In this study, U.S. resident’s perceptions of social responsibility of prominent fast food restaurants were investigated. A survey conducted in April 2015 collected information from a sample targeted to be representative of the U.S. population. In total, 302 completed participant’s responses were analyzed (n = 302). Using a best-worst choice experiment question, participant’s choices for “most” and “least” socially responsible fast food restaurants were analyzed, resulting in individual’s relative perceptions of social responsibility amongst the restaurants studied. Results indicate that of the fast food restaurants studied, Panera Bread was perceived to be the most socially responsible restaurant, followed by Subway and Chick-fil-A. In contrast, McDonald’s, KFC, and Taco Bell were perceived to be the least socially responsible of the fast food restaurants studied. Additionally, relationships amongst participant’s perceptions of social responsibility in fast food, demographic factors, consumption practices, and knowledge of fast food business practices were analyzed. Significant relationships were found amongst “being female” and “self-reported knowledge of fast food business practices” with “perceptions of the social responsibility of fast food restaurants”.
Keeping focus on the consumer is critical for the fast food industry as well as other customer service firms. In 2014, the average U.S. consumer spent $2,390 on food [
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not a new topic of discussion. Yet a consistent, objective definition and set of corresponding public expectations remain elusive. Corporate Social Performance (CSP) and the element that is the social responsibility of firms have been examined since the mid-1950’s [
The current movement towards CSR may be influenced by the belief that companies can be more influential and effective in addressing social and environmental issues and the general argument that “good corporate citizenship is also good business” ( [
The customer-perceived value is comprised of tangible attributes and is related to product quality and processing. However, this is increasingly related to less tangible attributes, like brand image and CSR [
One mixed-methods study from the UK examined the awareness and perceptions of CSR for McDonald’s and KFC [
The aim of this study was to contribute to knowledge on perceptions of CSR by investigating U.S. resident’s perceptions of the “most” and “least” socially responsible of prominent fast food restaurants. The present situation in the U.S. with regard to perceptions of CSR for fast food restaurants is largely unstudied. Nearly all food service establishments portray to their customers aspects of their business which may be interpreted as related to CSR. Information shared can range from nutritional information to procurement strategies (i.e., local or from farms using certain practices) and treatment of employees. However, the presentation of CSR information is such that comparisons across restaurants can be difficult. For example, the language used to describe different aspects of CSR may differ significantly. Further, there is not a central source of information that summarizes CSR activities for all restaurants in an accessible way. The objective of this study was to examine the tradeoffs amongst perceptions of social responsibility of prominent fast food restaurants by utilizing a best-worst scaling estimation of consumer perceptions of CSR of fast food restaurants. Previous studies have used best-worst analysis to investigate perceptions; Cummins et al. [
An online survey was distributed to collect information from 1201 U.S. residents from March 31st through April 4th, 2015. The sample was targeted to be representative of the U.S. national population according to the 2012 U.S. Census. Researchers at Purdue University created the survey, and then Light speed GMI distributed a link to potential respondents in their large proprietary opt-in panel. The questionnaire was designed to collect basic demographic information (gender, age, pre-tax income, education, region of residence) in addition to information about monthly food expenditures, fast food consumption habits, and the nature and frequency of their restaurant visits. Respondents were required to be at least 18 years of age to participate in the survey.
Within the survey, a randomly selected subset of participants, n = 302, was shown a best-worst choice experiment in which they indicated their preference for the “most” and “least” socially responsible fast food restaurants over a series of best-worst scaling (BWS) choice scenarios. Preferences of those respondents (n = 302), elicited through the BWS choice experiment were analyzed. All analyses were completed using the sample of respondents who completed the BWS questions (n = 302).
In addition to the BWS, this analysis used cross-tabulations to investigate relationships between monthly fast food consumption and demographic factors, including gender, households with/without children, age, household income, and education level.
Econometric MethodologyIn BWS methodology, participants are forced to make tradeoffs over a series of choice scenarios offering multiple options [
In this experiment, participants could choose any one fast food restaurant up to five times. Given that eleven attributes (fast food restaurants) were presented (j), J = 11 in the experiment, the total possible choice combinations were calculated as: J(J − 1) = 110. In short, there were 110 aggregate possible best-worst choice combinations. Participant selections of the “most” and “least” socially responsible fast food restaurants were used to determine the relative social responsibility of each fast food restaurant presented in this study. These two selections represent the maximum difference between two attributes on the underlying continuum of importance [
The probability that a respondent chooses j and k, respectively, as the best and worst, or “most” and “least,” socially responsible fast food restaurants, is the probability that the difference between Iij and Iik is larger than all other J(J − 1) − 1 possible choice combinations [
However, the MNL model was hypothesized to not accurately represent participant preferences as it assumes homogenous preferences across attributes. Participant’s perceptions of CSR amongst fast food restaurants were hypothesized to be heterogeneous. Studies such as Shwartz [
The probability that each fast food restaurant was picked as most important across all eleven restaurants necessarily sums to one. Shares of preference represent the probabilities and were calculated as:
Shares of preference for all eleven fast food restaurants were calculated using the RPL model. The perceived CSR (relative to all other fast food restaurants presented) for individual-specific RPL parameter estimates were found through maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) using the individual-specific coefficients from the RPL model. Normalizing MLE to 0 prevents the dummy variable trap [
Summary demographics for the sample are displayed in
Information was also collected from respondents with respect to their education levels, revealing that 57% of respondents graduated with a higher education degree (Associates, Trade, Bachelors, Masters, or PhD). The sample in this study was more educated than the U.S. population overall, which could be due to a number of factors including internet access, available time online, ability to read and/or comprehend, and interest in voluntary participation. The majority of respondents, 68%, did not have children in their household. The information regarding household composition is particularly pertinent when investigating food consumption habits, as having children in the household is believed to influence attitudes toward food and consumption practices. Information regarding respondent/household vegetarian and vegan dietary preferences was also collected. The majority of respondents claimed neither that they nor any member of their household was vegan or vegetarian (78% and 79%, respectively).
The knowledge of respondents with respect to fast food operations was of interest, given the focus of this analysis on perceptions of fast food restaurants’ perceived responsibility. Responses on questions pertaining to fast food, knowledge of the related business practices, and consumption habits and summary statistics are presented in
In addition to an individual’s perceived level of knowledge, the consumption behaviors of respondents were of interest, specifically, individual perceptions of fast food with respect to food consumption practices. Respondents were asked about average household weekly food expenditures; 23% spent less than $50/week, 34% spent $51 - 100/week, 30% spent $101 - $200/week, while the remaining 12% spent more than $200/week. On average, respondents indicated spending 75.8% of their food budget on food consumed at home and the remaining 24.2% on food consumed away from home. To gain further insight into spending on food away from home,
respondents were asked the average number of times they visited different restaurant types (
Variable Description | Survey (% of respondents) | Census (% of population) |
---|---|---|
Female | 47 | 51 |
Age | ||
18 to 24 years | 13 | 13 |
25 to 44 years | 35 | 35 |
45 to 64 years | 35 | 35 |
65 years and over | 17 | 17 |
Household Income | ||
Less than $25,000 | 24 | 23 |
$25,000 - $34,999 | 9 | 11 |
$35,000 - $49,999 | 11 | 14 |
$50,000 - $74,999 | 20 | 18 |
$75,000 - $99,999 | 15 | 12 |
$100,000 - $149,999 | 12 | 13 |
$150,000 or more | 9 | 9 |
Region | ||
Northeast | 18 | 18 |
South | 41 | 38 |
Midwest | 20 | 22 |
West | 21 | 22 |
Education | ||
Did not graduate from high school | 2 | |
Graduated from high school did not attend college | 17 | |
Attended college, no degree earned | 22 | |
Attended college, associate or trade degree earned | 14 | |
Attended college, bachelor’s (B.S. or B.A.) degree earned | 27 | |
Attended college, advanced (M.S., Ph.D., Law School) degree earned | 16 | |
Other | 2 | |
Children | ||
Households with | 32 | |
Households without | 68 | |
Vegetarian (% of responses) | ||
I or a member of my household is | 14 | |
A close friend or family member is | 14 | |
No, neither I nor anyone I know is | 78 | |
Vegan (% of responses) | ||
I or a member of my household is | 8 | |
A close friend or family member is | 11 | |
No, neither I nor anyone I know is | 79 | |
Self-reported knowledge of business practices in fast food | ||
Unknowledgeable | 45 | |
Neutral | 24 | |
Knowledgeable | 31 |
Percent of sample | Average dollars | |
---|---|---|
Average weekly spending on food (percentage of sample respondents) | ||
$1 - 50 | 23 | 36.42 |
$51 - 100 | 34 | 88.92 |
$101 - 200 | 30 | 164.08 |
$201 - 1000 | 12 | 374.19 |
All categories | 100 | 134.36 |
Percent of spending (sample average) | ||
On food consumed at home | 75.8 | - |
On food consumed “away from home” | 24.2 | - |
at any such establishments in a given month, while 32% claimed to eat at such restaurants 1 - 3 times monthly, 12% claimed 4 - 6 monthly visits, 3% indicated 7 - 9 visits, and 9% ate fast food more than 10 times per month. Fast food/take out or drive through figures were not practically different as 31% claimed not to eat any take out fast food in a given month, 34% ate take out fast food 1 - 3 times per month, 19% ate takeout fast food 4 - 6 times per month, 4% ate take out 7 - 9 times per month, and 12% ate at such establishments more than 10 times per month. Nearly half of participants, 47%, claimed to eat at fast casual restaurants 1 - 3 times per month, while 35% did not do so at all, 12% ate at such restaurants 4 - 6 times monthly, 2% partook 7 - 9 times per month, and 4% ate fast casual food more than 10 times per month.
Few differences were observed between males and females for monthly restaurant visits (
visits to a fast food restaurant to sit down, for takeout or drive through, or a fast casual restaurant, and less than 2% of respondents frequented a fast food restaurant 10 or more times in a month. Comparatively, approximately 20% of respondents in the 25 - 44 year age group reported no visits to a fast food restaurant and almost 20% of these respondents had 10 or more visits.
Gender1 | Children2 | Age3 | Income4 | Education5 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monthly restaurant visits | Male (*) | Female (**) | Households without children (I) | Households with children (II) | 18 - 24 years(a) | 25 - 44 years (b) | 45 - 64 years (c) | 65 + years (d) | Low (A) | Medium (B) | High (C) | Without college degree (α) | College degree (β) |
Fast food -sit down in restaurant | |||||||||||||
0 times | 37.1 | 41.3 | 48.3II | 19.6I | 41.0 | 23.1c,d | 47.7b | 52.9b | 55.0B,C | 30.9A | 31.7A | 46.2β | 33.7α |
1 - 3 times | 34.6 | 39.2 | 34.6 | 41.2 | 28.2 | 43.3 | 31.8 | 41.2 | 33.0 | 41.0 | 33.3 | 35.4 | 37.8 |
4 - 6 times | 13.8 | 9.8 | 10.2 | 15.5 | 20.5 | 14.4 | 10.3 | 3.9 | 7.0 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 10.8 | 12.8 |
7 - 9 times | 5.0** | 0.7* | 1.0II | 7.2I | 2.6 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0C | 3.6 | 6.3A | 0.8β | 4.7α |
10+ times | 9.4 | 9.1 | 5.9II | 16.5I | 7.7 | 14.4 | 7.5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 10.1 | 14.3 | 6.9 | 11.0 |
Fast food -take out or drive through | |||||||||||||
0 times | 32.1 | 30.1 | 37.1II | 18.6I | 30.8 | 17.3c,d | 34.6b | 52.9b | 46.0b | 20.1a | 31.7 | 32.3 | 30.2 |
1 - 3 times | 27.7** | 41.3* | 34.6 | 33.0 | 28.2 | 35.6 | 34.6 | 35.3 | 36.0 | 33.8 | 31.7 | 35.4 | 33.1 |
4 - 6 times | 23.3** | 14.0* | 17.1 | 22.7 | 17.9 | 22.1 | 20.6 | 7.8 | 9.0b | 25.2a | 20.6 | 17.7 | 19.8 |
7 - 9 times | 4.4 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 6.2 | 5.1 | 5.8 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 6.5 | 4.8 | 2.3 | 5.8 |
10 + times | 12.6 | 10.5 | 7.8II | 19.6I | 17.9d | 19.2c,d | 6.5b | 2.0a,b | 8.0 | 14.4 | 11.1 | 12.3 | 11.0 |
Fast casual | |||||||||||||
0 times | 34.0 | 35.7 | 42.0II | 19.6I | 41.0 | 23.1d | 34.6 | 52.9b | 64.0B,C | 20.9A | 19.0A | 40.8 | 30.2 |
1 - 3 times | 45.9 | 47.6 | 45.4 | 49.5 | 30.8 | 51.9 | 49.5 | 43.1 | 26.0B,C | 59.0A | 52.4A | 43.8 | 48.8 |
4 - 6 times | 11.3 | 13.3 | 9.8 | 17.5 | 20.5 | 16.3 | 9.3 | 3.9 | 6.0 | 14.4 | 17.5 | 12.3 | 12.2 |
7 - 9 times | 3.1 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
10 + times | 5.7 | 2.1 | 1.0II | 10.3I | 5.1 | 6.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 7.9 | 0.8β | 6.4α |
Casual dining | |||||||||||||
0 times | 25.8 | 29.4 | 31.2II | 19.6I | 35.9 | 18.3 | 29.0 | 35.3 | 52.0B,C | 15.1A | 15.9A | 34.6β | 22.1α |
1 - 3 times | 52.8 | 54.5 | 52.2 | 56.7 | 38.5 | 61.5 | 53.3 | 51.0 | 39.0B | 66.9A,C | 47.6B | 50.8 | 55.8 |
4 - 6 times | 13.8 | 13.3 | 12.7 | 15.5 | 23.1 | 13.5 | 13.1 | 7.8 | 8.0 | 14.4 | 20.6 | 11.5 | 15.1 |
7 - 9 times | 3.8 | 1.4 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 0.0C | 1.4C | 9.5A,B | 1.5 | 3.5 |
10 + times | 3.8 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 3.5 |
Fine dining | |||||||||||||
0 times | 64.8 | 67.8 | 72.2II | 53.6I | 66.7 | 56.7 | 70.1 | 76.5 | 86.0B,C | 56.8A | 55.6A | 76.2β | 58.7α |
1 - 3 times | 25.2 | 26.6 | 23.9 | 29.9 | 20.5 | 30.8 | 24.3 | 23.5 | 11.0B,C | 35.3A | 28.6A | 19.2β | 30.8α |
4 - 6 times | 5.7 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 8.2 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 9.5 | 3.8 | 5.8 |
7 - 9 times | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.0II | 2.1I | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
10 + times | 3.8 | 0.7 | 0.5II | 6.2I | 0.0 | 5.8 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 6.3 | 0.8 | 3.5 |
1Significant differences are denoted by *, **, 2Significant differences are denoted by I, II, 3Significant differences are denoted by a, b, c, d, 4Significant differences are denoted by A, B, C, 5Significant differences are denoted by α, β
The experiment in this study forced participants to make tradeoffs in perceived social responsibility amongst the different fast food options, thus, resulting in relative rankings of CSR (
specific preference share estimates are of interest for further analysis, the relative rankings of restaurants (as measured by preference shares) are themselves of practical significance. Given the vast array of marketing materials and consumer messaging being employed by restaurants, it is likely of interest within the fast food industry to understand the relative ranking of fast food restaurants (according to perceived CSR) by respondents.
The relationships amongst perceived social responsibility of the different fast food restaurants are shared in
Responses to perceived social responsibility with respect to sample demographics are presented in
Value | MNL | RPL Econometric Estimations | RPL Mean Shares of Preferences | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Coefficient | Standard Deviation | ||
Subway | 0.7664*** (0.0569) | 1.1139*** (0.0848) | 1.2005*** (0.0824) | 0.1420 |
Panera Bread | 0.9400*** (0.0571) | 1.4454*** (0.0934) | 1.6578*** (0.0859) | 0.1978 |
Starbucks | 0.5192*** (0.0565) | 0.7468*** (0.1034) | 1.9549*** (0.0950) | 0.0984 |
Wendy’s | 0.4859*** (0.0564) | 0.6606*** (0.0679) | 0.4282*** (0.0690) | 0.0902 |
Burger King | 0.1456*** (0.0561) | 0.1976*** (0.0688) | 0.6346*** (0.0697) | 0.0568 |
Taco Bell | −0.0990* (0.0562) | −0.1400** (0.0649) | 0.0541* (0.0851) | 0.0405 |
Dunkin’ Donuts | 0.2616*** (0.0562) | 0.3714 (0.0671) | 0.2549** (0.1085) | 0.0676 |
KFC | 0.0151 (0.0563) | −0.0018* (0.0652) | 0.2189** (0.1111) | 0.0465 |
Chick-fil-A | 0.6064*** (0.0566) | 0.9715*** (0.0973) | 2.1151*** (0.1040) | 0.1232 |
Chipotle | 0.4365*** (0.0565) | 0.6615*** (0.0928) | 1.7015*** (0.0786) | 0.0903 |
McDonald’s | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.0467 |
Statistical significance to the 1%***, 5%**, and 10%* levels.
McDonald’s | Subway | Panera Bread | Starbucks | Wendy’s | Burger King | Taco Bell | Dunkin’ Donuts | KFC | Chick-fil-A | Chipotle | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
McDonald’s | | ||||||||||
Subway | 0.1584*** | | |||||||||
Panera Bread | −0.3053*** | −0.0439 | | ||||||||
Starbucks | −0.2327*** | −0.0455 | −0.1513*** | | |||||||
Wendy’s | 0.8286*** | 0.0740 | −0.3088*** | −0.2065*** | | ||||||
Burger King | 0.7906*** | 0.1422** | −0.2690*** | −0.1692*** | 0.7076*** | | |||||
Taco Bell | 0.9958*** | 0.1632*** | −0.3094*** | −0.2291*** | 0.8267*** | 0.7829*** | | ||||
Dunkin’ Donuts | 0.9394*** | 0.1062* | −0.3012*** | −0.2225*** | 0.7891*** | 0.7526*** | 0.9272*** | | |||
KFC | 0.9570*** | 0.1780*** | −0.2944*** | −0.2312*** | 0.7800*** | 0.7156*** | 0.9611*** | 0.8653*** | | ||
Chick-fil-A | −0.3074*** | −0.0307 | −0.2553*** | −0.2745*** | −0.2842*** | −0.2761*** | −0.2993*** | −0.3120*** | −0.2711*** | | |
Chipotle | −0.2899*** | −0.0431 | −0.1535*** | −0.0119 | −0.2596*** | −0.2472*** | −0.2865*** | −0.2599*** | −0.2899*** | −0.1706*** | |
Statistical significance are indicated as 1%***, 5%**, and 10%* levels.