Sustainability in the Dutch Sneakers Industry Proposal

Contents hide
1 Sustainability in the Dutch Sneakers Industry Proposal

Sustainability in the Dutch Sneakers Industry Proposal


The past two decades have positioned much emphasis on sustainability practices inside completely different industries. In 2017, half of the highest 100 fashion brands implemented a sustainable strategy in their practices (McKinsey, 2017). Fashion as an business highlights sustainability is part of its social and environmental actions. Conversely, emphasis on sustainability from the buyer perspective has been a mainstream issue. Consumers are constantly drawn to companies with clear sustainable practices and products. Yet, companies have continuously fallen short of upholding their socially responsible picture in entrance of the public eye.

Widespread societal concern that corporations are disseminating false or ambiguous environmental info has led to a growing number of prospects becoming skeptical in regards to the environmental performance and benefits of inexperienced products. Previous research has thought of how skepticism may need a detrimental effect on consumer responses (Annamma, Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang, & Chan, 2012). Other studies establish a quantity of limitations shoppers would possibly face when buying sustainable merchandise. Therefore, there exists a need for a better understanding of how skepticism impacts green purchase behavior (Wunker, 2017).

This study will determine client notion barriers of green buying behavior and examines the effect of those barriers in the path of CSR practices. Moreover, client notion influences consumers’ attitudes in the direction of buying. Specifically, this analysis considers shopper perception on buying determination and word of mouth intention. To set scope to this research, the goal group would be the younger shoppers (between 18 and 35 years old) who stay in The Netherlands and buy sneakers from Nike and Adidas. A quantitative methodology by way of questionnaires shall be used to collect main knowledge and the outcome might be analyzed by SPSS software program.


Study background

In the past 20 years, enterprise sustainability has gathered a lot attention from both lecturers and practitioners across different industries all round the world (Turker & Altuntas, 2014). Sustainability is an integral side of businesses as a outcome of it promotes prudent utilization of resources and markets corporations. While the subject has gained much controversy, most companies contemplate sustainability essential for their practices. The three dimensions of sustainability have been referred to as the Triple-Bottom-Line, seeks to address social, financial, and environmental issues (Govindan, Khodaverdi, & Jafarian, 2013). In order to improve a sustainable business, companies should create Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) methods, through designing policies that integrate environmental, social, and ethical rights into enterprise operations.

A company’s affiliation with environmental points determines its status (Caplan, 2003). Due to this fact, more fashion corporations are taking sustainability into consideration (Choi & Cheng, 2015). Adidas and Nike, for instance, have stepped up significantly. Adidas has created a greener provide chain, eradicated plastic luggage, and participated in numerous sustainable initiatives. Their cooperation with Parley allows Adidas to make use of recycled ocean plastic and yarn to produce new products “Parley x Footwear” (Px-F) (Amir, 2018). Nike, nonetheless, pursues sustainability by decreasing the amount of poisons released from its production traces.

By using the Considered Index, designers can manage a shoe’s environmental effect throughout the design operation. Adidas additionally introduced the Plant-Based Footwear (P-BF), in its technique, which increased their CSR notion. In addition, Nike launched Footwear Sustainability Index (FSI) and Air-Sole Innovation (ASI), permitting the corporate to measure the environmental influence of each product (Appendix 2).

These firms have earned large amount of loyal customer bases because of their sustainability efforts (McKinsey, 2017). According to CGS’s findings, model loyalty is related to product quality; nevertheless, the second-highest cause consumers return to a specific model is its sustainable practices (Sungchul & Ng, 2011). Thus, fashion companies can fiercely compete of their market by implementing sustainability into their strategy.

Several obstacles have an effect on buying choice regarding sustainable merchandise. Skepticism is among the obstacles that hinder customers from selecting inexperienced products in the market (Wunker, 2017). Consumer skepticism is defined as “the consumer’s tendency to question any aspect of a firm’s activities” (Morel & Pruyn, 2003, p. 352). Consumer’s skepticism appears when firms spread ambiguous environmental information regarding the sustainability initiative and environmental efficiency. A research by Yiridoe et al. (2005) instructed that consumer’s skepticism on inexperienced merchandise appear from mislabeling, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of green merchandise.

Thus, although shoppers may want to buy green merchandise, skepticism about environmental performance could maintain them again from doing so. One important facet of CSR is stopping skepticism (Fuentes, 2018). Kwong and Balaji (2016) assert that skepticism has a unfavorable influence on consumer purchase intentions. Yet, there’s a want for a deeper understanding of how skepticism affects the inexperienced purchase determination. Fashion companies want to overcome client skepticism as it might possibly influence consumers’ purchasing choices, which may place a company at a disadvantage.

Problem statement

As competitors rises amongst shoemakers (World Trade Organization, 2018), an rising number of companies are most likely to adopt sustainability practices. However, a latest examine exhibits that consumers might not be willing to buy green products because of their skepticism (Joshi & Rahman, 2015). According to Bronn and Vrioni (2001), since more companies have interaction in CSR, shopper skepticism is rising. When consumers doubt greenness of company’s products, shoppers may shift to other brands or unfold unfavorable word of mouth (WOM), which negatively impacts a company’s reputation (Shim & Yang, 2016; Zeynep & Atik, 2015).

According to the latter, companies should change this ‘unfavorable attitude’ in consumers’ behavior. However, this creates a problem for trend companies since their practices must be communicated clearly to consumers without generating skepticism, specifically in the case of Nike and Adidas.

Research aim

The purpose of this paper is to study consumers’ perception of sustainability practices of Adidas and Nike. The analysis aims to mannequin how consumers’ distrust contributes to the occurrence of skepticism on CSR practices. Moreover, the research seeks to reveal how skepticism on CSR practices influences firms’ popularity, which in turn determines the buying decision of consumers within the sneakers trade.

Subsequently, the examine models how company popularity and negative WOM have an effect on the buying choice of customers. As a beneficial aspect, this paper aims to develop insights on how consumers’ notion of CSR practices influences their buying behavior. Insights from the ‘suspicion’ of consumers, aids within the improvement of the CSR practices of footwear corporations like Adidas and Nike.

Literature review

Dimensions of sustainability

Sustainability is an important issue nowadays for success (Haanaes, 2016). Several global fashion firms introduce sustainable initiatives, including Adidas and Nike (Payseno, 2018). Williams and Millington (2004) outline sustainable development “as the event that meets the needs of the present with out compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 100). There are three major dimensions of sustainability, that are known as the triple bottom line (Govindan et al., 2013; Williams & Millington, 2004). According to a examine by Dahlsrud (2008), there are many out there definitions of CSR.

The definition from Crane (2013) is helpful, particularly “CSR is outlined as the way organizations mix economic, social, and environmental issues into their values and operations in a transparent and accountable manner.” The definition emphasizes the social, environmental, and financial imperatives, which can be referred to the triple bottom line strategy.

Barriers to sustainable consumption

Nowadays, customers understand the importance of sustainability, but several obstacles have an effect on purchase intention (Bonini & Oppenheim, 2008; Wunker, 2017). Additionally, the study by Joshi and Rahman (2015) talked about that there’s a weak hyperlink between consumers’ inexperienced attitudes and purchasing habits, which is referred to as ‘attitude-behavior-gap’. Bonini and Oppenheim (2008) studied greater than 7000 shoppers in eight major economies and concluded that 87% of shoppers had been concerned in regards to the social and environmental influences of the products bought. Yet, in relation to buying inexperienced items, solely 33% of those consumers admitted they should buy green goods.

One purpose behind this is consumers’ skepticism relating to CSR initiatives. Morel and Pruyn (2003) outlined client skepticism relating to CSR initiatives as “consumer’s tendency to query any side of a firm’s CSR activities.” Additionally, according to Webb and Mohr (1998), skepticism occurs when customers query and mistrust a company’s CSR follow. Distrust of inexperienced fashion could be seen as a negative notion based mostly on lack of knowledge and understanding. Thus, an perception into the perception of consumers in direction of green fashion is critical to treatment distrust as a barrier.

Distrust and CSR perception

Since the second half of the twentieth century, lengthy debate on CSR has been going down, since then corporations at all times point out social responsibility as a part of their sustainable apply (Rosenbaum & Wong, 2015). However, prospects fail to determine whether companies pursue this to gain profit or a genuine desire to be sustainable. Skepticism stems from mistrust of advertising assertions that organizations make regarding their products (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 2013; Kwong & Balaji, 2016).

Since companies want to increase their market share and retain clients, they’ve to use numerous alternatives for promoting. However, shoppers develop distrust after they understand that the quality of merchandise do not match attributes that firms promote. According to Morel and Pruyn (2003), distrust pertains to skepticism as a outcome of when customers are skeptical, they doubt the information of products they intend to purchase. In this case, adverts made by Adidas and Nike are prone to distrust, leading to ‘green skepticism’ on CSR practices. Thus, the next various hypothesis (H1) predicts the results of customers’ mistrust on skepticism on CSR practices.

  • H1: Customers’ mistrust is a constructive predictor of skepticism on CSR practices.

CSR notion and WOM

The interaction between organizations and prospects influence the notion of CSR practices. According to Wang (2018), WOM includes both negative and optimistic statements that customers or potential customers share and influence the perception of merchandise and providers provided by companies. Previous research show that client skepticism contributes to the incidence of adverse WOM as a outcome of it influences attitudes, purchasing intentions, and model image (Balaji, Khong, & Chong, 2016; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013).

The dialogic concept holds that effective interaction between organizations and customers creates robust channels of communication, alleviates mistrust, and causes the unfold of constructive WOM (Uysal, 2018). Hence, corporations have to diminish the level of mistrust and skepticism among customers to prevent the spread of negative WOM about company’s CSR practices (Servaes & Tamayo, 2013). In this case, client skepticism impacts the perception of CSR, resulting in the occurrence of negative WOM. As a outcome, the following various hypothesis (H2) was formulated:

  • H2: Consumer skepticism on CSR practices is a optimistic predictor of unfavorable WOM

CSR perception and agency reputation

Reputation performs a central role in organizations because it determines the influence of promoting strategies. The attribution theory postulates that the way prospects perceive, belief, and trust CSR practices influences the status of organizations (Chen & Chiu, 2018). According to Rim and Kim (2016), company status has an intricate link with the perception of CSR practices. In essence, the sort of reputation that corporations have in aggressive markets depends on the nature of CSR practices espoused. When customers distrust CSR practices, they purchase a negative notion of companies and develop skepticism.

Previous studies came upon that client skepticism has a negative affect on the best way shoppers perceive the company’s reputation (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Elving, 2013). Consumers may consider that corporations take advantage of CSR practices to extend their income (Kim & Lee, 2009). Skepticism in direction of firms’ CSR practices, result in a deterioration of its corporate reputation (Shim & Yang, 2016). Therefore, the second different speculation (H3) was formulated:

  • H3: Consumer skepticism on CSR practices is a adverse predictor of company popularity.

CSR and buying decision

According to Dawson (2006), purchasing habits comprises of attitudes that decide the way consumers choose products, choose brands, and undertake their shopping. A buy determination is the outcomes of every of these factors, and thus, it’s useful for firms to collect info relating to consumers’ decisions and utilize them to improve their offering. Dewey (2012) established that the process of purchasing constitutes the next five phases (Figure 1). Before making a purchase choice, clients acknowledge the issue, search appropriate data, and consider obtainable options.

The 5 phases of the purchasing course of.
Figure 1: The 5 phases of the purchasing process (Dewey, 2012).

This research investigating if shoppers are skeptical towards the inexperienced sneakers supplied by each Adidas and Nike, this examine goes a step additional of Kwong and Balaji (2016), which aimed to analyze the position of skepticism in inexperienced purchase behavior. The research of Kwang provides results from a research by which it has been investigated whether skepticism of organic labels influences consumers’ buying intentions of organic merchandise.

Kwang examine was restricted because it was performed in Malaysia, this examine discovered that consumers’ skepticism of organic labels has a negative influence on buy intention, and negatively related to future purchase intentions. Therefore, this research aims to find out whether the consumers’ skepticism in the sneakers phase is expounded to the green buy determination. Hence, the following different hypothesis (H4) was formulated:

  • H4: Consumer’s skepticism in the course of CSR practices affects the buying determination of green sneakers.

Firms’ status and purchasing decision

Firms’ popularity and consumers’ purchase choices have a direct relationship, which explains the association between brand picture and client behavior. According to the theory of reasoned motion, consumers evaluate qualities of organizations, brands, and merchandise before making the important decision of purchasing of a given product (Mi, Chang, Lin, & Chang, 2018). CSR practices that create a optimistic model image of a corporation encourage shoppers to purchase products of choice.

An empirical study carried out among 212 chief govt officers of various organizations revealed that corporate popularity enhances brand attitudes, will increase shopper consciousness, and promotes preferences of merchandise (Jung & Seock, 2016). However, advertising managers ought to be wary of the influence of unfavorable popularity on the attitudes and purchasing selections of shoppers. Jung and Seock (2016) advise organizations and advertising managers to avert unfavorable status as a end result of it creates negative attitudes and aggravates purchasing decisions of shoppers. Thus, the theory of reasoned action explains the connection between corporate popularity and the purchasing determination of consumers.

Further analysis of the literature shows that the status of organizations performs a major function in customer satisfaction and subsequently determines the purchasing selections. Reputable organizations are probably to fulfill their clients, and thus entice and retain them for a protracted time. In their examine done amongst 300 Saudi organizations, El-Garaihy, Mobarak, and Albahussain (2014) established that company status mediates the impact of CSR practices on the competitiveness of a corporation. This discovering reveals that the purchasing choice is a direct effect of firms’ reputation and an oblique impact of CSR.

In the current world the place competitors is key for the survival and development of businesses, organizations concentrate on constructing a competitive reputation of their target markets. Hanaysha (2018) argues that organizations use CSR to create a constructive model image in the market aimed at influencing client conduct and buying choices in favor of their products. Burke, Dowling, and Wei (2018) advocate that market managers should employ reputation as a marketing technique as a end result of it enhances understanding of the company’s brands among clients and influences their purchasing selections. Therefore, the study formulated the hypothesis that:

  • H5: Firms’ status is a constructive predictor of the purchasing choice of green sneakers.

Negative WOM and purchasing decision

The unfold of information and knowledge is a critical side of marketing that determines the purchasing behavior of customers. Before the appearance of knowledge technology, WOM has been a major methodology that firms utilize in sharing data and details about products. When customers consume sure merchandise, they share data and data relating to their high quality and model of the organization, which influence attitudes and views amongst potential consumers (Vallejo, Redondo, & Acerete, 2015).

In essence, the conversation that emanates from the sharing of information and information influences the buying determination of consumers. According to Fu, Ju, and Hsu (2015), varied antecedents determine if customers have interaction in both optimistic WOM or adverse WOM. Depending on the quality of products and relationship with firms, customers have various drivers of WOM. Fu et al. (2015) assert that distributive justice drives the unfavorable WO, whereas interactional justice drives constructive WOM. Hence, unfavorable WOM have undesirable results on the purchase selections of shoppers.

Owing to elevated competitors, firms have realized that prospects unfold information and information of their products and status using WOM. A survey carried out amongst 1200 customers in Jordan demonstrated that adverse WOM is a statistically significant predictor of the buying decisions (Zamil, 2011). The high quality of merchandise and the nature of relationships that companies cultivate with their clients have a marked impression on the buying decisions. Ahmad, Vveinhardt, and Ahmed (2014) surveyed 100 college students in Pakistan and found out that WOM is an important issue that enables the making of knowledgeable purchasing decisions of sure products in the market.

Essentially, WOM allows clients to share their attitudes, experiences, concepts, and beliefs in their routine elements of social communication. The advancement in data technology has led to the emergence of electronic WOM where customers unfold adverse and positives of products and firms on the Internet or numerous social platforms (Potural & Turkyilmaz, 2018). Comparative evaluation shows that unfavorable WOM has a better impact on the buying choice than positive WOM (Hornik, Satchi, Cesareo, & Pastore, 2015). Therefore, the examine posed the following speculation:

  • H6: Negative WOM is a negative predictor of the buying decision of inexperienced sneakers.

Conceptual model

Figure 2 is the conceptual mannequin that depicts relationships between variables of the research and the placements of the six hypotheses. The conceptual model signifies that consumers’ mistrust influences CSR skepticism (H1), which in turn determines WOM (H2), firms’ status (H3), and buying determination (H4). Furthermore, the conceptual framework indicates that each firms’ popularity (H5) and adverse WOM (H6) influence customers’ buying decision. The conceptual mannequin indicates that consumers’ distrust is an impartial variable that determines consumer’s skepticism on CSR practices. As an independent variable, consumers’ skepticism on CSR practices directly affects WOM, firms’ popularity, and buy selections. Subsequently, firms’ popularity and negative WOM impartial variables that have a direct impact of the purchasing decisions of consumers.

Conceptual model.
Figure 2: Conceptual model.

Research questions

The total analysis question is that what are the direct and oblique impacts of customers’ mistrust, consumers’ skepticism concerning CSR practices (Adidas & Nike), consumers’ reputation, and adverse WOM on the consumers’ buy determination within the sneakers industry?

Specific research questions according to hypotheses are:

  1. What is the connection between consumers’ mistrust and skepticism on CSR practices concerning sneakers industry?
  2. How does shopper skepticism on CSR practices affect the WOM among sneakers’ consumers?
  3. How does consumers’ skepticism towards CSR practices influences firms’ reputation?
  4. How does consumer skepticism on CSR practices influence the inexperienced purchasing conduct in sneakers’ consumers?
  5. What is the effect of firms’ popularity on consumer’s purchase decision?
  6. What is the impact of unfavorable WOM on consumer’s buy decision?


Data collection

This examine will follow a quantitative method to study attitudes, behaviors, and other variables from a big pattern inhabitants (DeFranzo, 2011). Furthermore, a quantitative technique will determine the notion of samples on the variable ‘consumer skepticism on CSR practices’, which linked to the barrier ‘distrust’ from the literature evaluation. Based on the aim of the examine, a survey can lead to taking part extra prospects as samples for collecting knowledge.

The two shoemakers (Adidas and Nike) will be the major focus, with their ‘BCI’, ‘P-BF’, and ‘FSI’, ‘ASI’ sustainability line of inexperienced sneakers. These strains shall be examined by shoppers within the sneaker phase based on the extent of skepticism in course of CSR practices, and whether these variables will have an effect on their purchase decision and their WOM intention of inexperienced sneakers. A cross-sectional survey shall be used to identify these relationships.

The survey questions, including multiple-choice questions, shall be formulated with an internet device ‘Thesis tools Pro’ and will spread by way of social media channels and at Dutch Universities. The questionnaire (Appendix 4) shall be sent to the members utilizing social media channels with an internet device ‘SurveyMonkey’, and the data can be examined in SPSS software program (Collis & Hussey, 2014). This analysis makes use of social media platforms corresponding to Facebook messages and WhatsApp as they are the most used platforms in The Netherlands (Statista, 2019) (Appendix 2).

Population and sample

The goal group in this survey is the young shoppers between 18 and 35 years old who reside in The Netherlands; nevertheless, they’ll have a unique nationality. The age group (between 18 and 35) is more open to change in comparability with other ages and essentially the most captivated with maintaining with the most recent style development (Farsang, 2014). According to demographics, folks within the age group 16-35 years consist of roughly 4 million of the present inhabitants of the Netherlands (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2018), which is simply too massive to investigate. With a population of 4 million, the margin of error of 5%, and the arrogance interval of 95%, the suitable pattern dimension must be a minimal of 384 respondents (Jani, 2014).

The author will attempt to reach a minimum of 400 respondents. Participants might be contacted through the random sampling approach. The individuals will obtain a link to the web questionnaire by way of social media platforms. A brief definition of sustainable practice in sneakers industry with some examples will be given to the respondents at the very starting of the questionnaire, to make certain that the participants are conscious of the purpose of this study.

Data analysis

After cleansing information utilizing Excel program, the info will be entered to SPSS software program to handle the evaluation of the survey results. T-test, one-way ANOVA, and a number of regression are inferential statistics that might be used to evaluate data that will be collected by way of a questionnaire survey. The demographic variables would be the management variables. These variables might be researched as a outcome of previous analysis talked about that these variables show important variations in buying choice (Joshi & Rahman, 2015).

In order to make sure that the respondents reside in the Netherlands and belong to the age group (18-35) as required, a control query shall be asked firstly of the questionnaire. Furthermore, controlling questions might be requested at first to check whether or not participant learn the questions correctly and to increase the internal reliability. T-test and one-way ANOVA might be used to analyze the influence of demographics. Multiple regression will be used to test whether or not the independent variables affect the dependent variables (Mertler & Reinhart, 2017). By doing this, the author can investigate if the consumers’ skepticism on CSR practices within the sneakers trade influences WOM, firms’ popularity, and inexperienced buy selections.

Validity and Reliability

To ensure validity, the research will make the most of well-designed survey instruments with applicable questions and scope. According to Trochim, Donnelly, and Arora (2016), researchers ought to be sure that surveys meet content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity. To obtain content validity, the research will search expert evaluate of analysis instrument earlier than administering to respondents to make certain that it covers distrust, CSR skepticism, WOM, firms’ popularity, and purchasing habits.

Given that consultants have intensive information about CSR, critical assessment of the survey questions to ascertain if their contents meet the required aspects of the research is critical. Since there are established devices that measure variables of interest, the examine will correlate them with the designed variables to determine the criterion validity of the analysis instrument (Field, 2017). Comparative evaluation of the questionnaire will point out if it provides a valid alternative of measuring variables of curiosity within the study. The examine may even use factor analysis and principal component analysis to gauge the construct validly Likert objects used in the measurement of various variables.

Field (2017) explains that issue evaluation and principal part analysis get rid of redundant variables and enhance assemble validity. Therefore, by making certain that the research instrument meets content material validity, criterion validity, and assemble validity, the collected information could have a excessive degree of validity. In sampling, the examine will guarantee external validity using the random methodology to remove researchers’ bias and attain a consultant sample dimension.

To improve the reliability of the research, the study will take a look at information collected using the designed analysis instrument. Internal consistency and test-retest are two types of reliability strategies that the examine will use (Field, 2017). The research will use inner consistency in assessing the reliability of Likert objects of the important variables of interest. The assessment of the interior consistency using Cronbach’s alpha will verify if respondents have an analogous understanding of research questions and supply reliable answers. In the analysis of the interior consistency reliability, the examine will use Cronbach’s alpha and think about values which would possibly be higher than 0.7 as dependable (Collis & Hussey, 2014).

Moreover, Pearson correlation will be used in the evaluation of test-retest reliability. A sturdy correlation coefficient that’s larger than 0.eight will be thought of dependable in measuring variables of interest (Field, 2017). In test-retest reliability, a powerful correlation implies that variables don’t deviate significantly from one time to another owing to differences in situations of the examine.


Appendix 1: Initiatives from trend firms Adidas and Nike


Sustainability of Adidas.
Figure three: Sustainability of Adidas (Adidas, 2019).

Parley x Footwear (Px-F)

In the world of the sustainability plan, Adidas provides varied initiatives (Figure 3). Like their cooperation with Parley, which allows Adidas to make use of recycled ocean plastic and yarn to supply a new product (Px-F). This cooperation makes the company shifting ahead to turn into even more sustainable (Amir, 2018). The project aims to improve the environmental impression of the ocean waste that already polluted the ocean, so as to produce the Parley x footwear.

Sustainable product initiative (P-BF)

The initiative intended to use crops somewhat than oil-based supplies in the footwear production course of. Plant-Based Footwear (P-BF) already launched to the market in 2018. The first shoe ‘made from issues that grow’ that has an higher comprised of natural cotton and a base originating from industrially grown corn, which is a non-food source (Adidas-group, 2019). Adidas began to provide sneakers created from one hundred pc organic cotton, a sole created from a corn-based rubber substitute and an insole created from castor bean oil, and 75% of the shoe is made from biological materials. The upper is made totally of the shoe’s namesake cotton, whereas the only is produced from a corn-derived bio-based TPU so as to create sustainable footwear.


Footwear Sustainability Index (FSI)

The focus on sustainability at Nike could be acknowledged by the (FSI) (Nike, 2018). The (FSI) offers scores based mostly on a selection of related environmental standards and forms the premise for a way Nike measure the sustainability of products. The index takes under consideration the energy, water, and chemical compounds used to make materials. This index offers a method for Nike’s product creation teams to measure the complete environmental profile of each product and make higher choices in creating sustainable merchandise. It can be serving to groups perceive tips on how to enhance the sustainability scores of merchandise through using higher supplies, similar to cotton that’s recycled, organic cotton materials that require fewer chemicals or less energy in manufacturing.

Sustainability of Nike.
Figure 4: Sustainability of Nike (Nike, 2018).


Sustainability of Nike.
Figure 5: Sustainability of Nike (Nike, 2018).

Air-Sole Innovation (ASI)

Nike introduced the (ASI) in 1979. Nike is investing in the recycling process since then so waste material can be reused to create value, whereas 75% of all Nike’s sneakers now include some recycled materials (Nike, 2018). Recently, the waste material left from Nike’s footwear is being used in tennis courts, athletic tracks, and Nike sneakers to have the ability to forestall waste of this materials. Furthermore, Nike reuses its shoe materials until they must be recycled. By reusing these items as much as possible, the corporate tries to reduce its waste in a means that causes as little damage to the setting as potential (Epstein, Buhovac, Yuthas, 2010).

Appendix 2: Usage of social media

The usage of social media platform in The Netherlands in 2018.
Figure 6: The usage of social media platform in The Netherlands in 2018 (Statista, 2019).

Appendix three: Planning


Date Description Time
1stFebruary-March 2019 Thesis preparation phase
21 / April / 2019 Submit the final thesis proposal -BRM2 (version 1)
Poster presentation
9thJun 2019 Submit the final thesis proposal – BRM2 (version 2)
29thJun 2019 Discuss the ultimate proposal with the supervisor after getting suggestions from the professor 13:30 – 14:30
1stJuly 2019 Start the thesis project
2ndJuly 2019 Introduction session 11:00 – thirteen:00
10th – 17thJuly 2019 Improve the suggestions from ultimate proposal BRM2
17th July 2019 Meeting with the supervisor 15:30 – 16:30
18th– 25thJuly 2019 Revise proposal with the feedback from the supervisor
September 2019 Submit the improved thesis proposal 17:00
20th– 25thSeptember 2019 Meeting with the commissioner Time unknown
26th – 30thSeptember 2019 Design questionnaire
1stOctober 2019 Meeting with the supervisor for suggestions on questionnaire 12:00 – thirteen:00
2nd– 5thOctober 2019 Creating questionnaire using SurveyMonkey
6thOctober 2019 Pilot check questionnaire
7th– 9thOctober 2019 Incorporate feedback to enhance questionnaire
10th– 12thOctober 2019 Meeting with the commissioner Time unknown
13thOctober 2019 Spread survey via social media platforms
1st– 14thNovember 2019 Start amassing information from SurveyMonkey
15th– 22 November 2019 Process results in SPSS software
23 – 30thNovember 2019 Performing the check in SPSS
1st– 4thDecember 2019 Meeting with the supervisor to discuss the results Time unknown
5th– 7thDecember 2019 Interpret the results
8th– 10thDecember 2019 Answer the research questions with the results
11th– 21 December 2019 Draw conclusions and recommendations
22 December 2019 Meeting with the supervisor Time unknown
23 – 28thDecember 2019 Improve the thesis based mostly on the supervisor’s feedback
1st– 10thJanuary 2020 Grammar, spilling, and tutorial writing check
17thJanuary 2020 Submit the final thesis Time unknown
21 January – 14thFebruary 2020 Preparation of the defense
February 2020 Presentation and protection for the master thesis Time unknown
March 2020 Graduation Time unknown

Planning grasp thesis.

Planning master thesis.
Table 1: Planning grasp thesis.

Sustainability practices in the sneakers business (sports footwear industry).

Appendix four: Questionnaire

Dear participant,

My name is Rami, at present researching my last project to realize a grasp diploma at Hanze University Groningen-The Netherlands. My analysis is about the consumers’ perception relating to sustainability practices within the sneakers trade “sports activities footwear.” The questionnaire will solely take 5-8 minutes of your time and your answers will be processed fully anonymously. If you may have any questions concerning the questionnaire, please don’t hesitate to send an e-mail to: [email protected] I really recognize your enter 

By ticking on the field beneath, you agree that you just belong to the age group 18-35 and that you presently stay in The Netherlands

  • Agree, start with the questionnaire
  • I do not agree, I do not participate on this study

Part 1: General information

  • Q1: What is your age group?
    • 18 – 22 Years
    • 23 – 29 Years
    • 30 – 35 Years
    • Other
  • Q2: What is your gender?
  • Q3: What is your nationality?
    • Dutch
    • Other, name………………………
  • Q4: How much cash do you normally spend on sneakers per month on average?
    • Less than €40 per month
    • Between €forty and one hundred fifty per month
    • Between €a hundred and fifty and 200 per month
    • More than €200 per month
  • Q5: Adidas and Nike are two examples of trend firms. Do you mainly buy sneakers from these two brands?
    • Yes, I buy from Adidas
    • Yes, I buy from Nike
    • Yes, I purchase from both companies
    • No, I do not buy from these companies
  • Q6: How long do you already shop from these two companies?
    • Less than 2 years
    • Approximately 2 – three years
    • Approximately three – four years
    • More than four years
  • Q7: Would you consider shopping for sneakers from these two companies?
    • Yes
    • No
    • I already purchase sneakers from these firms.

Part 2: Sustainability practices from Adidas and Nike

The following questions are centered on the sustainability strains of the two trend corporations Adidas and Nike. Read the following textual content about company A (Adidas) and firm B (Nike), you will receive numerous questions about this later.

Company A:

  • In 2015, Adidas has partnered up with Parley for the Oceans which allows the company to use recycled ocean plastic and yarn to provide new product “Parley x Footwear” (Px-F). The project goals to enhance the environmental impact of the ocean waste that already polluted the ocean, so as to produce the Px-F.
  • Adidas introduced Plant-Based Footwear initiative (P-BF) in 2018. The initiative aimed to meant use plants quite than oil-based supplies in footwear production course of, ‘the primary shoe created from things that grow’ to have the ability to create sustainable footwear.

Company B:

  • By the top of 2017, Nike’s footwear teams had improved their inner index scores by introducing Footwear Sustainability Index (FSI) allowing the producer to measure the environmental impression of every product. FSI is used to lower 2.5 % in common carbon footprint per unit. The FSI encourages Nike’s teams to choose on better supplies to lower the environmental damage.
  • Nike launched the Air-Sole Innovation (ASI) in 1979 with the purpose of minimizing Nike’s influence through the use of extra recycled supplies. The company is investing in the recycling course of so waste material may be reused to create value. Now, 75 % of all Nike’s shoes contain some recycled material.
Q8 (Controlling query 1)

When was company A partnered up with Parley for the Oceans?

Q9 (Controlling question 2)

When was the (P-BF) initiative of company A introduced?

Q10 (Controlling query 3)

According to company B, the internal index scores (FSI) lead to lower the common carbon footprint per unit by …

Q11 (Controlling query 4)

When was the (ASI) initiative of company B introduced?

Part 2: Consumers’ Distrust

Q12: Below you see a quantity of photos. To what extent do you agree with the statements about the ads of those companies? Using scale 1 (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree).

Advertisement 1Advertisement 1

Below you presumably can see two of the sustainability traces of Adidas, in order to create sustainable footwear.

Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
The inexperienced claims in advertisement 1 are intended to mislead quite than to tell consumers
I doubt the inexperienced claims made in commercial 1
The Green claims (in commercial 1) are exaggerated
Sustainable claims (in commercial 1) could be better omitted

Below you’ll have the ability to see the sustainability line of Nike, so as to measure the environmental influence of every product, additionally to lower the carbon footprint per unit

Advertisement 2

Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
The inexperienced claims in advertisement 2 are meant to mislead rather than to tell consumers
I doubt the inexperienced claims made in advertisement 2
The green claims (in commercial 2) are exaggerated.
Sustainable claims (in commercial 2) may be better omitted

To what extent do you agree with the statements about the sustainability practices of Adidas and Nike?

Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
Adidas is taking advantage of environmental causes to assist its personal business
Adidas seeks to get publicity
Adidas feels morally obligated to assist setting and society
I assume that footwear from Adidas labelled as environmentally safe/ecological is designed to draw people and sell more
Adidas has an actual, genuine long-term curiosity in the environment
Nike is benefiting from environmental causes to assist its own business
Nike seeks to get publicity
Nike feels morally obligated to help setting and society
Nike has a real, authentic long-term curiosity in the environment
I suppose that footwear from Nike labelled as environmentally safe/ecological is designed to attract individuals and sell more

Part three: Consumers’ Skepticism on CSR Practices

Q13: Answer the next questions utilizing scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about these two companies?

Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
“It is doubtful that Adidas is socially responsible”
“It is unsure that Adidas is concerned to enhance the well-being of society”
“It is unsure that Adidas follows excessive ethical standards”
“It is doubtful that Nike is socially responsible”
“It is uncertain that Nike is concerned to improve the well-being of society”
“It is unsure that Nike follows high moral standards”

Part 4: Reputation

Q14: Please fee the popularity from Adidas and Nike from 1 till 5

Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
Adidas offers merchandise with honest prices and good quality
Adidas is an organization that relates/communicates properly with consumers
I have a good feeling in regards to the company Adidas
Adidas is an innovative company
Adidas is a good firm to work for
Adidas is an organization that supports good causes that advantages society and environment
Nike offers products with truthful costs and good quality
Nike is an organization that relates/communicates well with consumers
I have an excellent feeling concerning the company Nike
Nike is an progressive company
Nike is an effective company to work for
Nike is a company that helps good causes that advantages society and environment

Part 5: Negative Word-of-Mouth

Q15: How a lot do you agree with the next statements?


Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
I am not willing to suggest Adidas and its products to others
I usually say unfavorable things about Adidas
I will tell my pals and relatives not to use Adidas products.
I am not keen to advocate Nike and its products to others
I normally say adverse issues about Nike
I will inform my friends and relatives to not use Nike products.

Part 6: Purchase Decision

Q16: To what extent are you keen to buy sustainable footwear from the companies Adidas and Nike?

Statements Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Natural (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)
I count on to buy inexperienced footwear provided by Adidas (in the near future).
I am keen to make a particular effort by shopping for sustainable footwear from Adidas sooner or later as a end result of it is better for the environment
If I wish to purchase sustainable footwear, I would probably choose the footwear provided by Adidas.
I expect to buy green footwear supplied by Nike (in the near future).
I am prepared to make a particular effort by shopping for sustainable footwear from Nike sooner or later as a outcome of it is better for the environment
If I want to purchase sustainable footwear, I would probably choose the footwear supplied by Nike


Adidas. (2019). Sustainable and Recycled materials. Web.

Ahmad, N., Vveinhardt, J., & Ahmed, R. (2014). Impact of word of mouth on shopper buying determination. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(31), 394-403.

Amir, I. (2018). Adidas offered 1 million pairs of sneakers produced from ocean waste in 2017: Now the corporate is introducing a line of recycled clothing and taking steps to turn out to be even more sustainable. Web.

Annamma, J., Sherry, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion sustainability and the moral appeal of luxurious manufacturers. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273-295. Web.

Balaji, M. S., Khong, K. K., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2016). Determinants of unfavorable word-of-mouth communication using social networking websites. Information & Management, 53(4), 528-540. Web.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The influence of perceived company social responsibility on the buyer conduct. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53.

Bonini, S., & Oppenheim, J. (2008). Cultivating the green consumer. Web.

Bronn, P. S., Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social accountability and cause-related advertising: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207-222. Web.

Burke, P., Dowling, G., & Wei, E. (2018). The relative influence of corporate popularity on client alternative: Beyond a halo impact. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(13), 1227-1257. Web.

Caplan, A. (2003). Reputation and the management of pollution. Ecological Economics, 47(2-3), 197-212.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Trends within the Netherlands 2018. Web.

Chen, B. H., & Chiu, W. (2018). The relationship among client attributions, consumer skepticism, and perceived corporate social accountability in Taiwan. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 10(1), 29-38. Web.

Choi, T., & Cheng, E. (Eds.). (2015). Sustainable trend provide chain administration: From sourcing to retailing. New York, NY: Springer.

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2014). Business analysis: A practical information for undergraduate & postgraduate students. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How company social duty is outlined: An evaluation of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13. Web.

Dawson, J. F. (2006). The retailing reader. London, England: Routledge.

DeFranzo, S. (2011). What’s the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research. Web.

Dewey, J. (2012). How we expect. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation,

El-Garaihy, W. H., Mobarak, A. K. M., & Albahussain, S.A. (2014). Measuring the influence of corporate social duty practices on competitive advantage: A mediation role of reputation and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(5), 109-124. Web.

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for company socially accountable packages. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157. Web.

Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Skepticism and corporate social duty communications: The affect of match and popularity. Journal of Marketing Communication, 19(4), 277-292. Web.

Epstein, M., Buhovac, A., Yuthas, K. (2010). Why Nike kicks butt in sustainability, Organization Dynamics, 39(4), 353-356. Web.

Farsang, A. G. (2014). Survey outcomes on fashion consumption and sustainability amongst younger shoppers in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US in 2014. Web.

Field, A. P. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publisher.

Fu, J., Ju, P., & Hsu, C. (2015). Understanding why customers engage in digital word-of-mouth communication: Perspectives from theory of deliberate behavior and justice theory. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(6), 616-630. Web.

Fuentes, M. G. (2018). Avoiding CSR skepticism through brand popularity and brand-cause fit enhancement. Web.

Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi-criteria method for measuring sustainability efficiency of a provider based mostly on triple bottom line method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47(1), 345-354. Web.

Haanaes, K. (2016). Why all companies ought to embrace sustainability. Web.

Hanaysha, J. (2018). An examination of the factors affecting consumer’s purchase decision within the Malaysian retail market. PSU Research Review, 2(1), 7-23. Web.

Hornik, J., Satchi, R. S., Cesareo, L., & Pastore, A. (2015). Information dissemination via digital word-of-mouth: Good news travels fast, dangerous information travels faster! Computers in Human Behavior, 45(1), 273-280.

Ismael, A. (2018). Adidas offered 1 million pairs of sneakers produced from ocean waste in 2017 — now the company is introducing a line of recycled clothes and taking steps to turn into much more sustainable. Web.

Jani, P. N. (2014). Business statistics: Theory and applications. New Delhi, India: PHI Learning.

Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behavior and future analysis instructions. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1-2), 128-143. Web.

Jung, N. Y., & Seock, Y. (2016). The impression of corporate status on model perspective and buy intention. Fashion and Textiles, 3(20), 1-15. Web.

Kim, S. B., & Kim, D. Y. (2016). The affect of company social duty, ability, reputation, and transparency on hotel customer loyalty within the US: A gender-based method. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1-13. Web.

Kim, Y. J., & Lee, W. (2009). Overcoming client skepticism in cause-related advertising: The results of company social accountability and donation dimension claim objectivity. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 465-483. Web.

Kwong, G. S. & Balaji, M. S. (2016). Linking inexperienced skepticism to inexperienced buy behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131(1), 629-638. Web.

McKinsey. (2017). The state of fashion. Web.

Mertler, C. & Reinhart, R. V. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical Application and Interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mi, C., Chang, F., Lin, C., & Chang, Y. (2018). The principle of reasoned motion to CSR behavioral intentions: The function of CSR expected benefit, CSR anticipated effort, and stakeholders. Sustainability, 10(4462), 1-17. Web.

Morel, K., & Pruyn, A. (2003). Consumer skepticism toward new products. European Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 351-358.

Nike. (2018). Sustainable business efficiency abstract. Web.

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2013). Ad skepticism: The penalties of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 309-324. Web.

Payseno, K. (2018). Top 20 corporate social duty initiatives of 2018. Web.

Potural, M., & Turkyilmaz, M. (2018). The influence of eWOM in social media on shopper buy choices: a comparative research between Romanian and Bosnian customers. Management and Economics Review, 3(2), 138-160.

Rosenbaum, M. W., & Wong, I. A. (2015). Green marketing packages as strategic initiatives in hospitality. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(2), 81-92. Web.

Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of company social accountability on agency worth: The role of buyer consciousness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045-1061. Web.

Shim, K. & Yang, S. (2016). The impact of bad reputation: The prevalence of disaster, company social accountability, and perceptions of hypocrisy and attitudes toward a company. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 68-78. Web.

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. (2013). When customers doubt, watch out! The function of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838. Web.

Statista. (2019). Number of individuals utilizing the main social media platforms within the Netherlands in 2018, by social network (in million users). Web.

Sungchul, C., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and financial dimensions of sustainability and value results on client responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 269-282. Web.

Trochim, W. M. K., Donnelly, J. P., & Arora, K. (2016). Research methods: The essential information base. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Turker, D., & Altuntas, C. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management within the quick trend trade: An analysis of company stories. European Management Journal, 32(5), 837-849. Web.

Uysal, N. (2018). On the connection between dialogic communication and corporate social efficiency: advancing dialogic principle and analysis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 1-15. Web.

Vallejo, J. M., Redondo, Y. P., & Acerete, A. U. (2015). The traits of digital word-of-mouth and its affect on the intention to repurchase online. European Journal of Business Management and Economics, 24(1), 61-75.

Wang, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2018). Understanding the effects of eWOM social ties on purchase intention: A average mediation investigation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 28(1), 54-62. Web.

Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related advertising: From skeptics to socially. Journal of Public Policy Marketing, 17(2), 226-238. Web.

Williams, C. C., & Millington, A. C. (2004). The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development. The Geographical Journal, 170(2), 99-104. Web.

World Trade Organization. (2018). Competition coverage, trade and the worldwide financial system: Existing WTO elements, commitments in regional trade agreements, present challenges and issues for reflection. Web.

Wunker, S. (2017). 10 obstacles to new product success. Web.

Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2005). Comparison of consumer perceptions and desire toward organic versus conventionally produced meals: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 193-205. Web.

Zamil, A. (2011). The impression of word of mouth (WOM) on the buying choice of the Jordanian consumer. Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes, 20(1), 24-29.

Zeynep, O. E., & Atik, D. (2015). Sustainable markets: Motivating elements, barriers, and remedies for mobilization of slow style. Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 53-69. Web.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.