sustainability

Article
The Role of Individual- and Contextual-Level Social
Capital in Product Boycotting: A Multilevel Analysis
Grzegorz Zasuwa
Department of Economics and Management, Faculty of Social Sciences,
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland;
gzasuwa@kul.pl; Tel.: +48-506-345-012




Received: 13 November 2018; Accepted: 7 February 2019; Published: 13 February 2019


Abstract: Product boycotts represent an important form of sustainable consumption, as withholding

purchasing can restrain firms from damaging the natural environment or breaking social rules.
However, our understanding of consumer participation in these protests is limited. Most previous
studies have focused on the psychological and economic determinants of product boycotting.
Drawing on social capital literature, this study builds a framework that explains how individual- and
contextual-level social capital affects consumer participation in boycotts of products. A multilevel
logistic regression analysis of 29 country representative samples derived from the European Social
Survey (N = 54221) shows that at the individual level product boycotting is associated with a person’s
social ties, whereas at the country level, generalized trust and social networks positively affect
consumer decisions to take part in these protests. These results suggest that to better understand
differences among countries in consumer activism, it is necessary to consider the role of social capital
as an important predictor of product boycotting.

Keywords: product boycott; consumer boycott; consumer activism; social capital; sustainable
consumption; social ties; generalized trust; trust

1. Introduction
A product boycott, also called a consumer boycott, ‘is an attempt by one or more parties to achieve
certain objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected purchases in the
marketplace’ [1] (p. 97). Thus, the essence of a product boycotts is the use of consumer power to
impose an effect on the firm. These protests can target a wide variety of organizations and social
concerns; however, they typically aim at firms that damage the natural environment or severely break
social rules [2]. In other words, consumer boycotts tend to address socially irresponsible practices
that is ‘those business behaviors and actions that are: illegal; or legal but severely unsustainable
and/or unethical and thus totally socially unacceptable’ [3] (p. 8). By boycotting firms deemed to use
irresponsible practices, consumers express their concerns and obligations for the environment and
society [4]. Thus, boycotting products is regarded as an important aspect of ethical [5] or sustainable
consumption [6–8].
Several boycotts have demonstrated that even the largest firms in the world must treat their
consumers who do not accept corporate policy or action with respect. The most renown example of
such a boycott is the case of Brent Spar, which occurred when consumers severely protested against
the decision by Shell to sink an oil rig in the North Sea. Although Shell changed its decision, they lost
between 20–50% of their revenue during that boycott [9]. More recently, because of US and British
student protests, Fruit of the Loom had to reopen a Honduran factory that closed after its employees
joined a labor union. As a consequence of that boycott, 1200 workers gave their jobs back, and the firm
lost $50 million [10]. These examples clearly show that coordinated consumer protests can severely

Sustainability 2019, 11, 949; doi:10.3390/su11040949 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 2 of 16

affect corporate sales and profitability. This is probably the reason why from 33% to 50% of firms
facing a boycott meet the demands of activists and change their policy or actions [11].
The successful stories of boycotts suggest that consumer protests can perform an important
role in dealing with irresponsible firms, that is, those entities that use illegal or legal but severely
unsustainable practices [3]. However, boycotts as a form of introducing prosocial changes into the
business world are not always effective. To be effective, a product boycott needs to be supported
by consumers. Without consumers, a product boycott cannot be successful. The latest edition of the
European Social Survey (2016) shows large differences among countries in the percentage of people
who participate in product boycotts [12]. On the one hand, there are countries, such as Sweden and
Iceland, with over 40 percent of the population boycotting a product in the last 12 months. On the other
hand, in several countries, less than 1 in 10 individuals take part in this form of protests (e.g., Hungary,
Italy, Poland). The low number of people who take part in product boycotts makes these campaigns
ineffective. To enhance consumer activism and increase the effectiveness of boycotts, one needs to
understand why there are some regions with so few people taking part in such protests.
Previous studies says little about contextual (regional or country) variables behind boycotting
products. Most of them have focused on psychological and economic predictors of protesting against
firms, including the relation of personal cost and personal benefits to the consumer [2,13–15], the
perceived egregiousness of the act by the target firm [2,16,17], consumer reciprocity [18], emotional
attachment to the boycotted product [15], amounts of targeted product being purchased by the
consumer [2,15,19,20] and the availability of substitutes for the boycotted product [15], or the
competitiveness of the industry [21].
The present study assumes that social capital as a feature of a country facilitates civic engagement,
including product boycotts [22]. Past research, surprisingly, has paid little attention to the effects of
social capital on boycotting, though a product boycott is a collective action problem [2]. To fill this gap,
the present paper aims to extend our understanding of these protests by examining the role of social
networks and generalized trust in boycotting products as two components of social capital. Given that
social capital can shape behaviors not only at the contextual level but also at the individual level [23],
this study examines the effects of the social capital of a country and the effects of the social capital of
an individual. More specifically, the paper aims to answer two research questions:
R1: How does individual- and contextual-level social capital affect consumer participation in
boycotts of products?
R2: How do social ties and generalized trust affect consumer participation in boycott of products?
The remainder of this paper includes a theoretical explanation of links between social capital
and consumer participation in product boycotts. The research method is then presented together
with a variable measurement, a sample description, and the statistical procedure. Next, the results of
multilevel logistic regression analysis are provided. The paper ends with a discussion of the research
findings, including implications for theory and practice, the study’s limitations, and directions for
future studies.

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Scholars offer multiple definitions of social capital. Putnam, in his seminal work, considers
social capital as including “features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that
can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions” [24] (p. 167). Bourdieu
highlights that social capital lies in the less or more institutionalized relationships among members of
the community. According to such a view, this collective asset helps individuals and groups of people
to operate more effectively [25]. Whereas, Coleman while defining social capital focuses more on its
functions than on its ingredients. In particular, he points out that social capital is not a single object,
“but a variety of different objects having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect
of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure” [26]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 3 of 16

(p. 302). In other words, these often-cited definitions regard social capital as an intangible asset that
enhances the outcomes of a society and its members. This asset is derived from the links among
members of a society and its characteristics.
When considering the role of social capital in product boycotting, it is worth noting that
participation in a product boycott is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that involves the
issue of collective action [2]. Neilson considers product boycotting as a form of political consumption,
because by purchasing (or abstaining from purchasing), a consumer ‘votes’ for the firm and its
actions [27]. Zhang [28], Copeland [29], Stolle et al [30] see in product boycotts a form of civic
engagement (involvement) or prosocial behavior, as these protests typically aim at protecting the
common good (e.g., natural environment, human rights). All of these features of product boycotting
are associated with social capital. Hence, this study grounds its theoretical framework on social capital
literature and the literature on prosocial behavior and political consumption.
When describing the effects of social capital on consumer participation in product boycotts, the
study distinguishes between social ties (hereafter also called social networks) and generalized trust
(hereafter also simply called trust), because they are the key components of social capital [24]. Given
that social capital can be considered at different levels [23], the role of each component of social capital
is explained at the individual and contextual levels.

2.1. Generalized Trust and Boycotting Products at the Individual Level

At the individual level, trust generally refers to “an expectation that the trustee is willing to
keep promises and fulfil obligations” [31] (p. 6). McKnight and colleagues state that trust plays
an important role in consumer decisions because it helps them to overcome risk and engage in
“trust-related behaviors [...] such as sharing personal information or making purchases” [32] (p. 335).
While participation in a product boycott means refraining from purchasing a certain product, making
such a decision requires information. Thus, the present study assumes that information acts as the
bridge between trust and boycotting products.
In a similar vein, scholars argue that trust may affect consumer behavior through its role in
responding to information about products and firms [27,33,34]. According to such a view, consumers
with higher levels of trust should be more likely to believe that a call for protest is motivated by the
good intentions of the people who launch it, in turn enhancing boycott participation. In addition,
believing that activists tell the truth about the emergence and existence of a certain boycott may make a
consumer feel effective as part of a larger community. In line with this argument, Putnam showed, that
people with greater trust in others are more likely to take part in civic activities than people with lower
trust [35]. Altogether, one may reasonably expect that an individual who trusts more in other people
will be more likely to take part in product boycotts. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). A generalized trust positively influences consumer participation in product boycotts at the
individual level.

2.2. Social Ties and Boycotting Products at the Individual Level

Participation in networks can help one gain information about an irresponsible firm and may
mobilize members of a society to take part in protests. Numerous studies in the word-of-mouth field
have shown that social connections are a valuable source of information in consumer decision-making.
Goldenberg and colleagues demonstrate that information dissemination is dominated by word of
mouth [36]. According to their research findings, weak and strong ties could be even much more
effective than advertising. In other words, purchasing decisions are determined by the face-to-face
communication of a consumer with his in-group and out-group colleagues. However, the power of
networks is not limited to face-to-face communication. Steffes and Burgee demonstrated that the
information gained from electronic word of mouth (a weak-tie information source) could also be
influential [37]. The important role of online information sharing via social networks in consumer
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 4 of 16

decision-making cannot be overlooked, as more and more boycotts are being launched on the
Internet [10]. Considering all of the aforementioned arguments, one can expect that an individual
with access to a larger social network will be more likely to take part in a product boycott than an
individual with access to a small network. The following hypothesis expresses this expectation:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Social ties positively influence consumer participation in product boycotts at the
individual level.

2.3. Generalized Trust and Boycotting Products at the Contextual Level

As mentioned earlier, social capital, including trust, can influence behaviors not only at the
individual level but also at the contextual level, as a feature of community, region or country. When
considering this type of effects, it is useful to note that Fukuyama understands trust as “the expectation
that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly
shared norms, on the part of other members of that community” [38] (p. 26). Trust is thus a
characteristic of a community with its roots in the norms shared by members of that community.
Several studies have proved that regions (or countries) with high levels of trust outperform regions
with low trust in economic and societal outputs [39].
When explaining the role of trust in boycotting at the contextual level, it is also worth noting that
organizing a consumer boycott involves a collective action problem [2]. In other words, a boycott may
take place when an activist organization is able to persuade a group of consumers to abstain from
using or buying a product of a particular firm at a certain point in time. Thus, to launch a boycott, a
noncommercial organization must coordinate activities of those consumers and other entities involved
in such a protest. While describing the various functions of trust in society, Putnam notes that “trust
lubricates cooperation. The greater the level of trust within a community, the greater the likelihood of
cooperation” [24] (p. 171). Therefore, in the context of product boycotts, one may reasonably expect
that in regions with a high level of trust, more consumers are likely to take part in boycotts than in
regions with a low level of trust.
As mentioned above, a consumer boycott could be considered a specific form of prosocial behavior.
Such a protest typically aims at reducing the negative impacts of business operations on society and
the natural environment. Thus, a consumer who abstains from buying the certain product contributes
to a positive change in society. Several studies have proved the positive effects of trust on various
forms of prosociality. For example, Glanville and colleagues showed that regions in which people
highly trust each other are characterized by a much higher level of generosity than regions with low
levels of trust [23].
A product boycott could also be seen as a specific form of civic engagement. For example,
Friedman points out that boycotts are typically the result of actions taken by noncommercial
organizations which initiate such protests to protect the common good [40]. Thus, by taking part in
such protests, consumers fulfill their civic commitments. Past studies on civic engagement clearly
demonstrate that the higher the level of trust is in a region, the higher the engagement of citizens
in community activities and political activities [41]. Considering the collective nature of a product
boycott, its links with prosocial behavior and civic engagement, the present study proposes the
following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Generalized trust positively influences consumer participation in product boycotts at the
contextual level.

2.4. Social Ties and Boycotting Products at the Contextual Level

As mentioned previously, though trust is an indispensable ingredient of social capital, it is not its
only component. Without social ties, trust cannot be as effective as it is when joined to them. Putnam
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 5 of 16

describes this catalytic role of ties as following: “social networks allow trust to become transitive and
spread: I trust you, because I trust her and she assures me that she trusts you” [24] (p. 169). In other
words, social ties enhance the effects of trust in the community. Given this relationship, one can expect
social networks to positively influence boycotting products at the contextual level.
However, the positive effects of social ties on product boycotting do not stem only from its
catalytic role in strengthening the effects of trust. Glanville and colleagues suggested that individuals
in regions high in social ties would be more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors because they are
exposed to more information and requests to donate time or money [23]. These authors noted that the
positive impacts of networks at the regional level are not only due to the aggregation of networks at
the individual level. In a highly integrated community, even an individual with a small network could
be provided with a relatively high amount of information about prosocial campaigns and requests
for support, as his network is better connected with those of other people. Taking into account that
consumer participation in a product boycott is a type of prosocial behavior, and the catalytic role of
networks on the effects of trust, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Social ties positively influence consumer participation in product boycotts at the
contextual level.

3. Materials and Methods

The aforementioned hypotheses assume that the participation in a product boycott depends both
on the social capital of an individual and on the social capital of society in which such an individual
lives in. Thus, the research model includes two levels of analysis (Figure 1). The individual level
consists of variables describing a person’s social capital components and the dependent variable that is
consumer participation in product boycotts, whereas the contextual level focuses on the social capital of
a country. Following past studies on the effects of social capital [23,39,42], the research model includes
several control variables. The inclusion of these variables enables to see whether the effects of social
capital also hold when controlling for other variables that may influence consumer decision to join a
product boycott. More specifically, their impacts on the relation between social capital and consumer
participation in product boycotts are removed (i.e. the effects of control variables are kept constant).
Individual-level control variables were chosen in line with the literature, suggesting that age, gender,
education level, place of residence and household income are predictors of prosocial behaviors [43].
With regard to control variables at the contextual level, the present study follows scholars who note
that the availability of substitutes for the boycotted product positively affects consumer activism [15].
Given that consumers in more developed countries have easier access to substitutes of a boycotted
product than in less developed ones, the study controls for GDP per capita as a proxy for economic
development. To have a better control for the economic conditions under which a consumer lives,
the study also takes into account a country’s unemployment level. In addition, the study controls for
education level, as past research suggested that higher education may enhance civic engagement [44].
Thus, the gross enrolment ratio was used as a proxy for education level. Lastly, the study controls
for a country’s individualism (-collectivism). This dimension of Hofstede’s model of national culture
expresses the degree of interdependence among members of a particular society [45]. Given that past
studies have shown a significant association between in-group individualism and the risk of boycott
occurrence [46], the inclusion of that variable may help reduce model errors.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 6 of 16
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

Independent variables The contextual level

Social capital of a country

Generalized trust
Social ties

Control variables
GDP per capita
Gross enrolment ratio
Unemployment rate
Individualism

Independent variables The individual level

Social capital of a consumer Consumer participation
Generalized trust in product boycotts
Social ties

Control variables
Age
Gender
Years of education
Income
Domicile

Figure 1. Research model.

Figure 1. Research model.
3.1. Data and Sample
3.1. Data and Sample
In order to test hypotheses, the present study uses data from the European Social Survey (ESS).
In order
The ESS toistest hypotheses,
funded the present
by the European study uses
Commission, data from
the European the European
Science, Social Science
and the National Survey (ESS).
The ESS is funded by the European Commission, the European Science, and the NationalofScience
Foundations. Its aim is to measure and monitor the changing attitudes, beliefs and behaviors
various Its
Foundations. European
aim ispopulations.
to measure This large
and international
monitor project hasattitudes,
the changing been repeated everyand
beliefs twobehaviors
years of
since its creation in 2001. The ESS draws on large samples of subjects aged 15 and over from the
various European populations. This large international project has been repeated every two years
noninstitutionalized population. The carefully translated questionnaire into national languages and
since itsthe
creation
equivalentin 2001. The ESS
sampling draws
methods usedon inlarge
all samples of subjects
participating countriesaged 15 multinational
ensure and over from the
noninstitutionalized
comparability [47]. The sampling is conducted in two steps. In the first stage, the scientific teamlanguages
population. The carefully translated questionnaire into national of
and theESS equivalent sampling
provides national methods
partners used
with the in all
general participating
principals countrieswith
and requirements ensure
regardmultinational
to the
sampling
comparability methods
[47]. that haveistoconducted
The sampling be probabilistic
in two[48]. Then,
steps. national
In the ESS teams
first stage, select samples
the scientific team of ESS
separately. Detailed sampling procedures, including designs, stratifications and the number of
provides national partners with the general principals and requirements with regard to the sampling
sampling stages, for all the participating countries in the sixth round of ESS, can be found in ESS6—
methods that have to be probabilistic [48]. Then, national ESS teams select samples separately. Detailed
2012 Documentation Report [49].
sampling procedures,
It also worth including designs,
noting that the ESSstratifications
Core Scientific andTeam
the number
places a of sampling
high stages,
importance on for all
the participating
methodologicalcountries
standards.in the
They sixth
carryround of ESS,
out a wide rangecan
of be foundtoinensure
activities ESS6—2012 Documentation
high quality of the
collected data. For example, in the sixth wave of the ESS that is used in this study as a source of data,
Report [49].
theyworth
It also conducted
noting fourthat
Split-Ballot
the ESS Multitrait-Multimethod
Core Scientific Team places(SB-MTMM)a highexperiments
importance to on
evaluate the
methodological
quality of survey questions. The detailed results of that assessment can be found in a report by
standards. They carry out a wide range of activities to ensure high quality of the collected data.
For example, in the sixth wave of the ESS that is used in this study as a source of data, they conducted
four Split-Ballot Multitrait-Multimethod (SB-MTMM) experiments to evaluate the quality of survey
questions. The detailed results of that assessment can be found in a report by DeCastellarnau and
colleagues [50]. More information on validity and reliability is provided in the following website:
https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/methodology/.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 7 of 16

The data for the current study were downloaded from the ESS website [51], which provides open
and free access to collected data in the European Social Survey. More specifically, the study used
multilevel data from the sixth wave of the ESS. That round was selected because it covered the largest
number of countries from all ESS editions. The relatively large number of countries taking part in
this survey enabled the testing of hypotheses on more culturally diversified data. The joint sample
included 54,221 participants from 29 countries: Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Kosovo, Norway,
Hungary, Bulgaria, France, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus,
Sweden, Israel, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iceland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Ukraine, the Russian Federation,
Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Albania, and Estonia.
With regard to collecting data in the sixth wave of ESS, the fieldwork period lasted four months
(from September to December 2012). The data in that round were gathered by using face-to-face
interviews. The national samples ranged from 752 participants (Iceland) to 2958 participants (Germany).
Respondents were on average 48.31 years of age (SD = 18.59). Females constituted 52.6% of all
participants. When comparing these statistics with the EU population, one can see a slightly higher
percentage of women (52.6% vs. 51.3%) [52] and a greater median age of respondents in the sample
than in the EU population (48.2 vs. 41.6) [53]. Table 1 provides more information on the descriptive
statistics of a sample and measures.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the sample and measures.

Variable Mean Percent SD Range

Generalized trust 5.10 2.01 0–10
Social ties 4.79 1.63 1–7
Age 48.31 18.59 15–103
Education (years of full-time education completed) 12.54 4.03 0–51
Gender (female %) 52.6
Domicile
Big city 23.7
Suburbs or outskirts of big city 10.4
Town or small city 31.0
Country village 29.8
Farm or home in countryside 5.1
Income (feeling about household’s current income)
Living comfortably on present income 23.7
Coping on current income 42.8
Difficult on current income 22.5
Very difficult on current income 11.0
Average trust 5.09 0.84 3.54–6.82
Average social ties 4.79 0.53 3.43–5.74
GDP per capita (in thousand US dollars) 32.8 21.00 2.86–99.25
Gross enrolment ratio 68.08 10.60 43.56–94.05
Unemployment rates 9.34 3.94 3.20–21.60
Country individualism 57.27 18.68 20.00–89.00
Notes: SD—standard deviation.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

Among a variety of variables, the ESS provides data on consumer participation in product boycotts
that is a dependent variable in subsequent analysis. These data, by means of a question, ask whether
respondents had taken part in activities to ‘improve things’ or ‘prevent things from going wrong’ in
their country in the last 12 months. Among several options, a respondent was to indicate if he or she
‘boycotted certain products’ in the last 12 months on a yes (1)–no (0) scale [54].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 8 of 16

3.2.2. Independent Variables at the Individual Level

Independent variables comprise of social capital components and a few control variables. As for
social capital, generalized trust and social ties were selected to be included in the analysis, as academics
typically consider them the two main pillars of social capital. Generalized trust was measured by
an index derived from the respondent’s degree of agreement to the following statements: (a) “Most
people can be trusted, or you can’t be too careful in dealing with people”; (b) “Most people would
try to take advantage of you if they got the chance or try to be fair”; (c) “Most of the time people try
to be helpful or they are mostly looking out for themselves.” The responses to these statements were
measured on a 0 to 10 scale [54]. The internal consistency of that index was satisfactory (α = 0.782).
Social ties were measured using the question “How often do you socially meet with friends,
relatives or colleagues?” In answering this question, respondents chose from the following seven
response categories: ‘never—1’, ‘less than once a month—2’, ‘once a month—3’, ‘several times a
month—4’, ‘once a week—5’, ‘several times a week—6’, and ‘every day—7’ [54].
Aside from the variables found in the research hypotheses, the subsequent analysis comprises
of several control variables such as age, gender, education level, place of residence and household
income, which are predictors of prosocial behaviors [43]. In terms of the operationalization of the
aforementioned variables, age was measured in years. Similarly, education was also measured by
asking a respondent to provide the number years of completed full-time education. Place of residence
was measured using the following five categories: ‘Big city’, ‘suburbs or outskirts of a big city’, ‘town
or small city’, ‘country village’, and ‘farm or home in the countryside’. Lastly, income was assessed by
asking respondents about their feelings on household income. To answer that question, one had to
choose among four categories: ‘living comfortably on present income’, ‘coping on present income’,
‘difficult on present income’, and ‘very difficult on present income’ [54].

3.2.3. Independent Variables at the Contextual Level

According to the main objective of the study, independent variables also comprise of exploratory
variables at the country level. To measure social capital at a higher level, the study averaged individual
indices of general trust and social ties separately for each country. Given that contextual-level
indicators of social capital were derived from individual-level indicators, the study group mean
centered individual components of social capital by subtracting country means from generalized trust
and social ties indices. This procedure allowed for the separation of the effects of individual-level
social capital from the effects of country-level social capital on product boycotting [55].
As in the individual-level analysis, the study also comprises of control variables at the contextual
level including GDP per capita, unemployment, education level and individualism of a country. GDP
per capita is measured at current prices in US dollars. The data on this indicator came from the United
Nations Statistics Division. Unemployment was operationalized by the indicator of unemployment
rates by all ages in a country. Data on that indicator came from Eurostat, with the exception of Albania,
Israel, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Information on unemployment in these four countries
was downloaded from the World Bank Web Site [56]. The education level was operationalized by the
indicator of gross enrollment ratio for the second stage of tertiary education. The indicator mentioned
is provided by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [57]. Lastly,
the data on country individualism were downloaded from the personal website of Geert Hofstede [58].
Appendix A provides specific data on contextual variables at the country level.

3.3. Method
To test the particular hypotheses, the present study used a multilevel logistic regression
analysis because this statistical technique allowed for the simultaneous estimation of individual
and contextual-level effects of the social capital. Accordingly, the data were hierarchically organized
with respondents nested within countries. Given that boycotting product was operationalized by a
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 9 of 16

dichotomous variable, the multilevel logistic regression was applied to estimate models used to test the
research hypotheses. In order to take into account the national contexts, the study assumed intercepts
to be random at country level in all models. In addition, models 2 and 3 include random effects for
both ingredients of social capital. All the regression models were run in SPSS, by using the mixed
command. The results are presented as regression coefficients along with odds ratios (ORs) and their
95% confidence intervals (CIs).

4. Results
Table 2 presents the results of multilevel logistic regression analysis. Model 1 was estimated
on 54,221 respondents nested within 29 countries. This is an ‘empty model’, as it includes only the
constant term in both the fixed and random parts. The odds ratio in this model for the fixed effect is
0.131 (p < 0.001), which means that the average predicted probability across countries that an individual
takes part in a product boycott is approximately 12% [0.131/(1 + 0.131)]. The random effect in this
model shows a significant between-country variance in individual participation in product boycotts
2 = 1.233, p < 0.001).
(σu0
Model 2 assessed the effect of individual-level predictors on the probability that an individual
would take part in a product boycott. After excluding observations with missing variables, this
model included 51,979 respondents nested within 29 countries. The results showed that, contrary to
hypothesis H1, trust in other people was not a significant predictor of consumer participation in a
product boycott (OR = 0.996, p > 0.05). It is worth noting that the random effect of individual trust
was statistically significant, denoting the existence of the between-country variance in the impacts
2 = 0.003, p < 0.05). With regard to the other component of social capital, the study
of trust (σu1
found that the more social ties an individual has, the more he or she is likely to boycott products
(OR = 1.044, p < 0.01). This finding supports hypothesis H2 predicting that social ties positively
influence consumer participation in product boycotts at the individual level. The random effect of
social ties was insignificant, suggesting that the effects of social ties on boycotting remain largely stable
across countries (σu22 = 0.003, p > 0.05).

In addition to trust and social ties, Model 2 also comprised of five sociodemographic variables as
controls, including age, gender, the number of years of completed education, domicile, and feelings
about household income. Most of them turned out to be statistically significant. More specifically,
women had an approximately 12% increase in the odds of boycotting than men (OR = 1.119, p < 0.01).
Increasing age was associated with a greater likelihood of joining boycotts (OR = 1.005, p < 0.01). In the
same vein, education positively influenced consumer participation in a product boycott (OR = 1.117,
p < 0.001). More specifically, a single year of completed education increased the odds of boycotting by
11.7%. In terms of place of residence, people who lived in a small town or city (OR = 0.865, p < 0.05) and
in a country village (OR = 0.794, p < 0.001) had lower odds of boycotting than respondents who lived
in a big city. Surprisingly, the regression coefficient for income was statistically not significant. This
insignificant effect could occur because income was measured in a subjective way that is by feelings of
the respondent.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 10 of 16

Table 2. Summary of multilevel regression analysis.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Independent Variables
OR OR OR
b b b
[95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI]
0.131 0.028 0.000
Intercept −2.036 *** −3.593 *** −9.070 ***
[0.087, 0.196] [0.016, 0.049] [0.000, 0.003]
Individual-level variables
0.996 0.993
Generalized trust −0.004 −0.007
[0.973, 1.020] [0.969, 1.018]
1.044 1.049
Social ties 0.043 ** 0.048 ***
[1.016, 1.073] [1.022, 1.076]
1.005 1.005
Age 0.005 *** 0.005 *
[1.001, 1.008] [1.001, 1.008]
1.117 1.117
Years of education 0.111 *** 0.111 ***
[1.096, 1.139] [1.095, 1.139]
1.119 1.136
Female (reference - men) 0.113 ** 0.127 **
[1.034, 1.212] [1.052, 1.227]
Domicile (reference—big city)
0.949 0.928
Suburbs or outskirts of big city −0.053 −0.075
[0.866, 1.04] [0.858, 1.002]
0.865 0.857
Town or small city −0.145 * −0.154 *
[0.767, 0.975] [0.763, 0.964]
0.794 0.778
Country village −0.231 *** −0.251 ***
[0.697, 0.904] [0.683, 0.887]
0.916 0.905
Farm or home in countryside −0.087 −0.100
[0.794, 1.057] [0.785, 1.042]
Income (reference—living comfortably)
0.941 0.947
Coping on current income −0.061 −0.055
[0.870, 1.018] [0.872, 1.027]
0.977 0.954
Difficult on current income −0.023 −0.048
[0.871, 1.096] [0.853, 1.066]
0.835 0.851
Very difficult on current income −0.180 −0.162
[0.684, 1.020] [0.686, 1.055]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 11 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Independent Variables
OR OR OR
b b b
[95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI]
Country-level variables
1.825
Average trust 0.602 *
[1.059, 3.148]
2.219
Average social ties 0.797 **
[1.236, 3.984]
1.000
GDP per capita 0.000
[1.000, 1.000]
0.968
Gross enrolment ratio −0.033 *
[0.942, 0.994]
1.026
Unemployment rates 0.025
[0.968, 1.087]
1.006
Country individualism 0.006
[0.988, 1.025]
Random effects
Intercept (σ2u0 ) 1.233 *** 1.148 *** 0.545 **
Generalized trust (σ2u1 ) 0.003 * 0.003 *
Social ties (σ2u2 ) 0.003 0.002
Adjusted Akaike 285,516.7 275,317.9 263,800.1
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; OR—odds ratio; 95% confidence intervals in square brackets. The number of observations in Model 1 is 54.221; the number of observations in
Model 2 is 51.979 and is 49.696 in Model 3.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 12 of 16

The purpose of Model 3 was to examine whether social capital variables affect boycotting
products also at the country level. Thus, in addition to individual-level predictors, this model includes
aggregated trust and social ties as components of social capital of a country. Given that data on national
individualism for Cyprus and Kosovo were unavailable, Model 3 was estimated on 49,696 observations
nested within 27 countries. The results showed that the effects of individual level predictors still
hold after adding country-level variables (Table 2). With regard to the effects of contextual variables,
the study found that both components of social capital significantly affected an individual’s decision
to participate in a product boycott. In line with hypothesis H3, trust positively influenced consumer
participation in product boycotts at the contextual level (OR = 1.825, p < 0.05). That is, a one-point
gain in the trust index resulted in an 82.5% increase in the odds of boycotting. In regard to social
ties, a single category in the scale of social ties increased the odds of boycotting by 120% (OR = 2.219,
p < 0.01). Thus, Model 3 provided support for our hypothesis (H4) that social ties positively influence
boycotting products at the contextual level. It is also worth noting here that the effects of country-level
social capital were much greater than the effects of individual-level social capital. This applies to both
components of social capital, that is, social trust (OR country = 1.825 vs. OR individual = 0.993) and
social ties (OR country = 2.219 vs. OR individual = 1.049).
To control the effects of social capital at the contextual level, the model included GDP per capita,
rate of unemployment, the gross enrollment ratio of the second stage of tertiary education, and the level
of country individualism. Three in four of these variables were statistically insignificant. Surprisingly,
gross enrollment ratio was negatively associated with boycotting (OR = 0.968, p < 0.05). This small
negative effect was probably caused by high rates of gross enrolment in East European countries, which
simultaneously have low percentage of people who boycott products (e.g., Russia, Ukraine, Poland).
With regard to random effects, the inclusion of national-level variables in Model 3 has a
substantially reduced variation in intercepts between countries. More specifically, the variance dropped
by more than 50% (σu0 2 = 0.545 vs. σ2 = 1.233) when comparing Model 2 with Model 3. However,
u0
the random effect of the intercept remained significant (σu0 2 = 0.545, p < 0.01), suggesting that social

capital is not the only phenomenon linked to product boycotting at the country level. In regard to other
random effects, Model 3 showed significant between-country variance in the trust effects (σu1 2 = 0.003,
2 = 0.002, p > 0.05).
p > 0.05) and stable effects of social ties across countries (σu2

5. Discussion
The present study aimed at examining how individual- and contextual-level social capital affects
consumer participation in boycotts of products. Thus, the discussion of research findings addresses
the effects of social capital at both individual and contextual levels. In addition, the limitations are
presented with some directions for future research.
With regard to the effects of social capital at the individual level, past studies suggest that several
components of a person’s social capital may be linked to boycotting. For example. Newman and
Bartels showed that active engagement of a person in civic initiatives for the community in which one
lives in, and donating to non-commercial organizations, are significant predictors of boycotting and/or
buycotting by such a person [59]. Similarly, Neilson and Paxton found that generalized trust, frequency
of social meetings, and association involvement are sources of political consumerism [60]. However, it
is not clear whether individual social capital truly affects boycotting, as these studies have adopted
the consumer voting metaphor [61], that is, political consumerism, and operationalized boycotting
and buycotting together using one variable. Following the latest research, this paper focuses solely on
boycotting, as boycotting and buycotting differ in their motivational underpinning [62]. The results of
this study replicate the findings of Neilson and Paxton by showing the positive effects of social ties on
boycotting [60]. In addition, the present study proved that the effects of social ties are stable across
countries, as the random effect of social ties was insignificant.
Contrary to the predictions in hypothesis H1, the results of this study suggest that trust of an
individual in other people cannot be regarded as a significant predictor of boycotting everywhere. This
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 13 of 16

result seems to be caused by significant between-country variation in the trust effects. The existence of
such variation is supported not only by the present research, but also by other studies. For example,
using pooled data from the 2004 International Social Survey Program, Zhang found that the level of
political rights in a country moderates relationship between trust and boycotting, that is in countries
with high level of political rights, trust positively affects the participation in boycotts, whereas in
countries with a relatively lower level of political rights, the effects of trust are insignificant [28].
Concerning the effects of social capital at the contextual level, the present study provides new
insights into the relationship between the social capital of a country and participation of citizens in
product boycotts. More specifically, the results of this paper showed that both components of social
capital of a country, that is, generalized social trust and social ties, positively affected an individual’s
participation in product boycotts. In other words, this study shows that individuals are more likely to
join product boycotts in countries with a greater rather than smaller level of social capital. To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first study to address the effects of social capital on product boycotting
at the country level. Past studies have examined the role of social capital in political consumption
(i.e., boycotting and buycotting) at the regional level [60].
Although the current paper provides theoretical and practical contributions, it is not free from
limitations. For example, to test the hypotheses, the study used data from the ESS survey. Indeed,
ESS is a project that generates high-quality data; however, this survey is not dedicated to measuring
sustainable consumption. The individual’s participation in product boycotts was measured using a
0-1 scale. Thus, the study did not take into account how frequently a respondent boycotted products.
In addition, there are some concerns about social ties’ measurement in ESS. For example, Yang argued
that national social surveys actually measure only some features of a respondent’s social ties, as the
precise assessment of this component of social capital requires a small-scale survey on a limited number
of respondents [63]. To move beyond these limitations, future studies may carry out primary research
to collect data on sustainable consumption and social capital.

6. Conclusions
The present study provides several insights into the literature on sustainable consumption,
as it extends our understanding of consumer participation in product boycotts. More specifically,
its theoretical contribution is twofold: first, the study showed that both components of social capital of
a country, that is, generalized trust and social ties, positively affected an individual’s participation in
product boycotts; second, the study found positive effects of individual-level social ties on boycotting;
whereas the individual’s trust in people was neutral to the participation in product boycotts.
In addition to theoretical contributions, the present paper offers some practical implications.
First, the positive effects of social ties on consumer participation in product boycotts suggest that
word-of-mouth communication can be an effective channel to mobilize consumers to take part in
protests against irresponsible firms. Second, the significant effects of social capital at the country level
suggest that an activist organization wishing to launch a product boycott aimed at an international
company may find greater support among citizens in a country with a high capacity of social capital.
Thus, consumers in countries like Sweden, Denmark or Norway would be more likely to participate in
a boycott than consumers in countries with low levels of social capital such as Albania, Slovakia, Poland
or Ukraine. Third, the research findings of this paper may also be of some interest to policymakers
as they suggest that investments in the development of social capital may also bring positive effects
on sustainable consumption by increasing an individual’s likelihood to take part in protests against
socially unacceptable business activities.

Funding: I would like to acknowledge the financial support of John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin.
Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 14 of 16

Appendix A

Table A1. Contextual Variables at the Country Level.

Gross
Percent of Averaged Averaged GDP per Unemployment Number of
Country Individualism Enrolment
Boycotters Trust Social Ties Capita Rates Respondents
Ratio
Albania 9.9 3.71 4.64 20 4.0 14.00 43.56 1201
Belgium 11.3 5.16 5.05 75 46.7 7.10 67.52 1869
Bulgaria 3.7 3.54 4.64 30 7.3 11.30 57.99 2260
Cyprus 9.5 3.78 4.30 - 29.2 7.90 48.31 1116
Czech Republic 13.7 4.62 4.64 58 20.4 6.70 63.21 2009
Denmark 25.7 6.82 5.33 74 59.9 7.60 73.58 1650
Estonia 6.5 5.41 4.18 60 17.4 12.50 71.65 2380
Finland 34.9 6.42 4.98 51 48.7 7.80 94.05 2197
France 33.4 5.00 5.12 71 42.5 9.60 56.06 1968
Germany 33.6 5.32 4.75 67 43.8 5.90 61.00 2958
Hungary 3.7 4.88 3.43 80 13.8 10.90 60.38 2014
Iceland 32.8 6.35 5.38 60 43.6 7.00 78.47 752
Ireland 11.4 5.52 4.45 70 50.0 14.60 70.61 2628
Israel 22.1 5.24 5.35 54 32.3 5.60 65.80 2508
Italy 12.0 4.58 5.04 76 36.2 8.40 64.27 960
Kosovo 14.8 3.84 4.96 25 2.9 7.80 - 1295
Lithuania 2.0 5.14 3.99 60 14.2 15.30 80.75 2109
Netherlands 13.7 5.97 5.40 80 50.0 4.40 64.33 1845
Norway 24.0 6.58 5.49 69 99.2 3.20 72.79 1624
Poland 6.0 4.28 4.09 60 13.5 9.60 73.52 1898
Portugal 3.2 4.05 5.74 27 22.4 12.70 65.95 2151
Russian Federation 3.3 4.70 4.35 39 13.2 6.50 76.00 2484
Slovakia 10.6 4.18 4.70 52 17.6 13.50 55.99 1847
Slovenia 3.9 4.88 4.65 27 24.4 8.20 88.47 1257
Spain 17.3 5.09 5.22 51 31.3 21.60 78.09 1889
Sweden 42.8 6.17 5.52 71 56.7 7.80 74.63 1847
Switzerland 28.2 5.92 5.07 68 83.2 4.00 52.76 1493
Ukraine 0.7 4.50 4.44 25 3.6 7.80 76.66 2178
United Kingdom 18.9 5.67 4.81 89 39.4 8.00 60.51 2286

References
1. Friedman, M. Consumer Boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: Contemporary Events in Historical
Perspective. J. Consum. Aff. 1985, 19, 96–117. [CrossRef]
2. Klein, J.G.; Smith, N.C.; John, A. Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation. J. Mark.
2004, 68, 92–109. [CrossRef]
3. Tench, R.; Sun, W.; Jones, B. The challenging concept of corporate social irresponsibility: An introduction.
In Corporate Social Irresponsibility: A Challenging Concept; Tench, R., Sun, W., Jones, B., Eds.; Emerald Books:
Bingley, UK, 2012; pp. 3–20. ISBN 978-1-78052-998-1.
4. Hoffmann, S. Are boycott motives rationalizations? J. Consum. Behav. 2013, 12, 214–222. [CrossRef]
5. Cooper-Martin, E.; Holbrook, M.B. Ethical Consumption Experiences and Ethical Space. Adv. Consum. Res.
1993, 20, 113–119.
6. Barnett, C.; Cafaro, P.; Newholm, T. Philosophy and ethical consumption. In The Ethical Consumer;
Harrison, R., Newholm, T., Shaw, D., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oak, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 11–24.
7. Atkinson, L. Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and “green” smartphone apps to mobilize sustainable
consumption in the retail environment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 387–393. [CrossRef]
8. Roman, T.; Bostan, I.; Manolică, A.; Mitrica, I. Profile of green consumers in Romania in light of sustainability
challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6394–6411. [CrossRef]
9. Klein, N. No Logo; Harper Collins: London, UK, 2000.
10. Ethical Consumer Research Association Home Page. Available online: www.ethicalconsumer.org (accessed
on 24 October 2018).
11. Braunsberger, K.; Buckler, B. What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: Lessons from the ongoing
Canadian seafood boycott. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 96–102. [CrossRef]
12. Data and Documentation by Round of European Social Survey. Available online: https://www.
europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=8 (accessed on 20 September 2018).
13. Hutter, K.; Hoffmann, S. Carrotmob and Anti-consumption: Same Motives but Different Willingness to
Make Sacrifices? J. Macromarket. 2013, 33, 217–231. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 15 of 16

14. John, A.; Klein, J. The Boycott Puzzle: Consumer Motivations for Purchase Sacrifice. Manage. Sci. 2003, 49,
1196–1209. [CrossRef]
15. Sen, S.; Gürhan-Canli, Z.; Morwitz, V. Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on
Consumer Boycotts. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 399–417. [CrossRef]
16. Hoffmann, S.; Müller, S. Consumer boycotts due to factory relocation. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 239–247. [CrossRef]
17. Klein, J.; Smith, N.C.; John, A. Exploring motivations for participation in a consumer boycott. Adv. Consum.
Res. 2002, 29, 363–369.
18. Hahn, T.; Albert, N. Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 145, 509–524. [CrossRef]
19. Albrecht, C.M.; Campbell, C.; Heinrich, D.; Lammel, M. Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts:
Toward a unified model. J. Public Aff. 2013, 13, 180–189. [CrossRef]
20. Cissé-Depardon, K.; N’Goala, G. The Effects of Satisfaction, Trust and Brand Commitment on Consumers’
Decision to Boycott. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 2009, 24, 43–66. [CrossRef]
21. Egorov, G.; Harstad, B. Private politics and public regulation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2017, 84, 1652–1682. [CrossRef]
22. Putnam, R.D. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and Politics; Palgrave Macmillan:
New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 223–234. ISBN 9781349623976.
23. Glanville, J.L.; Paxton, P.; Wang, Y. Social Capital and Generosity: A Multilevel Analysis. Nonprofit Volunt.
Sect. Q. 2015, 45, 526–547. [CrossRef]
24. Putnam, R.D.; Leonardi, R.; Nonetti, R. Making Democracy Work—Civic Traditions in Modern Italy; Princeton
University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1993; ISBN 0691078890.
25. Bourdieu, P. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education;
Richardson, J., Ed.; Greenwood Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 241–258. ISBN 0313235295.
26. Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990.
27. Neilson, L.A. Boycott or buycott? understanding political consumerism. J. Consum. Behav. 2010, 9, 214–227.
[CrossRef]
28. Zhang, X. “Voting with dollars”: A cross-polity and multilevel analysis of political consumerism. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 422–436. [CrossRef]
29. Copeland, L. Conceptualizing political consumerism: How citizenship norms differentiate boycotting from
buycotting. Polit. Stud. 2014, 62, 172–186. [CrossRef]
30. Stolle, D.; Hooghe, M.; Micheletti, M. Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of
Political Participation. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2005, 26, 245–269. [CrossRef]
31. Pivato, S.; Misani, N.; Tencati, A. The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case
of organic food. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2008, 17, 3–12. [CrossRef]
32. McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce:
An integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 334–359. [CrossRef]
33. Hoque, M.Z.; Alam, M.N.; Hoque, M.Z.; Alam, M.N. What Determines the Purchase Intention of Liquid
Milk during a Food Security Crisis? The Role of Perceived Trust, Knowledge, and Risk. Sustainability 2018,
10, 3722. [CrossRef]
34. Lee, E.E.; Kang, H.; Ahn, H.J. Word-of-mouth of cultural products through institutional social networks.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 917. [CrossRef]
35. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon and Schuster: New York,
NY, USA, 2001; ISBN 9780743203043.
36. Goldenberg, J.; Libai, B.; Muller, E. Talk of the Network: A Complex Systems Look at the Underlying Process
of Word-of-Mouth. Mark. Lett. 2001, 12, 211–223. [CrossRef]
37. Steffes, E.M.; Burgee, L.E. Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Res. 2009, 19, 42–59. [CrossRef]
38. Fukuyama, F. Trust: The Social Values and the Creation of Prosperity; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996;
ISBN 0684825252.
39. Knack, S.; Keefer, P. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Q. J. Econ.
1997, 112, 1251–1288. [CrossRef]
40. Friedman, M. Consumer Boycotts: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. J. Soc. Issues 1991, 47,
149–168. [CrossRef]
41. Jennings, M.K.; Stoker, L. Social Trust and Civic Engagement across Time and Generations. Acta Polit. 2004,
39, 342–379. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 949 16 of 16

42. Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Von Berlepsch, V. Social capital and individual happiness in Europe. J. Happiness Stud.
2014, 15, 357–386. [CrossRef]
43. Bekkers, R.; Wiepking, P. Generosity and Philanthropy A Literature Review. SSRN Electron. J. 2007. [CrossRef]
44. Egerton, M. Higher education and civic engagement. Br. J. Sociol. 2002, 53, 603–620. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2011, 2.
[CrossRef]
46. Hoffmann, S. Does national culture impact consumer boycott prevalence A multi-country study. Eur. J.
Int. Manag. 2014, 8, 141–159. [CrossRef]
47. Häder, S.; Lynn, P. How Representative Can A Multi-Nation Survey Be? In Measuring Attitudes
Cross-Nationally; Jowell, R., Roberts, C., Fitzgerald, R., Eva, G., Eds.; SAGE Publications, Ltd.: London,
UK, 2007; pp. 32–52. ISBN 1848604963.
48. Sampling for the European Social Survey Round VI: Principles and Requirements, Mannheim, European
Social Survey, GESIS. Available online: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/methods/
ESS6_sampling_guidelines.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2018).
49. ESS6—2012 Documentation Report. Available online: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/
round6/survey/ESS6_data_documentation_report_e02_4.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2018).
50. DeCastellarnau, A.; Revilla, M.; Saris, W.; Dobewall, H. Results of the ESS Round 6 Split-Ballot MTMM
Experiments for All Countries. 2015. Available online: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/
round6/methods/ESS6_mtmm_report.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2018).
51. European Social Survey Home Page. Available online: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ (accessed on
10 October 2018).
52. Eurostat Database Home Page. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed
on 10 November 2018).
53. Population Structure and Ageing. Eurostat Web Page. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing (accessed on 10 November 2018).
54. European Social Survey. ESS Round 6 Source Questionnaire. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys,
City, University London. 2012. Available online: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round6/
fieldwork/source/ESS6_source_main_questionnaire.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2018).
55. Hox, J.J.; Moerbeek, M.; Van de Schoot, R. Multilevel Analysis; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010;
ISBN 9780203852279.
56. World Bank Open Data Home Page. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org (accessed on 10
September 2018).
57. Gross Enrolment Ratio by Level of Education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics Home Page. Available online:
http://data.uis.unesco.org/?queryid=142 (accessed on 10 September 2018).
58. Country Comparison. Hofstede Insights Home Page. Available online: https://www.hofstede-insights.
com/country-comparison (accessed on 10 September 2018).
59. Newman, B.J.; Bartels, B.L. Politics at the checkout line: Explaining political consumerism in the United
States. Polit. Res. Q. 2011, 64, 803–817. [CrossRef]
60. Neilson, L.A.; Paxton, P. Social Capital and Political Consumerism: A Multilevel Analysis. Soc. Probl. 2010,
57, 5–24. [CrossRef]
61. Shaw, D.; Newholm, T.; Dickinson, R. Consumption as voting: An exploration of consumer empowerment.
Eur. J. Mark. 2006, 40, 1049–1067. [CrossRef]
62. Hoffmann, S.; Balderjahn, I.; Seegebarth, B.; Mai, R.; Peyer, M. Under Which Conditions Are Consumers
Ready to Boycott or Buycott? The Roles of Hedonism and Simplicity. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 167–178.
[CrossRef]
63. Yang, K. Individual social capital and its measurement in social surveys. Surv. Res. Methods 2007, 1, 19–27.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).