and Belk, 1996). CM impacts people's decisions and actions in consumer contexts, by influencing what and how much they buy (Richins and Dawson, 1992).
Materialists are less inclined to believe that humans need to modify their conduct to safeguard the environment and are more prone to engaging in activities that cause harm to the natural world (Hurst et al., 2013). Excessive CM and worldliness have negative impacts that underlie the concept of sustainable consumption (Quoquab and Mohammad, 2020). Research has shown that individuals who prioritize material possessions and consumption tend to have weaker pro-environmental attitudes and engage in more environmentally harmful behaviors. Acceptance of CM can negatively impact environmental, social and economic dimensions, resulting in a mitigated intention to consume sustainably (Suárez et al., 2020).
Materialistic consumers focus more on extrinsic information or brand-related cues (e.g. product prestige reflecting social status, luxury products, etc.) rather than on specific product attributes like quality (Audrin et al., 2017). According to CLT, high levels of construal lead to more global processing, characterized by abstract, global and superordinate features of an object with a focus on value, while individual decisions are driven by desirability-related considerations. In contrast, decisions made under low construal involve more analytical processing, primarily influenced by feasibility-related considerations, concentrating on the concrete, specific, subordinate, peripheral and contextual features of an object, which facilitates attribute-based processing (Liberman and Trope, 2003; Trope and Liberman, 2010; Pfeiffer et al., 2014). Additionally, a higher construal level is related to promotion focus and hedonic shopping orientation (Scarpi, 2021). In this sense, materialism can be viewed as an orientation toward high levels of construal, where products are valued not just for their functionality but also for their symbolic value, representing status, success or personal identity. This perspective clarifies why materialism can negatively influence the relationship between responsible consumption and the other constructs. Therefore, since CM can negatively moderate the relationship between CRSC and LBA, LBSSV, and LBPL, we hypothesize as follows:
CM negatively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBA.
CM negatively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBPL.
CM negatively moderates the relationship between CRSC and the LBSSV.
The conceptual framework of the study is shown in Figure 2, along with the hypothesized relationships. While the model is not directly adapted from a single prior framework, it synthesizes and extends existing theories and empirical insights to propose an integrative conceptual framework.
The diagram starts on the left with a circle labeled “C R S C.” In the center, two vertically arranged boxes are labeled from top to bottom as “L B A” and “L B S S V.” On the right, a circle is labeled “L B P L.” On top of “C R S C,” a circle labeled “C E” is shown, and a circle labeled “C M” is shown below “C R S C.” A right arrow labeled “H 1” points from “C R S C” to “L B P L.” A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled “H 2, H 4,” points from “C R S C” to “L B A.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled “H 5, H 7” points from “C R S C” to “L B S S V.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled “H 3, H 4” points from “L B A” to “L B P L.” A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled “H 6, H 7” points from “L B S S V” to “L B P L.” Three individual dashed downward arrows labeled “H 8 a, H 8 b, H 8 c” point from “C E” to the arrows between “C R S C” and “L B A,” “C R S C” and “L B P L,” and “C R S C” and “L B S S V,” respectively. Three individual dashed upward arrows labeled “H 9 a, H 9 b, H 9 c” point from “C M” to the arrows between “C R S C” and “L B S S V,” “C R S C” and “L B P L,” and “C R S C” and “L B A,” and respectively.Conceptual framework and hypothetical relationships. Source(s): Authors’ own work
The diagram starts on the left with a circle labeled “C R S C.” In the center, two vertically arranged boxes are labeled from top to bottom as “L B A” and “L B S S V.” On the right, a circle is labeled “L B P L.” On top of “C R S C,” a circle labeled “C E” is shown, and a circle labeled “C M” is shown below “C R S C.” A right arrow labeled “H 1” points from “C R S C” to “L B P L.” A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled “H 2, H 4,” points from “C R S C” to “L B A.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled “H 5, H 7” points from “C R S C” to “L B S S V.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled “H 3, H 4” points from “L B A” to “L B P L.” A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled “H 6, H 7” points from “L B S S V” to “L B P L.” Three individual dashed downward arrows labeled “H 8 a, H 8 b, H 8 c” point from “C E” to the arrows between “C R S C” and “L B A,” “C R S C” and “L B P L,” and “C R S C” and “L B S S V,” respectively. Three individual dashed upward arrows labeled “H 9 a, H 9 b, H 9 c” point from “C M” to the arrows between “C R S C” and “L B S S V,” “C R S C” and “L B P L,” and “C R S C” and “L B A,” and respectively.Conceptual framework and hypothetical relationships. Source(s): Authors’ own work
3. Research methodology
3.1 Participants and procedure
The study involved 430 participants who completed an online survey distributed via Pollfish, a certified and ISO-accredited platform that employs 11 verification steps and complies with ESOMAR Gold Standard data practices.
A quota sampling method was applied based on gender, age and income, following the most recent demographic data from the Mexican Census Bureau (INEGI, 2020). The national distribution used for reference included: age groups (18–24: 12.7%; 25–34: 23.8%; 35–44: 21.2%; 45–54: 18.3%; 55+: 24%), gender (48.8% male, 51.2% female) and education levels (non-schooled: 4.9%; basic: 49.3%; high school: 24%; bachelor's degree: 21.6%). The use of Pollfish enabled the targeted recruitment of participants who closely matched these demographic quotas. The margin of sampling error for the total sample, at a 95% confidence level, is ±4.7% points.
The sample represents a diverse cross-section of Mexico's urban population. The age range was 18–54+ years (M = 37.25, SD = 12.77), and the gender distribution was nearly balanced (49.8% female, 50% male, 0.2% other). In terms of geographic distribution, 34% of respondents resided in the three largest cities (Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey), while 66% were from other regions. Educational attainment was relatively high, with 55.8% holding a university degree and 22.6% reporting vocational or technical education. Regarding employment, 55.5% were employed and 17.4% were self-employed. The income distribution reflects Mexico's socioeconomic landscape, with 66.8% of respondents falling into the two lowest income brackets (0–180,000 MXN and 180,000–359,999 MXN annually). Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the sample's sociodemographic characteristics.
Sociodemographic details of the participants
| N = 430 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 50% |
| Female | 49.8% | |
| Not indicated | 0.2% | |
| Age, years | 18–24 | 18.6% |
| 25–34 | 30.2% | |
| 35–44 | 23.3% | |
| 45–54 | 16.3% | |
| 54+ | 11.6% | |
| Mean | 37.25 | |
| Occupation | Employed | 55.5% |
| Homemaker | 9.1% | |
| Self-employed | 17.4% | |
| Unemployed seeking work | 4.9% | |
| Retired | 2.6% | |
| Student | 6.5% | |
| Other | 4.0% | |
| Education | High school | 7.4% |
| Middle school | 4.2% | |
| Postgraduate | 10.0% | |
| University | 55.8% | |
| Vocational-technical | 22.6% | |
| Socioeconomic status | Lower income I (0–180,000 MXN) | 42.8% |
| Lower income II (180,000–359,999 MXN) | 24.0% | |
| Middle income I (360,000–539,999 MXN) | 10.5% | |
| Middle income II (540,000–899,999 MXN) | 6.7% | |
| High income I (900,000–1,499,999 MXN) | 3.5% | |
| High income II (1,500,000–2,399,999 MXN) | 1.9% | |
| High income III (2,400,000+ MXN) | 2.8% | |
| Not indicated | 7.9% |
3.2 Measurement instruments
The research model included six constructs: CRSC, LBPL, LBSSV, LBA, materialism (CM) and ethnocentrism (CE). The response options were scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Table 2 summarizes the constructs, items and sources.
Constructs, items and sources
| Construct | Items | References | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption (CRSC) | CRSC1 | I feel obligated to try to implement sustainable practices where appropriate | Luchs et al. (2015) |
| CRSC2 | It's up to me to bring about improvements in sustainability | ||
| CRSC3 | I feel a personal sense of responsibility to be more sustainable in my product choices | ||
| Local brand attitude (LBA) | LBA1 | I like local brands | Batra et al. (2000) |
| LBA2 | I have a positive opinion of local brands | ||
| LBA3 | Local brands seem attractive to me | ||
| Local brand social signaling value (LBSSV) | LBSSV1 | Local brands would help me feel trendy/up-to-date | Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Zhou et al. (2010) |
| LBSSV2 | I think it is especially appropriate to use local brands in social contexts | ||
| LBSSV3 | I think it is especially appropriate to use local brands at elegant and distinguished events | ||
| LBSSV4 | Local brands help improve how I'm perceived | ||
| Local brand purchase likelihood (LBPL) | LBPL1 | I would buy local brands | Dodds et al. (1991), Putrevu and Lord (1994) |
| LBPL2 | I indeed buy local brands | ||
| LBPL3 | It is very likely that I will buy local brands | ||
| LBPL4 | I will purchase a local brand the next time I need a product | ||
| LBPL5 | I will definitely try the local brands | ||
| Ethnocentrism (CE) | CE1 | Purchasing foreign-made products is unpatriotic | Batra et al. (2000), Zhou et al. (2010) |
| CE2 | A real [Mexican] should always buy domestic products | ||
| CE3 | [Mexicans] should not purchase imported goods, because we need to support our own economy | ||
| CE4 | [Mexicans] should try not to buy foreign brands whenever possible | ||
| Materialism (CM) | CM1 | I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes | Richins and Dawson (1992) |
| CM2 | Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions | ||
| CM3 | I like to own things that impress people | ||
| CM4 | The things I own say a lot about how well I'm doing in life |
To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement scale across diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, it was translated into Spanish using a systematic procedure that involved initial translation, linguistic and cultural equivalence review, pilot testing and adjustment. The pilot test was conducted with a small sample of Mexican people across the country to evaluate clarity, comprehensibility and cultural relevance.
3.3 Data analysis
To assess the measurement and structural model of this research, a partial least squares (PLS) structural equation model (SEM) was employed (Ringle et al., 2015) with data analysis conducted using SmartPLS 4.1 software. The PLS algorithm was chosen for its simplicity and flexibility, facilitating greater effectiveness in addressing various analytical convergence challenges. Furthermore, PLS accommodates non-normal distributions, as confirmed by normality tests utilizing the Shapiro–Wilk and Shapiro-Francia W tests, which is evident in our data. This method has been widely used in various disciplines, such as e-business and international marketing (Henseler et al., 2009). A bootstrap resampling procedure with 5,000 subsamples was implemented to ensure the stability of the estimates. Following the approach outlined by Chin (1998), the model was conducted in two stages: initially, the reliability and validity of the measurement model were assessed; subsequently, the structural model was evaluated.
4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
We assessed the measurement model once we had ensured that common method bias (CMB) was not an issue for the study by implementing Harman's one-factor/single factor test, considering the 50% reference (Kock et al., 2021). Table 3 indicates the item loadings higher than 0.600 on their assigned factors; the composite reliability (CR) values of the constructs were thus above the recommended threshold value of 0.600 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The uniqueness of the concepts was determined by comparing their shared variances to their corresponding average variance extracted (AVE). Using Fornell and Larcker's (1981) standard of 0.5, Cronbach's alpha (CA) for each construct, except for CRSC, was above 0.700; note that values of 0.600 are considered acceptable for small-scale exploratory analyses (Taber, 2018).
Statistics
| Item | Mean | SD | Outer loading | T Statistics | P Values | Construct | CA | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRSC01 | 3.626 | 1.119 | 0.723 | 13.594 | 0.000 | CRSC | 0.644 | 0.688 | 0.579 |
| CRSC02 | 3.833 | 0.957 | 0.705 | 12.629 | 0.000 | ||||
| CRSC04 | 3.847 | 0.979 | 0.846 | 25.863 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBA01 | 3.977 | 0.932 | 0.884 | 61.864 | 0.000 | LBA | 0.858 | 0.860 | 0.779 |
| LBA02 | 4.021 | 0.842 | 0.908 | 86.181 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBA03 | 3.916 | 0.921 | 0.855 | 45.208 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBSSV01 | 3.402 | 1.054 | 0.856 | 55.501 | 0.000 | LBSSV | 0.846 | 0.850 | 0.685 |
| LBSSV02 | 3.586 | 1.019 | 0.833 | 42.938 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBSSV03 | 3.493 | 1.078 | 0.847 | 52.151 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBSSV04 | 3.247 | 1.195 | 0.772 | 26.180 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBPL01 | 4.263 | 0.899 | 0.866 | 60.960 | 0.000 | LBPL | 0.894 | 0.894 | 0.704 |
| LBPL02 | 4.151 | 0.891 | 0.878 | 63.688 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBPL03 | 4.147 | 0.927 | 0.870 | 60.187 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBPL04 | 3.853 | 0.927 | 0.793 | 33.299 | 0.000 | ||||
| LBPL05 | 3.821 | 1.031 | 0.784 | 33.569 | 0.000 | ||||
| CE01 | 2.202 | 1.301 | 0.831 | 33.889 | 0.000 | CE | 0.847 | 0.888 | 0.683 |
| CE02 | 2.491 | 1.372 | 0.890 | 72.376 | 0.000 | ||||
| CE03 | 2.537 | 1.316 | 0.771 | 22.234 | 0.000 | ||||
| CE04 | 2.107 | 1.198 | 0.809 | 26.893 | 0.000 | ||||
| CM02 | 3.051 | 1.236 | 0.772 | 14.330 | 0.000 | CM | 0.811 | 0.815 | 0.638 |
| CM04 | 3.042 | 1.208 | 0.813 | 23.311 | 0.000 | ||||
| CM05 | 2.405 | 1.306 | 0.827 | 20.432 | 0.000 | ||||
| CM09 | 2.798 | 1.266 | 0.781 | 17.487 | 0.000 |
Note(s): SD: standard deviation; CA: Cronbach's alpha; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; CRSC: consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption; LBA: local brand attitude; LBSSV: local brand social signaling value; LBPL: local brand purchase likelihood; CE: ethnocentrism; CM: materialism
All other factors in Table 4 showed a heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Henseler et al., 2016) below the threshold of 0.85.
Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations
| CE | CM | CRSC | LBA | LBPL | LBSSV | CM x CRSC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | |||||||
| CM | 0.389 | ||||||
| CRSC | 0.145 | 0.122 | |||||
| LBA | 0.170 | 0.067 | 0.339 | ||||
| LBPL | 0.259 | 0.092 | 0.357 | 0.825 | |||
| LBSSV | 0.417 | 0.301 | 0.400 | 0.731 | 0.702 | ||
| CM × CRSC | 0.094 | 0.102 | 0.128 | 0.126 | 0.021 | 0.102 | |
| CE × CRSC | 0.131 | 0.098 | 0.081 | 0.164 | 0.155 | 0.049 | 0.234 |
Note(s): CE: ethnocentrism; CM: materialism; CRSC: consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption; LBA: local brand attitude; LBPL: local brand purchase likelihood; LBSSV: local brand social signaling value
We tested for multicollinearity by calculating each construct's variance inflation factor (VIF) value to verify that it was less than 5 (Hair et al., 2012). Only two items were above 3: LBPL01 (3.251) and LBPL02 (3.616). Given the above, convergent and discriminant validity were both demonstrated.
4.2 Structural model
The study used a two-step approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) to assess the structural model and test our research hypotheses. First, we ensured the accuracy of the structural model for LBPL and LBA, whose fit was found to be satisfactory: chi-square (χ2) 995.732, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.065, normed fit index (NFI) 0.811, unweighted least squares discrepancy (d_ULS) 1.168, the geodesic distance (d_G) 0.383 and Goodness of Fit (GoF) 0.458. The model explained 57% of the variance for LBPL. The effectiveness of the structural model in forecasting relies on the amount of variance explained by each dependent construct that surpasses the 0.1 threshold (Falk and Miller, 1992). The R2 values for the dependent variables exceeded the critical level: 0.580 for LBPL, 0.122 for LBA, and 0.227 for LBSSV.
After conducting the preliminary check to ensure the accuracy of our measurement model, we employed PLS to analyze the structural model. To determine the significance of the direct model parameters from CRSC to LBPL, we used bootstrapping with 5,000 sub-samples (Hair et al., 2019).
As Table 5 indicates, the estimated coefficient for CRSC on LBPL is positive and significant, with 0.090 confidence (0.060, p = 0.060). The effects of CRSC on LBA and LBA on LBPL are positive and significant (0.272, p = 0.000; 0.549, p = 0.000, respectively). Likewise, the specific indirect effect of CRSC on LBPL through LBA is also positive and significant (0.149, p = 0.000). The estimated coefficients for CRSC on LBSSV and LBSSV on LBPL are positive and significant (0.278, p = 0.000; 0.238, p = 0.000, respectively). Likewise, the specific indirect effect of CRSC on LBPL through LBSSV is also positive and significant (0.066, p = 0.000).
Complete model summary of CE and CM on CRSC, LBA, LBSSV and LBPL
| Relationships | CR | SD | t | p | H | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRSC → LBPL | 0.060 | 0.032 | 1.881 | 0.060 | H1 | Supported |
| CRSC → LBA | 0.272 | 0.050 | 5.449 | 0.000 | H2 | Supported |
| LBA → LBPL | 0.549 | 0.043 | 12.869 | 0.000 | H3 | Supported |
| aCRSC → LBA → LBPL | 0.149 | 0.029 | 5.055 | 0.000 | H4 | Supported |
| CRSC → LBSSV | 0.278 | 0.045 | 6.183 | 0.000 | H5 | Supported |
| LBSSV → LBPL | 0.238 | 0.049 | 4.847 | 0.000 | H6 | Supported |
| aCRSC → LBSSV → LBPL | 0.066 | 0.018 | 3.756 | 0.000 | H7 | Supported |
| CE x CRSC → LBA | 0.127 | 0.054 | 2.375 | 0.018 | H8a | Supported |
| CE x CRSC → LBPL | 0.062 | 0.029 | 2.114 | 0.035 | H8b | Supported |
| CE x CRSC → LBSSV | 0.009 | 0.045 | 0.207 | 0.836 | H8c | Not Supported |
| CM x CRSC → LBA | 0.107 | 0.050 | 2.156 | 0.031 | H9a | Not Supported |
| CM x CRSC → LBPL | −0.065 | 0.030 | 2.200 | 0.028 | H9b | Supported |
| CM x CRSC → LBSSV | 0.061 | 0.045 | 1.366 | 0.172 | H9c | Not Supported |
| CE → LBA | 0.108 | 0.053 | 2.050 | 0.040 | ||
| CE → LBPL | 0.055 | 0.033 | 1.665 | 0.096 | ||
| CE → LBSSV | 0.277 | 0.045 | 6.091 | 0.000 | ||
| CM → LBA | −0.012 | 0.057 | 0.216 | 0.829 | ||
| CM → LBPL | −0.018 | 0.035 | 0.519 | 0.604 | ||
| CM → LBSSV | 0.159 | 0.048 | 3.301 | 0.001 |
Note(s):
Specific indirect effects. CR: composite reliability; SD: standard deviation; t: t-statistic; p: p-value; H: hypothesis; CRSC: consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption; LBPL: local brand purchase likelihood; LBA: local brand attitude; LBSSV: local brand social signaling value; CE: ethnocentrism; CM: materialism
Therefore, based on our findings we can conclude that CRSC positively influences LBPL (at 90% of confidence), confirming H1. In addition, our research supports the idea that CRSC also has a positive impact on LBA, as predicted by H2, and this last variable impacts LBPL, supporting H3. Finally, the mediation role of LBA between CRSC and LBPL is supported, as stated in H4. The results also demonstrate that CRSC has a positive impact on LBSSV, confirming H5, and this last variable impacts LBPL, as stated in H6, and the mediation role of LBSSV between CRSC and LBPL is also supported, as per H7. As a supplementary assessment of the mediation, the Variance Accounted For (VAF) for CRSC → LBPL was conducted (0.779), which, according to Hair et al. (2014), when 20% ≤ VAF ≤80%, indicates a partial mediation.
Finally, in analyzing the moderation role, CE moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBA (0.127, p = 0.018), supporting H8a, and between CRSC and LBPL (0.062, p = 0.035), supporting H8b. However, the moderation role of CE on the relation between CRSC and LBSSV is not significant (0.009, p = 0.836), so H8c is not supported. On the other hand, CM positively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBA (0.107, p = 0.031), which does not support H9a as a negative relationship was expected. Additionally, CM negatively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBPL (−0.065, p = 0.028), supporting H9b; and there are no significant moderation effects of CM on the relationship between CRSC and LBSSV (0.061, p = 0.172), meaning H9c is not supported.
5. Discussion and implications
5.1 Discussion
Our results revealed direct impact of CRSC on LBPL at 90% of confidence (H1) (the CRSC scale alpha could have weakened the observed relationship, pushing the p-value at 0.060). Local brands are often perceived as more environmentally and socially responsible, prioritizing community well-being by creating local jobs and fostering regional economic growth. This perception enhances their appeal as symbols of social value, reducing psychological distance and increasing the likelihood of purchasing local brands. Mediation variables further strengthen this relationship and directly impact LBPL.
As observed in prior studies, brand attitude is a good predictor of a brand's willingness to buy when positive emotions and beliefs emanate (Hurst et al., 2013; Özsomer and Altaras, 2008; Steenkamp and De Jong, 2010). CRSC has a positive impact on LBA, as consumers who have a strong sense of responsibility toward sustainable consumption often view local brands as more compatible with their values and preferences (H2); this results in a significant and positive impact on the local brand purchase intention (LBPL) (H3), as observed in the study. Consumer responsibility has four perspectives (Luchs et al., 2015): cognition, emotion, a moral imperative and socioculturally shaping. Emotion and moral responsibility can produce favorable behaviors toward local brands, assigning a meaning close to local responsibility and community engagement (Canal-Simón et al., 2024), which results in a positive impact from CRSC to LBSSV (H5). On the other hand, the LBSSV triggers a positive impact on LBPL (H6). Our research demonstrates a higher impact from CRSC to LBPL when LBSSV exists (H7), as well as when CRSC to LBPL in the presence of LBA (H4), due to the reduced psychological distance from local brands, which focus on concrete aspects such as their regional economic impact and local job contribution.
The morality of purchasing locally originated products and brands is related to the CE variable, whereby consumers may be discouraged from purchasing imported goods, given that imports can adversely affect the local economy and lead to unemployment and are frequently viewed as unpatriotic (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). The results of our study suggest a moderation role of CE in the relationship among CRSC, LBA (H8a) and LBPL (H8b), due to the moral imperative and sociocultural beliefs of consumers who think that consuming non-local brands harms the domestic economy, causes job losses and contaminates the environment more than local consumption (Sharma, 2015; Watson and Wright, 2000). Regarding the moderation pathway for CE between CRSC and LBSSV (H8c), this was not significant, likely because the fact that people loving their own country or feeling a sense of economic and national dominance (nationalism) is more related to economic growth than to sustainability (Balabanis et al., 2001; Casado-Aranda et al., 2020; Sharma, 2015), i.e. a person who buys local products or brands due to patriotic feelings or nationalistic sentiment does not necessarily feel responsible for sustainable consumption.
As previous literature suggests, CM has a negative impact on sustainability (Suárez et al., 2020), and our results confirm that CM negatively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBPL (H9b); there are also no significant moderation effects of CM on CRSC and LBSSV (H9c). CM, however, positively moderates the relationship between CRSC and LBA (H9a). CM does not necessarily mean that an individual does not have a particular attitude to local brands or is against buying local products. While some materialistic consumers may prefer global brands associated with status and luxury, others may appreciate local brands for their uniqueness, authenticity and cultural value, especially when the psychological distance is low. A materialistic consumer may have a positive attitude toward local products and supporting local businesses, even if they are not particularly concerned about the environmental impact of their purchases. This attitude does not necessarily translate into purchase intentions for local brands, as our results indicate. High psychological distance may lead materialistic consumers to seek out global brands that promise future luxury and status, consequently focusing on more abstract and aspirational values associated with global brands. As a result, materialistic consumers may prioritize status and luxury over social signaling value or sustainability, reducing their likelihood of purchasing local brands.
5.2 Theoretical implications
Sustainable consumption is a collective responsibility shared by enterprises, scholars, managers and consumers alike. Public policies, targeted social marketing programs and educational initiatives on sustainability are essential to encouraging individuals to assume accountability for their sustainable actions and choices. Additionally, companies can play a key role by adopting cleaner production processes and actively reducing their carbon footprints.
Research suggests that aligning local brands with consumers' lifestyles, values and preferences can reduce psychological distance and emphasize tangible, appealing aspects of sustainable consumption (De Vries and Fennis, 2019; Gürhan-Canli et al., 2018). Individuals with a high sense of CRSC often prioritize the benefits of supporting local businesses, such as environmental friendliness and community impact. They view local brands as reflections of their values, which increases their likelihood of choosing these brands over global alternatives. Marketers can effectively reach these consumers by highlighting local brands' immediate and authentic aspects, such as community engagement and environmental stewardship.
By aligning marketing efforts with consumers' sustainability priorities, marketers can foster responsible consumption and encourage local product selection, enhancing positive brand perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. Advertising, especially when crafted with low construal levels for close psychological proximity (e.g. Kim et al., 2019), can be more effective when it emphasizes the tangible effects of local purchases, such as economic benefits for the community and personal responsibility. Managers should also include in their brand messaging the concrete impacts of buying locally, both for the community's economy and as an expression of personal accountability, and connecting these ideas to sustainable consumption addresses the adverse impacts of excessive materialism.
Establishing clear communication about local brand attributes helps build strong connections with sustainability-oriented consumers. Making social responsibility for sustainable consumption into a brand's identity can evoke emotions like pride or guilt, influencing consumer feelings, thoughts and behaviors. In this way, consumers who love their own country or feel a sense of nationalism might feel proud to support a brand that aligns with their values of sustainability, thus reducing psychological distance and leading to positive feelings and loyalty toward the brand.
For policymakers, it is crucial not only to promote cleaner business processes but also to shape a morally and culturally guided sense of consumer responsibility. Given that consumers' sustainable choices can significantly benefit the regional and local economy, policies should encourage local brand preferences and increase the likelihood of local purchases.
As theoretical insights, this study explores how CRSC influences preferences for local brands, filling a key gap in our understanding of the determinants of local brand preference within the framework of sustainable consumption. Incorporating insights from CLT, this research delves into the mediating roles of LBA and social signaling value while examining how ethnocentrism and materialism moderate these relationships. By highlighting the psychological and normative drivers behind brand evaluations and purchase intentions, especially for brands that align culturally or environmentally with consumers' values, this study advances our theoretical understanding of consumer-brand relationships and sustainable consumption.
5.3 Managerial implications
From a managerial perspective, the relationships explored in this study suggest effective strategies for local brands seeking loyalty from sustainability-focused consumers. By understanding how CRSC enhances preferences for local brands, managers can design marketing campaigns that emphasize authenticity, community support and environmental responsibility by appealing to values that drive responsible consumption. Additionally, recognizing the role of social signaling in brand positioning can enhance a brand's market presence, i.e. presenting a brand as socially signaling sustainable values can deepen its appeal. Tailoring messages to resonate with ethnocentric consumers and addressing materialistic tendencies can further help companies reach diverse segments effectively. Emphasizing the tangible benefits of local products, such as reduced environmental impact and support for the regional economy, can strengthen consumer commitment, thereby advancing both brand loyalty and sustainability goals. Local brands should also consider their symbolic value to be seen as symbols of authenticity, reflecting individual values, extending the self, or embodying an aspirational or premium local identity if they aim to attract materialistic consumers and foster purchasing intent.
Our findings not only present opportunities for marketers but also offers a roadmap for managers, policymakers and educators to foster more responsible behaviors through CRSC.
The lesson for managers is that local brands should amplify messaging that frames their products as symbols of community engagement and environmental stewardship. By emphasizing benefits like local job creation, reduced environmental impact and sustainable sourcing, brands can resonate with consumers who feel personally responsible for sustainability. Social signaling should also be embedded in branding, positioning local products as identity markers for consumers, prioritizing ethical and sustainable consumption.
Policymakers need to be aware that responsible consumption can be encouraged by policies such as incentivizing local purchases and taxing high-impact global goods. Campaigns leveraging CRSC insights should emphasize the tangible environmental and economic benefits of local products, educating consumers on how these choices support national sustainability goals. As one example, government-backed “sustainable local brand” certification would foster both awareness and action and would make it easier for consumers to make responsible choices.
Finally, educators can leverage CRSC through public campaigns focused on personal impacts on the environment and local economies that position sustainable consumption as a community-focused responsibility. Programs and advertisements that link local purchases to reduced environmental harm and greater social good can inspire behavioral change, particularly among ethnocentric or sustainability-minded consumers.
6. Conclusions
From our perspective, the key insight of this research lies in recognizing that CRSC fundamentally shapes preferences for local brands by bridging psychological distance and aligning with sustainability and community impact values. This insight reframes CRSC from an abstract moral concept into an active driver of consumer choice, making local brands more appealing through their tangible and immediate benefits, which resonate strongly with environmentally conscious consumers.
Emerging markets are attracting increasing attention from academics and practitioners for their growing accountability in sustainability issues, evolving from a political ideal to a market and societal imperative. Consumers in developing markets are increasingly inclined to seek, support and endorse brands that exhibit ethical conduct, environmental stewardship and social accountability (Gassler et al., 2016). Moreover, the rapid expansion of the middle class in these markets is raising expectations regarding corporate social accountability (Cavusgil, 2021). In the Mexican context, cultural factors such as community orientation and economic sensitivities may significantly influence CRSC and preferences for local brands.
This realization opens up strategic opportunities for marketers: framing local brands as symbols of social value and ethical responsibility directly connects with consumers' sustainability values and fosters stronger brand loyalty. Furthermore, the implementation of fiscal incentives and support programs to facilitate the sustainable transition of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) – has the potential to strengthen local consumption. Such initiatives, often associated with shorter supply chains, support SMEs while reducing transport emissions, thereby promoting a more resilient and sustainable ecosystem.
Additionally, constructs such as ethnocentrism and materialism, which play moderating roles in consumer behavior, offer marketers the opportunity to adopt a more tailored approach. By emphasizing local brand characteristics that resonate on a personal and cultural level, companies can better engage specific consumer segments. Thus, local brands are well positioned to leverage CRSC to boost market share and promote sustainable practices.
6.1 Limitations
Regrettably, this study is not without limitations. First, the data were collected exclusively in Mexico using a convenience sample that was sociodemographically representative in terms of gender and age quotas but only included legal citizens aged 18 and above. Moreover, there was an oversampling of participants with a bachelor's degree, likely due to the nature of the digital panel used for data collection, which primarily reached urban populations. Expanding data collection efforts could enhance the generalizability and statistical significance of future findings.
Second, incorporating additional variables could provide deeper insights into the role of psychological distance in shaping CRSC, as well as the influence of materialism, ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism.
Third, conducting a cross-country comparative study would allow for the exploration of cultural differences and offer valuable theoretical contributions regarding how these variables manifest across different cultural contexts. Additionally, it would enhance understanding of how the diverse dimensions of responsibility – cognition, emotion, moral imperative and sociocultural shaping – influence local brand preferences and purchase intentions.
6.2 Future research
For future research, it would be interesting to explore how materialistic and ethnocentric attitudes intersect with cultural contexts, personal values and brand meanings. Furthermore, developing a multidimensional scale to measure CRSC would offer an opportunity to investigate cultural differences and improve measurement accuracy across different types of products and services.
It would be valuable to examine the impact of personal variables, such as personal norms, personality traits or attitudes, like environmental awareness, on CRSC, and how this impact is influenced by psychological distance. This analysis could help improve understanding of how certain personal variables or attitudes drive sustainable behavior among consumers. It would also be interesting to examine how collaborations between local and global brands influence the adoption of sustainable consumption practices among consumers.
Although this study presents novel findings, caution is necessary when interpreting the results, as we did not account for other factors known to influence brand preference, such as brand quality, brand image and brand familiarity. These factors may have affected the relationships examined in this study.
We would like to acknowledge and express our sincere gratitude to Tecnologico de Monterrey for the financial support provided for this study.
