To What Extent Do You Personally Make Purchasing Choices? ✓ Solved

To what extent do you personally make purchasing choices bas

To what extent do you personally make purchasing choices based on a company's social responsibility, brand, or reputation? Explain what motivates you to make these choices. Explain your opinion. Respond to the classmate's post: I don't go to a store with a conscious mind of their social responsibility or reputation, but it's part of my final decision before I purchase. For example, I used to love Denny's but after racial discrimination incidents I no longer eat there. I sometimes buy Jordan shoes because of the brand even if I don't personally prefer them. I download music on Apple Music before hearing it because of the artist's reputation. We may not consciously think about it, but we do. If a label has a bad name I choose not to purchase. I didn't wear Tommy Hilfiger for over 20 years because of racist remarks, though he makes nice clothes. I like companies with a good name, personality, and quality products.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Consumer decisions are influenced by a combination of personal values, perceived corporate reputation, practical constraints, and social signaling. This paper explains the extent to which I personally let corporate social responsibility (CSR), brand, and reputation shape my purchases, what motivates those choices, and a direct response to the classmate’s reflections about Denny’s, Jordan, Apple Music, and Tommy Hilfiger. The discussion draws on consumer behavior research and CSR literature to explain behavior patterns such as selective boycotts, brand loyalty, and the attitude–behavior gap (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Auger et al., 2003).

Personal Extent of CSR and Reputation Influence

In my own purchasing behavior, CSR and reputation play a meaningful but not exclusive role. I weigh three primary factors: ethical alignment, product utility/quality, and cost/availability. When a company’s CSR practices or public reputation directly conflict with my core values—especially around human rights, discrimination, or environmental harm—I tend to avoid that company if reasonable alternatives exist (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Fombrun, 1996). For less severe or ambiguous cases, CSR and reputation become tie-breakers rather than determinants: I will pay slightly more or choose a different brand when price and performance are comparable (Auger et al., 2003).

Motivations Behind These Choices

Three motivations drive these choices:

  • Ethical consistency and identity signaling: Purchasing in line with personal ethics affirms identity and sends social signals to peers (Bhattacharya, Korschun & Sen, 2009). Consumers often use brand choices to express values publicly.
  • Risk management and trust: A strong reputation reduces perceived transaction risk; CSR activities can serve as signals of long-term viability and reliability (Fombrun, 1996; Porter & Kramer, 2006).
  • Pragmatism and scarcity of alternatives: Convenience, price, and product performance limit the extent of ethical consumption. When desirable alternatives are unavailable or prohibitively expensive, reputational concerns take a back seat (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).

These motivations reflect the broader consumer reality documented in surveys: many consumers express willingness to support responsible companies, but a smaller share consistently acts on that intention when trade-offs exist (Nielsen, 2015; Cone Communications, 2017).

Explaining the Classmate’s Post

The classmate’s account aligns with common patterns in consumer behavior: initial loyalties affected by reputational shocks, selective brand indulgence, and automatic trust in artist or brand reputations. Stopping patronage of Denny’s after publicized discrimination shows a values-driven boycott—an emotional and moral reaction that is straightforward when the offense is salient and alternatives are nearby (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001).

The continued purchase of Jordan despite personal dislike illustrates brand-based heuristics and the social value of certain brands; prestige brands can override personal preference because they confer status or align with social identity (Fombrun, 1996; Bhattacharya et al., 2009). Downloading music because an artist’s reputation suggests quality is an information shortcut—consumers often rely on reputation as a proxy for unknown product attributes (Auger et al., 2003).

Finally, the long-term avoidance of Tommy Hilfiger after racist remarks represents value-based consistency and reputational sanctions. This is typical when consumers attach moral significance to a brand’s founder or spokesperson and perceive no convincing remediation (Edelman Trust, 2020).

Attitude–Behavior Gap and Moral Complexity

Research shows a persistent gap between expressed concern for CSR and actual purchase behavior due to competing motives (Auger et al., 2003; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Factors such as price sensitivity, product availability, and habitual purchasing can lead consumers to act inconsistently with stated values. Additionally, moral licensing and compartmentalization explain why one might boycott a restaurant yet buy a popular brand for status: consumers process different categories of purchases through different moral and social lenses (Bhattacharya et al., 2009).

Practical Implications for Consumers and Companies

For consumers: be realistic about constraints and prioritize issues where your spending has leverage. For example, favoring ethically sourced food or sustainable apparel where alternatives are affordable is an effective strategy (Nielsen, 2015).

For companies: transparent, verifiable CSR efforts and consistent reputation management matter. Firms that integrate social initiatives into core strategy reduce skepticism and build trust (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Public apologies and genuine remediation after reputational breaches can partially restore consumer trust, but sustained behavioral change and accountability are required (Fombrun, 1996).

Conclusion

In summary, CSR and reputation influence my purchases to a significant extent when ethical issues are clear and alternatives exist; otherwise, they act as important but secondary considerations. The classmate’s experiences—boycotting Denny’s, selectively buying Jordans, trusting artist reputations, and avoiding Tommy Hilfiger—mirror well-established patterns in consumer behavior, including reputation heuristics and the attitude–behavior gap (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Auger et al., 2003). Both consumers and firms can use these insights to make more intentional choices: consumers by prioritizing impact areas, and companies by aligning CSR with strategy and maintaining transparent accountability (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

References

  • Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281–304.
  • Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through responsible corporate social behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16.
  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
  • Edelman. (2020). Edelman Trust Barometer 2020. Edelman Intelligence.
  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press.
  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
  • Nielsen. (2015). The Sustainability Imperative: New insights on consumer expectations. Nielsen Global Corporate Sustainability Report.
  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
  • Cone Communications. (2017). Cone Communications CSR Study: Consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility.

Related Assignments