Rejoinder: a reply to comments on “should consumers request cost transparency?”

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide response around three commentaries: Lowe’s view on key mechanisms through which greater transparency could influence consumer product evaluations (Lowe, 2015); Kuah and Weerakkody’s critical assessment on whether cost transparency is good for consumers (Kuah and Weerakkody, 2015); and Singh’s perspective on what is behind the price tag and why companies should embrace cost transparency (Singh, 2015). Design/methodology/approach – This is a response to the aforementioned commentaries, from the authors of “Should Consumers Request Cost Transparency?”. Findings – The authors call for empirical studies to shed light on issues, including, but not limited to, drivers and challenges/barriers of making unit cost available; appropriateness of unit cost information for different category of products; information overload caused by cost transparency; effect of availability of unit cost on the consumer decision-making; empowerment of consumers through unit cost information; impact of cost transparency on realisation of fairness, differentiation, competitive advantage and sustainability for businesses; and impact of cost transparency on market dynamics and consumer behaviour. Originality/value – Given its potential impact on both theory and practice, the arguments presented for and against provisioning of unit cost information to consumers is an issue worthy of further debate and empirical investigation.