Abstract
Purpose
Based on the chain liability and green halo effects, this study uses the perspective of multi-tier supply chain management to examine the impact mechanism and boundary conditions of suppliers' green innovation types on consumers' willingness to participate in value co-creation with focal firms from the perspective of multi-tier supply chain management.
Design/methodology/approach
Using four situational experiments, 660 participants were recruited in Credamo, and SPSS 23.0 was used for data analysis. Experiments 1a and 1b verify the effect of suppliers' green innovation on consumers' willingness to participate in value co-creation with focal firms; experiment 2 examines the mediating effect of green sincerity perception; and experiment 3 explores the moderating effect of innovation proactiveness.
Findings
The results show that suppliers' green innovation efforts are more sincere when they are substantive (vs. symbolic), thereby generating higher value co-creation intentions. As a driving force, innovation proactiveness moderates the influence of suppliers' green innovation types on consumer's willingness to co-create value with focal firms.
Originality/value
This study enriches the literature on green supply chain management (GSCM) and consumers' willingness to co-create value. Furthermore, this study provides firms with practical guidance to improve marketing performance and green innovation practices through multilevel GSCM.
Keywords
Citation
Yao, Q., Liang, Y., Feng, M. and Wang, H. (2023), "Are consumers willing to co-create value when focal firms' suppliers are proactive in green innovation? A chain liability and green halo effect", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 1240-1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2022-0163
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
Green multi-tier supply chain management (GMSCM) (Dou et al., 2018) highlights that selecting suppliers is critical for supply chain management in focal firms (Taherdoost and Brard, 2019). Focal firm's selection of suppliers can show environmental social responsibility to consumers if the suppliers have green responsible behaviors (Nguyen et al., 2021), the so-called “chain liability effect.” The chain liability effect means that consumers attribute everything in the supply chain to the focal firm (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014). Subsequently, consumers reward responsible focal firms by choosing their products over competitors, achieving value co-creation with these focal firms (Lanero et al., 2021; Valor et al., 2022). For example, when Changan Automobile Company recommended its new energy vehicle “Avatr” on its official website, it mentioned that CATL, the battery supplier, has plans for battery recycling and the application of large-scale recycled materials for promoting low-carbon batteries. Consumers responded on social media and are willing to place preorders for the product.
When discussing consumer responses to focal firms' environmental responsibility behaviors, studies focused on the interactions between focal firms and consumers. Scholars divided the motivation that drives focal firms to engage in green innovation (GI) into proactive and reactive (Chen et al., 2012). Furthermore, customers can differentiate between substantive and symbolic GI (Walker and Wan, 2012). Consumer environmental awareness can increase the investment efficiency of environmentally responsible focal firms (Zeng et al., 2019); disclosing how focal firms are monitoring suppliers' activities can improve consumers' attitudes toward focal firms and increase their purchase intentions (Duan et al., 2021). However, existing literature fails to consider the mechanism that affects the interaction of supplier innovation types and innovation proactiveness on the willingness of consumers to co-create value with focal firms.
This study addresses this research gap based on the perspective of GMSCM (suppliers–focal firms–consumers). As choosing green suppliers relates to how focal firms implement environmental responsibility behaviors (Fan et al., 2021), we speculate that the chain liability effect (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014) will cause consumers to attribute suppliers' GI to focal firms' green supply management and enhance their perception of focal firms' green sincerity (Jung et al., 2022), triggering the “green halo effect” (Carbone et al., 2019). Consumers will assign sustainable green attributes to focal firms' products, generating their willingness to co-create value. We suggest that this effect is strongest when suppliers proactively implement substantive GI.
This study conducted four experiments to explore the influence mechanism (experiments 1a, 1b and 2) and boundary conditions (experiment 3) of consumers' willingness to co-create value with focal firms when suppliers carry out GI. The results enrich research related to green supply chain management (GSCM) and value co-creation and provide practical guidance for focal firms to improve their marketing performance through GMSCM.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis research
2.1 Consumer value co-creation and green halo effect
The co-creation of value by consumers refers to collaborative activities between consumers and producers that directly or indirectly create customer and firm value through activities such as purchasing company products and participating in personalization/customization (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). According to GMSCM, consumer value co-creation is triggered by the chain liability effect and the green halo effect occurring in succession. The chain liability effect refers to environmental or social issues caused by suppliers' actions that extend to other supply chain members and are the responsibility of enterprise supply chain management (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014). Following the chain liability effect, consumers develop the green halo effect based on their judgment of focal firms' environmental responsibility image (Carbone et al., 2019).
The halo effect refers to the tendency to generalize a global evaluation of an object/entity to its other, unrelated attributes (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). This can also cause consumers to evaluate a firm's products or services more positively when the firm has a high brand reputation (Burke et al., 2019; Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2015). The green halo effect is the consumer perception that companies with environmentally responsible images also have green attributes (Lazzarini et al., 2016). When adopting GSCM practices, focal firms expect the green halo effect, so consumers view their products more positively than traditional competitors (Carbone et al., 2019). Consumers support focal firms by developing new products via value cocreation (Loaiza-Ramírez et al., 2022; Yi and Gong, 2013). For example, if a focal firm engages in symbolic GI activities and labels its food packaging with socially ethical claims (e.g., fair trade), consumers perceive the food as having lower calories and, subsequently, increase consumption (Schuldt et al., 2012). When a food firm implements substantive GI activities and adopts organic production methods, consumers perceive the product as more natural and environmentally friendly (Lazzarini et al., 2016).
When focal firms implement proactive environmental protection strategies and create green environmental values, cooperation with suppliers and consumers is necessary (Ammer et al., 2020). The green environmental value of sustainable development is generated during the consumption of products or services, so suppliers must provide green supplies to generate green value (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Additionally, as consumers expect green products or services, firms must have GSCM awareness.
2.2 Suppliers' green innovation types
Green innovation is categorized into substantive and symbolic types, with environmental rationality as the core ethic (Walker and Wan, 2012). Substantive innovation can significantly enhance environmental performance through product-driven innovation, manufacturing-driven innovation behaviors, corporate pollution prevention and green technology innovation (Berrone and Gomez-Mejia, 2009). Symbolic innovation would relieve institutional pressure and obtain environmental rationality, helping firms establish or maintain a green sustainable image. Symbolic behaviors include corporate environmental image management behaviors, such as cooperating with environmental protection projects, participating in public environmental protection activities, applying for green trademarks, setting up environmental management committees and adopting green salary policies (Gilley et al., 2000). Such behaviors somewhat enhance the environmental rationality of firms; however, because they mostly involve future plans and commitments, firms are not reorganized and product management is not innovated. Symbolic behaviors have lower investment and monetary costs than substantive behaviors but are less effective in achieving rationality (Berrone et al., 2017).
Some suppliers have conducted substantive GI activities. For example, the Coca-Cola Company's suppliers use environmentally friendly materials to reduce carbon emissions. They have reduced nearly 60% of the glass bottle weight and are committed to introducing glass bottles made from biological materials to achieve 100% decomposition. Ikea's suppliers have cooperated with the World Wide Fund for Nature to promote cotton management reengineering plans, hoping to improve labor and environmental issues throughout the life cycle of cotton.
Recent research examines the differences in consumers' evaluations of the two types of GI. Consumers perceive substantive environmental rationality higher than symbolic types, resulting in higher product purchase intention (Szabo and Webster, 2021). They are skeptical of symbolic actions, believing that these actions' actual green utility is much lower than that of substantive actions (Wu et al., 2020). When consumers access information about suppliers' GIs, they tend to speculate about the suppliers' motivations (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). If consumers believe suppliers' GI is motivated by corporate publicity, they distrust the innovation and the positive effects are weakened (Torelli et al., 2020). However, when consumers believe that suppliers' GI behavior may solve pollution problems, they acknowledge and appreciate the efforts and effectiveness of focal firms' GSCM through the chain liability effect, leading to positive evaluations of the focal firms' environmental responsibility image, triggering the green halo effect and increasing their value co-creation intention. We argue that suppliers' substantive GI behaviors are more likely to stimulate consumers' willingness to co-create value with focal firms than symbolic GI behaviors. Thus, we posit:
Consumers are more willing to co-create value with a focal firm when they perceive its suppliers' GI to be substantive rather than symbolic.
2.3 Green sincerity perception
Sincere perception is consumers' subjective judgment of how much effort companies expend toward actions and motivations behind companies' behavior (Yoon et al., 2006). Green sincere perception refers to the consumers' evaluation of companies' sincerity in implementing environmentally responsible actions or making environmentally responsible commitments.
Suppliers' GI behavior effect on consumers' perception of focal firms' green sincerity is twofold. First, when consumers believe that suppliers actively address environmental pollution and their GI measures can effectively solve environmental problems, the chain liability effect will generate a higher green perception. GI behavior is an important manifestation of focal firms' commitment to sustainable development, environmental responsibility and environmental protection (Kraus et al., 2020). Therefore, appropriate and effective suppliers' GI behavior can enhance consumers' perception of a focal firm's green sincerity. Second, consumer preference for green products or services, such as energy-saving, environmental protection, organic and low-carbon, is consistently increasing (Loaiza-Ramírez et al., 2022). Suppliers implementing substantive GI can truly solve environmental problems and require higher efforts, and consumers' green sincere perception increases (Sora et al., 2014). Therefore, we propose:
The impact of suppliers' substantive (vs. symbolic) GI on consumers' willingness for value co-creation is mediated by green sincerity perception.
2.4 Green innovation proactiveness (GIP)
Scholars categorize GI behaviors into proactive and reactive behaviors (Chen et al., 2012). Proactive green innovation (PGI) involves proactively implanting new practices or manufacturing new products before competitors to reduce costs, seize opportunities, enter the market or gain competitive advantages. Reactive green innovation (RGI) involves complying with environmental regulations, adapting to stakeholder requirements, responding to changing circumstances or responding to challenges from competitors.
Proactive and reactive strategies have different impacts on consumers' willingness to co-create value (Xiao et al., 2020; Sahhar et al., 2021), and being proactive is integral to entrepreneurship (Brege and Kindstrm, 2020). Proactive firms take pre-emptive measures or launch new products and become leading competitors in the market (Kanovska and Tomaskova, 2020). They create positive consumption experiences for and word-of-mouth among consumers (Witell et al., 2011). Previous research indicates that motivation is the driving force behind behavior (Yan and Murray, 2023). PGI is an indicator of the motivation behind focal firms' implementation of GI activities (Cagliano et al., 2016) and a core element for evaluating focal firms' green sincerity. Concerning sincerity perception (Yoon et al., 2006), innovation type (substantive and symbolic) is a dimension measuring focal firms' GI efforts, while innovation proactiveness is a dimension measuring focal firms' motivation for GI. Therefore, we speculate that when innovation proactiveness is proactive, it reflects suppliers' original altruistic motivation behind their innovation behavior, leading to consumers' positive evaluations of focal firms' GSCM implementation regarding sincerity. Thus, despite the differences in substantive and symbolic GI efforts, consumers' perceptions of suppliers' altruistic motivation for GI will attenuate the differences in perceived sincerity resulting from the varying GI efforts and subsequently weaken the differences in willingness to co-create value. However, when innovation proactiveness is passive, despite the absence of the positive impact of suppliers' altruistic motivation for GI, reactive substantive innovation still solves environmental problems. Therefore, consumers still perceive higher green sincerity from focal firms with substantive innovations (see Figure 1).
Thereby, we posit:
The GIP of suppliers plays a moderating role in the impact of GI behavior on focal firms' consumer willingness for value co-creation.
When the GIP is proactive, regardless of the type of GI the supplier implements, there is no significant difference in the consumers' willingness to co-create value with focal firms.
When the GIP is reactive and suppliers implement substantive (vs. symbolic) GI, consumers have higher willingness to co-create value with focal firms.
We tested the hypothesis through four experiments. To increase the conclusions' robustness and generalizability, we used different product types and respondents in experiments 1a and 1b (chocolate and electric car), experiment 2 (electric car) and experiment 3 (logistic firm). We replicate the same test used for H1 with different experiments and scenarios, and further replicated experiment 1b with experiment 2. We simultaneously used different dependent variables (leave an email address vs. measure value co-creation intention). We aimed to verify the consistency between consumer intention and behavior.
3. Experiment 1a
In experiment 1a, to enhance the ecological validity of the experimental results, we used participants' real behavior as the dependent variable to verify the main effect. In virtual communities, community member interaction is the basis for value co-creation. Many firms require consumers to provide email addresses and ask whether they are willing to receive advertising information when registering for membership. As purchase intention is a form of value co-creation, consumers who accept this agreement are engaged in the co-creation process (Shi et al., 2022). Therefore, whether consumers give personal information can be treated as an index for consumers' willingness to co-create value with firms (Kumar, 2021; Yao et al., 2020). We considered whether participants were willing to give their emails to firms as a prediction indicator for whether they would participate in value co-creation.
3.1 Pre-test
The pre-test verified the effectiveness of the experimental stimuli. Referring to Berrone et al. (2009) and Tata and Prasad (2015), the participants were presented with information on the implementation of GI behaviors via media reports. Considering that the firm's own image or consumers' firm familiarity could interfere with the survey results, virtual brands and simulated scenarios were used in the test. In total, 40 participants were recruited from the MBA program at a comprehensive university and were randomly assigned to either symbolic innovation group A or substantive innovation group B. Group A were asked to read the experimental script for training the green awareness of the cocoa supplier (of the chocolate firm) for its managers and employees. Group B were asked to read the experimental script about the cocoa supplier (of the chocolate firm) setting up a carbon dioxide emission detector. Then, participants were asked to rate the supplier's GI behavior on the semantic difference scale (1 = symbolic green innovation behavior, 7 = substantive green innovation behavior). Scores for group A were significantly lower than those for group B (Msymbolic = 3.10 vs. Msubstantive = 6.00, t = 6.409, p < 0.001), and the mean scores of the two groups were far from the median of 4. The results indicated that the experimental stimulus successfully manipulated the GI behavior types.
3.2 Formal experiment
Experiment 1 adopted a 2 (supplier green innovation type: substantive vs. symbolic) by 1 between-subject factorial design. Through the Credamo, 106 participants were recruited. Six participants failed the attention test items, resulting in 100 valid samples. Each participant was paid 1 RMB as a reward. Sixty (60%) were females aged 18–65, and the average age was 29.19 (SD = 8.649) (see Table 1).
First, all participants were randomly assigned to group A or B, and the definitions and connotations of the two innovation types were explained. After the participants had randomly read a piece of news related to the GI types, they were asked whether they would support the firm when its suppliers conducted GI. The participants were told that if they were willing to support the firm and provide their email addresses, they would join the firm's virtual community and could provide timely feedback to the firm and communicate with other consumers.
3.3 Analysis of results
Among the 100 participants, 87 provided their email addresses (39 in group A, and 48 in group B). Using SPSS23.0, the behavior of participants with e-mail addresses was used as the dependent variable, and the innovation type was used as the independent variable. The chi-square test showed that, when the supplier conducted substantial GI, the proportion of consumers willing to support its focal firms was higher: 98% (48) versus 76.5% (39); Pearson χ2 (1) = 10.203, p<0.001. The independent sample t-test results showed that group B's value co-creation willingness was significantly higher than group A's (Msubstantive = 5.66 vs. Msymbolic = 5.31; t = −2.051, p = 0.043). Thus, consumers are more willing to participate in value co-creation with the focal firm when suppliers conduct substantive GIs, compared with symbolic ones. Hence, H1 is supported.
4. Experiment 1b
4.1 Pre-test
The pre-test verified the effectiveness of the experimental stimulus. Referring to Berrone et al. (2009) and Tata and Prasad (2015), participants received information about suppliers' GI implementation via media reports. Considering that the firm's image or consumers' firm familiarity could interfere with the survey results, this study referred to Walker and Wan (2012) and other similar research and adapted the experimental script using virtual brands and simulated scenarios. In total, 160 participants were recruited from the MBA program of a comprehensive university – 98 were women (61.3%); the average age was 28.54, SD = 6.71. Participants were randomly assigned to group A (substantive innovation) or group B (symbolic innovation). Group A participants read the experimental script developed about the battery supplier of electric vehicles – “green recycling battery technology” – and group B participants read the experimental script developed about the battery supplier of electric vehicles – “lights out for an hour.” Then, participants were asked to rate the substantive and symbolic degrees of the scripts through two items (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Group A's substantive score was significantly higher than group B's (MA = 6.2875 vs. MB = 3.0375, t = 17.528, p<0.001), and group B's symbolic score was significantly higher than group A's (MA = 3.0875 vs. MB = 6.0750, t = ﹣13.948, p<0.001), indicating that the experimental stimulus successfully manipulated the GI behavior type and could be used in the main experiment.
4.2 Formal experiment
Using Credamo, 290 participants were recruited to participate in the online experiment. Seven participants failed the attention test and 43 invalid samples were rejected. In all, there were 240 participants. Each participant was paid RMB 1 as a reward. Among them, 153 were women (63.75%); the average age was 29.26 (SD = 7.36), ranging from 15 to 57.
First, the definition and connotation of the two innovation types were explained to the participants, and all were randomly assigned to the substantive innovation, symbolic innovation or control group. The experimental materials of substantive innovation and symbolic innovation were consistent with the pre-test, and the control group read a paragraph introducing the firm, which did not include any content related to supplier GI. The participants were then asked to complete a scale that tested their willingness to participate in value co-creation. The willingness to co-create value scale is adapted from Yi and Gong (2013) and has 7 items, such as “I am willing to share my consumption experience with other consumers who buy products in this electric vehicle firm.” A 7-point Likert scale was used for all items. Finally, the participants provided demographic information.
4.3 Analysis of results
The scale reliability was analyzed. Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the results; Cronbach's α coefficient was used to test the reliability of each scale item. Cronbach's α of consumers' willingness to participate in value co-creation is 0.918, indicating that the scale has good reliability.
The variance analysis method was used to test the impact of the type of supplier GI on consumers' willingness to co-create value. The results show that the main effect of supplier GI type is significant (F (2, 237) = 38.944, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.318). The substantive GI group's willingness to participate in value co-creation (Msubstantive = 6.0125, SD = 0.53268) was significantly higher than the symbolic green innovation group's (Msymbolic = 4.6696, SD = 0.82789; p < 0.001) and the control group's (Mcontrol = 5.0125, SD = 1.07151; p < 0.001). The symbolic GI group's willingness to co-create value was significantly lower than the control group's (p = 0.01). This shows that consumers' willingness to participate in value co-creation with focal firms is higher with substantive GI than with symbolic GI of suppliers. The experimental results further support H1 (see Figure 2).
5. Experiment 2
Experiment 2 was a laboratory experiment aiming to test the influence of suppliers' GI types on the value co-creation willingness of firms' consumers and to verify the mediating role of green sincerity perception (i.e. to verify H1 and H2).
5.1 Pre-test
This experiment aimed to verify the effectiveness of the experimental stimuli, referring to Berrone et al. (2009) and Tata and Prasad (2015) and using media reports to offer information on the implementation of GI behaviors by corporate suppliers. It considered that the firm's image or consumers' firm familiarity could interfere with the survey results. This study referred to Walker and Wan (2012) and adapted the experimental script to test using virtual brands and simulated scenarios. Forty participants were recruited from the MBA program of a comprehensive university and were randomly assigned to groups A and B. Afterward, group A participants read the experimental script developed about the battery supplier for electric vehicles, “green recycling battery technology,” and group B participants read the “lights off for one hour” experimental script about the battery supplier. Then, the participants rated the supplier's GI behavior on the semantic difference scale (1 = symbolic green innovation behavior, 7 = substantive green innovation behavior). The results showed that group A's scores were significantly higher than group B's (Msubstantive = 6.00 vs. Msymbolic = 2.10, t = 6.239, p < 0.001), and the mean scores of the two groups were far from the median of 4. This indicates that the experimental stimulus can successfully manipulate GI behavior types and can be used for the main experiment.
5.2 Formal experiment
Through Credamo, 149 participants were recruited for the online experiment, and the final valid sample was 120 (five participants failed the attention test, and 24 invalid samples were excluded). Participants were randomly assigned to groups A and B. Each participant was paid 1 RMB as a reward. A total of 72 participants were female (60%); the average age of the participants was 29.21 (SD = 7.268) and the age range was 19–55.
First, the definitions and connotations of the two types of innovation were explained to the participants. The participants in group A read the experimental scripts. Afterward, they answered items about green sincerity perception and the value co-creation desire of focal firms. The green sincerity perception scale was adapted from Yoon et al. (2006) with 4 items, such as “The electric vehicle firm is truly devoted to environmental protection.” Based on Yi and Gong (2013), the value co-creation willingness scale was adapted according to the research situation. There are seven items in total, such as, “I am willing to share my consumption experience with other consumers who purchase products from this electric vehicle firm.” All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Finally, participants provided demographic information.
5.3 Analysis of results
Cronbach's α coefficient was used to test the reliability of each item on the scale. The results showed that the Cronbach's α coefficient of the green sincerity perception was 0.826, of consumers' willingness to participate in value co-creation was 0.872 and the revised item total correlation coefficient (CITC) of the scale items was greater than 0.5. This indicates that the reliability level of the scale was adequate.
A single-factor ANOVA analysis tested the main effect of the supplier's GI type on consumers' value co-creation willingness. The analysis results showed that the value co-creative willingness of the substantive GI group was significantly higher than that of the symbolic GI group (Msubstantive = 5.8810, SD = 0.62805; Msymbolic = 4.9667, SD = 0.86252; F (1,118) = 44.058, p = 0.000, partial η2 = 0.272). Thus, compared with suppliers' symbolic GI, when suppliers carry out substantive GIs, consumers were more willing to co-create value with focal firms. The experimental results further support H1.
To clarify the influence mechanism of suppliers' GI types on consumers' willingness for value co-creation, an intermediary test was conducted. According to the bootstrap method proposed by Hayes (2013), the process program in SPSS23.0 was used to test the mediating effect of sincerity perception. Model 4 and the sample size of 5,000 were selected. We used the supplier's GI types as the independent variable, the sincerity perception as the mediating variable and the consumption and the value co-creation as the dependent variables to analyze the mediating effect. The results showed that sincerity perception significantly impacted consumer value co-creation willingness (B = 0.3555, SE = 0.0672, p < 0.001). The indirect effect of suppliers' GI types on consumers' value co-creation willingness was 0.1197, 95% CI: [−0.6957, −0.2344] excluding 0, indicating that the indirect effect was significant. Contrastingly, the direct effect −0.7589, 95% CI: [−0.1602, −0.5220] did not include 0, indicating that it was also significant. Sincerity perception partially mediates the relationship between suppliers' GI types and consumers' willingness for value co-creation. Therefore, hypothesis H2 is verified (see Figure 3).
6. Experiment 3
Experiment 3 examines the moderating role of innovation proactiveness in the influence of supplier GI type on consumer value co-creation willingness. We introduce the innovation proactiveness and supplier GI type into the interaction term to establish a mediating model with moderating effect, then test the moderating effect of moderator variables on the direct effect and mediation effect (H3, H3a, H3b).
6.1 Pre-test
The pre-test draws on Berrone et al. (2009) and Tata and Prasad (2015) and uses media reports to show the participants’ information on the implementation of behaviors by corporate suppliers. Considering that the firm's own image or consumers' familiarity with the firm could interfere with the results of the survey, this study used virtual brands and simulated scenarios. Eighty participants were recruited from the MBA program at a comprehensive university and were randomly assigned to substantive innovation group A, symbolic innovation group B, proactive GI group C and reactive GI group D. The group A participants read the experimental script about inkless printing cartons for packaging suppliers of logistics firms, group B read about environmental protection training held by the packaging suppliers of logistics firms, group C read about the packaging suppliers of logistics firms who were actively invested in the development of GI technology and group D read about the packaging suppliers of logistics firms passively inviting environmental protection experts to conduct environmental protection training. After reading the experimental script, participants were asked to rate suppliers' GI behavior on a semantic difference scale (1 = symbolic green innovation, 7 = substantial green innovation; 1 = proactive green innovation, 7 = reactive green innovation innovation). Group A's score was significantly higher than group B's, and group C's score was also higher than group D's (Msymbolic = 2.10 vs. Msubstantive = 5.40, t = 6.779, p < 0.001; Mreactive = 3.10 vs. Mproactive = 5.80, t = 6.157, p < 0.001). The mean scores of both groups were far from the median of 4. The results indicate that the experimental materials successfully manipulated suppliers' GI behavior.
6.2 Formal experiment
Experiment 3 adopted a between-group design of 2 (supplier GI type: substantive vs. symbolic) × 2 (innovation proactiveness: reactive vs. proactive). A total of 237 participants were recruited through the Credamo for this online experiment. The final valid scale included 200 participants (14 participants failed the attention test, and 23 invalid samples were excluded). Each participant was paid 1 RMB as a reward. Among them, 125 were female (62.5%); the average age of the participants was 30.44 (SD = 8.765), and the age range was 19–66.
First, the participants were randomly assigned to groups A, B, C or D, and the definitions and connotations of suppliers' GI types and innovation drivers were explained to them. The four groups were presented with different experimental scenarios, referring to Chen et al. (2012) for the division of innovation proactiveness and simulating the design of the experimental script. Groups A, B, C and D were presented with scripts about suppliers' reactive engaging in substantive GI, proactive engaging in symbolic GI, proactive engaging in substantive GI and reactive engaging in GI, respectively. Then, participants completed surveys about the green sincerity perception and value co-creation willingness of focal firms; all items used a 7-point Likert scale. Finally, participants provided demographic information.
6.3 Analysis of results
The Cronbach's α coefficient of the green sincerity perception scale is 0.818, and that of consumers' willingness to participate in value co-creation is 0.874. Thus, the scale is reliable.
With suppliers' GI behavior and GI proactiveness as independent variables, and consumers' value co-creation intention as the dependent variable, ANOVA was used for analysis. The statistical results showed that the main effect of the supplier's GI behavior on consumers' value co-creation intention (F (1, 196) = 21.92, p < 0.001) and the main effect of GI proactiveness on value co-creation intention (F (1, 196) = 37.20, p < 0.001) were significant. Importantly, the interaction effect of supplier GI behavior and GI proactiveness was significant (F (1,196) = 7.17, p < 0.01). Further simple effect analysis showed that, for the proactive innovation group, suppliers' GI behavior (substantive, symbolic) did not significantly impact consumers' value co-creation intention (Msymbolic = 5.60, SD = 0.12; MSubstantive = 5.84, SD = 0.12; F (1,196) = 2.01, p > 0.05). Contrastingly, when suppliers were engaged in reactive GI, suppliers' symbolic innovation behavior had a lower value co-creation intention than substantive innovation (Msymbolic = 4.58, SD = 0.12; MSubstantive = 5.44, SD = 0.12; F (1, 196) = 27.07, p < 0.001) as shown in Figure 4.
Hypothesis 3 was further tested by moderated mediation analysis. We adopted Hayes's (2013) bootstrap method and tested the mediating effect of this study with the help of the Process plugin. Taking the supplier's GI type as the independent variable, consumers' value co-creative willingness as the dependent variable, green sincerity perception as the mediator and innovation proactiveness as the moderator variable, the bootstrap program was used with a sample size of 5000; the model was 8. Results showed that the moderated mediation effect determination coefficient was 0.1022, the 95% confidence interval did not contain 0 (LLCL = 0.0070, ULCL = 0.4050) and the moderated mediation effect was significant. When suppliers conduct proactive GI, the mediating effect of green sincerity perception is 0.0701, the 95% confidence interval contains 0 (LLCL = −0.1519, ULCL = 0.1285) and the mediating effect is insignificant. When suppliers conduct reactive GI, the mediating effect of green sincerity perception is 0.0750, the 95% confidence interval does not contain 0 (LLCL = −0.3591, ULCL = −0.0669) and the mediating effect is significant. Thus, the mediating effect of green sincerity perception on the relationship between suppliers' GI type and consumers' value co-creation willingness is moderated by innovation proactiveness, and there is a moderated mediating effect. Therefore, H3 is supported. Simultaneously, when suppliers carry out proactive GI, the value co-creation willingness of consumers of the firm is not significant. However, when suppliers execute reactive GI, the value co-creation willingness of consumers is higher when they engage in symbolic GI. Thus, H3a and H3b are verified.
7. Conclusions and implications
7.1 Conclusions
This study found that suppliers' green innovation behavior affects consumers' perceptions of focal firms' green sincerity through the chain liability effect because focal firms bear the responsibility of GMSCM. Consumers are more willing to co-create value with focal firms when suppliers conduct substantive GI rather than passively adopting innovative behavior or symbolic GI. Simultaneously, when suppliers initiate adopting GI, there is no significant difference in consumers' willingness to co-create with focal firms, regardless of whether the suppliers carry out substantive or symbolic GI.
7.2 Theoretical implications
First, this research expands the perspective of research on GI in supply chains. Previous research on GSCM has mostly focused on individual focal firms and examined the direct impact of their own GI efforts. Contrastingly, this study explores the indirect effects of supplier GI behavior on focal firms and their consumers from the perspective of multi-tier supply chain management, further validating the importance of chain responsibility effects. Our research findings indicate that suppliers' GI types influences consumers' willingness to co-create value with the focal firm. This is because, after acquiring information about supplier GI, consumers positively evaluate the focal firm's environmental responsibility efforts as a result of chain liability effects. Additionally, previous studies primarily examine the chain liability effects of suppliers' unsustainable behavior (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014), while we reveal that suppliers' sustainable behavior can also positively impact focal firms through chain liability effects.
Second, this research reveals the mechanism through which supplier GI affects consumers' willingness to co-create value with the focal firm. While previous research has found that the unsustainable behavior of supply chain members can influence consumers' attribution of responsibility and resistance behavior through “chain liability effects” (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014), the underlying mechanisms that influence consumer behavior have not been verified. This study employs a scenario-based experiment and explores the psychological mechanism through which supplier activities influence consumer behavior toward the focal firm regarding supply chain management, namely, consumers' green sincerity perception of the focal firm. The green sincerity perception is the conduit through which the “chain liability effects” of the green supply chain are transmitted to consumers of the focal firm and the antecedent for the emergence of the “green halo effect.” The higher the perception of green sincerity toward the focal firm, the higher the consumers' willingness for value co-creation. Furthermore, previous research indicates that individual firms engaging in GI can stimulate consumers' positive willingness for value co-creation (Martínez-Martínez et al., 2023). We extend the research scope from a single firm to the entire supply chain, examine the chain-mediated mechanism of supplier GI and find that the green sincerity perception toward the focal firm positively influences consumers' willingness for value co-creation through the halo effect.
Third, this study validates the boundary conditions of the impact of supplier GI activities on consumers' willingness for value co-creation with the focal firm, namely, supplier GIP, further enriching the literature on factors influencing green sincerity perception. Previous research suggests that external stakeholder pressure is a driving force for focal firms to implement sustainable development initiatives and has mainly focused on the impact of innovation types (substantive and symbolic) on focal firm performance (Huang et al., 2022; Ning et al., 2022). However, less attention is paid to the interaction between innovation types and innovation drivers (proactive and reactive). This study addresses this research gap and identifies that supplier innovation proactiveness moderates the impact of innovation types on consumers' green sincerity perception of a focal firm.
Fourth, this study reveals that supplier GI activities serve as antecedents to consumers' willingness for value co-creation. Previous research finds that focal firms' environmental responsibility behaviors positively influence consumers' product evaluations and purchase intentions (Xu et al., 2019). Studies also explore the antecedents of consumers' willingness for value co-creation, such as customer experience, social factors and electronic platform factors (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2022). However, they do not directly reveal the underlying mechanism through which focal firms' sustainable behaviors impact consumers' willingness for value co-creation, particularly from the perspective of supply chain management, and the transmission effect of suppliers' environmental responsibility behaviors. This study identifies that supplier GI behaviors influence consumers' evaluation of the focal firm's green responsibility, thereby altering consumers' willingness to engage in value co-creation through the halo effect. These research findings contribute to the literature on the relationship between GSCM and consumers' willingness for value co-creation.
7.3 Managerial implications
First, selecting suppliers who implement environmental protection behaviors is beneficial for enhancing focal firms' marketing performance. When engaging in GSCM, focal firms should assume environmental responsibility and monitor the environmental responsibility behaviors of their suppliers. Suppliers must be encouraged to adopt environmental protection measures in their manufacturing processes and avoid negative “chain liability effects” caused by unsustainable supplier behaviors. Prioritizing suppliers with GI awareness and behaviors, especially those engaged in substantive GI (e.g., investing in clean production technologies, widespread use of renewable energy, processing and reuse of waste gases or by-products), can help promote consumers' willingness for value co-creation with the focal firm through chain liability effects and the halo effect. This, subsequently, enhances marketing performance.
Second, in the process of multi-tier supply chain management, companies should educate and guide suppliers to proactively engage in GI, particularly proactive substantive innovation. This will help increase consumers' positive evaluation of suppliers' GI proactivity and effort, enhancing consumers' green sincerity perception of focal firms and fostering their willingness for value co-creation. Additionally, both suppliers and focal firms should timely release green development reports to notify consumers of their environmental protection efforts. For example, at the Zero Carbon Strategy Conference, CATL mentioned that it has pioneered using blockchain technology to trace raw materials and has established the industry's first zero-carbon battery factory. This is a prerequisite for consumers to make chain responsibility inferences and trigger the halo effect in their perceptions.
Third, it is important to emphasize consumers' role in GSCM. With increasing global consumer environmental awareness, consumers have higher environmental demands for the products they consume and play crucial roles in driving companies to implement sustainable development strategies. Consumers reward focal firms that assume environmental responsibilities through value co-creation. For example, consumers of BYD's new energy vehicles actively share purchase experiences and participate in new product ideation in virtual communities. Focal firms must strengthen the organizational connection between the supply chain management and marketing departments. Company managers must cultivate the skills to understand consumers, especially their expectations for environmental sustainability. From a supply chain management perspective, this can help achieve the dual objectives of enhancing a company's core competitiveness and creating customer value.
7.4 Limitations and future research
This study has three limitations. (1) We only examined the impact of suppliers' GI types and did not explore other supplier environmental responsibility behaviors (e.g., lack of environmental responsibility). In future research, the different effects of various supplier behaviors can be compared. (2) We focused on environmental events, but it may be equally interesting to explore negative social events. Further research can investigate consumers' views and reactions to negative supplier behaviors. (3) The products of the three experimental scenarios (chocolate, batteries and cartons) are very different, ranging from utilitarian to hedonistic, simple to complex and food to high-tech. These differences suggest that our findings are generalizable, but they may also generate the limitation of affecting consumer perceptions of supply chains. Future research can differentiate between different industries and further explore consumers’ expectations for different product supply chains.
Figures
Demographics
| Characteristics | Experiment 1a (N = 100) | Experiment 1b (N = 240) | Experiment 2 (N = 120) | Experiment 3 (N = 200) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | % | Frequency | % | Frequency | % | Frequency | % | |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Female | 60 | 60.0 | 152 | 63.3 | 72 | 60.0 | 125 | 62.5 |
| Male | 40 | 40.0 | 88 | 36.7 | 48 | 40.0 | 75 | 37.5 |
| Age | ||||||||
| 20 and below | 10 | 10.0 | 10 | 4.2 | 4 | 3.3 | 13 | 6.5 |
| 21–30 | 53 | 53.0 | 144 | 60.0 | 72 | 60.0 | 99 | 49.5 |
| 31–40 | 27 | 27.0 | 67 | 27.9 | 33 | 27.5 | 62 | 31.0 |
| 41 and above | 10 | 10.0 | 19 | 7.9 | 11 | 9.2 | 26 | 13.0 |
| Income (RMB) | ||||||||
| 1,000 and below | 18 | 18.0 | 7 | 2.9 | 4 | 3.3 | 8 | 4.0 |
| 1,001–1,500 | 21 | 21.0 | 15 | 6.3 | 18 | 15.0 | 16 | 8.0 |
| 1,501–2,000 | 60 | 60.0 | 28 | 11.7 | 17 | 14.2 | 34 | 17.0 |
| 2,001 and above | 1 | 1.0 | 190 | 79.2 | 81 | 67.5 | 142 | 71.0 |
| Education | ||||||||
| No high school/high school diploma | 1 | 1.0 | 6 | 2.5 | 5 | 4.2 | 16 | 8.0 |
| Associate degree | 17 | 17.0 | 24 | 10.0 | 26 | 21.7 | 33 | 16.5 |
| Bachelor's degree | 69 | 69.0 | 174 | 72.5 | 72 | 60.0 | 119 | 59.5 |
| Master's/doctoral degree | 13 | 13.0 | 36 | 15.0 | 17 | 14.2 | 32 | 16.0 |
Source(s): Created by author
Scenario material for experiment 1a
Symbolic green innovation:
A chocolate firm's suppliers have pledged to use only sustainably sourced cocoa powder in their chocolate production, beginning at the end of March. The supplier runs a green innovation program called “Cocoa Life.” The cocoa powder will be supplied through the Cocoa Life program, which aims to support sustainable cocoa production, improve the health, education, and welfare of local farmers, and train growers in green awareness. The firm also stated that it will continue to cooperate with the supplier, that the Cocoa Life logo will be displayed on all of its chocolate products before the end of the year and that it will use sustainable cocoa from the Cocoa Life program for its entire product line in the future.
Substantive green innovation:
A chocolate firm's suppliers have pledged to use only sustainably sourced cocoa powder in their chocolate production, beginning at the end of March. The supplier runs a green innovation program called “Cocoa Life.” Cocoa Life has invested tens of millions of green innovation funds into its business. It has installed carbon dioxide emission detectors in its factory to minimize emissions from processing. Its retail packaging is 100% plastic-free, reducing waste by 82%. The firm also stated that it will continue to cooperate with the supplier, that the Cocoa Life logo will be displayed on all chocolate products before the end of the year and that it will use sustainably supplied cocoa from the Cocoa Life program for its entire product line in the future.
Source: created by author.
Scenario material for experiment 1b
Symbolic green innovation:
Consumers have loved T Electric Car firm for many years because of their excellent car services, and the firm has a certain market influence in the global automotive industry. Since its establishment, T firm has used a specific vehicle battery supplier that has always regarded green innovation to be the cornerstone of its sustainable development. For several years, part of the supplier's profits has been used to create a green public welfare fund. The supplier recently launched an annual “lights off for one hour” at T firm's industrial development park, hoping to convey the concept that turning off the lights for one hour would help protect the green earth. Recently, T firm decided to continue to cooperate with this supplier and plans to purchase up to 10,000 batteries from them. The person in charge of T firm said the firm considers environmental protection to be its social responsibility, and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Substantive green innovation:
Consumers have loved T Electric Car firm for many years because of their excellent car services, and the firm has a certain market influence in the global automotive industry. Since its establishment, T firm has used a vehicle battery supplier that has always regarded green innovation to be a cornerstone of its sustainable development. The supplier is now using an innovation-driven strategy to better support the goal of sustainable development. Over the past few years, it has invested more than 10 million yuan in environmental protection funds to help effectively solve the pollution caused by the battery recycling process. The supplier has established a dedicated business department that is responsible for the research and development of “battery recycling and reprocessing” technology. Recently, T firm decided to continue to cooperate with this supplier and plans to purchase up to 10,000 batteries from them. The person in charge of T firm said the firm considers environmental protection to be its social responsibility, and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
The control group
Consumers have loved T Electric Car firm for many years because of their excellent car services, and the firm has a certain market influence in the global automotive industry. Since its establishment, T firm has used a vehicle battery supplier that has always regarded green innovation as the cornerstone of its sustainable development. Recently, T firm decided to continue to cooperate with this supplier and plans to purchase up to 10,000 batteries from them. The person in charge of T firm said that the firm considers environmental protection to be its social responsibility, and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Source: created by author.
Scenario material for experiment 2
Symbolic green innovation:
Consumers have loved T Electric Car firm for many years because of their excellent car services, and the firm has a certain market influence in the global automotive industry. Since its establishment, T firm has used a vehicle battery supplier that has always regarded green innovation as the cornerstone of its sustainable development. For several years, some of the supplier's profits have been used to create a green public welfare fund. The supplier recently launched their annual “lights off for one hour” ceremony in the firm's industrial development park, hoping to convey the environmental protection proposition of “lights off for one hour to protect the green earth” to the public. Recently, T firm decided to continue to cooperate with this supplier and plans to purchase up to 10,000 batteries from them. The person in charge of T firm said that the firm considers environmental protection to be its social responsibility and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Substantive green innovation:
Consumers have loved T Electric Car firm for many years because of their excellent car services, and the firm has a certain market influence in the global automotive industry. Since its establishment, T firm has used a vehicle battery supplier that has always regarded green innovation as the cornerstone of its sustainable development. The supplier is now using an innovation-driven strategy to better support the goal of sustainable development. Over the past few years, it has invested more than 10mn yuan in environmental protection funds to help effectively solve the pollution caused by the battery recycling process. The supplier has established a dedicated business department that is responsible for the research and development of “battery recycling and reprocessing” technology. Recently, T firm decided to continue to cooperate with this supplier and plans to purchase up to 10,000 batteries from them. The person in charge of T firm said that the firm considers environmental protection to be its social responsibility and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Source: created by author.
Scenario material for experiment 3
Symbolic green innovation, Proactive:
According to news reports, the continuing advancement of the “sustainable development” concept in the 21st century has created a new era in logistics and the transportation industry. Green, low-carbon and high-efficiency have become the new goals of industry development. Facing the development concept that “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets,” a logistic firm's packaging supplier is actively committed to continuously investing resources in green innovation. The supplier successfully seized an available opportunity and invited professional environmental protection trainers to hold special monthly trainings on environmental protection. The training content focuses on aspects of and systems for common sense environmental protection. Through this training, the supplier hopes to strengthen the employees' environmental protection awareness, improve the firm's overall green management level and try to realize the desire for green logistics. Recently, the logistics firm decided to continue to cooperate with the supplier. The person in charge of the logistics firm told reporters that environmental protection is a social responsibility for the firm and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Substantive green innovation, reactive:
According to news reports, the continuing advancement of the “sustainable development” concept in the 21st century has created a new era in logistics and the transportation industry. Green, low-carbon and high-efficiency have become the new goals of industry development. Faced with significant development opportunities provided by environmentally friendly express packaging, the packaging supplier of a logistics firm passively responds to the requirements of relevant environmental regulations. Using inkless printing cartons (i.e. laser cartons) in the workshop and replacing traditional ink printing with laser engraving technology can save 100% of printing ink consumption, achieve green environmental protection and create high economic value. The supplier believes that the arrival of the era of green and environmental protection innovation provides not only new opportunities for the logistics industry but, more importantly, the realization of the desire for green logistics. Recently, the logistics firm decided to continue to cooperate with the supplier. The person in charge of the logistics firm told reporters that environmental protection is a social responsibility for the firm and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Substantive green innovation, proactive:
According to news reports, the continuing advancement of the “sustainable development” concept in the 21st century has created a new era in logistics and the transportation industry. Green, low-carbon and high-efficiency have become the new goals of industry development. Faced with the huge development opportunities of environmentally friendly express packaging, the packaging supplier of a logistics firm is actively committed to continuously investing resources in green innovation to reduce costs. Using inkless printing cartons (i.e. laser cartons) in the workshop and replacing traditional ink printing with laser engraving technology can save 100% of printing ink consumption, achieve green environmental protection and create high economic value. The supplier believes that the arrival of the era of green and environmental protection innovation provides not only new opportunities for the logistics industry but, more importantly, the realization of the desire for green logistics. Recently, the logistics firm decided to continue to cooperate with the supplier. The person in charge of the logistics firm told reporters that environmental protection is a social responsibility for the firm and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Symbolic green innovation, reactive:
According to news reports, the continuing advancement of the “sustainable development” concept in the 21st century has created a new era in logistics and the transportation industry. Green, low-carbon and high-efficiency have become the new goals of industry development. Facing the development concept of “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets,” the packaging supplier of a logistics firm, to meet the requirements of relevant environmental regulations, passively responds to the changing environment. The firm decided to invite professional environmental protection trainers to hold special green knowledge training once a month. The training content focuses on aspects of and systems for common sense environmental protection. Through this training, the supplier hopes to strengthen the employees' environmental protection awareness, improve the firm's overall green management level and try to realize the desire for green logistics. Recently, the logistics firm decided to continue to cooperate with the supplier. The person in charge of the logistics firm told reporters that environmental protection is a social responsibility for the firm and that they would continue to cooperate with this supplier.
Source: created by author.
Measurement scales
Sincerity perception (Yoon et al., 2006)
This firm is truly committed to environmental protection.
The firm aims to create a good corporate image.
This firm is genuinely concerned about environmental issues.
The firm aims to realize the economic benefits of the firm.
Willingness for value co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013)
I am willing to advise the firm on innovative ideas and needs related to new product development.
I am willing to help other customers who purchase products from this firm to solve problems and provide feedback to the firm on problems with existing products.
I am willing to share my consumption experience with other customers who purchase products from this firm.
I would recommend this product to friends and relatives.
I am willing to be patient if there is an error in delivering the product.
I am willing to accommodate if I need to wait longer than I normally expect.
If I have better ideas on how to improve the service, I will let the firm know.
References
Ammer, M.A., Aliedan, M.M. and Alyahya, M.A. (2020), “Do corporate environmental sustainability practices influence firm value? The role of independent directors: evidence from Saudi Arabia”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 22, p. 9768, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Berrone, P. and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (2009), “Environmental performance and executive compensation: an integrated agency-institutional perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 103-126, doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.36461950.
Berrone, P., Gelabert, L. and Fosfuri, A. (2009), “The impact of symbolic and substantive actions on environmental legitimacy”, working paper (WP-778), IESE Business School, University of Navarra, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A. and Gelabert, L. (2017), “Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 363-379, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004), “Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives”, California Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 9-24, doi: 10.2307/41166284.
Brege, H. and Kindstrm, D. (2020), “Exploring proactive market strategies - sciencedirect”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 84, pp. 75-88.
Burke, P.F., Dowling, G. and Wei, E. (2019), “The relative impact of corporate reputation on consumer choice: beyond a halo effect”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 34 Nos 13-14, pp. 1227-1257, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2018.1546765.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F.F. and Worley, C.G. (2016), “A pathway towards truly sustainable food supply chains: balancing motivation, strategy, and impact”, in Organizing Supply Chain Processes for Sustainable Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 5, pp. 287-318.
Cambra-Fierro, J., Gao, L.X., Melero-Polo, I. and Sese, F.J. (2019), “What drives consumers' active participation in the online channel? Customer equity, experience quality, and relationship proneness”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 35, 100855, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100855.
Carbone, V., Moatti, V., Schoenherr, T. and Gavirneni, S. (2019), “From green to good supply chains: halo effect between environmental and social responsibility”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 839-860, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Chen, Y., Chang, C. and Wu, F. (2012), “Origins of green innovations: the differences between proactive and reactive green innovations”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 368-398, doi: 10.1108/00251741211216197.
Dou, Y., Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2018), “Green multi-tier supply chain management: an enabler investigation”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 95-107, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Duan, Y.J., Hofer, C. and Aloysius, J.A. (2021), “Consumers care and firms should too: on the benefits of disclosing supplier monitoring activities”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 360-381, doi: 10.1002/joom.1129.
Fan, D., Xiao, C., Zhang, X. and Guo, Y. (2021), “Gaining customer satisfaction through sustainable supplier development: the role of firm reputation and marketing communication”, Transportation Research: Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 154, 102453, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2021.102453.
Gilley, K.M., Worrell, D.L., Davidson, W.N., El-Jelly, A., Iii, D. and El-Jelly, A. (2000), “Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: the differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1199-1216, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Hartmann, J. and Moeller, S. (2014), “Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier type”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 281-294, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2014.01.005.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
Huang, L., Song, J.S. and Swinney, R. (2022), “Managing social responsibility in multitier supply chains”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Jung, H., Bae, J. and Kim, H. (2022), “The effect of corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility: why company size matters based on consumers' need for self-expression”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, p. 154, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.024.
Kanovska, L. and Tomaskova, E. (2020), “The impact of innovation flexibility on innovation performance in small and medium manufacturing companies”, 8th International Conference on Innovation Management, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability (IMES), Prague, pp. 245-257.
Kraus, S., Rehman, S.U. and García, F.J.S. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: the mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 160, 120262, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Kumar, A. (2021), “An empirical examination of the effects of design elements of email newsletters on consumers' email responses and their purchase”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 58, 102349, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102349.
Lanero, A., Vazquez, J.L. and Sahelices-Pinto, C. (2021), “Halo effect and source credibility in the evaluation of food products identified by third-party certified eco-labels: can information prevent biased inferences?”, Foods, Vol. 10 No. 11, p. 2512, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Lazzarini, G.A., Zimmermann, J., Visschers, V.H.M. and Siegrist, M. (2016), “Does environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers' perception of protein products”, Appetite, Vol. 105, pp. 663-673, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Loaiza-Ramírez, J.P., Moreno-Mantilla, C.E. and Reimer, T. (2022), “Do consumers care about companies' efforts in greening supply chains? Analyzing the role of protected values and the halo effect in product evaluation”, Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, Vol. 3, 100027, doi: 10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100027.
Martínez-Martínez, A., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Garcia-Perez, A. and De Valon, T. (2023), “Active listening to customers: eco-innovation through value co-creation in the textile industry”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1810-1829, doi: 10.1108/JKM-04-2022-0309.
Nguyen, N.B.T., Lin, G.H. and Dang, T.T. (2021), “A two phase integrated fuzzy decision-making framework for green supplier selection in the coffee bean supply chain”, Mathematics, Vol. 9 No. 16, p. 1923, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Ning, S., Jie, X. and Li, X. (2022), “Institutional pressures and corporate green innovation; Empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises”, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 231-243, doi: 10.15244/pjoes/139926.
Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977), “The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 250-256, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250.
Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V.N. and Naidoo, P. (2015), “Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 175, pp. 252-259, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Sahhar, Y., Loohuis, R. and Henseler, J. (2021), “Towards a circumplex typology of customer service experience management practices: a dyadic perspective”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 366-395, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Schuldt, J.P., Muller, D. and Schwarz, N. (2012), “The ‘fair trade’ effect: health halos from social ethics claims”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 581-589, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Shi, Y., Zheng, J. and Liang, M. (2022), “The influence of online social value co-creation activity on consumer purchase intention: an experimental study”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Sora, K., Ferguson, T. and Ann, M. (2014), “Public expectations of CSR communication: what and how to communicate CSR”, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3.
Szabo, S. and Webster, J. (2021), “Perceived greenwashing: the effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 171, pp. 719-739, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Taherdoost, H. and Brard, A. (2019), “Analyzing the process of supplier selection criteria and methods”, Procedia Manufacturing 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering (INTER-ENG), Tirgu Mures, Vol. 32, pp. 1024-1034, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (2015), “CSR communication: an impression management perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 132 No. 4, pp. 765-778, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Torelli, R., Balluchi, F. and Lazzini, A. (2020), “Greenwashing and environmental communication: effects on stakeholders' perceptions”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 407-421, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Valor, C., Antonetti, P. and Zasuwa, G. (2022), “Corporate social irresponsibility and consumer punishment: a systematic review and research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 144, pp. 1218-1233, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Walker, K. and Wan, F. (2012), “The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 227-242, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4.
Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and Löfgren, M. (2011), “Idea generation: customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Wu, Y., Zhang, K. and Xie, J. (2020), “Bad greenwashing, good greenwashing: corporate social responsibility and information transparency”, Management Science, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 2801-3294, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Xiao, M., Ma, Q. and Li, M. (2020), “The impact of customer resources on customer value in co-creation: the multiple mediating effects”, Journal of Contemporary Marketing Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 33-56, doi: 10.1108/JCMARS-08-2019-0032.
Xu, L., Prybutok, V. and Blankson, C. (2019), “An environmental awareness purchasing intention model”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 367-381, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Yan, L. and Murray, K.B. (2023), “The motivational dynamics of arousal and values in promoting sustainable behavior: a cognitive energetics perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 679-699.
Yao, Q., Wu, Z., Zhang, C. and Fu, G. (2020), “Effect of power on conspicuous prosocial behavior”, Acta Psychologica Sinica, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1421-1435, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), “Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1279-1284, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z. and Schwarz, N. (2006), “The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 377-390, doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9.
Zeng, S.H., Qin, Y.J. and Zeng, G.W. (2019), “Impact of corporate environmental responsibility on investment efficiency: the moderating roles of the institutional environment and consumer environmental awareness”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 17, doi: 10.3390/su11174512.
Zhu, Y.M., Wei, Y., Zhou, Z. and Jiang, H. (2022), “Consumers' continuous use intention of O2O e-commerce platform on community: a value co-creation perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 3, p. 1666, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
References (Appendix)
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z. and Schwarz, N. (2006), “The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 377-390, doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), “Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1279-1284, doi: 10.3390/su12229768.
Acknowledgements
The work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (72172021), National Natural Science Foundation of China (71772021), Humanities and Social Sciences of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (22SKGH181), The Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (KJQN202300736) and The State Scholarship Fund by China (CSC202008500031).