Studies on consumer responses to brand activism initiatives
| Author/year | Theory/method | Key findings |
|---|---|---|
| Eilert and Nappier Cherup (2020) | Legitimacy/conceptual | Brand activism represents a response to barriers that hinder social change. Brands can promote social change internally by promoting the intended issues within the organisations or externally through marketplace activities like taking public stances on sociopolitical issues |
| Fernandes (2020) | Moral foundation/experiment | Liberals engage in boycotts/boycott related to the protection of harm/fairness, while conservatives engage in boycotts/buycotts related to the protection of authority, loyalty and purity driven by individualizing vs binding moral values |
| (Kang and Kirmani, 2023) | Branding research/ experiment | Brand activism that is incongruent with a consumer’s political ideology (moderator) increases unethical behaviour driven by the desire to punish the brand. These effects are attenuated by stance inconsistency and highly unethical behaviour |
| Mukherjee and Althuizen (2020) | Moral foundation/experiment | Brand attitude and choice were negative when consumers disagreed with the brand’s stance, driven by brand dis/identification. There was no positive when consumers agreed with the brand’s view on the issue |
| Hydock et al. (2020) | Identity-based consumption literature/experiment | A brand with a large but not small market share (moderator) loses more customers who disagree with its stance on a social issue but gains fewer customers when they agree with its stance. This effect is driven by brand dis/identification |
| (Wannow et al., 2024) | Branding and emotion research/experiment | Brand activism negatively impacts brand attitude and issue advocacy driven by other-condemning emotions (mad, annoyed, disgust). This effect is mitigated by consumer–brand identification |
| Quach et al. (2023) | Signalling and implicit/experimental | Consumer perceptions of executive-team diversity led to an increase in purchase intentions for sustainable luxury driven by decreased scepticism. This effect is amplified by consumer mindset |
| Khan and Kalra (2022) | Moral foundation/experiment | Consumers perceive racially diverse (vs homogenous) teams as more likely to take others’ perspectives in decision-making, increasing the perception of the morality of the firm activities driven by perceived morality. This effect is positively moderated by the perceived perspective-taking of the team |
| Park et al. (2022) | Stakeholder and theory-in-use/secondary data | Marketing activities such as diverse product offerings and investment in advertising positively affect not-for-brands’ ability to have equitable participation of customers from diverse racial groups, while a relational customer base has a negative impact |
| Bennett et al. (2013) | Social perception literature/ survey | There are notable differences in perceived brand warmth (vs competence), envy and contempt towards brands among minority racial groups like African Americans and Asian Americans compared to the white majority, representing different marketplace experiences of these consumer groups |
| Wang et al. (2022a) | Brand activism research/secondary data | BLM support has a negative impact on consumer responses towards a brand (likes and follow). Political affiliation and posting self-promotional content amplify the negative impact, while prosocial history attenuates the negative impact |
| Crockett et al. (2003) | Race stressors and coping strategies/interviews | Black American men frequently experience discrimination in their marketplace activities, like longer waiting times in queues and favouring of outgroups. Black American men cope with these treatments through status-signalling consumption, filing complaints to management or trivialising the painful situation |
| This research | Branding research/experiment | Racial equity policy adoption (vs non-adoption) increases willingness to pay and advocacy intentions driven by perceived altruism. These effects are attenuated by power distance belief, whereas religiosity serves as a boundary condition |
| Author/year | Theory/method | Key findings |
|---|---|---|
| Legitimacy/conceptual | Brand activism represents a response to barriers that hinder social change. Brands can promote social change internally by promoting the intended issues within the organisations or externally through marketplace activities like taking public stances on sociopolitical issues | |
| Moral foundation/experiment | Liberals engage in boycotts/boycott related to the protection of harm/fairness, while conservatives engage in boycotts/buycotts related to the protection of authority, loyalty and purity driven by individualizing vs binding moral values | |
| ( | Branding research/ experiment | Brand activism that is incongruent with a consumer’s political ideology (moderator) increases unethical behaviour driven by the desire to punish the brand. These effects are attenuated by stance inconsistency and highly unethical behaviour |
| Moral foundation/experiment | Brand attitude and choice were negative when consumers disagreed with the brand’s stance, driven by brand dis/identification. There was no positive when consumers agreed with the brand’s view on the issue | |
| Identity-based consumption literature/experiment | A brand with a large but not small market share (moderator) loses more customers who disagree with its stance on a social issue but gains fewer customers when they agree with its stance. This effect is driven by brand dis/identification | |
| ( | Branding and emotion research/experiment | Brand activism negatively impacts brand attitude and issue advocacy driven by other-condemning emotions (mad, annoyed, disgust). This effect is mitigated by consumer–brand identification |
| Signalling and implicit/experimental | Consumer perceptions of executive-team diversity led to an increase in purchase intentions for sustainable luxury driven by decreased scepticism. This effect is amplified by consumer mindset | |
| Moral foundation/experiment | Consumers perceive racially diverse (vs homogenous) teams as more likely to take others’ perspectives in decision-making, increasing the perception of the morality of the firm activities driven by perceived morality. This effect is positively moderated by the perceived perspective-taking of the team | |
| Stakeholder and theory-in-use/secondary data | Marketing activities such as diverse product offerings and investment in advertising positively affect not-for-brands’ ability to have equitable participation of customers from diverse racial groups, while a relational customer base has a negative impact | |
| Social perception literature/ survey | There are notable differences in perceived brand warmth (vs competence), envy and contempt towards brands among minority racial groups like African Americans and Asian Americans compared to the white majority, representing different marketplace experiences of these consumer groups | |
| Brand activism research/secondary data | BLM support has a negative impact on consumer responses towards a brand (likes and follow). Political affiliation and posting self-promotional content amplify the negative impact, while prosocial history attenuates the negative impact | |
| Race stressors and coping strategies/interviews | Black American men frequently experience discrimination in their marketplace activities, like longer waiting times in queues and favouring of outgroups. Black American men cope with these treatments through status-signalling consumption, filing complaints to management or trivialising the painful situation | |
| This research | Branding research/experiment | Racial equity policy adoption (vs non-adoption) increases willingness to pay and advocacy intentions driven by perceived altruism. These effects are attenuated by power distance belief, whereas religiosity serves as a boundary condition |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.