Consumer responses to sustainable product branding strategies: a literature review and future research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This literature review aims to synthesise the research on various sustainable product branding activities and their impact on consumer responses to sustainable products and brands. Design/methodology/approach This literature review is semi-systematic and can be classified as a domain-based review. The search strategy was systematic and well-defined. Findings The authors identified four themes: building brand equity, brand communication, product development and third-party labels and ratings, within the sustainable product branding activities that influence consumers' responses to sustainable products and brands. The study's findings revealed diverse, and not always favourable, types of behavioural and attitudinal responses from consumers. As for the positive consumer responses, the authors found positive attitudes towards brands, willingness to pay a premium price and positive word-of-mouth intentions. As for the negative consumer responses, the authors found perceived greenwashing, negative brand evaluations and resistance to sustainable products with unfamiliar third-party labels. Several future research propositions and implications for research and practice are discussed. Originality/value Despite the large number of studies that look at sustainable branding strategies, there is a gap in terms of synthesising the knowledge on consumer responses to sustainable product branding strategies. This paper intends to fill this gap.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".