CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Corporate Social Responsibility and SustainabilityConsumer behavior in food and healthEthics in Business and Education

The Consumer Experience of Responsibilization: The Case of Panera Cares

Open access
Eckhardt, Giana M., Dobscha, Susan·2019·Journal of Business Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-018-3795-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the consumer experience of responsibilization, wherein consumers are tasked with addressing social issues via their consumption choices. We study an approach to responsibilization which we label conscious pricing. Conscious pricing asks consumers to place a price on morality: How much would they pay for their lunch to combat the social issue of food insecurity? Conscious pricing stems from the broader movement of conscious capitalism, defined by its chief architects as an approach to business wherein the goal is to create value for all stakeholders: financial, ecological, ethical, and spiritual. Strategies such as conscious capitalism rely on consumers acting responsibly, assuming that consumers, when presented with the opportunity to “do good,” will do so, and that consumers will prefer companies who provide them this opportunity. Using a case study approach and online reviews, in our analysis of Panera Cares, we find that consumers in fact experience discomfort when asked to address social issues via how much they choose to pay for their meal. Because food insecurity is embodied by homeless people eating with them in the café, eating in the café is perceived as unpleasant, and the homeless also feel demoralized. This discomposure leads consumers to resist the subject position of being responsibilized by not supporting the organization that is tasking them to do so. This study is the first empirical examination of the consumer experience of consumer responsibilization and allows us to contribute to a deepened understanding of consumer ethics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10551-018-3795-4

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.
  2. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception [Phéno- ménologie de la Perception]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  3. Overman, S. (2014). Conscious economy: How a mass movement for good is great for business. London: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Eckhardt, G. M., & Dobscha, S.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • Bentley University (US)
Corresponding author
Eckhardt, Giana M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Business Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
159
Issue
3
Pages
651-663
ISSN
  • 0167-4544 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0697
DOI
10.1007/s10551-018-3795-4
OpenAlex
W2786718278
Cited by
93
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Business Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
conscious capitalism, consumer ethics, food insecurity, consumer resistance, online reviews, homelessness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review