A good story: The motives behind Corporate Social
Responsibility
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication
Master’s Thesis
Name: Minou Heel Student number: 10116400 Supervisor: dr. S. H. J. Jacobs February 1st, 2019
Abstract
Organizations engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to contribute to society or support a strategic goal. Yet, many consumers tend to be skeptical about CSR initiatives of organizations. This study focusses on the influence of communicated CSR motive (self-centered vs. other-centered) on purchase intention of consumers. Furthermore, this research proposes that storytelling has a positive effect on both skepticism and purchase intention. According to this research the other-serving communicated motive will decrease skepticism and increase purchase intention. This result indicates the importance for organizations to be careful regarding communicating their CSR initiatives. However, storytelling does not affect skepticism nor purchase intention.
Introduction
‘Once upon a time…’ is a well-known phrase that is often used as a start of a fairy tale. Telling stories is timeless and was used to share information, wisdom and myths over many generations. Nowadays, organizations use storytelling to inform their stakeholders, for the purpose of stakeholders getting more engaged with the values of the organization (Baraibar-Diez, Odriozola & Sánchez, 2017; Gill, 2015). An important feature of stories is that it is easily understood and remembered by people who listen or read the stories. It alsocreates a sense of empathy and credibility among the readers (Barker & Gower, 2010). Therefore, storytelling is known for creating a successful brand on corporate-as well as product level (Keskin, Akgun, Zehir & Ayar, 2016).
Nowadays, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is high on the agenda of many corporate organizations. Moreover, the public also expect that organizations invest in CSR
initiatives (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). By implementing a CSR strategy, organizations try to meet the social and environmental concerns of the stakeholders. With the intention of gaining a positive reputation and more importantly financial benefits (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Many research focusses on CSR in order to build a stronger image and reputation (Ellen, 2006). However, marketers need a better understanding of the consumers’ responses toward CSR initiatives. Therefore, purchase intention could indicate the actions of consumers regarding the organization.
A key challenge that could occur while implementing a CSR strategy is that
consumers become suspicious of the motives and assume a company only invests in CSR to improve its image. In this case the CSR initiatives could backfire on the company and consumers think more negatively about the organization (Yoon, Gürhan-Canli & Schwarz, 2006). The perceived motives of CSR are indicators of skepticism. When CSR motives are perceived as self-centered, the goal is to increase profits, it is likely that the skepticism of the public increases. On the other hand, other-centered CSR motives, when the CSR initiatives are perceived as sincere, would reduce skepticism (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Ellen, 2006).
Organizations should pay more attention to the communication of CSR, because it is a communicated event (Schultz, Castello & Morsing, 2013). A communication strategy that has benefits for the CSR message is storytelling, because it increases engagement, and improves the reputation of an organization (Gill, 2015; Mittins, Abratt & Christy, 2011). This is because storytelling is often used by organizations connect with the consumers (Jones & Comfort, 2018). Therefore, this study will try to give a better understanding of using storytelling including a CSR message.
Previous studies already have shown that having a CSR strategy could influence the image and reputation of an organization (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Yoon, Gürhan-Canli & Schwarz, 2006). However, research should focus more on the effects of CSR on the
consumers’ actions (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Other research illustrated that CSR initiatives had a positive influence on the consumers’ attitude towards a company (Ellen, Mohr & Webb, 2000; Lee & Carroll, 2011). However, there is a discrepancy in outcomes of successful CSR, as Pawlak & Zasuwa (2011) did not find a positive effect of the use of CSR, even more, they found a negative effect on the attitude towards the organization. Therefore, this study will attempt to overcome these discrepancies by investigating the way of
communicating CSR initiatives, by using storytelling and communicated motive.
Many consumers are unaware of the CSR message of organizations or do not know what CSR is. On the other hand, 80% of the consumers would rather choose a brand that is related to charity thana brand that is not related to charity (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). Therefore, this study will focus on communicating about CSR, whether the motive of CSR or storytelling could influence consumers’ perception and how that influences the purchase intentions. This study will investigate if storytelling strategies and communicated motive could influence consumers’ purchase intention.
RQ: To what extent influences the communicated CSR motive consumer’s skepticism, considering storytelling strategy, and what is the effect on the purchase intention?
Theoretical framework
Corporate social reponsibility
Different definitions are given of CSR in the literature, which could lead to confusion (Dahlsrud, 2008). Therefore, it is important to first define CSR for this research. Hence, for this study CSR will be defined as ‘a commitment to improve [societal] well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources’ (Kotler & Lee, 2013). CSR is not merely something that cost money. However, when an organization is being a good corporate citizen it might be of competitive advantage (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen,
2010). Moreover, the expectation is also held by stakeholders that organizations involve in society and environment and behave as a good corporate citizen (Skermaes & Leonidou, 2013).
Nowadays, the question is not whether to implement a CSR strategy, but how to implement it in the most effective way (Du, et al., 2010). And when organizations do not engage in CSR activities it could negatively affect the competitive position of the organization (Campbell, 2007). However, it should be taken into account that CSR is in line with naïve business theory. Organizations respond toward the value that consumers uphold on CSR. And through CSR organizations try to create a favorable image (Yoon, et al., 2006).
According to Carrol (2016) CSR can be divided into four different types of responsibilities. Carrol (2016) states these as following: ‘Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time’ (Carrol, 2016). These four types are framed in a pyramid, where the economic responsibility is the foundation: In order for an organization to be sustainable, it is necessary to be profitable. The second responsibility is legal: An organization has the obligation to obey the law. However, there are certain norms, standards, and practices that are not identified in the law, but still expected by society, this is called the ethical responsibility. The last part of the pyramid is the philanthropic
responsibility, this means that society expects an organization to behave as a good corporate citizen (Carrol, 2016).
It is known that consumers are likely to reward companies who try to do well and punish those who are performing as bad corporate citizens. CSR is not only because of ideological reasons, it also attempts to get some business returns (Du et al., 2010). Additionally, David, Kline and Dai (2005), showed three levels of measuring whether the CSR initiative were effective or not, (1) corporate image, (2) purchase intention, and (3)
purchase behavior. According to Mohr et al. (2001) consumers do not even consider the CSR activities of a company when purchasing a product. Some consumers respond more positively to CSR in general and these consumers are more likely to be responsible in their purchase decisions (Mohr & Webb, 2005).
CSR can affect purchase intention in two different ways. Firstly, there is an indirect effect. This means that when the consumer already have knowledge of the organization and its CSR initiatives, which created a purchase intention. Secondly, a direct effect occurs when the CSR initiatives affect the consumers’ purchase intention (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). However, skepticism among consumers can negatively affect the campaign and therefore, reduce the returns on the investment (Leonidou & Skarmeas, 2017). This is due to the ‘Catch-22’, which often occurs in CSR communication (Morsing, Schultz & Nielson, 2008). Consumers expect organization to give information about their CSR initiatives, and yet consumers will be suspicious of self-promotional motives (Coombs & Holladay, 2012) Thus, acceptation of the sincereness of the CSR message is influenced by the consumer’s
skepticism. This will be further investigated in the next paragraph.
CSR and skepticism
Skepticism is a well-known phenomenon in CSR studies because the public is not always convinced of the motives behind CSR. Moreover, there are various reports of misconduct by organizations (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Before further investigating skepticism, a definition is needed. According to Leonidou and Skarmeas (2017), skepticism is an attitude of doubt and overall tendency to question. Skepticism can be explained by the persuasion knowledge model (PKM), which is developed by Friestad and Wright (1994). They stated that consumers gain knowledge about persuasion attempts, like advertisements, the more
the PKM, consumers evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of advertising and skepticism is related to the persuasion knowledge that the consumers own.
Skepticism can occur when people doubt what others are saying or doing, however, they can be convinced by evidence or proof. It is a cognitive response and depends on the context and content of the message (Mohr, Eroglu & Ellen, 1998). In other words, skepticism can be a reaction that consumers have towards a message. Also it has its benefits, consumers can be skeptical from a public standpoint, especially when there is greater potential for deception. This means it can be viewed as a kind of defense mechanism of consumers against misleading information. Taking skepticism into account, advertising has still a positive effect on consumers’ evaluation (Mohr, et al., 1998). When consumers feel mislead by the CSR of an organization, it is likely the react negatively towards the message.
Nowadays, consumers have the tendency to believe that CSR initiatives are mainly driven by economic benefits, rather than a genuine concern for the environment, which made consumers increasingly doubtful of the motives of the organization (Ogunfowora, Stackhouse & Oh, 2016). Thus, skepticism arises because of the paradoxical nature of CSR, between a for-profit organization, which strives to increase profits, and on the other hand the voluntary commitment to invest in a better society/environment (Rim & Kim, 2016).
Forehand & Grier (2003) found two kinds of skepticism: ‘predispositional skepticism’, which means that the consumer has a general tendency to be suspicious and ‘situational skepticism’, which is a temporary state of doubt of the message. Situational skepticism can be minimized by effective communication. Hence, organizations mostly focus on this type of skepticism.
There are several occasions when skepticism is more likely to arise. Kim & Lee (2009) state that authenticity and underlying motives are important indicators. And found that objectivity is an important indicator of skepticism, when the object is presented in a verifiable
Comment [MH1]: Staat ook al in
mijn introductie…..
Staat hier wel erg mooi, misschien in net iets andere woorden?
manner consumer tend to be more skeptic when the object is presented vaguely. Another way to reduce skepticism is to collaborate with non-profit partners as a part of the CSR initiative (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Skepticism is also related to the perceived CSR motives of an organization. When the consumer is convinced that CSR is mainly used to improve image or increase purchase intention, consumers tend to be more skeptical, than when the motives are perceived as sincere (Elving, 2013).
Self-centered and other-centered CSR motives
Another challenge of CSR is awareness of stakeholders of a company’s CSR activities, as shown in previous studies showed that the awareness is typically low (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). Therefore, it is important to study effectiveness of communicating about CSR, in order to gain the benefits. One way to communicate about CSR initiatives is to elaborate on the reasons for the CSR initiative. In other words, the motive behind the use of CSR.
In previous research the perceived motive of the stakeholders played a crucial role (Ellen, 2006; Pai, Lai, Chiu & Yang, 2013). Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill (2006) explained two main types of motives that consumers assign to the company. Firstly, self-centered motive, which means the focus of the message is on increasing profits and sales, and help the company to grow (Ellen, 2006). This is in line with Carrols (2009) economic and legal obligations; the driver is to make sure the company is profitable. However, in today’s society the ethical responses are becoming more important for consumers. Therefore, the second motive is other-centered. In this case the company wants to help the society, and feel morally obligated (Ellen, 2006; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006).
The perceived underlying motive of the CSR message can influence consumers’ attitudes and intentions towards the organization (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). When organizations focus on self-centered objectives, it is found that it reinforces more
negative attitudes, whereas other-serving motivated CSR initiatives would increase a positive attitude (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). According to Leonidou and Skarmeas (2017) other-centered motives decreases skepticism, whereas self-centered motives have no effect on skepticism. Previous literature confirms that other-centered motives have a more positive effect on the attitude of consumers than the self-centered motives (Story & Neves, 2014; Du et al, 2010; White & Peloza, 2009; David, Kline & Dai, 2005). However, other studies found no effect of the motives on purchase intention (Ellen, 2006). This could be due to that consumers are aware that companies need to make a profit in order to exist, and therefore accept the self-centered motive of CSR (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Ellen, Mohr, and Web (2006) found that a mixed strategy of both self-centered and other-centered CSR motives could be most profitable for an organization. As mentioned above scholars have found contradicting results relating to the effect of CSR motives and therefore, it is interesting to further investigate the effect of communicated CSR motives. Although, some scholars claim that there is no effect of perceived CSR motives on consumers, this research it is expected that the communicating CSR motive has an effect on the purchase intentions of consumers.
Another way to persuade consumers is to use a storytelling strategy, this appeals towards the emotions and therefore more positive attitudes toward the organization could be obtained (Du & Vieira, 2012).
H1: The other-centered CSR motive will lead to a higher purchase intention than a self-centered CSR motive.
H2: The other-serving CSR motive will lead to less skepticism and therefore a higher purchase intention than a self-serving CSR motive.
Storytelling
Storytelling is a strategy that exists for centuries and was initially used to share values, knowledge, and myths over generations (Sole & Wilson, 2002). Mouth to mouth narration and drawings were firstly used to share stories. However, now that technology is used more than ever, there are many ways to communicate a story, using images, audio, and video. Nowadays, storytelling is a tool that is often used in organizations to communicate a message. Organizations use this strategy to build a better reputation or branding by characterization of events (Boje & Khan, 2009; Gill, 2015). Stories can contain an Aristotelian beginning, middle, and end, which makes it possible to create a narrative (Polkinghorne, 1988). A narrative is a form of communication that is placed in time and space, which implies causality (Dailey & Browning, 2014). However, a narrative is not equal to storytelling, as it also has some emotion. A narrative contains four elements, according to Browning & Morris (2012), “(1) give the problem, (2) providing actions undertaken in order solve the problem, (3) achieve closure, and (4) indication of the moral implications. Storytelling of organizations is defined as a process of developing and delivering an organization’s message by using narration about people, the organization, the past, visions for the future, social bonding and work itself in order to create a new point-of-view or reinforce an opinion or behavior (Gill, 2015).
A theory that explains the effects of storytelling is the narrative paradigm theory (NPT), by Fisher (1985). The NPT makes a few assumptions: (1) people are storytellers; (2) people communicate mainly through stories; (3) disclosure is used for ‘good reasons’; (4) communication is assessed through narrative logic; and (5) the worlds’ reality is constructed by stories (Fisher, 1987, p. ix). To summarize this, narration can be used to justify certain actions of humans or organizations (Stutts & Barker, 1999). NPT is a theory that can be applied toward CSR, as CSR is about doing something good, by taking care of the well-being
of society or environment. This theory shows how to make stories memorable, easily understood and establish a common ground which creates credibility among consumers (Barker & Gower, 2010).
In organizational studies, it is found that stories can shape the understanding of, and tendency to align with organizational values (Dailey & Browning, 2014). Narratives are an effective strategy to communicate a message, by using characters or persona that either uphold or violate the values, so people can see how to apply these values in their daily life and see the importance (Martin, 2016). Subsequently, organizations can use storytelling for persuasive communication purpose, this is done by presenting a corporate perspective, framing the CSR message with value-laden features (Barker & Gower, 2010).
A narrative structure or storytelling can evoke sympathy and therefore, will be more persuasive, thus storytelling could influence the attitude of consumers (Hsiao, Lu & Lan, 2013). Storytelling persuasion in the context of CSR appeal to the emotions of consumers, therefore, an effective way to gain positives attitudes toward the organization (Du & Vieira, 2012). The positive effects on attitudes of storytelling are stronger when consumers are less skeptical about the message (Dhanesh & Nekmat, 2018). The use of stories put more humanity on CSR initiatives and have, therefore the persuasion to change the attitude of consumers in favor or the organization (Du & Vieira, 2012). When a message is told as a story, it will reduce counterarguments (Deighton, Romer & McQueen, 1989), therefore using storytelling strategies it could reduce skepticism of consumers. This can be explained by consumers’ cognitive processing. In this way, consumers will not think that the organization is willingly trying to sell them a product or a service, but are sincere of their message (Moyer-Guse, 2008).
H3: Theother-centered CSR motive will lead to less skepticism moderated by the use of storytelling than a self-centered motive.
H4: Theother-serving CSR motive will lead to higher purchase intention moderated by the use of storytelling than a self-serving motive
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method Aim of the study
The aim of the research is to measure the purchase intention of the consumers after being exposed on the communicated CSR motive of an organization. The comparison will be between self-centered CSR motive and other-centered CSR motive that is communicated by the firm. Another, variable that will be taken into account is the use of storytelling as an approach of communicate the CSR message. Furthermore, skepticism of the participants will be measured.
To what extent influences the communicated CSR motive consumer’s skepticism, considering storytelling strategy, and what is the effect on the purchase intention? Communicated CSR motive (Self-/other-centered Storytelling vs. Non-story Skepticism Purchase intention
Experimental design
There will be a 2 between subjects (communicated CSR motive: self-centered vs. other-centered) x 2 experimental (storytelling: storytelling vs. non-story) factorial designs for this online-experimental survey. The independent variables are the communicated CSR motive and the moderator is storytelling which is divided in either use storytelling or not.
Storytelling approach Non storytelling approach
Self-centered 43 41
Other-centered 39 41
Sample
205 people agreed to participate in the study. Of these 205 participants, 35 had to be excluded due to missing values on several questions. Four other participants had to be removed because they filled out an age lower than 18 and two participants failed the manipulation check. Analyses were thus conducted using a final sample of 164 participants. In total 55 male and 109 female participants were recruited with an average age of 34.77 (SD = 14.86).
Participants have to be >18 and Dutch, this means that the sampling frame is unknown due to the large population. The research is based on a non-probability convenience sample, because the participants will be recruited through researcher’s network (WhatsApp, Facebook and Surveyswap). Also a snowball sampling technique was used, participants shared the survey in their own network, this in order to reach as many participants as possible.
Randomization
To check if participants’ age was comparable across the online format conditions, an Oneway ANOVA was conducted. This ANOVA had four conditions (self-centered vs. other-centered and storytelling vs. non-story) as independent variable, and age as dependent variable. The ANOVA showed that participants’ mean age in the storytelling self-centered condition (M =
36.37 years, SD = 14.70) was not significantly different from participants’ mean age in the non-story other-centered condition (M = 37.69 years, SD = 16.42), F(3, 162) = 1.99, p = .118, η2 = .04. Gender was also equally divided over the four conditions, this was measured by conducting a Chi-square test. The results showed an insignificant relation between gender and the four conditions: χ2(3) = .327 p = 0.955.
Procedure
The online experiment was designed in Qualtrics, an online survey program which allowed to randomize the sample to different conditions. The link to the experiment was shared over Facebook, WhatsApp and Surveyswap. The experiment starts with the informed consent, after reading and accepting this, the experiment can begin. First of all, the gender, age and
educational level was asked of the participants. Then the participants get a short briefing about the experiment and were exposed to one of the four conditions and asked to read the message carefully. After that the participants had to answer the questions to measure the dependent variables, namely skepticism and purchase intention. The experiment ended with the manipulation check and thanked them for the participation. The full experiment can be seen in Appendix A.
Manipulation
For this research a CSR campaign was created on a webpage, the organization was fictitious in order to rule out bias of the participants towards the organization. There is chosen for a non-existing organization to prevent from prejudices that could influence the results. The webpage that is created is inspired by existing brand like, IKEA and Made.com. It is
important to make sure that the lay-out looks professional, however, it should not distract the participants from the content. Two different manipulations were applied on the CSR
campaign. The first one is the distinction with a self-serving CSR motive and other-serving CSR motive. The self-serving motive would focus on the company and consumers’
perspective, goals and benefits, whereas the other-serving motive would focus on benefits for the cause, which is in this case the preservation of the rainforest. The communicated CSR motive is based on research of Ellen (2006), in this research several criteria were mentioned and used for this study. See below table 1 which criteria were used.
Table 1
Attributions about CSR motives
Attributions In manipulated text
Other-centered - Desire to help - Owe the environment - Morally obligated - Identify with beneficiaries - Expected to help Self-centered
- Get more sales
- Affect what people think about them - Help themselves
- Build consumer loyalty - Competitive advantage
Taking responsibility Considering human and nature Use of wood cannot be damaging nature Using wood with a quality
Helping with projects to reduce from cutting rainforest
Increasing market position Listening to desires of consumers Investing in companies future Offering high quality Distinguish from competitors
The second manipulation is the use of storytelling while communicating the message. The variant with storytelling presents the CSR message as a story. This was based on four components, message, conflict, character, and plot (Fog, Budtz & Yakaboylu, 2005). These elements were used to create the story. As the non-story condition, showed bullet points with factual activities.
Pre-test
Before distributing the survey a pre-test was carried out to check whether the manipulation worked or not. 16 participants out of researchers personal networked completed the survey and were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. After completing the survey,
participants were asked to give feedback. Concerning this feedback minor changes were made. Firstly, the communicated CSR motive needed to be more distinct, thus a stronger focus toward self-serving and other-serving motive. Secondly, the non-story condition needed to be less narrative, therefore the message was presented in bullet points.
To check whether the changes were successful, a second pre-test was conducted amongst eight participants. This time the participants gave the expected answers, and therefore the manipulation was successful.
Measurements Skepticism
The mediator skepticism is measured using the existing scales of Skermeas and Leonidou (2013) and Yoon, Gürhan-Canli and Schwarz (2006), six items will be measured on a five-point Likert-scale. The items were measured on level of (dis)agreement with several
statements: ‘I think this firm is environmental responsible’; ‘I think this firm is concerned to improve the well-being of society and environment’; ‘I think this firm follows high ethical standards’; ‘I think this firm acts in a socially responsible way’. The last two items were reversed: ‘I think this firm tries to create a good image of itself’ and ‘I think this firm wants to improve its image’.
A principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the six items form a multi uni-dimensional scale: two components had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.88 and eigenvalue 1.60) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All items correlate positively with the first component, the variable ‘I think this firm acts in a socially responsible way’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .85). There is chosen to use only the first 4 items to create a scale, the last two, which were reversed will be excluded. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach's alpha = .86 (M = 3.69, SD = .65).
Therefore, it appears the scale measures skepticism on the CSR activities. Looking at the original variable response options we see that high scores on the items actually indicate low skepticism: the higher the scale score, the less skeptic the respondent is.
Purchase intention
In order to measure the dependent variable purchase intention an existing scale is used by Lii & Lee (2011). On this scale were three items measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The scale contained the following items: ‘It is likely that I will buy items from this company’; ‘I would consider buying this brand next time when I need furniture items’; and ‘I will try to buy items from this company’.
A principal component analysis (PCA) shows that the three items form a single uni-dimensional scale: one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.38) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All items correlate positively with the first component, the variable ‘I will try to buy items from this company’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .96). Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach's alpha = .87 (M = 3.63, SD = .69). Therefore, it appears the scale measures purchase intention of the consumers.
Manipulation checks
Manipulation check is needed to check whether the manipulation was successful or not. To check if the self-centered and other-centered manipulation worked, the participants were asked if the message was more focused on the advantages for the company or the environment, this was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. The scale that is used is obtained of Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill (2006) and measured the perceived motivation of the organization via a three scaled items: ‘self-interested/community interested’; ‘firm-focused/customer-focused’; ‘profit-motivated/socially motivated’. In order to make this scale
a better fit for this research community interested, customer-focused and socially motivated were changed into environmental interested, environmental-focused and environmental motivated.
A principal component analysis (PCA) shows that the 3 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.29) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All items correlate positively with the first component, the variable ‘profit-motivated/socially motivated’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .89). Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach's alpha = .85 (M = 4.26, SD = 1.54). Therefore, it appears the scale measures whether the message was self-centered or other-self-centered.
To check if participants perceived the framed conditions as intended, an independent samples t-test was conducted with Communicated Motive (self-centered vs. other-centered) as independent variable, and perceived motive of the message as dependent variable. A
significant effect of Communicated Motive was found on perceived motive of the message, t (164) = 17.35, p = .00, 95% CI [-1.77, -.92].Participants perceived the CSR message presented in a other-centered motive as significantly more geared toward focusing on the environment (M = 4.95, SD = 1.16) than the message presented in the self-centered motive (M = 3.61, SD = 1.57). This indicates that the manipulation of Communicated Motive was successful. One participant had to be removed, because the manipulation was not understood as intended. This participant saw the self-centered motive, but scored a 6.67 in favor of other-centered.
The second manipulation that is conducted was the use of a narrative form or a non-narrative form. To check whether this manipulation was successful or not a scale of Dessart (2018) was used. Three item scale consisting of the following items: ‘The message told a story’; ‘The message has a beginning, middle and end’; and ‘The message showed a
development of the organization’. The items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
A principal component analysis (PCA) shows that the 3 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.29) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All items correlate positively with the first component, the variable ‘The message has a beginning, middle and end’ has the strongest association (factor loading is .91). Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach's alpha = .84 (M = 4.16, SD = 1.46). Therefore, it appears the scale measures whether the message was perceived as a story or not.
To check if participants perceived the framed conditions as intended, an independent samples t-test was conducted with Storytelling (storytelling vs. non-storytelling) as
independent variable, and perceived storytelling of the message as dependent variable. A significant effect of Storytelling was found on perceived storytelling of the message, t(164) = 7.44, p = .01, 95% CI [1.05, 1.83]. Participants perceived the CSR message presented in a story as significantly more as a story (M = 4.89, SD = 1.08) than the message presented in as a non-story (M = 3.45, SD = 1.44). This indicates that the manipulation of Storytelling was successful. One participant was removed, because the manipulation was not received as intended. This participant judged the non-story manipulation more as a story and with an M = 6.33.
Results
Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis expected that other-centered CSR motive increases the purchase intention. To check this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was conducted with
communicated CSR motive (self-centered vs. other-centered) as independent variable, and purchase intention as dependent variable.
A significant relationship of communicated CSR motive was found with purchase intention, t (162) = 2.73, p = .01, 95% CI [.08, .50], which presented a medium effect size (η² = -.45). Participants had scored higher on purchase intention when presented as other-centered motive (M = 3.78, SD = .64) than when the message was presented as self-centered motive (M = 3.49, SD = .70). This result showed that there is a significant relationship between communicated CSR motive and purchase intention. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted.
Hypothesis 2
A variable that is expected to intervene the relationship between communicated CSR motive and purchase intention is skepticism. In order to test the mediating effect of skepticism a linear regression model was conducted.
A linear regression model with skepticism as dependent variable and communicated CSR motive as independent variable showed a significant, F(1, 162) = 7.43, p = .007, η² = .10. According to this result the regression model can predict skepticism, the strength of the prediction is weak: 4 per cent. The variation in skepticism can be predicted by communicated CSR motive (R² = .04). Communicated CSR motive b* = -0.29, t = -2.73, p > .05, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.08]. Specifically, participants who were exposed to the communicated self-centered motive were 0.29 more skeptic than participants in the other-centered motive condition.
The regression with purchase intention as dependent variable and communicated CSR motive and skepticism as independent variables is significant, F(1, 161) = 16.20, p = .000, η² = .14. Therefore, this regression model can be used to predict the purchase intention, the strength of the prediction is moderate: 13 per cent. The variation in purchase intention can be predicted by communicated CSR motives and skepticism (R² = .13). Communicated CSR
motive b* = -0.15, t = -1.45, p > .000, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.06] and skepticism b* = 0.33, t = 4.02, p < .000, 95% CI [ 0.17, 0.50]. For each additional point on the scale of skepticism, which runs from 1 (very skeptic) to 7 (not at all skeptic), the average propensity of purchase intention increases by 0.33. This showed a full mediation effect of skepticism, which means that the direct effect of communicated CSR motive could be explained by skepticism.
Table 2
Regression models to predict purchase intention
Purchase intention Model 1 b* Model 2 b* Constant 3.78*** 2.49*** Communicated CSR motive -0.29** -0.15 Skepticism 0.33*** R² 0.04 0.13 F 7.43** 16.20*** ΔR² 0.09 ΔF 8.77*** Note. N = 164 * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. Hypothesis 3
The third hypothesis predicted an interaction effect of storytelling on skepticism. To test the hypothesis, an univariate ANOVA was conducted with communicated CSR motive (self-centered vs. other-(self-centered) and storytelling (story vs. non-story) as independent variables, and skepticism as dependent variable. The interaction effect between communicated CSR message and storytelling showed an insignificant outcome on skepticism F(1, 160) = 0.38, p = .538, η² = .002. Based on this result the hypothesis can be rejected and storytelling does not influence the relationship between communicated CSR motive and skepticism.
Hypothesis 4
The fourth hypothesis predicted an interaction effect of storytelling on purchase intention. To test the hypothesis, an univariate ANOVA was conducted with communicated CSR motive (self-centered vs. other-centered) and storytelling (story vs. non-story) as independent variables, and purchase intention as dependent variable. The interaction effect between communicated CSR message and storytelling showed an insignificant outcome on purchase intention F(1, 160) = 1.23, p = .269, η² = .008. Based on this result the hypothesis can be rejected and storytelling does not influence the relationship between communicated CSR motive and purchase intention.
b = -.29*
b = -.27 b = -.15 b = .33*
b = .12
Figure 2. Illustration of a path model with skepticism as a mediator and storytelling as a moderator between communicated CSR motive and purchase intention. Paths which are significant are shown with *p < .05. NOTE. b = standardized regression coefficient.
Discussion
This research attempts to depict the influence of communicated CSR motive and storytelling on purchase intention. The assumption was made that the relationship between communicated CSR motive and purchase intention was mediated by skepticism.
Communicated CSR motive (Self-/other-centered Storytelling vs. Non-story Skepticism Purchase intention
Effect of CSR motive
In previous literature it was stated that self-centered CSR motives have more negative outcomes than other-serving CSR motive (Du et al, 2010; Story & Neves, 2015; White & Peloza, 2009). This study showed a significant effect of communicated CSR motives on purchase intention. Therefore, this research is in line with the previous studies that the other-centered motive has a more positive impact. While other research suggested that perceived CSR motive has no influence on the purchase intention (Ellen, 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). Literature explains that people accept the fact that organizations participate in CSR to improve the reputation (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Thus there is still a discrepancy between the results as shown above.
An explanation could be that consumers evaluate and buy products based on
preferences, social acceptance, quality and sustainability (Kim & Hall, 2015). In this case, it is less relevant whether the CSR motive is self-serving or other-serving, consumer’s base there purchase decision on other features of a company. Furniture is a high-involvement product, so many aspects are mostly taken into account like, price, quality, and specific look of the furniture. It could be that these aspects are important for a purchase decision as well (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Vlachos, Theotokis & Panagopoulos, 2010; Sen, Du & Bhattacharya, 2016). As this research used a fictitious organization, other features of the organization are left out, like price, quality and reputation of the organization. The purchase intention is only based on the CSR message presented in the experiment.
Effect of skepticism
Literature confirms that skepticism arises due to questioning the motives of the CSR message (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013, Elving, 2013). Therefore, skepticism was included as mediator in this research. The findings indicated a full mediation effect, presumably because the
self-centered CSR motive reinforces a negative attitude of the consumers (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006).
A possible explanation for the significant effect concern the fictional company that was used in this study. CSR campaigns of organizations are closely related to the image and reputation of the organization, and could lead to a higher credibility of the CSR initiatives. In this study consumers had no knowledge of the company, which excluded any preliminary judgements, however, these preliminary judgements could also affect the credibility of the company and purchase intention. Also in today’s society skepticism is more likely to rise and people are less sensitive for marketing messages (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Therefore, it becomes more important for organizations to convince the public that the CSR initiatives are sincere.
The effect of storytelling
Using a storytelling strategy has no significant effect on the relation between communicated CSR motive, skepticism, and purchase intention. However, previous research showed that storytelling could be a useful tool that organizations apply in order to obtain more
engagement (Gill, 2015), and even create a tendency to align with the organizational values stated in the story (Martin, 2016). Therefore, storytelling was manipulated, the storytelling condition told a development and had a beginning, middle and end. On the other hand, there was the non-story condition, where the same information was given in bullet points.
A possible explanation of the insignificant result is that storytelling is often used to create engagement with the consumer (Gill, 2015). Thus purchase intention is not affected by a narrative structure of the message. The focus of the manipulated story was on the CSR actions of the organization. However, this research could have benefit from a more personal story, as these stories tend to be more appealing for consumers (Gill, 2015).
Implications
From a theoretical perspective, this research gives a broader insight of outcomes CSR motives, skepticism, and purchase intention. Previous research concentrated on the perceived CSR motives by consumers (Ellen, 2006; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). Whereas this research investigated the effect of the communication of an organization about CSR. The use of communication enables the explanation of purchase intention of consumers. Also the motive of CSR is not solely sufficient to increase purchase intention. Instead, in combination with skepticism the development of purchase intention was determined.
A possible explanation of the results is that there was a high fit between the fictional company and the CSR initiatives. Selling furniture and investing in sustainable wood for the production are quite in line with one another. It is suggested by researchers that organizations should think carefully about which CSR initiatives are relevant, for example, the target group’s interest of type of business/product (Nan & Heo, 2007). When there is a little to no congruence between the CSR activities and the organizational business leads to a suspicion that the CSR initiatives were simply implemented in order to gain a more favorable reputation. Previous studies have suggested that a low CSR fit could lead to less credibility than a high CSR fit (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006).
Limitations
Several limitations were found in this research. The characteristics of the sample could explain the results. Firstly, the sample size was not very large, a larger sample size could give this research stronger statistical power. Additionally, the distribution of male female was not evenly, and consisted mainly out of female (66.3%), which is not representative of the population and therefore, limits the generalizability. If this study contained more males, it is possible that this study would have had different outcomes. Moreover, gender could influence
the results because previous research have shown that men react stronger on unethical business and therefore, and their trust is affected more strongly than women (Leonidou, Kvasova, Leonidou & Chari, 2012). Also female consumers have a higher perception level of CSR (Hur, Kim & Jang, 2015), therefore it is important to have a representable distribution of male and female participants.
The second limitation is the manipulation of storytelling and non-story. The CSR initiatives were explained in a storyline in the storytelling condition, whereas in the non-story condition the same activities were given in bullet points. However, there are other distinctions that could be made that may show another effect. For example, to make the story more personalized and integrate emotional aspects to gain more engagement (Dailey & Browning, 2006). While non-story also could focus on giving facts and numbers instead of giving the same information in bullet points.
Future research
Deriving from the discussion and limitations, there are several directions for future research. Firstly, a deeper understanding of CSR motives is needed and why consumers choose to support socially of environmentally responsible organizations. This study focused on the comparison of self-centered and other-centered motives. According to Ellen, Mohr, and Webb (2006) a mix of these two motives would be most beneficial for organizations. More research is needed to investigate in which situation this motives work best.
Secondly, many researchers focus on consumers’ perception of- and intention toward the organization. While actual behavior is often left out. Therefore, future research would benefit from investigating the purchase behavior of consumers. In other words, if engaging in CSR affect the actual purchase behavior and decisions of consumers.
Furthermore, storytelling has no effect on neither skepticism nor purchase intention. However, it is encouraged to deepen the understanding of the possibilities of storytelling in CSR. In this research the focus was on a textual story and non-story. When in fact there are other ways to tell a story, think of visual and audio, or put a more personal story in the CSR message. The field of communicating about CSR would benefit of a better understanding of the influence of different kind of stories on consumers intentions.
Lastly, this research is based on a fictitious organization, to keep the research academic and eliminate prejudice and academic. This research may yield other results when incorporating an existing organization. As people naturally have different associations with an organization that influence their intentions.
Conclusion
An important question that Du et al. (2010) brought up was how to implement a CSR initiative. This study focused on the communication part of CSR, specifically the effect of motive and storytelling. Therefore, the following research question was developed: To what extent influences the communicated CSR motive consumer’s skepticism, considering storytelling strategy, and what is the effect on the purchase intention? Within this research other-centered motive had a more positive effect on purchase intention than a self-centered motive. This effect was fully mediated by skepticism, people who were exposed to the self-centered motive tended to be more skeptical than the other-self-centered motive. And skepticism could decrease the purchase intention of consumers. However, storytelling had no effect in this model. This research showed that communication of CSR could influence consumers’ purchase intention and therefore is interesting to further investigate the concept
References
Baraibar-Diez, E., Odriozola, M., & Sánchez, J. (2017). Storytelling about CSR. CSR 2.0 And The New Era Of Corporate Citizenship, 209-230. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1842-6.ch011
Barker, R., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic Application of Storytelling in Organizations: Toward Effective Communication in a Diverse World. Journal Of Business Communication, 47(3), 295-312. doi: 10.1177/0021943610369782
Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B., & Hill, R. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal Of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Boje, D., & Khan, F. (2009). Story-Branding by Empire Entrepreneurs: Nike, Child Labour, and Pakistan’s Soccer Ball Industry. Journal Of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2009.10593439
Browning, L., & Morris, G. (2012). Stories of life in the work place. New York: Routledge. Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy Of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
Carroll, A. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. International Journal Of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1). doi: 10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6
Coombs, W., & Holladay, S. (2012). Managing corporate social responsibility. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dailey, S., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling Stories in Organizations: Understanding the Functions of Narrative Repetition. Academy Of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0329
Dans, E. (2018). Volkswagen And The Failure Of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2015/09/27/volkswagen-and-the-failure-of-corporate-social-responsibility/#5bc104ee4405
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental Management, 15(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1002/csr.132
David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices, Corporate Identity, and Purchase Intention: A Dual-Process Model. Journal Of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291-313. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1703_4
Deighton, J., Romer, D., & McQueen, J. (1989). Using Drama to Persuade. Journal Of Consumer Research, 16(3), 335. doi: 10.1086/209219
Dessart, L. (2018). Do ads that tell a story always perform better? The role of character identification and character type in storytelling ads. International Journal Of Research In Marketing, 35(2), 289-304. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.12.009
Dhanesh, G., & Nekmat, E. (2018). Facts Over Stories for Involved Publics: Framing Effects in CSR Messaging and the Roles of Issue Involvement, Message Elaboration, Affect, and Skepticism. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 7-38. doi:
10.1177/0893318918793941
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., & 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Du, S., & Vieira, E. (2012). Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Oil Companies. Journal Of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413-427. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1490-4
Ellen, P. (2006). Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 147-157. doi: 10.1177/0092070305284976
Ellen, P., Mohr, L., & Webb, D. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: do they mix?. Journal Of Retailing, 76(3), 393-406. doi: 10.1016/s0022-4359(00)00032-4 Elving, W. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the
influence of fit and reputation. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-292. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2011.631569
Fisher, W. (1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs, 52(4), 347-367. doi: 10.1080/03637758509376117 Fisher, W. (1987). Technical logic, rhetorical logic, and narrative
rationality. Argumentation, 1(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1007/bf00127116
Fog, K., Budtz, C. & Yakaboylu, B. (2005). Storytelling. Branding in practice. Copenhagen, Denmark: Springer.
Forehand, M., & 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. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1303_15
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal Of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1. doi: 10.1086/209380 Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds
value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 662-674. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.012
Hsiao, K., Lu, H., & Lan, W. (2013). The influence of the components of storytelling blogs on readers’ travel intentions. Internet Research, 23(2), 160-182. doi:
10.1108/10662241311313303
Hur, W., Kim, H., & Jang, J. (2015). The Role of Gender Differences in the Impact of CSR Perceptions on Corporate Marketing Outcomes. Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental Management, 23(6), 345-357. doi: 10.1002/csr.1380
Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2018). Storytelling and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Case Study of Leading UK Retailers. European journal of Sustainable Development Research, 2(4), 1-11. doi: 10.20897/ejosdr/3916
Kaye, M. (1995). Organisational Myths and Storytelling as Communication Management: A Conceptual Framework for Learning an Organisation's Culture. Journal Of The Australian And New Zealand Academy Of Management, 1(02), 1-13. doi: 10.1017/s1833367200006295
Keskin, H., Akgun, A., Zehir, C., & Ayar, H. (2016). Tales of city: City branding through storytelling. Journal Of Global Strategic Management, 1(10), 31-31. doi:
10.20460/jgsm.20161022384
Kim, H. S., & Hall, M. L. (2015). Green brand strategies in the fashion industry: leveraging connections of the consumer, brand, and environmental sustainability. In Sustainable Fashion Supply Chain Management (pp. 31-45). Springer, Cham.
Kim, S., & Lee, Y. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 168-170. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.024
Kim, Y., & Lee, W. (2009). Overcoming Consumer Skepticism in Cause-Related Marketing: The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Donation Size Claim
Objectivity. Journal Of Promotion Management, 15(4), 465-483. doi: 10.1080/10496490903270232
Lee, S. Y., & Carroll, C. E. (2011). The emergence, variation, and evolution of corporate social responsibility in the public sphere, 1980–2004: The exposure of firms to public debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 115-131. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0893-y Lee, Y., O’Donnell, N., & Hust, S. (2018). Interaction Effects of System-Generated
Information and Consumer Skepticism: An Evaluation of Issue Support Behavior in CSR Twitter Campaigns. Journal Of Interactive Advertising, 1-14. doi:
10.1080/15252019.2018.1507853
Lee, N. and Kotler, P. (2013). Corporate social responsibility. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Leonidou, L., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, C., & Chari, S. (2012). Business Unethicality as an
Impediment to Consumer Trust: The Moderating Role of Demographic and Cultural Characteristics. Journal Of Business Ethics, 112(3), 397-415. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1267-9
Leonidou, N., & Skarmeas, D. (2017). Gray shades of green: Causes and consequences of green skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 401-415. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4
Lii, Y., & Lee, M. (2011). Doing Right Leads to Doing Well: When the Type of CSR and Reputation Interact to Affect Consumer Evaluations of the Firm. Journal Of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69-81. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0948-0
Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of management Journal, 50(1), 57-84. Doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160971 Martin, S. (2016). Stories about Values and Valuable Stories: A Field Experiment of the
Power of Narratives to Shape Newcomers’ Actions. Academy Of Management Journal, 59(5), 1707-1724. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0061
Mittins, M., Abratt, R., & Christie, P. (2011). Storytelling in reputation management: the case of Nashua Mobile South Africa. Management Decision, 49(3), 405-421. doi:
10.1108/00251741111120770
Mohr, L., Eroglu, D., & Ellen, P. (1998). The Development and Testing of a Measure of Skepticism Toward Environmental Claims in Marketers' Communications. Journal Of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 30-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00399.x Mohr, L., Webb, D., & Harris, K. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially
Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal Of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x
Mohr, L., & Webb, D. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal Of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121-147. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00006.x
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111. doi: 10.1080/13527260701856608
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a Theory of Entertainment Persuasion: Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives: Examining the Role of Brand-Cause Fit in Cause-Related
Marketing. Journal Of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. doi: 10.2753/joa0091-3367360204 Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2), 159-186. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
Ogunfowora, B., Stackhouse, M., & Oh, W. (2016). Media Depictions of CEO Ethics and Stakeholder Support of CSR Initiatives: The Mediating Roles of CSR Motive Attributions and Cynicism. Journal Of Business Ethics, 150(2), 525-540. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3173-z
Pai, D., Lai, C., Chiu, C., & Yang, C. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Advocacy in Business-to-Business Market: The Mediated Moderating Effect of Attribution. Journal Of Business Ethics, 126(4), 685-696. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1979-5
Pawlak, M., & Zasuwa, G. (2011). Influence of a company's social initiatives on the consumer attitude towards it: Results of experimental research. doi:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2165798
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal Of Public Relations Research, 28(5-6), 248-267. doi: 10.1080/1062726x.2016.1261702
Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility in Network Societies: A Communication View. Journal Of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681-692. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal Of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: a consumer psychology perspective. Current Opinion In Psychology, 10, 70-75. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.014
Simmons, C., & Becker-Olsen, K. (2006). Achieving Marketing Objectives through Social Sponsorships. Journal Of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.154 Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. (2013). When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR
skepticism. Journal Of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
Sole, D., & Wilson, D. G. (2002). Storytelling in organizations: The power and traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations. LILA, Harvard, Graduate School of Education, 1-12.
Story, J., & Neves, P. (2014). 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. doi: 10.1111/beer.12084
Strauss, K. (2018). The 10 Companies With The Best CSR Reputations In 2017. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/09/13/the-10-companies-with-the-best-csr-reputations-in-2017/#596730ca546b
Stutts, N., & Barker, R. (1999). The Use of Narrative Paradigm Theory in Assessing Audience Value Conflict in Image Advertising. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 209-244. doi: 10.1177/0893318999132002
Vlachos, P., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. (2010). Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1207-1218. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.004
Webb, D., & Mohr, L. (1998). A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal Of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226-238. doi: 10.1177/074391569801700207
White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal Of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.4.109
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. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
Appendix Experiment
Beste ,
Met deze brief wil ik U uitnodigen om mee te doe aan een onderzoek van de Graduate School of Communication, wat onderdeel is van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Het doel van dit onderzoek is het meten van het effect van verantwoord ondernemen op de houding van de Nederlandse consument. In dit onderzoek krijgt U een website te zien met informatie over hoe het bedrijf verantwoord onderneemt en vervolgens een aantal vragen krijgt over hoe U tegenover deze informatie staat. Het onderzoek duurt ongeveer 5 minuten. Dit onderzoek wordt gedaan onder de verantwoorlijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, wij kunnen U garanderen dat:
1) Anonimiteit wordt gewaarborgd en persoonlijk informatie zal niet worden gedeeld met derde.
2) U kunt stoppen met het onderzoek op elk gewenst moment zonder een reden te geven. Uw antwoorden worden in dit geval verwijderd uit het onderzoek.
3) Tijdens het deelnemen aan dit onderzoek loopt U geen risico op ongemakkelijkheden en er komen geen onaangename beelden in voor.
4) Binnen vijf maanden na de conclusies van het onderzoek, kan het onderzoek worden gedeeld dat de resultaten bevat en deze uitlegt.
Wanneer U commentaar of klachten heeft over het onderzoek of de procedure kunt u contact opnemen met een toegewezen persoon van de Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, het
adres is: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Uw vragen, feedback of klachten worden in vertrouwen behandeld.
Ik hoop dat ik U voldoende informatie heb gegeven. Ik wil U alvast bedanken voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek, dit wordt zeer gewaardeerd.
Met vriendelijke groet, Minou Heel
Hierbij verklaar ik dat ik duidelijk ben geïnformeerd over het doel en methode van dit onderzoek. Ik ga akkoord, volledig vrijwillig, om mee te doen aan dit onderzoek. Ik ben mij ervan bewust dat ik het onderzoek op ieder gewenst moment kan stopzetten, zonder een reden op te geven.
Wanneer mijn onderzoeksresultaten worden gebruikt in wetenschappelijke publicaties of op een andere manier publiek worden gemaakt, zal volledige anonimiteit worden gegarandeerd van uw deelname. De data zelf zal niet worden gedeeld met derde zonder mijn toestemming. Wanneer U meer informatie wenst over het onderzoek, nu of in de toekomst, kunt U contact opnemen via, minou.heel@gmail.com. Wanneer U commentaar of klachten heeft over dit onderzoek kunt U contact op nemen met een toegewezen persoon van de Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, het adres is: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met de deelname aan dit onderzoek. Demographics
Wat is uw geslacht? Man/Vrouw/Anders Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren? Zelf invullen
Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleidingsniveau? Basis-onderwijs
Middelbaar onderwijs MBO
Universitaire bachelor Universitaire master PhD
Self-centered CSR motive and storytelling
Skepticism
Ik denk dat dit bedrijf zich milieu bewust gedraagt
Eens 1 2 3 4 5 Oneens
Dit bedrijf zet zich in voor mens en milieu
Eens 1 2 3 4 5 Oneens
Dit bedrijf handteert hoge ethische standaarden
Eens 1 2 3 4 5 Oneens
Dit bedrijf gedraagt zich sociaal verantwoordelijk
Eens 1 2 3 4 5 Oneens
Ik denk dat dit bedrijf een goed beeld voor zichzelf wil creëeren
Ik denk dat dit bedrijf zijn imago wil verbeteren
Eens 1 2 3 4 5 Oneens
Purchase intentions
Stel u voor dat dit een bekende Meubelzaak is voor het beantwoorden van de volgende vragen.
Ik zou producten van dit merk kopen
Zeer oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zeer eens
Wanneer ik nieuwe meubels nodig heb, zou ik ook bij Heel Design kijken
Zeer oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zeer eens
Ik zou meubels van dit merk willen proberen
Zeer oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zeer eens
Manipulation check
Hoe zou u dit bericht van ‘Heel Design’ opvatten? Intresse naar het bedrijf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intresse in het milieu Bedrijf staat centraal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Milieu staat centraal Winst gericht 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Milieu gericht
De webpagina vertelde een verhaal Eens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oneens
De beschrijving webpagina had een begin, midden en eind Eens 12 3 4 5 6 7 Oneens
De webpagina vertelde over ontwikkeling van het bedrijf Eens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oneens
