‘Every brand must have a social mission’

‘Every brand must have a social mission’

The effect of consumers’ awareness of a social responsible mission on brand loyalty and the role of perceived globalness & value congruity

2

‘Every brand must have a social mission’

The effect of consumers’ awareness of a social responsible mission on brand loyalty and the role of perceived globalness & value congruity

Groningen, 4th of September 2012

Master thesis

University of Groningen, the Netherlands Faculty of Economics and Business Master of Business Administration Marketing Management

Carlijn Jisca Bijsterveld Gedempte Zuiderdiep 87a

9711 HD Groningen, the Netherlands +31(0)640279092

c.j.bijsterveld@gmail.com Student number: 1740539

Supervision

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Marketing First supervisor: dr. K.J. (Karel Jan) Alsem, Professor of Marketing

3

M

Nowadays, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming more and more essential within a brands’ positioning. Product attributes are no longer the central focus; a brand needs to show which social values and principles be pursued. Literature as well as practitioners acknowledge this phenomenon: brands are shifting their attention from creating value for mainly the consumer to creating value for the whole society. Was this in the past mainly the job of corporate brands, nowadays product brands express social responsible behavior as well. This is confirmed by the CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, which states: “Every brand must have a social mission”.

Important regarding the strive of brands to adopt a social responsible mission, is consumers’ response on this new type of positioning. Although there are a lot of positive effects known, for example concerning consumers’ attitudes, research also tells that Dutch consumers are less willing to shift to a social responsible brand comparable to citizens of other countries. This possible skeptical mind-set of consumers was taken into account within the current study. The following research question was the common approach during the process: What is the effect

of awareness of a social responsible mission on the attitudinal as well as behavioral loyalty of Dutch consumers towards a particular product brand?

The research question was answered by use of four hypotheses. First, the effect of the awareness of a social responsible mission on the credibility of a brand (H1) was investigated. Next, two recent developments within branding were taken into account: 1) nowadays, many firms focus more on building strong global brands than on building multiple local brands and 2) consumers are increasingly expressing a variety of personal values through their purchasing behavior. Therefore, researched was whether perceived globalness (H2) and value congruity (H3) had a moderating effect on the relationship between awareness of a social responsible mission and credibility. Finally, due to the fact that a brands’ positioning around CSR often results in longer-term relational benefits, the mediating effect of credibility on attitudinal (H4a) as well as behavioral (H4b) brand loyalty was taken into account.

4

demographics of the sample, a Chow test to measure the possibility to pool the two brands and Cronbach’s alpha revealed information about the internal consistency of the constructs. In order to confirm or reject the hypotheses, several regression analyses were performed: single-, multiple- and multi-step hierarchical regressions. Finally, the Sobel test was needed to check whether the credibility of a brand showed a mediating effect.

The main finding of this study is that consumers’ awareness of a social responsible mission has indeed a positive effect on the credibility of a brand. This, in turn, has a positive effect on attitudinal (partial mediating effect) as well as behavioral (complete mediating effect) brand loyalty. However, the proposed moderating effects were not supported.

It can be said that the current research has convincing academic as well as managerial contributions. The focus was mainly on social missions of product brands instead of corporate brands, which is often underexposed in literature. The same applies for the variable credibility; a detailed analysis is given about this important mediating effect in the context of CSR. Furthermore, extensive insight is provided regarding the effects of perceived globalness and value congruity. Besides academic implications, this study gives brand managers which are dealing with the positioning of a product brand a lot challenges and opportunities. One of the recommendations is to make use of the spillover effect that consumers evaluate a brand as more credible when they are aware of its’ social responsible mission. Openly communicating that a brand is committed to society is advisable. Furthermore, when brand managers want to increase repeated purchases (through adopting a social mission), they need to concentrate on a high level of credibility of the brand. This appears to be less important for creating attitudinal loyalty.

Despite of the discovered valuable insights, the present study is not without limitations. Some advice to improve the research and to focus on in the future, is: more extensive investigation about the moderating and mediating effects, a broader analysis of pooling the brands, an increase of the number of different brands and countries and the use of a more diverse sample.

5

P

With this report in front of you, I finish my master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. Performing this research gave me the opportunity to combine my strong interest for branding with making a major personal development regarding research in marketing. It was a challenging process, partly due to the extended conceptual model with moderating- and mediating effects. However, this study provided me a lot of insights in the developments of branding and the effect of a brands’ social responsible mission on consumer behavior.

I would not have finished my master thesis successful without the help of some persons, which I like to acknowledge here. First, I would like to thank my first supervisor dr. Karel Jan Alsem. The inspiring discussions during our meetings challenged me during the writing process. His critical and clear feedback helped me to make great steps forward, which finally resulted in this valuable report. In addition, I would like to thank my second supervisor Eline de Vries as well, who has provided me with very useful comments to improve my thesis. Finally, I am thankful to my family, friends and boyfriend which supported me endlessly during the process. They have enabled me to achieve this special moment in my life: graduating at the University of Groningen!

Carlijn Bijsterveld

6

T

1 Introduction 8

1.1 Context of the thesis 8

1.2 Problem statement & research question 9

1.3 Academic- and managerial contribution 11

1.4 Structure of the thesis 12

2 Theoretical framework 13

2.1 Branding developments & the relationship with social responsible behavior 13

2.1.1 Brand positioning based on values 13 2.1.2 The move from product to corporate branding 14 2.1.3 The rise of social responsible behavior 16

2.2 Positioning a product brand as social responsible 17

2.2.1 Overview of definitions & types of CSR 18 2.2.2 Definition of a social responsible mission 19

2.3 The effect of a social responsible mission on credibility 20

2.4 Perceived globalness of the brand 22

2.5 The role of value congruity 24

2.6 The mediating effect of credibility on attitudinal & behavioral brand loyalty 25

2.7 Conceptual model 27

3 Research design 29

3.1 Experimental context: the Netherlands 29

3.2 Research method 29

3.3 Stimuli 29

3.3.1Focus group 30

3.4 Respondents 30

3.5 Procedure 31

3.6 Measurement & scales 32

7 3.6.2 Moderating variables 32 3.6.3 Mediating variable 33 3.6.4 Dependent variables 33 3.7 Method of analysis 35 4 Results 36 4.1 Sample 36 4.2 Reliability 37 4.3 Equality measurement 37 4.4 Results hypothesis 1 39 4.5 Results hypothesis 2 41 4.6 Results hypothesis 3 42

4.7 Results hypothesis 4a & 4b 43

4.8 Summary of the results 46

5 Conclusions and recommendations 47

5.1 Discussion of the findings 47

5.1.1 The effect of awareness of a social responsible mission on credibility (H1) 47

5.1.2 Perceived globalness as a moderating effect (H2) 48 5.1.3 Value congruity as a moderating effect (H3) 49 5.1.4 The mediating effect of credibility on brand loyalty (H4a&b) 50

5.2 Academic- and managerial implications 51

5.2.1 Academic implications 51

5.2.2 Managerial implications 51

5.3 Limitations & future research directions 52

References 54

Appendices 60

Appendix I – Results focus group discussions 62

8

1

I

“Every brand must have a social mission”

- P. Polman, CEO Unilever, 2011- 1.1 Context of the thesis

Since the last two decades, companies are under increasing pressure to take responsibility for the effects of their corporate conduct on society. This is especially true when these effects go beyond the firms’ direct commercial interests (van den Brink, Odekerken-Schröder & Pauwels 2006). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a powerful factor which influences consumers’ opinions of companies heavily. CSR can be defined as “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000, p. 117). From marketing perspective, Edelman (2010) considers ‘purpose’ even as the fifth ‘P’ of marketing: “It is a vital addition to the age-old marketing mix of Product, Price, Placement and Promotion” (p. 14).

Besides companies, brands are also increasingly confronted with the challenge to show social responsible behavior. This is partly resulting from the following development within brand building: the move from (individual) product branding to corporate branding (de Chernatoney 1999). According to Balmer & Gray (2003), corporate brands are different to product brands by having a multi-stakeholder rather than a customer orientation. Furthermore, the contribution to social values plays a role (Keller 1998), which is getting more important the last decades. Remarkable is that product brands, next to corporate brands, are also increasingly focused on this. Besides the functional and emotional values within the positioning of a product brand, attention is given to social values. The product brand is not only an instrument to show product performance and to create value for the consumer, but adds value for the society as well. This seems to be a new approach regarding product brands: the product brand copies characteristics of the corporate brand.

9

bridge to branding, is the realization that consumers’ perceptions of a company’s role in society can significantly affect a brand’s strength and equity (Hoeffler & Keller 2002).

Next to a lot of research regarding this theme, an increasing emphasis on social values is also highly noticeable within branding in practice. The following statement of the CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, makes clear that brands are shifting their attention from creating value for mainly the consumer to creating value for the whole society: “Every brand must have a social mission” (PwC 2011). This is translated in several ways: Ben & Jerry’s social mission is to make the world a better place, Dove calls for women’s health awareness and Lipton Tea is committed to sourcing all of its tea from sustainably-managed farms.

To conclude this part, it became clear that CSR is becoming more and more essential within a brands’ positioning. Could it be said that currently the strongest brands in the world are socially responsible? The higher social purpose is an additional element in the positioning that defines the role that the brand plays in consumer’s life. Moreover, this powerful role brings the brand closer to the consumer, which might result in brand loyalty. Makes this ambition of creating value for both the consumer and society, brands stronger than ever before?

1.2 Problem statement & research question

So far is explained that in the last decades much attention has been devoted, in literature as well as in practice, to brands showing social responsible behavior. This element is part of the development regarding corporate branding, also highlighted by Keller & Lehmann (2006). The authors state that corporate associations related to CSR need research priority nowadays, which makes this research of high interest. Furthermore, the current study builds on the one of Du, Bhattacharya & Sen (2007). They focus on the fact that brands vary in the extent to which they rely on CSR activities to position themselves in the minds of consumers. A part of the conceptual framework of Du, Bhattacharya & Sen (2007) is adopted in the present study and important variables are added to fill some gaps in literature.

10

managers in individualistic countries (like the Netherlands) to be less focused on socially responsible actions. In addition to this, two recent studies (Edelman 2010; Woerde 2011) reveal that a remarkably small percentage of consumers in the Netherlands (in comparison to other countries) are willing to switch to a social responsible brand. Therefore, questionable is whether Dutch consumers have a positive attitude regarding this new development in branding. Do they truly want their favorite brand to behave social responsible?

In the context of the present study, there are a few topics interesting to research. First of all, and in line with Du, Bhattacharya & Sen (2007), the aim is to discover long-term effects of the awareness of a social responsible mission. It is appropriate to focus on loyalty outcomes, because brands’ positioning around CSR often results in longer-term relational benefits. The degree of credibility within this relationship is also taken into account; highly relevant because it is plausible that consumers wonder about the believability of fulfilling a brands’ social mission. Several authors research this as well, but not purely regarding CSR (Erdem, Swait & Louviere 2002; Bigné-Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez & Sánchez-García 2009) or merely as a side effect (Hoeffler & Keller 2002; Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun 2006; Torres et al. 2012). Second, there might be an influence which is not studied before in this context: the perceived globalness of a brand. A development within branding is that many firms, such as Unilever, focus nowadays more on building strong global brands than on building multiple local brands (Kumar 2005). Because of the fact that social responsible behavior is particularly expected from global brands, perceived globalness is an interesting concept to take into account in the present study. Thirdly, firms have been confronted with consumers which base their purchase decisions on more than the traditional product-related factors (Golob, Lah & Jančič 2008). Consumers are expressing a variety of personal values through their purchasing behavior. Therefore, attention should be paid to the impact of congruence between consumers’ values and the (social) values of a brand.

Next to the problem statement, the following research question is formulated: What is the

effect of awareness of a social responsible mission on the attitudinal as well as behavioral loyalty of Dutch consumers towards a particular product brand?

Attention will be devoted to the following sub questions:

11

• Is there a difference in credibility when a brand, conveying a social mission, has a high versus low degree of perceived globalness?

• Is there a difference in credibility when there is high versus low congruity between the personal values of the consumer and the (social) values of the brand?

1.3 Academic- and managerial contribution

To specify why the present study is scientifically as well as managerial relevant, it is preferable to give first some attention to the research priorities 2010-2012 of the Marketing Science Institute (2010). The priority topic ‘Using market information to identify opportunities for profitable growth’ emphasize that currently social issues are shaping marketing practice. The report stresses that research is needed on consumers’ responses to social issues as well as consumers’ expectations regarding corporate behavior. Besides, managers need better frameworks to anticipate and respond to opportunities and challenges arising from societal issues. This indicates in a nutshell why this study is relevant from different points of view.

12

underexposed in literature. The current study responds to this by researching whether congruity between (social) brand- and consumer values play a role.

In addition to the academic contribution, the content of this study is nowadays a hot topic among well-known marketing columnists (Marketingfacts 2012). Moreover, it plays a role in the Dutch politics due to prospective savings regarding social security and development aid (Rijksoverheid 2012). This makes the current study highly relevant for brand managers which are dealing with brand positioning. As stated before and confirmed by the CEO of Unilever, brands are shifting their attention from creating value for mainly the consumer to creating value for the whole society. However, questionable is whether the Dutch consumer responds positively on this new approach. Especially the effect on loyalty is interesting for brand managers. Does social positioning ensure that consumers identify with a brand and become more loyal, which makes the brand strong? A second issue is that companies are nowadays often confronted with a brand portfolio consisting of local as well as (increasingly) global brands. Useful to know for managers is whether consumers respond more positively on global brands related to social missions than to local brands behaving in this way. This could give them more insights in the architecture of a brand portfolio and appropriate positioning of their brands. The third managerial contribution is in line with the latter issue, namely whether personal values of consumers have to take into account when positioning a brand. Brand managers need to know if they should strive for more congruity between social values of a brand and comparable values of their customers. This could give more insights regarding segmentation and targeting the desired population group.

1.4 Structure of the thesis

13

2

T

2.1 Branding developments & the relationship with social responsible behavior

Brands have a long history in the Netherlands and throughout the world. A brand can be defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kotler 1991, p.442). Brand building has become top priority for many organizations and experienced a dramatic shift during the past 20 years. The most relevant developments, include the rise of social responsible behavior, deserve first some attention.

2.1.1 Brand positioning based on values

One main development within branding is that the purpose of a brand as the identifying part of a product (Kotler 1991, p.442) has been left behind. In the earlier stages of a consumer culture, marketing campaigns strove both to position brands around their product’s benefits, and to highlight the functional attributes of the product, such as quality (Sheth, Newman & Gross 1991; Strizhakova, Coulter & Price 2008). Following, in the beginning of this century, a new step in brand orientation was made by focusing on learning to see intangible values and symbols as resources (Urde 1999). Within this development, the wants and needs of customers are no longer perceived to be the only natural basis for brand building. The brand, in combination with other assets and competencies within the company, can be integrated together into a brand identity through a process of value- and meaning creation. By capturing expectations of target segments, Montaña (2007) speaks of the brand turning into a ‘portfolio of meanings’.

14

with society. Remarkable is that academic research on values is the most recent one of all seven meanings, which indicates the rise of this phenomenon.

When focusing on brand positioning based on values instead of attributes, the subdivision used by Herrmann & Huber (2000) is interesting to emphasize within this study. They make a distinction between instrumental (modes of conduct) and terminal (end-states of existence) values. The terminal values, which represent desirable goals in life, can be further subdivided into personal- and social values. As is the focus of the current study, social values include global peace, national security and a world full of beauty (Herrmann & Huber 2000). Figure 2.1 demonstrates the mentioned developments within branding: from a brand as the identifying part of a product, to positioning of a brand based on values. The final stage of this model entails social responsible behavior.

Figure 2.1: Overview of brand positioning based on values

2.1.2 The move from product to corporate branding

15

by “layers of added value built around the core functionality of the product to create and maintain distinction in a particular market” (p. 999). In contrast, corporate branding is not tied to one specific product, but integrates a corporation’s common product attributes and benefits, relationships with people, social responsible values and corporate credibility (Keller 1998; Uggla 2006; Abratt & Kleyn 2012). Furthermore, corporate brands have a multi-stakeholder rather than customer orientation (Balmer & Gray 2003). Hatsch & Schutz (2003) find a growing awareness that corporate brands can increase the company’s visibility, recognition and reputation in ways not fully appreciated by product-brand thinking. Brand thinking is pushed beyond the product and its relationship to the consumer.

To take this development in perspective of brand architecture in practice, it is useful to take a look at the type of organizations which are the point of focus in the current study: companies like Procter & Gamble and Unilever, which have a multi-brand portfolio structure with product brands (Doyle 1994). Although these companies invested heavily in their product brands, the difficult task of corporate brand building came into play. An example is that there is increasing external demand for transparency and accountability of the organization’s policies and practices behind the product brands they market (Knox & Bickerton 2003). Furthermore, these multinationals are challenged by consumers who want to recognize their own personal values in the brands they purchase. The strive to corporate brand building is equivalent to the previously mentioned example from the field, namely the aim of the CEO of Unilever (Paul Polman) to link every brand with a social mission. Paul Polman clarifies it as follows: “Every one of our brands must have a ‘product mission’ grounded in consumer needs. But along with a product mission, each brand must also have a social mission. The concept of value is increasingly associated with brands that demonstrate social responsibility” (PwC 2011, p. 4 & 7). This statement lead to a new approach regarding product brands: the product brand is not only an instrument to create value for the consumer, but also to add value for the whole society. Hereby, it could be stated that there is a convergence between product and corporate branding. In the past, product brands implicitly had a similar image as their corporate brand (by belonging to the corporate concern/brand). In contrast, nowadays the product brand also explicitly propagates social values by adopting a social mission: an interesting development within branding.

16

visible, together with the product brand that conveyed an increasing variety of values through the years. The focus of the current study entails the most important finding: social responsible values are in an increasing extent present within brand positioning on (individual) product brand level.

Figure 2.2: Brand positioning from two perspectives; brand level and type of values

2.1.3 The rise of social responsible behavior

17

(Ellen, Webb & Mohr 2006). This is agreed in the GoodPurpose study of Edelman (2010): “The fifth ‘P’ of marketing is ‘purpose’. It is a vital addition to the age-old marketing mix of Product, Price, Placement and Promotion” (p. 14). Findings of a more recent GoodPurpose study of Edelman (2012) support this: when quality and price are equal, the most important factor influencing brand choice is increasingly Purpose. According to Edelman (2012), it can be seen as a driving force behind the reengineering of brand marketing.

The rise of social responsible behavior may be due to several positive effects. Branding research documents potential benefits arising from CSR, primarily through the link to consumers’ positive brand evaluations, choices, and recommendations that derive from an association with CSR initiatives (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001; Klein & Dawar 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun 2006). A growing group of mainly experimental studies (e.g. Brown & Dacin 1997; Klein & Dawar 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun 2006) have demonstrated that, ceteris paribus, consumers are more likely to purchase from companies that engage in CSR actions, particularly in domains that consumers consider as appropriate and personally relevant. Recently, Torres et al. (2012) conclude that CSR directed at various stakeholders has a positive effect on global brand equity. Thus, associating CSR to a brand can be fundamental for the development of the brand’s values and personality (Lindgreen et al. 2012). Positioning the brand as socially responsible is considered as one of the most useful instruments of competitive differentiation (Drumwright 1996; Maignan, Ferrell & Ferrel 2005). It has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country worldwide (Porter & Kramer 2011).

2.2 Positioning a product brand as social responsible

The three branding phenomena mentioned above relate to a large extent to each other. First, there is a rise in brand positioning based on social values. This does not only hold for corporate brands; products brands are increasingly focused on societal issues as well. Moreover, it can be concluded that social responsible behavior is essential because it can differentiate a brand from its competitors.

18 2.2.1 Overview of definitions & types of CSR

Literature looks from different perspectives at the broad phenomenon of corporate social responsibility (CSR). One of the first definitions of CSR is as follows: “A socially responsible firm is one whose managerial staff balances a multiplicity of interests. Instead of striving only for larger profits for its stockholders, a responsible enterprise also takes into account employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities, and the nation” (Johnson 1971, p. 50). From a more marketing perspective, scholars mention ‘corporate societal marketing’ (CSM). As Hoeffler & Keller (2002) describe, CSM is about marketing initiatives that have at least one non-economic objective related to social welfare. A new and recent thought in this CSR field, is the ‘shared values concept’ of Porter & Kramer (2011). This involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Despite the varying views regarding CSR, the general concept is consistent: it is the character of the company with regard to societal issues (Keller & Lehmann 2006). Within the current study, the focus is mainly on the positioning of a brand to a greater or lesser extent based on CSR activities.

19

also that CRM has some disadvantages. This type of CSR appeals only to those who are sympathetic with the cause or to whom the cause is relevant. Therefore, in a heterogeneous society as the Netherlands, it is difficult to find causes that appeal to all. The authors recommend companies in culturally diverse countries to follow a nonspecific CSR approach. This advice seems to be followed in the Netherlands. Large multinationals, like Unilever, adopt social missions to emphasize their wide-ranging empathy to society. It can be seen as a wise step of companies, because consumers’ awareness of CSR initiatives is rather low (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen 2007). By incorporating social values in a mission, the attention to CSR will be emphasized more. This is exactly what the present study investigates: the effects of consumers’ awareness of a product brands’ social responsible mission.

2.2.2 Definition of a social responsible mission

After mentioning several definitions from literature and the types of CSR, what counts is to concretely define the basic (independent) variable of the current study. Although a lot of definitions focus on a companies’ CSR activities, the brand is the focus here. Nowadays, it is no longer the question ‘whether’ brands are showing social responsible behavior, but ‘how’ they do this. CSR became part of a brands’ positioning. The various types of CSR mentioned above, including cause-related marketing, do not adequately represent the totality of a firm’s CSR, they are typically designed to be expressions of it. Therefore, the current study focuses on a general

conceptualization: the mission of every brand should contain social values. Whether the brand

focuses, among other things, on planet or people issues is not relevant in here. However, planet issues (like the use of sustainable business processes) are more common in practice. Lastly, the addition of the brand on (individual) product level is needed, because the mentioned development is increasingly visible on this brand level.

To conclude, awareness of a product brands’ social responsible mission is defined as: Consumers’ perceived awareness of the fact that a brand has, besides a product mission, also a social responsible mission. It describes a brands’ role in making the world a better place. Literally, a social responsible mission is defined as: “A statement beyond creating value for just

20

example of a brands’ social mission is that Lipton Tea is committed to sourcing all of its tea from sustainably-managed farms and Dove calls for women’s health awareness.

2.3 The effect of a social responsible mission on credibility

Although there is much written about positive effects of social responsible behavior, it is questionable whether the same implies for the Netherlands (the focus country in this study). Different sources draw into question whether highly individualistic Dutch consumers (Hofstede 1983) are really waiting for their favorite brands to behave social responsible (Edelman 2010; Woerde 2011). Namely, these consumers appear to be less emphatic concerning society than consumers in other countries. An important factor within this phenomenon is the degree of credibility of a brand. It is plausible that consumers wonder about the believability of fulfilling a brands’ social mission. These skeptical thoughts can result in negative longer-term relational effects; decreasing attitudinal as well as behavioral loyalty toward a brand.

Credibility can be defined as “a signal to be the believability of the product position information contained in a brand (Erdem & Swait 1998), which depends on a brand’s willingness and ability to offer what it promises to consumers” (Erdem, Swait & Louviere 2002, p. 3). Has a brand really good intentions by conveying a social mission, or is it arose from competitive pressure (because almost every brand acts like this)? Could a consumer assume that their favorite brand offers what it promises with respect to social responsible activities? According to Erdem, Swait & Louviere (2002), the concept of credibility has two main dimensions: 1) Trustworthiness: a brand is willing to deliver what is promised and 2) Expertise: a brand is capable of delivering. The importance of credibility as mediator is also indicated by Ghorban &Tahernejad (2012). They argue that it is the most important reason that causes people to buy a brand and create a long-term relationship with a company. Holt, Quelch & Taylor (2004) emphasize also the importance of credibility as a variable linked to social responsible behavior: to be credible, companies’ social responsibility efforts must demonstrate that the firms have harnessed their ample resources to benefit society.

21

(Basil & Weber 2006; Golob, Lah & Jančič 2008). Moreover, scholars demonstrate that social responsible behavior positively affects consumers’ attitudes toward a brand (Lichtenstein, Drumwright & Braig 2004; Nan & Heo 2007; Sheikh & Beise-Zee 2011). One of these attitudes is related to credibility; Hoeffler & Keller (2002) state that corporate societal marketing programs may be especially good at creating this. The nonprofit organizations where the brand is associated with may be perceived as unbiased and as highly credible sources. 2) In contrast, a brand which is moving into a ‘new territory’ by emphasizing a social mission may lack credibility (Hoeffler & Keller 2002). It might be difficult for consumers to get used to this new association. Furthermore, there is a difference between companies which are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated in their social responsible behavior (Ellen, Mohr & Webb 2002; van den Brink, Odekerken-Schröder & Pauwels 2006). An example of an intrinsically motivated company is when it considers a CSR activity to be rewarding in itself. In case of extrinsic motivation, companies are looking for rewards from their environment. In addition to this, there exists also negative information regarding CSR. According to Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), negative CSR information has a stronger effect on brand evaluations than positive CSR information. Nowadays, consumers are likely to be exposed to inconsistent information about firms’ stated CSR policies on the one hand and their actual practices on the other hand (Wagner, Lutz & Weitz 2009). Corporate (ethical) scandals have led to consumers to be suspicious of firms’ reasons for engaging in CSR (Vlachos et al. 2009), which decreases brand credibility in turn.

By comparing the two described perspectives, the first hypothesis can be created. The positive line of reasoning seems to be more convincing. Paramount because of the fact that every consumer expects CSR to be part of a brands’ identity and equally important, due to the statement of Hoeffler & Keller (2002). They stress not to underestimate the ability of social responsible behavior to build trustworthiness and expertise, which in turn means a higher perception of brand credibility. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

22

Besides this potential main effect, it is expected that the relationship is influenced by two moderators that will be discussed below.

2.4 Perceived globalness of the brand

The previous hypothesis suggests that consumers’ awareness of a social responsible mission might impact the credibility of a brand or the attitude towards it. However, expected is that this main effect could be influenced: there are indications that, due to the change of branding in an increasingly global marketplace (Holt, Quelch & Taylor 2004; Strizhakova, Coulter & Price 2011), the ‘perceived globalness’ of a brand has influence on the effects of its CSR activities. The definition of perceived globalness is: “The extent to which a consumer considers the positioning of a brand as more local or global”. Local brands are defined as brands that exist in one country or in a limited geographical area (Wolfe 1991) and global (international) brands have globalized elements within the marketing mix (Schuiling & Kapferer 2004).

23

Quite on the contrary, there are also findings with a less optimistic picture of global brands. First, Torres et al. (2010) note that building up CSR reputations is difficult for a global brand. They have to build a local CSR status through local relationships while also demonstrating global social responsibility. Furthermore, CSR activities of global corporations can be perceived as being self-interested. For instance, some multinationals try to distract the public from ethical questions raised by their core business operations (Prout 2006). In line with this, a study of Schuiling & Kapferer (2004) reveals that local brands have a significantly stronger image of trust and reliability than global brands. Steenkamp, Batra & Alden (2003) agree by asserting that global brands may communicate higher prestige and status. This could imply that social responsible behavior of global brands may not be received as credible by consumers.

To develop the second hypothesis, the two lines of reasoning derived from literature are compared with each other. Questionable is whether consumers receive a brand as more credible regarding their social mission when the perceived globalness is higher or lower. On one hand, you might think that international brands have an inferior reputation compared to local brands, which makes a social mission less credible. On the other hand, research proves that consumers expect global brands to address social problems. Because of the fact that people do not demand this from local brands, it is probably more logical in the eyes of consumers that a global brand represents a social mission. As Schuiling & Kapferer (2004) state, local brands score higher on the values ‘down to earth’ and ‘simple’. However, commonly known is that when products exceed consumers’ expectations, more favorable ratings are given on product performance (Swan & Combs 1976). Therefore, most convincing is a reverse effect: because of the fact that consumers don’t expect local brands to be social responsible, their expectations are positively exceeded when these brands indeed convey a social mission. Next to this, it is proved that local brands are generally already perceived as more credible/trustful than global brands. Hereby, the credibility of the local brand may be higher than that of the global brand, which results in the following hypothesis:

24 2.5 The role of value congruity

Besides the predictive moderating role of the type of brand which conveys a social mission, it is expected that credibility is contingent on the type of consumer as well. This variable is named as ‘value congruity’. A lot of studies (e.g. Bhattacharya & Sen 2003) note that similarity between the company and consumer has positive effects on satisfying consumers’ needs. Furthermore, there are indications that value congruity affects consumers’ perception of CSR activities (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001; Basil & Weber 2006). Especially because of the lack of research about this variable in relationship to CSR and the credibility of a brand, the concept of value congruity needs more priority.

The meaning of value congruity can be compared to three terms discussed in literature: 1) Consumer-company congruence (C-C congruence): “consumers’ perceived congruence between their own characters and that of the company” (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001, p. 227), 2) Self-congruity: “a consumer will exhibit a preference for the brand or product whose image most closely corresponds to his/her own self-concept” (Barone, Shimp & Sprott 1999, p.75) and 3) Consumer-company identification (C-C identification): “consumers’ psychological attachment to a company based on a substantial overlap between their perceptions of themselves and their perceptions of the company” (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen 2007, p. 227). All the definitions show that it is advisable to realize a match between the company/brand and the consumer. The focus of the present study is specifically on ‘value-oriented brand positioning’. This means: the brand instead of the product or company is the focus and it is about a fit between values. Consumers rely increasingly on personal values rather than product attributes when it comes to purchase decisions (Herrmann & Huber 2000; Golob, Lah & Jančič 2008). Therefore, values need to be central in the new definition (partly based on Alsem, Wieringa & Hendriks 2012). Value congruity is defined as “the match between consumers’ personal values and the perceived (in this case social responsible) values of a brand”. Hereby, personal values are “those goals that are desirable, trans-situational, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (Schwartz & Bardi 2001, p.269).

25

(Bhattacharya & Sen 2003; Siltaoja 2006; Du, Bhattacharya & Sen 2007). Furthermore, it is emphasized that the level of appreciation for CSR actions of a firm is determined by consumers’ own value orientations (Basil & Weber 2006). When an individual represents prosocial behavior, he/she is more likely to support a brand which conveys a social responsible mission. In contrast, when an individual is less committed to society, the fact that a brand openly emphasizes social values could be received as not entirely credible in the eyes of the consumer. This is in line with the so-called ‘false consensus effect’ which means that individuals tend to believe that others share their views. To clarify, a consumer which has social responsible values expects that his/her favorite brand behaves in accordance to this. Hereby, a brand with a social responsible mission can gain sympathy from consumers with the same values. Siltaoja (2006) agrees by mentioning that a company with matching values has a good reputation. This reputation may be based on trust and expertise, which is in fact credibility. Therefore, the following is hypothesized:

H3: The awareness of a social responsible mission has a more positive effect on consumers’ perception of the credibility of the brand when there is a high level of value congruity.

2.6 The mediating effect of credibility on attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty

26

response to the marketing of the brand” (p.8). Keller (2001) developed a model of brand building, which follows a series of logical steps and targets on the creation of a familiar brand that has favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in the consumers’ memory.

Figure 2.3: Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid (Keller 2001)

As showed in figure 2.3, several steps must be followed in order to end at Consumer Brand Resonance. One of these steps is Consumer Judgments, which include among other things the sub dimension Credibility. This certifies why brand loyalty is preceded by credibility in the current study; also proven by a lot of other prior research (e.g. Hoeffler & Keller 2002; Ghorban &Tahernejad 2012; Torres et al. 2012). It must not be forgotten that credibility is researched as a mediating effect. Whether this variable plays an important role in governing the relationship between awareness of a social responsible mission and brand loyalty is investigated.

27

(2007) agree on this by saying that positioning around CSR truly reveals fundamental values, which are associated with long-term relationships with consumers.

Brand loyalty can be conceptualized both in an behavioral and attitudinal way. Behavioral loyalty consists of repeated purchases of the brand, whereas attitudinal loyalty includes a degree of dispositional commitment in terms of some unique value associated with the brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001). Both types of loyalty are important to research in the context of this study. Even though a consumer has a positive attitude towards a brand with a social responsible mission, it may be that he/she still not purchases the brand frequently. On the other hand, someone might buy every week a brand with a social responsible mission, but this may occurs out of habit rather than because of consumers’ positive attitude towards the brand. Logically, the foregoing analysis of literature regarding brand loyalty will create the following last hypotheses:

H4a: Consumers’ perception of the credibility of a brand, preceded by awareness of a social responsible mission, has a positive effect on attitudinal brand loyalty.

H4b: Consumers’ perception of the credibility of a brand, preceded by awareness of a social responsible mission, has a positive effect on behavioral brand loyalty.

2.7 Conceptual model

After reviewing a variety of literature, a conceptual framework (figure 2.3) is made. The model is the basis of the present study and is constructed by combining the previously mentioned hypotheses:

• H1: The awareness of a social responsible mission has a positive effect on consumers’ perception of the credibility of the brand.

• H2: The awareness of a social responsible mission has a more positive effect on consumers’ perception of the credibility of the brand when it concerns a brand with lower perceived globalness.

28

• H4a: Consumers’ perception of the credibility of a brand, preceded by awareness of a social responsible mission, has a positive effect on attitudinal brand loyalty.

• H4b: Consumers’ perception of the credibility of a brand, preceded by awareness of a social responsible mission, has a positive effect on behavioral brand loyalty.

Figure 2.3: Conceptual model constructed from review of literature

The framework shows the relationship between the awareness of a brands’ social responsible

mission and the mediator which entails consumers’ perception of the credibility of the brand

29

3

R

3.1 Experimental context: the Netherlands

The Netherlands was selected as an appropriate place for this study because in recent years there have been growing attention to Corporate Social Responsibility. Well-known brands increasingly show their commitment to society. However, prior research (Edelman 2010; Woerde 2011) reveals that Dutch consumers, in comparison to other countries, are less interested in brands with a social responsible mission. Therefore, it is expected that the stated hypotheses are less likely to be confirmed in the Netherlands than in other countries. Considering this, when there will be found any positive effects, it is plausible that these effects will be certainly present (and to a greater extent) in other countries. Therefore, the choice of the Netherlands as a focus country is a legitimate one.

3.2 Research method

In order to answer the research question and related sub questions, explorative as well as conclusive research has been used. The aim of the exploratory research, in terms of a focus group, was to identify which brands were the most appropriate to use. Within this study, a survey was conducted to draw conclusions about the hypotheses. The reason for choosing a questionnaire as data collection technique, was because the described research issues needed a realistic setting. Manipulation was not required and moreover, a survey enables more advanced analyses.

3.3 Stimuli

30

two brands: one brand which is perceived as ‘global’ and one brand which is perceived as ‘local’. Furthermore, both brands needed to be perceived as diverse in their social responsible missions. In this manner, enough variance was expected to draw conclusions about the hypotheses.

3.3.1 Focus group

Malhotra (2007) argues that pre-testing is beneficial in order to test the validity and reliability of a research and identifying and eliminating possible problems. Therefore, and especially to make appropriate decisions regarding the specific brands to use, a focus group was used. The discussions have taken place in the company canteen of Learnit Training BV, which ensured a relaxed and informal atmosphere. First, the moderator explained the purpose and the structure of the meeting. Three separate focus group discussions were conducted with ten respondents (same characteristics as the sample) in each session. The task of the first session was to explore the product categories and brands that were relevant and familiar to the population of young adults. All mentioned products, and thereafter the associated brands, were written down. After the first session, there was a short break in which the six most common and diverse brands were selected by the moderator. Logo’s of the different brands were hung up in order to trigger more associations among the focus group members. The second session was used to find out which brands were received as ‘local’ and which brands were received as ‘global’. Specific questions were asked about the perceived globalness of the selected brands. In the third session, potential CSR activities of the brands were discussed; this entailed the awareness of all possible forms of social responsible behavior.

The final goal of the focus group discussions was to select a global and local brand, which are received as being diversely involved with society. By means of notes from observation during the discussions, a deliberate choice could be made. ‘Dove’ was chosen as a highly social responsible global brand and ‘Unox’ as a less social responsible local brand. An overview of the results of the focus group can be found in appendix I.

3.4 Respondents

31

branding (Zhou, Yang & Hui 2010; Strizhakova, Coulter & Price 2011), young adults were selected for the sample as well. The use of respondents aged around 18-29 is appropriate for several reasons:

• The targeting of young people for their brand perceptions and evaluations has become both important and challenging for many firms around the world (O’Cass & Lim 2002). They are often a focal target of multinationals employing both local and global strategies.

• Young adults (compared to older fellow citizens) in the Netherlands can be seen as the globally-minded consuming generation. Due to increasingly travel habits, they have higher exposure to global media and brands. Furthermore, young consumers are more likely to be familiar with the concept of branding (Strizhakova, Coulter & Price 2011).

• From a theoretical standpoint, the relatively homogeneous nature of the respondents provided control for the influence of other individual differences that are beyond this study. Young adult consumers as a group exhibit fewer extraneous age and income-related biases that typically impact consumption across cultures (Strizhakova, Coulter & Price 2011).

3.5 Procedure

Regarding the internal structure of the questionnaire, there is chosen not to mention in the introduction the exact purpose of the study. In this manner, the tendency of respondents to give answers they think are expected was avoided. The sequence of the six key variables (awareness of a social responsible mission, perceived globalness, value congruity, credibility and attitudinal- and behavioral brand loyalty) was determined by asking the questions from general to more specific. See table 3.1 for an example of the structure of the questionnaire.

Table 3.1: Example structure questionnaire

Before asking about the first topic, a question was asked whether the respondent was familiar with the brand. Almost all of the questions in the questionnaire were asked without an introductory text. Due to the fact that not everyone is aware of ‘value congruity’, a short

Introduction A. B. C. D. E. F. Perceived globalness Credibility Brand loyalty

Social responsible mission Value congruity

32

explanation was given before asking questions about this concept. Furthermore, two of the questions (the third question of perceived globalness and social responsible mission) were designed as reverse-phrased items. This is important for reducing response bias and requires some attention during the analysis of the data.

Before distributing the final questionnaire to participants, there was a pre-test conducted. In order to identify all potential errors and ambiguities, the questionnaire was presented to five individuals belonging to the intended sample. Hereafter, the survey was completely finalized and translated into Dutch (example in appendix II). The distribution occurred digitally by means of Thesistools.com. In order to control for order-differences across respondents, two versions of the same questionnaire were made: one that started with ‘Dove’ as a brand and the other with ‘Unox’. The same link divided respondents randomly to the both questionnaires. Moreover, they were asked to send an e-mail with the link to other people, also known as ‘snowball sampling’. The same applies for distributing the link of the questionnaire though social media, especially Facebook. Although this sampling method has the disadvantage of being not completely random, it is time saving and gave the possibility of collecting the minimum of 100 needed respondents.

3.6 Measurements & scales

Given the before mentioned hypotheses, there were four type of variables with six key constructs measured within the survey. Multi-item measures were used for all constructs; they are more reliable and less volatile than single-item questions. The scale items were developed based on prior literature. All questions were 7-points Likert scales (except for the demographic questions and the open feedback question at the end of the questionnaire) with anchors of 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree. This type of method was chosen to reduce the complexity for the respondents and to easily code and interpret the data in SPSS. After being exposed to the logo of a global or local brand, several questions were asked the respondents in order to measure the key variables. Details about the different constructs are given below.

3.6.1 Independent variable

33

other brands’ and ‘This brand does not contribute something to society.’ Eisingerich & Rubera (2010) used this scale as well in a comparable article.

3.6.2 Moderating variables

The first moderating variable, perceived globalness, was measured by adapting the scale of Batra et. al (2000). The following items were used: ‘I consider this brand to be a Dutch brand’, ‘I don’t think consumers overseas buy this brand’ and ‘This brand is sold all over the world’. The second moderating variable, value congruity, was measured by using established scales and definitions of several authors (Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun 2006; Du, Bhattacharya & Sen 2007; Alsem, Wieringa & Hendriks 2012). All the three chosen scales were adjusted by indirect emphasizing the concept of ‘values’. The following items were used: ‘My sense of this brand matches what I think is important in life’, ‘I believe there is an overlap between the identity of [brand name] and my personal identity’ and ‘The principles of this brand correspondent with my own principles’.

3.6.3 Mediating variable

The measure of the mediating variable, credibility of the brand, was drawn from Erdem, Swait & Louviere (2002). The items included ‘This brand delivers what it promises,’ ‘This brand’s product claims are believable,’ ‘This brand has a name you can trust’ and ‘This brand reminds of someone who’s competent and knows what he/she is doing.’

3.6.4 Dependent variables

Finally, the dependent variables were measured. There was made a subdivision in attitudinal

brand loyalty and behavioral brand loyalty. Both constructs were measured by means of

different items from Chaudhuri & Holbroek (2001). For attitudinal loyalty, the following items were used: ‘I am committed to this brand’ and ‘I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands.’ Behavioral loyalty included the items ‘I will buy this brand the next time I buy [product category name]’ and ‘I intend to keep purchasing this brand.’

34 Type of

variables Key constructs Items Sources

Independent variable

Awareness of a brands’ social responsible mission

• I consider [brand name] as a socially responsible brand.

• This brand is more beneficial to society’s welfare than other brands. • This brand does not

contribute something to society.

Brown & Dacin’s (1997); Eisingerich & Rubera (2010) Moderating variables Perceived globalness of the brand Value congruity

• I consider this brand to be a Dutch brand.

• I don’t think consumers overseas buy this brand. • This brand is sold all over

the world.

• My sense of this brand matches what I think is important in life.

• I believe there is an overlap between the identity of [brand name] and my personal identity.

• The principles of this brand correspondent with my own principles.

Batra et al. (2000)

Sen, Bhattacharya & Korschun (2006); Du, Bhattacharya & Sen (2007); Alsem, Wieringa & Hendriks (2012)

Mediator Credibility of the brand • This brand delivers what it promises.

• This brand’s product claims are believable. • [Brand name] has a name

you can trust.

• This brand reminds of someone who’s competent and knows what he/she is doing.

Erdem, Swait & Louviere (2002)

Dependent variables

Attitudinal brand loyalty

Behavioral brand loyalty

• I am committed to this brand.

• I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands.

• I will buy this brand the next time I buy [product category name].

• I intend to keep purchasing this brand.

Chaudhuri & Holbroek (2001)

35 3.7 Method of analysis

To test the differences in demographics among the respondents, several T-tests were performed. These tests could show deviations in measurement of the variable scales in gender, age and education groups. Before testing the hypotheses, a reliability check by means of Cronbach’s alpha was done. Values of at least 0.6 were an indication of internal consistency. Furthermore, due to the use of two different brands within the questionnaire, a ‘Chow test’ needed to be performed. Hereby, it was researched whether the set of linear regression parameters was equal across groups.

In order to test the different hypotheses, several regression analyses were used. To investigate the relationship between awareness of a social responsible mission and credibility (H1), a simple regression analysis was sufficient. Before testing the other hypotheses with mainly multiple regression, it was a requirement to control for the risk of multicollinearity. Therefore, centered interaction variables were created. In order to check whether there was indeed no collinearity in the data, the R (not greater than or equal to 0.9), VIF (average not substantially greater than 1) and tolerance (not below 0.2) statistics needed to be considered (Field 2005). Next, the moderators of the second (perceived globalness) and third (value congruity) hypothesis were tested by use of multiple regression analysis. The relationship between credibility (mediator) and attitudinal (H4a) and behavior (H4b) brand loyalty was investigated first by checking three required conditions. This could be done by a simple- and a multi-step hierarchical regression analysis. The outcomes were checked by use of the Sobel test and finally, it was researched whether it concerned a partial- or complete mediating effect.

36

4

R

4.1 Sample

In order to start analyzing the results with a representative dataset, the first step was to perform some data cleaning. In total, 268 respondents have filled in the survey. Some of the data of these people contained missing values. The reason lay mainly in the fact that respondents did answer questions about the first brand, but discontinued answering questions about the second brand (likely due to time constraints or a lack of motivation). In addition to these missing values, the snowball sampling method has resulted in a few respondents which did not meet the stated requirements. This concerned non students (age far beyond 29) or young adults with education levels below higher vocational education. Because of conformity with the requirement of minimal 100 respondents, there is chosen to delete the mentioned 16 non representative cases from the dataset. Finally, data of 252 young adults was the starting point for the analyses.

The second step was to explore some general sample characteristics. Of the remaining 252 respondents, 122 (48.4%) people used the version with Dove as the first presented brand and 130 (51.6%) started with answering questions about Unox. There were 89 (35.3%) males and 163 (64.7%) females involved in the research. Although CBS (2011) states that there are currently significantly more female than male students, the distribution of this sample is not totally similar to the population. However, there are no consequences for this research because of the fact that relationships between variables are the focus point. The average age was 23.03, ranging from 18 to 32 years old. Regarding the level of education, 131 (52%) respondents were from higher vocational education and 121 (48%) were studying at university. The last relevant characteristic is that all of the participants have indicated that they were familiar with both of the presented brands. An overview of the demographics of the sample can be found in table 4.1.

Frequency Percentage Gender Male Female 89 163 35.3% 64.7% Age <20 20-24 25-29 ≥30 46 334 112 12 9.1% 66.3% 22.2% 2.4%

Education Higher vocational education

University

131 121

52% 48%

37

After data cleaning and a description of the characteristics of the sample, some questions within the survey needed to be recoded. This was done by reversing two reverse-phrased items, namely ‘This brand does not contribute something to society’ and ‘This brand is sold all over the world’. In this manner, these items were comparable to the other ones within the construct and it increased the internal reliability between the items.

4.2 Reliability

As stated in the methodology part, most of the questions in the survey were based on multi-item scales developed in previous studies. In order to be sure about the internal consistency of the constructs, a reliability measurement by means of Cronbach’s alpha was conducted. A Cronbach’s alpha shows whether all questions measure the same construct; in this case it concerned the six key constructs. Literature tells that the questions will be internally consistent if the Cronbach’s alpha shows a value of at least 0.6. In table 4.2, an overview of all constructs with the corresponding Cronbach’s alpha is given.

Table 4.2: Reliability statistics of the six key constructs

It appeared that all constructs have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 or higher, which indicate a strong internal consistency. Therefore, all single items measure the six intended constructs and were included in the analyses.

4.3 Equality measurement

The last step before performing statistical tests in order to check the hypotheses, was conducting a reliability measurement: it was highly relevant to control for the fact whether the items of both brands were allowed to be pooled. This could be done by means of the ‘Chow test’ (partially ‘Analysis of Covariance’); it investigates whether the set of linear regression parameters (i.e., the

Key constructs Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s Alpha based on standardized items

N of items

Awareness of a brands’ social

responsible mission 0.600 0.599 3

Perceived globalness of the

brand 0.728 0.728 3

Value congruity 0.904 0.905 3

Credibility of the brand 0.842 0.848 4

Attitudinal brand loyalty 0.754 0.755 2

38

intercepts and slopes) is equal across groups. The two groups were in this case the brands ‘Dove’ and ‘Unox’. In order to test for equality, there is chosen to use the model regarding the first hypothesis as a test model. Therefore, ‘Awareness of a social responsible mission’ and ‘Credibility of a brand’ were involved as variables. A dummy variable was set up for ‘Type of brand’ and within the Chow test, an interaction variable containing ‘Type of brand’ and ‘Awareness of a social responsible mission’ was produced. The F-test and the associated p-value for the ‘Type of brand’ * ‘Awareness of a social responsible mission’ was the overall test of whether the full set of regression parameters (i.e., the slopes and intercepts taken together) differ among groups. In figure 4.1a, an overview is given of the regression parameters when the two brands are not pooled. Figure 4.1b shows the same when Dove and Unox are pooled together.

39

Figure 4.1b: Overview regression parameters brands not pooled

After performing the Chow test, an F-value of 1.540 together with a p-value of 0.077 could be found. An F-value smaller or around 1 (in this case) means that the variance between and within groups is equal to each other. Moreover, since the p-value is greater than 0.05 and hereby not significant, it can be concluded that H0 cannot be rejected: there is homogeneity between the regression coefficients. This result is also visible when comparing the regression parameters in figure 4.1. Hereby, according to the test model (the main effect), it was assumed that pooling the data of both brands was justified for all variables within the conceptual model.

4.4 Results hypothesis 1

40 Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Model (R2 = 0.071) B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) Awareness of a social responsible mission 4.217 0.244 0.167 0.39 0.267 25.326 6.214 0.000 0.000

Table 4.3: Simple regression analysis (H1), dependent variable Credibility of the brand

The results of the simple regression analysis show a p-value of 0.000; there is a significant correlation between both variables. An increase of the awareness of a social responsible mission with 1, results in an increase of the credibility of the brand with 0.244 (regression coefficient). This significant positive correlation is visualized in figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: The effect of awareness of a social responsible mission on the credibility of a brand