marketing (Baughn and Yaprak 1993; Papadopoulos 1993; Petersen and Jolibert 1995; Papadopoulos and Heslop 2003; Pharr 2005). This voluminous literature, developed over fifty plus years, deals mainly with how the COO of a product influences consumer evaluation. People are more likely than ever to have formed relatively organised mental representations of countries, e.g. via mass media, products and travel experiences (d’Astous and Boujbel 2007). Marketing products using their place of origin has been recognised in the literature as an underexploited
‘positioning’ opportunity (Thode and Maskulka 1998).
A number of literature reviews/meta-analyses have attempted to synthesise findings from the COO literature, including: Bilkey and Nes 1982; Ozsomer and Cavasgil 1991; Liefeld 1993; Peterson and Jolibert 1995; Al-Sulaiti and Baker 1998; Verlagh and Steenkamp 1999; Papadopoulos and Heslop 2002; 2003; Dinnie 2005; Pharr 2005. In Papadopoulos and Heslop’s (2003) review, an analysis of findings from their inventory of over seven hundred and fifty publications identified the main themes that had been addressed so far in COO studies (Table 3.1). The largest number of studies (25%), focused on how people in one or more countries view products from one or more origins. These largely related to early COO studies.
Works focusing on general theoretical issues were considerably fewer (11%) and there were even fewer still dealing explicitly with strategic issues (7%). The relatively small number of studies in the ‘Strategy’ category (Table 3.1) is noted as being
“perhaps surprising, given the theme’s importance” (Papadopoulos and Heslop 2003 p.420). In between these two groups, the bulk of the research (57%), dealt with
topics classified as ‘issues’ but subdivided into three main categories: ethnocentrism and views about domestic v foreign products; COO issues from various consumer behaviour perspectives; COO in different types of markets or specific sectors. Of these, particularly in recent years, research on such topics as ethnocentrism, consumer patriotism, consumer information processing and attitude formation has flourished, whereas “research into the antecedents and influencers of national image formation remains virtually non existent” (Papadopoulos and Heslop 2003 p.424).
Table 3.1: Main country of origin research themes
Principal Focus Theme Contributions
Subtotal Total %
Countries Views about an origin(s) (109)
And/or by a sample(s) (82) 191 191 25
Issues Ethnocentrism (59) and domestic goods vs. imports (49) Tourism from PGI perspective (5) and services (3)
Strategy General (37), adv.(11), other mix (10), legal (1)
59 59 7
Total 766 766 100
Source: Papadopoulos and Heslop (2003 p.419)
Usunier (2006) also noted that in terms of product categories, 75% of COO articles were based either on consumer electronics, cars, or clothing and accessories, with luxury products being used in less than 5% of studies.
By far the majority of COO studies have been conducted from a consumer perspective and with only a few exceptions e.g. the use of case studies by Beverland and Lindgreen (2002) and Kleppe et al. (2002) and semi-structured interviews by Baker and Ballington (2002), Knight et al. (2007), Niss (1996) and Tellström et al.
(2006), taking a business perspective. Country of origin has mainly been researched
using positivist methods (experiments, surveys and conjoint analysis) (Usunier 2006). The lack of interpretivist, qualitative approaches in the literature have been criticised (Liefeld 1993; Dinnie 2004) and more research using qualitative techniques recommended (Dinnie 2005). The dominance of the positivist approach can be explained by the fact that most COO research is in the American tradition, published in American journals (Usunier 2006) which continue to “place a premium on theory and method relative to the problem” with the emphasis on the “empirical” (Lehmann 2005 p.142).
The COO discipline has from its beginnings (Schooler 1965) been mainly pursued by marketing academics who up until the late 1980s neglected to use existing knowledge from related disciplines e.g. cross cultural studies and social psychology, which is considered to have impeded its progress in becoming a recognised research area (Papadopoulos 1993; Thakor and Katsanis 1997). More recently, the disciplines contributing to COO research have expanded to include cross cultural and social psychology (ethnocentrism, stereotyping, national images), political science and sociology (ethnocentrism), consumer behaviour (decision making) and geography and tourism (images of places) (Papadopoulos 1993). In spite of these developments in the COO literature, Papadopoulos and Heslop (2003) still contend that there has been insufficient cross disciplinary integration in COO studies and they point to apposite research streams in social psychology, tourism, political science and international behaviour as examples. They also focus on the relevance of the role of images in marketing, most notably brand image studies, as an area for more collaboration. The potential for links to be made with identity studies has so far been ignored.
3.3 DEFINING COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
There is general agreement in the literature that COO effects take place. Where there has been less agreement, concerns what the definition of COO should be, or indeed what the construct should be called. Mossberg and Kleppe (2005) identified fourteen different origin constructs, and observed that several had been used interchangeably in some studies. They argued that “multiple constructs to measure the same phenomenon are confusing for those who want to do research in this field”
(Mossberg and Kleppe 2005 p.495). In spite of this argument, as will be seen in the following sections, no universally accepted taxonomy has been agreed, with terms frequently being used in an apparently ad hoc manner (Dinnie 2004). One of the main reasons suggested for the blurring and confusions surrounding the use of COO
terminology has been the increase in globalisation of sourcing and production, and proliferation of hybrid (bi-national or multi-national) products.
3.3.1 Taxonomy
First generation COO studies generally adopted the “made-in” interpretation of the construct (Nagashima 1970; Bilkey and Nes 1982). That this still persists can be seen in the following commonly cited definition where the focus is still on the country of manufacture:
‘the positive or negative influence that a product’s country of manufacture may have on consumers’ decision processes or subsequent behaviour’
(Elliot and Cameron 1994 p.50).
This definition’s focus has however been modified in response to the deconstruction of the COO concept (Chao 1993; Tse and Lee 1993), being recognised as increasingly multi-dimensional (Ozsomer and Cavusgil 1991; Nebenzahl et al. 1997).
Some of the most frequently cited components of COO are identified in Table 3.2.
These origin constructs represent different stages in the value chain or production process (Mossberg and Kleppe 2005) and have allowed for testing different COO subcategories. In particular the differentiation of country of design (COD) and country of manufacture (COM) have been important, both having been shown to have an effect on the overall purchase intention of the consumer (Nebenzahl et al.
1997). The COO, COM and COD as well as the home country of the consumer have all been found to have some bearing on the final purchase. One important origin dimension which is however missing from Table 3.2 is ‘Borrowed Origin’, where origin images which have little or no relation to the ‘real’ origin are used to enhance or distinguish products (Papadopoulos 1993).
Table 3.2: Country-of-origin deconstructed
Where either a part of or the entire finished product is designed
Chao 1993; Tse and Lee 1993;
Ahmed and d’Astous 1995; Insch 1995; Insch and McBride 1998; Li et al. 2000; Hamzaoui and Merunka 2006.
Country of
Manufacture (COM)
Refers to the country of the ‘made-in’ label or where the product is manufactured
Ulgado and Lee 1993; Insch 1995;
Iyer and Kalita 1997; Chao 1998;
Phau and Prendergast 2000a; Insch and McBride 2004; Hamzaoui and Merunka 2006.
Culture of Brand Origin (CuOBO)
The country/culture to which the brand is perceived to belong by its target customers irrespective of where it is actually manufactured
Li et al. 2000; Jaffe and Nebenzahl 2006; Usunier 2006; Josiassen 2009
Country of Assembly (COA)
Where the product is assembled
Chao 1993; Tse and Lee 1993; Insch 1995; 1998; Insch and McBride 1998;
Li et al. 2000; Insch and McBride 2004;
Country of Parts (COP)
The source of some or all of the parts for the product
D’Astous and Ahmed 1993; Chao 1993; Tse and Lee 1993; Ahmed and d’Astous 1996; Han and Terpstra 1988; Insch and McBride 1998; 2004;
Country of Corporate Ownership (COCO)
The parent company’s home country irrespective of its actual place of manufacture
Thakor and Lavack 2003
Source: Original
The recent tenor of contemporary COO literature calls for a refocusing on what is actually meant by COO and the COO effect, with a growing body of opinion favouring a revised definition of COO as that which consumers typically associate with a product or brand irrespective of where it is actually manufactured (Usunier 2006).
This would effectively subsume other synonymous terms and addresses the justified criticisms regarding the original ‘made-in’ conceptualisation. A product/brand in this case can have only one COO, compared with the situation where the origin country is defined as the COM where products with the same brand names can have different places of origin. A more recent definition of COO which encapsulates this interpretation is:
“The country which a consumer associates with a certain product or brand as being its source regardless of where the product is actually produced.” (Jaffe and Nebenzahl 2006, p.29)
However, this definition has by no means been universally adopted, and different scholars continue to use different interpretations of COO, many still sticking with the original conception of the term (i.e. ‘made-in’ country). This inability to provide and use a consistent definition will continue to be problematic for the research area.
Thakor and Kohli (1996), in an effort to synthesise the COO and brand image literatures, proposed that country origin (in the ‘made in’ sense) be replaced by a new concept of brand origin defined as:
‘the place, region or country to which the brand is perceived to belong by its target consumers’ (Thakor & Kholi 1996, p.27).
This is very similar to Jaffe and Nebenzahl’s (2006) updated definition of COO discussed above where the location of manufacture may be different from that perceived by consumers as the product/brand origin. Also, rather confusingly, the definition also covers Phau and Prendergast’s (2000a) conceptualisation of country of origin of brand (COB), Chen’s (2004) country of brand origin (COBO) and Lim and O’Cass’s (2001) definition of culture of brand origin (CuOBO) (Table 3.2).
It is also clear that most COO research fails to deal with the real possibility that the most salient origin cues are those which have been crafted by marketers in an attempt to differentiate their brand and/or improve its image (Thakor and Lavack 2003). That consumer perceptions of brand origin do not necessarily coincide with COM may occur for a number of reasons e.g.: ignorance; lack of salience of origin information for a particular brand; deliberate obscuring of origins by companies concerned with consumer reactions to unfavourable origins; or ‘unauthorised borrowing’ of strong origin images to enhance or distinguish brands with little or no relation to the actual origin (Papadopoulos 1993; Thakor and Kohli 1996).
3.3.2 Place Origin
Country of origin research, as implied by the name, has been largely preoccupied with showing differences in perceptions of the overall quality of products manufactured in developed versus developing countries (Thakor and Kohli 1996).
This assumption was first challenged by Papadopoulos (1993) who noted that although the term COO appeared to restrict origin identifiers to country images,
‘place’ or ‘geographical’ origins were also relevant e.g. regions, cities, continents and trade blocs or even more specialised areas of production, like the French concept of
‘terroir’.
Thode and Maskulka (1998) developed the concept of ‘place based marketing’ which focussed on specific geographic regions. This extension of the COO construct to
other place origins has recently become more overt where studies of region of origin (ROO) effects, particularly in relation to agricultural products, have augmented the COO literature (Kuznesof et al. 1997; Lewis and Stubbs 1999; Beverland and Lindgreen 2002; van Ittersum et al. 2003; Orth et al. 2005). This avenue of research has become highly relevant for meta-brands i.e. varieties of a product with protected designation of origin (PDO), which are increasing in the European Union (Bonetti 2004). Food manufacturers increasingly use origin (regional and national) to differentiate and add value (Aurier and Fort 2007). In relation to regional foods, links to traditions and heritage and to “perceived authenticity” have been identified as being of particular importance (Kuznesof et al. 1997).
The attraction of the concept of place of origin compared with COO is that it recognises that products within a single country are differentiated using positioning strategies which emphasise attributes which are unique to specific areas/regions (Kent and Walker 2000). Using place rather than COO also acknowledges the reality that products need to be differentiated from both foreign and domestic competitors and that for many types of products, more specific origin references are a means of achieving this (van Ittersum et al. 2003).