Anamul & Farhan /

Consumer Perceptions of Country of Origin in the

Bangladeshi Apparel Industry
Md. Anamul Hoque 1*
Md. Farhan Faruqui2
1,2
Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, East West University, Dhaka -1212, Bangladesh.
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: rubai4@gmail.com

Article History ABSTRACT

Country of origin as an informational cue to evaluate products has
been an area of interest of scholars for many years. However, this
Received: 22-12-2012

paper examines how consumers perceive the quality of Bangladeshi-

Accepted: 02-12-2012

made clothing apparel in general and their attitude towards

Available online: 15-01-2013

Bangladeshi-made versus imported apparel from major importing

countries namely India, china and Thailand. Both qualitative and
Keywords:

quantitative measures have taken for the study. Qualitative data was
Bangladesh, consumer

collected by semi structure interview method and for this judgmental

perceptions, country image,

sampling was applied. On the other hand, quantitative data was

country of origin.

collected through questionnaire applying stratified random sampling

technique. Data was then analyzed using paired t test. Results
JEL Classification:

indicated that country of origin effects is not as strong as it is

M30, M31, M37.

expected and fairly vary with age and education status of consumers.
Further, it also revealed that if Bangladesh continues imposing more
VAT on fabrics import and restricting fabric sales inside the country,
the direct and more challenging competition will come from India, in
comparison to china and Thailand.
Citation: Md. Anamul Hoque & Farhan Faruqui (2013). Consumer Perceptions of Country of Origin in the Bangladeshi
Apparel Industry. IJAR-BAE 2(1): p. 36 – 46.

Copyright: @2013 Md. Anamul Hoque & Farhan Faruqui. This is an open access article distributed according to the terms
of the Creative Common Attribution (CCC) 3.0 License under PKW (Public Knowledge Work) of Simon Fraser University,
Canada.

1.0 Introduction

Readymade garment is the key export item and a main source of foreign exchange for
Bangladesh in the last 25 years. Bangladesh textile garments sector has been expanded
in a vigorous way and maintained its maturity by holding 2nd position globally with 5%
market share in Readymade Garments production and export in 2012(R. Mithun & M.
Khairul, 2012). During the Fiscal Year (2011-12) the country’s total export volume was
USD 24.23 billion. Out of the total export, export from the readymade garment (RMG)
sector was USD 19.08 billion which is 78.7%. Global market size export of RMG (Woven
& Knit) is US$ 400 billion. Bangladesh share in the global market is about 5 %. This
mere 5% share alone is literally strong to indicate that there is a great opportunity of
expansion (R. Mithun & M. Khairul, 2012). That means more and more fashion retailers
and brands will be looking to source from Bangladesh and the trend has already been
started. Bangladesh has been successfully supplying apparel products consistently to
the premier international fashion brands like H&M, C&A, M&S, Wal-Mart, GAP, Levi's,
s. Oliver, Tesco, Zara, Carrefour, JCPenney and many more (R. Mithun & M. Khairul,
2012). Further, McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm
forecasted Bangladesh's apparel exports could grow double by 2015 and triple to $42
billion by 2020 (McKinsey CPO Survey, November 2011).
 Anamul & Farhan /

However, the local apparel and fashion industry has also been experiencing somewhat
handsome growth in the last decade. This is due to increasing fashion consciousness
among consumers. Apparels define the personality, education, behavior and the way of
thinking of the people. And everyone has a separate and elegant fashion sense which is
mainly related to the apparels throughout the world (Namita, Subodh & khanna, 2012).
Although traditionally Bangladeshi like to have their dresses stitched by local tailors
catered exclusively to local demands, the growing awareness of brand and convenience
offered by ready-to-wear garments are changing consumer perception; they are being
attracted towards readymade. Consequently, clothing brands in Bangladesh are
drawing in a wider span of consumers over the last decade as they continue to offer
fashion-rich items that conform to native tastes. Moreover, apparel or fashion brands
have become not only a status of symbol; it has also added a new outlook and style in
office as much as in social circles.

There are many ‘made-in- Bangladesh’ fashion brands with different kinds of outfit and
fashion clothes for male and female have inflated into famous brands in the country like
Aarong, Kay Kraft, Cats eye, Artisti, shada-kalo, Westecs, Banglar mela and so on.
Some of these fashion houses have decided to go global and open outlet abroad.
However, these domestic brands and fashion outlets face strong competition since a
large amount of fashion-wares are imported from other countries including India,
China, and Thailand by numerous local retailers. Along with other informational cues
like price and brand name, country of origin or in other words the ‘made-in’
phenomenon might have an influence in generalizing consumer perception in
evaluating fashion clothing for local and imported. Therefore the marketers and brand
managers of this growing domestic apparel industry need to comprehend how
consumers perceive the ‘made in Bangladesh’ label in relation to imported one.

2.0 Literature review

National reputations for technological superiority, product quality, design and value
will naturally vary from country to country, but consumers tend to generalize their
attitudes and opinions across a wide range of products from a given country (Paul and
Siu-Kwan, 1991). Country image or "made in" image is the picture, the reputation and
the stereotype that businessmen and consumers attach to products of a specific country
(Nagashima, 1970). Nebenzahl et al. (2003) defined country image as consumers’
perceptions of products made-in a certain country; emotions toward the country and
resulted perceptions about the social desirability of owning products made-in the
country. Almost similarly, C.L. Wang et al. (2011) in their study referred country image
as mental representation of a country and its people including cognitive beliefs of the
country’s economical and technological stages, as well as the affective evaluation of its
social and political system. However, with the trend of production globalization and
emergence of multinationals, country of origin is referred to the country where
corporate headquarters of the company marketing the product or brand is located
(Johny, Susan and Ikujiro, 1985). Nevertheless, a product's Country of origin is an
informational cue which, like other informational cues such as price, brand name, etc.,
helps consumers evaluate products and develop attitudes towards them despite the
current proliferation of global brands (Papadopoulos 1993; Tse and Gorn 1993).

The effect of country of origin on consumer perceptions and purchasing intentions is a

common theme in marketing research (B. Godey et al., 2011; Bloemer, Bris & Kasper,
2009; Usunier, 2006). Dichter (1962) was the first to argue that a product’s country of
origin may have a remarkable influence on the acceptance of products. Initially
Schooler (1965) conducted an empirical research of this conception where he revealed
that there was a significant deference in the evaluation of products that were identical
in all respects, except for the name of the country specified on a ``made in'' label. Since
Schooler’s seminal paper, the ``country-of-origin effect'' has been the subject of a large
 Anamul & Farhan /

number of studies. Olson (1972) regarded country of origin as an extrinsic cue as

country of origin can be manipulated without changing the physical product. In this
respect, country of origin is not different from other extrinsic cues like price, brand
name and retailer reputation. Later Hong and Wyer (1989) has explained that country
of origin can act simply as an attribute of the product and be utilized in much the same
way as other more specific attributes to arrive product evaluation, when consumers are
familiar with the product (Maheswaran, 1994) and attributes information is
unambiguous. Also, a product’s country of origin can stimulate subjects’ interest in the
product and consequently leads them to think more extensively about product
information and its evaluation implications (Hong and Wyer, 1989). However, most of
these studies have focused on assessing the occurrence, magnitude and significance of
country-of-origin effects for different products. More importantly, Country-of-origin
research has mainly studied the use of country of origin as a cognitive cue, viz., an
informational stimulus about or relating to a product that is used by consumers to infer
beliefs regarding product attributes such as quality (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Steenkamp,
1990). This was also voiced by Dawar & Parker (1994) as he regarded such cues act as
``signals'' for product quality. The typical design of such studies is to describe a
product on a number of attributes (cues) and assess the impact of country of origin and
the other cues on the overall evaluation of the product. Furthermore, this signaling
effect of quality can be classified as halo and summary constructs. For halo effect,
consumers infer product quality from country image and country image directly affects
consumers’ belief of product attributes, thus indirectly influences the overall product
evaluation through these beliefs (Erickson, 1984; Johansson, 1985; Han, 1989). For
summary construct, consumers construct country-specific information by generalizing
product information over brands with the same country of origin to such an extent that
the brands are perceived to have similar attributes.

Yet, some country-of-origin studies demonstrated a positive relationship between

product evaluation and the degree of economic development of the country (Liefeld,
1993). Most of the consumers believe that the industrially developed countries produce
superior quality products because they are financially strong as well as their production
and marketing capability is advanced (Nargis and Chowdhury, 2006). In addition,
researchers have discovered that consumers in developed countries tend to prefer
products from developed countries, first and foremost from their own countries.
However, consumers in less-developed countries view domestic products less favorably
than products from more advanced countries (Granzin & Olsen, 1998; Jaffe & Carlos,
1995; Okechuku & Onyemah, 1999; Papadopoulos, Louise & Jozsef, 1990). While
producers from developed countries enjoy a favorable position, they cannot avoid
challenges to their market shares and customers' minds. Schooler and Wildt (1968)
found that the effect of consumers' country-of-origin bias can be offset by price
concessions. However, more enlightening than the penetration-pricing strategy is that
some countries such as Japan have shown a way to succeed in developing their market
share by enhancing the origin images of their products. Schooler and Wildt (1968)
found that consumers were biased against products from Japan. Several decades later,
"Made in Japan" means quality to consumers (Papadopoulos, 1993). However, Pappu et
al.(2007) identified two new dimension of country image namely ‘macro’ including
technological, economic and political and ‘micro’ including workmanship, innovation,
design and prestige. They concluded that the relative impact of macro and micro
country images on consumer-based brand equity is product and country specific and
directly affect brand loyalty, rather than perceived product quality as reported in
earlier studies (L.S. Amine, 2008). Similarly, Recently C.L. Wang et al. (2011) referred
cognitive country image as consumer’s belief of a country, incorporating levels of
economic development, living standards, industrialization, technological advancement
and so forth.
 Anamul & Farhan /

Various studies, however, have shown that country of origin is not merely another
cognitive cue. Wyer and colleagues (Hong & Wyer, 1989, 1990; Li & Wyer, 1994)
showed that the impact of country of origin cannot be explained entirely by a quality
signaling process. In addition to its role as a quality cue, country of origin has symbolic
and emotional meaning to consumers.

Country of origin may associate a product with status, authenticity, exoticness (Li &
Monroe, 1992; Batra, Ramaswamy, Alden, Steenkamp & Ramachander, 1999) and ego
enhancement (R.Veale & P. Quester, 2009). Moreover, it links a product to rich
product-country imagery, with sensory, affective and ritual connotations (Askegaard &
Ger, 1998). Fournier (1998) found that country of origin relates a product to national
identity, which can result in a strong emotional attachment to certain brands and
products. She describes the case of a second-generation Italian-American woman who is
strongly attached to Italian products, especially food-related items. For this person,
``Italy'' has very strong emotional and symbolic connotations. Botschen and
Hemettsberger (1998) reported that consumers link country of origin not only to
product quality, but also to feelings of national pride and memories of past vacations.
When making buying decisions, consumers may link country of origin to personal
memories, to national identities and to feelings of “pride” associated with the
possession of products from certain countries (Hirschman, 1985). Jaffe and Carlos
(1995) found that the factor "proud to own" had a significant influence on Mexican
consumers’ purchases of products from Japan and the United States. Okechuku and
Onyemah (1999) also demonstrated that country of origin is significantly more
important than price and other product attributes, such as reliability and safety, in
Nigerian consumers' preference.

Moral action is another salient norm that relates to country of origin is the norm to buy
domestic. Many consumers consider it morally appropriate to buy products that are
manufactured or grown in their own country (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). In countries
such as the US, Canada and the UK, governments, labor unions, and industry groups
have been sponsoring campaigns aimed at the establishment of a ``buy domestic''
norm. Consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987) serves as an important
motivation for the decision to purchase domestic products. It refers to consumers’
judgments of the morality of purchasing foreign made products. Consumer
ethnocentrism has been found to relate positively to consumer preference for domestic
products, and negatively to preference for foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987).
This indicates that the perceived morality of purchasing foreign (vs. domestic) products
indeed has a substantial impact on consumers’ product attitudes. American boycotts of
South African products are noteworthy, in this regard, as are Australian consumers’
boycotts of French products because of French nuclear tests in the Pacific (Verlegh &
Steenkamp, 1999). On the other hand, Granzin and Olsen (1998) found that American
consumers' purchases of domestic products are positively related to internalized
responsibility for helping and patriotism. Peeter and Steenkamp (1999) provided
examples of cognitive, affective and normative mechanisms for country-of-origin effects
shown in table 1.

Table 01: Examples of cognitive, affective and normative mechanisms for country-
of-origin effects (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999)
Mechanisms Description Major findings
Cognitive Country of origin is a cue Country of origin is used as a ``signal''
for product quality for overall product quality and quality
attributes, such as reliability and
durability (Li & Wyer, 1994; Steenkamp,
1989).
Affective Country of origin has Country of origin is an image attribute
symbolic that links the product to symbolic and
 Anamul & Farhan /

and emotional value to emotional benefits, including social status

consumers and national pride (Askegaard & Ger
1998; Batra et al., 1998).
Normative Consumers hold social and Purchasing domestic products may be
personal norms related to regarded as a ``right way of conduct'',
country of origin because it supports the domestic
economy (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). By
the same token, consumers may refrain
from buying goods from countries with
objectionable activities or regimes
(Smith, 1990; Klein, Ettenson & Morris,
1998).

In reality, cognitive, affective and normative processes are not separate and
independent determinants of preferences and behaviors. They are constantly
interacting (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). Hoffman (1986) noted that affect provides a
motivating force for information processing, and may initiate, terminate or enhance the
processing of information. Affective responses to country of origin may thus stimulate
or inhibit further consideration of choice alternatives, and influence the retrieval and
evaluation of cognitive beliefs related to the country of origin (Isen, 1984; Ger, 1991;
Askegaard & Ger, 1998). Positive affect leads to more extensive and more diverse
mental representations (Isen, 1984). Affect has also been found to influence the amount
of information that is used to make a decision, and the strategy that is followed to
combine this information and arrive at a decision (Cohen & Areni, 1991). Affect thus
plays an important role in determining which beliefs are formed, how they are
evaluated, and how strongly they are weighted in the formation of preferences (Verlegh
& Steenkamp, 1999). Normative judgments related to the purchase of a country’s
products involve both cognitive and affective responses as well (Peeter and Steenkamp,
1999). The complex issues that are at stake in boycotts and boycotts require elaborate
cognitive processing, but also evoke emotions like fear and anger (Osterhus, 1997;
Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998). Schwartz (1973) even argued that the impact of
personal norms on behavior and decision making is largely based on the fact that a
violation of norms results in feelings of guilt and loss of self-esteem, while conformity
results in pride and enhanced self-esteem.

However, the importance of country of origin varies depending on market and product
specific circumstances (Eriksson & Hadjikhani, 2000). For instance, country of origin
has been found to be more critical when consumers are evaluating high involvement,
high status or highly specialized items such as designer clothing or prestige motorcars
and less important in the evaluation of low involvement, low priced item such as
toothpaste or t-shirts (Ahmed & d’Astous, 2004; Ahmed et al., 2004). In contrast, B.
Godey et al. (2011) found that in the specific case of luxury goods the impact of country
of origin is weaker than that of brand. Yet Apparel as product category has been used
in much research to measure the influence of country of origin. Schooler used a simple
manipulation in which he showed Guatemalan students a piece of fabric bearing
fictitious country-of-origin label (Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, El Salvador). The
study showed that products made in less developed countries, like El Salvador and
Costa Rica, were ascribed lower quality while home products and Mexican products
were ascribed higher quality (Vrontis, Thrassou &Vignali, 2006). Furthermore,
Schooler and Sunoo tried to examine consumers’ perception of Asian, African, Latin
American and European products by evaluating the views of 320 American students
regarding apparel from different continents (Demetris, Alkis & Claudui 2006).

Gaedeke (1973) tried to examine the opinion of US consumers towards imported

products (including textile) from different developing countries (the Philippines, Hong
Kong, Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, Mexico, South Korea, India, Singapore, Turkey,
Indonesia) and the USA. Results obtained from a research on 200 respondents
 Anamul & Farhan /

(students) showed that American textile products were rated the highest, while
products from developing countries were rated lower. The research lent support to
stereotypes about consumers perceiving products of developing countries to be of lower
quality (Demetris et al. 2006).Moreover, Dornoff, Tankersley and White (1974) tried to
examine consumers’ perceptions of imported products and the influence of
socioeconomic characteristics on consumers’ perceptions. The research was done on
400 American respondents and on various types of products including fashion
merchandise. The study showed that American consumers were neutral towards French
fashion merchandise, that no differences existed among the males’ and females’
opinions and that more educated consumers are more in favor of imported products
(Demetris et al. 2006).

However, Darling and Kraft (1977) researched the impact of the ‘made in’ label on
Finnish consumers. The research on 303 Finnish respondents showed that there existed
a striking ethnocentrism with Finnish consumers in all categories of products including
apparel (Demetris et al. 2006).Further, Baumgartner and Jolibert (1977) tried to
measure French consumers’ perception of their own country’s products’ quality and
those imported from different countries: the USA, Germany and Great Britain. A sample
of 108 French respondents showed that French consumers had a very strong
preference for ‘made in France’ products. It applied to all categories of products
(playing cards, life insurance, and cough syrup) including apparel (Demetris et al.
2006). Moreover, Niffenegger, White, and Marmet (1980) investigated the product
images of American, French and British products among British retail managers. A
sample of 92 professional British retail managers was used to measure their vision of
products in terms of price, value, advertising, reputation, design, and style and
consumer profile. The study indicated considerable differentiation in the perception of
quality, technical advancement and price, and further showed demographic trends of
perception (Demetris et al. 2006).

Kaynak and Cavusgil (1983) examined Canadian consumers’ opinion of products from
25 different countries. Products were from different categories including apparel. Study
on a sample of 197 Canadian consumers showed that country-of-origin image might
function as a surrogate when there is a lack of information about products, including
apparel. The research showed that the less is known about the brand and product the
greater impact the origin-of-product has on a consumer’s decision to buy (Demetris et
al. 2006). However, Hugstad and Durr (1986) investigated the importance of country-
of-manufacture to American consumers. Products used were durable (cars, cameras)
and expendable (car tires, shoes, shirts) from different countries (Japan, China, Korea,
Taiwan and the USA). Study on a sample of 341 American consumers showed that they
were most apprehensive towards products from China, Korea and Taiwan, that is to say,
they considered them to be unreliable in terms of product quality. On the other hand,
they perceived apparel of their own country to be of the highest quality (Demetris et al.
2006).

Heslop and Wall (1985) examined the differences between males and females on the
basis of country-of-origin product image. A total of 635 respondents in Canada were
asked to evaluate the quality of apparel and shoes from 13 different countries. The
results of Heslop and Wall’s study indicated the ethnocentrism of Canadian consumers
and supported the stereotype regarding the quality of Italian products and the risk
involved with Eastern Europe and the Far East products (Demetris et al. 2006). Al-
Hammed (1988) investigated the Saudi Arabian consumers and resellers’ attitudes
towards different types of products (carpets, air conditioners, household appliances,
and designer clothes) from different countries (the USA, Japan, Germany, Sweden,
Belgium, Spain, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, and UK). The results on a sample
of 300 consumers and 193 Saudi resellers showed price to be the most important
attribute to be considered when buying all kinds of products, including clothing
 Anamul & Farhan /

(Demetris et al. 2006). Later on Ettenson, Wagner and Gaeth (1988) tried to examine
the effect of country-of-origin image in relation to a ‘made in’ campaign. The study was
based on 55 students at the University of Maryland where the respondents were asked
to assess the importance of the attributes of style, cut, fabric quality, content, price and
brand when deciding to purchase. All the products were American and respondents
were administered the questionnaire before and after the introduction of the ‘made in
the USA’ campaign. The results of the study demonstrated that contrary to previous
findings, the effect of country-of-origin was relatively small both before and after the
launching of that campaign (Demetris et al. 2006).

Thus a considerable body of knowledge is available on this topic, still, research into
country of origin effect continues unabated for many reasons (R .Veale & P. Quester,
2009). First, the world is increasingly a global market place and few businesses are
immune to the influence of imported product into their home markets. Second,
businesses around the world actively seek export opportunities for their product and
services(R .Veale & P. Quester, 2009), and new consumer market with enhanced
purchasing ability are growing in developing countries (Bandyopadhyay, 2001;
Brodowsky, Tan & Melich, 2006). Therefore, being able to predict the acceptance of, or
any bias against, their products in new market can be a critical success factor (Badre,
Davis & davis, 1995; He, 2003). However, the focus of this study is the domestic
clothing apparel industry of Bangladesh. This industry was chosen firstly because it has
been achieved considerable growth in the last ten years. Secondly most apparel has got
a label proudly displayed “made in”. And finally significant market share of this industry
is shared by imported products. Most of the research regarding readymade garment
sector focused issues related to export growth and challenges. Very little research
connected the country of origin effect to the product category other than clothing
apparel. Therefore this small study was intended to fill this gap. The major objectives of
this study were to investigate consumer perception of quality of Bangladeshi made
apparel in general and to study consumer attitude toward Bangladeshi made versus
imported apparel from major importing countries (India, Thailand, china).

3.0 Methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative measures were taken for the study. Semi-structured
interview method was applied as a qualitative measures which involved consumers,
merchandising managers and sales personnel of three major retail outlets, managers of
two garment manufacturer and some boutiques- chosen on judgmental basis. These
measures helped to better understand the key facets of consumer perception prior to
questionnaire design. For quantitative measures, 100 questionnaires were administered
to a stratified randomly selected sample of the general population of Dhaka city,
Bangladesh. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement about
Bangladeshi made products using 5 point Likert scale and to express their attitude
towards apparel from 4 regions (Bangladesh, India, Thailand and China) using 7 point
Likert scale. Average scores of selected country of origin pairs were analyzed applying
paired t-test method. Paired t test is commonly used to compare two population means
where one have two samples in which observations in one sample can be paired with
observations in the other sample. Despite its limitations that this measures is open to
carry over and order effects; the method is used for this research because it allows
good control of individual differences, resulting in small effects as the amount of
random error is very small.

4.0 Analysis and discussion

4.01 Consumer profile

 Anamul & Farhan /

Total 100 respondents took part in this study, majority of them were male 72%
(Table 2). Most of the respondents are within the age group of 20-29 and 60% of
them completed graduation. In addition, 30% of the respondents enjoy monthly
income above $400.
Table 02: Demographic profile of consumers
Gender Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 72 72.0
Female 28 28.0
Age group
12-19 5 5.0
20-29 50 50.0
30-39 15 15.0
40-49 15 15.0
50 and above 15 15.0
Education level
Post graduate 18 18.0
Graduate 60 60.0
Diploma 2 2.0
Higher secondary 16 16.0
Secondary school 4 4.0
Monthly income (US $)
100-150 8 8.0
150-250 35 35.0
250-400 27 27.0
400-550 17 17.0
Above 550 13 13.0

4.02 Consumer attitudes towards Bangladeshi made products

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a 5 point Likert scale
(1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree) with a series of questions about Bangladeshi
made products in general; past, present and future (Table 3). Firstly an optimistic note,
66% (strongly agree 26%+agree 40%) believe workers in Bangladesh manufacturing
industry are concerned about producing quality products (statement 1). And an
supporting depiction was found as almost three quarters of the respondents (70%)
thought that manufacturer are more interested in profit than quality (statement 2).
Moreover, 65% respondents thought that it costs too much to make a high quality
product (statement 3). Taken together these results show a somewhat obscure
perception among consumers.

However 75% respondents claimed they would be prepared to pay a little more for the “Bangladeshi made” if
the quality was par with imports (statement 5). Notwithstanding, 85% of those surveyed considered that the
quality of Bangladeshi products had improved over the last 5 years (statement 6); and 82% thought that it
would continue to improve (statement 7). However, 57% agreed that the quality of Bangladeshi products is
equal to, if not better than, imported products (statement 8).

Table 03: Attitude towards Bangladeshi made products

Attitude Statement SA % A% N% DA % SD % Total%
Bangladeshi workers are concerned
26 40 26 8 0 100
about quality.
Bangladeshi manufacturers are
more concerned with profits than 31 39 19 11 0 100
quality.
In Bangladesh it costs too much to 20 27 8
26 19 100
make high quality product.
Bangladeshi -made products can
30 42 23 5 0 100
compete with imports in terms of
 Anamul & Farhan /

quality.
If the quality of Bangladeshi -made
and an imported product is the
37 38 17 7 1 100
same, I will buy Bangladeshi
products even if it cost a bit more.
The quality of Bangladeshi products
over the past five years has 40 45 10 5 0 100
improved.
Overall, the quality of Bangladeshi
products is equal to, if not better 26 31 33 9 1 100
than, imported products.
Notes:
1. Ratings were on a 5-point Likert Scale with 5=strongly agree to 1=strongly disagree.
2. Attitude statements are adopted from Paul and Siu (1991)

These data are somewhat consistent with the responses to two further questions
specific to apparel products. These are shown in Table 4.

The result revealed that a there is a segment of Bangladeshi consumers who are
skeptical and not so confident about the merit of “made in Bangladesh” level. Hence
local brand owners, manufacturers may not be having the impact they desire.

Table 04: Information sought when buying apparel

Statements Look for Bangladeshi made Look for country of
%1 origin%2
Always 35 45
Often 26 21
Occasionally 30 19
Never 9 15
Total 100 100
Notes:
1. The question was, “How often do you look at the label to see the manufacturer’s country of
origin, before you purchase clothing?”
2. The question was, “When purchasing clothing, how often do you specifically look for
Bangladeshi-made?”

4.2.1 Demographic significance

For statement 1, 6 and 7 in Table 3 (all dealing with attitudes towards the quality of
Bangladeshi-made products), no significant relationship was found with any of the
demographic variable used in this study (age, gender, education, profession and
income). This may be due to the uniformity among the samples as majority of the
respondents fall into 20-29 age groups (50%) and are young professional or students. A
less homogenous sample perhaps could be used for different outcome although it seems
that demographics are not a useful variable in explaining the variation.

However, regarding statement 2 (Bangladeshi manufacturer are more concerned about

profit than quality), younger respondents were more inclined to agree with this
statement whereas almost all the older respondents remained inconclusive. For
statements 4, 5 and 8 (concerning the perception that Bangladeshi-made products are
at least equal to imported products), both younger and older respondents showed
significantly more agreement with this statement. For statement 3 (in Bangladesh “it
costs too much to make a high quality product”), female young respondents more likely
to agree than male young respondents and once again older respondents remained
inconclusive.

4.03 Perception of clothing apparel by country of origin

 Anamul & Farhan /

Respondents were asked to express their attitude towards apparel from 4 regions
(Bangladesh, India, Thailand and China) by rating eleven product attributes on a 7
point Likert scale of the form: 7=strongly agree to 1=strongly disagree. The average
rating scores for each country are illustrated in Table 5:

The major point of interest is that apparel from Bangladesh rated consistently higher
than apparel from India on every product attribute except style.

It is apparent that consumer perceived major difference in product attributes

depending on the country of origin. It will be noted from Table 5 that the apparel from India,
China and Thailand is inferior to in fabric quality to that of Bangladesh. This fact is also supported as apparel
from Bangladesh is perceived to be expensive. In contrast, the apparel from India, China and Thailand is
perceived to be less expensive. The interesting thing is to be noted in this regard that apparel from India
perceived to be least expensive, before China. But in “value for money” India is rated higher than China and
Thailand as Bangladesh stands on top. Moreover, consumers also believe that apparel from Bangladesh is
more durable than that of India, China and Thailand. However, consumers think that Bangladesh and India
generally manufacture high quality brand than Thailand and China.

Table 05: Average scores of countries based on apparel attributes

Banglades
Attributes India Thailand China
h
Style is very fashionable 5.74 5.83 5.28 5.26
Colors are generally very fashionable 5.91 5.85 5.23 5.26
Fabric quality is excellent 6.13 5.43 5.37 5.14
Overall workmanship is excellent 5.84 5.42 5.29 5.52
Prices are relatively inexpensive 5.94 5.17 5.37 5.45
Clothing is usually excellent fit 5.87 5.76 5.39 5.37
Clothing retains its color 5.86 5.58 5.35 5.28
Clothing is very durable 5.89 5.50 5.42 5.17
Clothing is generally very high quality 5.90 5.40 5.52 5.26
Generally manufactures high quality
5.80 5.75 5.53 5.29
brand
Excellent value for money 5.75 5.58 5.36 5.47

From Table 5, differences in the perception of each country are evident from the 7 point
Likert scale for each statement. The results of paired t test of these differences are
shown in the Table 6.

To illustrate, Bangladeshi apparel is perceived to be more fashionable than the China

product (average 5.75 vs. 5.28). This difference is significant at p=.002 (Table 6). There
are no significant differences between Bangladesh and India apparel on attributes of
style, fashionable color, and fitting and high quality brand. However, consumers appear
to perceive significant differences between Bangladesh and Thailand on all attributes
(Table 5 and Table 6)

Table 06: Comparison of average score on each attributes by selected country of

origin pairs
(Results of t-test at 5% significant level)
Attributes BD/IN BD/TH BD/CH IN/CH TH/CH
Style is very fashionable Mean -.090 .460 .480 .570 .020
SD 1.545 1.403 1.534 1.265 1.255
p value .561 .001 .002 .000 .874
Colors are generally very Mean 0.60 .680 .650 .590 -.030
fashionable SD 1.254 1.329 1.527 1.296 1.352
p value .633 .000 .000 .000 .825
Fabric quality is excellent Mean .700 .760 .990 290 .230
SD 1.467 1.327 1.521 1.597 1.462
 Anamul & Farhan /

p value .000 .000 .000 .072 .119

Overall workmanship is Mean .420 .550 .320 -.100 -.230
excellent SD 1.208 1.480 1.563 1.227 1.302
p value .001 .000 .043 .417 .080
Prices are relatively Mean .770 .570 .490 -.280 -.080
inexpensive SD 1,536 1.546 1.494 1.319 1.269
p value .000 .000 .001 .036 .530
Clothing is usually Mean .101 .472 .494 .393 .022
excellent fit SD 1.349 1.506 1.596 1.345 1.196
p value .481 .003 .004 .007 .860
Clothing retains its color Mean .280 .510 .580 .300 .070
SD 1,240 1.389 1.304 1.124 1.057
p value .026 .000 .000 .009 .509
Clothing is very durable Mean .390 .470 .720 .330 .250
SD 1.340 1.440 1.609 1.525 1.140
p value .004 .002 .000 .033 .031
Clothing is generally very Mean .494 .382 .640 .146 .258
high quality SD 1.324 1.369 1.547 1.585 1.220
p value .001 .010 .000 .387 .049
Generally manufactures Mean .050 .270 .510 .460 .240
high quality brand SD 1.388 1.476 1.396 1.424 1.215
p value .719 .070 .000 .002 .051
Excellent value for money Mean .170 .390 .280 .110 -.110
SD 1.231 1.310 1.505 1.063 1.053
p value .171 .004 .066 .303 .299

Respondents were asked to rate on eleven apparel attributes in terms of importance.

The three most important attributes are: (1) “clothing is usually an excellent fit”; (2)
style is very fashionable, (3) overall workmanship is excellent”. In this regard
Bangladeshi product is highly competitive (Table 6) rating equal to India on fashionable
product and goodness of fit and higher on overall workmanship. Further, it should be
noted that attribute rating for Bangladesh apparel is significantly different from that of
China except value for money.

5.0 Conclusion

The most significant outcome of this study for the Bangladeshi manufacturer is
consumer perception of price which is rated high in comparison to India, china and
Thailand. This is may be due to increasing VAT on imported fabrics and Govt.
restrictions to sell limited amount of fabrics inside the country by the garment factories.
To keep pace with the imported apparel local marketers must create a common
platform to be vocal. Pressure on Govt. must be created by them to strengthen the
textile industry to fulfill local demand for fabrics. Nevertheless, for most attribute
decisions, Indian apparel was rated on par with Bangladeshi product in terms of three
most important attributes (fit, fashionable style and overall workmanship). Indian
apparel was perceived to be equal on fit and fashionable style but slightly inferior on
overall workmanship. Further, the preference for Bangladeshi apparel is by no means
uniform across all demographic group despite the uniformity observed among the
samples in terms of age. The result shows a mix and to some extent cynical perception.
Young consumers are moderately inclined to the “made in Bangladesh” as well as open
minded to overseas brands. On the other hand, older respondents are comparatively
less inclined to this phenomenon and more inconclusive than to younger people. Finally
consumers with higher education level posses a softer corner for imported products.
 Anamul & Farhan /

References

Ahmed, S. A., & d’Astous, A. (2004). Perceptions of countries as producers of consumer

goods: A T-shirt study in China. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
8(2), 187–200.
Ahmed S Z.U., Johnson, J. P., Yng, X., Fatt, C. K., Teng, H. S., & Boon, L. C. (2004).
Does country of origin matter for low-involvement products? International
Marketing Review, 21(1), 102–120.
Al-Hammed, A.A. (1988). A study of the Saudi Arabian Market for selected imported
manufactured goods – an economic, cultural an attitudinal analysis with particular
references to UK suppliers. PhD Thesis, University of Bradford, UK.
Askegaard, S., & Ger, G. (1998). Product-country images: Toward a contextualized
approach. European Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 50-58.
Badri, M. A., Davis, D. L., & Davis, D. F. (1995). Decision support for global marketing
strategies: The effect of country of origin on product evaluation. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 4(5), 49–64.
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2001). Competitiveness review: An international business journal
incorporating. Journal of Global Competitiveness., 11(1), 53–64.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., & Ramachander, S. (2000).
Effects of brand local/non-local origin on consumer attitudes in developing
countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2): 83-95.
Baumgartner, G. and Jolibert, A. (1977). The perception of foreign products in France.
H.K. Hunt (Ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, 5, 603–605.
Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal
of International Business Studies, 13 (1): 89-99.
Bloemer J, Brijs K, Kasper H.(2009). The CoO-ELM model: a theoretical framework for
the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects. European Journal of
Marketing, 43(1–2), 62–89.
Botschen, G., & Hemettsberger, A. (1998). Diagnosing means-end structures to
determine the degree of potential marketing program standardization. Journal of
Business Research, 42, 151-159.
Brodowsky, G. H., Tan, J., & Meilich, O. (2006). Managing country-of-origin choices:
Competitive advantages and opportunities. International Business Review, 13(6),
729–748.
Cohen, J. B., & Areni, C. S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. In: T. S. Robertson, &
H. H. Kassarjian, Handbook of consumer behavior, 188-240.
Darling, J.R. and Kraft, F.B. (1977). A competitive profile of products and associated
marketing practices. European Journal of Marketing, 11(7), 11–23
Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: Consumers evaluations use of
brand name price physical appearance and retailer reputation as signals of product
quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 81-95.
Demetris V., Alkis T. & Claudui V. (2006). The country-of-origin effect on the purchase
intention of apparel: opportunities and threats for small firms. Int. J.
Entrepreneurship and small business, 3.
Dichter, E. (1962). The world customer. Harvard Business Review, 40 (4): 113-122.
Dornoff, R., Tankersley, C. and White, G. (1974) ‘Consumers’ perceptions of imports’,
Akron Business and Economic Review, Summer, Vol. 5, pp.26–29.
Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image variables in multi-attribute
product evaluations: Country-of-origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11,
694-699.
Eriksson, K., & Hadjikhani, A. (2000). Perceptual product connection in an international
context. International Business Review, 9, 301–320.
 Anamul & Farhan /

Ettenson, R., Wagner, J. and Gaeth, G. (1988). Evaluating the effect of country of origin
and the “Made in the USA” campaign: a conjoint approach. Journal of Retailing,
MCB University Press, Vol. 64(1), 85–100.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373
Gaedeke, R. (1973) ‘Consumer attitudes toward products made in developing
countries’, Journal of Retailing, Summer, MCB University Press, Vol. 49, pp.13–24.
Ger, G. (1991). Country image: Perceptions, attitudes, associations, and their
relationships to context. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Marketing and Development, 390-398).
Godey B., Pederzoli D., Aiello G., Donvito R., Chan P, Oh H., Singh R., Skorobogatykh
I.I., Tsuchiya J., Weitz B. (2011). Brand and country-of-origin effect on consumers'
decision to purchase luxury products. Journal of Business Research 65, 1461-1470.
Granzin, K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1998). Americans' choice of domestic over foreign
products: A matter of helping behavior? Journal of Business, 43, 39-54.
Han, C. M. (1989). Country image: Halo or summery construct? Journal of Marketing
Research, 26(May), 222–229.
He, C. (2003). Location of foreign manufacturers in China: Agglomeration economies
and country of origin effects. Papers in Regional Science, 82(3), 351–373.
Heslop, L.A. and Wall, M. (1985). Differences between men and women in the country
of origin product images. Administrative Science Associations of Canada
Proceedings, Montreal, Canada, 148–158.
Hong, S.-T., & Wyer, Jr., R. S. (1989). Effects of country of origin and product-attribute
information on product evaluation: An information processing perspective. Journal
of Consumer Research, 16, 175-187.
Hoffman, M. L. (1986). Affect, cognition and motivation. In: R. M. Sorrentino, & C. T.
Higgins, Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, 1.
Hong, S. -T., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1990). Determinants of product evaluation: Effects of the
time interval between knowledge of a product's country of origin and information
about its specific attributes. Journal of Consumer Research (17): 277-288.
Hirschman, E. C. (1985). Primitive aspects of consumption in modern American society.
Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 142-154.
Hugstad, P. and Durr, M. (1986) . A study of country of manufacturer impact on
consumer perceptions. Development in Marketing Science, Academy of Marketing
Science, 9, 155–199.
Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In: Wyer Jr., R.
S., & T. K. Srull, Handbook of social cognition (1).
Jaffe, E. D., & Carlos, R. M. (1995). Mexican consumer attitudes towards domestic and
foreign made products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 7(3), 7-27.
Johny K. , Susan P. and Ikujiro N. (1985). Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on
Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal of Marketing
Research (22): 388-396
Kaynak, E. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1983). Consumer attitudes towards products of foreign
origin: do they vary across product classes. International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 2, (5):147–157.
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign
product purchase: An empirical test in the People of Republic of China. Journal of
Marketing, 62 (1), 89-100.
Liefeld, J. P. (1993). Experiments on country-of-origin effects: Review and meta analysis
of effect size. In N. Papadopoulos & L. A. Heslop (Eds.), Product-Country Images:
117-146.
Li, W.-K., & Wyer, Jr., R. S. (1994). The role of country of origin in product evaluations:
Informational and standard-of-comparison effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
3, 187-212
 Anamul & Farhan /

Li, W.-K., Monroe, K. B. (1992). The role of country-of-origin information on buyer’s

product evaluation: An in-depth interview approach. Proceedings of the 1992 AMA
Summer Educators' Conference: 274-280).
L.S. Amin. (2008). Country-of-origin, animosity and consumer response: Marketing
implications of anti-Americanism and Francophobia. International business review
17, 402-422.
Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of origin as a stereotype: Effects of consumer
expertise and attribute strength on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Research (21): 354-365.
Mithun R. & Maeen K. (2012). Prominent presence of top retailers and fashion brands
in Bangladesh. Bangladesh textile today, 7.
Nagashima A (1970). A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes towards foreign
products. Journal of Marketing (34): 68-74.
Nargis P. and Humayun K. (2006). Consumer evaluations of beautification products:
effects of extrinsic cues. Asian academy of management journal, 11(2): 89-104.
Namita R., Subodh K. & Akanksha K. (2012). Consumer’s attitude towards Branded
apparel: Gender perspective. International journal of marketing studies, 4(2).
Nebenzahl I.D., Jaffe E.D. 2003. Personifying Country of Origin Research. Management
International Review, 43(4), 383-406.
Niffenegger, P., White, J. and Marmet, G. (1980). How British retail managers view
French and American products. European Journal of Marketing, 14(8), 493–508.
Okechuku, C., & Onyemah, V. (1999). Nigerian consumer attitude toward foreign and
domestic products. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 611-622.
Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization of the quality perception process: A cognitive model
and an empirical test. Doctoral dissertation. Durham, NC: Purdue University.
Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they
work? Journal of Marketing, 61, 16-29.
Papadopoulos, N., Louise, A. H., & Jozsef, B. (1990). National stereotypes and product
evaluations in a socialist country. International Marketing Review, 7(1), 32-47.
Papadopoulos, N. (1993). What product and country images: Are and are not? N.
Papadopoulos & L. A. Heslop (Eds.), Product-Country Images: 3-38.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country image and consumer-based
brand equity: Relationships and implications for international marketing. Journal of
International Business Studies, 38(5), 726–745.
Paul P. and Siu T. (1991). Consumer perception of country of origin in the Australian
Apparel Industry. Marketing Bulletin (2): 31-40.
Schooler, R. D. (1965). Product bias in the Central American common market. Journal
of Marketing Research (2): 394-397.
Schooler, R. D., & Wildt, A. R. (1968). Elasticity of product bias. Journal of Marketing
Research, 5, 78-81.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique,
proposal and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349-364.
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and
validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280-289.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1990). Conceptual model of the quality perception process.
Journal of Business Research, 21, 309-333.
Tse, D. K., & Gorn, G. J. (1993). An experiment on the salience of country-of-origin in
the era of global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 1(1), 57–76.
Usunier J-C. (2006). Relevance in business research: the case of country-of-origin
research in marketing. European Management Review, 3, 60–73.
Veale R. & Quester P. (2009). Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting
the influence of
price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality. International
business review 18, 134- 144.
Verlegh, P. W. J., & Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of
country-of-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 521-546
 Anamul & Farhan /

Wang C.L., Li D., Barnes R., Ahn J. (2011). Country image, product image and consumer
purchase intention: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Business
Review 21, 1041-1051.