Page 250 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

Empirical Generalizations for Social Marketing 227

with e = −0.38 (Holmgren, 2007) or e = −0.40 (Hensher, 2008). Public
transport, unlike air travel, may not be a very discretionary expenditure
for commuters who have no alternative means of getting to and from work.
A higher elasticity of e = −0.85 was found for residential electricity con-
sumption, suggesting that consumers do have some ability to cut demand
in response to price increases (Espey & Espey, 2004). The results are
somewhat mixed for gasoline demand, with one study showing a value of
e = −0.81 (Brons, Nijkamp, Pels, & Rietveld, 2008) and an earlier study
showing a value of e = −0.58 (Espey, 1998).
The elasticities of demand for alcoholic beverages show an average of e
= −0.58, very similar to the e = −0.60 for a variety of foods, including vari-
ous beverages, meats, eggs, and other products that was found by
Andreyeva, Long, and Brownell (2010). However, elasticities vary within
categories of alcoholic beverages, with wine showing the highest average
of e = −0.70, distilled spirits somewhat lower than wine with e = −0.66,
and beer the lowest with e = −0.41. Finally, demand for cigarettes showed
an average elasticity of e = −0.46 across three studies. Levy and colleagues
(2004) and others have used similar values to suggest that tax increases
may be an important tool to reduce cigarette consumption, and Chaloupka
and Davidson (2010) suggested that the cigarette literature may have simi-
lar implications for taxation to reduce demand for sugar-sweetened
beverages.

Corporate Social and Environmental Performance and Financial Outcomes

Social marketing involves public well-being rather than corporate finan-
cial performance. However, social marketers may have greater success in
recruiting business allies if they show that the goals of social and corporate
marketing can be aligned (Andreasen, 2006). Table 8.6 shows a pattern of
positive financial returns to positive social and environmental perfor-
mance. The strongest effect is a negative impact on shareholder wealth
from announcements of corporate social irresponsibility or illegal behav-
ior, with r = −.42 (Frooman, 1997). Corporate social performance reduces
firm economic risk and increases performance, with an average r of .15 in
absolute value. Another study is consistent with this pattern, though it
does not produce an effect size that can be incorporated in the table:
Capon, Farley, and Hoenig (1990) showed 66 positive relationships be-
tween firm social responsibility and performance versus just 17 negative
relationships. Corporate environmental performance has a smaller but still
positive correlation with financial performance of r = .07. Other evidence
suggests that this pattern may not hold for firms outside the United States,