MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414302654 · doi:10.1080/10496491.2025.2560414

Who Are Canada’s Green Consumers? A Corporate Social Responsibility-Driven Typology

2025· article· en· W4414302654 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tian Zeng, Fabien Durif, Élisabeth Robinot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Promotion Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyCorporate social responsibilityCorporate governanceCorporate communicationWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As consumers become more socially responsible, companies are increasingly compelled to strengthen their green marketing strategies. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) serves as an essential promotional tool to engage consumers and enhance brand image. Research on consumer responses to CSR initiatives remains limited despite their importance, which hinders a full understanding of the complexities of modern green-consumer behavior and the design of effective promotional strategies. This study uses cluster analysis to develop a CSR-driven consumer typology for Canada. Based on an online survey of 602 respondents, it identifies three consumer segments: indifferent, eco-conscious, and skeptical consumers. This study examines both sociodemographic and behavioral factors to profile these groups and finds that behavioral factors—loyalty, word of mouth, brand equity, and purchase intention—are more effective than demographic variables in characterizing modern green consumers. It proposes a new typology approach that expands socially responsible consumption beyond environmental concerns to include both environmental and social dimensions through CSR. This broader perspective enables companies to better align their CSR practices with consumers’ needs. These findings offer practical insights and suggest that developing CSR-based promotional strategies tailored to different consumer segments can enhance the impact of CSR initiatives, improve consumer engagement, and strengthen brand relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Promotion ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207