Marketing

Marketing Research Seminar - On Campus Room T004

Tanya Chartrand
The Roy Bostock Marketing Professor - Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience - Duke University (USA)

Title:
“Money can buy me love:  Gifts as an acute form of social support”.

Abstract:
If you are having a hard day, what can someone else do to help you feel better? Maybe they could verbally comfort you or maybe they could give you a small gift. In eight studies, including an in-person dyadic-interaction study, we find that receiving a small material gift, such as a candy bar or flowers, improves receivers’ affect more than a supportive conversation with a close other does.
We investigate the mechanism for this effect and find that support receivers perceive a gift to be a larger sacrifice than a conversation. This occurs because gifts seem more receiver-focused (i.e., actions done solely to benefit the receiver) than do conversations. This difference in perceived sacrifice makes gifts (vs. conversations) more effective at promoting emotional recovery.

Marketing Research Seminar

Speaker: 
Anatoli Colicev
Chair in Marketing, Strategy and Analytics
University of Liverpool

Title:
How ESG Reduces Risk: The Role of Consumers and Institutional Investors

Abstract:
Practitioners regard firms’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performances as a crucial risk management practice. However, no empirical evidence has yet linked ESG performances to firm risk through different stakeholders. Drawing on stakeholder theory, the authors develop a conceptual framework that posits (1) asymmetric relationships between individual E, S, and G performances and customer-based brand equity (CBBE) and institutional investor ownership (IIO), (2) the moderating role of competitive intensity in these relationships, and (3) mediating roles of CBBE and IIO in the relationships between E, S, and G performances and firms’ idiosyncratic risk. Using quarterly data from 416 firms spanning 2012–2020, the authors find that CBBE and IIO indeed mediate the associations between ESG performance and idiosyncratic risk. While E performance has a positive and G performance a negative association with CBBE, E and S performances have a negative and G performance a positive association with IIO. Competitive intensity strengthens the association between S performance and CBBE and the association between E performance and IIO but weakens the association between G performance and both CBBE and IIO. The findings imply firms should carefully navigate the trade-offs associated with relationships between E, S, and G performances and multiple stakeholders.