Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113694
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
When Big Is Less than Small: Why dominant brands lack authenticity in
their sustainability initiatives
Karen Anne Wallach a, *, Deidre Popovich b
a
College of Business, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35899, United States
b
Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, 703 Flint Ave, Lubbock, TX 79409, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Brands are responding to the increasing importance that consumers and society have placed on sustainable
Sustainability practices and products. In the current research, the authors investigate the unique challenges of dominant brands
Branding in the marketplace related to sustainability. We demonstrate that consumer assessments of sustainability ini
Brand size
tiatives lead to perceptions of inauthenticity in dominant brands. We argue this disadvantage is tied to the
Authenticity
Eco-friendly
inherent conflict between sustainability initiatives, which are focused on “taking less,” and the prevailing
measure of success in business, which is “making more.” Within this paradox, the challenge of a dominant brand
becomes further amplified as the brand is perceived as being larger in size and more profit centric. Seven studies,
including a field experiment on Facebook, document this effect and provide practical implications for brands to
help alleviate these challenges with increased brand commitment, including third-party certification.
Marketing efforts featuring sustainability are nearly ubiquitous, with of these very different brands have encountered challenges with their
65% of sales coming from brands engaging in sustainability initiatives sustainability efforts; this study investigates the role of their status as
(Nielsen, 2018). In addition to new brands that have emerged with a dominant brands in their respective categories.
primary focus on environmentalism, dominant (i.e., large/big) brands Despite their dominance, small brands are chipping away at such
are feeling pressure to engage in sustainability initiatives. For instance, brands, likely because of consumers’ concerns about sustainability.
the dominant beverage company, Coca-Cola, launched its sustainability Large firms have incorporated sustainability issues into their boardroom
program “World Without Waste,” which emphasizes recycling and agendas and innovation pipelines, yet $22 billion in sales transferred
plant-based materials (“Coca-Cola WWW,” 2018a,b). The dominant from large to small brands between 2011 and 2016 (Bokkerink et al.,
retail brand, Amazon, introduced its Climate Pledge program, including 2017; Daneshkhu, 2018; Hopkins et al., 2011; Trudel & Cotte, 2009).
the Climate Pledge friendly label, carbon reduction efforts, and electric Sustainable products are a key source of revenue growth—50 % of
delivery vehicles (“Amazon Pledge,” 2015). The dominant shoe brand, consumer packaged goods growth came from sustainability marketed
Nike, launched an environmentally friendly shoe called “Considered,” products, 90 % of categories saw such products outperform the overall
which was designed with sustainable materials; it won several design product category, and sustainable products grew five times faster than
awards (Nike Inc, 2009). conventional products from 2013 to 2018 (Whelan & Kronthal-Sacco,
While 50% of growth between 2013 and 2018 came from 2019).
sustainability-marketed products (Stern, 2019), consumers are more This paper examines the hypothesis that consumers have lay theories
receptive to certain efforts than others. In a recent study of almost 35, about dominant brands that reduce the authenticity and appeal of sus
000 Americans, only 10% think Coca-Cola is doing enough to address tainable offerings they introduce. We demonstrate this by conceptual
environmental concerns (Bandoim, 2020). There have been protests on izing dominance empirically with large (versus small) brands in a series
five continents and 34 countries have banded in the “Make Amazon Pay” of experiments across multiple categories. Additionally, we propose and
campaign, which is demanding, among other things, that Amazon pay test the idea that consumer perceptions of profit orientation and
for its emissions (Sandle, 2020). Within 12 months of its launch, Nike authenticity have a strong role in explaining why consumers respond
“Considered” was discontinued due to low sales (Jana, 2009). All three less favorably to dominant brands with their sustainability intentions.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.A. Wallach), [email protected] (D. Popovich).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113694
Received 26 October 2021; Received in revised form 16 January 2023; Accepted 18 January 2023
Available online 27 January 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
K.A. Wallach and D. Popovich Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113694
We further identify two boundary conditions that may ameliorate the propose that the paradox between profitability and sustainability is
authenticity deficit and conclude with a discussion of results, implica particularly salient when consumers perceive a brand as dominant,
tions for marketing and society, and future directions. which negatively impacts both authenticity and consumer support.
1. Theoretical background
1.1. The role of brand dominance
Big brands may be successful in their respective categories, but they
tend to face challenges with consumers as they launch sustainability Consumers form associations about brands. Those associations
efforts. Research has shown that a central feature of authenticity is a include how consumers think and feel about a brand and how those
perceived motive beyond money and profits (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). inferences impact actions such as consideration and purchase. Brand
Thus, Coca-Cola, Amazon, and Nike’s largesse of profitability may not be size is an important consideration—brands are dominant when they are
congruent with the more socially involved motivations expected of more frequently selected because they attract many supporters (Wood,
sustainability. Many big brands face similar challenges as they try to 2000). Dominant brands also tend to be acknowledged as quality leaders
introduce sustainable products.Authenticity increasingly plays a role in in the category (Punj & Moon, 2002). Past research has used the terms
consumer decision-making. Indeed, 90% of consumers say authenticity “dominant” and “large” interchangeably to describe brand size (e.g.,
matters when deciding what brands to support (DeGruttola, 2019). Keller, 2006; Paharia, Avery, & Keinan, 2014). Often, large, dominant
However, while authenticity is one of the most prevalent buzzwords for brands are conceptualized as being big, national brands who are
managers and academics (e.g., Becker et al., 2019; Morhart et al., 2015), competing against small, underdog brands (e.g., Aaker, 2020; Hoch &
additional empirical research is needed to examine the relationship Deighton, 1989). Thus, the terms dominant, large, and big are often used
between authenticity and sustainability more fully. to describe a brand with substantial size and to directly compare it with
Sustainability is “development that meets the needs of the present brands that are smaller in size. In the current research, we will similarly
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their use these synonymous terms. Furthermore, there are many reasons to
own needs,” according to a widely used definition from the Brundtland believe the dominant brand, given its resource and sales advantage,
Report (WCED, 1987, p.24). From a marketing standpoint, sustainability would succeed when introducing a new sustainable product.
is typically viewed as initiatives related to the product itself (i.e., recy Much research supports the notion that consumers generally hold
clability) and the process by which it was produced (i.e., materials or positive beliefs and attitudes towards brands they perceive as big or
resources used to make the product; Gielens et al., 2018). As such, dominant in a category (Carpenter & Nakamoto, 1989; Kamins et al.,
sustainability initiatives are typically focused on product creation and 2003). This work demonstrates a generally positive view for brand ex
consumer response to these products. tensions from dominant brands (Herr et al., 1996), shows that con
Consumers often wish to engage in more sustainable, responsible, sumers often attribute brand dominance to higher quality (Barwise &
and mindful consumption practices (Lim, 2017). Several studies have Ehrenberg, 1985; Castleberry & Ehrenberg, 1990; Hellofs & Jacobson,
examined when and why environmentally friendly products may be 1999), and indicates that consumers tend to experience lower risk per
more appealing to consumers, such as when environmentalism is part of ceptions and psychological benefits with dominant brands (Kamins
a consumer’s identity (e.g., Olsen et al., 2014; Peattie, 2010). Consumers et al., 2003). Brand dominance can minimize failure, enable brands to
may also incorporate sustainability concerns into their buying behavior enter new categories more successfully, and dictate which attributes
when they gain a sense that a company’s efforts are effective at creating other brands must have in the category (Carpenter & Nakamoto, 1990).
environmental change (Calderon-Monge, Paston-Sanz, & Garcia, 2020). However, consumer perceptions of brand dominance can be mixed.
When companies give consumers more information about the environ A small brand will often be considered more positively when directly
mental impact of a product, consumers tend to see this as a positive. compared to a large brand (Kalra & Goodstein, 1998; Paharia et al.,
Other studies have examined consumer distrust of environmental 2014; Pechmann & Stewart, 1990). Consumers also tend to identify with
efforts. Greenwashing occurs when a firm engages in poor environ underdogs, and thus a small brand that provides a brand biography of
mental performance while misleading stakeholders via positive overcoming odds or external disadvantage may win consumer favor
communication about its environmental efforts (de Freitas Netto et al., (Paharia et al., 2011; Paharia et al., 2014).
2020). When a brand signals its sustainability efforts, this signal must be Hydock et al. (2020) show that large companies tend to lose market
sufficiently observable, and the motives must be clear. Observable and share when they engage in activism. However, sustainability efforts are
clear communication can help alleviate concerns or skepticism that the unlikely to show the same pattern. Activism on divisive issues hurts
brand is engaging in greenwashing rather than legitimate, costly efforts market share because brands with large market share are likely to lose
(Cowan & Guzman, 2020). misaligned consumers, while smaller brands tend to gain a net positive
Building on prior research, we focus the current research on the role number of aligned new consumers. Our proposed “dominant disadvan
of brand dominance in the marketplace and its impact on consumer tage” effect does not depend on market share assumptions or shifts.
perceptions of the authenticity of sustainability efforts. We extend the Consumers can appreciate a firm’s sustainability efforts independent of
existing sustainability and greenwashing literature by examining how their own alignment with the firm’s overall values. Their perceptions of
consumers evaluate claims made by firms and why large firms may sustainability efforts are shaped by the perceived authenticity of these
struggle more than small firms to convince consumers of their sincerity. efforts.
We argue that the cause is consumers’ association of large brands with Overall, much of the literature indicates brand dominance generally
profit centricity (Baron et al., 2006; Bhattacharjee et al., 2017). Large enhances consumer perceptions. The negative aspects of brand domi
brands tend to make the profit motive more salient, resulting in sus nance tend to be exposed mainly when there is a direct reference to
tainability efforts which are viewed as less authentic. brand size within the category, in comparative situations where a
While consumers often recognize businesses’ need for profitability, competitive threat is made salient, or when a company’s values mis-
they tend to see profit-seeking motives as conflicting with beneficial align with those of the consumer. We theorize that a dominant, large
outcomes for society. This creates a paradox based on the rationale that brand seeking to convince consumers of their sincerity in sustainable
profit-seeking as a motive is regarded as “fundamentally incompatible efforts will encounter a disadvantage linked to its size and associated
with social good” (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017, p.2). Thus, a conflict traits, hurting consumer support, relative to a small brand. We propose
emerges from the prevailing measure of success in business related to this effect occurs regardless of whether competition is directly stated.
“making more” (i.e., more profit, production) against the “taking less” (i. Instead, it is related primarily to the incongruence between the firms’
e., less energy, chemicals, materials) approach to sustainability. We own profit and sustainability efforts. Stated formally,
2
H1: Consumer support is lower for large (vs small) brands when the (van Rekom, Go, & Calter, 2014). Similarly, when a company has
initiative is sustainability-focused (vs non-sustainability-focused). established positive service perceptions in the market, consumers view
its sustainability initiatives more positively (Brockhaus et al., 2017). We
argue that larger companies engaging in sustainability tend to have a
1.2. The challenge of authenticity with profitability larger authenticity gap than smaller firms because profit-seeking
behavior is more out of sync with caring for the planet than being a
When consumers evaluate sustainability initiatives, we theorize that dominant brand. In other words, consumers may have less trust when
the traits associated with being “big” as the dominant brand may in large companies make green claims, particularly given the existence of
crease perceived profit centricity, predisposing consumers to question greenwashing (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020).
authenticity. The current research focuses on authenticity as consisting We propose that the size of a brand may work against its ability to
of transparency and consistency.1 Becker et al. (2019) define authen appear authentic regarding sustainability. This authenticity deficit is
ticity as being genuine, real, and true (i.e., transparency). Spiggle et al. based on the perceived conflict of profit and societal good, which are
(2012) define authenticity as including the actions of honoring brand critical components of authenticity with sustainable initiatives. Thus,
heritage and preserving the brand essence (i.e., consistency). Authen brand size lowers authenticity perceptions which negatively impacts
ticity is context dependent, and these two components are directly consumer support of the sustainability initiative. Stated formally,
related to sustainability such that brands need to be transparent about H2: Authenticity will mediate purchase intent such that large (vs
their sustainability motives while also maintaining consistency in how small) brands will be seen as less authentic, leading to lower con
these efforts fit with existing brand perceptions. sumer purchase likelihood.
First, transparency related to sustainability is important because
previous literature has demonstrated that achieving authenticity with
corporate social responsibility (CSR) requires a perceived commitment 1.3. Sustainability and profitability
motivated beyond profits (Alhouti et al., 2016). Financial success is tied
to a profit motive, which diverges from a more sincere motive required The current research posits that previous work showing in
for authenticity. Thus, an authenticity deficit can arise out of the compatibility of profit and societal good can be extended to sustain
paradox between sustainability (i.e., taking and making less) and the ability initiatives. Specifically, stereotypes exist that predispose
idea of successful, profitable business, which increased transparency can consumers to be suspicious of profit-seeking firms, such that the adop
alleviate. tion of practices that impact society more positively is not expected to be
Second, consistency is important in this context because profitable (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017; Campbell, 2007; Friestad &
sustainability-focused products are a type of extension for an existing Wright, 1994). Consumers tend to perceive profit and societal good to be
brand. Brand extension research shows that the fit between the parent in conflict because business is conducted in a zero-sum world (Aaker
brand and extension category is a key determinant of success (Aaker & et al., 2010). While a large body of research documents that profit
Keller, 1990). Such associations of fit have focused on similarity and motives can be beneficial for society (Aguilera et al., 2007; Margolis
relevance, such that consumer associations between the brand and the et al., 2007; Orlitzky et al., 2003), consumers’ perceptions of a profit
new extension (i.e., shared features, attributes, benefits) positively motive relative to the unique characteristics of sustainability products
impact extension success (Bousch & Loken, 1991; Spiggle et al., 2012). has been largely unexplored.
Examples of fit can be related to common features, substitutability, or On the one hand, consumers accept the quid pro quo exchange
complementarity (Basil & Herr, 2006). We suggest that consistency with associated with purchasing products and firm profitability (Aggarwal,
“brand fit,” or lack thereof, extends to sustainability initiatives. 2004; Clark & Mils, 1993). In the context of the traditional norms
Consumers perceive inauthentic efforts when the projected CSR around exchange relationships, consumers receive a desired product or
identity of a company and its external identity as perceived in the service and acknowledge that the firm benefits from the exchange in the
market differ, leading to an “authenticity gap.” CSR efforts are less form of profit (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). The motive of any
effective when a company has a bad reputation, and this is due to con socially based mission (e.g., a firm with a charity donation or
sumers’ attributions of insincere motives (Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & welfare-oriented behavior) is a caring concern for the cause (Aggarwal,
Schwarz, 2006). A case study showed that Chiquita bananas’ corporate 2004; Clark & Mils, 1993; Lee et al., 2017; McGraw, Schwartz, & Tet
reputation was damaged when it failed to fully communicate to the lock, 2012; McGraw & Tetlock, 2005). If consumers perceive profit
public its efforts to improve environmental impact and working condi motivation as occurring in conjunction with activities that have a social
tions (Wicki & van der Kaaij, 2007). Chiquita could have greatly less purpose, these initiatives are likely to be rejected and to fail (Becker-
ened its authenticity gap by internally aligning its corporate culture to Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Torelli et al.,
create more consistency and transparency in communicating its ongoing 2012).
commitment to its stakeholders. People can easily distinguish between social-communal relationships
Relatedly, sustainability reports published by family businesses may (i.e., concern for others) and market-exchange relationships (i.e., cost-
seem less credible due to a select few members of the same family having benefit analyses; Clark & Mils, 1993). For example, researchers have
control over the firm and its reports (Hsueh, 2018). Although family examined perceptions of people who engage in charitable efforts. Social
firms vary in size, Hsueh (2018) focused on corporate reporting and others who are both self-interested and charitable are viewed more
therefore used the words “large” and “publicly listed” when describing negatively than those who are exclusively self-interested, a phenomenon
both the family and non-family firms in these experimental studies. labeled the tainted-altruism effect (Newman & Cain, 2014). This effect is
Instead, our research focuses specifically on the perceptions of sustain driven by the ability to access a counterfactual that a self-interested and
ability initiatives by dominant firms, relative to smaller companies. giving person could have been more altruistic. Although tainted-altruism
Authenticity can be enhanced when a company has a perceived fit research on individual behavior is consistent with our propositions
between its cause-related activities and its brand image or position in the about firms, our proposed “dominant disadvantage” effect instead relies
market. For example, research has shown that societal contributions on profit expectations and is proposed to occur even without an explicit
closely related to a company’s core processes appear more authentic comparison.
Therefore, we theorize that consumers may perceive profit orienta
tion at the brand level as conflicting with the social aspect of sustain
1
This definition corresponds with the “accuracy” and “integrity” components ability. We posit that sustainability initiatives related to brands are more
of authenticity as conceptualized by Nunes et al. (2021). in alignment with non-profit entities than for-profit entities. This
3
disconnect then becomes further amplified if a dominant brand engages To summarize, see the conceptual framework (see Fig. 1).
in a sustainability initiative. We hypothesize that consumers will infer a
mismatch between the perceived profit centricity of big brands and the 2. Overview of studies
social purpose related to sustainability efforts.
Seven experiments, presented next, investigate consumer reactions
H3: Sustainability initiatives of profit-seeking firms will be viewed
to sustainability initiatives of brands, testing our hypotheses. Experi
more negatively than those of not-for-profit firms, especially for
ment 1 investigates whether the challenges of big brands tend to arise in
large firms. Conversely, consumer perceptions of non-sustainability
the case of sustainability efforts, as opposed to non-sustainability efforts.
initiatives will not differ significantly, regardless of type or size of
Experiment 2 examines whether authenticity mediates this effect such
the firm.
that a larger brand appears less authentic in its sustainability efforts than
a smaller brand. Experiment 3 tests the hypothesis that a perception that
a brand seeks authenticity for profit diminishes consumer support such
1.4. Overcoming the dominant disadvantage via commitment
that a large, for-profit brand has lower authenticity and consumer sup
port than a small brand. Experiment 4a tests the hypothesis that sus
For sustainability efforts, marketers of dominant brands might logi
tainability initiatives of a large (versus small) brand result in lower
cally ask how they can overcome these negative barriers between large
consumer interest using a field experiment on Facebook. Experiment 4b
brand size and authenticity. We propose and test two different ap
further explores the external validity of the proposed effect using a real
proaches related to the firm’s commitment that may remedy this
choice in a lottery. Both studies show that a large brand engaging in a
disadvantage: (1) use third-party certification, (2) initiate enhanced
sustainability initiative results in lower consumer support using real-
efforts. With both approaches, the dominant brand may be able to
world conditions. Experiments 5 and 6 consider two mechanisms
attenuate the challenges of the authenticity deficit.
related to the proposed moderator of commitment, which may attenuate
One commitment-focused moderator that may alleviate the chal
the dominant disadvantage. Experiment 5 investigates the role of third-
lenges of authenticity with dominant brands is third-party certification.
party certification and Experiment 6 explores a perceived level of effort
Consistent with previous work, a third-party association can be used to
relative to other companies. Collectively, these experiments test the
heighten credibility and legitimacy, inducing more favorable consumer
proposition that consumers respond less favorably to sustainability ini
responses (Grankvist et al., 2004; Parguel et al., 2011; Swaen & Van
tiatives of large (vs small) brands.
hamme, 2004). Third-party certification serves as an important infor
mation cue that enhances consumers’ perceptions of sustainability
3. Pilot Study: Brand Associations of “Dominant” brands
efforts (Darnall et al., 2018). Third-party or external sources serve as a
verification process that increases positive consumer evaluations of
Prior literature indicates that consumers form coherent brand asso
sustainability efforts (Gosselt et al., 2019). Therefore, efforts that are
ciations such that they perceive “large” brands as “dominant” and “big”
third-party certified can often overcome the perception that big brands
(e.g., Keller, 2006; Paharia, Avery, & Keinan, 2014). Nevertheless, in
are self- and profit-motivated.
order to ensure that these associations held for the specific stimuli we
The authenticity deficit suggested in this research is relative to the
use in the following studies, we conducted a pilot study with two pri
perceived motive of the brand when it is the dominant brand in the
mary goals. First, we wanted to verify that if we described a brand as
category. Thus, we propose that third-party certification can attenuate
“large” in our stimuli, then participants would also view this brand as
the perceived profit motive and the attending perception of a lack of
being “dominant” and/or “big” (and vice versa). Second, we wanted to
authenticity. Specifically, we hypothesize that the authenticity of the
test whether consumers would perceive large brands as eco-friendly. If
effort will be heightened for the brand when third-party certification is
our theorizing is accurate, the words large, dominant, and big should be
part of its sustainability initiatives. Stated formally,
related in consumers’ minds, whereas the label “eco-friendly” would
H4: Large brands may overcome the authenticity challenges associ not.
ated with their dominance by demonstrating their commitment via
third-party certification (compared to no certification), and 3.1. Pilot study method
authenticity will mediate this effect.
We recruited 145 participants from Prolific (55% female, Mage = 34).
Firms can signal their level of commitment in other ways, including
Participants were randomly assigned to view three of six brand de
evoking a higher level of effort beyond the current industry standard.
scriptions, a cleaning products brand, a shampoo brand, a toothbrush
Research has shown that monetary commitment magnitude could be
company, Folgers coffee, a fast-food restaurant, and a beverage brand
seen as an indicator of authenticity with philanthropic efforts (Alhouti
(see Web Appendix A for stimuli). For each brand description, partici
et al., 2016). It follows that a greater sustainability effort would help
pants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with three state
signal increased authenticity. Consumers are less likely to perceive
ments: This is a dominant brand in the category; This is a big/large
simple framing of efforts and green language claims positively when
they perceive the sustainability effort as insincere. Further, CSR efforts
are expected to be reasonably correlated with the size of the company
(Alhouti et al., 2016). This reasoning implies that consumers must view
the size of the sustainability initiative as congruent with the size of the
brand’s impact to be considered meaningful. For example, if a large
brand is doing what seems like a relatively small project to support
sustainability, the consumer will likely view it as a less than credible
commitment, and it will not induce positive feeling or purchasing
behavior. A dominant brand will need to make a major commitment to
sustainability to be well received by the consumer. Accordingly,
H5: Large brands may overcome the authenticity challenges associ
ated with their dominance by demonstrating their commitment with
a major effort (compared to a standard effort), and authenticity will
mediate this effect. Fig. 1. Conceptual Model.
4
brand; This brand is eco-friendly. Responses to all questions were Brand Size (large, small) between-subjects design. All participants
recorded on a 7-point scale where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = evaluated a manufacturer of cleaning products that was introducing a
“strongly agree.” Finally, all respondents indicated their age and gender new liquid dish soap. Across all conditions, participants were told that
and were thanked for their participation. the company was a producer of cleaning products in the United States.
Participants in the eco-product condition were told that the soap would
3.2. Pilot study results leave dishes clean every time without harming the environment, while
participants in the non–eco-production condition were told that the soap
First, we conducted paired samples t-tests for the averages of the would leave dishes clean every time without harming your hands.
“dominant” and “big” ratings for each brand description. The differences Across conditions, an equivalent number of words was provided to
between the average ratings of dominant and large/big were not sig control for information length. For brand dominance, the brand was
nificant for five of the six descriptions (all t’s < 1.64, all p’s > 0.11). For either a large cleaning products brand (brand size: large) or a small
the beverage brand, the result reached significance (t = -2.36, p =.02), cleaning products brand (brand size: small; see Web Appendix B for
but this was also the scenario where participants were provided the least stimuli).
information about the brand since “beverage” is a very broad category. After reviewing the stimuli, participants were asked to rate their
Overall, the results indicated that when the brand was described as purchase intent by responding to the question, “If you saw this product,
being large (scenarios 1, 3–6), participants strongly agreed that the how likely would you be to purchase it?” Responses were measured on
brand was also dominant (M = 5.67) and big (M = 5.77). Similarly, an 11-point scale where 1 = “not at all” and 11 = “a lot.” This was to test
when we described the brand as being big (scenario 2), participants the hypothesis that decreased purchase intent for large brands is related
strongly agreed this brand was dominant (M = 5.60) and large (M = to sustainability (or more specifically, an environmentally friendly
5.62). product) but not related to a similar, non-sustainable product.
Next, we conducted separate paired samples t-test for the averages
between the lower of the two ratings (dominant) with the “eco-friendly”
4.2. Experiment 1 Results
rating. All of the t-tests showed the means were significantly different
(all t’s > 6.71, all p’s < 0.001). Overall, participants rated their agree
Purchase intent was analyzed using a 2 Product (non-eco, eco) × 2
ment with the eco-friendly measure as being significantly lower (M =
Brand Size (large, small) between-subjects ANOVA. The main effect of
3.00) than the ratings for dominant (M = 5.66).
product type on purchase intent was significant (F(1, 344) = 29.53, p
<.001, η2p = 0.08). Purchase intent was higher for the eco-product (M =
3.3. Pilot study discussion
8.04) than the non–eco-product (M = 6.97). The main effect of brand
This pilot study provides evidence that the stimuli we will use in the size on purchase intent was not significant (F(1, 344) = 0.29, p =.59).
following studies are evoking shared associations between large, Overall, purchase intent was similar for the large brand (M = 7.46) and
dominant, and big. Further, this study provides some initial support for the small brand (M = 7.56). As hypothesized, a significant interaction
our theorizing; large brands are not typically perceived as being eco- between product type and brand size qualified these main effects (F(1,
friendly. The ratings for eco-friendly were significantly lower than the 344) = 14.95, p <.001, η2p = 0.04). With an eco-product, participants
ratings for dominant. In the experiments that follow, we will test for reported lower purchase intent with the large vs small brand (Mlargeeco =
between-subjects differences in consumer perceptions of large (i.e., 7.61 vs Msmalleco = 8.47, ΔMean = 0.86, Cohen’s d = 0.47). Tukey post
dominant/big) and small brands. hoc comparisons revealed these differences were significant (p =.01,
95% CI of the difference = -1.6 to -0.15). Conversely, when the pitch was
4. Experiment 1: Purchase Intent Decreases when a Dominant not focused on an eco-product, the differences in large vs small brand
Brand Introduces a Sustainable Product size were not significant (Mlargenoneco = 7.30 vs Msmallnoneco = 6.65;
ΔMean = 0.65, p = 0.09). Results from this experiment are depicted in
Previous research has shown that being the dominant brand in a Fig. 2.
category can result in many positive benefits such as more positive
perceptions of brand attributes and brand quality (Barwise & Ehrenberg, 4.3. Experiment 1 discussion
1985; Castleberry & Ehrenberg, 1990). By contrast, the main hypothesis
of this research (H1) is that brand dominance tends to have the opposite This experiment finds preliminary support for our first hypothesis
effect related to sustainability, such that big brands have a disadvantage.
The purpose of this study is to test whether consumers have more
negative perceptions of big brands, as compared to small brands, when
they offer sustainable products.
In experiment 1, we use a 2 Product (non-eco, eco) × 2 Brand Size
(large, small) experimental design to test whether the dominant disad
vantage phenomenon tends to occur with sustainability initiatives of
large brands. We have hypothesized that the negative associations of
brand dominance are related to introducing a new product with sus
tainability efforts but not to similar efforts with no sustainability focus.
4.1. Experiment 1 Method
We recruited 350 adult participants in the United States from Pro

lific. The sample was 43% male, 54% female, and 3% non-binary (ages
18–79, Mage = 35). After removing two respondents who failed an
attention check question located near the end of the study, the final
sample resulted in 348 participants. Removing these two participants
did not impact the significance of the results. We randomly assigned
participants to one of four conditions in a 2 Product (non-eco, eco) × 2 Fig. 2. Purchase Intent for Soap (Experiment 1).
5
(H1) that environmental products from large companies stimulate lower = 0.02). Results revealed purchase intent was lower in the large brand
purchase intent than similar products from small companies. Addition condition (Mlarge = 8.99) than in the small brand condition (Msmall =
ally, the difference between large and small non–eco-companies had 9.56). This supports our prediction that, with sustainability initiatives,
marginal significance, with large non–eco- companies having direc purchase intent will be lower with large brands, as compared to small
tionally higher purchase intent than small non–eco-companies. We have brands.
further proposed that perceptions of authenticity drive these results. We Mediation. A mediation analysis (Hayes, 2018; Model 4) with brand
test for this process mechanism in the next study. size (large vs small) as the independent variable, purchase intent as the
dependent variable, and authenticity as the mediator revealed that
5. Experiment 2: Mediator of authenticity perceptions of authenticity significantly mediated this relationship. The
results showed that the total effect between brand size and purchase
In Experiment 1, we aimed to show that the negative associations of intent was significant (β = -0.29 t = -2.03, p =.04). Brand size signifi
brand dominance were related to sustainability focused efforts, and not cantly impacted authenticity, such that small brands were perceived as
non-sustainability efforts. The goal of the second experiment is to more authentic (β = -0.43; t = -4.25, p <.001) and authenticity posi
examine one possible mechanism that may be driving this effect. tively impacted purchase likelihood (β = 0.88; t = 11.50, p <.001).
Therefore, Experiment 2 tests for the mediating impact of authenticity Finally, when authenticity entered the relationship between brand size
on purchase intent (H2). We hypothesize that large (vs small) brand’s and purchase intent, the direct effect was not significant (β = 0.09; t =
launch of eco-efforts will be seen as less authentic, leading to lower 0.75, p =.45). The bias corrected 95% CI is -0.60 to -0.18, which
purchase intent. Thus, we propose the size of a brand works against its excluded zero.
ability to appear authentic regarding sustainability initiatives.
5.3. Experiment 2 discussion
As hypothesized, these results show that lower authenticity mediates
We recruited 211 adult participants in the United States from Pro purchase intent of a large (vs small) brand size, leading to lower pur
lific. The sample was 43% male, 55% female, and 3% other (ages 18–78, chase intent. This result supports our second hypothesis (H2) and pro
Mage = 34). No participants in this study failed the attention check. We vides some insight into the mechanism driving the “dominant
randomly assigned participants to one of two brand conditions: large disadvantage” effect. In the next study we will examine whether a profit
size or small size. All participants evaluated a shampoo brand launching orientation moderates this relationship such that large nonprofit orga
a new line of eco-friendly shampoo products. Across conditions, par nizations may alleviate this discrepancy.
ticipants were provided details about the products indicating that the
packaging was made of reclaimed plastics, that the product would not 6. Experiment 3: Profit orientation and authenticity
contain any synthetic ingredients, and that it would be fully compost
able. The only difference between the conditions was the language The primary goal of Experiment 3 is to test whether perceptions of
around brand size, such that either a “big shampoo brand” or a “small profit centricity complicate large (vs small) brands efforts to commu
shampoo brand” was planning the product launch. Participants were nicate authenticity of sustainability efforts. This prediction is based on
told that the brand name was being kept confidential for research pur research suggesting that a central feature of authenticity is a motive that
poses to increase the realism of the scenario (see Web Appendix C for is not just about money and profits (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). Thus, we
stimuli). introduce a 2 Brand Size (large, small) × 2 Profit Orientation (non-
After reviewing the stimuli, participants were asked to rate their profit, profit) design to examine the effect of profit motive. We hy
authenticity perceptions. Because we are interested in a sustainability pothesize that for-profit companies will have significantly lower
context, this experiment used a combination of transparency and con authenticity when they are large (vs small) brands due to the amplifi
sistency scales to form the authenticity index for this paper (Becker cation of profit centricity that large brands represent, as proposed in H3.
et al., 2019; Spiggle et al., 2012). The questions for authenticity were an However, when the company is a non-profit, the differences in the large
index of the following statements and questions, all rated using 11-point (vs small) brand should not be significant. Thus, this experiment tests
scales: (1) “The brand’s actions are genuine.” where 1 = “not at all” and profit motive as linked to authenticity and brand size. A secondary goal
11 = “very much so”; (2) “Do you think this new shampoo launch is of this study is to rule out the potential explanations that consumers may
credible for the brand?” where 1 = “not at all credible” and 11 = “very have different perceptions of large versus small brands related to
credible”; and (3) “The new product preserves what the brand stands craftsmanship, quality, and accuracy.
for” where 1 = “not at all” and 11 = “very much so.” The three questions
were collapsed into a single measure of authenticity (α = 0.81). 6.1. Experiment 3 Method
Additionally, participants were asked to rate their purchase intent
(“How likely would you be to purchase this?”) on an 11-point scale We recruited 371 adult participants in the United States from Pro
where 1 = “not at all likely” and 11 = “very likely.” Lastly, all re lific. The sample was 45% male and 55% female (ages 19–78, Mage =
spondents were asked to indicate their age and gender and thanked for 39). After removing one respondent who failed an attention check, the
their participation. final sample resulted in 370 participants, which did not impact the
significance of the results. We randomly assigned participants to one of
5.2. Experiment 2 results four conditions in a 2 Brand Size (large, small) × 2 Profit Orientation
(non-profit, profit) between-subjects design.
Authenticity. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of con All participants evaluated a new type of bamboo toothbrush. Across
dition on the authenticity index (F(1, 209) = 18.05, p <.001, η2 = 0.08). all conditions, participants were informed about a toothbrush that was
Results revealed authenticity was lower in the large brand condition being launched as completely plastic-free and better for the environ
(Mlarge = 8.74) than in the small brand condition (Msmall = 9.60). This ment, and both brands were U.S.-based. Participants in the large brand
supports our prediction that, with sustainability initiatives, authenticity size were told that the toothbrush provider was large and participants in
tends to be perceived as lower for a large brand as compared to a small the small brand size were told that the toothbrush provider was small.
brand. Participants in the non-profit condition were told that the toothbrush
Purchase intent. A separate one-way ANOVA showed a significant manufactured by a non-profit organization, while participants in the for-
effect of condition on purchase likelihood (F(1, 209) = 4.14, p =.04, η2 profit production condition were told it was a for-profit organization.
6
Participants were also told that the brand name was being kept confi moderated mediation model was supported with the index of moderated
dential for research purposes to increase the realism of the scenario (see mediation = -0.41 (95% CI = -0.68, -0.16). This confidence interval
Web Appendix D for stimuli). indicates a significant moderating effect of profit orientation on brand
After reviewing the stimuli, participants were also asked to rate their size on the indirect effect via authenticity (Hayes, 2018). The condi
authenticity perceptions. Consistent with our conceptualization, we tional indirect effect was not significant for a nonprofit orientation (ef
used a combination of scales to form the authenticity index (Becker fect = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.14, 0.23), but it was significant for a profit
et al., 2019; Spiggle et al., 2012). As in the previous study, the questions orientation (effect = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.56, -0.20).
for authenticity were an index of the following statements and ques Authenticity. With a for-profit orientation, participants reported
tions, all rated using 11-point scales: (1) “The brand’s actions are lower authenticity with the large vs small brand (Mlargeprofit = 7.93 vs
genuine,” where 1 = “not at all” and 11 = “very much so”; (2) “Do you Msmallprofit = 8.90, ΔMean = 0.97, p <.001, Cohen’s d = 0.57). In
think this new toothbrush launch is credible for the brand?” where 1 = contrast, when the brand had a non-profit orientation, the differences in
“not at all credible” and 11 = “very credible”; (3) “The new product large vs small brand size did not differ (Mlargenonprofit = 9.02 vs Msmall
preserves what the brand stands for,” where 1 = “not at all” and 11 = nonprofit = 8.91, ΔMean = 0.11, p =.66). This supports our hypothesis that
“very much so.” The three questions were collapsed into a single mea profit centric companies are seen as less authentic when they are large
sure of authenticity (α = 0.91). (vs small).
Whereas the first two experiments measured consumer support with Willingness to recommend. Small brand size was also associated with
purchase intent, Experiment 3 used a slightly different but converging higher recommendation scores (β = -0.22, t = -2.46, p =.01). With a for-
measure for consumer support, product recommendation. All partici profit orientation, participants reported lower willingness to recom
pants were asked to evaluate their willingness to recommend this mend the product made by the large vs the small brand (Mlargeprofit =
product to others on an 11-point scale by responding to the question, 7.75 vs Msmallprofit = 8.41, ΔMean = 0.66, p =.04, Cohen’s d = 0.35). In
“How willing would you be to recommend this product to others?” contrast, when the brand had a non-profit orientation, the differences in
where 1 = “not at all” and 11 = “very much.”. large vs small brand size were not significant (Mlargenonprofit = 8.35 vs
Additionally, participants answered questions about craftsmanship, Msmallnonprofit = 8.04, ΔMean = 0.31, p =.34). This supports our hy
quality, and accuracy to rule out the alternative explanations that small pothesis that with sustainability initiatives, profit centric companies are
brands may be perceived as being better in these areas than large brands. less likely to be recommended when they are large (vs small).
Craftsmanship was measured using an existing scale (Napoli, Dickinson, Alternative hypotheses. A MANOVA with brand size and profit orien
Beverland, & Farrelly, 2014) which asks participants how much they tation and their interaction as the factors and craftsmanship, quality,
agree with the following statements using an 11-point Likert scale where and accuracy as the dependent variables showed no main effect of brand
1 = “strongly disagree” and 11 = “strongly agree”: (1) “only the finest size (F(3, 364) = 0.66, p =.58), no main effect of profit orientation (F(3,
ingredients/materials are used in the manufacture of this product” and 364) = 1.00, p =.39), and no interaction effect (F(3, 364) = 0.79, p
(2) “the product is made by master craftsmen who pay attention to detail =.50). These results provide some evidence that although brand size
and are involved throughout the production process.” These two ques significantly impacts perceptions of authenticity, respondents were not
tions were collapsed into a single measure of craftsmanship (α = 0.78). less likely to recommend larger brands due to perceptions of worse
Quality was measured using the 5-item index from Johar and Simmons craftsmanship, quality, or accuracy in manufacturing their products
(2000) with items measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = “very than smaller brands.
low” and 7 = “very high.” Lastly, participants were asked to assess
product accuracy by responding to the statement, “This product is made 7. Experiment 3 Discussion
with accuracy,” on an 11-point Likert scale where 1 = “strongly
disagree” and 11 = “strongly agree.” In Experiment 3, when the moderator of profit orientation (for-profit
vs non-profit) was introduced, there was a significant interaction with
brand size on authenticity. This highlights the ability to establish a
6.2. Experiment 3 Results
direct impact on profit orientation and sustainability with brand size and
provides support for H3. Thus, an eco-product is perceived as more
Moderated mediation. The hypothesized moderated mediation was
authentic when it is small (vs large), but only when the company has a
tested in a single model using a bootstrapping approach (5,000 resam
for-profit orientation. Conversely, when the company is a non-profit,
ples) to assess the significance of the indirect effects at differing levels of
there is no significant difference in perceptions of authenticity.
the moderator (Hayes, 2018). Brand size (large vs small) was the pre
These results demonstrate that the negative impact of large size on
dictor variable with authenticity as the mediator. The outcome variable
authenticity is enhanced when the company is for-profit. Additionally,
was willingness to recommend and profit orientation (nonprofit vs for-
this impacts willingness to recommend, such that when a for-profit
profit) was the proposed moderator.
company is selling an eco-product, participants were less likely to
This moderated mediation model was tested using the PROCESS
recommend the product when the brand was large (vs small). The
macro model number 7, which tests a model whereby profit orientation
negative impact of a large brand size did not negatively impact will
moderates the effect of Path A (Hayes, 2018; see Fig. 3). Profit orien
ingness to recommend when it was a non-profit company. In the next
tation was found to moderate the effect of brand size on authenticity
study, we test perceptions of a large versus small for-profit company
(unstandardized interaction β = -0.27, t = -3.08, p =.002). The overall
using Facebook’s advertising platform.
8. Experiment 4a: Field Experiment on Facebook
For Experiment 4a, we partnered with an environmentally friendly

toothbrush company based in Canada. The purpose of this study is to test
two distinct advertising concepts in a real-world context to see whether
we could find additional support for H1 using social media ads. Thus far
we have tested consumer support using purchase likelihood and will
ingness to recommend. In the context of an advertising test, the click-
through-rate (CTR) for an online advertisement demonstrates an
Fig. 3. Moderated Mediation Model (Experiment 3). increased interest in the brand by consumers, which is an antecedent to
7
purchase and other types of consumer support. to other ads in the industry (Irvine, 2017; Paharia et al., 2014). To
analyze the data, we calculated the CTR (total number of clicks per ad
8.1. Experiment 4a Method divided by the total number of impressions for the ad) and average CPC
(average cost to serve each ad throughout the field study) associated
The test included two distinct advertisements, a concept for the small with both versions of the ad. Results revealed a significant difference
brand condition and a concept for the large brand condition. Across both between the two ads such that the small (vs large) brand size condition
treatment conditions, the same visuals, logo, and information about the generated significantly higher CTRs (CTRsmall = 1.92%; CTRlarge =
brand were provided in the ad. The only difference in the ads was the 0.84%; z = -8.4, p <.001) and lower CPCs (CTRsmall = $0.31; CPClarge =
language emphasizing the brand size of the company. In the large brand $0.53; z = 3.8, p <.001). The CTRs are within normal range for the
condition, the headline read, “This big toothbrush company invented Facebook industry average of 0.35% for digital display ads (Volovich,
something that is going to make a big difference.” Conversely, in the 2016). Overall, there was a statistically significant difference for both
small brand condition, the headline read, “This small toothbrush com CTR (p <.001) and CPC rates (p <.001) in that the Facebook ad for
pany invented something that is going to make a big difference” (see sustainable toothbrushes performed better when it was a “small brand”
Web Appendix E for the stimuli). compared to a “large brand.” Results from this experiment are depicted
For the field experiment, the dependent variable was advertising in Table 1.
CTR, a function of impressions and clicks, for ads created on Facebook’s Click vs no click. As an additional check for robustness, we conducted
advertising platform. This is consistent with the industry use of A/B a binary logistic regression with treatment (1 = large, 0 = small), age
testing where brands pay by cost per click (CPC) and evaluate CTRs to group (5 separate dummy variables), and gender (1 = male, 0 = female)
determine advertising effectiveness (Hubbard, 2016; Paharia, 2020). as the independent variables and clicks (1 = click, 0 = no click) as the
For this experiment, the ads were set to be optimized for clicks versus dependent variable. We found a significant main effect of treatment (β =
impressions using CPC. This is commonly used in digital advertising -3.63, SE = 0.09, p <.001). To rule out any alternative hypotheses
(O’Neill, 2010; Paharia, 2020). In addition to data on clicks and im regarding age or gender, we looked at the interaction of treatment/age,
pressions, we also collected data on gender and age of the participants treatment/gender, and treatment/age/gender. The Facebook data
who clicked on the ad. These variables were included in the empirical indicated that the demographics were very similar to the pretest data
test to rule out any alternative explanations regarding demographics of (52% female; ages 18–64, Mage = 34). None of the interaction variables
the consumer. The time of the test was set up in advance to expire at a were significant. As expected, young people were more likely to click on
pre-set time to allow for equal evaluation of how both ads performed for ads overall, but there was no interaction with the treatment variable.
the same period. Thus, age and gender did not significantly influence the main effect.
We also ran a separate pretest on Prolific to evaluate any alternative
theories around ad realism, brand awareness, and brand attitude. We 8.3. Experiment 4a Discussion
recruited 150 participants from Prolific (49% female; ages 19–64, Mage
= 35) to test the stimuli. Like the audience for the field experiment, only The purpose of this study was to test the first hypothesis (H1) in a
people in Canada ages 18–64 were invited to participate in the study. real-world context with two distinct ads on Facebook. We found that
Participants were randomly assigned to either the small or large brand whether we compare CTR, CPC, or click/no click, the ad that emphasizes
condition. Realism was measured with the question, “This ad is realistic” the brand as a “small company” significantly outperforms the ad that
on a 1–9 scale where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 9 = “strongly agree.” emphasizes a “large company” for an eco-friendly toothbrush. Thus, we
Brand awareness was measured using a well-known question (Aaker, find support for H1 with consumer support indicated by interest, as
1996) which asks participants, “Have you heard of the brand name measured by CTR, in a real-world context using social media adver
‘Grin’ before?” Participants either selected 1 = “yes” or 2 = “no.” Only if tisements, which demonstrates the generalizability of the effect.
participants answered “yes” to the brand awareness question would they Although field studies can help demonstrate external validity, it can
be directed to answer questions about brand attitude. Brand attitude was be more difficult to control for internal validity using Facebook A/B split
measured using an existing scale from Till and Busler (2000) which asks testing (Gordon et al., 2019; Orazi & Johnston, 2020). Causal inference
participants three questions, all measured on 9-point scales: (1) “Do you can also be challenging when working with a company and imple
like Grin?” where 1 = “strongly dislike” and 9 = “strongly like”; “I have menting their preferred creative direction. For example, the “small
an opinion about the Grin brand,” where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 9 = company” manipulation contained incongruent language, which may
“strongly agree”; and “What is your opinion of Grin,” where 1 = “un have also heightened interest in the ad. Thus, the next study will again
favorable” and 9 = “favorable.” test for the generalizability of our proposed effect using an incentive
compatible design.
8.2. Experiment 4a Results
9. Experiment 4b: Incentive compatible choice study
Pretest. To ensure realistic stimuli and rule out possible alternative
theories, we asked questions for realism, brand awareness, and brand
In Experiment 4b, we aimed to provide additional evidence for the
attitude. Participants were randomly assigned to see the large brand or
first hypothesis (H1) using real behavior. Similar to previous research
small brand communication. The results for realism show no statistical
(Paharia, 2020), this experiment uses an incentive-compatible design
difference between the perceived realism of the ads (Mlarge = 6.12 vs
where participants are automatically entered into a lottery with the
Msmall = 6.28; F(1, 150) = 0.28, p =.60). For brand awareness, there
possibility of real winnings.
were no participants in our study who said they had heard of Grin before
Experiment 4b is an extension of the previous study which used Grin,
(n = 150; 1/yes = 0, 2/no = 150). Therefore, none were directed to
answer the brand-attitude index questions. They were asked the brand
Table 1
awareness question after seeing the stimuli, so neither the large ad nor
Results of Grin Brand Facebook Field Experiment (Experiment 4a).
small ad participants were more likely to be aware of the Grin brand
name. Impressions Clicks CTR Average CPC
Click-thru rate. In the main Facebook study, across the two contexts, Version A – Large Brand 17,073 143 0.84% $0.53
the ads generated 31,292 impressions, 418 of which were clicked on Version B – Small Brand 14,219 275 1.92% $0.31
Pooled 31,292 418 1.33% $0.39
(1.3%). For Facebook advertisements, this CTR is within normal range,
showing that this creative execution is similar in interest and targeting Note. Click-through rate (CTR); Cost-per-click (CPC).
8
a real-world toothbrush brand. The large versus small framing language and gender and were thanked for their participation.
was effective for Grin, which has very little brand awareness as a rela
tively new firm. Experiment 4b tests the framing effect with a brand that 9.3. Experiment 4b Results
has high brand awareness. It tests the prediction that it may be possible
to frame well-known brands that are somewhat ambiguous in terms of Choice of cash or gift card. Overall, participants were more likely to
whether they are dominant or non-dominant as either big or small. select cash (65%) than the gift card (35%). This is typical for online
We chose Folgers as the stimuli in this study for three reasons. First, study panels; cash is generally seen as more appealing than a gift card.
Folgers is simultaneously dominant and non-dominant in the coffee However, 45% of respondents in the small brand condition selected the
category. It is the dominant brand in-home coffee consumption in the gift card but only 35% of respondents in the large brand condition
United States, representing almost 25% of sales (Statista, 2021). At the selected the gift card. We conducted a chi-square test with choice as the
same time, Folgers is much smaller compared to the competition in dependent variable (percentage choosing the gift card) and brand size as
terms of coffee consumption worldwide. In this category, Starbucks is the independent variable (large vs small). Participants in the small
number one, with $25 billion in revenue, while Folgers is #7 brand, with condition were significantly more likely to select the gift card than those
$241 million in revenue (Statista, 2021). Second, consumers do not in the large size condition; (χ 2 (1) = 8.3, p <.01). This significant dif
perceive Folgers as having overwhelming dominance in the coffee ference in choice is a strong indicator that when a brand is framed as a
category, which gave us latitude to frame it as large or small. small brand in the sustainability category, consumers view it more
positively than when it is framed as the large brand.
9.1. Experiment 4b Pre-Test Alternative hypotheses. Additionally, to rule out two other possible
alternative hypotheses, we tested whether brand size had any effects on
To confirm Folger’s ambiguous status, we conducted a pretest in brand awareness and knowledge. We found no significant difference
Qualtrics with 172 participants (48% female, Mage = 37). All partici between the small size and large size conditions for brand awareness
pants were asked to select the dominant coffee brand (“Which do you (Msmall = 10.6 vs Mlarge = 10.51; F(1, 205) = 0.60, p =.44) or knowledge
think is the most dominant brand in the coffee category?”) from a list of (Msmall = 7.7 vs Mlarge = 8.1; F(1, 205) = 2.1, p =.15). These results
12 brands presented in random order. Results showed that 70% of the provide some evidence that these factors did not impact the preference
respondents selected Starbucks (13% selected Folgers, 7% selected for a gift card over cash.
Dunkin, and the remaining 10% was a combination of the other 9
brands). Lastly, Folgers also has high brand awareness. In the same 10. Experiment 4b Discussion
pretest, participants were asked to rate awareness of the Folgers brand
(“Are you aware of the Folgers brand name?”) on an 11-point scale Similar to Experiment 4a, this incentive-compatible study shows that
where 1 = “not at all aware” and 11 = “extremely aware.” The average when a brand is framed as small, people are more likely to choose a gift
awareness level was 10.53 on an 11-point scale, showing that Folgers card for that brand than when it is framed as large. These results provide
has high brand awareness in the marketplace. additional support for H1 and hold even when the brand has high
awareness and knowledge, unlike the last study where the brand was
9.2. Experiment 4b Method relatively unknown. Brands that are “ambiguous” in terms of their actual
dominance in the marketplace may be able to position themselves as
We recruited 208 adult participants in the United States from Pro smaller when emphasizing their sustainability initiatives. Nevertheless,
lific. The sample was 45% male and 55% female (ages 19–78, Mage = this shift in framing would likely be very difficult for many large brands
39). After removing three respondents who failed an attention check, the to implement in practice. Thus, the next two studies turn to an exami
final sample resulted in 205 participants. Removing these participants nation of another way that large brands could possibly alleviate the
did not impact the significance of the results. We randomly assigned dominant disadvantage, by demonstrating their commitment to
participants to one of two conditions: small versus large brand. After sustainability.
reading the background on Folgers, all participants were informed that
Folgers was producing a new line of sustainable coffee. In the large 11. Experiment 5: The moderating role of third-party
brand condition, participants were told that Folgers is a dominant coffee certification
producer in the United States. Conversely, in the small brand condition,
the stimuli emphasized the growth of coffee globally and Folgers was The previous experiments found support for the prediction that when
positioned as a relatively small player (see Web Appendix F for the brands implement sustainability efforts, consumers are more likely to
language used in the experiment). All participants were told that they see dominant brands (i.e., big brands) as more profit-focused and less
would receive a Prolific study fee. Additionally, to make the study authentic, resulting in lower purchase intent. Given that most large
incentive compatible, participants were informed of a lottery. If they brands will be unable to change consumer opinion of their size by simply
were selected as the winner in a random drawing, they would receive reframing themselves as smaller, as in the previous study, these truly
either cash or a Folgers gift card. Participants frequently prefer cash over large brands may wonder what, if anything, they can do to help alleviate
non-cash rewards (Jeffrey, 2009; Paharia, 2020). Therefore, we made negative perceptions. In this experiment, we explore one way in which
the gift card slightly more appealing; we offered participants the choice third-party certification may attenuate the negative impact of brand
to win either $1 in cash or a $10 Folgers gift card to try the new product. size.
Participants then indicated what they would choose if they were to win Information from a brand or company is often perceived as being
the lottery. Choice of the gift card over cash would indicate increased self-interested, calling into question the credibility and legitimacy of
consumer support for the brand. both the message and the company (Gosselt et al., 2019). On the other
Participants also answered questions about brand awareness and hand, external information tends to create less bias and is therefore
knowledge to rule out these alternative explanations. They were first perceived as more credible. In line with prior studies, third-party cer
asked a question about brand awareness (“Are you aware of the Folgers tification can provide external confirmation of the brand’s commitment
brand name?”), measured on an 11-point scale where 1 = “not at all to eco-friendly efforts (Parguel et al., 2011; Swaen & Vanhamme, 2004).
aware” and 11 = “extremely aware.” They were then asked about We have predicted (H4) that when consumers of large brands are
knowledge (“What is your personal knowledge of Folgers coffee”), informed about sustainability efforts that included third-party certifi
measured on an 11-point scale where 1 = “none at all” and 1 = cation (vs no certification), they would infer that the brand was more
“extremely knowledgeable.” Lastly, all respondents indicated their age authentic, and as a result, purchase intent would increase. Therefore, the
9
present experiment tests for moderated mediation. Purchase intent. With no certification, participants reported lower
purchase intent with the large vs small brand (Mlargetnocert = 7.08 vs
11.1. Experiment 5 Method Msmallnocert = 8.66, ΔMean = 1.6, p <.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67). In contrast,
when the brand had a third-party certification, the differences in large vs
We recruited 401 adult participants in the United States from Pro small brand size were not significant (Mlargethirdparty = 8.23 vs Msmallth
lific. The sample was 50% male and 50% female (ages 19–76, Mage = irdparty = 8.38, ΔMean = 0.15, p =.65). This supports our hypothesis that
36). After removing three respondents who failed an attention check, the with sustainability initiatives, no certification (vs third-party certifica
final sample resulted in 398 participants. Removing the participants tion) will lead to lower (higher) purchase intent when the company is
who failed the attention check did not alter the results of the study. We large (vs small).
randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions in a 2 Brand
Size (large, small) × 2 Certification (no mention, 3rd party certification) 12. Experiment 5 Discussion
design.
All participants evaluated a fast-food restaurant. Across all condi This study shows that a large brand can attenuate the dominant
tions, participants were told about the initiatives of a restaurant to be disadvantage with its sustainability efforts with third party certification.
more planet-friendly (i.e., sustainable supply chain, fair trade, com This supports our fourth hypothesis (H4) that with sustainability ini
postable). Participants were either told it was “a large fast-food restau tiatives, no certification (vs third-party certification) will lead to lower
rant” or “a small fast-food restaurant.” With respect to certification, (higher) authenticity when the company is large (vs small). We again
either there was no mention of certification or there was a specific demonstrate overall consumer support for the smaller brand, as
certifier for each of the three sustainability efforts (see Web Appendix G measured by purchase intent. In the next study, we test whether
for actual language). Across conditions, word length was held constant. increased effort, relative to industry standards, will have a similar effect.
As in previous experiments, all respondents were asked to rate the 3-
item index of authenticity. They were also asked to evaluate purchase 13. Experiment 6: The moderating role of effort
intent (“I would be interested in this restaurant if it was located near
me”) on an 11-point scale where 1 = “not at all” and 11 = “very much The previous experiment showed that third-party certification is one
so.” All respondents were asked to provide their age and gender and way to demonstrate commitment and help alleviate the relative disad
thanked for their participation. vantage large brands face related to their sustainability efforts. In this
experiment, we test whether the negative impact of large brand size can
be attenuated with another signal of commitment. To do this, we explore
11.2. Experiment 5 results
levels of effort associated with sustainability initiatives (H5).
All initiatives tested thus far have been based on current industry
The hypothesized moderated mediation was tested in a single model
norms. They are the prevalent scale of efforts when brands implement
using a bootstrapping approach (5,000 resamples) to assess the signifi
sustainability projects, based on an audit of current brand websites and
cance of the indirect effects at differing levels of the moderator (Hayes,
environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports. Given this industry
2018). Brand size (large vs small) was the predictor variable with
norm is the “standard” commitment, this experiment will explore per
authenticity as the mediator. The outcome variable was purchase intent
ceptions of a “major” commitment. We suggest that large brands may
and certification (none vs third-party) was the proposed moderator.
need to implement more comprehensive and thorough initiatives around
This moderated mediation model was tested using the PROCESS
the level of sustainability.
macro model number 7, which tests a model whereby certification
Many consumers have become habituated to brands introducing new
moderates the effect (Hayes, 2018; see Fig. 4). Certification was found to
green products, communicating different sustainability efforts, and
moderate the effect of brand size on authenticity (unstandardized
attempting to improve some of their packaging. For example, the current
interaction β = -0.33, t = -3.11, p =.002). The overall moderated
goal for Pampers is 30% less diapering materials (“P&G Environmental
mediation model was supported with the index of moderated mediation
Sustainability,” 2019). The current sustainable shoe marketed by Nike
= -0.65 (95% CI = -1.07, -0.22). This confidence interval indicates a
includes 50% recycled fiber (Nike Inc, 2019), and the current recycled
significant moderating effect of third-party certification on brand size on
materials in packaging for Coca-Cola is 30% (Coca-Cola Company,
the indirect effect via authenticity (Hayes, 2018). The conditional in
2018a). In contrast, consumers could perceive that brands have made a
direct effect was not significant for a third-party certification (effect =
major commitment if they make much more significant change. For
-0.06; 95% CI = -0.33, 0.20), but it was significant for no certification
example, this would potentially include efforts with higher-than-
(effect = -0.71; 95% CI = -1.04, -0.38).
average recycled materials, more complex change for water sourcing,
Authenticity. Small brand size was associated with higher authen
or further dedication by the entire brand to be truly sustainable. There
ticity (β = -0.40, t = -3.72, p <.00). With no certification, participants
fore, we hypothesize that the difference between a “standard” and
reported lower authenticity with the large vs small brand (Mlargetnocert =
“major” commitment is a moderator of the sustainability disadvantage
7.23 vs Msmallnocert = 8.69, ΔMean = 1.5, p <.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67). In
related to large brands. We propose that consumers expect large brands
contrast, when the brand had a third-party certification, the differences
to have larger expected levels of commitment.
in large versus small brand size were not significant (Mlargethirdparty =
The present experiment tested this prediction. We have hypothesized
8.30 vs Msmallthirdparty = 8.43, ΔMean = 0.13, p =.64).
that when consumers of large brands are shown sustainability efforts
with a major commitment (compared to the standard commitment),
they would infer that the brand was more authentic, and as a result,
support would increase. Therefore, the present experiment tests for
moderated mediation.
We recruited 178 participants (53% female, ages 18–24, Mage = 20)

from an undergraduate subject pool at a large southeastern university in
exchange for course credit. We randomly assigned participants to one of
Fig. 4. Moderated Mediation Model (Experiment 5). four conditions in a 2 Brand Size (large vs small) × 2 Commitment
10
(standard vs major) between-subjects design. All participants evaluated perceptions related to its sustainability efforts with an initiative that is
a beverage company. Participants in the large brand condition were perceived as a major commitment, providing support for H5. These re
informed about an announcement from “the largest beverage company,” sults show that to achieve increased perceptions of authenticity, large
while in the small brand condition, the announcement was from “a small brands may not be able to get by with a standard commitment. Given
beverage company.” For the level of commitment, the standard condi their size and resources, consumers may expect more effort relative to
tion included changes of 35%, while for the major commitment condi smaller brands.
tion changes were 100% (see Web Appendix H for actual language). All
respondents were asked to rate their purchase intent and perceived 14. General discussion
authenticity, provided their age and gender, and were thanked for their
participation. This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we
investigate how consumers perceive the authenticity of sustainability
13.2. Experiment 6 Results initiatives from dominant versus smaller brands. Previous literature has
demonstrated that it is imperative for firms to appear authentic when
The hypothesized moderated mediation was tested in a single model engaging in corporate social responsibility efforts (Alhouti et al., 2016).
using a bootstrapping approach (5,000 resamples) to assess the signifi We extend prior work by exploring how consumer support of sustain
cance of the indirect effects at differing levels of the moderator (Hayes, ability initiatives varies as a function of brand size, which is governed by
2018). Brand size (large vs small) was the predictor variable with beliefs about profit motive. We show that when the brand size is large,
authenticity as the mediator. The outcome variable was purchase like the profit motive is more salient, hurting authenticity relative to smaller
lihood and level of commitment (standard vs major) was the proposed brands. Second, we provide a managerially relevant boundary condition
moderator. that moderates the impact of brand size on sustainability. This work
This moderated mediation model was tested using the PROCESS exposes how an authenticity deficit can be attenuated via perceived
macro model number 7, which tests a model whereby level of commit commitment: (1) a big brand can use third-party certification, thus
ment moderates the effect of Path A (Hayes, 2018; see Fig. 5). Level of providing external credibility to its sustainability efforts and
commitment was found to moderate the effect of brand size on “borrowing” the equity already associated with eco-friendly, third-party
authenticity (Unstandardized interaction β = 0.39, t = 2.70, p <.01). certifiers, and/or (2) a big brand can adopt sustainability efforts that
The overall moderated mediation model was supported with the index of show a major effort towards sustainability that supersedes the current
moderated mediation = 0.18 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.40). This confidence marketplace norms. Finally, this research incorporates an interdisci
interval indicates a significant moderating effect of level of commitment plinary viewpoint (i.e., marketing, economics, management, and psy
on brand size on the indirect effect via authenticity (Hayes, 2018). The chology) to better understand the intersection of branding,
conditional indirect effect was not significant for a major commitment sustainability, and profits. By establishing the “dominant disadvantage”
(effect = 0.07, 95% CI = -0.03, 0.19), but it was significant for a stan effect and its authenticity mechanism, this work explores how industry
dard commitment (effect = -0.11, 95% CI = -0.25, -0.01). norms impact sustainability-minded efforts. Moreover, these findings
Authenticity. With a standard commitment, participants reported underscore the importance of managing the sustainability authenticity
lower authenticity with the large versus small brand (Mlargestd = 6.30 vs deficit that can be associated with brand size.
Msmallstd = 7.26, ΔMean = 0.96, p =.02, Cohen’s d = 0.51). In contrast, The growth of sustainability is widespread across categories and
when the brand had a major commitment, perceived authenticity for a industries with more than $1 trillion in opportunities for brands that can
large versus small brand did not differ (Mlargemajor = 7.64 vs Msmallmajor = effectively launch sustainable products (“Unilever Growth,” 2019). Still,
7.05, ΔMean = 0.59, p =.14). This supports our hypothesis that large much of the growth in sustainability has been focused on smaller brands.
companies are seen as less authentic when they indicate a standard According to a recent study by Boston Consulting Group, $22 billion in
commitment, but a major commitment can attenuate this effect. sales was transferred from large to small brands from 2011 to 2016
Purchase likelihood. With a standard commitment, participants re (Bokkerink et al., 2017). While the decline may have multiple causes,
ported lower purchase likelihood with the large vs small brand (Mlargegstd the fact that consumers tend to perceive small brands’ sustainability
= 7.61 vs Msmallstd = 8.70, ΔMean = 1.09, p <.01, Cohen’s d = 0.59). efforts as more genuine may play a significant role. As consumers focus
Conversely, when the brand indicated a major commitment, the differ on environmental concerns, sustainability, and social agendas, large
ences in large vs small brand size were not significant (Mlargemaj = 9.11 vs brands face an authenticity deficit (McRoskey et al., 2019).
Msmallmaj = 8.82, ΔMean = 0.29, p =.43). This supports our hypothesis Understandings of sustainability have evolved such that consumers
that with a standard commitment to sustainability initiatives, purchase emphasize sustainability of the product itself (i.e., materials, packaging,
likelihood is lower when companies are large (vs small). natural resources) more than a firm’s external initiatives (i.e., philan
thropy, charity). Distinguishing consumer perceptions of sustainability
from perceptions of other elements of social responsibility is becoming
13.3. Experiment 6 Discussion
increasingly important as consumer demands continue to shift and
sustainability efforts in the marketplace continue to grow. The current
In Experiment 6, the moderator of commitment (standard vs major)
research identifies the role of brand size and its impact on consumer
had a significant moderating impact on purchase intent through
support. This represents a novel mechanism to the literature and un
authenticity. This shows that a large brand can attenuate consumer
derscores that perceptions of authenticity of sustainability initiatives are
nuanced.
These experiments identify some reasons for the dominant disad
vantage and establish suggested remedies for authenticity, and ulti
mately, purchase intent. Acknowledging that consumers have different
expectations of large brands versus small ones can help firms remedy
their authenticity deficit. In previous decades, consumers may have
accepted “pitches” or promises from brands stating they were making
the world a better place. Consumers today desire more meaningful
change, such as the brand achieving a third-party certification or
developing efforts that demonstrate a sizable commitment. Thus, con
Fig. 5. Moderated Mediation Model (Experiment 6). sumers are asking big business to implement considerable changes to
11
their operations (Porter & Kramer, 2011) and dominant brands need to help improve the environment in ways that small brands cannot. Recent
do so if they are to remain competitive. empirical evidence reports that “on virtually every meaningful indica
tor, including wages, productivity, environmental protection, exporting,
14.1. Managerial implications innovation, employment diversity and tax compliance, large firms as a
group significantly outperform small firms” (Atkinson & Lind, 2018,
This research has implications for marketing management. First, our p.63). Likewise, when big brands transform their practices, big changes
findings suggest that large brands need to establish authenticity when can happen. The challenge is that big brands also require more resource
they decide to launch sustainable products. To successfully position commitment to transform the way they do business. Research has shown
themselves and overcome the negative associations with being “big,” that unprecedented CSR and sustainability efforts are driven not just by
these brands need to convey authenticity with trustworthy, meaningful perceptions that corporations can be a positive force for social change
actions. For example, many consumers may question the motives asso but also by the multi-faceted success that business and society can reap
ciated with brands introducing a single new green product, brands from these endeavors (Du et al., 2013). Thus, the current research
communicating different sustainability efforts, and brands attempting to should encourage big brands to develop innovative ways to signal their
improve some of their packaging. They perceive these initiatives as side authenticity and commitment related to these efforts across business
projects that brands have created to appear environmentally friendly. units—these efforts will enhance consumer perceptions and help retain
For example, Ziploc introduced a compostable Ziploc bag after con market share.
sumer complaints about its traditional single use plastic. However, the While this research has examined some of the actions that brands can
new compostable batch was small, and these bags were nearly impos take, it also has implications for policy makers. Governments at all levels
sible to find in stores. Social media accused SC Johnson, the parent (i.e., local, state, and federal) can exert considerable influence on the
company of Ziploc, of being “uncommitted,” which prompted the activities that businesses undertake. Specifically, policy makers may
company to start to investigate the possibility of mass distribution wish to consider implementing new programs that provide incentives for
(Northrop, 2019). This is not an isolated example; scholars argue that business investment in sustainability initiatives. In addition to in
many brands have half-heartedly embraced sustainability and corporate centives, policy makers can utilize certain penalties such as a carbon tax
social responsibility mostly to achieve goals related to branding, public and additional product standards to encourage “green” corporate be
relations, and legal value (Alves, 2009). Such efforts are increasingly haviors. Given the challenges that big brands face, policy makers may
short-lived when they are met with consumer concerns about trans need to enact more stringent standards that will enhance commitment.
parency and skepticism. We propose that working with credible third- In doing so, policy makers can also aid big brands with their authenticity
party certifiers and devoting noticeable effort towards a “major deficit by implementing standards and certifications that encourage
commitment” may help boost authenticity with consumers. Thus, change.
dominant brands will need to rethink their sustainability agendas at
each level of development. 14.3. Limitations and future directions
Indeed, research has shown that consumers perceive a difference
between a “rule-based” approach and a “principle-based” approach. A Across studies, pre-tests were done to ensure that dominant versus
rule-based approach allows a company to check the boxes related to non-dominant brands were perceived as intended. A question may still
their compliance with existing CSR regulations. A principle-based arise around brands with a more complex classification. For example,
approach, on the other hand, demonstrates a corporate philosophy many categories have oligopolies or duopolies, such as MasterCard and
stretching beyond compliance, which conveys a genuine commitment to Visa in the electronic payment processing market. Therefore, deter
sustainability (Wicki & van der Kaaij, 2007). Large firms may need to mining their relative brand size in a category may be more difficult. This
focus even more on operationalizing green marketing initiatives across is an area that may be explored in future research.
the entire organization and implementing holistic environmental ap While truly large brands may not be able to position themselves as
proaches (Papadas, Avlonitis, & Carrigan, 2017). Firms can also develop smaller, they can engage in acquisitions of smaller brands. These
strategic partnerships that integrate environmental goals across channel smaller, often more sustainable brands may be able to help firms dis
partners and shift to a more corporate green culture. tance themselves from the dominant disadvantage in the marketplace. A
Larger firms may need to communicate their activities in more dy few examples include Coca-Cola acquiring Honest Tea, Colgate-
namic ways, using different channels of communication, and with a Palmolive acquiring Tom’s of Maine, and Hershey’s acquiring several
clear purpose of education (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020) to help over “better-for-you” snacks, including organic chocolate brands.2 Additional
come authenticity deficits relative to their smaller competitors. Envi research is needed to see whether and when consumers associate these
ronmental issues need to move to the forefront of strategic planning and brands with their acquiring companies. Similarly, brands of all sizes may
become a core component of production and innovation (Polonsky, wish to reinforce their grassroots beginnings when communicating their
2011). Research has shown that employees believe a CSR program is sustainability initiatives; this type of messaging may help reinforce the
more authentic when the firm commits substantial resources and adopts brand’s association with caring and concern (and thus enhance
a leadership role related to CSR initiatives (McShane & Cunningham, authenticity perceptions). Future research is needed to determine
2012). A “strategic green marketing orientation” with proactive, long- whether certain brands or certain industries may benefit more from
term planning can become a competitive advantage (Papadas et al., reminding consumers of their humble beginnings as it pertains to sus
2019). Such changes are needed not only for brands to be successful, but tainability. For example, although Clorox now owns Bert’s Bees, mes
also for sustainability and environmentalism efforts in general to be sages that re-emphasize why Bert’s Bees was originally founded, along
more impactful in improving environmental standards. with those related to the company’s original culture and values, may
help alleviate consumers’ concerns that they may no longer care about
14.2. Implications for society and public policy the environment.
Research shows perceptions of authenticity are based on perceived
Overcoming the disadvantages dominant brands face in convincing brand motivations. This raises several questions regarding how in
consumers of their sincerity in their sustainability initiatives also has ferences of authenticity evolve over time. For example, is there a
implications for society. This research should not be taken to mean that particular stage in a brand’s evolution that is more impactful for
big brands should not undertake such initiatives, as this which would
have unfortunate outcomes for society (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013).
Large brands are engines of progress and prosperity; as such, they can 2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for these examples.
12
authenticity? Is there a prominent group of consumers who can influ References

ence changes in authenticity (e.g., early adopters versus laggards)?
Would authenticity evolve at different rates for large vs small brands? Aaker, D. (2020). Winning against a dominant brand. Journal of Brand Strategy, 9(2),
103–112.
We see these as worthwhile areas for future investigation in this area. Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Most of the studies in this research used new product introductions in Management Review, 38(3), 102–120.
the consumer goods category as the context for exploration related to Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing, 54(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400102
sustainability. We did find evidence for our proposed “dominant Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits
disadvantage” effect for products (e.g., toothbrushes) versus services (e. as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2),
g., restaurants) and hedonic (e.g., coffee) versus utilitarian (e.g., dish 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and
soap) products. Nevertheless, more research is needed to determine behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1086/
which contexts consumers may have heightened expectations for sus 383426
tainability initiatives, particularly for large firms. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the s back in
corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.
Large companies can engage in many other types of sustainability
Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/
initiatives, most of which are not product focused. Presumably con amr.2007.25275678
sumers may perceive an initiative to reduce pollution or become carbon Alves, I. (2009). Green spin everywhere. Journal of Global Change & Governance, 2(1),
neutral as more impactful coming from larger producers. Firms oper 2–17.
Alhouti, S., Johnson, C. M., & Holloway, B. B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility
ating in other categories, such as manufacturers of large equipment may authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business
be perceived differently from CPG companies. Future research can Research, 69(3), 1242–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.007
explore various sustainability initiatives as they relate to larger versus Amazon Inc. (2015) Climate Pledge Press Release. (Accessed 12/5/2020) https://press.
aboutamazon.com/amazon-co-founds-climate-pledge-setting-goal-meet-paris.
smaller producers in other categories. Atkinson, R. D., & Lind, M. (2018). Big is beautiful: Debunking the myth of small business.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bandoim, L. (2020). What consumers really think of Coca-Cola’s plastic bottles? Forbes.
15. Conclusion
https://www.forbes.com/sites//what-consumers-really-think-of-coca-colas-plastic-
bottles.
The present research provides an investigation into the perceived Baron, J., Bazerman, M. H., & Shonk, K. (2006). Enlarging the societal pie through wise
legislation: A psychological perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1,
authenticity of dominant brands and their sustainability initiatives.
123–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.0000
These results indicate that (1) big brands that engage in sustainability Barwise, P., & Ehrenberg, A. (1985). Consumer beliefs and brand usage. Journal of the
tend to have a disadvantage with consumers relative to smaller brands, Market Research Society, 27, 81–93.
(2) authenticity concerns are a potential threat for these large brands, Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-related marketing: An
empirical application of balance theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),
and (3) a moderator of authenticity which may help attenuate this effect 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_10
is commitment via third-party certification and effort. From an applied Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B., & Hill, R. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate
perspective, these results may be useful to large brands seeking to un social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1),
46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
derstand how consumers perceive them and how they can mitigate some Becker, M., Wiegand, N., & Reinartz, W. J. (2019). Does it pay to be real? Understanding
of their perception challenges with sustainability. It also should be seen authenticity in TV advertising. Journal of Marketing, 83(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/
as a wake-up call to understand the importance of large firms and brands 10.1177/0022242918815880
Bhattacharjee, A., Dana, J., & Baron, J. (2017). Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect
in addressing the environmental challenges that face the world. the societal benefits of profit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(5),
671–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000093
Bokkerink, et al. (2017). How big consumer companies can fight back. Boston Consulting
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Group.
Boush, D., & Loken, B. (1991). A Process Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluations.
Karen Anne Wallach: . Deidre Popovich: Writing – review & Journal of Marketing Research, 28(February), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/
editing, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. 002224379102800102
Brockhaus, S., Amos, C., Fawcett, A. M., Knemeyer, A. M., & Fawcett, S. E. (2017). Please
Clap! How customer service quality perception affects the authenticity of
sustainability initiatives. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25(4), 396–420.
Declaration of Competing Interest https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2017.1345594
Calderon-Monge, E., Pastor-Sanz, I., & Garcia, F. J. S. (2020). Analysis of sustainable
consumer behavior as a business opportunity. Journal of Business Research, 120,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.039
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
the work reported in this paper. institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 32(3), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering
advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Acknowledgments 00222437890260030
Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1990). Competitive strategies for late entry into a
market with a dominant brand. Management Science, 36(10), 1268–1278. https://
This article is based on the first author’s dissertation at Emory Uni
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.10.1268
versity. The authors thank Jag Sheth, Sandy Jap, Doug Bowman, Wes Castleberry, S. B., & Ehrenberg, A. S. (1990). Brand usage: A factor in consumer beliefs.
Longhofer, and Morgan Ward for their comments on earlier versions of Journal of Marketing Research, 2(2), 14–20.
Clark, M. S., & Mils, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange
the article.The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful input from
relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6),
the editors, the associate editor, and the anonymous reviewers. 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003
The authors have complied with all applicable ethical standards in Coca-Cola Company (2018). Business and Sustainability Report. (Accessed December 5,
the treatment of our experimental participants. Experiment 4a was a 2020). https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/policies report-2018.pdf.
Coca-Cola Company (2018). The Coca-Cola Company Announces New Global Vision to
field experiment on Facebook where participants were unaware a split Help Create a World Without Waste. (Accessed December 5, 2020). https://www.coc
testing experiment was being conducted, consistent with prior research a-colacompany.com/new-global-vision-to-help-waste.
using Facebook A/B split testing. Cowan, K., & Guzman, F. (2020). How CSR reputation, sustainability signals, and
country-of-origin sustainability reputation contribute to corporate brand
performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 117, 683–693.
Appendix A. Supplementary material https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.017
Darnall, N., Ji, H., & Vázquez-Brust, D. A. (2018). Third-party certification, sponsorship,
and consumers’ ecolabel use. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 953–969. https://doi.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-016-3138-2
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113694.
13
de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & da Luz Soares, G. R. (2020). McGraw, A. P., Schwartz, J. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (2012). From the commercial to the
Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences communal: Reframing taboo trade-offs in religious and pharmaceutical marketing.
Europe, 32(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3 Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1086/662070
Degruttola, D. (2019). Bridging the gap: Consumer and marketing perspectives on McGraw, A. P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the
content in the digital age. Research Report, Stackla. https://www.nosto.com/wp-co acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 2–15. https://doi.
ntent/uploads//Data-Report-2019-.pdf. org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_2
Daneshkhu, S. (2018). Consumer goods: Big brands battle with the ‘little guys’. Financial McRoskey, et al. (2019). Insurgents Are Putting the Consumer Back in Consumer Goods. Bain
Times. & Company Research Report Accessed February 10, 2020.
Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A., & Sen, S. (2013). The roles of leadership styles in McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 155–169. https:// of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program.
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1333-3 Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer 1064-x
attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of The Academy of Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand
Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976 authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi. Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-
org/10.1086/209380 based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090–1098.
Gielens, K., Geyskens, I., Deleersnyder, B., & Nohe, M. (2018). The New Regulator in Newman, G. E., & Cain, D. M. (2014). Tainted altruism: When doing some good is
Town: The Effect of Walmart’s Sustainability Mandate on Supplier Shareholder evaluated as worse than doing no good at all. Psychological Science, 25(3), 648–655.
Value. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0276 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504785
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Boston: Nielsen (2018). Was 2018 the year of the influential sustainable consumer? (July 4,
Harvard Business School Press. 2019). https://nielseniq.com/global/2018-the-year-of-the-influential-sustainable-
Gordon, B. R., Zettelmeyer, F., Bhargava, N., & Chapsky, D. (2019). A comparison of consumer.
approaches to advertising measurement: Evidence from big field experiments at Nike Inc. (2009). FY07-09 Corporate Responsibility Report, 2007-2009. Accessed
Facebook. Marketing Science, 38(2), 193–225. https://doi.org/10.1287/ December 12, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20220801211408/https://www.
mksc.2018.1135 nike.com/Sustainability.
Gosselt, J. F., Van Rompay, T., & Haske, L. (2019). Won’t get fooled again: The effects of Nike Inc. (2019). Nike Sustainable Footwear (Accessed December 10, 2020). https://
internal and external CSR ECO-labeling. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 413–424. www.nike.com/w/recycled-nylon.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8 Northrop, P. (2019). My search for compostable ziplocs shows the huge branding
Grankvist, G., Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (2004). The impact of environmental labeling on problem for sustainable products. Fast Company (July 12). https://www.fastcom
consumer preference: Negative vs. positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(2), pany.com/90375492/my-search-for-compostable-ziplocs-shows-the-huge-br
213–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COPO.0000028167.54739.94 anding-problem-for-sustainable-products.
Hopkins, M. S., Haanaes, K., Balagopal, B., Velken, I., Kruschwitz, N., & Arthur, D. Nunes, J. C., Ordanini, A., & Giambastiani, G. (2021). The concept of authenticity: What
(2011). New sustainability study: The embracers seize advantage. MIT Sloan it means to consumers. Journal of Marketing, 85(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Management Review, 52(3), 23–35. 0022242921997081
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: O’Neill, N. (2010). CPM vs CPC: Which Should You Use for Facebook Ads? Adweek.
Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), http://www.adweek.com/digital/cpm-vs-cpc.
4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green claims & message
Hellofs, L., & Jacobson, R. (1999). Market share and customers perceptions of quality: frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78(5),
When can firms grow their way to higher vs lower quality? Journal of Marketing, 63 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0387
(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300102 Orazi, D. C., & Johnston, A. C. (2020). Running field experiments using Facebook split
Herr, P. M., Farquhar, P. H., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Impact of dominance and relatedness test. Journal of Business Research, 118, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
on brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/ jbusres.2020.06.053
10.1207/s15327663jcp0502_03 Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial
Hsueh, J. W. J. (2018). Governance structure and the credibility gap: Experimental performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. https://doi.org/
evidence on family businesses’ sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.1177/0170840603024003910
153(2), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3409-y P&G Inc. (2020). 2019 Citizenship Report (Accessed February 10, 2020) https://us.pg.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. com/citizenship2019/Environmental-Sustainability.
Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298905300201. Paharia, N. (2020). Who receives credit or blame? The effects of made-to-order
Hubbard, Andrew (2016), “A Crash Course on A/B Testing Facebook Ad Campaigns,” production on responses to unethical and ethical company production practices.
ConversionXL. https://conversionxl.com/ab-testing-facebook-ad-campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919887161
Hydock, C., Paharia, N., & Blair, S. (2020). Should your brand pick a side? How market Paharia, N., Avery, J., & Keinan, A. (2014). Positioning brands against large competitors
share determines the impact of corporate political advocacy. Journal of Marketing to increase sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(6), 647–656. https://doi.org/
Research, 57(6), 1135–1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720947682 10.1509/jmr.13.0438
Irvine, M. (2017), Facebook Ad Benchmarks for Your Industry. WordStream. https:// Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The
www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/02/28/facebook-advertising-benchmarks. marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of
Jana, R. (2009). Nike quietly goes green. Bloomberg Business. (Accessed 12/1/2019). Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1086/656219
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-06-11/nike-quietly-goes-green. Papadas, K. K., Avlonitis, G. J., & Carrigan, M. (2017). Green marketing orientation:
Jeffrey, S. (2009), Justifiability and the Motivational Power of Tangible Noncash Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research,
Incentives. Human Performance, 22 (2), 143–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 80, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.024
08959280902743659. Papadas, K. K., Avlonitis, G. J., Carrigan, M., & Piha, L. (2019). The interplay of strategic
Johar, G. V., & Simmons, C. J. (2000). The use of concurrent disclosures to correct and internal green marketing orientation on competitive advantage. Journal of
invalid inferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/ Business Research, 104, 632–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.009
10.1086/209565 Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of
seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741. Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2
Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. (1998). The Impact of Advertising Positioning Strategies on Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of
Consumer Price Sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(2), 210–224. https:// Environment and Resources, 35(1), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500207 environ-032609-094328
Kamins, M. A., Alpert, F. H., & Perner, L. (2003). Consumers’ perception & misperception Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. (1990). The Effects of Comparative Advertising on
of market leadership & market pioneership. Journal of Marketing Management, 19 Attention, Memory, And Purchase Intentions. Journal Of Consumer Research, 17(2),
(7–8), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2003.9728238 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1086/208548
Keller, K. L. (2006). Branding and brand equity. Handbook of Marketing, 151–178. Polonsky, M. J. (2011). Transformative green marketing: Impediments and
Lee, S., Bolton, L. E., & Winterich, K. P. (2017). To profit or not to profit? The role of opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1311–1319. https://doi.org/
greed perceptions in consumer support for social ventures. Journal of Consumer 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.016
Research, 44(4), 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx071 Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review.
Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical January-February.
concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Punj, G., & Moon, J. (2002). Positioning options for achieving brand association: A
Research, 78, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.001 psychological categorization framework. Journal of Business Research, 55, 275–283.
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00165-X
corporate greenwash. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 747–757. https://doi.org/ Sandle, P. (2020). More than 400 lawmakers from 34 countries back ’Make Amazon Pay’
10.1007/s10551-013-1958-x campaign. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8N2IJ2UG.
Margolis, J., Elfenbein, H., & Walsh, J. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: Brand extension
redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 967–983. https://doi.org/
performance. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. 10.1509/jmr.11.0015
14
Statista (2021). Coffee market in the U.S. [Statista dossier on the coffee market in the U. WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://sust
S.] https://www.statista.com. ainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.
Stern, NYU. NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business and IRI Launch New Sustainable Whelan, T., & Kronthal-Sacco, R. (2019). Actually, consumers do buy sustainable
Market Share IndexTM. https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/news-event products. Harvard Business Review.
s/nyu-stern-center-sustainable-business-and-iri-launch-new-sustainable-share-index. Wicki, S., & Van Der Kaaij, J. (2007). Is it true love between the octopus and the frog?
Swaen, V., & Vanhamme, J. (2004). See how ‘good’ we are: The dangers of using How to avoid the authenticity gap. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 312–318.
corporate social activities in communication campaigns. Advances in Consumer https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550061
Research, 31, 302–303. Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definitions and management.
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, ManagementDecision, 38(9), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1108/
expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. 00251740010379100
Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social
00913367.2000.10673613 responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of
Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing poorly by doing good: Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_
Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 9
(5), 948–963. https://doi.org/10.1086/660851
Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan: Management Review, 50
Karen Anne Wallach is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at The University of Alabama
(2), 61–68.
in Huntsville. Dr. Wallach received her PhD and MBA from Emory University in Atlanta,
Unilever (2019). “Unilever Growth.” (Accessed February 1, 2020). https://assets.unileve
Georgia, USA. Her research focuses on corporate social responsibility, branding, and social
r.com/files/production/unilever-annual-report-and-accounts-2019.pdf.
media. This paper is from her doctoral dissertation under her supervisor, Dr. Jag Sheth.
van Rekom, J., Go, F. M., & Calter, D. M. (2014). Communicating a company’s positive
impact on society: Can plausible explanations secure authenticity? Journal of
Business Research, 67(9), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Deidre Popovich is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Rawls College of Business,
jbusres.2013.12.006 Texas Tech University. Her research interests include consumer decision-making, health,
Volovich, K. (2016). What’s a Good Clickthrough Rate? Hubspot. https://blog.hubspot. and well-being. She has published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Behavior
com/agency/google-adwords-benchmark-data. Research Methods, and the Journal of Retailing, among others.
15

Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

4.1. Experiment 1 Method

We recruited 350 adult participants in the United States from Pro

8. Experiment 4a: Field Experiment on Facebook

For Experiment 4a, we partnered with an environmentally friendly

13.1. Experiment 6 Method

We recruited 178 participants (53% female, ages 18–24, Mage = 20)

authenticity? Is there a prominent group of consumers who can influ References

You might also like

Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Dominant Brands Lack Authenticity in Branding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business Research 158 (2023) 113694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

4.1. Experiment 1 Method

We recruited 350 adult participants in the United States from Pro­

8. Experiment 4a: Field Experiment on Facebook

For Experiment 4a, we partnered with an environmentally friendly

13.1. Experiment 6 Method

We recruited 178 participants (53% female, ages 18–24, Mage = 20)

authenticity? Is there a prominent group of consumers who can influ­ References

You might also like

We recruited 350 adult participants in the United States from Pro

authenticity? Is there a prominent group of consumers who can influ References