Is social responsibility a liability? An empirical study into consumer
reactions to social responsibility claims.
Master’s Thesis Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme: Communication Science
Author: Eszter Kiss
Student ID: 11110457
Supervisor: Ewa Masłowska
2 Abstract
Corporate social responsibility programs are undertaken frequently by brands with the belief that such activities would improve their reputation. However, research remains conflicted regarding consumers’ responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives. While some research suggests that corporate social responsibility has a positive effect on consumer reactions, other studies show that corporate social responsibility is a liability. The aim of this thesis was to investigate if information regarding a product’s socially responsible nature would improve product evaluation, brand attitude, and purchase intention. Furthermore, the study explored if adding a competence statement – an explicit affirmation that the product is highly effective – to product information would reduce the possibly negative impact of product social responsibility on consumers’ product quality perceptions. To answer the research question, an online experiment was conducted, which examined participants’ responses to a fictional brand’s Facebook post announcing the introduction of a new socially responsible product. The results suggest that providing information on product social responsibility may have an overall positive effect on consumers’ product evaluations, brand attitude and purchase intention. The addition of the competence statement seems to strengthen this positive effect. Therefore, product social responsibility is not a liability; it can, in fact, be an asset to marketers.
3 Introduction
Over the past decade, an unprecedented number of companies have started corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs (Chernev & Blair, 2015). In fact, most of the world’s largest brands now boast some type of CSR initiative. For example, Google Inc. is engaged in such diverse CSR initiatives as providing free advertising to certain charitable organizations, contributing to earthquake relief efforts in China, and using satellite mapping data from the Google Earth Engine to stop illegal fishing and deforestation (Google, Inc., 2016; Google, Inc., n.d.). Google’s CSR programs have been so well received that the corporation is thought to have the best CSR reputation among the general public in the fifteen largest economies in the world (Reputation Institute, 2016).
However, attempts by brands to engage in CSR have not always been successful. For instance, CSR initiatives by the oil and gas giant BP were met with outrage on the part of NGOs and consumers, who were critical of the contradiction between the brand’s new CSR-based positioning and the unsustainable oil-based operations it was actually involved in (van Rekom, Berens & van Halderen, 2013). The situation culminated in the public outrage over the oil spill caused by the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which provoked intense criticism of BP’s CSR-based branding strategy (Balmer et al, 2011).
Given the widespread use of CSR in branding, it is not surprising that CSR and its impact on consumers have become a key topic in marketing research. That being said, extant research has failed to reach a consensus regarding the impact of CSR activities on consumer reactions. While some studies have found a positive effect of CSR on consumer responses (e.g., Olsen, Slotegraaf & Chandukala, 2014; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Chernev & Blair, 2015), other papers have shown a negative relationship between CSR and consumer reactions (e.g., Newman, Gorlin
4 & Dhar, 2014; Luchs et al., 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). This paper aims to resolve this contradiction by examining how consumers respond to CSR-information. The research question guiding this study is: Does information regarding a product’s social responsibility lead to more positive product evaluations, brand attitude, and higher purchase intention on consumers’ part?
In order to answer this question, this thesis begins with a review of the relevant literature on how consumers evaluate CSR and how that influences their decision-making processes. Predictions are formulated based on this literature. After that, the design of an online experiment that tests the hypotheses is outlined. The next part of the paper describes the results of the experiment. Finally, the implications of these results for theory and practice are explained.
The findings presented in this paper have important implications for both academia and practitioners. Furthermore, this paper recommends a specific communication strategy that managers can use to induce positive consumer reactions to CSR products. Hopefully, the growing body of research demonstrating the positive consumer reactions to and the profitability of CSR programs will induce more companies to invest in CSR in the future.
Theoretical framework
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been defined in a number of ways in academic literature. This paper uses a definition that takes a broader, societal view of CSR and has been used in many of the seminal studies on the topic (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Brown & Dacin, 1997). Thus, CSR is defined here as the company's “status and activities with respect to [i.e., responsiveness to] its perceived societal obligations” (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 68.).
Given that this conceptualization of CSR is quite broad, many diverse company actions may be classified as CSR. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) provide a categorisation of the company
5 actions that fit with this definition in six domains: (1) community support (e.g., educational, housing or health initiatives; charitable giving, etc.), (2) diversity (the company’s diversity record and initiatives), (3) employee support (e.g., safety concerns, job security, union relations), (4) environment (e.g., animal testing, recycling), (5) non-U.S. operations (e.g., overseas labour practices [e.g. sweatshops]), and (6) product (e.g., product safety, product innovations related to social or environmental concerns).
This study focuses on the last category, namely CSR related to the product and its attributes. A great deal of previous research into the impact of CSR on consumer reactions has focused on CSR behaviour unrelated to a company’s core competencies and products (Chernev & Blair, 2015). Typical examples of such CSR actions would be charitable giving or diversity initiatives. However, when considering CSR initiatives related to core competencies and products, consumers may make compensatory inferences regarding the product’s quality and performance (Chernev & Blair, 2015; Luchs et al, 2010). As a result, the effect of CSR on consumer responses could be very different than what has been observed in studies involving non-product-related CSR. This paper therefore investigates the impact of product-related CSR on consumers, which constitutes a less explored research topic.
Examples of CSR related to the product include cleaning products that use a modified formula to reduce environmental pollution, clothing made from recycled materials, and so on. Specifically, this study will employ a laundry detergent made with all natural ingredients that claims to avoid water pollution and protect wildlife as the socially responsible product.
How do consumers process CSR-related information?
When examining how consumers evaluate CSR initiatives, existing literature offers two main theoretical explanations: the affect heuristic (also called the halo effect) and the zero-sum heuristic. Heuristics refer to simple, informal decision models, likely developed through
6 evolutionary processes, which do not necessarily use all available information, but process some amount of information using simple computations (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Katsikopoulos, 2011). In everyday life, people often use heuristics as mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a judgement or decision. Heuristic processes occur even when sufficient information is provided to assess a situation without having to make inferences at all. Most of the time when people employ heuristics in their decision-making, they seem to be unaware of having done so.
The affect heuristic. The affect heuristic, or halo effect, refers to the mechanism by which an evaluation of one attribute may alter the evaluation of other attributes (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Thus, if CSR activities are perceived positively by a consumer, this may in turn enhance his perceptions of other product attributes, such as quality or use1fulness. Furthermore, the evaluation of one specific attribute may affect the global evaluation of the product, and vice versa (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
Prior research has indicated that consumers indeed use the affect heuristic when evaluating CSR products. For example, a pioneering article on the topic by Brown and Dacin (1997) examined the impact of consumers’ cognitive associations regarding a corporation on
product evaluations. The study identified two types of associations: corporate social responsibility (CSR) associations and corporate ability (CA) associations. CA associations refer to a consumer’s beliefs regarding a company's capacity to produce and deliver high-quality products. In a series of experiments, Brown and Dacin (1997) showed that providing CSR-related information about a company led to more positive CSR associations among respondents. Based on the study by Brown and Dacin (1997), the following prediction can be made:
7 Furthermore, Brown and Dacin (1997) found positive CA and CSR associations to enhance product evaluations, while negative CA and CSR associations had the opposite effect. According to the authors, CA and CSR associations may alter the evaluation of both specific product attributes and the company in general. Such results are in accordance with the affect heuristic.
In addition to ameliorating product evaluations and company evaluations, positive CSR associations have been found to enhance purchase likelihood, brand loyalty and longer-term advocacy behaviours (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007). Furthermore, it has been shown that a company’s socially responsible behaviour can improve consumers’ evaluation of product performance, even when they can directly test the product. In a series of experiments by Chernev and Blair (2015), participants rated the performance of the socially responsible product higher, even though the products they were testing were actually the exact same. This shows that consumers’ positive evaluation of a company’s moral actions may positively alter their perceptions of product performance, even if actual product performance can be experienced first-hand. This provides further evidence for the use of the affect heuristic. Moreover, the introduction of new green products (which can be considered the product-related type of CSR) has been demonstrated to improve overall brand attitude, again supporting the affect heuristic (Olsen, Slotegraaf & Chandukala, 2014).
To sum up, several studies have confirmed that positive CSR associations can enhance the evaluation of product attributes and overall brand evaluations, through the operation of the affect heuristic. Therefore, based on previous findings and the affect heuristic theory, we can expect that:
H2. CSR associations will positively affect product evaluations, brand evaluations and purchase
8 The role of CSR support. It can be expected that whether CSR will actually evoke positive associations may depend on the consumer. On the individual level, consumers’ support of the specific CSR domain has been shown to affect their evaluations of a CSR initiative. For instance, Chernev and Blair (2015) have found the positive impact of CSR-related information on product performance to be dependent on consumers’ moral values, such that the positive impact was more pronounced for consumers whose moral values were aligned with the company’s
actions. Similarly, in a series of experiments by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), consumers’ support of the CSR domain was reported to moderate the relationship between a company’s CSR initiatives and consumers’ evaluations of that company. Specifically, the positive changes in company evaluations induced by the company’s CSR actions were even more pronounced for consumers who were more supportive of the CSR domain. According to Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), consumers who find the CSR issue that a company works for important perceive a higher amount of congruence between the company’s character and their own. Heightened perceptions of congruence supposedly lead to greater commitment to and identification with the brand, which enhance positive effects on CSR associations. Furthermore, earlier studies on consumer reactions to CSR information have stressed the role of “personal relevance” and “importance of issue to self” (Haley, 1996; Creyer & Ross, 1997). These concepts are highly similar to the notion of consumer support of the CSR domain. Therefore, we can expect that:
H3. The positive effect of CSR-related information on CSR associations will be moderated by the
consumer’s support of CSR, such that the positive effect will be strengthened when consumer support of the CSR domain is high.
The zero-sum heuristic. Another mechanism that can explain the effect of CSR-information on consumer reactions is the zero-sum heuristic. The zero-sum heuristic refers to a decision model in which people intuitively judge a situation to be zero-sum when it is actually
9 non-zero-sum (Meegan, 2010). Zero-sum, a term from game theory, describes a situation in which resources are finite, thus one party gaining more resources must be matched by a corresponding loss of resources suffered by another party. Since consumers are aware that manufacturers operate under budgetary constraints, they may assume that sacrificing resources to improve one product attribute must correspond to the worsening of another product attribute, due to resources being diverted away from that product dimension (Luchs, Naylor, Irwin & Raghunathan, 2010; Chernev, 2007). Consumers are especially likely to make this inference when they perceive the two product attributes to not be correlated (Chernev & Carpenter, 2001). For instance, consumers often assume a product's durability and the length of the warranty offered with it to be correlated (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994); however, a product’s sustainability and its strength is usually not seen as correlated (Luchs et al, 2010). If a consumer is indeed employing the zero-sum heuristic, then making a product more socially responsible may lead him to infer that the product is inferior on some other attribute, such as strength. This would imply that making a product more socially responsible may have a negative effect on the evaluation of other product attributes and, as a result, overall evaluations. The negative association between product social responsibility and the evaluation of other attributes implied by the zero-sum heuristic appears to contradict the positive relation suggested by the affect heuristic.
Previous studies have demonstrated that consumers do at times use the zero-sum heuristic to evaluate socially responsible products. For example, in a series of experiments by Newman, Gorlin and Dhar (2014), making an environmental enhancement to a product led participants to make zero-sum inferences about resource allocation, reducing perceptions of overall product quality, which corresponded to reduced purchase intentions. Similarly, Luchs et al. (2010) showed that consumers assume a trade-off between social responsibility and strength-related product attributes. Strength-related attributes included effectiveness, power, toughness, and
10 “getting the job done,” all of which are associated with corporate ability (CA). In their study, as a
result of the assumed trade-off, the positive effect of the product’s social responsibility on product preference was diminished in product categories where strength-related attributes were valued, at times to the degree that non-socially responsible product were actually preferred. This is especially relevant in this study, since laundry detergent was one of the products in which people valued strength-related attributes in the research by Luchs et al (2010). Therefore, it seems that in the laundry detergent category, CA associations are to a high degree related to the detergent’s strength, effectiveness, and cleaning power. Thus, while CSR actions by a firm may improve CSR associations, they may at the same time worsen CA associations by reducing perceptions of product strength and performance. Some evidence for this effect is provided by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), who found that CSR initiatives result in reduced purchase intentions and negative perceptions if consumers believe that the CSR investments came at the expense of developing corporate abilities. Furthermore, negative CA associations have been shown to lead to worsened product evaluations (Brown and Dacin, 1997) and reduced purchase intention (Newman, Gorlin and Dhar, 2014). Moreover, the use of the zero-sum heuristic may explain why consumers at times state a preference for socially responsible products, yet do not transfer this preference to actual purchase behaviour (Oberseder, Schlegelmilch, & Gruber, 2011).
Together, these studies suggest that sacrificing resources to make a product more socially responsible may lead to more negative CA associations, due to consumers’ assumption that resources have been diverted away from improving product quality. Reduced CA associations may, in turn, lead to more negative overall brand and product evaluations. Therefore, based on the zero-sum heuristics theory, it may be hypothesised that:
11 H5. CA associations will positively affect product evaluations, brand evaluations and purchase
intention.
The addition of a competence statement. It is expected that when consumers use the zero-sum heuristic, CSR-information regarding a product will have a detrimental impact on product preference. However, there is evidence in existing research that providing explicit information on product strength can attenuate this negative effect (Luchs et al, 2010). Furthermore, it has been shown that for some individuals, it is more persuasive to frame product-related appeals in “non-green terms,” focusing on performance and strength instead of sustainability, even when it comes to sustainable products (Ku, Kuo, Wu & Wu, 2013). Based on these findings, this study introduces the relatively new concept of the competence statement as a tool for mitigating the proposed negative effect of CSR-information on CA associations when consumers are using the zero-sum heuristic. A competence statement is an explicit affirmation, featured in some way in the product’s marketing communication (packaging, advertisements, other promotional materials, etc.) that aims to assure the consumer that the product is highly effective and powerful despite it being socially responsible.
Of course, consumers do not always use the zero-sum heuristic when evaluating products – whether the zero-sum heuristic will be activated depends on the circumstances (Chernev & Carpenter, 2001). By providing information that contradicts the zero-sum heuristic, the competence statement may prompt consumers to not rely on this heuristic when making evaluations. Instead, other decision-making processes, including the affect heuristic, may be induced. Based on these arguments, we can expect that:
H6. The negative effect of CSR-related information on CA associations will be moderated by the
presence of the competence statement, so that the negative effect will be diminished when the competence statement is present.
12 The relations among the variables are summarized in the conceptual model (see Figure 1). Figure 1
Conceptual model
Method
Participants
The research used a convenience sample of N =109 participants (59.6% female, n = 65). The sample consisted in mostly friends and family of the researcher, who invited their own friends (i.e., snowball sampling). Therefore, the sample was quite diverse in terms of demographic characteristics. Regarding nationality, the majority of the respondents came from Hungary (46.8%), and another considerable portion (20.2%) came from the Netherlands. The rest of the participants came from the U.S., Australia, and various other countries in Europe. The
13 mean age in the sample was M = 29 (SD = 11.1). Furthermore, the majority of the respondents were highly educated, 73.4% of them had a university degree.
Procedure and materials
A between-subjects experiment was conducted to answer the research question. Participants received a link to the experiment with a survey. After agreeing to participate in the research, they were randomly exposed to one of the three conditions: (1) CSR-related information paired with a competence statement, (2) CSR-related information only, and (3) control condition in which no CSR-related information was presented.
In all three conditions an image that looked like a screenshot of a Facebook post was used, which presented a laundry-detergent brand, Oxifresh, announcing the introduction of a new product. A non-existent brand was used to avoid pre-existing brand-related associations confounding the results. The name of the brand was based on existing laundry detergent brands.
The Facebook post was made to be as realistic as possible, based on a real Facebook post by the company Tide introducing a new, environment-friendly detergent. It included a profile picture showing the Oxifresh logo, along with the “Sponsored” tag and the “Suggested post” tag to mimic a real sponsored post one would see on Facebook (see Figure 2). The message itself first introduced the new product, then made a product social responsibility claim regarding the prevention of water pollution and the protection of aquatic wildlife. This was followed by the competence statement (in the competence statement condition), which assured participants of the product’s strength despite its social responsibility. Finally, the post announced when the product would become available, ending with a hashtag. For the CSR-information-only group, the competence statement was removed from the message. For the control condition, both the competence statement and the product social responsibility claim were omitted. Beneath the
14 message, a photograph of the product was added. A timer was used to make sure that participants spent at least thirty seconds on the page showing the stimulus.
Figure 2
Example of the stimulus material for Group 1 (presented with both CSR-information and the competence statement)
After being exposed to experimental material, participants completed an online questionnaire assessing their reactions to the stimulus and relevant characteristics. At the end of the questionnaire, a manipulation check was employed. The experimental materials can be found in Appendix A.
15 Measures
CSR associations and CA associations. CSR associations and CA associations were measured using seven-point Likert scales. The items were based on Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2007). However, since their questionnaire concerned food products, the items were adapted for the laundry detergent category. For instance, one item measuring CA associations was “Oxifresh Simply Clean™ removes dirt and stains from clothes effectively.” An example item for the CSR associations measure was “Oxifresh Simply Clean™ gives something back to society.” Principal component analysis (PCA) confirmed that the five items for CA associations formed a single unidimensional scale: only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 3.34), and all items correlated positively with the first component. The results of the PCA for the CSR associations scale were similar: only one factor with an eigenvalue above 1 was detected (eigenvalue 3.23), and all four items loaded on this component. Both scales had high reliability (α = .920 for CSR associations, and α = .876 for CA associations. Therefore, the items were averaged to create the final scales.
Product evaluation. Product evaluation was measured with a single item, “What is your overall opinion of the product?” based on Brown and Dacin (1997). Response options ranged from 1 = “I do not like it at all” to 7 = “I like it very much”.
Brand attitude. To measure brand attitude, a scale developed and validated by Keer (2012) was used. The measure consisted of nine items (three items each for the cognitive and affective components of attitude, and three items for overall evaluation). The items were measured on seven-point semantic differential scales. For example, the affective component of brand attitude was represented by the word pairs unpleasant/pleasant, not enjoyable/enjoyable, and nasty/nice. PCA showed that only one factor had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 6.15),
16 and all nine items correlated positively with the first factor. The scale had high reliability (α = .941). Scores on each item were averaged to create the final scale.
Purchase intention. This construct was measured on a seven point Likert scale, using a single item, “Would you buy this product?”, based on the paper by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001). Consumer support of CSR. This measure was adapted from Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2007), who employed a single item “To what extent do you support the CSR issue that this brands work for?” However, the current study used two items to allow for a more complete measurement, focusing on the conservation of water resources and aquatic wildlife. As described before, both of these CSR domains were mentioned in the experimental stimuli as the CSR issues that the product aims to address. The two items were measured on seven-point Likert scales. The reliability of the scale was high (α = .83), so an averaged scale was created. The scales used in this research including all the items can be found in Appendix B.
Results
First, this paper predicted that CSR-information would have a positive effect on CSR associations (H1). In line with this hypothesis, one-way ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in terms of CSR associations between the groups (F (2, 106) = 3.55, p = .032). A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that CSR associations were significantly (p = .048) less positive in the control group (M = 4.38, SD = 1.42) than in the group that received CSR-information paired with the competence statement (M = 5.10, SD = 1.37). Furthermore, CSR associations were marginally significantly (p = .072) more positive in the group that received CSR-information only (M = 5.05, SD = 1.00) than in the control condition. CSR associations were, however, not significantly (p = .987) different between the two CSR groups,
17 that is, the group that saw the competence statement and the group that did not. Nonetheless, the results show that CSR-information increases CSR associations, hence Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Next, simple linear regression analysis was used to determine the effect of CSR associations on brand attitude, purchase intention and product evaluation (H2). The tests showed that CSR associations significantly predicted the dependent variables. The results are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Regression models to predict product evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention.
CSR associations CA associations Product evaluation b* = 0.65*, F(1, 107) = 77.92* b* = 0.52*, F(1, 107) = 39.33* Brand attitude b* = 0.71*, F(1, 107) = 109.53* b* = 0.61*, F(1, 107) = 64.22* Purchase intention b* = 0.58*, F(1, 107) = 52.82* b* = 0.57*, F(1, 107) = 51.40* Note. N = 109. *p < .001.
CSR associations explained a fairly high amount of the variance in the dependent variables (50% for brand attitude, 42% for product evaluation, and 33% for purchase intention). Furthermore, the standardized regression coefficients showed strong positive relationships between CSR associations and the dependent variables. To conclude, the prediction that CSR associations would positively affect brand attitude, purchase intention and product evaluation (H2) were confirmed by these results.
18 To test whether consumers’ support of the CSR domain would moderate the relationship between CSR-related information and CSR associations (H3), a two-way ANOVA was run. CSR association scores were divided into three groups (low, medium and high) based on the mean. According to the test, the interaction was not significant (F (4, 100) = 0.50, p = .733), therefore Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Next, the hypothesis that CSR-information would have a negative effect on CA associations (H4) was tested. This prediction was not supported by one-way ANOVA (F (2, 106) = 1.13, p = .326). Comparing means revealed that CA associations were the most negative in the group that received CSR-information without the competence statement (M = 4.39, SD = 0.76). CA associations were more positive when CSR was not mentioned at all (M = 4.47, SD = 0.86), and were the most positive when CSR-information was accompanied by the competence statement (M = 4.66, SD = 0.72). This may lend some support to the hypothesis that the competence statement could reduce the negative effect of CSR-information on CA associations. However, the differences between the groups were not big enough for either the ANOVA or the post-hoc tests to reach statistical significance. To conclude, even though the results were in the right direction, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
To test the prediction that CA associations would positively affect product evaluations, brand evaluations and purchase intention (H5), simple linear regression analysis was run. The results are shown above in Table 1. As it can be seen, CA associations significantly predicted the dependent variables, and the regression coefficients showed strong positive relationships between CA associations and the dependent variables. Furthermore, CA associations explained a fair amount of the variance in the dependent variables (37.5% for brand attitude, 26.9% for product evaluation, and 32.5% for purchase intention). Moreover, it seems that the final regression model fits the data quite well, since CSR and CA associations together explained 88.1% of the variance
19 in brand attitude, 69% of the variance in product evaluation, and 65.6% of the variance in purchase intention. To conclude, H5 was supported by the data.
Since the difference in CA associations between CSR with and without the competence statement was not significant, the prediction that the effect of CSR information on CA associations would be moderated by the competence statement (H6) was not supported. That beings said, the mean differences between the groups did show that CA associations were the most positive in the group that saw the competence statement (M = 4.66, SD = 0.72).
Finally, to test the direct effect of CSR-information on the independent variables, one-way ANOVAs were run to see how brand attitude, purchase intention and product evaluation differed between the three groups (information and competence statement, CSR-information only, and control condition). For product evaluation, the results of the ANOVA were marginally significant (F(2, 106) = 2.62, p = .077). A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that product evaluations were marginally significantly more positive in the group presented with CSR-information and a competence statement (M = 5.11, SD = 1.54) than in the control group (M = 4.39, SD = 1.07, p= 0.69). There was, however, no statistically significant difference between the group that was presented with CSR-information and the competence statement, and the group presented with CSR-information only (M = 4.89, SD = 1.45, p = .774).
For brand attitude and purchase intention, the differences between the groups did not reach statistical significance. That being said, all the effects were in the expected direction: the group presented with CSR-information and a competence statement had the highest means on all dependent variables, followed by the group presented with CSR-information only, while the control condition had the lowest means, as shown in Figure 2.
20 Figure 2
Comparison of group means on the dependent variables.
The summary of hypotheses and the results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of hypotheses and results.
H1 Information about CSR activities will have a positive effect on CSR associations.
Supported
H2 CSR associations will positively affect product evaluations, brand evaluations and purchase intention.
Supported
H3 The positive effect of CSR-related information on CSR Rejected
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
CSR-info with competence statement
CSR-info only Control
21 associations will be moderated by the consumer’s
support of the CSR domain, so that the positive effect will be strengthened when consumer support of the CSR domain is high.
H4 Information about CSR activities will have a negative effect on CA associations.
Rejected
H5 CA associations will positively affect product evaluations, brand evaluations and purchase intention.
Supported
H6 The negative effect of CSR-related information on CA associations will be moderated by the presence of the competence statement, so that the negative effect will be diminished when the competence statement is present.
Rejected
Discussion
Previous studies examining consumer response to brands’ CSR initiatives have observed inconsistent results. On the one hand, several articles have found CSR to have a positive effect on a number of evaluative outcomes, such as product evaluations, perceived product performance, brand image, and more (Olsen, Slotegraaf & Chandukala, 2014; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Chernev & Blair, 2015). By contrast, CSR has also been documented to have a negative effect on consumer reactions, including product preference, product quality perceptions, and purchase intention (Newman, Gorlin & Dhar, 2014; Luchs et al., 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Since
22 extant research has failed to reach a consensus on this issue, developing a better understanding of how consumers respond to CSR information is crucial from both a theoretical and managerial standpoint.
The central aim of this research was to investigate if information regarding a product’s social responsibility leads to more positive product evaluations, brand attitude, and higher purchase intention. To answer this question, a theoretical model validated by Brown and Dacin (1997) was used, which distinguishes between the impact of CSR on consumers’ CSR and CA associations, and the effect of these associations on evaluative outcomes, in a two-step process. The following results were obtained.
In accordance with earlier studies, both CSR and CA associations were found to positively affect evaluative outcomes, such as product evaluation, brand attitude, and purchase intention. This result shows that consumers’ associations regarding the product are important determinants of how they will feel about the product and the brand that made the product. In addition, these associations will also affect their willingness to buy the product.
Furthermore, in line with predictions, CSR-information was shown to have a positive effect on CSR associations. However, contrary to what was hypothesized, CSR-information was not found to have a negative effect on CA associations. Still, some evidence for this hypothesis was found by comparing the means of CA associations across the groups. CA associations were the most negative in the group that did not see a competence statement accompanying CSR-information. This result suggests that consumers may have been using the zero-sum heuristic in their evaluations, which led them to be sceptical about the quality of the product. This would be in accordance with prior research that has found product social responsibility to reduce consumers’ product quality perceptions (Newman, Gorlin & Dhar, 2014). If this is indeed the case, then the competence statement may be an effective tool for assuaging the concerns that
23 consumers may have regarding product quality and corporate ability when it comes to CSR products. Interestingly, the results provide some support for this idea, since the group that received a competence statement with the CSR-information had the most positive CA associations (though the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance). In fact, CA associations were improved even compared to the control condition, which did not receive either CSR-information or a competence statement. This suggests that the positive impact of the competence statement on CA associations was so pronounced that it surpassed the negative impact of CSR-information related to scepticism. Therefore, the competence statement has the potential to minimize the negative consumer responses to CSR cited in existing research. However, further research is required to find out if these effects are considerable enough to reach significance in different populations.
Surprisingly, no interaction effect between consumer support of CSR and CSR-information was found. This finding is contrary to previous research on the topic (Chernev & Blair, 2015; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). It is difficult to explain this result, but it may be due to some considerations with the sample that was used in this experiment, which will be explained below. Regardless of the results presented here, it is likely that consumer support of CSR is an important factor in determining consumer reactions to CSR.
These findings have some interesting practical implications, especially given that marketing managers tend to believe that CSR is not beneficial for enhancing consumers’ perceptions of their product (Chernev & Blair, 2015). The results here suggest that engaging in CSR activities or creating CSR products may improve consumers’ product- and brand-related attitudes, and even purchase intentions. Managers should also consider adding a competence statement to their CSR products, since the findings of this study indicate that it may alleviate consumers’ concerns regarding the strength and quality of socially responsible products.
24 Two limitations of the present study need to be considered. Firstly, due to practical considerations, a convenience snowball sample was used, which makes it difficult to say what population the sample represents. In fact, the sample was rather random and mixed in terms of age, nationality, and other characteristics. Therefore, the generalizability of these results is quite limited. It would be interesting to recreate the experiment with a more uniform sample in the future and see what results emerge.
Furthermore, the effect of CSR-information on CA associations suggests that consumer skepticism may be an important factor in how brands’ CSR initiatives are evaluated. For example, a more skeptical consumer may be less willing to believe that a socially responsible product performs well, which would lead to worsened product evaluation and brand attitude for these consumers, especially if a competence statement is not added. Other highly skeptical consumers may question a brand’s motives for engaging in CSR activities in the first place. Considering prior research, several articles have reported consumer skepticism and consumer attributions regarding firms’ motives to be key determinants of consumer reactions to CSR (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006). However, consumer skepticism was not measured in this study. Future research on how consumers evaluate CSR products should definitely take skepticism into account. In particular, the interaction between consumer skepticism and the addition of a competence statement to a CSR product would be exciting to explore.
All things considered, could brands stimulate more positive consumer responses – such as better product evaluations, brand attitude, and purchase intention – by making their products more socially responsible? The results presented here suggest that there may be an overall positive relationship between CSR-related information and product evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention. The addition of the competence statement seems to strengthen this positive
25 effect, as hypothesized. However, while the results suggest that these relationships may exist, the effects were not strong enough to reach statistical significance in this study.
26 References
Balmer, J.M.T., Powell, S.M. and Greyser, S.A. (2011). Explicating ethical corporate marketing – Insights from the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe: The ethical brand that exploded and then imploded. Journal of Business Ethics 102(1): 1–14.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68. doi:10.2307/1252190 Chernev, A. (2007). Jack of All Trades or Master of One? Product Differentiation and
Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 430-444. doi:10.1086/510217
Chernev, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1412-1425. doi:10.1086/680089
Chernev, A. & Carpenter, G. S. (2001). The Role of Market Efficiency Intuitions in Consumer Choice: A Case of Compensatory Inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 349-361.
Creyer, E. & Ross, W. T. Jr. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421-432.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24(3), 224-241. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
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
27 Google, Inc. (2016). Google’s Environmental Report. Retrieved from
https://environment.google/projects/environmental-report-2016/
Google, Inc. (n.d.). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.google.cn/intl/en/about/company/responsibility/
Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers' Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 19-35.
Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2011). Psychological Heuristics for Making Inferences: Definition, Performance, and the Emerging Theory and Practice. Decision Analysis, 8(1), 10–29. Keer, M. (2012). Persuasion through facts and feelings: integrating affect and cognition into
behavioral decision models and health messages. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ku, H., Kuo, C., Wu, C., & Wu, C. (2012). Communicating Green Marketing Appeals Effectively. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 41-50. doi:10.1080/00913367.2012.10672456 Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The Sustainability
Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference. Journal of
Marketing, 74(5), 18-31.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1-18. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1
Meegan, D. V. (2010). Zero-sum bias: perceived competition despite unlimited resources.
Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-7.
Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements. J Consum
28 Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The Halo Effect: Evidence for the Unconscious Alteration
of Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(April), 450-456.
Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B. & Gruber, V. (2011). “Why Don't Consumers Care About CSR?”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role of CSR in Consumption Decisions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 449-460.
Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New Products Change Brand Attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 119-137. doi:10.1509/jm.13.0387
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization Studies 24(3): 403–11.
Reputation Institute. (2016). The 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® 100. Retrieved from https://www.reputationinstitute.com/research/CSR-RepTrak
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948-963. doi:10.1086/660851
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Van Rekom, J., Berens, G. & van Halderen, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Playing to win, or playing not to lose? Doing good by increasing the social benefits of a company’s core activities. Journal of Brand Management 20(9), 800–814.
29 Appendix A. Experimental materials
Group 1 was exposed to the experimental material below, which included both CSR-information and the competence statement.
30 Group 2 was exposed to the experimental material below. This included CSR information, but no competence statement.
31 Group 3 was the control condition. They were exposed to the experimental material below. This stimulus included neither CSR-information nor a competence statement. It simply announced the launch of a new product without any additional information.
32 Appendix B. Scales and measures
The following items were used to measure CSR associations. The items were measured on seven-point Likert scales, anchored with “strongly agree” – “strongly disagree”.
1. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ is a socially responsible product.
2. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ could make a real difference to the conservation of water resources.
3. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ was made with society’s interests in mind. 4. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ gives something back to society.
The following items were used to measure CA associations. The items were measured on seven-point Likert scales, anchored with “strongly agree” – “strongly disagree”.
1. Overall, Oxifresh Simply Clean™ is of high quality. 2. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ cleans well.
3. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ removes dirt and stains from clothes effectively. 4. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ keeps clothes soft and keeps colors from fading. 5. Oxifresh Simply Clean™ provides good value for money.
Product evaluation was measured with the single item, on a seven-point scale anchored with “like a lot” – “dislike a lot”:
1. What is your overall opinion of the product?
Brand attitude was measured on seven-point semantic differential scales. The following word pairs were used:
33 1. Unpleasant – Pleasant
2. Not enjoyable – Enjoyable 3. Harmful – Beneficial 4. Worthless – Valuable 5. Negative – Positive 6. Bad – Good 7. Undesirable – Desirable 8. Nasty – Nice 9. Useless - Useful
Purchase intention was measured with a single item, on a seven-point scale anchored with “definitely yes” – “definitely no”:
1. Do you think you would buy this product?
Consumer support of CSR was measured on seven-point Likert scales, anchored with “strongly against” – “strongly support”. The two items below were employed.
1. To what extent do you support the conservation of our water resources?
2. To what extent do you support the protection of wildlife living in our lakes, rivers and oceans?
