The role of CSR motives and masculine cultural dimension on the
perception of CSR communication
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Master programme Communication Science Corporate Communication
Master Thesis
Name: Cristina Canale Student Number: 11103612
Supervisor: mw. dr. Suzanne de Bakker February 3, 2017
Abstract
Since the growing importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in shaping consumers’ perception of companies, managing efficient CSR communication can be considered as a fundamental challenge for today’s business. CSR motives, namely the motivations communicated
to justify a CSR activity, and the cultural dimension proposed by Hofstede (2011) masculine/feminine were taken into account to explain different perceptions in consumers. A 3x2 design was used in an on-line experiment to test whether mixed CSR motives could have a
better influence on a company’s evaluation, and to test what the role of masculinity in the stated relationship was. We were not able to find significant results, although previous researches seemed
to indicate fruitful results in this direction. This research, even if it does not offer a relevant contribution to CSR research, could be a starting point and a direction for future studies involving
motives and cultural dimensions.
Introduction
In recent years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gained attention from both the academic and professional world (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). Indeed, organizations that engage in CSR activities can gain several benefits, such as favourable stakeholder attitudes, support behaviours and strengthened stakeholder-company relationships (Kim & Bae, 2016), improved financial performances (Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes, 2003), favourable consumers’ beliefs (Gonzales, 2007), better organization’s image, reputation and credibility (Pfau, Haigh, Sims & Wigley, 2008)and willingness to purchase (Smith & Alcorn, 1991). As consumers’ interest for CSR is increasing, (Kim & Bae, 2016) engaging in CSR activities is recommended to organizations who want to maintain a competitive advantage in today’s market. In fact, CSR activities can be used by companies to increase their competitiveness in their markets and to gain higher loyalty and positive word-of-mouth, and as key aspect in building a consumer-company bond (Ruiz & Marin, 2007). Indeed, among all stakeholders, consumers are recognized to be one of the most important groups as they are particularly susceptible to a company’s CSR activities (Du et al., 2010) and CSR is recognized to have an overall positive effect on consumer corporate perception (Ricks, 2005).
Organizations can engage in CSR in different forms, as philanthropy, cause-related
marketing, environmental responsibility or employee treatment. However, CSR is a critical area in professionals’ practice (Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006), as some organizations still struggle to gain benefits from CSR activities despite providing substantial resources in its development (Story & Neves, 2015). In fact, most companies face difficulties in managing intelligent CSR communication to their relevant stakeholders (Morsing, Shultz & Nielsen, 2008), as they often hold low awareness and unfavourable attributions towards companies’ CSR activities (Kim & Bae, 2016). One of the main obstacles to the positive perception of CSR communication is, in fact, stakeholder scepticism (Ellen et al., 2006) and cynicism (Loose & Remaud, 2013). Therefore, there is a need for research to investigate which factors and processes cause consumers to be sceptical about a company’s CSR
activitiy (Yoon, Gurhan-Cali & Schwarz, 2006; Kim and Lee, 2015).
In this regard, the motives behind CSR activities have been proved to be an influential factor to inhibit stakeholder scepticism (Du et al., 2010) and thus to enhance the effectiveness of CSR communication. Generally, two main motives are recognized behind CSR activities: extrinsic motives, namely business-related reasons linked to the long-term financial performance of the company, and intrinsic motives, that see CSR as a moral duty or expression of altruism (Graafland, Mazereeuw & van der Duijn Schouten, 2012). However, there is little agreement in research on what motive could be the most effective in CSR communication. For example, Ellen et al. (2006) found that consumers tend to evaluate more positively CSR efforts in relation to value-driven motives. Contrarily, Forehand and Grier (2003) suggested that the acknowledgement of firm-serving motives in CSR communication could actually enhance a company’s credibility and reduce stakeholder’s scepticism. Moreover, some also recommend the convergence of both motives in CSR communication, in order to acknowledge the benefits to both society and the firm itself (Du et al., 2010). Therefore, the first aim of the present thesis will be to assess which one of the stated motives is the most effective on a company’s evaluation based on its CSR communication.
Furthermore, in order to better understand the impact of CSR activities, it is important to consider not only the CSR motives, but also the characteristics of stakeholders, who represent the recipient of CSR communication (Du et. al, 2010). In fact, Du et al. (2010) have stressed the academic need for studies on CSR communication with a focus on different target audiences, and Dawkins (2005) argued that CSR communications are often not tailored to diverse stakeholders. In respect of this demand, recent studies have disclosed a growing interest towards the relation
between culture and CSR (Truong, 2016). Indeed, there is several evidence that cultural dimensions could be an influencing element in CSR communication. For example, Kim and Kim (2010) stated that CSR has to be viewed not as content itself, but as a representation of a company’s corporate culture, meaning that CSR can vary depending on different cultures and countries. On a similar line,
Truong (2016) suggests that different cultural backgrounds create different expectations and different views on ethical issues. Therefore, it could be essential, for a winning CSR
communication, to take into account the consumers’ cultural background (Ding, 2006), by adapting the message content to the audience’s message perception in relation to cultural values (Kim & Bae, 2016).
Among the several cross-cultural classifications, Hofstede’s (2011) paradigm on national culture appears to be the most acknowledged. In his study, started in 1970 with the collection of data regarding values and sentiments of IBM workers in 74 countries, Hofstede (2011) proposes a six dimensions’ model to identify national culture, formed by power distance, individualism,
uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, indulgence and masculinity. These six dimensions can be generalized to a wider stakeholder set, including consumers, shareholders and employees
(Williams & Zinkin, 2008), and have been largely used in cross-cultural research to study CSR practices (Truong, 2016). Most researchers have focused on the analysis of single dimensions in relation to CSR perception: for example, Liang and Cherian (2010) and Kim and Bae (2016) analysed the relationship between CSR messages and uncertainty avoidance, and much empirical attention has been devoted to the dimension individualism-collectivism (Hornikx & O’Keefe, 2009). Their studies offered evidence that cultural differences are important factors able to
influence CSR communication outcomes; in fact, Liang and Cherian (2010) found that individuals with high uncertainty avoidance evaluated more positively a straightforward and concrete CSR message, in contrast with abstract CSR message which was evaluated more negatively. Similarly, Kim and Bae (2016) found that Koreans, who hold high levels of uncertainty avoidance, showed more positive attitudes towards a company when a concrete message was displayed in its CSR communication, when compared to abstract message. However, little attention has been payed to the masculinity/femininity dimensions, that could offer a fruitful perspective on the study of global CSR campaigns (Yoon et al., 2006) and to gain interesting insights on the reason why the effects of
message characteristics vary across different cultures (Taylor, 2005). Masculine cultures are described as “more assertive, tough and focused on success”, while feminine culture as “more modest, tender and concerned with quality of life” (Hofstede, 2011). Thus, masculine societies tend to be aggressive and decisive, and are more likely to focus on being competitive to achieve and maintain success. On the other hand, feminine cultures value social contact, quality of life and achieve success through consensus, and tend to reward equality (Williams & Zinkin, 2008). These characteristics, coupled with the evidence offered by Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen and Manchanda (2006) that found significant differences in the response of a charity advertising between members of masculine and feminine cultures, seem to suggest that studying the influence of
masculine/feminine dimension on the perception of CSR communication could provide fruitful and original results. Likewise, Yoon et al. (2006) indicated as path for future researches in CSR the investigation of global CSR campaigns from the perspective of masculinity/femininity dimensions.
Therefore, by accepting the call for more studies on the interrelation between singular cultural dimensions and perception of CSR across cultures (Truong, 2016), and on the interaction between message characteristics and audience’s message perception tied to cultural values (Kim & Bae, 2016) the present research will be aimed to study the effect of extrinsic/intrinsic motives of CSR communication on attitudes towards the organization by taking into account the
masculine/feminine cultural dimension. In this respect, and according to the score they reached on Hofstede’s six dimensions’ model, Dutch and Italian cultures will be used as cross-cultural
comparison as respectively feminine and masculine culture. The comparison of these two European countries is also justified by the need for more researches on CSR communication perception within an economic area (Singh & Del Bosque, 2008). Moreover, as the present thesis involved the
example of an existing non-profit company, it could offer a valid contribution not only to CSR literature, but also to apparel companies that are interested in engaging in CSR activities by providing a real-life example of potential consumers’ reactions.
Thus, the following research questions are proposed:
RQ 1: What is the influence of motives in CSR communication on a company’s evaluation?
RQ2: What is the role of masculine/feminine dimension in the stated relationship?
Theoretical Background
Company evaluation
As a large number of studies suggest that corporations can gain enormous benefits when they are perceived as socially responsible by stakeholders (Tian, Wang & Yang, 2011), in the present study the effect of perceived CSR communication on a company’s evaluation was assessed. Company evaluation describes “the degree of positiveness or negativeness of the subjects’ global judgement of the company (…) based on the company’s central, distinctive and enduring
characteristics, which are key components leading to the prestige of the organization’s identity” (Ruiz & Marin, 2007, p. 249).
A company evaluation in the CSR-consumer relationship is among the most popular
dependent variable in CSR literature (Tian et al.,2011), especially since CSR associations influence mostly the evaluation of a company rather than specific product attributes (Brown & Dacin, 1997) and consumer purchasing decisions (Ruiz & Marin, 2007). However, even if CSR does not belong to the most dominant criteria in purchasing decisions, it can be a fundamental and enduring
character to distinguish a company from its competitor (Ruiz & Marin, 2007), and it may be useful to enhance the liking or trustworthiness of a company. In fact, when a consumer identifies a product with a company, the overall evaluation of the company is likely to influence also the evaluation of the products it offers (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Brown and Dacin (1997) found in particular that CSR associations had a significant influence on the overall evaluation of the organization, which in turn affected also how consumers evaluate the products from the company. A firm’s CSR
information can reveal in fact aspects of its corporate identity that are fundamental, enduring and more distinctive (Du et al., 2010). Moreover, the societal impact of a company’s CSR initiative is associated with consumers’ intrinsic attribution and advocacy towards the company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004), and it can change the consumers’ perception of how the company’s products perform (Chernev & Blair, 2015).
Therefore, in the present research, the company’s evaluation will be intended as the positive or negative attitudes that potential consumers hold in regard of a company, based on the
information presented in its CSR communication.
CSR Motives
The increasing attention of today’s organizations towards CSR activities is driven not only by the desire of corporations to be a positive force for social change, but also by the multiple
businesses returns that organizations can gain from their CSR efforts (Du et al., 2010). In this sense, organizations should be careful when designing CSR communication, since the way in which stakeholders perceive the motives underlying a CSR activity is crucial (Du et al., 2010).
Overall, two main motives are distinguished in CSR literature. The first category encompasses financial or extrinsic reasons behind an organization’s decision to engage in CSR activities. As CSR can improve the overall company reputation, help in the positioning against competitors, increase sale and market share and boost a company reputation in regard of employees and current workforce (Graafland et al., 2012), organizations can engage in CSR activities in order to improve their long-term financial performances. Since companies use in this case CSR in its instrumental value for profit or income, stakeholders will perceive CSR activities as an attempt to increase the company’s profit (Du et al., 2010). Further, CSR activities with extrinsic motives may also imply an underlying goal, like getting something back or avoid a punishment from the
2015). The second category includes intrinsic or non-financial motives (Graafland et al., 2012), that refers to CSR as an end in itself, related to the moral aspect of the firm and independent from financial benefits (Story & Neves, 2015). Organizations who engage in CSR activities with intrinsic motives are inspired by a moral duty, derived from ethical, moral or religious principles, or
altruism, derived from a pure joy or genuine concern for others’ well-being and aimed to contribute to the common good (Graafland et al., 2012). Therefore, stakeholders will perceive CSR activities guided by intrinsic motives as act-outs of genuine concern of the organization for the interested issue (Du et al., 2010) and thus as a move able to gain their trust (Story & Neves, 2015).
CSR literature has offered mixed findings related to the perception of extrinsic and intrinsic motives by stakeholders. In fact, while some results seem to indicate that stronger attribution of intrinsic motives leads to a more positive reaction and positive inferences towards the company compared to extrinsic motives (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Yoon et al., 2006), others proved that consumers will evaluate more positively CSR activities when driven by corporate values than by stakeholders’ requirements (Ellen et al., 2006). According to Ellen et al. (2006) findings, in fact, the public expects that businesses can engage in CSR activities to pursue simultaneously their bottom lines and the needs of society, and responds more positively to CSR communication when other- and self-centred motives are both present.
However, the strict distinction between these two motives is, in reality, a kind of blurred; in fact, stakeholders often perceive more than one motive behind a CSR activity (Kim, 2011), and are able to reconcile the presence of mixed motives in the same CSR communication. Further,
consumers can not only recognize the simultaneous presence of both motives in CSR
communication, but they can also have more positive reactions to mixed attributions than to purely intrinsic or extrinsic motivations (Ellen et al., 2006). This seems to suggest that consumers are more willing to accept extrinsic motives, as they believe that a CSR activity could serve both business and society needs (Du et al., 2010). In fact, by acknowledging a self-serving motive along with a
society-serving motive in CSR communication, stakeholders can reduce the sceptical attribution of CSR programs (Kim, 2014). Stating both motives can indeed foster a stronger intention to support, seek employment with, invest in, and purchase from companies involved in CSR activities.
Therefore, by acknowledging self-serving motives, organizations can engender favourable stakeholder responses, as it implies that stakeholders value corporations’ transparent communication and appreciate when companies try to simultaneously balance economic
responsibility, ethics and philanthropy (Kim, 2014). In this sense, communication strategies able to acknowledge extrinsic and firm-serving motives can enhance the credibility of a CSR
communication and have a direct influence on behavioural intentions. By admitting the
convergence of business and social interests, companies can present evidence of both benefits to society and the organization (Porter & Kramer, 2007) and consequently, as long as their society-serving motives are sincere, they will be more trustable to consumers’ eyes, enhancing their support behaviour and purchase intention.
Nonetheless, it should be noticed that even when a company declares to engage in CSR due to intrinsic motivations, in reality stakeholders are still likely to attribute self-serving motives only to its CSR activities. Indeed, only few organizations have intrinsic motivations for engaging in CSR as part of their organizational DNA, while many others decide to include responsible behaviour at a particular point of their history. Consequently, in these cases, stakeholders will probably assume that there exist underlying business goals behind their CSR involvement.
Thus, building on these previous findings, we hypothesize that:
H1a: Mixed motives in CSR communication will lead to a better company’s evaluation, when compared to only intrinsic motives.
H1b: Mixed motives in CSR communication will lead to a better company’s evaluation, when compared to only extrinsic motives.
Cultural dimensions
Since forced to deal with global competition, most organizations are engaging in both domestic and international CSR campaigns, as the public’s request for social legitimacy is today stronger than ever (Kim & Kim, 2010). As pointed out by Hofstede and De Mooij (2002), organizations often focus on a globalist view of the market, for example considering Europe as a homogeneous area. However, in reality, European countries are characterized by different value systems, strongly rooted in history and resistant to change (Hofstede & De Mooij, 2002). Therefore, as highlighted by Ding (2006) and Kim and Bae (2016), it could be essential to tailor CSR
communication strategies to consumers’ specific cultures, since individuals’ cultural background is proved to influence campaign effects and effectiveness (Hofstede & De Mooij, 2010). Also
Williams and Aguilera (2008) stated that individuals are expected to have different assumptions and attitudes towards CSR activities in relation to the societal culture in which they are embedded. Likewise, Maignan (2001) stated that consumers’ understanding of CSR can be expected to reflect underlying national ideologies, and she stressed the importance of further research to investigate how consumers perceive CSR in different countries. Additionally, Kim and Kim (2010) affirmed that, since culture is transmitted within the society, it can affect the basic values of people; thus, people from different cultures and nations have different perception of the roles of corporations in their CSR engagement. These evidences hence stressed the importance of analysing culture as an influential factor in CSR perceptions and evaluations.
As defined by Hofstede (2011), culture is “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (p. 3). In general,
culture is described by most scholars as the range of values, beliefs and behavioural norms that are shared and perpetuated by members of a specific community. Culture is thus learned and shared between members of society, and is able to affect individuals’ values (Truong, 2016). Hofstede’s framework of culture was developed from about 116,000 surveys completed by IBM employees
from 72 countries and regions in 1970 (Taras, Kirkman & Steel, 2010). From his results, Hofstede (2011) distinguished six dimensions of national culture, measured on index scales from 0 to 100: power distance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity; uncertainty avoidance; long-term orientation versus short-term orientation; and indulgence versus restrain. The first dimension, power distance, represents the different solutions to problems of human inequality; the second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, is related to the level of stress present in society when facing an unknown future; the third dimension, individualism/collectivism, refers to the integration of individuals into groups; the fourth dimension, long-/short-term orientation, regards the focus on past or future by individuals’ efforts; the fifth dimension, indulgence/restraint, describes the
opposition of control and gratification in human desires when enjoying life (Hofstede, 2011). Since the last dimension masculinity/femininity represents the principal focus of the present study, it will be described in more detail as follows.
The masculinity dimension and its opposite femininity, referred to as societal and not individual characteristics, is described as a continuum between two poles. At one end, there is the masculine pole, defined as assertive, and at the opposite end there is the modest, caring pole, representing the femininity (Hofstede, 2011). Masculine and feminine cultures differ in several aspects: in fact, feminine cultures value balance between family and work, sympathy for the weak and modesty and care for others, while masculine cultures value ambition, admiration for the strong and the principal importance of work over family (Hofstede, 2011). In masculine cultures,
achievement, performance, status and success are predominant values, whereas feminine cultures value the most caring for others and quality of life, having a people orientation and are not interested in showing status and power (Hofstede & De Mooij, 2002). Hence, masculine cultures are tough and focused on success, while their feminine counterparts are tender and concerned with quality of life. (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001). According to the scores reached on masculinity versus femininity index, masculinity is high in Japan, German-speaking countries and Latin countries as
Italy and Mexico, while it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands. (Hofstede, 2011). De Mooij and Hofstede (2002) already proved the validity of the masculinity/femininity dimension, by founding, for example, that individuals from masculine countries were more likely to buy luxury articles to manifest one’s success and status.
Yet, as masculine societies are more likely to behave in assertive and autonomous ways, to be competitive and look at excellent management as aggressive and decisive, and
oppositely feminine societies are more likely to behave in consensual way and tend towards consensus and compromise (Hofstede, 1994), it is likely that they differ in their perception of CSR communication. Indeed, masculine societies could appreciate more an instrumental approach to CSR, focused on business results and competitiveness, while feminine societies could value most CSR activities conceived as a mean to bring improvement in society and helping others. Evidence for this argument is provided also by Williams and Zinkin (2008), who found support for the argument that masculine societies differed from feminine societies in their engagement in CSR activities. Their findings showed that masculine cultures companies were more likely to have irresponsible behaviour when implementing CSR practices, compared to feminine ones, since their focus on material advancement and success was likely to have determined an instrumental approach to CSR policies. This result seems already to highlight a substantial difference in the approach that masculine and feminine cultures have in regard of CSR activities, since masculine cultures were more likely to indulge in unethical practices in order to reach business goals. Moreover, Nelson et al. (2006) proved the impact of the masculinity dimension on consumer responses to charity
advertising. The authors found that masculine cultures responded to charity advertising accordingly to traditional sex-role patterns, preferring self-focused or egoistic ads, while the opposite result was found for feminine (and individualistic) cultures, who preferred other-focused and altruistic ads (Nelson et. al, 2006). Moreover, Peng, Dashdeleg and Chih (2012) proved that masculinity had a negative influence on CSR commitment, since masculinity “inhibits helping behaviour” (p. 41) and
thus was likely to determine a negative view of CSR practices. Similarly, Ringov and Zollo (2007) found negative relation between masculinity and CSR, by showing that companies in countries in favour of masculine values, as success and career progression, were negatively correlated with corporate social and environmental responsiveness. Further, people from cultures with
high-masculinity scores tend to prioritize career development and business success, whereas people with low-masculinity scores value harmony within the society in which they are embedded (Peng et al., 2012).
This description of masculine/feminine cultures, coupled with the evidences offered by the stated studies, seems to indicate that individuals from masculine and feminine cultures could differ in the way they perceive CSR communication. Indeed, as masculine societies value success, competition and business achievement, they could be more likely to evaluate positively a CSR communication in which business-related motives are predominant. Oppositely, since feminine societies value most the caring for others, sympathy for the weak and compassion, and have a strong interest in quality of life, it is possible to presume that they will value most CSR communication focused on altruistic and society-oriented motives. Therefore, we hypothesize that: H2a: The masculine/feminine dimension will moderate the relationship between CSR motives and company’s evaluation, in such a way that masculine culture representatives will evaluate the
company subject of CSR communication more positive when extrinsic motives are predominant compared to intrinsic or mixed motives;
H2b: The masculine/feminine dimension will moderate the relationship between CSR motives and company’s evaluation, in such a way that feminine culture representatives will evaluate the
company subject of CSR communication more positive when intrinsic motives are predominant compared to extrinsic or mixed motives;
Fig. 1 Moderating role of masculine cultural dimension on company evaluation.
Method
A three motives condition (intrinsic vs. extrinsic vs. mixed) by two cultural groups (Italians vs. Dutch) factorial experimental design was employed. All the motives conditions regarded the description of a fictitious apparel company’s CSR activity with the no-profit organization Better Cotton Initiative. In the extrinsic motive condition, the motivations behind the CSR activity were described as self-serving, aimed to satisfy the external demand of stakeholders’ and consumers’ for more sustainable products. In the intrinsic motive condition, the motivations behind the CSR activity were described as a willingness of the company to have a positive impact on the society, by improving the quality of life and welfare of cotton farmers, reduce the impact on the local
environment and operate a more sustainable way. In the mixed motive condition, the motivations behind the CSR activity were described as both self- and society-serving, aimed to improve the sustainability of the products in response to stakeholders’ requests and a genuine willingness of the company to be more sustainable. Detailed descriptions about stimuli is discussed below.
This study tested the effect of intrinsic vs. extrinsic vs. mixed motives in a company’s CSR communication based on participants from Italy and the Netherlands. Italy, which reached a score
CSR Motives Company Evaluation
Masculine/Feminine Cultural Dimension
of 70 in Hofstede’s six-dimension model, is considered as a masculine culture, while the Netherlands, with a score of 14, is considered as a feminine culture.
In the present thesis, three versions of a news item regarding a company’s motive underlying its CSR activity were created. News items were preferred to official corporate
documents, as CSR communication via corporate sources is more likely to trigger scepticism and have less credibility than non-corporate sources, leading stakeholders to perceive the company as more self-interested and thus affecting their perception of motives (Du et al., 2010). Therefore, in order to avoid a possible influence of sources on the perception of motives, the CSR activity was presented through a piece in a neutral and independent magazine, Corporate Responsibility
Magazine, known to provide unbiased information about CSR and thus limiting the possible impact of source information on the perception of the CSR communication.
To avoid priming any existing attitudes towards the company, a fictitious apparel company, Young Clothing, was used. A fictitious company was preferred to an existing company to avoid the influence of prior knowledge or attitude on the evaluation after the exposure to the CSR
communication. Indeed, on the perception of CSR communication, several factors such as
company’s reputation, prior CSR involvement, the corporate image or industry sector can exert an influence (Du et al., 2010). Thus, by using an imaginary company, any influence derived from prior attitude or knowledge can be avoided.
The choice of using an apparel company is justified by three reasons. Firstly, in Europe the clothing industry is significantly relevant in terms of economic impact. Moreover, according to the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (Euratex, 2016), Europe is the second world exporter of textile and clothing. Euratex (2016) also stated that sustainability in apparel manufacturing has become a top priority in 2016, thus stressing the growing importance of CSR involvement for the European fashion industry. Secondly, fashion companies are facing today a growing number of challenges, since the high unpredictability of the market and the raising sensibility of consumers
about green and social concerns (Da Giau, Macchion, Caniato, Caridi, Danese, Rinaldi, Vinelli, 2016). Consumers are in fact demanding fashion companies to be more transparent and sustainable, and companies are responding with social and green transformations to ensure that, at every level of the supply chain, their processes operate under responsible conditions. Moreover, fashion
companies are particularly exposed to sustainability pressures and NGOs attacks, and there exists little literature to help them in their approach to CSR since the request for sustainability is relatively new in the fashion industry (Da Giau et al., 2016). Thirdly, clothing represents, with food and shelter, one of the basic human needs, making thus the company object of the stimulus highly relevant to participants. Nonetheless, the high artificiality of the experiment derived from the use of a fictitious company is balanced by the operationalization of the CSR activity.
As described earlier, the conceptualization of the intrinsic (vs. extrinsic vs. mixed) motives condition in this thesis’ concept was defined as the display of society-serving versus self-serving versus both motives behind the choice of engaging in CSR activity. Based on Du et al. (2010) and Graafland et al. (2012), extrinsic motivation is considered as focused on the firm-serving aspect of the CSR activity, understood as a strategic move to improve the financial performance of the firm or avoid a punishment from the society. On the contrary, intrinsic motivation is considered as an act out of genuine concern from the company for a societal issue and aimed to improve a contribute to the common good. Further, mixed motives are considered as a balance between self- and society-serving motives, thus involving a CSR activity able to improve simultaneously both the company’s performances and issues in society.
Based on this conceptualization, all conditions presented the same headline: “Young Clothing Joins Better Cotton Initiative”. The following body provided the text: “A couple of days ago, the European fashion leader Young Clothing announced its collaboration with the Better Cotton Initiative. A Young Apparel’s spokesperson announced in this regard…”. The following statement differed in the three conditions. In the extrinsic motive condition, the spokesperson
announced that the decision was made to meet the requests of stakeholders and consumers for greener products, in response to stakeholders’ requests; in the intrinsic motive condition, the spokesperson announced that the decision was made to procure their cotton from sustainable
sources and help the cotton farmer community; in the mixed condition, the spokesperson announced that the decision was made to meet both stakeholders’ and consumers’ requests and to help the farmer community. At the end of the text, all three conditions read an identical message describing the role of Better Cotton Initiative in providing sustainable cotton. Finally, the entire procedure was translated from English to Italian and Dutch, in order to improve the readability of the text to all participants. For an overview of the material used, please check Appendix A.
Measures
Company’s evaluation. The dependent variable was measured on a 7-point scale anchored by 1
(minimum score) and 7 (maximum score). Participants expressed their evaluation of Young Apparel on the following items: “extremely bad” versus “extremely good”, “extremely unfavourable” versus “extremely favourable”, extremely not likable” versus “extremely likable” (Yoon et al., 2006). A principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the three items formed a single unidimensional scale: only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.4). All items correlated positively with the first component, the item “I think Young clothing is a company…extremely unlikeable/likeable” had the strongest association (factor loading was .90). The reliability of the scale was satisfactory, Cronbach’s = .87.
CSR motives manipulation check. The motives manipulation check items assessed whether participants perceived the motive behind the CSR activity as intended. Specifically, participants were asked to answer to the question “Why did Young Clothing joined the Better Cotton
initiative?” by choosing an answer between three options: “I believe Young clothing joined the initiative to improve their reputation and their financial results”, “I believe Young clothing joined the initiative since moved from a genuine concern for the communities and the environment” and “I
believe Young clothing joined the initiative to improve both its reputation and the environment and communities”. The results of the manipulation check verified if the respondents correctly identified (1) extrinsic, (2) intrinsic and (3) mixed motives in the CSR communication they were exposed to. The respondents had to indicate if the CSR communication they saw displayed an extrinsic, intrinsic or mixed motive, by responding to the question “Why did Young Clothing joined the Better Cotton Initiative?”. We run a chi-square test with “CSR motives” as independent variable and “Why did Young Clothing joined the Better Cotton Initiative?” as dependent variable to assess the effectiveness of the intended manipulation. The results of the Chi-square test confirmed that the manipulation was achieved, (2 = 13.47, p < .05, N=167). However, by looking at the percentages, it appeared that only 8.7% of respondents correctly identified extrinsic motives, only 8.7% correctly identified intrinsic respondents, while 24.4% of respondents correctly identified mixed motives. Thus, the CSR motives manipulation checked showed that, overall, the manipulation was unsuccessful, as participants failed to distinguish between the three motives conditions.
Masculine dimension manipulation check. The masculine dimension manipulation check items assessed whether participants hold the same values as the ones theoretically associated with the masculine cultural dimension. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate their agreement on a 7 point Likert scale where (1) “Strongly disagree” and (7) “Strongly agree” on the following statements: “Men and woman should be modest and caring” (-), “Man and woman should be assertive and ambitious”, and “Dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation” (-), “Dominant values in society are achievement and success”, (Furrer, Liu & Sudharshan, 2000; Hofstede, 2011). As the four items did not allow to create a sufficiently reliable scale (Cronbach’s = .21), we run 4 individual independent sample t-test for each of the manipulation check items, with “nationality” as independent variable and the manipulation check items as dependent variable. For the first item, “Men and women should be modest and caring”, Dutch respondents agreed more (M=2.22, SD= 1.46) than Italian respondents (M=1.92, SD= 1.28), but the difference was not
statistically significant, t(158)= -1.21, p=.705, 95% CI [-.191,797]. For the second item, “Men and women should be assertive and ambitious”, Dutch respondents agreed less (M=4.61, SD= 1.7) than Italian respondents (M=5.60, SD= 1.16), and the difference was statistically significant, t(44.94)= 3.27, p<.001, 95% CI .379, 1.592]. This means that Italian respondents holded more masculine values than Dutch respondents. For the third item, “Dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation”, Dutch respondents agreed more (M=3.03, SD= 1.29) than Italian respondents (M=2.91, SD= 1.88), and the difference was statistically significant, t(76.07)= -.426, p<.001, 95% CI [-.674, .437]. This means that Dutch respondents were closer to feminine values than Italian respondents. For the fourth item, “Dominant values in society are achievement and success”, Dutch respondents agreed less (M=3.65, SD= 1.79) than Italian respondents (M=4.61, SD= 1.77), but the difference was not statistically significant, t(155)= 2.803, p=.899, 95% CI [.284, 1.641]. Therefore, the results from the manipulation check only partially confirmed that Italian and Dutch participants holded values corresponding to masculine and feminine dimensions, and an overview of the mean scores can be found in Table 1.
Table 1
Mean score of Italian and Dutch participants in cultural dimension manipulation check items
M Italians M Dutch
Men and women should be modest and caring 1.92 2.22
Men and women should be assertive and ambitious 5.60 4.61
Dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation
2.91 3.03
Total N=167
Participants
A total of 124 Italian and 36 Dutch participants were recruited through a convenience sample. The participants agreed to take part of the on-line experiment voluntarily, and no reward nor compensation was offered to be part of the study. The data were collected in a 7-weeks’ time-span, from 28th of November 2016 to 9th of January 2017.
The respondents were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions in order to have an equal number of participants in extrinsic, intrinsic and mixed motives. The average age of the participants in the sample ranged from 19 to 70 years old, Mage= 39.7, SD=14.25. Furthermore, 63.5% of the participants were female. In terms of Italian participants, 37.9% were male, and their age ranged from 23 to 70 years old (M= 43.38, SD=13.28). In terms of Dutch participants, 36.1 % were male, and their age ranged from 19 to 51 years old (M=25.92, SD=7.24). The distribution of participants across the motives condition can be found in Table 2.
Table 2
Distribution of participants across motives conditions and nationality
Italian Dutch Other Total
Extrinsic 38 11 5 54
Intrinsic 41 14 2 57
Mixed 45 11 0 56
Total N=167
they did not complete the entire experimental procedure. The drop-off rate was 25.7%, and in the final sample only respondents who successfully completed the entire experimental procedure were included. On the final sample of N=167, respondents’ age ranged from 19 to 70 years old, and N=106 were female. Moreover, N=124 were Italians, N=36 were Dutch, N=7 were from other nationalities.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted on-line, by sending the link to the experiment to friends and family and inviting them to send it to their Italian and Dutch peers. Participants from both cultural groups, plus participants from other nationalities for the first set of hypotheses, were randomly assigned to one of the three motives conditions. There were 11 Dutch and 38 Italians in the extrinsic motive condition, 14 Dutch and 41 Italians in the intrinsic motive condition, and 11 Dutch and 45 Italians in the mixed motive condition. They firstly read an introduction statement regarding the nature of the experiment, followed by a statement to which they agreed to declare their willingness to participate in the research. Then, they were asked to read the news article and to complete a questionnaire, which included demographic questions, their response to the CSR communication and the manipulation check items. Finally, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation, and it was specified that the magazine article they saw was fictitious.
Results
In order to test the direct effect of CSR motives (H1a and H1b) on company evaluation and the mediator effect of masculine culture in the stated relationship (H2a and H2b), two step of analyses were conducted.
To test the first two hypotheses and to assess the direct effect of CSR motives on company evaluation, we run a one-way between-subjects ANOVA on SPSS with CSR motives as
levels (extrinsic, intrinsic, mixed), while the company evaluation was measured by a 7-point Likert scale, where (1) “Extremely negative attitude” and (7) “Extremely positive attitude” towards the company. Our hypothesis that mixed motivations would lead to a better company evaluation compared to extrinsic (H1a) and intrinsic (H1b) motives was rejected. In fact, results from the ANOVA showed that there was no significant effect of CSR motives on company evaluation at the p <.05 level for all the three conditions [F (2,173) =.856, p=.426, η2 =.009]. These results thus seem to suggest that the motives displayed in the CSR communication did not have any significant influence on company evaluation.
To test the second set of hypotheses and assess the moderator effect of masculine cultural dimension on the relationship between CSR motives and company evaluation, we run a regression analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986) with CSR motives and culture as independent variable and company evaluation as dependent variable. Company evaluation was measured by a 7-point Likert scale, where (1) “Extremely negative attitude” and (7) “Extremely positive attitude” towards the company. In order to include the nominal variables in the analysis, CSR motives was recoded into two dummy variables, “Extrinsic Dummy”, where (1) Extrinsic and (0) else, and “Intrinsic
Dummy” where (1) Intrinsic and (0) else. Culture was also recoded as dummy variable, where (1) Italians and (0) Dutch. The model as a whole was not significant, F(6, 160) = 1.502, p =.181). Therefore, we had to reject our second set of hypotheses, since the results failed to prove the
influence of cultural dimensions on the relationship between CSR motives and company evaluation.
In addition to the aforementioned analyses run to test the hypotheses, we looked also at the direct effect of masculine culture on company evaluation. We run a multiple regression analysis with company evaluation as dependent variable and the manipulation check items as independent variables. The model as a whole was significant F (6,157) = 6.183, p<. 001. The regression model can therefore be used to predict company evaluation, but the strength of the prediction is small: 16.7 per cent of the variation in company evaluation can be predicted on the basis of masculine cultural
dimension (adjusted R2 = .167). “Men and women should be modest and caring”, b= .31, b*= .35, t=4.662, p=<.001, 95% CI [-.176, .436] is significant, “Men and women should be assertive and ambitious”, b= - .01, b*= -.01, t= -.213, p= .832, 95% CI [-.137, .110] is not significant, “Dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation”, b= .08, b*= .13, t= 1.663, p= .098, 95% CI [-.014, .166] is not significant, “Dominant values in society are achievement and success”, b= .08, b*= .14, t= 1.650, p= .101, 95% CI [-.015, .167] is not significant. The findings thus showed that only one item, “Men and women should be modest and caring”, was able to reveal that participants from feminine culture had a more positive attitude towards the company engaged in the CSR activity.
Discussion
The present thesis was aimed to prove the influence of CSR motives on company evaluation, and the moderator role of masculine dimension in the stated relationship.
Unfortunately, even if previous researches seemed to indicate fruitful paths in the exploration of this relationship, the results were not able to confirm our hypotheses. Mixed motivations in fact did not have any significant influence on company evaluation, compared to intrinsic or extrinsic motives, and masculine culture did not have a role in this relationship. However, several reasons that could have caused the rejection of our hypotheses can be argued.
Firstly, the present research presented a sampling problem that is likely to have caused non-significant results. As the number of Dutch and Italian participants, representative of feminine and masculine cultures, were not comparable, the likelihood of demonstrating significant associations was undermined. In fact, as stated by Field (2009), when sample sizes are not equal, it is more likely to obtain non-significant results even when a genuine difference exists in the observed population. Thus, the lack of equal sized groups when performing the analyses could have been the principal reason of the rejection of our hypotheses.
Secondly, the lack of significantly different influence of CSR motives could depend on the fact that, overall, participants perceived in all communications mixed motives, as proved by the manipulation check. Hence, it is likely that consumers tend to infer in the majority of cases a convergence of self- and society-serving motives, and are able to recognize both motives in a CSR communication (Ellen et al.,2006). Moreover, the close fit between the proposed
company’s industry (clothing) and the CSR cause (Better Cotton Initiative) could have contributed to raise scepticism in the respondents. In fact, as proved by Kim (2011) high congruence between a company’s sector and the nature of the CSR involvement can be the cause of consumers’ scepticism. Furthermore, the purely intrinsic character of the organization Better Cotton Initiative could have contributed to the perception of intrinsic motives in the overall communications. Indeed, a CSR activity too closely related to a company’s products or services could suggest to consumers that the motivations behind that involvement are not genuine, but more business-related. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge of prior history or reputation of the company used in the present study could have further influenced the perception of the CSR communication. In truth, prior corporate reputation can impact the perception of CSR practices (Bae & Cameron, 2006), and a short-term CSR involvement can be seen by the publics as suspicious and an action with underlying motivations (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2007). Consequently, it is possible to argue that a company’s prior reputation is fundamental in the perception of its CSR activities. Prior CSR records, and a strategic orientation towards responsible business tracked down in the company’s DNA are certainly more likely to inhibit scepticism and raise the attitude of consumers and stakeholders towards the company. Contrarily, a single CSR activity, even if communicated through a neutral third-party endorser as in this case, can still be perceived as related to business and profits.
Finally, a further explanation for the inability to prove a significant relationship between CSR motives, masculine culture and company evaluation could lie in the Hofstede’s
classification of national culture itself. Indeed, many other individual factors, as personality, are proved to influence an individual behaviour. As individual personalities within each national culture could widely vary, national culture does not necessarily indicate general values that can be generalized to all individuals or can be stereotypical of national values (Hofstede, 2011). Likewise, it can be argued that even if an individual belongs to a certain national culture, (s)he could not hold the values traditionally associated with its nationality, as it was showed in the manipulation check. Moreover, also the country of residence could have an impact on the cultural dimensions, besides the country of origin. In fact, citizens from feminine country who live in masculine countries, or the other way around, could absorb more the values of the country of residence than the one transmitted with their heritage. Further, a problem regarding Hofstede’s model lies in its research method; indeed, the data used to elaborate the 6-D model were collected through IBM workers only, thus referring to a small size of the population that can hardly refer to a national average (McSweeney, 2002). In addition, the dimensions
associated with each national culture were based on statistical average. By comparing central tendencies and not individuals, the whole concept of national culture seems difficult to be applied to a wider set of individuals that only share their nationality. (McSweeney, 2002). In addition, other scholars suggest a problem with the category masculine/feminine, as they argued that Hofstede’s studies lacked a direct measure for femininity, as the absence of masculinity was considered feminine (McSweeney, 2002). The stated issues could explain the lack of significant results; as feminine and masculine cultures do not necessarily hold the values associated by Hofstede to their national cultures, it is likely that these dimensions were not accountable for explaining different responses in CSR communication.
Limitations
We acknowledge that this thesis presented some limitations.
necessary number of participants in order to obtain an equal number of Dutch and Italians, the unequal sample size was likely to determine the non-significant results of the analysis. Moreover, the sample was obtained by convenience, thus limiting the external validity of the present study. As the sample was not randomly selected, it is likely to not be representative for the entire population.
Secondly, the use of a fictitious company without other information about its previous history could have influenced the respondents’ perception of the CSR activity. Even if
counterbalanced by the use of a real non-profit organization, the use of a fictitious company has caused limitation in the external validity of the present research.
Thirdly, the dimension masculine/feminine could be a further issue. A better measurement of masculine and feminine cultures, based on values hold by participants and not based on their nationality could have improved the present research.
Finally, as the manipulation checked revealed that most of participants failed in recognizing the right motive behind the CSR communication, the internal validity of the study has been
compromised. A possible explanation for this issue could be found in the fact that all conditions presented similar statements for justifying the CSR activity. A better and more detailed description in the article presented, plus previous history of the company, could have been used to improve the validity of the present research.
Conclusions and direction for future researches
As CSR involvement is becoming a fundamental aspect for companies’ market survival (Tian, et al., 2011; Kim & Bae, 2016), it is essential to explore what elements can influence
consumers’ and stakeholders’ perception of the stated activities. Although this thesis was not able to prove a significant influence of CSR motives and masculine culture, it doesn’t mean that is
unfruitful to continue exploring this relationship. As stated by Du et al. (2010), the way in which consumers perceive CSR motives is essential, and research in this field has not come yet to a clear
agreement. As partially showed in the results, motives behind CSR are often misunderstood by consumers. Future researches could explore what aspects in a CSR communication or in the company’s characteristics are perceived as self- or society-serving. Another worthwhile path could be to include in the model proposed also scepticism and trust towards the company as mediators, to discover what elements inhibit the perception of a genuine CSR activity.
Furthermore, even though the results were not able to disclose a different reception of CSR communication by masculine and feminine cultures, previous studies have revealed that different countries can respond diversely to the same communication. As different cultures are the basis for different values in regards of ethical issues, essential topic in CSR communication (Truong, 2016), exploring the impact of cultural dimensions on CSR perception would not be useless. Future researches could improve the present results by including all Hofstede dimensions in the model, in addition to a personality measure, in order to have a more complete overview, or to substitute Hofstede’s cross-cultural classification with the GLOBE dimensions. This model, in fact, has been considered by many authors as an improved version of the Hofstede’s dimensions. For example, the masculine/feminine dimension is replaced with four different components (Assertiveness,
Performance Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism and Humane Orientation) (Shi & Wang, 2011). By using the GLOBE classifications, future researches could obtain an alternative and more fruitful view on cultural differences.
References
Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of corporate giving. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 144-150.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California management review, 47(1), 9-24.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.
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.
Da Giau, A., Macchion, L., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Danese, P., Rinaldi, R., & Vinelli, A. (2016). Sustainability practices and web-based communication: An analysis of the Italian fashion industry.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(1), 72-88.
Dawkins, J. (2005). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of
communication management, 9(2), 108-119.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: implications for international retailing. Journal of retailing, 78(1), 61-69.
Ding, D. D. (2006). An indirect style in business communication. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 20(1), 87-100.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 147-157.
Euratex. The European Apparel and Textile Confederation, 2016,
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.
Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of consumer psychology, 13(3), 349-356.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. S. C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of
service research, 2(4), 355-371.
Gonzalez, C. M. (2007). The Effect of Doing Good: An Experimental Analysis of the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions.
Graafland, J., & Mazereeuw-Van der Duijn Schouten, C. (2012). Motives for corporate social responsibility. De Economist, 160(4), 377-396.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?.
Organizational dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind (Vol. 2). London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management science, 40(1), 4-13.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in
psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.
Hornikx, J., & O’Keefe, D. J. (2009). Adapting Consumer Advertising Appeals to Cultural Values A Meta-Analytic Review of Effects on Persuasiveness and Ad Liking. Annals of the International
Communication Association, 33(1), 39-71
Kim, H. S. (2011). A reputational approach examining publics' attributions on corporate social responsibility motives. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(1), 84-101.
Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 838-840.
Kim, S., & Bae, J. (2016). Cross-cultural differences in concrete and abstract corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns: perceived message clarity and perceived CSR as mediators.
International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1), 6.
Kim, Y., & Kim, S. Y. (2010). The influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public relations practitioners.
Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 485-500.
Kim, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public Relations
Review, 38(1), 168-170.
Kim, H. S., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). Testing the buffering and boomerang effects of CSR practices on consumers’ perception of a corporation during a crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 18(4), 277-293.
Liang, B., & Cherian, J. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in the effects of abstract and concrete thinking on imagery generation and ad persuasion. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 22(2), 187-198.
Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of business ethics, 30(1), 57-72.
Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). “I need you too!” Corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of business ethics, 71(3), 245-260.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human relations, 55(1), 89-118.
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111.
Mueller Loose, S., & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility claims on consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison. British Food Journal, 115(1), 142-166.
Nelson, M. R., Brunel, F. F., Supphellen, M., & Manchanda, R. V. (2006). Effects of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising across masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 45-56.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Peng, Y. S., Dashdeleg, A. U., & Chih, H. L. (2012). Does National Culture Influence Firm's CSR Engagement: a Cross Country Study. International Proceedings of Economics Development and
Research, 58, 40.
Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Sims, J., & Wigley, S. (2008). The influence of corporate social responsibility campaigns on public opinion. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(2), 145-154.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2007). The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard business review.
Ricks Jr, J. M. (2005). An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions of brand equity variables. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 121-134.
Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). The impact of national culture on corporate social performance.
Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 7(4), 476-485.
Shi, X., & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting hofstede model and globe model: which way to go for cross-cultural research?. International journal of business and management, 6(5), 93.
Singh, J., & Del Bosque, I. R. (2008). Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 597-611.
Smith, S. M., & Alcorn, D. S. (1991). Cause marketing: a new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(3), 19-35.
Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review,
24(2), 111-124.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: a three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of
Taylor, C. R. (2005). Moving international advertising research forward: a new research agenda.
Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 7-16.
Tian, Z., Wang, R., & Yang, W. (2011). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China. Journal of business ethics, 101(2), 197-212.”
Truong, M. (2016). The Effect of Culture on Enterprise's Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of Vietnam. Procedia CIRP, 40, 681-687
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273-283.
Williams, C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective.
Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture on consumers' willingness to punish irresponsible corporate behaviour: applying Hofstede's typology to the punishment aspect of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(2), 210-226.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of consumer psychology, 16(4), 377-390.
Appendix A
Stimuli material (English version) Extrinsic Motives
