CSR communication from the consumers’ perspective : improving the development and communication of CSR initiatives

(1)

Master’s Thesis

CSR communication from the consumers’ perspective: Improving the development and communication of CSR initiatives Written by: Trym Handal 11374330 Supervisor: Dr James Slevin Date: 26.06.2017

Master’s Programme in Communication Science Graduate School of Communication

(2)

Abstract

There is still uncertainty related to how CSR information affects consumers’ evaluation of a company. Problematically, certain types of CSR information have been found to have a ‘backfiring effect’ for controversial companies, causing consumers to evaluate these

companies more negatively. This study investigates whether the same types of CSR

information that have caused consumers to react negatively to controversial companies would also lead to negative reactions for a non-controversial company. By doing so, this study provides thought markers to aid the development and communication of future CSR initiatives. An online experiment was conducted, where the participants (N=136) read a scenario about a CSR initiative followed by questions. The main thought marker resulting from this study was that non-controversial companies do not seem to experience any ‘backfiring effect’ from their CSR information, unlike controversial companies.

(3)

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication has become an increasingly popular instrument for companies to showcase their societal and environmental contributions (Kim, Kang, & Mattila, 2012). Being able to demonstrate societal and environmental

contributions is important for companies, as consumers demand that companies are acting in a socially responsible manner (Sheikh & Beise-Zee, 2011). CSR communication is generally referred to as “corporate behaviours which aim to affect stakeholders positively and go beyond its economic interest” (Turker, 2009, p. 191). Scholars and practitioners in the field of communication science have become interested in how this form of communication affects consumers’ evaluation of a company (Lii & Lee, 2012). Alarmingly, it has been demonstrated that CSR communication under certain circumstances can create scepticism amongst

consumers (Elving, 2012). This is concerning given that negative consumer perception

resulting from a company’s CSR communication could reduce consumers’ trust in a company (Leonidou, Kvasova, Leonidou, & Chari, 2013). Due to such findings, Skard and

Thorbjørnsen (2014) have argued that “a key challenge in CSR communication is determining how to minimize scepticism and convey the company’s intrinsic motives” (p. 149). The aim of the present study is to deliver thought markers to aid the development and communication of future CSR initiatives.

To date, most studies have focused on the effects of CSR communication on

consumers’ evaluations of companies that work within controversial industry sectors (e.g., Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006). These sectors have been characterised by “social taboos, moral debates, and political pressures” (Cai, Jo, & Pan, 2012, p. 468). An example of a controversial industry sector is the oil sector, as the companies working within this sector often are mentioned in debates concerning the environment and health- and safety regulations.

(4)

The reason why most studies have focused on companies within controversial sectors, is that these companies could be perceived to have ulterior motives behind their CSR

communication (Palazzo & Richter, 2005). For example, consumers may think that these companies use CSR communication to advertise their positive contributions to the environment and society as a way of repairing or improving their corporate reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). The corporate reputation of a company refers to stakeholders’ evaluation of a company based on their impressions (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). Perceptions amongst consumers that a company is merely engaging in CSR communication to repair or improve their reputation have caused some companies to be accused of ‘corporate hypocrisy’, referring to the perception that a firm is claiming to be something that it is not (Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). Being accused of corporate hypocrisy could, in turn, negatively affect a company through sanctions from consumers (Janney & Gove, 2011; Hong & Kacperczyk, 2009). Therefore, it is possible that engaging in CSR communication could have a negative impact on value creation for companies that are not perceived to be sincere.

Unfortunately, there is a gap in the literature concerning the effects of CSR communication on consumers’ evaluations of companies that are not perceived as controversial by consumers (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Therefore, it is currently

unclear to what extent the factors that have been found to influence consumers’ perceptions of companies with controversial reputations extend to companies with non-controversial

reputations.

Two factors that have been found to affect consumers’ evaluation of a company are consumers’ perceived motives behind a company’s CSR communication and the credibility of the source that delivers the CSR information (Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006;

Forehand & Grier, 2003). These studies have concluded that companies with controversial reputations are evaluated more negatively when their motives for engaging in a CSR initiative

(5)

are perceived by consumers to be self-serving and when the companies are informing the consumers themselves. Although these effects so far only have been investigated in the context of companies with controversial reputations, it could be that they would also affect consumers’ evaluations of companies with non-controversial reputations.

An additional factor that may influence consumers’ evaluations of a company is their stated support for social responsibility. Although previous studies have concluded that a large number of consumers are concerned with companies’ expressed social responsibility

(Maignan & Ferrell, 2001), few studies have investigated whether this conviction could influence their evaluation of a company. Consequently, it is important to investigate the effect that this characteristic could have.

In order to collect the information that is needed to deliver thought markers, the following research questions (RQs) are proposed:

RQ1. How does the salience of self-serving motives and the source of the CSR information affect consumers’ evaluations of a company with a non-controversial reputation?

RQ2. To what extent does consumers’ support for social responsibility moderate their evaluations?

Theoretical Framework

Corporate Social Responsibility as a Marketing Strategy

CSR has for a long time been viewed as an effective marketing strategy to establish a trustful relationship between a company and its stakeholders (Torres, Bijmolt, Tribo, & Verhoef, 2012; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Pivato, Misani, & Tencati, 2008). Stakeholders,

(6)

according to stakeholder theory (Carroll, 1979), are individuals or groups that have a stake or an interest in a company’s operations and decisions. Consumers have been acknowledged as a valuable stakeholder group for companies (Carroll, 1991; Hansen & Schrader, 1997). Studies have demonstrated that CSR can impact consumers’ loyalty to an organisation (Martínez & del Bosque, 2013), increase differentiation from other brands (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), and provide a competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2002). This may explain why CSR communication has become such a prominent part of companies’ marketing strategies.

Despite its prominence, an increasing number of studies have started to question the effectiveness of CSR as a marketing strategy. This is mainly due to findings showing that CSR communication can create scepticism amongst consumers in situations where they have reason to question the sincerity of a company’s motives (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Morsing, 2006). Consumer scepticism has been defined as “distrust or disbelief of marketer actions” (Forehand & Grier, 2003, p. 350). From a marketing perspective, consumer

scepticism is problematic as it could negatively affect consumers’ evaluations of a company (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Having acknowledged that CSR may not always be an effective marketing strategy, more attention has been directed towards identifying in which circumstances CSR communication could be problematic (Pomering & Johnson, 2009).

Congruence Between a Company and a Cause

A prominent assumption in the literature on consumers’ evaluation of CSR

communication has been that a company’s corporate identity has to be congruent with the initiative they are supporting in order to be evaluated positively (Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000). The congruence, or ‘fit’, between a company and a cause can be defined as the perceived link between a company’s brand image and the needs of a cause (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Prior studies have concluded that consumers’ evaluations of a company tend

(7)

to be more positive when they perceive the congruence between a company and a cause to be high, rather than low (Menon & Kahn, 2003; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). According to Samu and Wymer (2009) the reason for this is that congruence between a company and a cause improves the credibility of the connection between the two, which, in turn, is likely to affect the attitude of a consumer.

However, it has also been argued that a high congruence between a company and a cause can have a negative impact on consumers’ evaluation of a company. For example, a study conducted by Forehand and Grier (2003) found that a high congruence between a company and a cause can lead consumers to be sceptical of the company’s motives for engaging in a CSR initiative. A similar conclusion was drawn in a study by Yoon, Güran-Canli, and Schwartz (2006). What these studies illustrate is that there could be specific factors causing consumers to perceive congruence as a positive thing or a negative thing. Moreover, they demonstrate that there could be specific factors influencing consumers’ evaluations of a company.

Perceived Motives

The perceived motives of a CSR initiative could be an influential factor in consumers’ evaluation of a company (Schultz & Morsing, 2003; Pirsch, Gupta, & Landreth Grau, 2007). Individuals have been argued to infer motives of others through a process of causal attribution (Kelley, 1973). This process is important to humans’ cognitions and behaviours (Folkes, 1988). According to the well-known attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965) causal attributions affect individuals’ cognitions and behaviours depending on how they interpret and evaluate the motives of others. This theory provides a general explanation of how an individual’s interpretation of a motive may affect the way they think and act.

(8)

A more specific explanation of how attributions can affect consumers’ behaviours is provided by the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994). According to the model, consumers’ behaviours are guided by their perceptions of a company’s intent. In line with this reasoning, prior studies have demonstrated that consumers’ responses to CSR

information presented by a company depends on whether they think that a company’s motives are value driven or egotistic (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000; Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig, 2004; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Strahilevitz, 2003; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). These studies have demonstrated that in cases where consumers perceive a company’s motives to be self-serving, or egotistic, they may be more inclined to evaluate the company negatively, compared to when their motives are perceived to be value driven. Hence, the salience of a company’s motives may be a particularly important factor that could influence consumers’ evaluations. Building on this line of research, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Consumers that are presented with a CSR initiative that could be perceived as self-serving will evaluate the company more negatively compared to consumers presented with a neutral initiative.

Source Credibility

Another factor that has been found to influence consumers’ evaluation of a company is the credibility of the source that is communicating the CSR information. Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2010) have pointed out that when it comes to CSR information there is likely to be a trade-off between the controllability and the credibility of the information, where stakeholders are more likely to find non-corporate sources more credible than corporate sources. Similarly, Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) have argued that companies that communicate their own CSR

(9)

initiatives are likely to face the ‘self-promoter’s paradox’, where one’s desire to stand out as legitimate causes one to appear illegitimate. This situation may occur as individuals are more sceptical when interpreting information presented from sources that they perceive to be self-interested or biased (Weiner, Laforge, & Goolsby, 1990; Artz & Tybout, 1999; Du & Vieira, 2012). Previous studies have found that consumers are more likely to perceive a company’s motives behind the CSR information to be self-serving in instances where the company itself is communicating about their CSR efforts, compared to when it is communicated by an objective source (Yoon, Güran-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006; Tormala & Petty, 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). What can be concluded from this line of research is that the credibility of the source of the CSR communication may be an important determinant for consumers’ evaluations of a company.

Still, it could be that the effect of source credibility differs depending on how sincere consumers perceive a company to be. Given that the effect of source credibility only has been investigated in the context of controversial companies, the effect of source credibility is unknown for non-controversial companies. Although company sources have been found to have a negative effect on consumers’ evaluations of a company, one could presume that this effect may not be present for non-controversial company sources as they may be perceived to be more trustworthy. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Consumers’ evaluations of a company will not differ depending on whether a company source or a neutral source is delivering the CSR information.

The Interaction of Perceived Motives and Source Credibility

Only one study has investigated how the interaction of perceived motives and source credibility affects consumers’ evaluations of a company (Yoon, Güran-Canli, & Schwarz,

(10)

2006). What this study has concluded is that the self-serving benefits of engaging in a CSR initiative becomes more prominent for consumers in situations where they perceive the congruence between a company and the CSR initiative to be high. The increased salience of self-serving benefits, in turn, seems to negatively affect consumers’ evaluations of a

company. Furthermore, this effect seems to be especially prominent in situations where the companies have communicated the initiative. This study has therefore illustrated that

consumers’ evaluations of a company depends both on how consumers perceive a company’s motives and on how sincere they find the source of the CSR information.

Yet, no studies have investigated whether the effects of perceived motives and source credibility also will extend to companies with non-controversial reputations. It has been argued that companies with good reputations are likely to be perceived to have higher source credibility compared to companies with more controversial reputations (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Building on this argument, it is possible that a company with a non-controversial reputation may be perceived as trustworthy as an objective source in the eyes of a consumer, causing them to be less sceptical and more positive in their evaluations of a company. Thus, consumers’ evaluations could be positive irrespective of whether the information is presented by a neutral source or a company source for scenarios describing a CSR initiative that is less likely to be perceived to be self-serving. For scenarios describing a CSR initiative that is likely to be perceived as self-serving, the potential negative effect of this motive is anticipated to override the effect of source credibility. The following hypotheses are proposed:

H3: When a company is likely to be perceived to support a cause out of self-serving motives, consumers’ evaluations will be negative, irrespective of the source that is delivering the information.

(11)

H4: When a company is less likely to be perceived to support a cause out of self-serving motives, consumers’ evaluations will be positive, irrespective of the source that is delivering the information.

Consumers’ Support for Social Responsibility

From an organisation’s point-of-view, CSR communication could be an effective way of creating a corporate identity that consumers can identify with. This is because consumers seek to satisfy their self-definitional needs (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005). A study conducted by Marin and Ruiz (2007) found that a company’s CSR communication was an important contributor in creating company identity attractiveness amongst consumers. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) individuals are more likely to identify with someone who displays or share similar values as themselves. Drawing on this theory, one could expect consumers to be more lenient in their evaluations of a company whose values they identify with, and stricter in their evaluations of a company whose values they do not identify with.

There is, however, some uncertainty related to the extent to which consumers’ support for social responsibility affect their evaluation of a company. Although some have argued for an association between consumers’ stated support for socially responsible companies and their evaluation of a company (Singh, de los Salmones Sanchez, & del Bosque, 2008), others have argued that this effect is weak (Pomering and Dolnicar, 2009). Hence, the current literature is divided.

Despite these contradictory findings, a study conducted by Kim and Yoon-Joo (2012) have argued that consumers’ support for social responsibility can impact the process of attributing motives to a company. In their study they found that consumers highly engaged in social causes were more willing to accept motives perceived as self-serving in situations

(12)

where they simultaneously perceive the firm to be sincere in their CSR actives. Interestingly, this result was found for a company working within a controversial industry. Drawing on this study, one might expect consumers who are high in support for social responsibility to be more willing to accept self-serving motives, compared to participants who are low in support for social responsibility. Hence, they might be less negative in their evaluations when

presented with information that could be perceived as self-serving, and even more positive when presented with information not likely to be perceived as self-serving. The following hypothesis is proposed:

H5. Consumers’ support for social responsibility will moderate the extent to which they attribute self-serving motives to a company which, in turn, will influence their evaluations.

(13)

Methods

Design

In order to investigate the processes underlying consumers’ evaluations of a company, the present study decided to employ an experimental design in the form of a questionnaire. The reason for choosing an experimental design was that it allows for the manipulation of material and information, making it plausible to detect whether presenting different stimuli to participants in different conditions could alter the dependent variable (DV), being their evaluations of a company. Two independent variables (IVs) were manipulated in the study; the perceived motives for engaging in a CSR initiative and the source that was delivering the information. Both of the IVs had two levels. Participants were either presented with a CSR initiative that was meant to be perceived as self-serving or as neutral. Moreover, participants were either informed about the initiative by a company source or a neutral source. To ensure that the responses of participants in the experimental conditions could be contrasted with responses of participants that had received no experimental stimuli, the present study chose to include a control group that would act as the baseline. All participants were randomly

distributed across conditions.

Procedure

The present study was conducted as an online experiment in the form of a questionnaire. As the purpose of the study was to investigate whether participants would evaluate a company differently based on information that could be perceived as self-serving or due to the

credibility of the source, four different vignettes were created. The vignettes were

manipulated so that each described one of two CSR initiatives that the company engaged in, presented by either a company source of a neutral source (see the appendix). After completing

(14)

the consent form, participants were randomly presented with one vignette in addition to a general description of the company. Whereas the experimental stimuli differed between conditions, the general description of the company was presented to all participant regardless of condition. Importantly, participants in the control condition only received the general description of the company and were not exposed to the experimental material. Following the general information about the company and the vignette describing a CSR initiative,

participants were asked to complete the dependent measures and to fill in their demographic information. Finally, participants were debriefed with the purpose of the study, and informed that the CSR initiative described was fictitious and created solely for the purpose of the study.

Manipulation of Independent Variables

The company Ben & Jerry’s is a well-known socially responsible company (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). The present study wished to investigate the effects of perceived motives and source credibility on consumers’ evaluations of a company with a positive CSR reputation, as previous studies only have investigated these effects in the context of

companies with controversial CSR reputations. Due to this reason, the company Ben & Jerry’s was chosen for the present study.

Perceived motives. In the case of Ben & Jerry’s, a CSR initiative within the environmental sector is more likely to be perceived as self-serving, compared to a CSR initiative related to the health sector. All participants in the experimental conditions read one vignette describing either a CSR initiative related to saving the environment (self-serving) or a CSR initiative related to fighting cancer (neutral). Both of these vignettes were based on the scenarios used in the study of Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and Schwarz (2006).

Information source. The information about the CSR initiative was provided by either the company itself of by a neutral source, similarly to the study of Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and

(15)

Schwarz (2006). For the neutral source, the Corporate Social Rating Monitor (CSRM) was used as the information source. The reason for this was that the CSRM is a nonprofit

organisation that is known for providing unbiased evaluations of companies’ CSR activities.

Moderator

The items to measure the moderator variable consumers’ support for social

responsibility were derived from Maigan’s (2001) study. Five statements were rated on a

7-point scale, ranging from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. An example of a statement was “I consider the ethical reputation of businesses when I shop”. The five items were made into a scale that gave the mean score. A principal component analysis showed that all the items only loaded on one factor, and a reliability analysis proved the scale to be reliable (α = .810).

Dependent Variable

The items used to measure the dependent variable company evaluations were derived from Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and Schwarz’ (2006) study. Participants were asked to rate their evaluations of the company on a 7-point scale. The four statements ranged from “extremely unfavourable” to “extremely favourable”, “extremely negative” to “extremely positive”, “extremely bad” to “extremely good”, and “extremely not likeable” to “extremely likeable”. The four items were made into a scale that gave the mean score. A principal component analysis showed that all the items only loaded on one factor, and a reliability analysis proved the scale to be reliable (α = .895).

Confounding Variable

There is reason to believe that consumers’ prior perceptions of a company could affect their attribution process. A study conducted by Wigley (2008) found that participants exposed

(16)

to information about a company’s CSR activities were more knowledgeable about those activities. Furthermore, the results also demonstrated that having increased knowledge about a company’s CSR activities, in turn, influenced participants’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Similarly, a study conducted by Lee and Shin (2010) found that consumers’ awareness of CSR activities affected their purchase intentions. Thus, it could be that consumers’ prior knowledge could affect their evaluations of a company. In order to account for this possible effect, consumers’ prior knowledge of the company was measured using two items developed specifically for this study. The first item was “Do you have any prior perceptions of this company?”, which was obtained as a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. For the participants who answered yes, the second item was “If so, please rate your prior perception of this company”. Answers to this item were obtained on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (negative) to 7 (positive).

Manipulation Check

Two items retrieved from Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and Schwarz’ (2006) study were used to check whether participants found the information credible and believable. The questions used were “How credible did you find the information you were presented with?” and “How believable was the information you were presented with?”. Both questions were answered on a 7-point scale, and ranged from ‘extremely not credible’ to ‘extremely credible’, and

‘extremely unbelievable’ to ‘extremely believable’.

Plan of Analysis

To test the hypotheses of the present study different statistical tests were run. To test hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2, two one-way analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were run. The reason for running these analyses was to see whether the main effects of perceived motives and source credibility affected participants’ evaluation of the company. In order to investigate

(17)

whether there was an interaction effect of the two independent variables affecting the dependent variable, a two-way ANOVA was conducted. Furthermore, in order to test hypothesis 5, a moderation analysis was conducted. This was because the purpose of this hypothesis was to investigate whether the moderating variable had an influence on the relationship between one of the independent variables and the dependent variable.

Results

Demographics

The present study had a sample of 136 participants. A post hoc power analysis

conducted with the statistical power analysis programme G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang & Buchner, 2007) demonstrated that the sample size yielded a power of 0.82. The sample consisted of 91 females (66.9%) and 40 males (29.4%). There were five participants (3.7%) that did not report their gender. The majority of participants reported being between 36-50 years old (27.9%). Two participants (1.5%) did not report their age.

Two one-way between-subjects ANOVAs were run to account for possible differences between participants’ age and gender in their evaluation of the company. The first analysis demonstrated that participants’ evaluation of the company did not significantly differ between different age groups, F(4,128)=1.10, p=.363. The second analysis, however, revealed that there was a significant difference between the gender of the participants with regards to how they evaluated the company, F(1,128)=10.36, p=.002. The analysis demonstrated that women rated the company more favourably (M=5.24, SD=.91), compared to men (M=4.69, SD=.85).

Two one-way between-subjects ANOVAs were also run to account for differences between participants’ age and gender on their support for social responsibility. The first analysis demonstrated that participants’ support for social responsibility was close to be

(18)

significantly different between the different age groups, F(4,129)=2.43, p=.051. Participants over the age of 60 showed the highest support for social responsibility (M=6.01, SD=.53), whereas participants between the age of 18-25 showed the lowest support (M=5.11,

SD=1.17). The second analysis demonstrated that there was no difference between the gender

of the participants with regards to support for social responsibility, F(1,129)=2.88, p=.092.

* The table does not take into account missing data.

Confounding Variables

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was run to account for the possible confounding effect of participants’ prior knowledge of the company. The analysis demonstrated that participants’ evaluation of the company was very close to be significantly different depending on whether participants had prior knowledge of the company or not, F(1,132)=3.86, p=.051. The analysis revealed that participants who had prior knowledge of the company evaluated the company more favourably (M=5.23, SD=.92), compared to participants with no prior knowledge of the company (M=4.92, SD=.90). Still, as the result was non-significant, it could be concluded that consumers’ prior knowledge of the company did not affect their evaluations

(19)

Manipulation Checks

In order to check whether participants found the information credible and believable, two two-way between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted.

The first analysis revealed that there was a non-significant main effect of perceived motives on how credible participants found the CSR information to be, F(1,106)=2.71,

p=.103. Similarly the analysis also revealed that there was a non-significant main effect of

source credibility on how credible participants found the CSR information to be,

F(1,106)=.01, p=.910. The interaction of perceived motives and source credibility was also

non-significant, F(1,106)=.40, p=.534.

The second analysis revealed that there was a non-significant main effect of perceived motives on how believable participants found the CSR information to be, F(1,106)=2.32,

p=.131. Similarly, the analysis also revealed that there was a non-significant main effect of

source credibility on how believable participants found the CSR information to be,

F(1,106)=.00, p=.956 The interaction of perceived motives and source credibility was also

non-significant, F(1,106)=.04, p=.827.

These analyses confirm that the CSR information presented was deemed credible and believable regardless of which motives that were presented and the source that presented the CSR information.

The Effect of Perceived Motives on Participants’ Evaluations of the Company

The first hypothesis predicted that participants’ perceived motives behind a company’s CSR initiative would affect their evaluations of the company. Specifically, it was predicted that participants would evaluate a company more negatively if they perceived a company’s motives to be self-serving, rather than neutral.

(20)

In order to test this hypothesis, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted. The predictor variable was the between-subjects factor of perceived motives and the

dependent variable was participants’ evaluation of the company.

Contrary to the prediction, the analysis revealed that there was a non-significant effect of perceived motives on participants’ evaluation of the company, F(1,108)=.84, p=.363. As participants’ evaluation of the company did not differ significantly due to having been presented with either a self-serving motive or a neutral motive, the hypothesis was rejected.

The Effect of Source Credibility on Participants’ Evaluations of the Company

The second hypothesis predicted that the credibility of the source that was informing the participants of the CSR initiative would not affect their evaluations. Participants’ evaluations of the company was predicted to be the same irrespective of whether a company source or a neutral source delivered the CSR information.

To test this hypothesis, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted. The predictor variable was the between-subjects factor of source credibility and the dependent variable was participants’ evaluations of the company.

The analysis revealed that there was a non-significant effect of source credibility on participants’ evaluation of the company, F(1,108)=.45, p=.504. As participants’ evaluations of the company did not differ significantly due to having been informed by a company source or a neutral source, the hypothesis was supported.

The Interaction of Perceived Motives and Source Credibility on Participants’ Evaluations of the Company

The third and fourth hypotheses predicted that there would be an interaction effect of the between-subjects variables perceived motives and source credibility on participants’

(21)

evaluations of the company. Specifically, it was predicted that the effect of perceived motives would override the effect of source credibility, so that participants who were presented with self-serving information would evaluate a company more negatively compared to participants who were presented with neutral CSR information, irrespective of the source that was

presenting the information.

In order to test these hypotheses, a two-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted. The predictor variables were perceived motives and source credibility, and the dependent variable was participants’ evaluations of the company.

The analysis revealed that there was a non-significant interaction of perceived motives and source credibility on participants’ evaluation of the company, F(1,106)=2.05, p=.155. Thus, both the third and the fourth hypothesis were deemed rejected.

The Moderating Effect of Consumers’ Support for Social Responsibility

The fifth hypothesis predicted that participants’ support for social responsibility would moderate the extent to which they attributed self-serving motives to a company, which, in turn, would influence their evaluations. Specifically, it was predicted that participants might be less negative in their evaluations when presented with information that could be perceived as self-serving, and even more positive when presented with information not likely to be perceived as self-serving.

In order to test this hypothesis, a moderation analysis was conducted by building a custom univariate model in ANOVA, where the interaction of participants’ support for social responsibility and perceived motives on participants’ evaluation of a company was

investigated. Prior to building this model, participants were divided into two groups depending on whether they scored above or below the median score on the social

(22)

indicate that they were high in social responsibility, whereas participants who scored below the median were given a score of 0 to indicate that they were low in social responsibility.

Contrary to the prediction, the moderation analysis revealed that participants’ support for social responsibility did not moderate the extent to which they attributed self-serving motives to the company, F(2,105)=2.04, p=.135. As the expected differences in the evaluations of the company based on whether participants were high or low in support for social responsibility were not found, the hypothesis was deemed rejected.

Conclusion

The problem that triggered this study’s investigation was that prior studies have demonstrated that CSR communication can have a ‘backfiring effect’ for controversial companies (Jo & Na, 2012). To address this problem and produce thought markers to aid the development and communication of future CSR initiatives, this study explored whether the ‘backfiring effect’ also would extend to a company with a non-controversial reputation. In addition, the study set out to investigate the role that consumers’ support for social

responsibility may play in moderating the extent to which consumers accept self-serving motives and, in turn, their evaluations.

The ‘backfiring effect’ of CSR communication previously found for controversial companies has been claimed to result from the type of motive consumers attribute to a company for engaging in a specific initiative and the credibility of the source delivering the information. An important thought marker resulting from the fact that neither perceived motives nor source credibility seemed to influence participants’ evaluation of the company in this study is that non-controversial companies do not necessarily have to attend as closely to these factors, given that there is currently no indication that they have a negative impact on

(23)

consumers’ evaluations. A practical implication of this result could be that non-controversial companies do not have to pay close attention to whether their CSR initiatives could come across as self-serving, as it will not have an impact on how consumers evaluate their

company. Furthermore, the results also indicate that non-controversial companies do not have to rely on third-party sources to deliver their CSR communication on behalf of the company, as the company will not be scrutinized for delivering this information itself.

Importantly, the fact that no negative effects were detected as a result of perceived motives and source credibility could also have important implications for controversial companies in the construction and communication of their campaigns. The reason for this is that the results of the present study underscores that perceived motives and source credibility are likely to be core influencers of the ‘backfiring effect’, as the negative effects resulting from these factors only seem to be experienced by controversial companies and not for non-controversial companies. This is another major thought marker of the present study. In practical terms, this finding shows that controversial companies should continue to pay close attention to how the motives behind their CSR communication come across and be careful to communicate these efforts themselves.

Furthermore, the results of the present study points to the importance for non-controversial companies to communicate their CSR efforts. Although participants’ prior knowledge of a company was found to not influence participants’ evaluations, there was a trend in the data demonstrating that knowledge of a company might be an important

contributor in the forming of consumers’ evaluations. An implication of this result is therefore that non-controversial companies should put effort into advertising their CSR efforts, as this may positively influence their image amongst the public. Given that non-controversial companies may think that advertising their CSR initiatives might be a redundant action to enhance consumers’ evaluations, this is an important thought marker.

(24)

Finally, the findings of this study could give an indication as to whom non-controversial companies should direct their marketing efforts at. This knowledge could improve the cost-effectiveness of future CSR campaigns. As participants’ support for social responsibility was found not to have any moderating effect on the extent to which participants accepted self-severing motives, and therefore did not contribute to minimize any potential ‘backfiring effect’, it is possible that non-controversial companies are not better served by targeting consumers who are high in support of social responsibility over consumers who are low in support of social responsibility. This result has produced an intriguing thought marker, as non-controversial companies may avoid the added cost and, hence, improve the effectiveness of their campaigns, by not having to target certain populations that perhaps would be more accepting of their CSR communication.

Discussion

The conclusions of this study may trigger discussions amongst both scholars and practitioners. Particularly, a discussion is likely to arise from the fact that neither perceived motives nor source credibility was found to influence consumers’ evaluations. Although these results were not totally unexpected, as source credibility was predicted to not have an

influence on consumers’ evaluations, the results still differ from prior studies that have investigated the same concepts (e.g., Yoon, Güran-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). The reasons why these results may have differed should be discussed in order to ensure the validity of the conclusions made in this study.

A likely argument to be made is that there could have been differences from prior studies in terms of the manipulation of the CSR information and the items used to measure consumers’ evaluation of the company. Such differences could potentially account for the

(25)

lack of effect of perceived motives and source credibility. Yet, as this study based the manipulation of the CSR information on a previous study conducted by Yoon, Güran-Canli, and Schwarz (2006) who were able to detect negative effects, this is an unlikely explanation for why the results differ. Furthermore, the fact that this study used the same dependent measure as the study of Yoon, Güran-Canli, and Schwarz, which was found to be reliable (α = .895), underscores that differences related to the manipulation of the CSR information and the items used to measure consumers’ evaluation of the company may not explain the differences in results.

Another explanation that might be brought forward for why the present study did not detect any significant differences with regards to perceived motives and source credibility could be that the study did not have sufficient power to find statistical differences. However, a post hoc power analysis demonstrated that the study had a power of 0.82, which according to Cohen (1998) would be sufficient to detect differences, if there were any. Hence, a lack of power cannot explain why the conclusions made in the present study differ from those of prior studies.

It is also important to discuss whether consumers’ prior knowledge of the company could have confounded the conclusions. The fact that this study chose to investigate the effects of perceived motives and source credibility in the context of a real company was a notable difference from prior studies (e.g., Yoon, Güran-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). These studies have often looked at the same effects in the context of fictitious companies. Although an analysis revealed that there was no confounding effect of participants having prior knowledge of the company, there was a trend in the data demonstrating that participants who had prior knowledge of the company were more favourable in their

evaluations. Due to the fact that prior knowledge was not found to significantly influence the results, this factor is not likely to account for the differences in results from prior studies.

(26)

Rather, the fact that this study used a real company makes the results more generalizable compared to prior findings.

As it becomes apparent that the differences in conclusions may not necessarily stem from differences in study design, lack of power, nor confounders, it is necessary to consider whether there might be alternative theoretical explanations for the results. Here, it could be argued that a likely reason for why no negative effect was detected in this study is that the company portrayed had a non-controversial reputation, unlike the companies used in prior studies (e.g., Yoon, Güran-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006) that have investigated the same effect. This may have caused consumers to be less sceptical of the CSR information they were presented with. Consumers may have an intrinsic scepticism towards controversial companies that, in turn, could make them more prone to attend to the potential negative effect of self-serving motives behind a CSR initiative. This intrinsic scepticism may be less pronounced for non-controversial companies, allowing consumers to be more accepting of their CSR

information.

If consumers are less sceptical when faced with a non-controversial company this could, in turn, explain why self-serving motives did not affect consumers’ evaluations. The

persuasion knowledge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) explains how attributions can affect consumers’ behaviours. The model could be used to explain how consumers’ intrinsic

scepticism, or lack thereof, could have affected their evaluation of the company in this study. Possibly, the attribution process works in different ways for controversial companies and non-controversial companies. For instance, it could be that consumers ascribe more negative attributes, such as self-serving motives, to controversial companies compared to

non-controversial companies due to their intrinsic scepticism. The persuasion knowledge model, thus, provides a possible explanation for why the result of the present study differs from prior studies that have investigated the same effects.

(27)

A similar explanation for why consumers did not evaluate the company more negatively due to having been presented with a self-serving motive could be provided by legitimacy theory (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Schocker & Sethi, 1974). The basis of this theory is that companies only can sustain if they comply with the norms and values of the society in which they operate. Prior studies have argued that companies within controversial industry sectors have to attend carefully to their CSR information in order to uphold their legitimacy (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Deegan & Gordon, 1996). It is possible that consumers may be less sceptical to CSR information provided by non-controversial companies as their legitimacy is not questioned. Accordingly, legitimacy theory could explain why the potentially

deteriorating effect of perceived motives was not detected in the present study.

The rationalisation provided by legitimacy theory could also explain why the credibility of the source was not found to impact consumers’ evaluation of the company in this study. The result differs from prior findings (Yoon, Güran-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006; Tormala & Petty, 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006) in that consumers’ evaluation of the company were no different when the CSR initiative was presented by a company source or by a neutral source. The result may be an indication that the ‘self-promoter’s paradox’ (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990), referring to the situation where one’s desire to appear legitimate causes one to appear illegitimate, perhaps only applies to controversial companies and not to non-controversial companies.

In support of these arguments, a study conducted by Kim (2014) has found that corporate reputation indeed may be an important determinant of whether consumers are sceptical to a company’s CSR initiative or not. The results of the study demonstrated that for controversial companies, strategic communication of CSR motives led to more sceptical attribution when the companies did not acknowledge that the CSR initiatives were serving. In the instances where they did acknowledge that the CSR initiatives were

(28)

self-serving, consumers’ scepticism was reduced. Still, for non-controversial companies, the strategic communication of CSR motives did not affect sceptical attribution. The results of Kim’s study underscores that it is likely that corporate reputation, or legitimacy, may be a central factor that could explain why the results of this study differs from prior studies.

Recognising that the legitimacy of the companies could be an explanatory factor for why the results of this study differs from those of prior studies, it is important to note a shortcoming of this study. The study relied on a previous study’s opinion of the company used as non-controversial (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010), rather than including an

instrument in the survey that measured how controversial the consumers viewed the company. This assumption may limit the generalizability of the results, as it was unknown to what extent the consumers agreed with the classification of the company as non-controversial. Importantly, future studies can address this limitation by including an instrument in their study to measure participants’ opinion on how controversial a given company is.

Moving on, it is necessary to discuss why the results of the present study indicate that consumers support for social responsibility do not make them more accepting of self-serving motives. This result was unexpected as a prior study by Kim and Yoon-Joo (2012) found that consumers’ support for social responsibility made them more accepting to self-serving

information. Still, Kim and Yoon-Joo’s study investigated the potential moderating effect that support for social responsibility could have in the context of a controversial company. The fact that a non-controversial company was used in this study could explain the difference in the results, as consumers may be accepting of non-controversial companies’ initiatives

regardless of motives, whereas only consumers high in social responsibility may be willing to accept CSR initiatives from controversial companies that come across as self-serving.

Furthermore, it could be that consumers’ support for social responsibility has more to do with the specific cause than what has previously been implied. Rather than it being general

(29)

support for social responsibility, it may be that a certain group of consumers are more supportive of CSR initiatives in the health sector, whereas others are more accepting of CSR initiatives in the environmental sector. Future studies could control for this assumption by including a measure to investigate consumers’ support for CSR initiatives within different sectors.

Overall, despite the shortcomings of this study, the discussion has provided reason to assume that the conclusions made in this study holds up. Although the study has shortcomings that need to be addressed in future research, it has lived up to its promise of delivering

(30)

References:

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 90, 574-585.

Artz, N., & Tybout, A. M. (1999). The moderating impact of quantitative information on the relationship between source credibility and persuasion: A persuasion knowledge model interpretation. Marketing Letters, 10, 51-62.

Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double edge of organizational legitimation.

Organizational Science, 1, 177-194.

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 248-262.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, A. B., Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Communication of corporate social responsibility by Portuguese banks: a legitimacy theory perspective. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, 11, 232-248.

Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 467-480.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.

Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48. Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd edition).

(31)

Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure policies of Australian corporations. Accounting and Businesses Research, 26, 187-199.

Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organisational legitimacy, social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 12-36.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximising business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 12, 8-19.

Du, S., & Vieira, E. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 413-427.

Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76, 393-406.

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34, 147-157.

Elving, W. J. L. (2012). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19, 277-292. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical

power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences.

Behavioural Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Folkes, V. M. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548-565.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258.

(32)

Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When honesty is the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer scepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349-356.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate

Communication: An International Journal, 6, 24-30.

Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20, 443-468.

Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets.

Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 15-36.

Janney, J. J., & Gove, S. (2011). Reputation and corporate social responsibility aberrations, trends, and hypocrisy: Reactions to firm choices in the stock option backdating scandal.

Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1562-1585.

Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 441-456.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219-266.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.

Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations

Review, 40, 838-840.

Kim, E. E. K., Kang, J., & Mattila, A. S. (2012). The impact of prevention versus promotion hope on CSR activities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 43-51.

(33)

Kim, S., & Yoon-Joo, L. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public

Relations Review, 38, 168-170.

Leonidou, L. C., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, C. N., & Chari, S. (2013). Business unethicality as an impediment to consumer trust: The moderating role of demographic and cultural characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 397-415.

Lee, K. H., & Shin, D. (2010). Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relations Review, 36, 193-195. Lii, Y-S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and

reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business

Ethics, 105, 69-81.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effects of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported non-profits. Journal

of Marketing, 68, 16-32.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument: Concepts, evidence, and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 457-484.

Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). “I need you too!” Corporate identity attractiveness for

consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 245-260. Martínez, P., & del Bosque, I. R. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust,

customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 35, 89-99.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.

(34)

Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 316-327.

Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: on the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 15, 171-182.

Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. (2005). CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry.

Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 387-401.

Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Landreth Grau, S. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of

Business Ethics, 70, 125-140.

Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 3-12.

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR

implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics,

85, 285-301.

Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2009). Advertising corporate social responsibility initiatives to communicate corporate image: Inhibiting scepticism to enhance persuasion.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14, 420-439.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.

Harvard Business Review, 80, 56-68.

Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2009). The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketing communications. Journal of Business Research, 62, 432-440.

(35)

Schocker, A. D., & Sethi, P. S. (1974). An approach to incorporating social preferences in developing corporate action strategies. In Sethi. P. S. (Ed.), The Unstable Ground:

Corporate Social Policy in a Dynamic Society, Los Angeles, CA, 76-80.

Schultz, M., & Morsing, M. (2003). The catch 22 of integrating CSR and marketing: Findings from a reputation study of Danish companies. Conference Proceedings, MSI, Boston University, September, 17-19.

Sheikh, S-U. R., & Beise-Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or cause-related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 27-39.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?

Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research,

38, 225-243.

Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business

Ethics, 124, 149-160.

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticim. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1831-1838.

Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 154-169.

Singh, J., de los Salmones Sanchez, M. D. M. G., & del Bosque, I. R. (2008). Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 597-611.

Strahilevitz, M. (2003). The effect of prior impressions of a firm’s ethics on the success of a cause-related marketing campaign: Do the good look better while the bad look worse?

(36)

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, pp. 33-47. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A

metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology,

14, 427-442.

Torres, A., Bijmolt, T. H. A., Tribo, J. A., & Verhoef, P. (2012). Generating global brand equity through corporate social responsibility to key stakeholders. International Journal

of Research in Marketing, 29, 13-24.

Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organisational commitment.

Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 189-204.

Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Marketing, 52, 58-74. Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threat of

inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73, 77-91.

Weiner, J. L., Laforge, R. W., & Goolsby, J. R. (1990). Personal communication in marketing: An examination of self-interest contingency relationships. Journal of

Marketing Research, 27, 227-31.

Wigley, S. (2008). Gauging consumers’ responses to CSR activities: Does increased awareness make cents? Public Relations Review, 34, 306-308.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer

(37)

Index of the appendix

Page number

Survey items 38-42

Syntax 43-46

(38)

Consent form Researcher

Thesis supervisor

The nature of the study

This study investigates consumers' perceptions of a company based on information regarding its corporate social responsibility (CSR). This information is usually disclosed in the sustainability report of a company, and describes initiatives that a company engages in for the betterment of the society and the environment. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may discontinue at any time without prejudice.

All the collected data will be kept strictly confidential.

By clicking 'next' you are giving your consent to participate in the study.

(General information about the company + scenario for experimental condition 1: self-serving motives and company source)

Please read the following information about the company:

Ben & Jerry's is an ice cream manufactory that was created in 1978. Today, Ben & Jerry's is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company Unilever. In addition to making and selling ice cream, the company aims to create prosperity for everyone that is connected to their business: suppliers, employees, farmers, franchises, customers, and neighbours alike.

Source: benjerry.co.uk

Please also read the following information about a corporate social responsibility (CSR) activity that the company has initiated:

Ben & Jerry's is one of the largest corporate supporters of environmental protection and conservation causes. Over the last couple of years the company has made numerous grants to environmental organisations in order to protect the environment. Furthermore, the company has partnered with various organisations within the environmental community to bring attention and resources to fight the destruction of the environment.

Source: Ben & Jerry's

(General information about the company + scenario for experimental condition 2: self-serving motives and neutral source)

(39)

cream, the company aims to create prosperity for everyone that is connected to their business: suppliers, employees, farmers, franchises, customers, and neighbours alike.

Ben & Jerry's is one of the largest corporate supporters of environmental protection and conservation causes. Over the last couple of years the company has made numerous grants to environmental organisations in order to protect the environment. Furthermore, the company has partnered with various organisations within the environmental community to bring attention and resources to fight the destruction of the environment.

Source: Corporate Social Rating Monitor (CSRM)

(General information about the company + scenario for experimental condition 3: neutral motives and company source)

Ben & Jerry's is one of the largest corporate supporters of cancer research and health causes. Over the last couple of years the company has made numerous grants to cancer-related organisations in order to fight cancer. Furthermore, the company has partnered with various organisations within the cancer community to bring attention and resources to fight against cancer.

Source: Ben & Jerry's

(General information about the company + scenario for experimental condition 4: neutral motives and neutral source)

Ben & Jerry's is an ice cream manufactory that was created in 1978. Today, Ben & Jerry's is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company Unilever. In addition to making and selling ice

(40)

cream, the company aims to create prosperity for everyone that is connected to their business: suppliers, employees, farmers, franchises, customers, and neighbours alike.

Ben & Jerry's is one of the largest corporate supporters of cancer research and health causes. Over the last couple of years the company has made numerous grants to cancer-related organisations in order to fight cancer. Furthermore, the company has partnered with various organisations within the cancer community to bring attention and resources to fight against cancer.

Source: Corporate Social Rating Monitor (CSRM)

(General information about the company – control condition) Please read the following information about the company:

Please evaluate the company by responding to the following questions. Q9 How unfavourable/favourable do you find the company?

Extremely unfavourable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely favourable Q10 How negative/positive do you find the company? Extremely negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely positive Q11 How bad/good do you find the company? Extremely bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely good

Q12 How unlikable/likeable do you find the company? Extremely unlikeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely likeable

(41)

Q14 "I would pay more to buy products from a socially responsible company" Totally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally agree

Q15 "I consider the ethical reputation of businesses when I shop" Totally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally agree

Q16 "I avoid buying products from companies that have engaged in immoral actions" Totally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally agree

Q17 "I would pay more to buy the products of a company that shows caring for the well-being of our society"

Totally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally agree

Q18 "If the price and quality of two products are the same, I would buy from the firm that has a socially responsible reputation"

Totally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally agree

Q19 How credible did you find the information you were presented with? Extremely not credible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely credible

Q20 How believable was the information you were presented with? Extremely unbelievable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely believable

Q21 Do you have any prior knowledge of the company?  Yes (1)

 No (2)

Display This Question:

If Do you have any prior knowledge of the company? Yes Is Selected Q22 If so, please rate your prior perception of the company:

Extremely negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely positive