Search results

Because steadily growing consumption is not beneficial for nature and climate and is not the same as increasing well-being, an anti-consumerism movement has formed worldwide. The renouncement of dispensable consumption will, however, only establish itself as a significant lifestyle if consumers do not perceive reduced consumption as a personal sacrifice. Since prior research has not yielded a consistent understanding of the relationship between anti-consumption and personal well-being, this paper aims to examine three factors about which theory implies that they may moderate this relationship: decision-control empowerment, market-control empowerment and the value of materialism.

The analysis is based on data from a large-scale, representative online survey (N = 1,398). Structural equation modelling with latent interaction effects is used to test how three moderators (decision-control empowerment, market-control empowerment and materialism) affect the relationship amongst four types of anti-consumption (e.g. voluntary simplicity) and three different well-being states (e.g. subjective well-being).

While both dimensions of empowerment almost always directly promote consumer well-being, significant moderation effects are present in only a few but meaningful cases. Although the materialism value tends to reduce consumers’ well-being, it improves the well-being effect of two anti-consumption styles.

Using only one sample from a wealthy country is a limitation of the study. Researchers should replicate the findings in different nations and cultures.

Consumer affairs practitioners and commercial marketing for sustainably produced, high-quality and long-lasting goods can benefit greatly from these findings.

This paper shows that sustainable marketing campaigns can more easily motivate consumers to voluntarily reduce their consumption for the benefit of society and the environment if a high level of market-control empowerment can be communicated to them.

This study provides differentiated new insights into the roles of consumer empowerment, i.e. both decision-control empowerment and market-control empowerment, and the value of materialism to frame specific relationships between different anti-consumption types and various well-being states.

The increase in environmental consciousness around the world since 1970's pushed firms to engage in socially responsible behaviors. The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has naturally gained attention in the academic and business world (Colvin, 2001; Harrison & Freeman, 1999; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Waddock & Smith, 2000). The reasons for these socially responsible behaviors are not only the external obligations or regulatory compliance but also the firms desire to increase competitiveness, to improve stock market performance (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Drumwright, 1994, 1996; Klassen & Mclaughlin, 1996; Russo & Fouts, 1997; Waddock & Smith, 2000) and to create a positive self‐image among consumers. There have been numerous studies on CSR suggesting a link between social initiatives and consumer's positive product and brand evaluations, brand choice and brand recommendations (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Drumwright, 1994; Handelman & Arnold, 1999; Osterhus, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Moreover, the consumers are continuing to become more interested in CSR and green product market is fast growing so the use of CSR initiatives by the firms to receive the support of the society and to influence consumer behavior has become quite common. However, these socially responsible steps must also have an effect on corporations' major objective: maximizing the profits.