Perceptions of Social Responsibility of Prominent Fast Food Restaurants
- 1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 3 Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
- 4 Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 5 College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Abstract
In this study, U.S. resident’s perceptions of social responsibility of prominent fast food restaurants were investigated. A survey conducted in April 2015 collected information from a sample targeted to be representative of the U.S. population. In total, 302 completed participant’s responses were analyzed (n = 302). Using a best-worst choice experiment question, participant’s choices for “most” and “least” socially responsible fast food restaurants were analyzed, resulting in individual’s relative perceptions of social responsibility amongst the restaurants studied. Results indicate that of the fast food restaurants studied, Panera Bread was perceived to be the most socially responsible restaurant, followed by Subway and Chick-fil-A. In contrast, McDonald’s, KFC, and Taco Bell were perceived to be the least socially responsible of the fast food restaurants studied. Additionally, relationships amongst participant’s perceptions of social responsibility in fast food, demographic factors, consumption practices, and knowledge of fast food business practices were analyzed. Significant relationships were found amongst “being female” and “self-reported knowledge of fast food business practices” with “perceptions of the social responsibility of fast food restaurants”.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2016) Food Expenditures. http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx
- McDonald’s (2016) Sustainability. http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/sustainability.html
- Panera Bread (2016) Our Food Policy: Positive Impact. https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/our-beliefs/our-food-policy/positive-impact.html
- Wood, D.J. (1991) Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
- Sethi, S.P. (1979) A Conceptual Framework for Environmental Analysis of Social Issues and Evaluation of Business Response Patterns. The Academy of Management Review, 4, 64-74.
- Davis, K. (1973) The Case for and against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. The Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255331
- Vogel, D. (2005) The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
- Bronn, P.S. and Vrioni, A.B. (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility and Cause-Related Marketing: An Overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222.
- Schroeder, M.J.A. (2003) Food Quality and Consumer Value: Delivering Food that Satisfies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
- Schroeder, M.J.A., and McEachern, M.G. (2005) Fast Foods and Ethical Consumer Value: A Focus on McDonald’s and KFC. British Food Journal, 107, 212-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700510589503
- Cummins, A.M., Widmar, N.J.O., Croney C.C. and Fulton, J.R. (2016) Understanding Consumer Pork Attribute Preferences. Theoretical Economics Letters, 6, 166-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/tel.2016.62019
- Wolf, C.A. and Tonsor, G.T. (2013) Dairy Farmer Policy Preferences. Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 38, 220-234.
- Erdem, S., Rigby, D. and Wossink, A. (2012) Using Best-Worst Scaling to Explore Perceptions of Relative Responsibility for Ensuring Food Safety. Food Policy, 37, 661-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.010
- Finn, A. and Louviere, J.J. (1992) Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11, 12-25.
- Flynn, T.N. (2010) Valuing Citizen and Patient Preferences in Health: Recent Developments in Three Types of Best-Worst Scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10, 259-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.29