Search results

This paper aims to challenge the notion that “having-less” – limiting consumption of scarce resources to a select few – represents a social responsibility route toward guilt reduction. It rather argues that “saving-more” – the purposeful pursuit of conscious and collaborative consumption – captures consumers’ true representations of responsible luxury which in turn reduces anticipated guilt.

Six experiments using different operationalizations of saving-more (vs. having-less) and a mix of fictitious and real luxury brands were conducted on real luxury buyers.

The findings demonstrate that saving-more (vs. having-less) leads to a stronger purchase intention; an effect explained by a higher responsible luxury perception and lower anticipated guilt associated with saving-more (vs. having-less). Furthermore, the ability of saving-more (vs. having-less) in building responsible luxury perception and reducing anticipated guilt is stronger (vs. weaker) when luxury is distributed based on deservingness (vs. entitlement).

This research proposes a novel distinction between two responsible luxury approaches: promoting limited consumption for business goals, that is, having-less and promoting conscious consumption for societal goals, that is, saving-more.

Brand managers can enhance responsible luxury perception and reduce consumer guilt through corporate communication, product communication and collaborative product accessibility modes. Managers must also convince consumers that their access to luxury is based on real achievements.

This study empirically invalidates the notion that merely invoking scarcity and rarity tactics is an expression of social responsibility. It integrates social responsibility and fairness accounts of guilt into a coherent theory of guilt over luxury consumption.

This paper empirically investigates the relationship between financial availability and crime by measuring it across five dimensions: banking, securities, insurance, private lending and digital inclusive finance.

The study utilizes 2011–2017 data from prefecture-level cities as a representative sample. Moreover, these findings remain robust after addressing endogeneity through the use of the historical distance between cities and the railroad network as an instrumental variable.

The findings demonstrate a significant negative relationship between financial accessibility and crime rates. Heterogeneity exists in the inhibitory effect of different types of financial accessibility on crime, with banking finance exhibiting a stronger inhibitory effect compared to private lending. Areas affected by natural disasters and infectious diseases exhibit a stronger inhibitory effect of financial accessibility on crime rates, particularly in areas with severe shocks of natural disasters and epidemics. This effect is attributed to the low financing threshold and easy access to private lending, which plays a more effective role than bank finance when people face extreme risks.

There should be stricter regulations imposed on private lending markets and the introduction of more rational legislation aimed at guiding a healthy development within these markets; such measures serve as effective and complementary means for individuals from all walks of life to access credit financing.

The regulation of financial resources by the government should always prioritize ensuring the accessibility of financial policies to cater to the needs of the majority population.

This study is for the first time in an emerging economy context, the causal relationship between financial accessibility and crime. To provide a more comprehensive measure of financial accessibility in a region, this paper proposes a five-dimensional methodology.