(de Vaujany 2006). A label, as a distinctive sign affixed to the product, makes it possible, in principle, to transform trust attributes into search attributes12 and to solve the problem of information asymmetry between the seller and the consumer (Caswell 1998). The societal label then plays four major roles in optimizing the process of appropriating these societal attributes of product differentiation. First, it communicates to the customer a mass of information on the social and/or environmental practices developed by the company and the nature of the attributes (tangible and/or intangible) of differentiation that they can produce. Second, it provides a guarantee of trust as a credible societal attribute for the customer. This trust, which is a determining factor in the decision to purchase societal products, is the consequence of a belief created on the basis of information communicated by the company through its labels, and not of objective verification by the buyer (Gasmi and Grolleau 2002). Third, it can reinforce the competitive advantage that these attributes can generate (Quairel 2013). Fourth, the label also aims to push customers towards choosing products with societal attributes so that they can make inferences about CSR as a way of differentiating these products in their purchasing act. The concept of “appropriation” is defined as “the process by which the subject reconstructs for himself patterns of use of an artefact in the course of an activity that is meaningful to him” (Rabardel 1995). The label certainly plays a decisive role in the act of purchasing, but appropriation also depends on the attitudes that the customer may have towards CSR practices and the label as a management tool in general. In order to facilitate this appropriation, the company must place it in a psycho-cognitive appropriation perspective. This perspective, described as “pragmatic” and “semiotic” by Lorino (2002), fits into theoretical frameworks that are increasingly oriented towards a socio-cognitive prism, by adopting a structuration’s stance, in which the label is no longer considered as a lever for the rationality of the actors (clients) (de Vaujany 2006; Aggeri and Labatut 2010; Grimand 2012). The label then takes the form of an artifact for the action of a client in a situation, who will interpret it by giving it a meaning according to an individually and socially constructed pattern of use (Martineau 2012). The psycho-cognitive approach, which conceives appropriation as a process of acquiring new knowledge about management tools (labels), assumes that clients must develop a logic for optimizing the allocation of their attention (Kessous et al. 2010), with respect to these tools and the information they convey.
2.4.2. Process of optimizing customer focus on societal attributes
The process of caring about societal attributes is a prerequisite for customers to take ownership of them when they make a purchase. At the end of the 1990s, the issue of socially responsible consumption (SRC) began to take hold as a necessary change in consumer behavior in the markets (Dubuisson-Quellier 2013). SRC is “the fact that an individual buys goods or services that have a positive (or less negative) impact on his environment and uses his purchasing power to express his social and/or environmental concerns” (François-Lecompte 2005), or that he integrates into his individual choices or consumption practices, considerations linked to collective well-being (Dubuisson-Quellier 2013). Drawing on the work of McInnis et al. (1991), three main steps can explain this process of attentiveness.
The first relates to the opportunity for customers to expose themselves to these labels and their ability to process the information they convey. Interaction between the labels and the customer implies access to the information environment on societal practices and their management tools. This environment operates at two levels (Garabedian 2007). The first is of a macroeconomic nature. The potential consumer of products with societal attributes will need to be informed about the state of the planet’s environment (level of soil pollution, toxicity of pesticides, etc.) and social issues (famine, unemployment, child exploitation, working conditions, etc.). The second level is of a microeconomic nature. In this case, the information should focus on CSR in general, societal products and labels as management tools. Do these products contain the expected “socially responsible” attributes? Do these labels really correspond to the nature of the societal practice communicated? Is accessibility to this informational environment on CSR and management tools (labels) the main additional attribute of product quality? (Roger 2000).
The second stage concerns the client’s cognitive ability to process and understand the information transmitted by the labels. This understanding must focus on the mechanisms that lead CSR to “produce” societal attributes of differentiation. The ability to identify these attributes and to recognize their contribution (private and/or collective benefit) must not present any ambiguity in the client’s interpretation so as to allow inferences to be established. The term inference refers to the ability of a source of information to convey clarifications on these attributes that are not directly related to them (Larceneux 2002). The novelty of labels as management tools and societal attributes may afford the key factors of “opportunity” and “cognitive capacity”, a role of “pre-appropriation” of these attributes as a differentiating element in their act of purchasing.
The third step is to assess the potential of a market for products that incorporate “societal” attributes as an element of differentiation, as well as the profile of the customers who are capable of consuming them. Consumption has a role of social representation, whose functioning is structured around a central core13 and peripheral elements (Gonzalez et al. 2009). Champniss et al. (2015) point out that customers are very social animals, belonging to categories which each have a well-defined identity, so, according to Garabedian (2007), they can be considered as heterogeneous agents in the face of societal problems.
Roughly three categories of consumers can be distinguished. The first corresponds to consumers who are part of a rationality whose core is instrumental (selfish) in consuming “socially responsible” products. They may give priority to CSR practices that “manufacture” attributes that improve the intrinsic quality of the product and provide them with a tangible individual private benefit. These consumers may agree that it is important for companies to develop CSR practices, but they refuse to accept the consequences, that is, higher prices, lower quality products (Carrigan and Attala 2001) and a negative image. This is the case, for example, with luxury clothing, as Achabou and Dekhili (2013) have shown that consumers perceive products made from recycled materials negatively (i.e. have a negative image of them). Selfish consumers are motivated more by their own interests (well-being) than by those of society (d’Astous and Legendre 2009). The second is made up of consumers who adopt a rationality whose core is “hybrid” (instrumental and axiological), that is, they are interested in the societal practices of the company that bring them a tangible individual private benefit (health and well-being, etc.), while generating a collective benefit. They are concerned with societal practices that “produce” attributes that improve the intrinsic quality of products (instrumental rationality) but are also sensitive to the reduction of negative social and environmental externalities or the generation of positive externalities (axiological rationality). Finally, the third category concerns consumers whose behavior is axiologically rational and who are motivated by the extra-economic dimensions of the purchasing act (Desjeux 2003). For them, the purchase is not limited to the need for use, but responds to a broader satisfaction that includes moral satisfaction. It is a question of giving meaning to their act of purchasing, so consuming “socially responsible” products enables them to achieve the ethical values which they aspire to hold. For d’Astous and Legendre (2009), “these consumers are people who take into account the societal consequences of their consumption and use their purchasing power and their purchasing act to influence society”. They are interested in the moral rules of the market economy and think that companies should preserve the environment and respect social values (François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence 2006). It is the intangible attribute embodied by the virtue of improving a company’s civic image that is valued. These consumers express militant or political positions in their commercial choices, especially, according to Tirole (2009), if the visibility of their altruistic consumption is high.
