Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25
Management Decision Emerald Article: Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity,
Management Decision Emerald Article: Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity,

Management Decision

Emerald Article: Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance Sebastian Arendt, Malte Brettel

Article information:

To cite this document: Sebastian Arendt, Malte Brettel, (2010),"Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance", Management Decision, Vol. 48 Iss: 10 pp. 1469 - 1492

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741011090289

Downloaded on: 16-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 97 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 17 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Diogo Hildebrand, Sankar Sen, C.B. Bhattacharya, (2011),"Corporate social responsibility: a corporate marketing perspective", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Iss: 9 pp. 1353 - 1364

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111151790

Jeremy Galbreath, (2009),"Building corporate social responsibility into strategy", European Business Review, Vol. 21 Iss: 2 pp. 109 - 127

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340910940123

Todd Green, John Peloza, (2011),"How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers?", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 Iss: 1 pp. 48 - 56

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101949

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITAT RAMON LLULL

For Authors:

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance

Sebastian Arendt and Malte Brettel

Center for Entrepreneurship, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

Corporate social responsibility

1469

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to examine the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on corporate identity, image and firm performance in a multi-industry setting, in order to support evidence that the effects of CSR differ in different industry settings. Design/methodology/approach – The study, based on pre-existing CSR scales, was tested using data collected from a sample of 389 European companies. Hypotheses are based on the examination of the moderating effects of CSR using a group comparison method. Findings – Contingency models show that CSR triggers the corporate-image-building process and that its relationship to company success varies significantly based on company size, industry and marketing budget. Research limitations/implications – This research was conducted within a specific region in the EU and as such these findings may or may not be generalized to other regions like Asia or the USA. In addition, the secondary data of the study did not include stakeholders other than customers and suppliers, suggesting that further analysis of the model should be made using data from additional stakeholders. Practical implications – Previous research has shown mixed results from companies’ efforts in the field of CSR. This paper triggers practitioners’ discussion about the ability to pursue CSR, depending on their size, industry, and marketing budget, and helps them to set the right focus for their CSR efforts. Originality/value – The study enriches the body of empirical research on CSR and provides support for research investigating under which conditions CSR is most effective. It is the first to analyze samples from different industries in this context.

Keywords Social responsibility, Philanthropy, Corporate identity, Corporate image

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction With estimated spending on charitable giving reaching $310 billion in the US alone (Giving USA Foundation, 2008), corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a mainstream topic, rising to a corporate priority in management and marketing (Franklin, 2008). The question of how CSR affects customers’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions and how it affects the company’s reputation, corporate identity, image, and organizational success has become one of the key topics at the intersection of sustainability and marketing research (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Sen et al. , 2006; Smith,

2003).

While the creation of a strong reputation and image has been recognized as an important factor in the success or failure of virtually all major organizations for some time (Worcester, 2009; see special issue of Management Decision 2009 for an overview),

issue of Management Decision 2009 for an overview), Management Decision Vol. 48 No. 10, 2010 pp.

Management Decision Vol. 48 No. 10, 2010 pp. 1469-1492 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0025-1747

DOI 10.1108/00251741011090289

MD

48,10

1470

CSR has only recently been acknowledged as one of the most important factors in determining corporate reputation (Worcester, 2009). While a strong corporate reputation can provide a competitive advantage (Balmer, 2009), stakeholders are becoming skeptical about firms’ reasons for engaging in CSR (Vlachos et al., 2009), making it more difficult for researchers and practitioners to understand the specific consequences and effects of engaging in CSR activities (Maignan and Ralston, 2002). From a stakeholder perspective, CSR can be seen as a support to worthy causes, but it can also be seen as a marketing practice with the purpose of increasing visibility rather than of create social impact (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Stakeholders wonder whether the CSR is really altruistic or just another marketing ploy to increase profits, albeit indirectly. To address these inconclusive perspectives on CSR, we investigate the role of CSR in the corporate-identity-building process of a company, arguing that corporate identity management as an organizational marketing process is more effective in terms of stakeholders’ perception of corporate image attractiveness and identification when CIM is augmented by strong CSR. This study follows previous research on stakeholder identification (Sen et al. , 2006; Bhattacharya et al., 2009) and CSR (Thompson et al., 2010; Lichtenstein et al. , 2004) and advances knowledge based on a fit-analysis of the specific conditions (i.e. CSR and different industry settings, company sizes, marketing budgets) under which CSR is particularly instrumental to corporate image attractiveness, stakeholder-company identification, and firm performance. While multiple studies draw the link between favorable corporate identity and superior business performance (Margulies, 1977; Brown, 1995; Bharadwaj and Menon, 1993), the unequivocally positive effects of CSR in academic research are at odds with the evidence in the real-world marketplace (Sen et al., 2006; for an overview see Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998). Thus, despite the growing body of literature, there is a paucity of empirical research that examines the effect of CSR on companies’ corporate image and stakeholder identification, as well as company success (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Drumwright, 1996). In addition, there remains a significant gap in the testing and application of the relationship between corporate image, company performance and CSR in multi-industry contexts, such as for companies of different sizes, from different industries, and with different marketing budgets (Dutton et al., 1994; Vlachos et al. , 2009). Researchers and practitioners tend to promote the one best CSR approach for a standardized organization, regardless of size, special industry characteristics and marketing budget – the last of which is equally important as we go through an expanded period of recession and slow economic growth. Our study expands existing research in three ways: first, we address the gap in previous research regarding the effects of CSR on the relationships between corporate identity, image, identification, and company success (Chahal and Sharma, 2006; Jahdi and Acikdilli, 2009; Smith, 2003). Second, we answer the call for empirical research by Sen et al. (2006) and Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), for which a clear understanding of CSR in the corporate identity-management process and its impact on company performance is a key prerequisite. Since “CSR clearly has the potential to benefit the firm in myriad ways,” Sen et al. (2006) called for “future research [to] investigate the contingent conditions under which these internal outcomes and behavioral intentions may be differentially affected by CSR initiatives” (Sen et al. , 2006, p. 164). Third, by

including variables such as industry, company size, and marketing spending, this study is the first to assess CSR and corporate marketing issues in a multi-industry setting, which supports executives’ need for tailor-made, cost-effective CSR (Warhurst,

2008).

2. Conceptual background

2.1 CSR and marketing

CSR is regarded as a means for “improving the quality of life or well-being of society” (i.e. the philanthropic dimension of CSR, see Carroll, 1991, p. 42) and “obeying society’s codification of right and wrong” (i.e. the legal dimension of CSR, see Carroll, 1991, p. 42). Based on their review of the recent status of the theory of CSR applied to the marketing

context, Vaaland et al. (2008) define CSR as “management of stakeholder concern for responsible and irresponsible acts related to environmental, ethical and social phenomena in a way that creates corporate benefit” (Vaaland et al., 2008, p. 931). Our research follows the more specific conceptualization of CSR by Lichtenstein et al. (2004), who define CSR as a firm’s commitment to contributing parts of its profits to nonprofit organizations and charitable causes. In marketing research, CSR is seen as a standardized concept that is applied and communicated rigorously across industries and company sizes (Maignan and Ferrell, 2004). However, this broad conceptualization of CSR often breeds public cynicism and suspicion (Porter and Kramer, 2007) with consumers suspecting firms of “greenwashing” (Reuters, 2008) and questioning firms’ underlying motives (Ellen et al., 2006). Although some research indicates that communicating about CSR activities does not necessarily reflect positively on a company (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), others support the approach of cause-related marketing as a means to improve corporate performance and simultaneously help worthy causes based on compassionate grounds (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). However, adopting such policies requires communication with the stakeholders, not only to convince them that the company is serious about its CSR strategies, but also to ensure that those strategies contribute to the corporate image and brand equity (Jahdi and Acikdilli, 2009). Since empirical research has found links between CSR and corporate identity, CSR has been included in excellence models impacting company reputation and corporate image (Cornelius et al. , 2007). More companies than ever are attempting to leverage CSR associations, with CSR reports “filling web pages and brochures” (Snider et al. , 2003), although, not surprisingly, with mixed success in improving firms’ reputations and financial success in the marketplace (Sen et al., 2006). Despite fast-growing research in the field of CSR and its measurable output on company performance, inconsistencies remain related to how and under which conditions CSR leads to improved performance and competitive advantages (Vlachos et al. , 2009; Zairi and Peters, 2002). Table I depicts an overview of current empirical research in the field of CSR, CIM, and firm performance.

Corporate social responsibility

1471

2.2 Corporate identity management

A sizable body of research, including research and publications from the field of visual/graphic design, organizational studies, and marketing addresses the topic of corporate identity, image, and branding of business organizations (for comprehensive literature overviews see Brown et al. , 2006). Balmer (2008) discusses five principal

CSR information, CSR support, CSR domain, CSR beliefs Size, risk, industry

( continued )

Consumer trust, service quality

Customer satisfaction,

Advertising, R&D

corporate ability

Moderating

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

social/financial

corporate culture, market conditions Market value

Communication and visual identity, behavior,

strategy,

Firm-idiosyncratic risk

advantage

Customer donations, corporate benefits, C-C identification Purchase intention, company evaluation

Proactive corporate

Repeat patronage/

Variables

recommendation

environmental

performance

competitive

Dependent

intentions

Corporate

N/A

actions perceptions of

Organizational and capabilities resources

Ethics teaching, ethical behavior

New product quality information

CSR perceptions

Independent

Consumer

CSR

CSR

CSR

CSR

N/A

Field data (MBA students)

Website content

Secondary data

Secondary data

Secondary data

Secondary data

Methodology

(consumers)

(consumers)

Descriptive

Field data

Field data

statistics

analysis

responsibility,

corporate image Proactive environmental

the mediating

reactions to

reactions to

CSR and

CSR and performance

capabilities CSR, CI in business

and org.

consumer actions

performance and

customer

Corporate social

activities

activities

company risk

Relationship

satisfaction

Consumer

Consumer

Corporate

strategies

CSR of and

Subject

schools

CSR

CSR

role

Vlachos et al. (2009)

and

(2007)

Lichtenstein et al.

Worcester (2009)

(2000) and

Aragon-Correa

Cornelius et al.

Bhattacharya

Bhattacharya

Bhattacharya

Rubio-Lopez

McWilliams

Luo and

Luo and

Authors

Sen and

Siegel

(2001)

(2004)

(2006)

(2007)

(2009)

MD

48,10

1472

Table I. Literature overview:

empirical research CSR, CIM, and firm performance

moral intensity,

Employee commitment, customer loyalty

personal moral

philosophies

Moderating

Perceived

CSR

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

shareholding, company

on equity

Economic performance

Business performance

Behavioral intentions

reputation

Abnormal company

Corporate/product

Variables

Corporate social

index, return

performance

Institutional

Dependent

evaluation

Company

valuation

returns

Size of the firm, level of profitability, emission amount CSR

Organizational/personal

Levels actions of institutional Corporate citizenship

Socially activist

announcements

Independent

Public CSR

investment

factors

CSR

Secondary data

Field data, data secondary Secondary data

Secondary data

professionals)

Experimental

Methodology

(consumers)

executives)

(marketing

(marketing

Field data

Field data

Field data

single social

return on reputation

Effect of CSR announcements on firm’s

managers Legislative/shareholder pressure on performance

equity

actions and

relevance of

reactions to

on corporate

to marketing

dimensions

Role of corporate

index, company

activities

performance

Relationship

citizenship

Marketing

Consumer

Perceived

Subject

returns

factors

social

CSR,

CSR

CSR

Singhapakdi et al.

Brown and Dacin

Teoh et al. (1999)

Posnikoff (1997)

and

Stanwick (1998)

Maignan et al.

Karake (1998)

and

(1999)

Handelman

Stanwick

Authors

Arnold

(1997)

(1999)

(1999)

Corporate social responsibility

1473

Table I.

MD

48,10

1474

schools of thought relating to identity and identification which are characterized as corporate identity, communicated corporate identification, stakeholder corporate identification, stakeholder cultural identification, and envisioned identities and identifications. Corporate identity deals with the impressions, image, and personality that an organization presents to its stakeholders (Schmitt and Pan, 1994), in order to differentiate itself and create a unique position in the environment in which it operates (Simoes and Dibb, 2008). The objective of corporate identity management (CIM) is to establish a favorable reputation with an organization’s stakeholders, which the stakeholders then translate into a propensity to buy the organization’s product or services, to work for the organization or to invest in it (Balmer, 1995; van Riel, 1995). While the identity of a company may vary across stakeholder groups, Simoes et al. (2005) suggest that there is a common internal platform for identity management that reflects consistent messages about the organization so that a reputable corporate image is transmitted across audiences. Since the notion of corporate identity is linked to a range of related concepts that we refer to as external determinants of corporate image such as reputation and branding, for our purpose CIM comprises the internal efforts by which a company works to identify itself (Kotler, 1997).

2.3 External corporate image and stakeholder identification While CIM focuses on the aspects of how a firm manages its identity, managers and academics are also concerned with how external stakeholders view the corporation, variously defined in the theoretical literature as corporate associations (Ellen et al., 2006), corporate identification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003), corporate brand (Ind, 2000), corporate reputation (Weiss et al., 1999), and corporate image (Zinkhan et al., 2001). Based on an organization’s unique characteristics (Esch et al., 2004), the corporate image or brand is the net result of all experiences, impressions, beliefs, feelings, and knowledge that people have acquired related to a company (Worcester, 2009). We define corporate image attractiveness as the attractiveness of the corporate image as perceived by its various audiences (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) and stakeholder-company identification as the degree to which stakeholders feel a sense of connection to a company (Einwiller,

2006).

We chose a CIM model based on Simoes et al. (2005) and Balmer (2008) as part of our theoretical framework. An internally controlled reputation-building process is a prerequisite for acquiring a favorable corporate image (Fombrun, 1996; Simoes and Dibb, 2008). Therefore, drawing on the CIM model, we argue that an internally controlled and managed corporate identity directly affects corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-identification, and thus stakeholders’ perceptions of the corporation.

3. Derivation of hypotheses Despite the apparent potential of CSR to drive company-favoring outcomes, like improved corporate image attractiveness, stakeholder-company identification, or performance, the impact of CSR is anything but guaranteed. According to Bhattacharya et al. (2009):

It is becoming increasingly clear that in order to explain and predict the outcomes of CSR activity with any degree of certainty, we need a more precise understanding of the underlying processes that drive those returns (Bhattacharya et al., 2009, p. 258).

Extant theory premises indicate that CSR may serve as a moderator of the link between performance driver and performance outcome (Vlachos et al. , 2009; e.g. Handelman and Arnold, 1999) and that corporate image affects organizational performance (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990) in terms of increased customer loyalty and consumption (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Table II depicts an overview of the current stage of empirical research in this field. There is also evidence to support the notion that a corporate reputation that is perceived as attractive by its stakeholders gives an organization a competitive advantage (for an overview see van Riel and Balmer, 1997). Therefore, our overall premise is that, in a multi-industry sample[1], CSR has a positive impact on corporate identity initiatives and their effect on the corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identification, supporting the current state of marketing research (Neville et al., 2005). Figure 1 summarizes our complete research model. Based on the mixed results of performance-driver and performance- outcome-relationship in the field of CSR stated above, we hypothesize that in a multi-industry sample, CSR initiatives have a positive moderating effect on the relationships of CIM to corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identification, but no impact on the company success measures of performance or competitive advantage:

H1a . CSR initiatives have a positive moderating effect on the relationships of CIM to corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identification.

While there is vast agreement on the positive effects of CSR on image and identification, positive effects of CSR on financial performance in academic research are somewhat at odds with the evidence in the real-world marketplace (Sen et al., 2006; for an overview see Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998). We therefore follow:

Corporate social responsibility

1475

H1b . CSR initiatives have no impact on company success measures.

We refine H1 by arguing that the moderating results of CSR must be assessed in terms of different industry settings, company sizes, and marketing budgets in order to explore how CSR’s effects on image, identification, and performance differs based on these categories. Studies of corporate identity signify the important role that the nature of the industry plays in shaping an organization’s identity (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002), because the ability to promote a corporate identity differs across industries (Alessandri and Alessandri, 2004). This is also true for CSR activities, where research shows that the service sector tends to show more positive effects from CSR activities (Calabrese and Lancioni, 2008), than product-based industries do (Jackson and Parsa, 2009). Thus, we hypothesize that the strengthening effects of CSR on CIM and the corporate image and their effect on company success differ based on the organization is product- or service-based:

CSR initiatives have a stronger positive impact on CIM and company success in service rather than product-based industries.

Brand management findings also reveal significant differences between small and large organizations along nine out of ten brand management and identity dimensions (Berthon et al. , 2008). Furthermore, in the field of business ethics, researchers acknowledge that the CSR programs of other company types are not properly

H2 .

MD

48,10

Indicator loadings and construct reliability for reflective constructs

Loading

 
 

Construct: MVD – Mission and value dissemination (based on Simoes et al., 2005) There is total agreement on our mission across all levels and business areas All employees are committed to achieving the company’s goals There is a clear concept of who we are and where we are going Company’s values and mission are regularly communicated to employees

0.73

0.65

0.79

1476

0.80

Employees view themselves as partners in charting the direction of the company We do have a well-defined mission Managers periodically discuss corporate mission and values All employees are aware of the relevant values Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

0.61

 

0.80

0.69

0.81

0.91

0.60

Construct: CII – Consistent image implementation (based on Simoes et al., 2005) Our company name is part of our image Our corporate symbols (logo, slogan, colors/visual style, signage) are constituents of our image Much of our marketing is geared to projecting a specific image Our employees and staff understand symbols (or visual branding) of our company Employees are dressed in a manner to project the company image Merchandising and brochures are an important part of our company marketing Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

0.57

0.62

0.68

0.74

0.66

0.60

0.81

0.53

Construct: VII – Visual identity implementation (based on Simoes et al., 2005) Our company name is part of our image Our corporate symbols are constituents of our image Much of our marketing is geared to projecting a specific image Our employees and staff understand symbols (or visual branding) of our company Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

0.62

0.76

0.90

0.69

0.81

0.65

Construct: corporate image attractiveness (based on Bhattacharya et al., 2003)

I

like what company x stands for, Company x has an attractive identity

0.74

recognize myself in company x, My sense of who I am matches my sense of company x Company x has a distinctive identity, Company x stands out from its competitors Company x is a first-class, high-quality company

I

0.73

0.60

0.83

I

feel like I know very well what this company stands for

0.78

It’s difficult to get a clear sense of what this company stands for from its actions Cronbach’s Alpha

0.52

0.87

AVE

0.59

Construct: stakeholder company identification (based on Bhattacharya et al., 2003)

I

think about the company x often

0.69

My interactions with company x make me an important player in the organization

0.50

I am loyal to the products company x makes

0.64

I often talk favorably about company x and its products to my friends and colleagues

0.80

I try to get my friends and family to buy company x’s products

0.82

I forgive company x when it makes mistakes

0.82

feel I have a right to tell company x what it should do Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

I

0.71

0.84

Table II.

0.51

Measurement scales

( continued )

Indicator loadings and construct reliability for reflective constructs

Loading

Construct: Performance (based on Brettel 2005) In the last three years, in comparison with our most important competitors, we are satisfied with the achieved customer satisfaction

0.76

the value enhancement for our customers

0.70

with the level of customer loyalty

0.71

with the number of new customers

0.70

with the growth of our company

0.64

with the success of our products and services

0.71

with the forecast of operating results in the next couple of years

0.73

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.86

AVE

0.58

Construct: competitive advantage (based on Brettel, 2005) We have strategic advantages in comparison with our competitors

0.30

We have a high market share

0.50

Our EBIT is higher than the industry average

0.93

Our ROI is higher than the industry average

0.95

Our average operating margin is higher than the industry average

0.96

We are in total more successful than the competition

0.73

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.89

AVE

0.64

Construct: corporate social responsibility (based on Lichtenstein 2004) Company x is committed to using a portion of its profits to help nonprofits

0.71

Company x gives back to the communities in which it does business

0.76

Company x integrates charitable contributions into its business activities

0.77

Company x is involved in corporate giving

0.73

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.84

AVE

0.66

Corporate social responsibility

1477

Table II.

benchmarked against those of large multinational firms (Spence and Rutherfoord, 2003). Small firms are likely to be owner managed, which provides greater scope for individual beliefs and moral decision-making than larger firms are likely to demonstrate. For most small and medium enterprises (SMEs), CSR is a norm to act upon rather than a corporate strategy based on tools, programs, and initiatives (Spence and Rutherfoord, 2003). Studies that are focused on CSR and sustainability issues, cannot generalize their findings to both large and small firms, since they tend to underestimate the differences in the relationships smaller companies have with stakeholders from those of larger organizations (Fassin, 2008; Graafland et al. , 2003; Jenkins, 2009). Therefore, we hypothesize, that the strengthening effects of CSR on CIM and the corporate image and their effect on company success differ based on whether the organization size is large or small:

CSR initiatives have a stronger positive impact on CIM and company success in smaller rather than in larger firms.

In addition to the effects of organizational size and industry type, the size of the corporate marketing budget is central to questions related to the strengthening effects

H3 .

MD

48,10

1478

Figure 1. Overview of the research model

MD 48,10 1478 Figure 1. Overview of the research model of CSR on CIM and its

of CSR on CIM and its effect on corporate image attractiveness, stakeholder-company identification, and performance. The literature shows significant moderating effects of financial resources on the effectiveness of corporate communications effectiveness and corporate identity (Dolphin, 2003). The financial resources available for marketing can substantially influence a firm’s corporate identity activities and may act as a moderator between the corporate identity and corporate brand relationships (Alessandri and Alessandri, 2004). Firms with excess resources are more likely to invest them in marketing (Shoham and Feigenbaum, 1999) and marketing is often the first line that a financially strapped firm cuts. Therefore, CSR efforts may be considered a luxury such that only financially robust companies see themselves as able to afford them. This reasoning suggests that in a firm with limited financial resources, CSR as an investment may act as a moderator in strengthening the effects of CIM initiatives and its outcomes. Therefore, we hypothesize that CSR also strengthens the impact of CIM on the corporate image and its effect on company success, when the corporate marketing budget is rather small than large:

CSR initiatives have a stronger positive impact on CIM and company success for smaller rather than larger corporate marketing budgets.

H4 .

4. Methodology 4.1 Sampling frame and data collection procedure The study’s hypotheses were tested using data collected from a survey of 4,000 companies that are members of the German and Austrian Chamber for Industry and Commerce. We collected information from an online and offline questionnaire that was sent to the CEOs of the corresponding companies because of their overview of the corporate identity and CSR decisions as well as the success measures. Between August and October 2009, we received 381 qualified answers. The sample comprises a good ratio between business-to-business and business-to-consumer firms with a mixed

industry background in product- and service-based industries (see Table III for a detailed composition of our sample). The development of the survey instrument started with in-depth face-to-face interviews with marketing experts in large and medium sized enterprises. This phase involved semi-structured discussions that were largely exploratory in nature and designed to supplement the existing literature in constructing the draft questionnaire. We then asked a group of academics to review the draft questionnaire to identify questions for which there was a source of possible bias. Through this feedback, we eliminated or modified some of the initial survey items, and added others to the revised instrument. Figure 2 summarizes the empirical research process used.

Corporate social responsibility

1479

4.2 Tests for potential biases

A comparison of differences in the mean values of the responding and non-responding

companies based on sales revenues, company age, number of employees, and performance did not reveal any significant non-response bias. The sample consisted of respondents who were likely to be knowledgeable about the issues under study, since 69 percent of respondents were managing directors, 21 percent were senior executives, and 10 percent marketing managers or other. For the dependent variables of corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identification, multiple informants

have been used (Kumar et al. , 1993). We collected customer and supplier surveys at 80

of the 381 companies to check the validity of external corporate image attractiveness

 

%

Firm size (number of employees)

,5

11

5-25

30

25-50

21

50-100

16

100-300

13

300-500

4

.500

5

Industry

Production

45

Service

55

Corporate marketing spend (% of sales)

,1

7

1-2

28

3-5

14

5-10

24

10-15

15

15-30

9

.30

3

Position of respondents Managing director Senior management Other

69

21

Table III. Composition of sample

10

MD

48,10

1480

Figure 2.

Empirical research

process

MD 48,10 1480 Figure 2. Empirical research process and stakeholder-company identification; T-tests on these constructs

and stakeholder-company identification; T-tests on these constructs showed that there is no significant difference at the 0.05 level between the responses from corporate CEOs and those from customers and suppliers. For the inner aspects of corporate identity, we relied on data from a single survey respondent from each company, so we took special steps in the design of our questionnaire to minimize the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, we used multiple-item scales to measure our constructs and scattered questions pertaining to the independent and dependent variables throughout the questionnaire. Second, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test and found that no single factor or a general factor accounted for the majority of the variance in the measures (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Third, we analyzed the effects of a single unmeasured latent method factor added to our measurement model by loading all items originating from the same informant onto both the method variable and its respective latent variable (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We then compared the

standardized parameter estimates with and without the method variable and found that the significance of the substantive relationship was not affected. According to our results, common method bias is not a concern.

4.3 Measures

We followed Churchill (1979) in developing our measurement instrument based on established reflective constructs whenever possible and used seven-point Likert scales. CSR, as a moderating construct, following Lichtenstein et al. (2004). The second-order construct of CIM follows the guidelines of organizational and marketing research, including ideas from graphic design (visual identity implementation), organizational studies (mission and value dissemination), and marketing perspectives (consistent image implementation) (Simoes et al., 2005). To measure the companies’ image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identity, we drew on the items of Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), condensing them into two separate reflective constructs. Therefore, corporate image attractiveness depends on how similar the firm is to stakeholders’ own identity (identity similarity), its differentiation from its competitors (identity distinctiveness), its prestige (item identity prestige), its attractiveness as an identity per se (item identity attractiveness), the perception related to how well the company’s identity is known, and the firm’s overall fit (item identity knowledge and identity coherence). Similarly, stakeholders are more likely to perceive a company’s image as attractive when they perceive it to be trustworthy (item identity trustworthiness). A comprehensive analysis of consumer-company identification, focusing on its constituents and consequences, served as a template for the reflective measurement of stakeholder-company identification that highlighted the items of embeddedness, salience, product loyalty, company promotion, customer recruitment, resilience to negative information, and a strong claim on the company. Company success is a complex and multidimensional construct that is difficult to assess (Dess and Robinson, 1984). Therefore, we decided to measure firm success as both firm performance and competitive advantage so we could show the effects of corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identification on company success more specifically. Firm performance was measured using six items related to the respondents’ impression of company success relative to its largest competitors (a subjective performance measure, see Brettel et al., 2005, based on Pelham (1999) and Deshpande´ et al. (1993)), while the construct of competitive advantage builds on Schilke, 2007). The interpretation of subjective, relative performance data is easier and more accurate across diverse context factors, such as across industries (Covin and Slevin, 1989), and several studies illustrate the high correlation between subjective and objective performance indicators (e.g. Chandler and Hanks, 1993; Dess and Robinson, 1984). Table II displays the measurement scales described above.

Corporate social responsibility

1481

4.4 Estimation approach

For data analysis we chose structural equation modeling (SEM, Fornell and Bookstein, 1982), specifically AMOS 17.0, an implementation of a covariance-based approach, since it clearly outperforms variance-based approaches in terms of parameter consistency and accuracy and enables us to assess the overall model quality (Reinartz et al., 2009; Jo¨reskog, 1973, 1979). We examined the moderating effects of CSR using a

MD

48,10

1482

group comparison approach and estimated a SEM for each group and then tested the differences in path coefficients for significance that would suggest the presence of a moderating effect.

5. Results

5.1 Evaluation of measurement results

We assessed the reliability and validity of the measurement model using calculations of Cronbach’s alpha (threshold ¼ 0.7) between 0.81 and 0.91 and AVE (threshold ¼ 0.5) between 0.51 and 0.66 (see Table IV for the correlations and summary statistics), indicating satisfactory reliability on the construct level (DeVellis, 2003). Complementing the expert interviews, we analyzed the discriminant validity for items and constructs and found that it exists on the construct level, since every construct shares more variance with its measures than with other constructs, and on the item level, since all items share more variance with their own constructs than with any other construct. The model quality assessment indicates a very good fit of the model. Results reveal a chi-square/df value of 2.046, CFI of 0.900, TLI of 0.894, SRMR of 0.070 and an RMSEA of 0.052 (Hu et al., 1992; Hu, 1999). Based on this result, we proceed with hypothesis testing.

5.2 Structural model and moderation analyses

For the multi-industry sample, the individual path estimates show mixed results for H1 . H1a is not accepted since CSR activities have a strengthening moderating effect on the relationship between CIM and corporate image attractiveness but not on the relationship between CIM and company-stakeholder identification. H1b is accepted since there is no strengthening CSR effect on the link between CIM and company success measures. In a multi-industry sample, CSR strengthens the effect of CIM on corporate image attractiveness without showing an ongoing effect on company performance or company’s competitive advantage. This result underscores the current state of marketing research, which is turning to the notion of corporate reputation as

Correlations

 

Variables

1

2

3

4

56789

1. MVB 2. CII 3. VII 4. CIM 5. CIA 6. SCI 7. Perf. 8. Comp. Adv. 9. CSR

0.78

0.63

0.73

0.01

0.03

0.81

0.05

0.08

0.36

0.62

2 0.01

0.01

0.37

0.19

0.77

0.13

0.10

0.08

0.11

0.36

0.71

0.19

0.16

0.07

0.23

0.20

0.47

0.76

0.22

0.22

0.20

0.29

0.24

0.61

0.5

0.80

0.22

0.14

0.24

0.25

0.15

0.18

0.24

0.25

0.81

Summary statistics

M

5.2

5.4

5.7

NA

5.8

4.6

5.2

4.6

3.8

Table IV.

SD

1.2

1.1

1.2

NA

0.8

1.1

1.0

1.2

1.7

Correlations and

Note: Square root of average variance extracted (AVE) specified on diagonal in italic and correlations on off-diagonal

summary statistics

the vehicle through which socially responsible initiatives prove to be worthwhile for businesses (Neville et al., 2005). A positive reputation affects customers’ buying intentions and, in the context of CSR, positive reputation results in marginally higher price-earning ratios (Little and Little, 2000). Table IV depicts the results for the more fine-grained group comparisons. The overall sample was grouped into three subsamples according to the organization’s size, its industry focus, and corporate marketing budget. After we conducted median-splits, these samples were again grouped into two subsamples, one with high CSR engagement and one with low CSR engagement. Looking into different industries, findings support H2 and the different effects of CSR for product- and service-based companies. In the service industry, CSR strengthens the impact of stakeholder-company identification on performance, whereas in product-based industries, CSR strengthens the effect of corporate image attractiveness on competitive advantage. This means that CSR affects companies’ success in both types of industry, via increased image attractiveness (product-based industries) or stakeholder-company identification (service-based industries). As for the moderating aspect of company size, findings are in agreement with H3 . For smaller companies, CSR strengthens the effect of stakeholder-company on competitive advantage, and for larger companies CSR strengthens the impact of CIM on corporate image attractiveness and stakeholder-company identification, but does not affect the company’s success measures. While CSR seems to have no effect in the case of high marketing budgets, findings are in line with H4 in the case of low marketing budgets. As a moderator, CSR supports CIM and its effect on stakeholder-company identification so it can help companies with tighter marketing budgets increase marketing success. By contrast, organizations with larger marketing budgets should not focus on CSR to achieve marketing goals (Barone et al. , 2000), but only as a means to long-run sustainability (Porter and Kramer, 2007). The results of hypothesis testing are presented in Table V.

Corporate social responsibility

1483

6. Discussion 6.1 Theoretical implications Our work extends both the research stream on CIM in general and research on the role of CSR at the interface of marketing and firm performance in particular. More precisely, we underscore the relevance of CIM in achieving high levels of corporate image attractiveness, thereby showing CIM’s ability to generate a competitive advantage and increase overall company performance. This study adds to the understanding of how and when CSR affects corporate image attractiveness, company-stakeholder identification and organizational success by showing that CSR effects on the relationship between CIM, external image and identity, and firm performance differ based on firm size, industry, and marketing budgets which seem to function as boundary conditions of the moderation effect. Our results reveal that the simple moderation effect (in a generalized industry sample) is significant for the link between CIM and image attractiveness, which supports the current state of sustainability marketing research; however, once special industry settings are introduced to the framework, CSR tends to strengthen only some links to performance measures for small and large organizations, product and service organizations, and organizations with high and low marketing budgets. As such, the key contribution of

MD

48,10

1484

Path coefficients

Hypotheses

Path

CSR high

CSR low

Difference

Results of hypothesis testing H1: CSR as moderator

 

H1a

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image attractiveness Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification Corporate image attractiveness ! performance Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive advantage Stakeholder-company identification ! Performance Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive advantage

0.423 ***

0.171 ***

0.252 *

0.512 ***

0.212 ***

0.300

H1b

0.559 ***

0.420 ***

0.139

0.468 ***

0.444 ***

0.024

0.291 ***

0.309 ***

2 0.018

0.135

0.267 ***

2 0.132

Results of hypotheses testing H2-H4: comparison of size, industry, marketing spend samples with CSR as moderator Product industry

Table V. CSR and size, industry, marketing spend as moderators

H2

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image

attractiveness

0.360 ***

0.423 ***

2 0.063

Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification

0.357 ***

0.396 ***

2 0.039

Corporate image attractiveness ! performance

0.596 ***

0.455 ***

0.141

Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive advantage

0.802 ***

0.668 ***

0.134 * *

Stakeholder-company identification ! Performance Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive

0.139 ***

0.148 ***

2 0.009

advantage

0.067

0.056

0.011

Service industry

H2

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image

attractiveness

0.370 ***

0.320 ***

0.050

Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification

0.318 ***

0.141

0.177

Corporate image attractiveness ! performance Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive

0.845 ***

0.803 ***

0.042

advantage

0.083

0.020

0.063

Stakeholder-company identification ! Performance

H3

0.650 ***

0.364 ***

0.286 * *

Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive advantage

0.397 ***

0.478 ***

2 0.081

Small company size

 
 

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image attractiveness

0.422 ***

0.483 ***

2 0.061

Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification

0.362 ***

0.348 ***

0.014

Corporate image attractiveness ! performance

0.801 ***

0.724 ***

0.077

Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive advantage

0.490 ***

0.746 ***

2 0.256

Stakeholder-company identification ! Performance

0.206 ***

0.300 ***

2 0.94

Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive advantage

0.623 ***

0.010

0.613 * * ( continued )

Path coefficients

Hypotheses

Path

CSR high

CSR low

Difference

Large company size

 

H3

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image

 

attractiveness Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification Corporate image attractiveness ! performance Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive advantage

0.464 ***

0.191 ***

0.273 * *

0.290 ***

0.132 ***

0.158 * *

0.922 ***

0.728 ***

0.194

0.175

0.545 ***

2 0.370

Stakeholder-company

identification

!

Performance

0.005

0.350 ***

2 0.345

Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive advantage Low marketing spend

0.111

0.046

0.065

H4

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image attractiveness Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification Corporate image attractiveness ! performance Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive

 

0.338 ***

0.268 ***

0.070

0.305 ***

0.104

0.201 * *

0.725 ***

0.641 ***

0.084

advantage Stakeholder-company identification ! Performance Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive advantage High marketing spend

H4

0.357

***

0.433

2 0.076

0.116 ***

0.220 ***

2 0.104

0.301 ***

0.471 ***

2 0.0170

 
 

Corporate identity management ! Corporate image attractiveness Corporate identity management ! Stakeholder- company-identification Corporate image attractiveness ! performance Corporate image attractiveness ! Competitive advantage

0.337 ***

0.465 ***

2 0.128

0.351 ***

0.498 ***

2 0.147

0.778 ***

0.693 ***

0.085

0.337 ***

0.176

0.161

Stakeholder-company

identification

!

Performance

0.098

0.179 ***

2 0.081

Stakeholder-company identification ! Competitive advantage

0.302 ***

0.182

0.120

Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; *** p , 0.001

Corporate social responsibility

1485

Table V.

our work is the identification of industry and marketing characteristics that alter the effect of CSR as a facilitator of the direct links described above.

6.2 Managerial implications CSR is extremely useful in corporate identity-building because of its ability to facilitate corporate image attractiveness and thereby increase competitive advantage and overall company performance. Counter to recent anecdotal evidence from top management in the US and Europe, results from our empirical study show that the strengthening effect of CSR activities fosters significantly different outcomes in different industry settings, company sizes and marketing budgets. CEOs and

MD

48,10

1486

marketing managers should recognize that the outcome of CSR investments are dependent on the respective industry and organizational setting they are facing. The implications are that organizations in certain settings will be engaging more actively in CSR and ethical programs to ensure effectiveness of their CIM efforts. Larger, product based company’s should keep in mind that CSR will help them to increase their image attractiveness, and as such are able to endorse image-building marketing activities. For smaller and especially service-based companies, CSR underpins the identification of stakeholders with the respective company. As such, marketing managers can facilitate CSR activities in order to engage closer with important stakeholders, such as customers. These findings tend to support current management advice in the field of the service industry, where CSR initiatives should not be used as “a tool solely to improve the brand equity rather than to improve relationships with main stakeholders, since a boomerang effect is produced whereby the stakeholders pinpoint the CSR initiatives as one of the main reasons for their discontent with the service company” (Calabrese and Lancioni, 2008, p. 107). For SMEs, stakeholders are often embedded within the company’s social capital (Perrini, 2006). CSR thus proves to be as much or even more important for smaller companies, not as a mean of cause-related marketing but as a way of generating a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Regarding the size of the corporate marketing budget, CSR seems to especially support the effectiveness of smaller available budgets. In lean times, marketers have to make the most of limited resources (Halsall and Singer, 2003). As we go through the current expanded period of recession and slow economic growth, organizations must learn to do more with less. In the field of marketing this means working with significantly lower corporate marketing and branding budgets (CMO Council, 2009). CSR approaches function well in small corporate marketing budgets, so managers can restructure their marketing spending without diminishing their corporate brand’s presence for key stakeholders.

7. Limitations and avenues for further research The present research should be evaluated in light of its limitations, which point to potential avenues for future research: first, given the nature of influence mechanisms, other variables should be considered as boundary conditions of the link and influences of CSR and marketing. Previous research on CSR has pointed out that corporations need to distinguish among ethical, altruistic and strategic forms of CSR (Lantos, 2001); for example, ethical CSR, grounded in the concept of ethical duties and responsibilities of a company, is rather mandatory and therefore might not increase corporate image attractiveness and identification significantly. Second, since the present study focuses on the stakeholder view of the corporation, the next logical step may be to investigate differences and similarities of CSR effectiveness in various stakeholder groups such as investors and employees, to examine the specific relations between CSR approaches and stakeholder reactions (Bhattacharya et al., 2009). Third, the literature indicates that there are likely to be differences between the self-perception of company identity by the CEO and marketing managers compared to the views of their major stakeholders. Future studies could investigate how CSR and its effects are perceived by the company itself compared to the view of external stakeholders.

The purpose of this research was to shed light on the important mechanism at the interface of marketing and CSR. We hope our study will incent future research that further contributes to the understanding of the role of CSR.

Note 1. Multi-industry includes larger as well as smaller organizations, high and low marketing spending, service-based as well as product-based industries.

Corporate social responsibility

1487

References Alessandri, S.W. and Alessandri, T. (2004), “Promoting and protecting corporate identity: the importance of organizational and industry context”, Corporate Reputation Review , Vol. 7, pp. 252-68.

Aragon-Correa, J.A. and Rubio-Lopez, E. (2007), “Proactive corporate environmental strategies:

myths and misunderstandings”, Long Range Planning , Vol. 40, pp. 357-81.

Balmer,

Management, Vol. 21, pp. 24-46. Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), “Identity based views of the corporation: insights from corporate identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate image”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 42, pp. 879-906. Balmer, J.M.T. (2009), “Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany”, Management Decision , Vol. 47, pp. 544-72. Barone, M., Miyazaki, A. and Taylor, K. (2000), “The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 28, pp. 248-62. Berthon, P., Ewing, M.T. and Napoli, J. (2008), “Brand management in small to medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 46, pp. 27-45. Bharadwaj, S.G. and Menon, A. (1993), “Determinants of success in service industries”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 7, p. 19. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 76-88. Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2009), “Strengthening stakeholder company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, pp. 257-72. Brettel, M.A.H., Heinemann, F. and Kessell, A. (2005), “Market orientation in emerging firms – developing an appropriate measurement instrument and determining the effects of company success”, Arbeitspapier , No. 4.

General

J.M.T.

(1995),

“Corporate

branding

and

connoisseurship”,

Journal of

Brown, S.P. (1995), “The moderating effects of insupplier/outsupplier status on organizational buyer attitudes”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, p. 170. Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 61, pp. 68-84. Brown, T., Dacin, P., Pratt, M. and Whetten, D. (2006), “Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 34, pp. 99-106.

MD

48,10

1488

Calabrese, A. and Lancioni, F. (2008), “Analysis of corporate social responsibility in the service sector: does a strategic path exist?”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 15, pp. 107-25.

moral

management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons , Vol. 34, pp. 39-48. Chahal, H. and Sharma, R.D. (2006), “Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 6, pp. 205-16. Chandler, G.N. and Hanks, S.H. (1993), “Measuring the performance of emerging businesses:

Carroll,

A.B.

(1991),

“The

pyramid

of

corporate

social

responsibility:

toward

the

a validation study”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 8, p. 391.

Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73. CMO Council (2009), Marketing Outlook 2009 Report, Chief Marketing Officer Council, Palo Alto, CA.

Cornelius,

responsibility, corporate identity and ethics teaching in business schools”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 76, pp. 117-35. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 10, pp. 75-87. DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development – Theory and Applications , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Deshpande´, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1993), “Corporate culture customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 23-37. Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. Jr (1984), “Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 5, pp. 265-73. Dolphin, R.R. (2003), “The corporate communication function: how well is it funded”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 8, pp. 5-10.

of

noneconomic criteria”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 60, pp. 71-87. Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 39, pp. 239-63. Einwiller, S.A. (2006), “Enough is enough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 34, pp. 185-94. Ellen, P., Webb, D. and Mohr, L. (2006), “Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 34, pp. 147-57. Esch, F.-R., Kernstock, J. and Langner, T. (2004), Corporate Brand Management, Gabler, Wiesbaden. Fassin, Y. (2008), “SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR”, Business Ethics: A European Review , Vol. 17, pp. 364-78. Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image , Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-58.

Drumwright,

N.,

Wallace,

J.

and

Tassabehji,

R.

(2007),

“An

analysis

of

corporate

social

M.E.

(1996),

“Company

advertising

with

a

social

dimension:

the

role

Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), “Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied

to consumer exit-voice theory”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 440-52.

Franklin, D. (2008), “Just good business: a special report on corporate social responsibility”, The Economist , 17 January. Giving USA Foundation (2008), Giving USA 2009 , Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. Graafland, J., Van De Ven, B. and Stoffele, N. (2003), “Strategies and instruments for organising CSR by small and large businesses in The Netherlands”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47, pp. 45-60. Halsall, C. and Singer, G. (2003), “Doing more with less”, Marketing Management, Vol. 12, pp. 30-5. Handelman, J.M. and Arnold, S.J. (1999), “The role of marketing actions with a social dimension:

appeals to the institutional environment”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 63, pp. 33-48.

Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M. and Kano, Y. (1992), “Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis

be trusted?”, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 112, pp. 351-62.

Corporate social responsibility

1489

Ind, N. (2000), The Corporate Brand , NYU Press, New York, NY.

Jackson, L.A. and Parsa, H.G. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:

a typology for service industries”, International Journal of Business Insights and

Transformation , Vol. 2, pp. 13-21. Jahdi, K. and Acikdilli, G. (2009), “Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88, pp. 103-13.

Jenkins, H. (2009), “A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small and medium-sized enterprises”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18, pp. 21-36. Jo¨reskog, K.G. (1973), “A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system”,

in Duncan, O.D. (Ed.), Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences , Seminar Press,

New York, NY. Jo¨reskog, K.G. (1979), Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences: Specification, Estimation and Testing , ABT Books, Cambridge, MA. Karake, Z.A. (1998), “An examination of the impact of organizational downsizing and discrimination activities on corporate social responsibility as measured by a company’s reputation index”, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 3, p. 206. Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control , Prentice-Hall, New York, NY. Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993), “Conducting interorganizational research using key informants”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 36, pp. 1633-51. Lantos, G.P. (2001), “The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Consumer Marketing , Vol. 18, pp. 595-630. Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 68, pp. 16-32. Little, P.L. and Little, B.L. (2000), “Do perceptions of corporate social responsibility contribute to explaining differences in corporate price-earnings ratios?”, Corporate Reputation Review , Vol. 3, pp. 137-42. Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 70, pp. 1-18.

MD

48,10

1490

Luo,

X. and

Bhattacharya,

C.B.

(2009),

“The

debate

over

doing

good:

corporate

social

performance,

strategic

marketing

levers,

and

firm-idiosyncratic

risk”,

Journal of

Marketing , Vol. 73, pp. 198-213.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000), “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:

correlation or misspecification?”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 21, pp. 603-9.

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 32, pp. 3-19.

Maignan, I. and Ralston, D.A. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US:

insights from businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies , Vol. 33, pp. 497-514.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Hult, G.T.M. (1999), “Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents and business benefits”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 27, pp. 455-69.

Margulies, W.P. (1977), “Make the most of your corporate identity”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 55, pp. 66-72.

Melewar, T.C. and Jenkins, E. (2002), “Defining the corporate identity construct”, Corporate Reputation Review , Vol. 5, p. 76.

Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Mengu¨c, B. (2005), “Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the social performance-financial performance relationship”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 39, pp. 1184-98.

Pelham, A.M. (1999), “Influence of environment, strategy, and market orientation on performance in small manufacturing firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45, pp. 33-46.

Perrini, F. (2006), “SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and implications from an Italian perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67, pp. 305-16.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects”, Journal of Management , Vol. 12, p. 531.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2007), “Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.

Posnikoff, J.F. (1997), “Disinvestment from South Africa: they did well by doing good”, Contemporary Economic Policy , Vol. 15, pp. 76-86.

Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J.R. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing , Vol. 26, pp. 332-44.

Reuters (2008), “Consumers puts ads to greenwashing test”.

Schilke, O.S. (2007), “Organizational routines as alliance capabilities: the missing link”, Academy of Management Proceedings , Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY.

Schmitt, B.H. and Pan, Y. (1994), “Managing corporate and brand identities in the Asia-Pacific region”, California Management Review , Vol. 36, pp. 32-48.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 38, pp. 225-43.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2006), “The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 34, pp. 158-66. Shoham, A. and Feigenbaum, A. (1999), “Extending the competitive marketing paradigm: the role of strategic reference points theory”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 27, p. 442. Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2008), “Illustrations of the internal management of corporate identity”, in Melewar, T.C. (Ed.), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Reputation , Routledge, New York, NY. Simoes, C., Dibb, S. and Fisk, R. (2005), “Managing corporate identity: an internal perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 33, pp. 153-68. Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J. and Franke, G.R. (1999), “Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 27, pp. 19-36. Smith, N.C. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility: whether or how?”, California Management Review , Vol. 45, pp. 52-76. Snider, J., Hill, R.P. and Martin, D. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century:

a view from the world’s most successful firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48, pp. 175-87. Spence, L.J. and Rutherfoord, R. (2003), “Small business and empirical perspective in business ethics: editorial”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 47, pp. 1-5. Stanwick, P.A. and Stanwick, S.D. (1998), “The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: an empirical examination”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 195-204. Teoh, S.H., Welch, I. and Wazzan, C.P. (1999), “The effect of socially activist investment policies on the financial markets: evidence from the South African boycott”, Journal of Business , Vol. 72, pp. 35-89. Thompson, D., Panwar, R. and Hansen, E. (2010), “Examining social responsibility orientation gaps between society and industry executives”, Management Decision , Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 156-71. Vaaland, T.I., Heide, M. and Gronhaug, K. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the marketing context”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, pp. 927-53. van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication , Prentice-Hall, London. van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, p. 340. Varadarajan, P.R. and Menon, A. (1988), “Cause-related marketing: a coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 52, pp. 58-74. Vlachos, P.A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A.P. and Avramidis, P.K. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 37, pp. 170-80. Warhurst, A. (2008), “The future of corporate philanthropy”, BusinessWeek Online . Weiss, A.M., Anderson, E. and MacInnis, D.J. (1999), “Reputation management as a motivation for sales structure decisions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 74-89. Worcester, R. (2009), “Reflections on corporate reputations”, Management Decision , Vol. 47, pp. 573-89.

Corporate social responsibility

1491

MD

48,10

1492

Zairi, M. and Peters, J. (2002), “The impact of social responsibility on business performance”, Managerial Auditing Journal , Vol. 17, pp. 174-8. Zinkhan, G., Ganesh, J., Jaju, A. and Hayes, L. (2001), “Corporate image: a conceptual framework for strategic planning”, AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings .

Further reading Chandon, J.L., Chtourou, M.S. and Fortin, D.R. (2003), “Effects of configuration and exposure levels on responses to web advertisements”, Journal of Advertising Research , Vol. 43, pp. 217-29. Hu, L.-T. and Peter, M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:

conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:

A Multidisciplinary Journal , Vol. 6, pp. 1-55. Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2009), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach , John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Corresponding author Sebastian Arendt can be contacted at: arendt@win.rwth-aachen.de

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints