Content uploaded by Chu-Yen Pai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chu-Yen Pai on Nov 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Love Luxury, Love the Earth: An Empirical
Investigation on How Sustainable Luxury
Consumption Contributes to Social-
Environmental Well-Being
Chu-Yen Pai
1
, Debra Laverie
1
, and Ashley Hass
2
Abstract
Global luxury markets are thriving, and many consumers love purchasing luxury goods. Meanwhile, the public concern for sus-
tainability is at an all-time high. More firms are providing sustainable market offerings; therefore, studying social-environmental
well-being is imperative for macromarketing. Our research answers the call for attention to the influence of marketing on con-
sumer well-being via sustainable consumption. This study investigates how sustainability and craftsmanship influence social-envi-
ronmental well-being through brand authenticity, self-appraisal, reflected appraisal, and self-esteem in sustainable luxury
consumption. We surveyed 400 consumers, and the results offer empirical support for our proposed theoretical model. The
findings validate the view that sustainability and luxury are compatible. We offer evidence of the value of sustainability and crafts-
manship for authentic luxury brands that produce market offerings which elevate social-environmental well-being. Our research
indicates we can love both luxury and the earth, supporting transformative luxury momentum to enhance social-environmental
well-being.
Keywords
sustainability, craftsmanship, brand authenticity, well-being, sustainable luxury
Introduction
The global luxury goods market is thriving after consumers cur-
tailed discretionary spending because of the COVID-19 pan-
demic, recovering to €1.14 trillion in sales in 2022, signifying
its global rebound (D’Arpizio et al. 2022). Personal luxury
goods reached €283 billion in 2021, a record high (D’Arpizio
et al. 2022). In addition to being sizable, the luxury goods
market is influential in forming and adapting to societal
trends. For instance, the luxury goods market has become
more attuned to environmental and social sustainability
(Casale et al. 2019; D’Arpizio et al. 2022).
While the luxury market grows, public concern for the environ-
ment and climate change is at an all-time high. New approaches are
needed to address the ecological problems at the macro-level as
detailed in The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development through the Sustainable Development
Goals (Dermody et al. 2021). Firms are adjusting their practices
to meet social and environmental standards, a critical macromarket-
ing issue (Sheth and Parvatiyar 2021). As concerns for global
warming and the environment grow, sustainable consumption can
minimize the environmental effects of consumption (Ozdamar
Ertekin and Atik 2015). Macromarketing scholars have called for
a new vision of a sustainable world (Dermody et al. 2021).
Marketers must consider responsible approaches to producing sus-
tainable products that will build sustainable societies (Sheth and
Parvatiyar 2021). Many large retailers (e.g., H&M, IKEA, and
Sephora), consumer brands (e.g., Levi’s and Patagonia), and
luxury brands (e.g., Cartier and John Hardy) have already adjusted
their strategy to focus on sustainability (Widlitz 2020).
Bendell and Kleanthous (2007) first conceptualized sustainable
luxury as a market where luxury brands are authentic and contrib-
ute positively to society and the environment. Sustainable luxury
consumption refers to “one’s ability to consume luxury goods
and services that fulfill a person’s fundamental needs and
improve his or her quality of life without adversely affecting the
needs of future generations”(Batat 2020, p. 2). An additional
aim of sustainable consumption is to enhance social well-being
(Sirgy 2021) and practice socially responsible marketing, an essen-
tial component of macromarketing (Ferrell and Ferrell 2022).
Selective consumption can be tied to well-being (Varey 2010),
and a transformation to sustainable consumption would be a fun-
damental transformation for society (Assadourian 2010).
Sustainable luxury goods are often perceived as high quality,
authentic, built with craftsmanship (Ko, Costello and Taylor
2019),andtiedtoconsumers’sense of self, which connects
1
Department of Marketing, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
2
Department of Marketing, University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA
Corresponding Author:
Chu-Yen Pai, Department of Marketing, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Email: chupai@ttu.edu
Research Article
Journal of Macromarketing
2022, Vol. 42(4) 640-654
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02761467221125915
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmk
consumers with a brand (Holt 2002). The notion of authenticity in
sustainable luxury is of interest because “authenticity is inherently a
macromarketing concept that is linked to how marketers and con-
sumers view themselves and their own status in society”
(Kadirov, Varey and Wooliscroft 2014, p. 73). Additionally, previ-
ous research has not focused on how luxury goods markets can
employ sustainability as a strategy (Athwal et al. 2019) while main-
taining craftsmanship to contribute to consumer well-being. Sirgy
(2021) called for attention to social well-being to further develop
concepts of consumer well-being. From a transformative research
approach, luxury consumption is symbolic and can impact well-
being, and luxury marketers have a moral imperative to enhance
consumer well-being by making society better (Batat 2022).
Hence, this paper focuses on how sustainable luxury consumption
impacts social-environmental well-being (hereafter, SE well-being),
a subset of social well-being based on the “appraisal of one’scir-
cumstance and functioning in society”(Keyes 1998, p. 122).
We use a micro lens to examine the macro impact of sustain-
able luxury consumption because “individual acts of consump-
tion are not in opposition to, and prior to, macro structures and
processes; they are macro processes at work”(Dolan 2002,
p. 171). Our research examines the influence of sustainable
luxury consumption on SE well-being. Applying appraisal
and self-esteem theories, we proposed and tested a model illus-
trating the mechanism of how perceptions of sustainable luxury
consumption influence macro SE well-being through brand
authenticity, self-appraisal, reflected appraisal, and self-esteem.
Specifically, this study addresses the research questions (1) how
do the perceived sustainability and craftsmanship of sustainable
luxury consumption impact SE well-being? and (2) how do per-
ceptions of brand authenticity, appraisals, and self-esteem influ-
ence SE well-being in the context of sustainable luxury?
The following sections discuss the theoretical background,
hypothesized model, methodology, and analysis. Our empirical
results support the proposed model demonstrating that sustain-
able luxury consumption impacts SE well-being. We close with
a general discussion focusing on the managerial and theoretical
implications of the study, limitations, and avenues for future
research. This study contributes to the macromarketing litera-
ture by demonstrating that consuming sustainable luxury prod-
ucts engenders SE well-being through increased brand
authenticity, self-appraisal, reflected appraisal, and self-esteem.
Background Literature: Sustainability, Craftsmanship,
Brand Authenticity, Appraisals, Self-Esteem, and
Social-Environmental Well-Being
Although sustainable luxury as a concept and practice is gaining
more attention among consumers and in luxury markets, academic
research on this emerging topic is still limited (Athwal et al. 2019).
A current emerging field in marketing explores the relationship
between luxury and well-being. This movement, referred to as
Transformative Luxury Research (TLR), focuses on business
efforts to enhance consumer well-being by producing and con-
suming sustainable luxury goods. Can sustainable luxury
consumption contribute to consumers’SE well-being? At first
glance, it seems that luxury and sustainability are opposed.
However, recent research (Batat and Khochman 2022) has
shown how TLR supports the relationship between luxury and
sustainable practices to improve well-being.
To the best of the authors’knowledge, no academic market-
ing research has explored the influence of sustainable luxury
consumption on SE well-being. The closest research is by
Hudders and Pandelaere (2012), who demonstrated that
luxury consumption enhanced positive mood, reduced negative
attitude, and increased satisfaction with life, namely consumer
well-being. Additionally, Batat (2021) found that ethical food
production and consumption in luxury dining enhanced con-
sumers’well-being related to food. Hence, echoing Sirgy’s
(2021) call for attention to social well-being to enrich the con-
cepts of consumer well-being, this paper studies the influence of
sustainable luxury consumption on SE well-being, addressing
the current research void and mixed findings.
Luxury and Sustainability
Sustainability and sustainable consumption are essential elements
in discussions of the environmental impacts of marketing efforts
and consumption (Schaefer and Crane 2005) and are stimulating
academic research (Assadourian 2010; Dolan 2002; Heiskanen
and Pantzar 1997; Kapferer and Michaut-Denizeau 2014, 2020;
Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero 1997; Naderi and Strutton
2015; Osburg et al. 2021; van Dam and Apeldoorn 1996).
There is a concern that the current state of consumerism is unsus-
tainable because stimulating consumption undermines societal
well-being; if society is to maintain stability, consumerism
needs to morph into sustainable consumption (Assadourian
2010). Promoting socially and environmentally sustainable mar-
keting offerings is becoming a concern for consumers and is
crucial for crafting marketing strategies (Humphreys 2014).
The burgeoning sustainability movements (e.g., slow fashion
and conscious consumption) show that the legitimacy of consum-
erism is being questioned and that society is moving towards sus-
tainable consumption (Cavender 2018; Ozdamar Ertekin and
Atik 2015). However, whether sustainability inhibits or attracts
consumers to luxury consumption is still an unresolved debate
in the extant literature. Some studies have argued that sustainabil-
ity is incompatible with luxury (Achabou and Dekhili 2013;
Davies, Lee and Ahonkhai 2012; Kapferer and Michaut-
Denizeau 2014; Voyer and Beckham 2014). Luxury is commonly
associated with personal pleasure, complexity, and conspicuous-
ness, while sustainability is related to altruism, sobriety, modera-
tion, and ethics (Amatulli et al., 2020b; Amatulli, De Angelis
and Donato 2021; Athwal et al. 2019; Batat and Khochman
2022; Naderi and Strutton 2015). However, other studies have
shown that sustainability and luxury are a good fit. Luxury is sus-
tainable because luxury goods are associated with quality, time-
lessness, craftsmanship, and durability (Amatulli et al. 2018;
Athwal et al. 2019; Batat and Khochman 2022; Kapferer 2010;
Osburg et al. 2021; Venkatesh et al. 2010).
Pai et al. 641
Eastman, Iyer and Dekhili (2021) found that the notion of sus-
tainable luxury is unique and symbolic. Sustainable luxury brands
can align the brand with a consumer’s sense of identity and self-
expression (Eastman, Iyer and Dekhili 2021); craftsmanship that
uses traceable materials and follows sustainability principles can
align with consumers’self-evaluations. Recent studies have dem-
onstrated that luxury consumers are increasingly concerned with
sustainability (Amatulli, De Angelis and Donato 2020; Eastman,
Iyer and Dekhili 2021). Many sustainable luxury brands have
committed to minimizing their negative impacts on the environ-
ment and society by forming sustainability and ethical standards
and initiating the notion of sustainable and ethical luxury
(Janssen et al. 2014; Osburg et al. 2021). When luxury brands
declare their sustainable practices, they build a connection with
customers and stakeholders (Osburg et al. 2021). The element of
sustainability may lead to a more favorable perception of sustain-
able luxury goods in response to consumers’increasing concern
for sustainability issues (Baker, Davis and Weaver 2014), thus,
attracting more conscientious consumers (Athwal et al. 2019).
Luxury and Craftsmanship
For firms that focus on sustainable luxury, craftsmanship is a
crucial component of how they build their brand.
Craftsmanship describes the work of artisans who create
premium-quality and aesthetically attractive pieces (Lee and
Youn 2021). Craftsmanship is associated with quality, authen-
ticity, thoroughness, tradition, and heritage (Tarquini,
Mühlbacher and Kreuzer 2022). The value of craftsmanship
lies in the handmade manufacturing process, where artisans
create rare market offerings (Björklund, Keipi and Maula
2020). Thus, craftsmanship influences the meaning of luxury
brands (Seo and Buchanan-Oliver 2019), making market offer-
ings more appealing to consumers (Fuchs, Schreier and van
Osselaer 2015). In addition, sustainable luxury products are
often associated with craftsmanship based on unique compo-
nents and skills (Amatulli et al. 2017). Craftsmanship is vital
to the success of many sustainable luxury brands because con-
sumers treasure craftsmanship, and skilled craftsmanship
creates authenticity in many sustainable luxury product catego-
ries such as watches and jewelry (Caniato et al. 2009).
Brand Authenticity
The consensus in the extant literature is that authenticity is a
socially constructed notion based on how an entity is perceived
as true to itself (Leigh, Peters and Shelton 2006). Authenticity is
the evaluation of the levels of realness and genuineness (de
Kerviler, Heuvinck and Gentina 2021) and is rooted in an indi-
vidual’s perceptions (Rose and Wood 2005). Consumers appre-
ciate authentic luxury goods that are produced sustainably
(Alexander 2009; Beverland and Farrelly 2010; Holt 2002;
Kadirov, Varey and Wooliscroft 2014; Peñaloza 2000;
Seeman 1966). Authenticity requires firms to strive for a
genuine embrace of the common good and mutually beneficial
outcomes while participating in marketing systems. Many
luxury brands have been successful because of their flexibility
in responding to cultural trends while retaining authenticity
and uniqueness (Trevail 2018). To convey authenticity, most
luxury marketers communicate craftsmanship, premium
quality, and heritage as their branding strategies (Adamska
2019; Kapferer 2016). For instance, Hermès, a high-end
luxury brand, demonstrates brand authenticity by showing the
handcrafting process of Hermès artisans in real-time as they
face consumers (de Kerviler, Gentina and Heuvinck 2021).
Appraisals and Self-Esteem
The consumption of authentic luxury provides consumers an
opportunity for appraisals. From a symbolic interactionist per-
spective, appraisals include both self-evaluations and evalua-
tions by others (Rosenberg 1981; Solomon 1983; Stryker
1980). Appraisals result from an evaluation process through
which one forms perceptions based on self-appraisal and
reflected appraisal to yield conclusions about self-esteem.
Self-appraisal is a person’s independent, personal evaluation
of consumption, while reflected appraisal is one’s perception
of how others evaluate them. Empirical findings showed that
self-appraisal and reflected appraisal do not require the presence
of others and are related to the self (e.g., Laverie, Kleine and
Kleine 2002).
Positive or negative appraisals of oneself and consumption
are linked to self-esteem. Self-esteem is strongly tied to
health, happiness, social belonging, and well-being (Olsen,
Khoi and Tuu 2021). There is considerable evidence that
appraisals influence self-esteem (Leary et al. 1995) because
appraisal theory predicts that self-appraisal and reflected
appraisal are sources of self-esteem (Schwalbe and Staples
1991). Stemming from appraisals (Rosenberg 1979; Wells
and Marwell 1976), self-esteem is strongly positively associ-
ated with subjective well-being (Neff 2011; Olsen, Khoi and
Tuu 2021; Paradise and Kernis 2002), particularly in Western
cultures (Campbell 1981; Diener and Diener 1995).
Social-Environmental Well-Being
Macromarketing scholars view consumer well-being as the
ultimate goal of marketing (Hunt 2012; Layton 2007;
Mittelstaedt et al. 2014; Shapiro and Zillante 2009; Wilkie
and Moore 2006); consumer well-being reflects a meta-level
notion of societal welfare and happiness (Sirgy 2021).
Therefore, marketers should develop market offerings that
advance pleasure, excitement, happiness, and well-being
(Olsen, Khoi and Tuu 2021). Social well-being is a more
public and social aspect than psychological well-being,
which reflects a more private and personal assessment of
one’s function (Keyes 2002). Derived from social well-
being, SE well-being focuses on sustainability, reflecting
an individual’s participation in society and the environment
(Vinzenz et al. 2018). Specifically, SE well-being includes
(1) an evaluation of one’s social value, including the belief
that one is an essential member of society and has value to
642 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
give to society, and (2) the belief in the power and potential
of society to shape the world into a better place (Keyes 1998;
Vinzenz et al. 2019).
Marketing has a societal role in informing customers about
goods that can improve their SE well-being. Designing sustain-
able products should factor not only into private value (e.g., ben-
efits to customers) but also into public value (e.g., benefits to
society) because sustainable products are made to elevate the
environment and social well-being (Dyllick and Rost 2017).
Humans are an inseparable part of society and the environment;
people can develop feelings of connectedness to society and
nature (Vinzenz et al. 2019), resulting in increased well-being
(Vinzenz et al. 2018). Sustainability information engenders feel-
ings of connectedness to nature and other people (), and these
feelings are an essential predictor of one’s pro-environmental
behavior and well-being (). By being aware of their self-
contribution to society and the environment, people can generate
positive feelings about their sustainability efforts related to
society and the environment, namely, SE well-being (Vinzenz
et al. 2019). This research aligns with the perspective that sus-
tainability and luxury are compatible; we argue that sustainable
luxury can contribute to SE well-being through brand authentic-
ity, appraisals, and self-esteem. In the next section, we develop
our hypothesized model (see Figure 1).
Hypothesized Theoretical Model
Sustainability, Craftsmanship, and Brand Authenticity. Marketers
strive to influence consumers’perceptions of brand authenticity
(O’Guinn et al. 2014), thus influencing consumers’positive
impression of a brand, which is derived from their positive eval-
uations of marketing communications and positioning
(Krishnan 1996). Luxury consumers have started demanding
environmentally sound and socially responsible products
(Bendell and Kleanthous 2007). Sustainable luxury can
provoke feelings of being unique, memorable, and authentic
(Jebarajakirthy and Das 2021) while quality and craftsmanship
are viewed as the most common features of luxury goods
(Amatulli and Guido 2011; McCarthy et al. 2017) that consum-
ers value in an authentic brand (Beverland and Farrelly 2010).
Previous studies have tied sustainability and craftsmanship to
perceived brand authenticity (Beverland 2006; Choi et al. 2015).
Focusing on sporting goods, Choi et al. (2015) indicated that per-
ceived sustainability efforts can impact consumers’perceptions of
the authenticity of sporting goods brands (e.g., Nike, Adidas).
Examining traditional luxury goods (i.e., fine wine), Beverland
(2006) identified perceived craftsmanship as one of the factors
influencing consumers’judgments of brand authenticity.
Because sustainable luxury incorporates a brand’s sustainability
efforts and premium craftsmanship, we hypothesize that per-
ceived sustainability and craftsmanship in sustainable luxury con-
sumption are positively related to the perceived authenticity of a
luxury brand. Hence, we propose H1 and H2 as follows:
H1: Perceived sustainability is positively related to perceived brand
authenticity.
H2: Perceived craftsmanship is positively related to perceived
brand authenticity.
Brand Authenticity and Appraisals
The greater the perceived brand authenticity, the stronger the
psychological brand connection (Kumar and Kaushal 2021)
because authentic brands offer consumers meaning and identity
in their lives (Arnould and Price 2000; Morhart et al. 2015).
Appraisals are often based on the consumption of products
(Laverie, Kleine and Kleine 2002). Products influence the self
through the appraisal process (Laverie and McDonald 2007),
and consumption provides cues to the self and others, engender-
ing self-appraisal and reflected appraisal. Appraisals result from a
self-attribution process through which one interprets one’spos-
sessions and their relation to the sense of self. Reflected appraisal
refers to an individual’s perception of how others evaluate them,
while self-appraisal refers to individuals’evaluations of them-
selves. Based on the findings of previous literature, we propose
that in sustainable luxury consumption, perceived brand authen-
ticity is positively related to self-appraisal and reflected appraisal.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 are listed as follows:
H3: Perceived brand authenticity is positively related to
self-appraisal.
H4: Perceived brand authenticity is positively related to reflected
appraisal.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Pai et al. 643
Appraisals, Self-Esteem, and Social-Environmental
Well-Being
Self-esteem is an individual’s positive or negative evaluation of
their self-worth, self-respect, and competence (Neff 2011;
Olsen, Khoi and Tuu 2021; Rosenberg 1965). Social psycholo-
gists stress that self-appraisal and reflected appraisal are two
critical sources of self-evaluation; both are potential sources
of self-esteem (Schwalbe and Staples 1991). Appraisals are
cognitive and emotive assessments of the self and are directly
tied to self-esteem (Laverie, Kleine and Kleine 2002; Laverie
and McDonald 2007). Self-esteem stems from the affection
and recognition of others and the assessment that one’s behav-
iors reflect one’s ability and worth (Rosenberg 1979; Wells and
Marwell 1976).
Self-esteem is related to psychological well-being because it
reflects feelings of self-worth, personal value, and competence
(Olsen, Khoi and Tuu 2021). Further, Neff (2011) and Paradise
and Kernis (2002) demonstrated that self-esteem is positively
related to psychological well-being. However, in this paper,
we examine how self-esteem is related to SE well-being, not
psychological well-being; SE well-being reflects one’s contri-
bution to society and the environment as well as the belief
that society can make the world a better place (Keyes 1998;
Vinzenz et al. 2019). In sum, we propose hypotheses 5, 6,
and 7 as follows:
H5: Self-appraisal is positively related to self-esteem.
H6: Reflected appraisal is positively related to self-esteem.
H7: Self-esteem is positively related to SE well-being.
Methodology
We conducted a study to examine the proposed model pre-
sented in Figure 1. We chose the luxury watch category as
the survey stimulus in this study for the following reasons:
First, within the category of personal luxury goods
(D’Arpizio et al. 2022), the luxury watch category has the
highest growth rate of 32% in 2020–2021 among all luxury
product categories (D’Arpizio et al. 2022). Second, the luxury
watch market has recently been focusing more on sustainable
luxury (e.g., Cartier’s solar-powered watch with a nonanimal
leather strap). Thus, using sustainable luxury watches can
provide a reasonable interpretation of the prospect of sustain-
able luxury consumption. Finally, to test the proposed hypoth-
eses, we conducted a survey on the platform Prolific and
examined the model with structural equation modeling (SEM)
using the R (version 4.0.3) software package.
Sample and Procedure
The proposed model was tested using a sample of 400 consum-
ers who participated on the platform Prolific. A recent study
compared online platforms for panel data collection and con-
cluded that Prolific participants devoted their attention,
answered honestly, and provided the best quality data compared
to other online panel platforms (Peer et al. 2021). The panel
offers a small amount of financial compensation to respondents.
The samples were drawn from an international pool to cover
luxury consumers from different nations. We narrowed the
pool to primarily English-speaking countries, and all partici-
pants identified themselves as fluent English speakers. We
recruited participants from the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand,
because Europe and Americas accounted for 56% of the
global personal luxury goods market in 2021 (D’Arpizio et al.
2022). To make our sample more representative of the luxury
consumer population, we recruited participants aged 30 and
above, holding higher education degrees, who had purchased
luxury goods before. Four hundred respondents completed the
survey with an average age of 42. The respondents were
44.3% female; 65% had graduated from college, and 35%
held graduate degrees. The respondents identified as: 39.8%
North Americans, 58.5% Europeans, and 1.7% Australasians.
The participants reported their annual income as follows:
18.5% earned less than $49,999 USD; 50.75% earned
$50,000–$99,999; 19% earned $100,000–$149,999; and
11.75% earned over $150,000.
We selected Cartier’s SolarBeat Tank Must watch (hereafter,
Cartier SolarBeat) as the stimulus material in this study for
several reasons. First, Cartier is a high-end luxury brand, and
using an authentic rather than a fictional luxury brand could
allow us to observe participants’cognitive and affective behav-
iors more precisely. Launched in 2021, Cartier SolarBeat is the
first solar-powered Cartier watch with a strap made from resid-
ual apple waste (rather than leather). Thus, Cartier’s sustainabil-
ity endeavor in product design has become a landmark for
Cartier and the luxury watch industry. Moreover, Cartier
SolarBeat is a new, gender-neutral edition of Cartier’s classic
Tank collection, filling the strong demand for “über-luxury,”
iconic pieces, and gender-free watches in the current luxury
watch market (D’Arpizio et al. 2022). We developed an adver-
tisement to use a stimulus with a simple image from Cartier
with text we developed to convey the traits of the Solar Beat
watch.
At the beginning of the survey, participants were presented
with information about the brand history, product features (sus-
tainable and handcrafted), and actual retail price of the Cartier
SolarBeat. Next, participants watched a two-minute video
created by the first author (using VideoScribe) to present
more detailed information on Cartier SolarBeat and the
Cartier brand. Finally, participants were asked to imagine treat-
ing themselves to a Cartier SolarBeat and wearing it at that
moment, followed by the survey. See Table 1 for the description
used.
Measures
Perceived sustainability was measured using five items adapted
from Kim et al. (2015), capturing consumers’perceptions of the
environmental sustainability practices of a luxury marketer.
644 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
Perceived craftsmanship was measured using six items adapted
from Abouab and Gomez (2015), capturing the degree to which
consumers perceive a sustainable luxury product as hand-
crafted. Perceived brand authenticity was measured using four-
teen items adapted from Napoli et al. (2014), capturing the
degree to which consumers perceive the authenticity of a
luxury brand. Napoli et al. (2014) measured brand authenticity
with three first-order factors—quality commitment, heritage,
and sincerity; all three dimensions fit well with the perception
of a luxury brand. Self-appraisal and reflected appraisal were
both measured using four items adapted from Laverie, Kleine
and Kleine (2002), capturing how positively or how negatively
consumers evaluate themselves in sustainable luxury consump-
tion. Self-esteem was measured using ten items adapted from
Rosenberg (1965), capturing consumers’self-evaluation of sus-
tainable luxury consumption. Finally, SE well-being was
measured using five items adapted from Vinzenz et al.
(2019), capturing consumers’self-referential positive evalua-
tions relevant to their involvement in society and the environ-
ment. All constructs, except perceived craftsmanship,
self-appraisal, and reflected appraisal, were measured using
seven-point Likert scales anchored at strongly disagree (1)
and strongly agree (7); perceived craftsmanship, self-appraisal
and reflected appraisal were captured using seven-point seman-
tic differential scales. All items and respective constructs are
listed in Table 2.
Measurement Model
To examine the measurement properties of the scales used in
this research, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of
the constructs. Our CFA model yielded an acceptable fitto
data: Chi-square, χ
2
=2471.19, df =1056, χ2/df =2.34, CFI =
0.922, TLI =0.917, RMSEA =0.058. The standardized item
loadings (λ) exceeded the 0.70 threshold (Hair et al. 2006),
except for two items. These two items, belonging to perceived
sustainability (i.e., “Cartier uses recycled materials in their
products”;λ=0.425), and perceived craftsmanship (i.e., “The
production process of this Cartier watch is mass-produced/
made once ordered”;λ=0.624) had lower loadings, and were
dropped. The measurement model was reestimated, generating
an adequate fit: Chi-square, χ
2
=2297.39, df =965, χ2/df =
2.38, CFI =0.926, TLI =0.920, RMSEA =0.059.
The constructs were assessed for internal consistency and con-
vergent and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha (α)andcom-
posite reliability (CR) were used to assess reliability, while average
variance extracted (AVE) was used to assess convergent validity.
We adopted the Fornell and Larcker criterion to assess the discrim-
inant validity of the measurement model. The results are summa-
rized in Table 2. All values of αand CR were above 0.70,
indicating the reliability of the constructs is acceptable. All the
AVE were above 0.50, indicating convergent validity. The
maximum correlation between constructs was less than the
minimum square root of the AVE, demonstrating that discriminant
validity was acceptable (Fornell and Larcker 1981); see Table 3. In
addition, all intercorrelation coefficients were below 0.85, provid-
ing further evidence of discriminant validity.
Structural Model
With a valid measurement model, we used structural equation
modeling (SEM) to analyze our hypothesized model with the
results summarized in Table 4 and Figure 2. Our structural
model had an acceptable fit: χ
2
=2432.94, df =977, χ2/df =
2.49, CFI =0.919, TLI =0.914, RMSEA =0.061. The results
provide evidence that in sustainable luxury consumption, con-
sumers’perceptions of sustainability and craftsmanship are pos-
itively related to their perceptions of brand authenticity (β=
0.576, p< 0.001; β=0.317, p< 0.001, respectively), supporting
H1 and H2. Further, consumers’perception of brand authentic-
ity is positively related to two appraisals of their sustainable
Table 1. Survey Stimulus.
Established in 1847, Cartier is a high-end luxury brand
espoused by elites and the royals. Cartier is more than a pioneer
in watchmaking craftsmanship and is now leading the
industry towards sustainable luxury. For instance, in 2021,
Cartier launched the “SolarBeat Tank”watch, the first
solar-powered Cartier watch. This Carter watch also uses
non-animal leather (uses an apple residual) as the strap material.
Extending Cartier’s luxury watch legacy, each Cartier watch,
including this watch, is handcrafted by Cartier craftsmen,
upholding over decades of experience and sophisticated
skills. Imagine you have achieved a major accomplishment in
your life and you are going to reward yourself with a high-end
watch. After your first promotion, you want to treat yourself
to a Cartier watch. With this background story, please
consider what you have learned about the Cartier “SolarBeat
Tank”;picture yourself wearing this Cartier “SolarBeat
Tank”watch and describe how would you evaluate the
brand Cartier. Note: The description above and the
advertisement below were used in the survey.
Pai et al. 645
Table 2. Convergent Validity of First- and Second-Order Constructs.
Constructs and Items
Indicator
a
Validity and Reliability Construct Validity and Reliability
Standardized
Loading
Standard
Error z-value
Cronbach
Alpha AVE
Composite
Reliability
First-Order Constructs
Perceived Craftsmanship (adapted from: Abouab
and Gomez 2015)
0.901 0.651 0.903
The production process of this Cartier watch is
industrial/handcrafted
0.765 −
b
−
b
The production process of this Cartier watch is
automatic/manual
0.744 0.069 15.283***
The production process of this Cartier watch involves
machines/humans
0.846 0.067 17.705***
The production process of this Cartier watch is made in
a factory/made by a craftsman
0.828 0.055 17.272***
The production process of this Cartier watch is machine
made/handmade
0.847 0.059 17.730***
Perceived Sustainability (adapted from: Kim et al.
2015)
0.888 0.669 0.890
Cartier utilizes green technology 0.758 −
b
−
b
Cartier invests for the environment 0.815 0.079 16.673***
Cartier produces eco-friendly products 0.864 0.071 17.741***
Cartier achieves environmental innovativeness 0.831 0.072 17.033***
Perceived Brand Authenticity—Quality
Commitment (adapted from: Napoli et al. 2014)
0.935 0.664 0.940
Quality is central to the Cartier brand 0.823 −
b
−
b
Only the finest materials are used in the manufacture of
the Cartier brand
0.765 0.071 17.846***
The Cartier brand is made to the most exacting
standards
0.846 0.056 20.741***
The Cartier brand is aimed at improving quality 0.781 0.063 18.395***
The Cartier brand is manufactured to the highest quality
standards
0.877 0.051 21.981***
The Cartier brand is a potent symbol of continued
quality
0.844 0.057 20.689***
The Cartier brand is made by a master craftsman who is
involved throughout the production process
0.710 0.072 16.083***
The Cartier brand is committed to retaining long-held
quality standards
0.857 0.054 21.162***
Perceived Brand Authenticity—Heritage (adapted
from: Napoli et al. 2014)
0.864 0.648 0.879
The Cartier brand has a strong history. 0.757 −
b
−
b
The Cartier brand has a strong link to the past, which is
still perpetuated and celebrated to this day
0.845 0.079 17.439***
The Cartier brand has a strong tradition 0.893 0.071 18.466***
The Cartier brand has a timeless design 0.711 0.094 14.372***
Perceived Brand Authenticity—Sincerity (adapted
from: Napoli et al. 2014)
0.929 0.869 0.930
The Cartier brand lives by its values 0.908 −
b
−
b
The Cartier brand sticks to its principles 0.956 0.038 28.551***
0.917 0.741 0.920
(continued)
646 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
luxury consumption, namely (1) self-appraisal (β=0.667, p<
0.001) and (2) reflected appraisal (β=0.604, p< 0.001), sup-
porting H3 and H4.
H5, H6, and H7 posit that self-appraisal and reflected
appraisal positively relate to self-esteem, which is positively
related to SE well-being. The results support H5 and H7
Table 2. (continued).
Constructs and Items
Indicator
a
Validity and Reliability Construct Validity and Reliability
Standardized
Loading
Standard
Error z-value
Cronbach
Alpha AVE
Composite
Reliability
Reflected Appraisal (adapted from: Laverie, Kleine
and Kleine 2002)
Ordinary/Notable 0.812 −
b
−
b
Poor/Excellent 0.869 0.046 20.757***
Terrible/Spectacular 0.860 0.052 20.455***
Below average/Outstanding 0.901 0.046 21.894***
Self-Appraisal (adapted from: Laverie, Kleine and
Kleine 2002)
0.941 0.802 0.942
Ordinary/Notable 0.867 −
b
−
b
Poor/Excellent 0.901 0.037 25.615***
Terrible/Spectacular 0.895 0.041 25.273***
Below average/Outstanding 0.919 0.038 26.738***
Self-Esteem (adapted from: Rosenberg 1965) 0.957 0.693 0.957
I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal
basis with others
0.810 −
b
−
b
I feel that I have a number of good qualities 0.802 0.048 18.790***
All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a success 0.835 0.058 19.925***
I am able to do things as well as most other people 0.788 0.049 18.347***
I feel I have much to be proud of 0.850 0.057 20.485***
I take a positive attitude toward myself 0.897 0.059 22.245***
On the whole, I am satisfied with myself 0.865 0.061 21.020***
I have respect for myself 0.887 0.056 21.861***
I certainly feel useful at times 0.772 0.056 17.826***
At times I think I am very good 0.806 0.055 18.945***
Social-Environmental Well-Being (adapted from:
Vinzenz et al. 2019)
0.972 0.868 0.971
By wearing this Cartier watch, I feel that I contributed
something important to society
0.877 −
b
−
b
I feel that by wearing this Cartier watch, our world could
become a better place for all people
0.887 0.040 26.170***
By wearing this Cartier watch, I feel that I contributed
something important to preserve the environment.
0.955 0.036 31.354***
I feel that by wearing this Cartier watch, I contributed
something fundamental to saving the environment
0.965 0.036 32.303***
By wearing this Cartier watch, I feel that I contributed
something important to protect the environment
0.971 0.036 32.851***
Second-Order Constructs
Perceived Brand Authenticity (adapted from:
Napoli et al. 2014)
0.866 0.755 0.902
Quality Commitment 0.931 −
b
−
b
Heritage 0.835 0.053 13.541***
Sincerity 0.838 0.082 15.762***
a
Individual items (for first-order constructs) and first-order dimensions (for second-order constructs).
b
Parameter fixed at 1.0 in the CFA.
***Significant for p< 0.001.
Pai et al. 647
(β=0.346, p< 0.005; β=0.334, p< 0.001, respectively), but
not H6 (β=0.015, p> 0.05). Consumers’self-appraisal of
their sustainable luxury consumption was positively related to
their self-esteem, which was positively related to their SE
well-being. Reflected appraisal was not related to self-esteem,
contrary to our prediction.
Discussion
This study extends previous research by examining how sus-
tainable luxury consumption can influence SE well-being
through brand authenticity, consumer appraisals, and self-
esteem by utilizing appraisal and self-esteem theories. Our
work supports the TLR movement and the premise that sustain-
able luxury consumption may enhance consumer well-being.
There may be tension between sustainability and luxury;
however, our findings provide initial evidence that sustainable
luxury is a vital market offering in society. Our research sup-
ports the sustainability efforts of luxury goods markets in pos-
itively influencing consumers’SE well-being, which is a
measurement of the quality of life (Sirgy 2021), and a reflection
of positive social functioning (Keyes 2002). Our findings are
congruent with Philip Kolter’s perspective that “marketers
should determine the needs, wants, and interests of target cus-
tomers and deliver satisfactions more effectively and efficiently
than competitors in a way that preserves or enhances CWB
(consumer well-being)”(Sirgy and Lee 2006, p. 27). The
momentum for sustainable and socially responsible marketing
(Ferrell and Ferrell 2022) continues to grow in society while
luxury marketers are taking action to respond to the sustainabil-
ity trend. For example, some luxury marketers (e.g., Cartier,
Gucci, and Louis Vuitton) have gradually incorporated sustain-
ability (e.g., vegan leather) into product innovations to mitigate
the negative environmental or societal impact derived from the
value-creation process (Dolan 2002; Kilbourne, McDonagh and
Prothero 1997).
The research presented here extends the works discussing
the relationship between sustainable luxury and well-being
(Batat 2021; Hudders and Pandelaere 2012). Specifically, this
paper, like the work of Laverie and McDonald (2007), exam-
ines how the perceived sustainability and craftsmanship in
sustainable luxury consumption can contribute to a macro and
societal level impact. We reveal the mechanism linking per-
ceived sustainability and craftsmanship with SE well-being.
Consumers’perceptions of sustainability and craftsmanship
constitute brand authenticity in sustainable luxury consump-
tion, consistent with Batat and Khochman’s (2022) findings
that sustainable luxury improves luxury brand image. The find-
ings of significant positive associations between (1) perceived
sustainability and craftsmanship and (2) perceived brand
authenticity share common ground with the results of
Beverland (2006) and Choi et al. (2015). Thus, this paper pro-
vides implications for luxury marketers: consumers’percep-
tions of a brand’s craftsmanship and sustainability efforts
should be valued because perceived craftsmanship and sustain-
ability are positively relevant to their perceived brand
authenticity.
This study extends our understanding of the appraisal
process and the central role of self-esteem related to well-
being in a consumption context. Our research demonstrates
that consumers’appraisals and self-esteem link perceived
brand authenticity and SE well-being. Our study provides
evidence that perceived brand authenticity is positively asso-
ciated with self-appraisal and reflected appraisal, consistent
with the literature that authentic brands give consumers
meaning and identity while product consumption influences
the self through the appraisal process (Arnould and Price
2000; Laverie and McDonald 2007; Morhart et al. 2015).
The findings reveal that a higher degree of brand authentic-
ity, deriving from the perceived sustainability and craftsman-
ship of sustainable luxury consumption, is associated with a
more positive evaluation of consumers themselves and of
how they think others would view them; thus, our study pro-
vides important implications for luxury marketers. Our find-
ings detail the role of appraisals and self-esteem,
complementing the work of Eastman, Iyer and Dekhili
(2021), who concluded that sustainable luxury could be as
important to the sense of self as consumers’perceptions of
unique goods.
Our findings on the impact of self-appraisal and reflected
appraisal on self-esteem provide a novel perspective because
only self-appraisal, but not reflected appraisal, is shown to
Table 3. Correlation Matrix.
Constructs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Perceived Sustainability 0.818
2. Perceived Craftsmanship .392** 0.807
3. Brand Authenticity—Quality Commitment .589** .520** 0.815
4. Brand Authenticity—Heritage .497** .367** .739** 0.805
5. Brand Authenticity—Sincerity .635** .436** .718** .678** 0.932
6. Reflected Appraisal .449** .320** .516** .496** .452** 0.861
7. Self-Appraisal .479** .348** .598** .483** .505** .785** 0.896
8. Self-Esteem .223** .163** .304** .339** .290** .277** .330** 0.832
9. Social-Environmental Well-Being .445** .199** .266** .222** .351** .438** .418** .314** 0.932
Notes: **p< 0.01 (2-tailed). The square root of AVE is typed along the upper diagonal in bold.
648 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
have a significant positive relationship with self-esteem, con-
trary to the findings of previous literature (Laverie, Kleine
and Kleine 2002; Laverie and McDonald 2007; Leary et al.
1995; Rosenberg 1979; Schwalbe and Staples 1991; Wells
and Marwell 1976). One possible explanation for why our find-
ings do not align with previous results could be that in personal
sustainable luxury consumption, what most matters to one’s
self-esteem is how positively one evaluates one’s sustainable
luxury consumption, rather than how positively one thinks
others would judge one’s sustainable luxury consumption.
Thus, the more positively consumers evaluate themselves in
their consumption of sustainable luxury goods, the greater
their self-esteem.
Our study empirically reveals that self-esteem is positively
related to SE well-being, similar to Neff (2011) and Paradise
and Kernis (2002). However, there is a nuanced but noteworthy
difference between our findings and those of Neff (2011) and
Paradise and Kernis (2002). Our research focuses on SE well-
being, a derivative of social well-being (Vinzenz et al. 2019),
while Neff (2011) and Paradise and Kernis (2002) studied psy-
chological well-being. Although both social and psychological
well-being are subsets of subjective well-being, psychological
well-being reflects a more private and personal assessment of
one’s function. In contrast, social well-being represents a
more public and social evaluation of one’s functioning in
society (Keyes 2002). Our study provides a practical implica-
tion for luxury marketers: consuming a sustainable luxury
market offering engenders higher SE well-being because of
the increased self-worth derived from the consumption process.
Managerially, we suggest luxury goods marketers focus on
sustainability and craftsmanship to enhance societal and con-
sumer well-being. As Osburg et al. (2021) demonstrated, com-
municating sustainable practices helps sustainable luxury
brands build a link with customers. Furthermore, craftsmanship
has long been perceived as one of the most prized attributes
consumers desire from authentic luxury brands (Amatulli and
Guido 2011; Beverland and Farrelly 2010; McCarthy et al.
2017). In addition to the findings of increased brand authentic-
ity, this paper also sheds light on consumers’cognitive reac-
tions to sustainable luxury consumption (i.e., increased
reflected appraisal, self-appraisal, and self-esteem). Thus, our
findings might further assist luxury marketers in crafting their
marketing strategies for promoting sustainable luxury (e.g.,
highlighting consumers’self-appraisal). Although SE well-
being may not, at first glance, seem to be an objective of
luxury marketers, it is an intangible social value that recognizes
a luxury brand’s sustainability efforts as well as consumers’
appetite for sustainable luxury.
We offer macromarketing implications by demonstrating the
importance of sustainability and craftsmanship to authentic
brands that sell luxury products that enhance SE well-being
and, in turn, build sustainable societies. Sustainable luxury
products can improve the quality of life for consumers
through well-being (Sirgy 2021); we suggest from a macro
Table 4. Structural Model Estimates.
Hypothesized Path Standardized Estimate Standard Error z-value Path Support
H1: Perceived Sustainability →Perceived Brand Authenticity 0.576*** 0.045 10.202 Supported
H2: Perceived Craftsmanship →Perceived Brand Authenticity 0.317*** 0.031 6.478 Supported
H3: Perceived Brand Authenticity →Self-Appraisal 0.667*** 0.089 12.357 Supported
H4: Perceived Brand Authenticity →Reflected Appraisal 0.604*** 0.077 10.776 Supported
H5: Self-Appraisal →Self-Esteem 0.346** 0.097 3.327 Supported
H6: Reflected Appraisal →Self-Esteem 0.015 0.116 0.140 Not supported
H7: Self-Esteem →Social-Environmental Well-Being 0.334*** 0.084 6.546 Supported
Notes: ***p< 0.001, **p< 0.005
Figure 2. SEM results.
Notes: All coefficients are completely standardized and all solid lines are significant at p< 0.001 (***) or p< 0.005(**). Dashed lines are non-
significant.
Pai et al. 649
perspective that sustainable luxury practice is an essential strat-
egy for marketers to consider. Our findings counter commonly
held beliefs that luxury consumption is frivolous, wasteful, and
indulgent. By understanding the mechanism by which sustain-
ability, craftsmanship, and authenticity influence well-being,
we offer insights into how luxury goods markets can shift to
goods that are congruent to how consumers see themselves
and how their consumption can improve well-being.
Additionally, as the importance of sustainable luxury increases,
we encourage luxury marketers to include sustainability mes-
saging in their campaigns and integrated marketing communi-
cation to influence consumers’SE well-being and the
companies’success.
Our research contributes to the emerging trends of TLR in
macromarketing. One of the focuses of TLR is investigating
how positive changes in luxury practices enhance consumer
well-being (Batat and Manika 2020). This paper uses a micro
lens to examine the macro impact of sustainable luxury con-
sumption on SE well-being. Our research is the first, to our
knowledge, to study SE well-being in the macromarketing
arena. Extant studies of well-being in macromarketing focus
on holistic consumer well-being (e.g., Hunt 2012; Layton
2007; Mittelstaedt et al. 2014; Shapiro, Tadajewski and
Shultz 2009; Wilkie and Moore 2006). However, as the sustain-
ability trend is gaining momentum in society, studying SE well-
being in the macromarketing domain becomes imperative and
echoes Sirgy’s (2021) call for attention to social well-being.
Our study provides a fresh perspective on how sustainable
luxury consumption enhances SE well-being, providing
insights for TLR. Specifically, our research advances existing
research in that it (1) supports the school of thought (e.g.,
Amatulli et al. 2018; Athwal et al. 2019; Batat and
Khochman 2022; Osburg et al. 2021) that sustainability and
luxury are compatible; (2) demonstrates that consuming sus-
tainable luxury market offerings generates luxury consumers’
SE well-being; and (3) delineates how perceptions of sustain-
able luxury consumption influence SE well-being through
increased brand authenticity, self-appraisal, reflected appraisal,
and self-esteem by melding appraisal theory and self-esteem
theory. Our findings support Batat’s (2022) position that
luxury marketing can be conducted responsibly to enhance con-
sumers’well-being and improve society.
Limitations and Future Research
One limitation of this study is that we used a single luxury
product (i.e., a luxury watch), so our study might not capture
all variations among other sustainable luxury categories (e.g.,
electric luxury cars). Therefore, it would be interesting to
examine consumers’perceptions of brand authenticity and SE
well-being across different product categories. Examining our
model in different product categories would increase the robust-
ness of our findings. Furthermore, survey research is always at
risk of influences from external conditions that researchers
cannot control. We attempted to limit this influence by using
a company-run research pool (i.e., Prolific) and setting criteria
for screening participants (i.e., geographic area, age, and educa-
tion level).
Studying consumers using an actual luxury product would
be ideal but quite tricky. We made a concerted effort to make
our research realistic by collecting data from potential luxury
consumers in multiple countries using visual stimuli and a
scenario-based approach. However, we recommend that
future researchers allow consumers to use the luxury goods in
an actual or lab setting. A physical experience with a survey
stimulus may allow participants to fully express their percep-
tions and feelings more realistically after participating in a
luxury consumption experience. Further, we selected “con-
sumption”among all the consumption stages (i.e., acquisition,
preparation, consumption, ownership, maintenance, and dis-
posal). As Lee et al. (2002) and Sirgy and Lee (2006) suggested,
consumers’experiences from across consumption stages influ-
ence their well-being, so future research may select one sustain-
able luxury product category to examine whether consumers
behave differently at different consumption stages.
Last, this paper focuses on the impact of sustainable luxury
on SE well-being; it would be interesting to examine whether
consumers view luxury brands’sustainability efforts as green-
washing. Kapferer (2010) claimed that sustainable luxury is
about truly embedding green concerns into the value chain,
not purposely getting attention from the public, as is often the
case with greenwashing. However, some luxury brands pub-
licly communicate their sustainability efforts (e.g., Gucci’s
public announcements of its fur-free policy). Are these sustain-
able luxury practices enhancing brands’pro-environmental
image or triggering the backfire effect? Future research may
examine how the public views those luxury brands’explicit
sustainability dedications.
Conclusion
As environmental and societal issues keep increasing in impor-
tance (e.g., climate change, global warming, and environmental
pollution), the rising interest in sustainable consumption is vital
to macromarketing. Sustainable consumption requires an aggre-
gating effort, from individual to market, industrial, and societal
levels, because this is not a micromarketing but a macromarket-
ing issue. Similarly, enhancing consumer well-being is an
important topic of research, from the individual to the commu-
nity and society, because macromarketing scholars view con-
sumer well-being as the ultimate goal of marketing (Hunt
2012; Layton 2007; Mittelstaedt et al. 2014; Shapiro,
Tadajewski and Shultz 2009; Wilkie and Moore 2006). Our
findings contribute to the TLR stream by demonstrating the
influence of sustainable luxury consumption on well-being.
Luxury goods marketers have the potential to be leaders in
terms of sustainability and social responsibility by employing
practices that can enhance the SE well-being of consumers.
The sustainable luxury movement cannot be the responsibility
of the few current luxury marketers. Instead, the luxury industry
should dedicate itself to sustainability throughout the value
delivery process, maximizing the power of sustainable luxury
650 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
(Batat, 2022). Because well-being is becoming an important
topic in research, we hope future research continues to identify
the social value of sustainable luxury. As the awareness of sus-
tainability increases, we look forward to seeing more transfor-
mative luxury practices in sustainable luxury production and
consumption, increasing holistic SE well-being in society.
Acknowledgments
The authors express gratitude for constructive feedback and guidance
from editors and anonymous reviewers. They also thank Shelby
Hunt, Larry Williams, DK, and Kasey Anderson for their helpful sug-
gestions on earlier versions of manuscripts presented in this article.
Special Issue Editors
Wided Batat and Danae Manika
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was supported by the Rawls College of Business Ph.D. Student
Research Grant, Texas Tech University.
ORCID iDs
Chu-Yen Pai https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9397-1663
Ashley Hass https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-6092
References
Abouab, Nathalie and Pierrick Gomez (2015), “Human Contact
Imagined during the Production Process Increases Food
Naturalness Perceptions,”Appetite, 91, 273‐277.
Achabou, Mohamed Akli and Sihem Dekhili (2013), “Luxury and
Sustainable Development: Is There a Match?”Journal of
Business Research, 66 (10), 1896‐1903.
Adamska, Magda (2019), "The Positioning of the Four Most Valuable
Luxury Fashion Brands –2019 Update," BrandStruck (accessed
May 8, 2022), [available at: https://brandstruck.co/blog-post/posi-
tioning-three-valuable-luxury-fashion-brands/].
Alexander, Nicholas (2009), “Brand Authentication: Creating and
Maintaining Brand Auras,”European Journal of Marketing,43
(3/4), 551‐562.
Amatulli, Cesare, Matteo De Angelis, Michele Costabile, and
Gianluigi Guido (2017), Palgrave Advances in Luxury:
Sustainable Luxury Brands. London, UK: Springer Nature.
Amatulli, Cesare, Matteo De Angelis, and Carmela Donato (2020),
“An Investigation on the Effectiveness of Hedonic versus
Utilitarian Message Appeals in Luxury Product Communication,”
Psychology and Marketing, 37 (4), 523‐534.
Amatulli, Cesare, Matteo De Angelis, and Carmela Donato (2021),
“The Atypicality of Sustainable Luxury Products,”Psychology
and Marketing, 38 (11), 1990‐2005.
Amatulli, Cesare, Matteo De Angelis, Daniel Korschun, and
Simona Romani (2018), “Consumers’Perceptions of Luxury
Brands’CSR Initiatives: An Investigation of the Role of Status
and Conspicuous Consumption,”Journal of Cleaner Production,
194, 277‐287.
Amatulli, Cesare, Matteo De Angelis, Giovanni Pino, and
Gianluigi Guido (2020b), “An Investigation of Unsustainable
Luxury: How Guilt Drives Negative Word-of-Mouth,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37 (4), 821‐836.
Amatulli, Cesare and Gianluigi Guido (2011), “Determinants of
Purchasing Intention for Fashion Luxury Goods in the Italian
Market: A Laddering Approach,”Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 15 (1), 123‐136.
Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (2000), “Authenticating Acts and
Authoritative Performances: Questing for Self and Community,”in
The Why of Consumption Contemporary Perspectives on
Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires. New York: Routledge,
140‐163.
Assadourian, Erik (2010), “Transforming Cultures: From
Consumerism to Sustainability,”Journal of Macromarketing,30
(2), 186‐191.
Athwal, Navdeep, Victoria K. Wells, Marylyn Carrigan, and Claudia
E. Henninger (2019), “Sustainable Luxury Marketing: A
Synthesis and Research Agenda,”International Journal of
Management Reviews, 21 (4), 405‐426.
Baker, Melissa A., Eric A. Davis, and Pamela A. Weaver (2014),
“Eco-friendly Attitudes, Barriers to Participation, and Differences
in Behavior at Green Hotels,”Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,55
(1), 89‐99.
Batat, Wided (2020), “Pillars of Sustainable Food Experiences in the
Luxury Gastronomy Sector: A Qualitative Exploration of
Michelin-starred Chefs’Motivations,”Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 57, 102255.
Batat, Wided (2021), “Consumers’Perceptions of Food Ethics in
Luxury Dining,”Journal of Services Marketing, 36 (5), 754‐766.
Batat, Wided (eds) (2022), The Rise of Positive Luxury:
Transformative Research Agenda for Well-Being, Social Impact,
and Sustainable Growth. New York: Routledge.
Batat, Wided and Inas Khochman (2022), “Is Luxury Compatible with
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)?,”in Research Anthology
on Developing Socially Responsible Businesses. Hershey, PA:
IGI Global, 610‐627.
Batat, Wided and Danae Manika (2020), “Advancing Transformative
Luxury Research: Contributions to Marketing Theory about
Luxury, Ethics, and Well-Being,”Journal of Macromarketing,40
(4), 583‐584.
Bendell, Jem and Anthony Kleanthous (2007), “Deeper Luxury,”
WWF-UK (accessed May 5, 2022), [available at: https://assets.ww-
f.org.uk/downloads/luxury_report.pdf].
Beverland, Michael B (2006), “The ‘Real Thing’: Branding
Authenticity in the Luxury Wine Trade,”Journal of Business
Research, 59 (2), 251‐258.
Beverland, Michael B. and Francis J. Farrelly (2010), “The Quest for
Authenticity in Consumption: Consumers’Purposive Choice of
Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced Outcomes,”Journal of
Consumer Research, 36 (5), 838‐856.
Pai et al. 651
Björklund, Tua A., Teo Keipi, and Hanna Maula (2020), “Crafters,
Explorers, Innovators, and Co-creators: Narratives in Designers’
Identity Work,”Design Studies, 68, 82‐112.
Campbell, Angus (1981), The Sense of Well-Being in America: Recent
Patterns and Trends. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Caniato, Federico, Maria Caridi, Cecilia M. Castelli, and Ruggero Golini
(2009), “A Contingency Approach for SC Strategy in the Italian
Luxury Industry: Do Consolidated Models Fit?”International
Journal of Production Economics, 120 (1), 176‐189.
Casale, Marzia, Venessa Lee, Valeria Scaramuzzi, Pranasha Sahu,
Abhilasha Singh, Lisa Su, et al. (2019), “Global Powers of
Luxury Goods 2019: Bridging the Gap between the Old and the
New,”Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (accessed April 28,
2022), [available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/
Deloitte/ar/Documents/Consumer_and_Industrial_Products/
Global-Powers-of-Luxury-Goods-abril-2019.pdf].
Cavender, RayeCarol (2018), “The Marketing of Sustainability and
CSR Initiatives by Luxury Brands: Cultural Indicators, Call to
Action, and Framework,”in Sustainability in Luxury Fashion
Business. Singapore: Springer, 29–49.
Choi, Hyeonyoung, Eunju Ko, Eun Young Kim, and Pekka Mattila
(2015), “The Role of Fashion Brand Authenticity in Product
Management: A Holistic Marketing Approach,”Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 32 (2), 233‐242.
D’Arpizio, Claudia, Frederica Levato, Constance Gault, Joëlle De
Montgolfier, and Lyne Jaroudi (2022), “Luxury Report 2021:
From Surging Recovery to Elegant Advance –the Evolving
Future of Luxury,”Bain & Company (accessed May 5, 2022),
[available at: https://www.bain.com/insights/from-surging-recovery-
to-elegant-advance-the-evolving-future-of-luxury/#]
Davies, Iain A., Zoe Lee, and Ine Ahonkhai (2012), “Do Consumers Care
about Ethical-Luxury?”Journal of Business Ethics, 106 (1), 37‐51.
de Kerviler, Gwarlann, Elodie Gentina, and Nico Heuvinck (2021),
“Research: How to Position a Luxury Brand as Sustainable,”
Harvard Business Review (accessed November 29, 2021), [avail-
able at https://hbr.org/2021/09/research-how-to-position-a-luxury-
brand-as-sustainables].
de Kerviler, Gwarlann, Nico Heuvinck, and Elodie Gentina (2021),
“‘Make an Effort and Show Me the Love!’Effects of Indexical
and Iconic Authenticity on Perceived Brand Ethicality,”Journal
of Business Ethics, 179 (1), 89–110.
Dermody, Janine, Nicole Koenig-Lewis, Anita Lifen Zhao, and
Stuart Hanmer-Lloyd (2021), “Critiquing a Utopian Idea of
Sustainable Consumption: A Post-Capitalism Perspective,”
Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (4), 626‐645.
Diener, Ed and Marissa Diener (1995), “Cross-Cultural Correlates of
Life Satisfaction and Self-Esteem,”Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68 (4), 653‐663.
Dolan, Paddy (2002), “The Sustainability of ‘Sustainable
Consumption,’” Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170‐181.
Dyllick, Thomas and Zoe Rost (2017), “Towards True Product
Sustainability,”Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 346‐360.
Eastman, Jacqueline K., Rajesh Iyer, and Sihem Dekhili (2021), “Can
Luxury Attitudes Impact Sustainability? The Role of Desire for
Unique Products, Culture, and Brand Self–Congruence,”
Psychology and Marketing, 38 (11), 1881‐1894.
Ferrell, Linda and O. C. Ferrell (2022), “Broadening the Definition of
Socially Responsible Marketing,”Journal of Macromarketing,
forthcoming.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error:
Algebra and Statistics,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3),
382‐388.
Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer (2015),
“The Handmade Effect: What’s Love Got to Do with It?”Journal
of Marketing, 79 (2), 98‐110.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson,
and Ronald L. Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Heiskanen, Eva and Mika Pantzar (1997), “Toward Sustainable
Consumption: Two New Perspectives,”Journal of Consumer
Policy, 20 (4), 409‐442.
Holt, Douglas B (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A
Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,”Journal
of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70‐90.
Howell, Andrew J., Raelyne L. Dopko, Holli Anne Passmore, and
Karen Buro (2011), “Nature Connectedness: Associations with
Well-Being and Mindfulness,”Personality and Individual
Differences, 51 (2), 166‐171.
Hudders, Liselot and Mario Pandelaere (2012), “The Silver
Lining of Materialism: The Impact of Luxury Consumption on
Subjective Well-Being,”Journal of Happiness Studies, 13 (3),
411‐437.
Humphreys, Ashlee (2014), “How Is Sustainability Structured? The
Discursive Life of Environmentalism,”Journal of Macromarketing,
34 (3), 265‐281.
Hunt, Shelby D (2012), “Toward the Institutionalization of
Macromarketing: Sustainable Enterprise, Sustainable Marketing,
Sustainable Development, and the Sustainable Society,”Journal of
Macromarketing,32(4),404‐411.
Janssen, Catherine, Joëlle Vanhamme, Adam Lindgreen, and
Cécile Lefebvre (2014), “The Catch-22 of Responsible Luxury:
Effects of Luxury Product Characteristics on Consumers’
Perception of Fit with Corporate Social Responsibility,”Journal
of Business Ethics, 119 (1), 45‐57.
Jebarajakirthy, Charles and Manish Das (2021), “Uniqueness and
Luxury: A Moderated Mediation Approach,”Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 60, 1‐14.
Kadirov, Djavlonbek, Richard J. Varey, and Ben Wooliscroft (2014),
“Authenticity: A Macromarketing Perspective,”Journal of
Macromarketing, 34 (1), 73‐79.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël (2010), “All That Glitters Is Not green: The
Challenge of Sustainable Luxury,”The European Business Review
(November-December), 40‐45.
Kapferer, Jean-noël (2016), “The Challenges of Luxury Branding,”in
The Routledge Companion to Contemporary Brand Management.
New York: Routledge, 473‐491.
Kapferer, Jean-Noël and Anne Michaut-Denizeau (2020), “Are
Millennials Really More Sensitive to Sustainable Luxury? A
Cross-Generational International Comparison of Sustainability
Consciousness When Buying Luxury,”Journal of Brand
Management, 27 (1), 35‐47.
652 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
Kapferer, Jean Noël and Anne Michaut-Denizeau (2014),
“Is Luxury Compatible with Sustainability Luxury Consumers’
Viewpoint,”Journal of Brand Management, 21 (1), 1‐22.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002), “The Mental Health Continuum: From
Languishing to Flourishing in Life,”Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 43 (2), 207‐222.
Keyes, Corey L. M (1998), “Social Well-Being,”American
Sociological Association, 61 (2), 121‐140.
Kilbourne, William, Pierre McDonagh, and Andrea Prothero (1997),
“Sustainable Consumption and the Quality of Life: A
Macromarketing Challenge to the Dominant Social Paradigm,”
Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4‐24.
Kim, Juran, Charles R. Taylor, Kyung Hoon Kim, and Ki Hoon Lee
(2015), “Measures of Perceived Sustainability,”Journal of
Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 25 (2), 182‐193.
Ko, Eunju, John P. Costello, and Charles R. Taylor (2019), “What Is a
Luxury Brand? A New Definition and Review of the Literature,”
Journal of Business Research, 99, 405‐413.
Krishnan, H. S. (1996), “Characteristics of Memory Associations: A
Consumer-based Brand Equity Perspective,”International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (4), 389‐405.
Kumar, Vikas and Vikrant Kaushal (2021), “Perceived Brand
Authenticity and Social Exclusion as Drivers of Psychological
Brand Ownership,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
61, 102579.
Laverie, Debra A., Robert E. Kleine, and Susan Schultz Kleine (2002),
“Reexamination and Extension of Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan’s
Social Identity Model of Mundane Consumption: The Mediating
Role of the Appraisal Process,”Journal of Consumer Research,28
(4), 659‐669.
Laverie, Debra A. and Robert E. McDonald (2007), “Volunteer
Dedication: Understanding the Role of Identity Importance on
Participation Frequency,”Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3),
274‐288.
Layton, Roger A (2007), “Marketing Systems –A Core Macromarketing
Concept,”Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3), 227‐242.
Leary, Mark R., Ellen S. Tambor, Sonja K. Terdal, and Deborah
L. Downs (1995), “Self-Esteem as an Interpersonal Monitor: The
Sociometer Hypothesis,”Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68 (3), 518‐530.
Lee, Dong-Jin, M. Joseph Sirgy, Val Larsen, and Newell D. Wright
(2002), “Developing a Subjective Measure of Consumer
Well-Being,”Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 158‐169.
Lee, Jung Eun and Song Yi Youn (2021), “Luxury Marketing in Social
Media: The Role of Social Distance in a Craftsmanship Video,”
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33 (3), 826‐845.
Leigh, Thomas W., Cara Peters, and Jeremy Shelton (2006), “The
Consumer Quest for Authenticity: The Multiplicity of Meanings
within the MG Subculture of Consumption,”Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 481‐493.
Mayer, F. Stephan and Cynthia McPherson Frantz (2004), “The
Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’
Feeling in Community with Nature,”Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24 (4), 503‐515.
McCarthy, Kate, Ben Perkins, Nick Pope, Linda Portaluppi,
Valeria Scaramuzzi, and Lisa Su (2017), “Global Powers of
Luxury Goods 2017: The New Luxury Consumer,”Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Limited (accessed April 30, 2022), [available
at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/
consumer-industrial-products/gx-cip-global-powers-luxury-2017.pdf].
Mittelstaedt, John D., Clifford J. Shultz, William E. Kilbourne, and
Mark Peterson (2014), “Sustainability as Megatrend: Two Schools
of Macromarketing Thought,”Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (3),
253‐264.
Morhart, Felicitas, Lucia Malär, Amélie Guèvremont, Florent Girardin,
and Bianca Grohmann (2015), “Brand Authenticity: An Integrative
Framework and Measurement Scale,”Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25 (2), 200‐218.
Naderi, Iman and David Strutton (2015), “I Support Sustainability But
Only When Doing So Reflects Fabulously on Me: Can Green
Narcissists Be Cultivated?”Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (1),
70‐83.
Napoli, Julie, Sonia J. Dickinson, Michael B. Beverland, and
Francis Farrelly (2014), “Measuring Consumer-based Brand
Authenticity,”Journal of Business Research, 67 (6), 1090‐1098.
Neff, Kristin D (2011), “Self-Compassion, Self-Esteem, and Well-Being,”
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5 (1), 1‐12.
O’Guinn, Thomas Clayton, Chris T. Allen, Richard J. Semenik, and
Angeline Close Scheinbaum (2014), Advertising and Integrated
Brand Promotion. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Olsen, Svein Ottar, Nguyen Huu Khoi, and Ho Huy Tuu (2021), “The
‘Well-Being’and ‘Ill-Being’of Online Impulsive and Compulsive
Buying on Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Esteem and Harmony
in Life,”Journal of Macromarketing, 42 (1), 128‐145.
Osburg, Victoria Sophie, Iain Davies, Vignesh Yoganathan, and
Fraser McLeay (2021), “Perspectives, Opportunities and Tensions
in Ethical and Sustainable Luxury: Introduction to the Thematic
Symposium,”Journal of Business Ethics, 169 (2), 201‐210.
Ozdamar Ertekin, Zeynep and Deniz Atik (2015), “Sustainable Markets:
Motivating Factors, Barriers, and Remedies for Mobilization of Slow
Fashion,”Journal of Macromarketing,35(1),53‐69.
Paradise, Andrew W. and Michael H. Kernis (2002), “Self-Esteem and
Psychological Well-Being: Implications of Fragile Self-Esteem,”
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21 (4), 345‐361.
Peer, Eyal, David Rothschild, Andrew Gordon, Zak Evernden, and
Ekaterina Damer (2021), “Data Quality of Platforms and Panels
for Online Behavioral Research,”Behavior Research Methods,
54 (4), 1643‐1662.
Peñaloza, Lisa (2000), “The commodification of the American West:
Marketers’Production of Cultural Meanings at the Trade Show,”
Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 82‐109.
Rose, Randall L. and Stacy L. Wood (2005), “Paradox and the
Consumption of Authenticity through Reality Television,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 284‐296.
Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, Morris (1979), Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg, Morris (1981), “The Self-Concept: Social Product and
Social Force,”in Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives.
New York: Basic Books, 593‐624.
Schaefer, Anja and Andrew Crane (2005), “Addressing Sustainability
and Consumption,”Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (1), 76‐92.
Pai et al. 653
Schwalbe, Michael L. and Clifford L. Staples (1991), “Gender
Differences in Sources of Self-Esteem,”Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54 (2), 158‐168.
Seeman, Melvin (1966), “Status and Identity: The Problem of
Inauthenticity,”The Pacific Sociological Review, 9 (2), 67‐73.
Seo, Yuri and Margo Buchanan-Oliver (2019), “Constructing a
Typology of Luxury Brand Consumption Practices,”Journal of
Business Research, 99, 414‐421.
Shapiro, Dmitry and Arthur Zillante (2009), “Naming Your Own Price
Mechanisms: Revenue Gain or Drain?”Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 72 (2), 725‐737.
Shapiro, Stanley J., Mark Tadajewski, and Clifford J. Shultz (2009),
“Interpreting Macromarketing,”Journal of Macromarketing,29
(3), 325‐334.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Atul Parvatiyar (2021), “Sustainable Marketing:
Market-Driving, not Market-Driven,”Journal of Macromarketing,
41 (1), 150‐165.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (2021), “Macromarketing Metrics of Consumer
Well-Being: An Update,”Journal of Macromarketing,41(1),124‐131.
Sirgy, M. Joseph and Dong-Jin Lee (2006), “Macro Measures of
Consumer Well-Being (CWB): A Critical Analysis and a
Research Agenda,”Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (1), 27‐44.
Solomon, Michael R (1983), “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli:
A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,”Journal of Consumer
Research, 10 (3), 319‐329.
Stryker, Sheldon (1980), Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural
Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
Tarquini, Annalisa, Hans Mühlbacher, and Maria Kreuzer (2022), “The
Experience of Luxury Craftsmanship: A Strategic Asset for Luxury
Experience Management,”Journal of Marketing Management,,
forthcoming.
Trevail, Charles (2018), “Activating Brave: Interbrand Best Global
Brands 2018”.
van Dam, Ynte K. and Paul A.C. Apeldoorn (1996), “Sustainable
Marketing,”Journal of Macromarketing, 16 (2), 45‐56.
Varey, Richard J (2010), “Marketing Means and Ends for a Sustainable
society: A Welfare Agenda for Transformative Change,”Journal of
Macromarketing, 30 (2), 112‐126.
Venkatesh, Alladi, Annamma Joy, John F. Sherry, and Jonathan Deschenes
(2010), “The Aesthetics of Luxury Fashion, Body and Identify
Formation,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 459‐470.
Vinzenz, Friederike, Julianna Priskin, Werner Wirth,
Sindhuri Ponnapureddy, and Timo Ohnmacht (2019), “Marketing
Sustainable Tourism: The Role of Value Orientation, Well-Being and
Credibility,”Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 (11), 1663‐1685.
Vinzenz, Friederike, Werner Wirth, Julianna Priskin,
Sindhuri Ponnapureddy, and Timo Ohnmacht (2018), “Perceived
Social-Environmental and Emotional Well-Being as a Benefitof
Sustainable Tourism Products and Services,”in Contemporary
Challenges of Climate Change, Sustainable Tourism
Consumption, and Destination Competitiveness. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Publishing, 49‐65.
Voyer, Benjamin G. and Daisy Beckham (2014), “Can Sustainability
Be Luxurious: A Mixed-Method Investigation of Implicit and
Explicit Attitudes towards Sustainable Luxury Consumption,”
Advances in Consumer Research, 42, 245‐250.
Wells, L. Edward and Gerald Marwell (1976), Self-Esteem: Its
Conceptualization and Measure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Widlitz, Stacey (2020), “Retailers Get Serious about
Sustainability into 2020,”Forbes (accessed May 7, 2022),
[available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/staceywidlitz/2020/
02/03/retailers-get-serious-about-sustainability-into-2020/?sh =
2da2cdc65e09].
Wilkie, William L. and Elizabeth S. Moore (2006), “Macromarketing
as a Pillar of Marketing Thought,”Journal of Macromarketing,
26 (2), 224‐232.
Author Biographies
Chu-Yen Pai is a third-year PhD student of Marketing at the Rawls
College of Business at Texas Tech University, concentrating on con-
sumer behavior studies. He is interested in sustainability endeavors
that marketers and consumers can partake in to make this world a
better place. He also works on luxury research, studying how consum-
ers respond to transformative luxury market offerings and strategies.
He has presented his works at the AMA Academic Conferences.
Debra Laverie is the Minnie Stevens Piper Professor which is
awarded for unusual dedication to teaching. Her research has been pub-
lished in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Retailing,
Marketing Education Review, Journal of Marketing Education,
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing,
and Journal of Consumer Behavior as well as others. She has been
awarded The Chancellor’s Distinguished Teaching Award, the
Academy of Marketing Science Outstanding Teacher Award, and the
President’s Excellence in Teaching Award, and has been recognized
as Texas Tech Integrated Scholar.
Ashley Hass is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of
Portland. She holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration (Marketing)
from Texas Tech University. Her research interests include the intersection
of digital marketing, consumer behavior, and consumer well-being. Her
research has been published in journals such as the Journal of
Macromarketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Consumer
Behavior, and Marketing Education Review, among others. Her work
with colleagues has also won best paper in their respective tracks at both
the SMA conference and AMA conference several times.
654 Journal of Macromarketing 42(4)
