Search results

This study sought to understand which food allergen labeling systems (non-directive, semi-directive, and directive) were attended to and preferred by 34 participants with food hypersensitivity and their perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) and behavioral intention towards a restaurant that identifies food allergens on menus.

This study used an online survey with open-ended and ranking questions, combined with eye-tracking technology, to explore participants' visual attention and design preferences regarding four menus. This study utilized one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) and heat maps to analyze participants' menu-reading behaviors. A content analysis of survey responses and a ranking analysis of menus were conducted to understand the reasons behind consumers' preferred menu designs.

The advisory statement was not much attended to. Participants identified food allergen information significantly quicker with the directive labeling system (icons) than the other two systems, implying they were eye-catching. Semi-directive labeling system (red text) has lower visit count and was more preferred than two other systems; each labeling system has its strengths and limitations. Participants viewed restaurants that disclosed food allergen information on menus as socially responsible, and they would revisit those restaurants in the future.

This study was one of the first to explore, through use of eye-tracking technology, which food allergen labeling systems were attended to by consumers with food hypersensitivity. The use of triangulation methods strengthened the credibility of the results. The study provided empirical data to restauranteurs in the US on the values of food allergen identification on restaurant menus, although it is voluntary.

Business organizations are evermore expected to behave conscientiously, but a lack of clarity remains regarding this strategy for business-to-business (B2B) brands. This paper aims to develop and validate a B2B brand conscientiousness model that identifies what factors are driving this approach.

The research model is validated through a three-stage study that collects insights from high-level executives, mid-level managers and employees in B2B firms. Whereas the first two exploratory stages follow a qualitative approach to identify what factors motivate B2B firms to be conscientious and develop a model, the third stage empirically tests the proposed model through structural equation modeling.

The results suggest that brand conscientiousness is viewed as an important strategy by B2B stakeholders. Whereas perceived risk discourages, external and internal stakeholder expectations and a firm’s financial commitment to a cause encourage, brands to pursue a conscientious approach. Furthermore, a B2B conscientious strategy must be perceived as authentic. Long-term commitment to the cause, strategic alignment of brand values with the cause and a congruent delivery of the brand’s promise are the drivers of this perceived authenticity.

This paper contributes to the emerging knowledge on B2B conscientious brands by confirming the importance of this approach in a B2B context, identifying the factors that B2B stakeholders – executives, managers and employees – believe are driving it and highlighting the importance and identifying the factors that drive its perceived authenticity.