Food companies’ CSR communication:
Effects of stated motives and CSR focus on consumers’ behavioural intentions Leonie Fries
10968008 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Rens Vliegenthart 23.06.2016
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication is a powerful tool to differentiate from competitors in the highly contested food business. Even though CSR communication is a top priority for food companies nowadays, little is known about consumers’ preferences for different foci and strategies. This study examined the effects of stated motives and CSR focus in food companies’ CSR communication on consumers’ behavioural intentions. Conducting an experimental survey with 306 participants, I tested five versions of a corporate website with CSR content. Participants either saw one of two CSR foci (socioeconomic vs.
environmental) and one of two CSR motives (extrinsic vs. intrinsic) or were part of the control condition. A post-questionnaire measured behavioural intentions and environmental consciousness. Results showed that communicating intrinsic CSR motives leads to more positive behavioural intentions than communicating extrinsic motives. The choice of
environmental or socioeconomic focus does not influence behavioural intentions. The results connect to former research findings that extrinsic motives lead to negative attributions when consumers perceive to be manipulated. In addition, the findings show that especially in the food industry consumers reward companies, which take their responsibility for environment and society seriously. This study gives practical implications for food companies developing a CSR communication strategy. In order to raise consumers’ behavioural intentions, it is crucial for companies to transmit their intrinsic intentions behind CSR. Only when consumers perceive CSR engagement as sincerely intrinsically motivated, CSR communication will generate its much-discussed positive effects.
Food companies’ CSR communication:
Effects of stated motives and CSR focus on consumers’ behavioural intentions
In 2014, the United Nations launched principles to achieve food security by arguing, ‘We need to find solutions for agricultural production in a sustainable and responsible
manner in order to feed the world in the years to come’ (UN Global Compact, 2016). The act shows that environmental-friendly food production is a major challenge for current society. Actions of such prominent international organizations raise awareness for the topic among media and the public. In such times of high attention for environmental and societal issues, corporations are expected to adjust their related affairs. Accordingly, the significance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) rises (Lee & Carroll, 2011).
Strategic communication of CSR activities is important to achieve credibility among stakeholders (Seele & Lock, 2015). It involves a choice of message content, message channel and an understanding of company-specific factors that can affect the effectiveness (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). When successful, CSR communication increases consumers’ behavioural intentions, such as their willingness to purchase a product, support, invest in, and seek employment with a company (Kim, 2014). However, CSR communication can be a sensitive issue. Depending on the chosen strategy, stakeholder reactions can vary from credibility to scepticism. Thereby, consumers are particularly sceptic towards extrinsic and obvious attempts to enhance company reputation (Du et al., 2010). Thus, topic selection and the transmission of motives behind CSR engagement are major determinants for the success of a CSR communication strategy.
Additionally, CSR communication must always be seen in the context of a company’s industry, which makes it more delicate for firms in certain businesses (Cottrill, 1990). One such business is the food industry with high dependence from and impact on natural
because of negative media coverage about labour conditions and environmental responsibility (Hartmann, 2011). Hence it is not surprising that food companies see CSR communication as a top priority nowadays (The Consumer Good Forum, 2011). Each of the 23 largest European food enterprises provides CSR information in a report (Hartmann, 2011). Additionally, many companies influence their reputation by informing stakeholders through their corporate websites (Gaskill-Fox, Hyllegard & Ohle, 2014).
Nevertheless, research on CSR communication among food companies is rare and is especially missing answers to when, how, and why consumers respond to it (Hartmann, 2011). How much do they value communication about socioeconomic or environmental responsibility? Which stated motives strengthen positive effects of CSR communication? Knowing consumers’ responses to CSR communication in the food industry is crucial for companies to justify, manage and communicate their CSR activities (c.f. Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013). In order to fill this research gap, the present study is asking: Which effects do stated motives and CSR focus in food companies’ CSR communication have on consumers’ behavioural intentions?
In the following, I examine the research question conducting an experimental survey. First, a theoretical background of CSR communication and CSR communication in the food industry is given and the hypotheses are introduced. Then, the research method is explained. Finally, the results are presented and discussed among with their limitations and implications.
Theory CSR communication
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a socially constructed value, which focuses on the ethical and philanthropic responsibility of an organization (Lee & Carroll, 2011). Kotler and Lee (2005) define CSR as ‘a commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources’ (p.3),
therein combining the factors of success and respectful value creation. Companies engage in CSR because of an ideological motivation, but also for business strategic reasons (Du et al., 2010). Various studies point towards a business case for CSR with monetary and measurable benefits, such as financial success and improved competitiveness (Werder, 2008).
Strongly connected to the CSR engagement of companies is the strategic
communication of the same. CSR communication is not only a marketing or PR tool, but an essential means for companies to achieve credibility and moral legitimacy with CSR (Seele & Lock, 2015). Understanding how to communicate CSR effectively is crucial to increase consumer awareness and brand equity (Andreu, Casado-Diaz & Mattila, 2015). CSR communication can assist companies to reach stakeholder understanding by mediating their corporate behaviours and motives (Kim, 2014). Even though the monetary benefits of CSR communication have not been finally examined, various direct and indirect effects of CSR communication on stakeholders’ attitudes and perceptions can be found (Werder, 2008).
CSR communication does not only foster stakeholder awareness (Gaskill-Fox et al., 2014), it does as well influence individuals’ beliefs about organizations and their products (Werder, 2008). Thus, communicating CSR activities can help to build a corporate image and connect with stakeholders. Reaching even further, CSR communication also influences stakeholders’ behaviours, e.g. by enhancing their advocacy actions (Du et al., 2010). Former studies showed a positive effect of CSR communication on consumers’ behavioural
intentions, namely their willingness to purchase a product, support, invest in, and seek employment with a company (Kim, 2014). Connecting to this, CSR communication supports the employer brand by helping to hire and retain high quality employees (Dawkins, 2004). This applies for a clear CSR communication strategy with tailored messages for different stakeholder groups and integration into internal communication and mainstream channels (Dawkins, 2004).
When looking at CSR communication practices, a firm’s industry is one major determining factor that should be considered (Sturdicant & Ginter, 1977). According to former studies, significant variation exists in the use of CSR communication across different industrial sectors (Sweeney & Coughlan, 2008). Some industries are determined to be more socially responsible by the nature of their business activities and thus pressured by the public to consider CSR behaviour for their actions (Boutin-Dufresne & Sacaris, 2004). This occurs particularly for companies in industries with high social and environmental impact
(Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). Higher levels of CSR disclosure occur simultaneously with increased focus on companies’ environmental problems (Cuganesan et al., 2010). One might think of delicate industries with a strong accountability for environmental pollution and risk, such as the oil or automotive sector. But a more inconspicuous industry is also highly dependent on natural resources and simultaneously leaves a massive mark on the earth and people: the food industry.
CSR communication in the food industry
Food and food production are essential topics since all humans have to buy and eat food to cover their needs (Hartmann, 2011). Hence it comes naturally that people have strong opinions about the food sector and are interested in production, quality, and healthiness of food products (Maloni & Brown, 2006). CSR communication addresses this demand for information and is of special relevance in the food sector for several reasons.
The food industry has to deal with numerous problematic issues. The sector is highly dependent upon natural and human resources and has strong impact on environment, society, and economy (Hartmann, 2011). Environmental issues in the food industry are among others water damage, deforestation, food miles, global warming from methane, and the use of chemicals for agriculture (Maloni & Brown, 2006). With regards to societal issues, the food industry is especially connected to labour and human right topics since food products have a
long supply chain with e.g. farmers, producers involved, and possibly also foreign and child workers (Maloni & Brown, 2006). The debate about the food sector is intensified due to food scandals about polluted products and bad labour conditions, which were highly covered in the media within the last years (Albersmeier & Spiller, 2009). In this situation, CSR
communication can help companies to distinguish themselves from the general industry image and improve their reputation. Reputation is even more important in the food industry since it is greatly saturated with similar competing products (Hartmann, 2011). Biological and sustainable product labels are increasingly common in the food sector and also build on aspects of CSR (Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013). The main driver for CSR in the food industry is considered to be the need to differentiate from competitors (Hartmann, Heinen, Melis & Simons, 2013).
Even though CSR communication is highly relevant for food companies, former research on the subject is rare and has mainly brought to light how food companies’ CSR communication is currently composed (Hartmann, 2011).
Richards, Thomas, Randle and Pettigrew (2015) analysed CSR reports and web-based content of big food companies in Australia and found that firms mainly broach the three issues environment, consumer responsibility1, and community support. Companies use these dimensions to build their brand image, to target parents and children, and to align themselves with other organizations and events of high reputation for their own image benefit (Richards, Thomas, Randle & Pettigrew, 2015).
Sommer, Klink, Senkl and Hartmann (2014) examined CSR communication on corporate websites of food companies and showed that social aspects, like labour practices and human rights, are underrepresented topics in comparison to environmental topics.
Additionally, they found that larger firms engage more in CSR communication since they are
more visible and have to cope with higher stakeholder expectations (Sommer, Klink, Senkl & Hartmann, 2014). Despite those findings, CSR communication is not consistent within the food sector and can vary largely between and within different subsectors (Cuganesan et al., 2010).
While the above-mentioned studies examined the content of CSR communication, only few studies focused on consumers and the effects of CSR communication in the food sector. Anselmsson and Johansson (2007) examined consumer evaluation of CSR for grocery products on the point of sale and found that consumers base their CSR image on the three dimensions human responsibility, environmental responsibility, and product responsibility. Those aspects form consumers’ CSR image, which in turn influences their purchase
intentions (Anselmsson & Johansson, 2007). Using a similar approach, Forsman-Hugg et al. (2013) tested the perceived importance of different CSR aspects for stakeholders in the food industry. They identified the seven key dimensions environment, product safety, nutrition, occupational welfare, animal welfare, economic responsibility, and local well-being (Forsman-Hugg et al., 2013).
Assiouras, Ozgen and Skourtis (2013) analysed the impact of prior CSR information on perceptions in food product-harm crises and focused on the so-called buffering effects of CSR communication. Buffering effects apply when stakeholders store positive CSR
information over time, which then cushion the consequences of a crisis because consumers want to keep their cognitive consistency (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012). The study showed that CSR communication has an impact on the attribution of blame, brand evaluation, and buying intention after a crisis (Assiouras, Ozgen & Skourtis, 2013). Companies with higher CSR communication involvement can cope better with product-harm crisis and face milder consequences from stakeholders (Assiouras et al., 2013).
consumers respond to CSR communication in the food industry (Hartmann, 2011). The effects of different kinds of CSR communication content are hardly taken into consideration. More insight into consumers’ preferences for CSR communication of food companies is needed for them to justify, manage and communicate their CSR activities (c.f. Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013). The present study will fill this gap.
Stated motives of CSR communication. Strategic CSR communication provides not only factual details about certain CSR activities but also indicates underlying motives for CSR engagement (Sen, Du & Bhattacharya, 2009). Current CSR communication of major companies is mainly characterized by two kinds of motives: While extrinsic motives name companies’ profit as a major driver for CSR engagement, intrinsic motives name genuine concern for the focal issue as companies’ motivation (Du et al., 2010).
Generally, the attribution of marketing actions to firm-serving motives leads to negative consumer reactions (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Applied to CSR communication, this indicates that consumers refrain from making positive inferences when suspecting self-serving motives in CSR communication (Fein & Hilton, 1994). When CSR communication acknowledges extrinsic motives, consumers’ responses towards a firm become more negative than when it states purely intrinsic motives (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Even though
consumers do not reject firm-serving motives in general, they react negatively when they perceive to be manipulated (Forehand & Grier, 2003). When consumers perceive the
company as sincerely following intrinsic motives, their supportive behavioural intentions and their purchase intentions rise (Kim & Lee, 2012).
One can see that sincerity behind CSR motives is an important factor for the success of CSR communication (Kim & Lee, 2012). However, sincerity is hard to measure and is commonly defined by whether a company benefits from a CSR cause or not (Yoon, Gürhan-Canli & Schwarz, 2006). Consequently, sincerity in CSR communication is characterized by
an intrinsic interest in the supported CSR cause; which overlaps with an intrinsic CSR motive (Yoon et al., 2006). Since it is difficult to measure sincerity objectively and both phenomena have common ground, this study will focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motives instead of sincerity. One can say that an intrinsic, public-serving motive serves as a basis for consumer acceptation of CSR communication (Kim & Lee, 2012).
In contrast, some findings indicate that the acknowledgement of extrinsic motives enhances credibility and lowers stakeholder scepticism. To reach credibility, companies should admit that they do not only engage in CSR for society and environment, but also for their own business interests (Du et al., 2010). Communicating a self-serving motive can reduce scepticism and enhance behavioural intentions (Kim, 2014). However, consumers only accept self-serving motives when the basis of public-serving motives is given (Kim & Lee, 2012). As shown above, the findings are not uniform and none of the mentioned studies focused on CSR in the food industry. I occupy this gap by supposing the following effect: H1: Consumers will have more positive behavioural intentions towards food companies
that communicate CSR by stating intrinsic motives than towards food companies that communicate CSR by stating extrinsic motives.
Environmental and socioeconomic focus. CSR is typically divided into the aspects of environmental and socioeconomic responsibility (Cowper-Smith & De Grosbois, 2011). While environmental responsibility focuses on the impact on earth and resources,
socioeconomic responsibility emphasizes employee and community wellbeing as well as economic prosperity (Cowper-Smith & De Grosbois, 2011). As mentioned before, the food industry deals with several problematic issues from water damage and deforestation to human right topics (Maloni & Brown, 2006). All of these can be summed up and sorted under the two meta-categories of environmental and socioeconomic responsibility.
CSR can generally affect the brand image positively (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). However, a study with focus on the food industry showed that consumers value environmental benefits higher than social benefits in their decision-making about food products (Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013). These findings can be explained on the basis of food values, on which consumers generally evaluate food products and base their purchase intentions (Lusk & Briggemann, 2009). Safety, nutrition, taste, and price are the most important values (Lusk & Briggemann, 2009). However, environment, naturalness, and fairness come right afterwards and are of special importance for the willingness to spend a higher amount of money, e.g. for organic food (Lusk & Briggemann, 2009). These findings consent with the fact that
consumers are willing to pay three times more for environmentally responsible food (Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013).
Communication about environmental aspects of CSR is thus of high importance since it might offer a way to influence consumers’ purchase and behavioural intentions. Taking these findings into account, I suppose the following effect:
H2: Consumers will have more positive behavioural intentions towards food companies that communicate CSR with a focus on environmental responsibility than towards food companies that communicate CSR with a focus on socioeconomic
responsibility.
However, this effect does not occur equally for all consumers. Schlegelmilch, Bohlen and Diamantopoulos (1996) state that environmental consciousness leads to more
pro-environmental purchasing behaviours and is the explaining factor for more than 20 per cent of variation in purchasing decisions. This implies that pro-environmental purchasing
behaviours appear especially for people with high environmental consciousness. Connecting these findings to the concept of CSR communication, I suppose:
H3: Consumers will have more positive behavioural intentions towards food companies with an environmental focus of CSR communication than with a socioeconomic focus; and the higher the environmental consciousness of the consumer the larger is this effect.
Methods
This study has a 2 x 2 factorial design with two experimental factors and a control condition (see Appendix A). I examined the effect of companies’ CSR communication on behavioural intentions by comparing socioeconomic versus environmental focus plus extrinsic versus intrinsic motives. Thus, the experimental factors of this study are focus of CSR communication with two conditions (socioeconomic focus and environmental focus) and stated motives of CSR communication with two conditions (extrinsic motives and
intrinsic motives). Additionally, I took consumers’ environmental consciousness into account as a moderator of the mentioned effect.
Participants
A total number of Nrecruited = 306 participants was recruited for an online study by a convenience sample using e-mail and Facebook. These distribution channels do not produce any costs and address a large personal network. Additionally, in a variant of snowball sampling participants were asked to forward the survey to their friends in order to diversify the sample. The target was a minimum of 40 participants for each of the five conditions. Everyone above 18 years old and able to understand the German language was eligible to take part in the study. Ntotal = 241 participants finished the study. The number of dropouts was 65. Aside from these, no participants were excluded from the dataset after completing the survey.
A majority of 59.3% (n = 143) of participants were female. The major share of 38.2% (n = 92) of participants was students. The highest educational achievement of 17.4% (n = 42)
of participants was a university-entrance diploma, while 22.8 % (n = 55) had completed secondary education.2 A majority of 74.3% (n = 179) of participants was between 18 and 30 years old. 7.1% (n = 17) participants belonged to the age group between 31 and 40, 5.4% (n = 13) participants belonged to the age group between 41 and 50, and 12.9 % (n = 31) of the participants were older than 51 years.
Randomization check. Four randomization checks were conducted to test the random distribution of age groups, gender, educational achievements, and scepticism across
conditions.
The random distribution of age groups across conditions was tested in a chi square test. Since 50% of cells had an expected count less than 5, the likelihood ratio test was used to determine the distribution of conditions. It showed no significant difference between age and the distribution across conditions, X² (df = 12) = 18.99, p = .089.
The random distribution of gender across conditions was tested in a second chi square test. Even though the sample contained more females than males, results showed no
significant difference in the distribution of gender, X² (df = 4) = 3.787, p = .436.
Concerning educational differences, a chi square test showed that the distribution of students and non-students was not significantly differed across conditions,
X² (df = 4) = 1.286, p = .864. Additionally, a likelihood ratio test was used to determine the distribution of educational achievements across conditions. It showed no significant
difference in the distribution across conditions, X² (df = 20) = 14.632, p = .797.
The random distribution of scepticism across conditions was tested in a chi square test. Therefore, the scale variable scepticism was computed into two levels.3 The results showed that the distribution of highly and lowly sceptical people did not differ significantly
2 In the German educational system, the level of secondary education is split into a certificate for 9 years
of education (Hauptschulabschluss) and a certificate for 10 years of education (Realschulabschluss). 5.4% (n = 13) of participants had Hauptschulabschluss, 17.4% (n = 42) of participants had Realschulabschluss.
3 Participants with a value higher than 4 were sorted as high in scepticism, participants with a value
across conditions, X² (df = 4) = 6.45, p = .168. Procedure
This experimental study was conducted as an online-study using the online survey tool Qualtrics. It had a between subjects design, whereby participants were randomly assigned to one of five conditions. The first group received a stimulus with environmental focus and extrinsic motives (n= 54), the second group received a stimulus with
environmental focus and intrinsic motives (n = 51), the third group received a stimulus with socioeconomic focus and extrinsic motives (n = 45), and the fourth group received a stimulus with socioeconomic focus and intrinsic motives (n= 48). Finally, the fifth group acted as a control condition (n = 43).
The reading task was timed with 15 seconds for each website version. This means that all participants viewed the website for a minimum of 15 seconds until they were able to click forward to the next question. However, most participants stayed on the website for longer than a minute (Mseconds = 79.19 seconds, SD = 213.21).
After exposure to the manipulation, participants answered a post questionnaire with questions on behavioural intentions, environmental consciousness, and CSR scepticism. A manipulation check was included close to the stimuli. Due to the limited time of the master thesis, the study was open for 10 days. The whole study design received ethical approval. Stimulus material
Focus and stated motives of CSR communication by food companies acted as independent variables in this study. Both variables were manipulated in the form of a food company’s corporate website. Corporate websites have emerged into a popular channel for CSR communication since they are practical and inexpensive (Gaskill-Fox et al., 2014). Especially larger companies use their websites in addition to annual CSR reports (Gaskill-Fox et al., 2014). Websites allow companies to target their message at stakeholders directly
without passing information mediators, such as journalists (Carroll, 2011). Stakeholders can visit websites and receive information about a company’s commitment (Sommer et al., 2014).
To make the manipulation comparable, I used a preconceived chocolate company, for which I designed five websites. This choice was based on two reasons: First, chocolate is among the most-bought food products in Germany in 2015 (Statista, 2016). Second, the sustainability of chocolate cropping is highly controversial wherefore it offers various CSR approaches. The websites were constructed for the purpose of this study, which leads to high comparability of both conditions.
To make the conditions comparable, the structure and the amount of content were similar for all conditions. Pictures and text body content differed. To represent the CSR focus conditions, the website content was manipulated as follows: In manipulation 1, the company emphasized its environmental responsibility with the topics resources (water use, packaging waste). In manipulation 2, the company emphasized its social and economic responsibility with the topics employees (health, safety, wellbeing, diversity), and society in general (community projects). I adopted these topics from Cowper-Smith and de Grosbois (2010), who identified them as popular CSR issues in a content analysis about corporate CSR reports. Their list of CSR topics was shortened and adjusted to the theme of chocolate production. To represent the two CSR motive conditions, the website content was manipulated as follows: In the extrinsic motive conditions, companies presented their CSR engagement as driven by profit interests and for their own benefit. In the intrinsic motive conditions, companies stated altruistic reasons and genuine concern for the focal issue as their motivation. Additionally, a fifth group functioned as a control group. Therein the website contained a general text about the company and its products without information about social responsibility.
The stimulus material can be found in Appendix E. All stimuli were piloted
and answered manipulation check questions afterwards. Manipulation check
Four manipulation check questions were used to assess whether participants perceived the manipulated websites as intended. Participants were asked to rate the following questions on a seven-point Likert scale, ‘This company acts out of self-serving motives’, ‘This company tries to act out of altruistic motives’, ‘This company acts responsible for the environment’, and, ‘This company acts responsible for society’. To check if I generated the intended effect with the manipulated stimuli, I ran two one-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the five conditions for both manipulation checks.
The questions ‘This company tries to act out of altruistic motives’ and ‘This company acts out of self-serving motives’ were computed into one variable whereas one question was reverse coded. Participants who saw an extrinsic or intrinsic motive were supposed to score higher on this manipulation check than the control condition. Results showed that the conditions differed significantly (F (2, 238) = 3.741, p = .025). Participants who saw one of the motives conditions scored higher than those who saw the control condition (MControl = 3.5, SD = 1.31; MExtrinsic = 3.66, SD = 1.29; MIntrinsic = 4.06, SD = 1.26). A post hoc test with Bonferroni correction showed that only the difference between extrinsic motives and the control condition was significant (Mdifference = 0.55, p = .054). However, reliability test showed that the scale was unreliable (𝛼 = .529).4
The questions ‘This company acts responsible for the environment’ and ‘This
company acts responsible for society’ were also computed into one variable. Participants who saw an environmental or socioeconomic condition were supposed to score higher on this manipulation check than the control group. Results showed that the conditions differed
4 The results for the single questions are as follows. For the question ‘This company tries to act out of altruistic motives’, the conditions differed significantly (F (2, 238) = 4.735, p = .010). A post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction showed significant difference between intrinsic motive condition and control condition.
For the question ‘This company acts out of self-serving motives’ no significant effects were found (F (2, 238 = 1.331, p = .266). Mean values for all manipulation checks can be found in Appendix E.
significantly (F (2, 238) = 3.884, p = .022). Participants who saw an environmental or
socioeconomic condition scored higher than the control condition (MControl = 3.67, SD = 1.64; MEnvironment = 4.14, SD = 1.42; MSocioeconomic = 4.45, SD = 1.58). A post hoc test with
Bonferroni correction showed that only the difference between socioeconomic condition and control condition was significant (Mdifference = 0.78, p = .018). The difference between
environmental and socioeconomic condition was not significant (Mdifference = 0.31, p = .467). However, reliability test showed that the scale was unreliable (𝛼 = .491).5
Measures
Dependent variable. The dependent variable of this study is consumers’ behavioural intentions. Following Kim (2014), behavioural intentions of consumers can be divided into the four factors of willingness to purchase a product, to support a company, to invest in a company, and to seek employment with a company. Kim’s measures of the three items per factor showed high scale reliability (Cronbach’s 𝛼 between .87 and .95) and were therefore adopted for this study (see Appendix B). All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale and used together as one variable by taking mean scores. For this study, the scale reliability of the 12-item scale for behavioural intentions was 𝛼 = .947.
Moderator. In addition to measuring the main effect, I took environmental consciousness into account as a moderator for the effect of CSR focus on behavioural intentions. Environmental consciousness is a multi-dimensional construct of cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioural components (Schlegelmilch, Bohlen & Diamantopoulos, 1996). An existing measurement of three composite scales with high scale reliability (Cronbach’s 𝛼
5 The results for the single questions are as follows. For the question ‘This company acts responsible for the environment’, the conditions differed significantly (F (2, 238) = 44.162, p = .001). A post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction showed significant differences between all conditions.
For the question ‘This company acts responsible for society’, the conditions differed significantly
(F (2, 238) = 19.384, p = .001). A post-hoc with Bonferroni correction showed significant difference between environmental and socioeconomic condition. Mean values for all manipulation checks can be found in Appendix E.
between .80 and .94) was adopted from Bohlen, Schlegelmilch and Diamantopoulos (1993) and shortened. This measurement covered a knowledge scale measuring self-perceived knowledge about green issues, an attitudinal scale measuring environmental concern, and a behavioural scale measuring recycling activities (Bohlen, Schlegelmilch & Diamantopoulos, 1993). Participants were asked to rate every item on a seven-point Likert scale. For this study, all items were used together as one variable by taking mean scores. Scale reliability for the 15-item scale for environmental consciousness was tested as 𝛼 = .866. The whole
operationalization for environmental consciousness can be found in Appendix C. CSR scepticism. A four-item construct of CSR scepticism was adopted from Leonidou and Skarmears (2013) to measure the extent to which consumers see CSR involvement of firms sceptically. All items were used together as one variable by taking mean scores. Scale reliability for the 4-item scale to measure CSR scepticism was 𝛼 = .916. The whole scale can be found in Appendix D.
Analysis
Two one-way Analyses of Variance were performed to test the main effect of CSR focus and the main effect of stated motives on the dependent variable behavioural intentions. Additionally, a moderation analysis was performed with a PROCESS SPSS macro to test a moderating effect of environmental consciousness. Furthermore, a two-way ANOVA was performed to test interaction effects between CSR focus, stated motives, scepticism and environmental consciousness. Thereby, all three hypotheses were tested.
Results General results
A one-way ANOVA was carried out, wherein all five conditions were tested as independent variables and behavioural intentions were tested as a dependent variable. When
looking at the general results, one can see mean differences between all conditions and the control group (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Means and standard deviation of behavioural intentions for all conditions
Results showed higher means for intrinsic motive conditions than for extrinsic motive conditions (MControl = 4.39, SD = 1.21; MEnvironmental Extrinsic = 4.21, SD = 1.29; MEnvironmental Intrinsic = 4.57, SD = 1.07; MSocioeconomic Extrinsic = 3.96, SD = 1.61; MSocioeconomic Intrinsic = 4.59, SD = 1.22). However, the results were not significant (F (4, 241) = 1.945, p = .104).
CSR motives on behavioural intentions
Second, I tested hypothesis 1, which suggested a direct effect of stated motives on consumers’ behavioural intentions. A one-way ANOVA was carried out, wherein stated motives (extrinsic and intrinsic) were tested as an independent variable and behavioural intentions were tested as a dependent variable. Results showed a significant effect between the different motives on consumers’ behavioural intentions (F (2, 238) = 3.459, p = .033). As can be seen in Figure 2, participants who saw intrinsic motives showed more positive
2 3 4 5 6
Control Condition Environmental Extrinsic Environmental Intrinsic Socioeconomic Extrinsic Socioeconomic Intrinsic Behavioural Intentions (1-7) Condition
behavioural intentions than the control group. Participants who saw extrinsic motives showed more negative behavioural intentions than the control group (MControl = 4.39, SD = 1.21; MExtrinsic = 4.10, SD = 1.44; MIntrinsic = 4.57, SD = 1.14).
Figure 2. Marginal means and standard errors of behavioural intentions for motive conditions A post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction showed that participants who saw intrinsic CSR motives had significantly higher behavioural intentions than those who saw extrinsic CSR motives (see Table 1). The difference between the control condition and either of the motive conditions was not significant. Summed up, hypothesis 1 was confirmed. This means that consumers have more positive behavioural intentions towards food companies, which communicate CSR with intrinsic motives than towards those, which communicate extrinsic motives in their CSR communication.
3 4 5
Control Condition Extrinsic Motives Intrinsic Motives
Behavioural Intentions (1-7)
Table 1
Post-hoc test for motive conditions on behavioural intentions
Condition (I) Condition (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Significance
Intrinsic Extrinsic 0.4781 .028 Control 0.1834 1.00 Extrinsic Intrinsic -0.4781 .028 Control -0.2947 .632 Control Intrinsic -0.1834 1.00 Extrinsic 0.2947 .632
CSR focus on behavioural intentions
Next, I tested hypothesis 2, which suggested a direct effect of CSR focus on
consumers’ behavioural intentions. In order to test this, a one-way ANOVA was performed wherein CSR focus (environmental and socioeconomic) was tested as an independent
variable and behavioural intentions were tested as a dependent variable. The results indicated that the focus of CSR communication does not significantly affect behavioural intentions (F (2, 238) = 0.171, p = .843). Neither the two motive conditions nor the control condition differed from each other (MControl = 4.39, SD = 1.21; MEnvironmental = 4.38, SD = 1.20; MSocioeconomic = 4.28, SD = 1.45). This means that whether people saw a website about environmental or socioeconomic responsibility or a neutral website did not affect their intentions to buy products from, support, invest in, or seek employment with the company. Thus, hypothesis 2 was not confirmed. The assumption of equal variances in the population was violated, Levene’s F (1, 196) = 4.013, p = .047.
Moderation effect of environmental consciousness
Finally, I tested hypothesis 3, which suggested that the effect of CSR focus on behavioural intentions is underlying mechanisms of moderation by environmental consciousness. A moderation analysis was performed with a moderation bootstrapping procedure in a PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 1; Hayes, 2012). Looking at the results, one
can say that the effect of focus in CSR messages on behavioural intentions was not
moderated by environmental consciousness F (3, 230) = 0.8757, p = .454. Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed, which means that the effect of CSR foci on behavioural intentions is not larger for consumers with higher environmental consciousness.
Additional analyses
In order to test an interaction effect between CSR motives and CSR focus on
behavioural intentions, a two-way analysis of variance was carried out. No significant effects were found (F (4, 236) = 0.522, p = .471). This means that CSR motives and CSR focus are independent and no factor depends on the other in its effect on behavioural intentions. A linear regression analysis also showed no significant effects.
Finally, a two-way ANOVA in which I looked at the interactions between motives and focus and interaction effects with scepticism and environmental consciousness confirmed all prior findings.
Discussion Conclusion
This study examined the effect of stated motives and CSR focus on behavioural intentions. Conducting an experimental survey, I compared socioeconomic versus
environmental focus plus extrinsic versus intrinsic motives. Additionally, I took consumers’ environmental consciousness into account as a moderator of the mentioned effect. I expected consumers to show higher behavioural intentions towards companies with stated intrinsic motives than stated extrinsic motives and towards companies with an environmental focus in CSR communication than with a socioeconomic focus. These assumptions were not
completely supported in the study.
Results showed that consumers show higher behavioural intentions towards companies, which communicate intrinsic CSR motives than towards companies, which
communicate extrinsic CSR motives. This outcome gave significant support for hypothesis 1. However, it does not influence consumers’ behavioural intentions whether companies
communicate about environmental or socioeconomic topics. Both foci can lead to higher as well as lower behavioural intentions, depending on the CSR motive they are combined with. These results are not in line with hypothesis 2. The mentioned effects occur similarly for all consumers despite their environmental consciousness. The effect of environmental CSR communication on behavioural intentions is not stronger for highly environmentally conscious consumers. These findings reject hypothesis 3.
The results connect to former research findings that extrinsic motives lead to negative attributions when consumers perceive to be manipulated (Forehand & Grier, 2003). CSR can negatively affect consumers’ attributions when the perceived promotional win for the
company overruns the actual CSR outcome (Du et al., 2010). As this study shows, similar effects apply for consumers’ behavioural intentions. Stating extrinsic reasons can arouse the impression that a company superficially engages in CSR with the aim of consumer
manipulation. Therefore, extrinsic motives lower consumers’ behavioural intentions. Stating intrinsic reasons creates the impressions that a company truly cares about society and the environment. A firm acts out of altruistic reasons for the public good, which consumers reward with higher willingness to purchase a product, support, invest in, and seek employment with a company.
Although former research showed positive effects of environmental CSR on
consumers’ decision-making about food products and purchase intentions, this study did not confirm similar effects of environmental CSR on behavioural intentions. A possible
explanation lies in the operationalization of behavioural intentions as not only purchase intentions, but also intentions to support, invest in, and work with a company. When evaluating an employment opportunity, candidates prioritize factors like salary, work-life
balance, and career opportunities over a firm’s CSR engagement (Ohlrich, 2015). In case of investment intentions, research also points towards the fact that investors react rather negatively to the topic of firms’ CSR (Krüger, 2014). Hence, CSR communication might raise purchase intentions but have no effect on the whole set of behavioural intentions as it was used in this study.
Limitations and future research
When looking at the results one should consider that this study can be questioned for several reasons. The websites were constructed for the purpose of this study, which leads to high comparability of both conditions but might be criticized for high artificiality and thus lack of external validity. One must also keep in mind that retrieved behavioural intentions in a questionnaire cannot be equated with actual behaviour. Thus, the results have to be
interpreted carefully. Additionally, the study sample mainly consisted of students and young participants since the recruiting was based on Facebook and a personal network. Therefore, generalization of the results is limited.
This study used a fictive company to avoid an influence of consumers’ prior company impression on the results. However, consumers’ previous perceptions of a company are an important determinant for evaluation of company CSR motives (Kim & Lee, 2012). Thus, this study should be repeated with an existing company and measurement of prior company evaluation. Gaining more insights into the influence of prior company evaluation can help to understand how consumers receive and judge CSR communication.
Furthermore, the main problem in real market situations is not that people
misunderstand CSR information but that the information does not reach them in the first place (Hartmann, 2011). Additionally, other studies point towards the fact that CSR communication is more credible when communicated by a neutral third-party rather than a company itself (Yoon et al., 2006). Thus this study should be repeated with CSR
communication through mass media, such as newspapers, to see if the effects on consumers’ behavioural intentions are stronger. Alternatively, one might consider repeating this study with CSR information on the point of sale to see if the effects change when high consumer attention is given.
Practical implications
Despite of all limitations, this study gives interesting insights in the effect of CSR communication in the food industry. As the results show, it does not matter which focus companies choose for their CSR communication. Neither socioeconomic nor environmental topics reach positive or negative effects. Certainly, what matters is how companies transmit their intentions behind CSR engagement to consumers. Consumers’ perception of a
company’s altruistic motivation is crucial for the effects of CSR communication. As this study shows, a good transfer of intrinsic motives leads to higher behavioural intentions. In contrast, if companies fail to communicate intrinsic motives behind their engagement, consumers’ behavioural intentions decrease.
Evaluating these findings, the food industry differs from other industries. The negative effects of extrinsic motives are similar to prior findings, which have been made in the context of other industries. However, this study additionally showed a clear positive effect of intrinsic motives. Compared to a neutral corporate website, a website with CSR communication about intrinsic motives raises behavioural intentions. This effect has been found once before in an experimental study, which also happened to use the food and beverage industry for their stimuli (Kim & Lee, 2012). The food industry has special responsibility for the environment and society. Thus, CSR communication is of high significance. Consumers seem to react to this special status by giving better recognition to companies, which are genuinely concerned about society and environment and take their responsibility seriously.
This result is of special importance for food companies considering their increased risk of product-harm crises. Food is always prone to quality problems due to raw materials or manufacturing processes. Different than in other industries, affected products might not only annoy consumers but also harm their health and endanger their life. Due to this risk, product-harm crises of food companies often lead to massive damage of brand evaluation and
consumers' buying intentions. These consequences can be attenuated by successfully engaging in strategic CSR communication, which protects company reputation in a crisis (Assiouras et al., 2013). Especially larger food companies should engage in CSR
communication, since they are more visible to consumers and are subjected to higher expectations (Sommer et al., 2014).
The results of this study deliver useful guidance for food companies when developing their CSR communication strategy. First, companies should choose a cause for their CSR engagement. Especially in the food industry and other bad reputational industries, a case with low benefit for the company itself leads to higher evaluation by consumers (Yoon et al., 2006). When developing the corresponding communication, companies should focus on explaining their intrinsic motives to consumers. It is fundamental to state why the company takes responsibility, why a certain case was chosen, and which motives induced the
engagement. All together, these guidelines can help food companies to communicate CSR successfully. CSR communication is highly important for food companies and choosing the right strategy is crucial for its success. Only when consumers perceive the CSR engagement as sincerely intrinsically motivated, they react positively. And only in this condition, CSR communication will generate its much-discussed positive effects. Put the other way around, choosing a wrong CSR communication strategy can produce negative consumer reactions towards a company. In this case firms are better advised to not engage in CSR
References
Albersmeier, F. & Spiller, A. (2009). Das Ansehen der Fleischwirtschaft: Zur Bedeutung einer stufenübergreifenden Perspektive. In F. Böhm, F. Albersmeier & A. Spiller (Eds.), Die Ernährungswirtschaft im Scheinwerferlicht der Öffentlichkeit. 213 – 250. Lohmar.
Andreu, L., Casado-Diaz, A. & Mattila, A. (2015). Effects of message appeal and service type in CSR communication strategies. In Journal of Business Research 68(7), 1488 – 1495.
Anselmsson, J. & Johansson, U. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and the positioning of grocery brands: An exploratory study of retailer and manufacturer brands at point of purchase. In International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(19), 835 – 856.
Assiouras, I., Ozgen, O. & Skourtis, G. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility in food industry in product-harm crises. In British Food Journal, 115(1), 108 – 123. Bohlen, G., Schlegelmilch, B. & Diamantopoulos, A. (1993). Measuring ecological concern:
A multi construct perspective. In Journal of Marketing Management, 93(3), 415 – 430.
Boutin-Dufresne, F. & Sacaris, P. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and financial risk. In The Journal of Investing, 13, 57 – 66.
Carroll, C. (2011). Media Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility. In J. Bartlett, O. Ihlen & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. 423 – 444. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cottrill, H. (1990). Corporate Social Responsibility and the marketplace. In Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 723 – 729.
practices in the airline industry. In Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 59 - 77. Cuganesan, S., Guthrie, J. & Ward, L. (2010). Examining CSR disclosure strategies within
the Australian food and beverage industry. In: Accounting Forum, 34(3), 169 – 183. Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. In Journal of
Communication Management, 9(2), 108 – 119.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. In International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(8), 8 – 19.
Fein, S. & Hilton, J. (1994). Judging others in the shadow of suspicion. In Motivation and Emotion, 18, 167 – 198.
Forehand, M. & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer scepticism. In Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349 – 356.
Forsman-Hugg, S., Katajajuuri, J., Riipi, I., Mäkelä, J., Järvelä, K. & Timonen, P. (2013). Key CSR dimensions for the food chain. In British Food Journal, 115(1), 30 – 47. Gaskill-Fox, J., Hyllegard, K., & Ogle, H. (2014). CSR reporting on apparel companies’
websites: Framing good deeds and clarifying missteps. In Fashion and Textiles, 1(1), 1 - 22.
Gomez, L. & Chalmeta, R. (2011). Corporate responsibility in U.S: corporate websites: A pilot study. In: Public Relations Review, 37(1), 93 – 95.
Hartmann, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. In European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 297 - 324.
Hartmann, M., Heinen, S., Melis, S. & Simons, J. (2013). Consumers’ awareness of CSR in the German pork industry. In British Food Journal, 115(1), 124 – 141.
Chain. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 306 - 316.
Hong, S. & Rim, H. (2010). The influence of customer use of corporate websites: Corporate social responsibility, trust, and word-of-mouth communication. In Public Relations Review, 36(4), 389 – 391.
Kim, S. & Lee, Y. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. In Public Relations Review, 38(1), 168 170.
Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of Stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. In Public Relations Review, 40(5), 838 – 840.
KPMG (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate responsibility reporting 2013.
https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate responsibility/Documents/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013-exec summary.pdf (Viewed on 01.03.2016)
Krüger, P. (2014). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. In Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304 – 329.
Lee, S. & Carroll, C. (2011). The Emergence, Variation, and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Public Sphere, 1980-2004: The Exposure of Firms to Public Debate. In Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 115 – 131.
Lusk, J. & Briggeman, B. (2009). Food Values. In American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(1), 184 - 196.
Maloni, M. & Brown, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. In Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 35 – 52.
Mueller Loose, S. & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility claims on consumer food choice. In British Food Journal, 115(1), 142 – 166.
Ohlrich, K. (2015). Exploring the Impact of CSR on Talent Management with Generation Y. In South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 4(1), 111 – 121.
Richards, Z., Thomas, S., Randle, M. & Pettigrew, S. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility programs of Big Food in Australia: A content analysis of industry documents. In Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39(6), 550 – 556.
Rosenbloom, P. & Newell, A. (1980). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. Anderson, (Ed.), Skills and Their Acquisition. 191 – 230. Hillsdale. Schlegelmilch, B., Bohlen, G. & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between green
purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. In European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35 - 55.
Seele, P. & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools. In Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 401 – 414.
Sen, S., Du, S. & Bhattacharya, C. (2009). Building relationships through corporate social responsibility. In D. MacInnis, C. Park & J. Priester (Eds.). Hand-book of brand relationships, 195 – 211. Armonk, NY.
Sohn, Y. & Lariscy, R. (2012). A “Buffer” or “Boomerang”? – The Role of Corporate Reputation in Bad Times. In Communication Research, 42(2), 237 – 259.
Sommer, F., Klink, J., Senkl, D. & Hartmann, M. (2014). Determinants of Web-based CSR Disclosure in the Food Industry. In International Journal of Food System Dynamics, 6(1), 24 – 31.
Statista (2016). Ranking der meistgekauften Lebensmittel des täglichen Bedarfs in Deutschland in den Jahren 2014 und 2015.
http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/170961/umfrage/in-den-letzten-14tagen-gekaufte-produkte/ (Viewed on 01.03.2016)
Through Corporate Websites: A Comparison of Leading Corporations in the United States and China. In International Journal of Business Communication, 52(2), 205 – 227.
The Consumer Goods Forum (2011). Top of Mind 2011. France: The Consumer Goods Forum.
UN Global Compact (2016). UN Global Compact Food & Agriculture Business Principles (FAB Principles). https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/2051 (Viewed on 18.05.2016)
Werder, K. (2008). The Effect of Doing Good: An Experimental Analysis of the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavioural Intention. In International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(2), 115 - 135. Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z. & Schwarz, N. (2006). The Effect of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies with Bad Reputations. In Journal of
Appendix A Table 2
Factorial Design
Stated CSR motives Focus of CSR communication
Socioeconomic focus Environmental focus Control condition
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Appendix B Table 3
Scale for measures of behavioural intentions adopted from Kim (2014)
Category Item
Willingness to purchase a product from a company (Cronbach's α = .95)
I would like to purchase products/services from the company.
I would like to pay for products/services from the company. I would like to buy products/services from the company.
Willingness to support a company
(Cronbach's α = .88)
I would like to support the company.
I would talk positively about the company with others. I would recommend the company to others.
Willingness to invest in a company
(Cronbach's α = .87)
I would like to invest in the company.
I think the company is a good company to invest in. I would like to seek information on investing in the company.
Willingness to seek employment with a company (Cronbach's α = .87)
I would like to recommend this company to others as a potential future employer.
I would like to seek employment opportunities with the company.
Appendix C Table 4
Shortened scale for measures of environmental consciousness
Scale Item
Perceived knowledge (1= Know nothing about, 7 = Know a lot about)
Acid rain
Sea/river pollution
Air pollution from power stations Global warming
Ozone layer depletion
Environmental attitudes (1= Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)
The environment is one of the most important issues facing society today.
We should pay a considerable amount of money to preserve our environment.
Strict global measures must be taken immediately to halt environmental decline.
A substantial amount of money should be devoted to environmental protection.
Unless each of us recognizes the need to protect the environment, future generations will suffer the consequences.
Pro-environmental behavior
(1= Would never do, 7 = Do often)
Recycle paper Recycle glass Recycle plastics
Support environmental pressure groups
Lobby members of parliament about green issues
The measurement of environmental consciousness was adopted from Bohlen,
Schlegelmilch and Diamantopoulos (1993) and shortened. The original scale consisted of 10 items for perceived knowledge, 20 items for environmental attitudes, and 15 items for pro-environmental behavior. Due to limited space and time, I shortened the scales to five items each. I hereby chose the items with the highest value of Cronbach’s α.
Appendix D Table 5
Scale for measures of CSR skepticism adopted from Leonidou and Skarmears (2013)
Scale Item
(1= Doubtless, 7 = Doubtful) It is doubtless/ doubtful that this is a socially responsible company.
(1= Certain, 7 = Uncertain) It is certain/uncertain that this company is concerned to improve the well-being of society.
(1= Sure, 7 = Unsure) It is sure/unsure that this company follows high ethical standards.
(1= Unquestionable, 7 = Questionable) It is unquestionable/questionable that this company acts in a socially responsible way.
Appendix E Table 6
Means and standard deviations of single manipulation check questions
Question Condition M SD
This company acts responsible for the environment. Control 3.72 1.67 Environmental 6.02 1.16 Socioeconomic 5.37 1.39 This company acts responsible for society. Control 4.77 1.56 Environmental 4.54 1.34 Socioeconomic 5.71 1.27 This company tries to act out of altruistic motives. Control 3.67 1.64
Extrinsic 4.08 1.47
Intrinsic 4.49 1.51
This company acts out of self-serving motives. Control 4.67 1.64
Extrinsic 4.78 1.49
Appendix F
