Comparing the Effect of CSR Communication from Company vs. Social Media Influencers on Consumer’s Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention: An Experimental Study

Master’s Thesis IB&M

Faculty of Economics and Business 2019-2020

Comparing the Effect of CSR Communication from Company vs. Social Media

Influencers on Consumer’s Brand Attitude and Purchase Intention: An Experimental

Study

Name: Crista Rantanen Student Number: S3893731

Supervisor: Dr. T. Halaszovich Co-assessor: Dr. M.M. Wilhelm

Abstract

The concept of corporate social responsibility (thereafter CSR) has been extensively discussed in international business literature, however, there is a growing interest of studying CSR from a consumer perspective. Similarly, there is an increasing trend of influencer marketing and the collaboration between these individuals and firms to promote brands as an alternative form to traditional advertising. This study explores the concepts of CSR and influencer marketing by relating these to the increasingly popular phenomena whereby firms are starting to use social media influencers to communicate and spread awareness of firms CSR activities. Thus, the main research aim is to find out whether CSR activities promoted by social media influencers increase positive brand attitudes and consumer purchase intentions and whether influencers are indeed the more efficient CSR communication sources in terms of higher credibility and more positive consumer behavior outcomes. A between subject’s experimental research design is implemented to measure the effect of CSR communication from the influencer vs. the company itself. Through statistical analyses, results show that there is no statistically significant difference in credibility between the two sources; influencers are not perceived as more credible. However, credibility and brand attitude have a positive relationship along with brand attitude and purchase intention, re-confirming past research findings. The results of this study provide valuable insight for marketing practitioners on CSR communication efficiency and pose various questions for future research.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 5

2. Literature Review ... 7

2.1 CSR ... 7

2.2 Core Challenges in CSR Communication ... 8

2.2.1 Lack of Awareness ... 8

2.2.2 High Skepticism and Lack of Credibility ... 8

2.3 Strategies to Overcome Challenges ... 10

2.3.1 Social Media ... 10

2.3.2 Message Source ... 11

2.3.3 Credibility of the Source ... 13

5.2 Scale Reliability ... 28

5.3 Descriptive Statistics ... 29

5.4 Hypothesis Testing ... 32

5.5 Additional Analysis ... 35

5.5.1 Comparing Mean Values ... 35

1. Introduction

Anna Saccone-Joly, a British social media influencer with 1.4 million Instagram followers, posts a picture of her newborn daughter and starts her caption by #AD. This post is paid by Pampers, who is using Saccone-Joly’s social media platform as a way to communicate the #ThankYouMidwife campaign to show support for poorly paid midwives and their valuable work by gifting ‘Pamper Hampers’. This could be considered as a form of CSR towards communities. This post has been liked over 49 000 times and expected to have reached thousands of more Instagram users.

It is increasingly expected of firms to behave in an ethical and socially responsible way to meet the needs of their stakeholders (Schmeltz, 2012). Along with meeting stakeholder expectations, firms may realize various benefits from conducting CSR including increased reputation and consumer’s willingness to pay (Muller, 2018), along with creating positive consumer attitudes and purchase intentions (Öberseder et al., 2013). However, to enjoy the benefits firms need an effective communication strategy (Morsing et al., 2008) to create awareness of firms CSR activity, as currently awareness is disputably low (Öberseder et al., 2011). Yet, there exists a challenging predicament: on the one end CSR and high transparency is expected, while simultaneously CSR advertising is viewed in a skeptical manner due to its self-promoting nature, resulting in backlash (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) and conflicting responses. Indeed, the sensitive nature of CSR communication make the choice of selecting the right strategy a complex task (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). We thus question what CSR communication methods could help increase awareness while lowering skepticism, and ultimately help secure the benefits?

Linking this newer concept of social media influencers with a well-researched topic like CSR is argued to be an interesting and novel topic; something that to my knowledge has limited, if any specific research. Research explicitly exploring consumer responses to CSR communication are narrow (Kaur, 2013), thus more work is needed on consumer perceptions (Öberseder et al., 2013), providing rationale to take a consumer perspective. Furthermore, Schmeltz (2012) find that literature on CSR communication with a consumer perspective highlight the following key concepts: CSR’s influence on consumer responses, choice of strategy and question of how to convey credible messages and overcome consumer skepticism. However, these topics are discussed in relative isolation from each other (Schmeltz, 2012). Thus, this thesis will examine these together in a social media context to provide solid recommendations for managers on CSR communication strategy. Indeed, there is limited investigation of social media in CSR literature (Whelan et al., 2013). However, with the increase of CSR communication on social media in recent years, it is important for managers to understand how to communicate CSR activities (Wang & Huang, 2018), in the most efficient manner. Unlike current research on CSR communication focusing on more traditional media platforms, this study introduces for the first-time social media influencers on Instagram as external communication sources, extending literature to more present-day CSR communication trends. Overall, the challenges associated with CSR communication along with the increasing trend of utilizing social media influencers, stipulate a unique opportunity to not only contribute to literature but also induce future research on this topic. Moreover, provide guidance for marketing managers on the challenging task of refining CSR communication.

2. Literature Review

2.1 CSR

Du et al. (2011) define CSR as “a firm’s commitment to maximize long-term economic, societal and environmental well-being through business practices, policies and resources (Du et al., 2011, pp. 1528). It is argued that ‘doing good’ is seen as a criterion for doing well in today’s business world (Kesavan et al., 2013); a vital strategic imperative (Bai & Chang, 2015). “There is no longer a sharp distinction between doing good, and doing business; often these two are compatible, for example when implementing CSR in the corporation” (Schmeltz, 2012, pp. 29-30). Indeed, it could be argued that stakeholders expect firms to conduct CSR and to have a positive impact on society. Engaging in CSR activities can lead to firms generating favorable stakeholder attitudes, building corporate image and enhanced relationships (Du et al. 2010), as well as positive consumer behavior towards that company and its products (Bhattacharya & Sen 2004). Much of the CSR literature focus on its effect on firm performance (Muller, 2018), with inconclusive results, however noticing that majority of studies found significant positive relationship between CSR and firm financial performance (Muller, 2018; Margolis et al., 2009; Margolis & Walsh, 2003). This suggests that consumers view firms which conduct CSR in a more positive light, and thus it has the potential to increase purchasing. Indeed, researchers have a general consensus that CSR does indeed lead to positive effects (Morsing & Schultz, 2006), such as increased reputation, consumers’ willingness to pay (Muller, 2018) and employee motivation (Margolis & Walsh, 2003).

2.2 Core Challenges in CSR Communication

The key aim is for companies to be seen as socially responsible in the eyes of their stakeholders. However, the challenge lies within how to make it known by stakeholders and to what extent the company should consciously communicate their CSR (Morsing et al., 2008) and what means to utilize to do so. One of the key questions of this thesis is how to communicate CSR efficiently so that it leads to positive behavioral outcomes? What core challenges do companies face, that may hinder these positive effects and what strategies can be implemented to overall improve CSR communication efficiency? The next sections will examine these questions.

2.2.1 Lack of Awareness

“Many scholars will agree that one of the main challenges of communicating CSR is that of creating awareness, i.e. how can companies increase the likelihood of the audience both noticing, processing and accepting CSR communication” (Schmeltz, 2012, pp. 36). Indeed, several studies have explored the level of consumer awareness of companies CSR efforts (e.g. Sen et al., 2006; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Sen et al. (2006) found positive effects on CSR awareness on things like purchase intent and enhanced identification with the company. Similarly, Wigley (2008) and Öberseder et al. (2013) find that CSR awareness and knowledge induce a positive effect on consumer attitudes and relatedly purchase intention. Likewise, Du et al. (2010) highlight CSR business returns are contingent on stakeholders awareness of the company’s CSR efforts. Despite the relative importance of awareness, it is contended that currently awareness of CSR efforts is relatively low (Öberseder et al., 2001; Sen et al., 2006), and thus companies need to implement communication strategies that can help raise awareness. Certainly, if awareness is low, companies have a limited opportunity to achieve positive behavioral effects. This “calls for research into how, where and when CSR should be communicated to consumers” (Schmeltz, 2012, pp.33). This thesis will focus on the ‘how’ factor, which will be discussed throughout the following sections.

2.2.2 High Skepticism and Lack of Credibility

Communication of CSR challenges companies as CSR is argued to be a difficult message to convey (Schmeltz, 2012). Despite its positive outcomes, communicating CSR on the contrary can lead to negative consequences and criticism. Indeed, even though CSR is expected of firms today companies often face criticism related to their CSR activities (Lecuyer et al., 2017). Overly positive claims, arguably which CSR claims are, are likely to result in backfire as promoting legitimacy may be viewed as legitimacy being in doubt (Pomering et al., 2013). Likewise, Morsing and Schultz (2006) highlight that CSR communication may be associated with corporations trying to defend their legitimacy and thus too much CSR communication may be disadvantageous. CSR communication is certainly a ‘slippery slope’ as promoting CSR activities may actually backfire and be counter-productive (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) as stakeholders may view it with skepticism, hindering potential positive returns. Indeed, pro-social marketing campaigns by firms are frequently met with skepticism leading to uncertainty of its effectiveness (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009) and generating negative responses (Sen et al., 2006). Moreover, some companies are reluctant to communicate their CSR activities because of fear of being perceived as blowing their own horn and as a strategic marketing scheme (Öberseder et al., 2013).

Evidently, CSR communication is a difficult task. Thus, the key aim of CSR communication strategy seems to be to reduce skepticism (Ali et al., 2015), which could be done by communicating using credible means. Elving (2010) define skepticism as a tendency toward disbelief. The author suggests that CSR communication skepticism may originate from vague words or absence of concrete proof (Elving, 2010). Furthermore, it is argued that a clear fit between the company’s core business and the firms CSR efforts is likely to minimize skepticism (Schmeltz, 2012) and increase effectiveness (Pomering et al., 2013), with low fit having a negative impact on consumer behavior. Moreover, CSR literature suggest skepticism can be reduced by increasing trust.

sources. Indeed, it is argued that consumers tend to have higher trust in companies CSR activities if they learn about these through an external source such as a newspaper article (Yoon et al., 2006). Thus, it could be contended that consumers have higher trust in sources other than the firm when it comes to CSR. This argument provides an interesting base to explore the means to achieve higher credibility in more detail.

The core issues highlighted in this section emphasize the question on what CSR communication strategies should be deployed to address low awareness, high skepticism and ultimately achieve positive consume behavior outcomes? The key challenge is how to make CSR communication more credible and not be perceived as a means of defending legitimacy. What mechanisms could help consumers trust the CSR message and view it in a positive light, leading to positive brand attitudes and purchase intention? Overall, the rise in consumer skepticism and lack of awareness of firm’s CSR activities provide a rationale for arguing that CSR communication is currently relatively inefficient. Thus, it is argued that CSR communication strategy needs to be reconsidered.

2.3 Strategies to Overcome Challenges

The key aim of CSR communication is to increase the prospect of the audience noticing, processing and accepting CSR communication (Schmeltz, 2012), as well as stimulating positive consumer behavior outcomes. Thus, increasing awareness and credibility of the message are argued to be key means to do so. This section will thus discuss the strategic choices that can be made to increase the efficiency of CSR communication.

2.3.1 Social Media

and interaction with stakeholders (Du et al., 2010), through things like comments from users and two-way interaction.Furthermore, Kim & Ferguson (2014) contend that accessibility and interactivity are important factors to consider in selecting effective CSR communication means. Accessibility refers to how easily or often the audience can get the CSR information and interactivity refers to how much interpersonal communication the audience can get (Kim & Ferguson, 2014). We could argue that the features of social media allow for both accessibility and interactivity, suggesting that this is an applicable platform to consider.

Evidently, social media is progressively used by firms to communicate CSR activities, but the question that needs more focus is how to communicate CSR in an efficient manner? Indeed, “it can be argued that any and every marketing communications tool is capable of conveying a company’s CSR messages and contributing to its corporate image and brand equity”(Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009, pp. 106), and awareness. However, we question which means are more powerful and efficient than others? In other words, it could be argued that traditional CSR communication is already effective in the sense that it conveys the message, but we question how social media could be utilized to make CSR communication more efficient in terms of increasing credibility and creating more positive consumer behavior outcomes? Thus, we consider the source of the CSR communication next.

2.3.2 Message Source

CSR communication literature highlight certain mechanisms influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of the CSR communication such as the message source and content (e.g. Du et al., 2010; Wang & Huang, 2018; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004), source, tone and communication channel (e.g. Kim & Ferguson, 2014) and the importance of third-party endorsements (Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Morsing et al. 2008), to reduce skepticism (Ali et al., 2015) and induce positive consumer behavior. Guided by these articles, this thesis will focus on the message source factor in detail as it is emphasized in CSR communication literature. Furthermore, Mohr et al. (2001) suggested that future research should question which sources of CSR are most influential, providing further justification.

credibility of the information is highly dependent on the channels chosen for disseminating the information” (Kaur, 2013, pp. 64). Indeed, Du et al. (2010) argue that there is a trade-off between controllability and credibility of the CSR message; the less a communicator is controlled, the more credible it is, and vice versa. In other words, company controlled means such as corporate websites allow for highest control, however simultaneously these may lead to consumers being suspicious of the information presented (Du et al., 2010), and higher skepticism. Conversely, non-company controlled means such as blogs are less controlled by the company, hence these could be argued to be a more credible source. Overall, it is argued that the credibility of CSR communication depends on which channel or the source the CSR information is communicated on. As argued before, high skepticism and low CSR awareness are key issues in the CSR communication field, so making strategic choices on the source seems to be a keyway to improve communication efficiency.

Companies can communicate messages through company-controlled message channels such as annual CSR reports, corporate websites, TV-commercials or billboard advertisements. Non-company-controlled sources include the general media, customers, and online means such as websites, forums and blogs (Du et al., 2010). Du et al. (2010) find that stakeholders do not perceive all channels to be equally desirable, credible or trustworthy. Perhaps similarly, Wang & Huang (2018) find through investigating CSR communication from the firms social media page vs. the CEO’s personal account, that stakeholders may perceive communication from the two sources in a different light, indeed one being more formal and objective, and the other more personable (Wang & Huang, 2018; Tsai & Men, 2017). This suggests that the source may lead to different communication effectiveness even with the same message content (Wang & Huang, 2018). Hence, it is interesting to explore which sources or channels are perceived most credible.

young Danish student sample that a more explicit and open CSR communication approach is required over the current subtle, indirect or endorsed CSR approach which is argued to prevent skepticism.

Moreover, Gruber et al. (2015) find that the most credible source for CSR communication in the eyes of the consumers are external sources such as prizes and awards, and TV coverage. Du et al. (2010) highlight the importance of consumers and WOM as a highly credible communication channel. However, this type is not controllable by the firm at all, which makes it difficult to strategically utilize this method. Furthermore, Pollach (2005) recommended that companies use persuasive appeals such as third-party evidence or humanization of their online messages, to achieve credibility (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009). It is contended that endorsers are used in advertising as credible sources to influence attitudes and purchase intentions of consumers (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Perhaps similarly, Morsing and Schultz (2006) and Morsing et al. (2008) investigate the importance of third-party endorsements in CSR communication to decrease consumer skepticism. Morsing et al. (2008) find that companies directly communicating their CSR is not effective, rather companies should utilize third parties. Indeed, ”if a CSR communication message tone is too self-congratulatory or promotional, publics may attribute self-serving motives to the company’s intentions for its CSR” (Kim & Ferguson, 2014, pp. 5). Thus, we could argue that this increases skepticism, suggesting decreased communication efficiency.

2.3.3 Credibility of the Source

Jahdi and Acikdilli (2009) find that “source credibility and reliability were also cited as major requirements for CSR message acceptance and communications effectiveness” (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009, pp. 111). Likewise, trust in the information provider is seen critical for effective CSR communication (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Evidently, credibility of the source is highlighted throughout literature, providing rationale to explore this in more detail and how it influences attitudes and consumer behavior.

but do not utilize the source attractiveness dimension as physical attractiveness is more applicable to a person than a company. Just like the breakthrough study by Hovland & Weiss (1951), we also only focus on source expertise and trustworthiness.

Trustworthiness is the degree of confidence in the communicators intent to communicate the claims they believe to be most valid (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). “Trust is mostly defined as a belief or expectation about the other (trusted) party, or as a behavioral intention or willingness to depend or rely on another party, coupled with a sense of vulnerability or risk, if the trust is violated” (Krisch & Grabner-Kräuter, 2017, pp. 453). Trustworthiness has been supported to have an effect on attitude change (Ohanian, 1990). Relatedly, expertise is defined as the extent to which the source of a message is seen as a source of valid claims (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). It is also argued that a source’s perceived expertise has a positive effect on attitude change (Ohanian, 1990). Evidently, source credibility has an influence on consumer behavior.

2.4 Consumer Behavior

2.5 Company CSR Communication

Limitations of CSR communication from the company itself include higher skepticism and potentially lower credibility, as directly communicating CSR efforts may be perceived as a way to defend legitimacy, as argued earlier. Indeed, Dunn & Harness (2018) contend that consumers often distrust CSR information coming from the company source due to its biased nature. It could be argued that direct company CSR communication on social media in a way is missing the ‘humanization’ (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009) aspect. Indeed, a firm’s official social media page is more formal and objective communication (Wang & Huang, 2018; Tsai & Men, 2017). The company-controlled and self-centered nature leads to less credibility, which is then argued to be less efficient in terms of less positive brand attitudes and lower purchase intent.

Despite shortcomings of company CSR communication, it is also important to note that “stakeholders may not automatically consider corporate sources as less credible and more self-interested and non-corporate sources as more credible and less self-interested” (Kim and Ferguson, 2014, pp. 15). Ohanian (1990) proposed a similar argument. Evidently, it could be argued that it is not a dichotomous choice, thus this is an interesting topic to explore further by comparing consumers attitudes towards these two sources of CSR information in an experimental setting.

2.6 Influencer CSR Communication

We suggest that influencer CSR communication has various advantages that could help overcome the shortcomings of company CSR communication, including higher skepticism and thus lower credibility of the message. Indeed, the CSR communication literature highlight non-corporate sources and third-party endorsements as more efficient CSR communication means compared to advertising from the company itself, however to my knowledge there is no specific literature on social media influencers and CSR communication. This may be attributed to the novel nature of this thesis. However, by looking at current marketing trends it is evident that companies are increasingly using influencers in CSR communication.

Credibility or trust is a key factor in CSR communication. Non-corporate or third-party sources, such as influencers, may be viewed as more sincere and reduce skepticism thus fostering a more positive attitude toward the CSR communication. Therefore, utilizing these types of sources may be more efficient in CSR communication, this being measured by brand attitude and positive consumer behavior. Furthermore, based on the source credibility model, it is perhaps appropriate to make assumptions that using a communication source that is perceived trustworthy and as an expert in the eyes of the consumers can lead to more efficient results in terms of changing attitudes and related consumer behavior. We could further argue that the effectiveness of using an influencer to convey communication messages is based on how well the influencer is able to convey to their audience that they are trustworthy and have expertise. One way this could be conveyed is through the number of followers. Indeed, Instagram influencers with higher number of followers are considered more likeable (De Veirman et al., 2017). However, this is perhaps out of scope of this study as the number of followers on social media is not perhaps applicable for perceived credibility of the company, more so for influencers. Secondly, simply the source of the CSR message can influence consumers attitudes and related behavioral outcomes. Hence, we will primarily focus on investigating the effect of the CSR communication source on related credibility and consumer behavior.

As mentioned before, it could be suggested that influencer CSR communication is likely to have company-controlled aspect in terms of the message that needs to be communicated, however it could still be argued to have a more personable and authentic feeling as the message is posted and predominantly controlled by the influencer on their personal account and due to the fact that influencers are still seen as ‘normal people’. Thus, we could argue that influencers, because of their company-controlled nature along with their trustworthy and approachable nature, would be more efficient than the company source.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Hypothesis Development

Companies face an evident paradox with CSR: even though it is anticipated, companies still face criticism when communicating their CSR efforts, which may hinder positive returns. This makes strategic CSR communication decision-making a difficult task. The core issues facing companies include consumers lack of awareness of firms CSR efforts, and high skepticism and low credibility of CSR communication. Indeed, the key objective is to find ways to communicate CSR more efficiently to stakeholders. To overcome these challenges, it is argued that social media is an effective platform to communicate and increase awareness of CSR activities due to its high interactivity, transparency and more trustworthy nature. Hence, this platform is chosen as the main focus for this thesis. Another factor to overcome the core issue of high skepticism and low credibility, is to make the right choices on the source of the CSR content. It is argued that the source of the CSR message influences credibility and thus communication efficiency. Indeed, consumers do not perceive all communication sources equally trustworthy.

We discuss the company itself as the CSR communication source and identify shortcomings such as higher skepticism and lower credibility, due to the company-controlled and biased nature. Literature suggest that external sources of CSR communication are preferred by consumers, however some find that company-controlled nature is still valued in the CSR context. Hence, we argue that a combination of these factors, so an external source but with a company-controlled aspect, would perhaps be the ideal choice for maximum communication efficiency. This argument, along with the trustworthy and authentic nature of influencers, provide rationale for social media influencers to be the more efficient CSR communication means in terms of credibility. Hence, we hypothesis the following:

As mentioned, the source of the CSR communication is likely to influence the degree of credibility. This in turn has an effect on brand attitude and purchase intent. As disputed, social media influencers are seen as more credible sources compared to traditional celebrities (De Veirman et al., 2017). The source credibility model suggests that information coming from a credible source, such as influencers, is likely to effect consumer attitudes, beliefs and behavior (Wang et al., 2017), and push purchase intentions (Ohanian, 1991). Overall, trusting the source of the message increase the likelihood that the message will be accepted (Lim et al., 2017), arguably shaping brand attitudes. On the contrary, we argue that when the company is the source of the CSR message, consumers rate credibility to be lower, which in turn leads to more negative attitudes toward the brand and lower purchase intent, compared to influencer. We do not necessarily argue that company CSR communication leads to negative attitudes or low purchase intention, rather that the effect is lower when comparing to the influencer. Comparing the effect will help provide recommendations on what means of CSR communication is more efficient. Based on these arguments we develop the following general hypothesis that will be compared for the two sources.

H2: There is a positive relationship between credibility and attitude toward the brand H3: There is a positive relationship between attitude toward the brand and purchase intent

3.2 Conceptual Model

4. Methodology

4.1 Research Philosophy

This research takes a positivist view that entails finding a causal explanation by using existing theory to develop hypotheses. The aim is to test these with the objective of furthering and developing theory. Positivists collect measurable and quantifiable data and try to remain detached from the data collected to avoid influencing results (Saunders et al., 2009). This view is associated with highly structured quantitative research methods whereas interpretivism is more subjective and the researchers own interpretations play a key (Saunders et al., 2009), which are key features of qualitative research. Regarding the approaches to theory development, this thesis follows the deductivist approach where appropriate data is collected to evaluate hypothesis related to existing theory, which is then verified or rejected (Saunder et al., 2009).

4.2 Research Method

4.3 Research Design

In order to analyze the efficiency of influencer vs. company CSR content, we need to measure and compare the effect between different groups. In other words, to see which source of CSR content has a more positive influence on the dependent variables: credibility, brand attitude and purchase intention. Experimental research designs are used to provide evidence for cause and effect relationships. This thesis uses a between-subjects online experiment with 2 conditions: one with CSR content from the company and the other with CSR content from an influencer. Participants are randomly assigned to one of the conditions. Participants are asked to observe a mock-up Instagram post and then answer questions on credibility of the message source, brand attitude and purchase intention. Using this between-subjects design will help reduce responses in which having the two conditions both present would somehow influence the responses. For example, seeing the influencer content next to the company content would perhaps make the respondent answer more favorably towards the influencer because it is often suggested that influencer content is more credible and relatable.

To conduct this experiment, an online self-completed (thus unbiased because lack of presence of the researcher) survey approach is chosen due to its speed, affordability, convenience and ability to reach a large number of people from different countries. Moreover, the most popular quantitative method is a survey (Wilson, 2012), providing further rationale for selecting this approach. Furthermore, this approach is useful in order to utilize online statistical analysis software and for the respondents to stay anonymous, even though it could be argued that this is not specifically a study with a sensitive nature. However, perceived anonymity is good for achieving honest responses. The research instrument is built on the platform Qualtrics, provided by the University.

4.4 Stimuli

as realistic as possible, a website called AdParlor was utilized, and additional edits were done using PowerPoint. Both conditions have an identical photo, but the user is either an influencer or the brand itself, to manipulate for the CSR communication source. Also, the photo description is slightly different for each post, in order to make it more obvious that the influencer content is not by the company. The influencer content refers to the brand with its name (XtraFresh) whereas the company post says ‘we’.

Throughout CSR communication literature, it is argued that consumers want to know about the outcome of the company’s CSR efforts (Pomering et al., 2013). Similarly, “specific examples of CSR programs, achievements, etc. with accompanying facts are seemingly preferable over general descriptions of principles (Berens and van Rekom, 2008)” (As cited in Schmeltz, 2012, pp. 34). Hence, the description includes the specific amount (50% of proceeds) that will be given to charity. However, it is decided to simply and broadly say ‘to charity’ instead of a specific charity name, as it could be argued that including a specific charity could result in respondents’ personal opinions on the specific charity influencing their responses to the survey. Thus, even though a more specific description would be needed in real life, for the purpose of this study, this is thought to be sufficient.

When deciding on the product to use in the Instagram post, it was important to select something that is used by and of interest to most consumers. A low-cost product that is easily available was the other criteria. This should be done to enhance the likelihood for the respondents to process the Instagram post. A fictious brand name is created to avoid any brand-name effects on responses. Thus, it was decided to use a fictious brand called XtraFresh (self-created) and to have toothbrushes in the main content. The picture chosen was taken from the stock photos on Pinterest. The aim was to have a picture with as little distractions or objects in it, to make the respondent focus more on the user (source of the CSR message) and the CSR message in the description.

4.5 Sampling

4.5.1 Population of Interest

In order to generalize results, it is imperative to have a representative sample (Saunders et al., 2012). The population of interest is consumers who have an Instagram account (key medium discussed in the study). This is indeed a broad group because the phenomena in question is relevant to a large group of consumers. Moreover, social media transcend national borders and is used by different types of consumers. The goal is to have an international pool of respondents to meet the international requirement of this thesis as well as to gain insight whether respondents from the same nationality have similar responses comparing to other nationalities. This is undoubtedly met due to the researcher’s international network.

4.5.2 Sampling Technique

conduct the research, this approach was rejected, and the non-probability sampling approach was deemed sufficient.

4.5.3 Sample Size

The aim was to get as many responses as possible to ensure statistical significance. The goal was to get a minimum of 50 responses per condition, so overall 100 responses with roughly the same number of responses for each condition. This was ensured by enabling a setting on Qualtrics whereby in the case that one group is getting more responses, the other condition will be shown more. Generally, the sample size was considered sufficient once there were enough responses to conduct the necessary analysis. The final sample size was N=125 after data cleaning, with N=61 for the influencer condition and N=64 for the company condition.

4.6 Variables

The independent variable is CSR communication from a social media influencer compared to the company. The study has three dependent variables: credibility (measured by trustworthiness + expertise), attitude toward the brand and purchase intention. There are several dependent variables because manipulating the independent variable can have an effect on various factors. To increase validity and reliability of results, survey items were taken from previous studies, as discussed later.

4.7 Procedure

Pilot-testing was conducted before the final launch of the survey to ensure that questions were understood, and no technical problems or errors were present. Feedback from these was used to further develop and improve the survey. The final survey was distributed via the researcher’s online networks: Facebook, email and Whatsapp, to potential respondents. Due to time constraints, data was collected for 8 days.

The introduction statement informed the participants about the topic. However, no details were given on the specific research question as this included the concept of influencer vs. company CSR communication, and respondents could have answered in a different way if they knew they were being tested on these concepts. Hence as the aim was to conduct an experiment with the two conditions, the statement simply indicated this was an experiment related to perceptions towards an Instagram post. The introduction also mentioned privacy concerns. To see the introduction statement and the full survey see Appendix A.

4.8 Data Analysis

This section will give an overview of the data analysis, which is outlined in detail in the next chapter along with the results of this study. After the data was collected, they were transferred to the IBM SPSS statistical analysis program. First, data was cleaned by conducting initial checks to discard incomplete responses. Second, data coding was done to help analyze the results. For example, for a 7-point Likert scale ‘Dishonest’ was coded as 1 and ‘Honest’ coded as 7. Third, internal consistency of the scales was measured to ensure validity and reliability of items, using Cronbach’s alpha. Fourth, data analysis commenced with descriptive statistics by examining demographic questions to explore the characteristics of the sample, by quantifying things like the mean responses and denoting these results in tables and graphs. Then correlations were measured to get an indication of relationships. Lastly, more specific analyses were conducted to address the three hypotheses. To measure hypothesis 1 and the effect of CSR communication source on credibility, an independent sample t-test comparing the mean values was performed. To measure hypothesis 2 and 3, correlation and regression analyses were done to find the relationship between the two variables.

4.9 Ethical Concerns

5. Results

5.1 Sample

Overall, 144 people responded to the survey. However, not all responses were valid since 2 respondents replied to not having an Instagram despite it being mentioned as a criterion. It is likely that some respondents did not read the introduction statement as this is why these 2 responses occurred. In addition, 17 responses were partially completed hence these along with the 2 that responded ‘no’ to having an Instagram account, were discarded prior to analysis. This left us with a sample size of N=125. The influencer condition had a sample size of N=61 and the company condition had N=64.

5.2 Scale Reliability

CSR Source Dimensions Number of Variables

Cronbach’s Alpha Value (α)

Influencer

Credibility (trust + expertise) 10 0.94

Trustworthiness 5 0.95

Expertise 5 0.92

Brand Attitude 5 0.96

Purchase Intention 5 0.95

Company

Credibility (trust + expertise) 10 0.96

Trustworthiness 5 0.96

Expertise 5 0.97

Brand Attitude 5 0.98

Purchase Intention 5 0.97

Table 1. Reliability of Scales

5.3 Descriptive Statistics

Figure 2. Country of Respondents

In regard to education level, 43% of respondents had a bachelor’s degree, while 34% had a master’s degree. The sample could be argued to be highly educated. This is also likely to be influenced by the researcher’s student network. Indeed, about 45% of respondents were students, and 44% were employed full-time. The majority of respondents being students also correlates with the fact that the majority (54%) of respondents said their income was less that 25,000 €. Table 2 summarizes these results.

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Highest Degree of Schooling

Compulsory Education 4 3.2 3.2 High school 10 8.0 11.2 College degree 12 9.6 20.8 Bachelor’s degree 54 43.2 64.0 Master’s degree 43 34.4 98.4 Doctorate degree 2 1.6 100.0 Total 125 100.0 Employment Student 57 45.6 45.6 Homemaker 1 0.8 46.4 Self-employed 1 0.8 47.2

Employed part time 5 4.0 51.2

Employed full time 55 44.0 95.2

Unemployed 4 3.2 98.4 Retired 2 1.6 100.0 Total 125 100.0 Annual Income Less than 25,000 € 68 54.4 54.4 25,000-50,000 € 38 30.4 84.8 50,001-100,000 € 17 13.6 98.4 More than 100,000 € 2 1.6 100.0 Total 125 100.0

Table 3 presents a correlation matrix with all variables (excluding country), to get an overview of relations. A value of r=1 translates to a strong positive linear correlation, r=0 to no linear correlation and r= -1 denotes a strong negative linear correlation. Age is moderately and positively related with schooling, employment and income, which is logical. Likewise, level of schooling is moderately and positively correlated with employment and income and employment is relatively strongly and positively correlated with income. Interestingly, income was relatively strongly and positively correlated with perceived credibility of the source. The correlations between the credibility, attitude and purchase intention will be discussed further in hypothesis testing.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Age 1 2. Gender -0.12 1 3. Schooling 0.31** 0.05 1 4. Employment 0.34** -0.09 0.34** 1 5. Income 0.44** -0.13 0.42** 0.65** 1 6. Credibility 0.01 0.10 -0.05 -0.09 0.47** 1 7. Attitude 0.00 0.12 -0.09 -0.07 -0.03 0.72** 1 8. Purchase Intention -0.03 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.61** 0.69** 1

**. Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 3. Pearson Correlations Among Variables

5.4 Hypothesis Testing

H1: CSR content from the social media influencer is perceived as more credible compared to CSR content from the company itself

be more of an expert (mean=4.20, SD=1.40) and the influencer to be less of an expert (mean=3.54, SD=1.20). Again, an independent sample t-test revealed that the difference between the mean values for the two conditions was also statistically and significantly different as the Sig. (2-tailed) value was 0.01.

For the aggregated credibility dimension, the company was rated only vaguely more credible than the influencer. The company credibility mean was 3.99 (SD=1.39) while the influencer credibility mean was 3.95 (SD=1.20). Evidently, the difference is very small. Indeed, an independent sample t-test showed that there was no statistically significant difference as the Sig. (2-tailed) value is greater than 0.05, as seen in Table 4. Hence, there is no difference between the source of the CSR message on Instagram using an Influencer or the company itself in terms of credibility, for this specific experiment. Thus, hypothesis 1 is not confirmed.

Trustworthiness Expertise Credibility

Mean Difference 0.58 0.66 0.04

Std. Error Difference 0.27 0.23 0.23

Sig. (2.tailed) 0.04* 0.01* 0.86

Table 4. Mean Differences of Credibility Dimensions

H2: There is a positive relationship between credibility and attitude toward the brand

is 0.00, meaning that the relationship between credibility and brand attitude is significant, confirming hypothesis 2. Thus, credibility does indeed have a positive effect on attitude while controlling for other variables in the model.

By comparing regression results for the two conditions, outcomes are identical in terms of direction and significance of relationship. However, the influencer condition had a r=0.69, and adjusted R² of 42.4% while the company condition had a r=0.79 and adjusted R² 58.5%. In simple terms, the relationship between the variables was stronger for the company condition.

H3: There is a positive relationship between attitude toward the brand and purchase intent The correlation between attitude toward the brand and purchase intention was r=0.69 meaning that there is a relatively strong positive relationship between the two variables. This indicates that when respondents had a more positive attitude, purchase intentions were correspondingly higher. Similarly, when respondents had a more negative attitude, they likewise rated their purchase intention to be lower. Furthermore, the regression analysis controlling for the control variables shows a value of r=0.71. The adjusted R² explains how well the model explains the data, the percentage of variance in this case is 47.8%. However, to confirm the hypothesis we look at the coefficient table and find that this relationship is indeed significant as the significance value is 0.00. In other words, brand attitude has a positive effect on purchase intention, while controlling for control variables. Thus, hypothesis 3 is also accepted.

5.5 Additional Analysis 5.5.1 Comparing Mean Values

To go beyond the hypothesis investigation, we conducted some further analysis to explore whether there was a significant difference between the mean values for the attitude and purchase intention dimensions. Despite no significant difference in credibility for the two sources, the mean for attitude toward the brand for the influencer post was slightly higher (mean=4.85, SD=1.42) compared to the attitude toward the brand for the company (mean=4.36, SD=1.42). Overall, both values were above the midpoint suggesting more positive brand attitudes. Furthermore, the mean of purchase intention for the influencer post was just slightly higher with a mean of 3.71 (SD=1.42) compared to the purchase intention mean for the company post, which was 3.55 (SD=1.35). However, both values were below the midpoint suggesting a tendency for less overall purchase intentions.

To summarize the magnitude of difference, we look at the mean differences between the two conditions for all three dependent variables. By looking at the values in Table 5, we see that the mean differences between all three dependent variables are not statistically significant as the Sig. (2-tailed) values are greater than the benchmark of 0.05, meaning that differences are due to chance and not because of change in the CSR communication source.

Credibility Brand Attitude Purchase Intention

Influencer 3.95 4.85 3.71

Company 3.99 4.36 3.55

Mean Difference 0.04 0.49 0.16

Std Error Difference 0.23 0.25 0.25

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.86 0.06 0.52

5.5.2 Demographic Variables

It could be interesting to see whether there are differences in responses for the different demographic variables. By looking at differences in gender, an independent sample t-test showed that there was no statistically significant difference across responses for all three dependent variables and both conditions as all significance values were greater than 0.05. Thus, we could argue that the slight differences in mean values can be attributed to chance, not gender. The mean values for the different countries was not compared as there were so many countries, many of which only had one or a few respondents from. Similarly, the impact of all age categories on mean values was not measured, as there was not an even spread of respondents across the age categories. Most respondents were in the 18-24 or 25-34 categories. However, comparing these two categories the independent sample t-test showed that there is no significant difference between most dependent variables between the two age categories however the Sig. (2-tailed) value for influencer purchase intent is 0.04 indicating that there is indeed a statistically significant difference for the mean values for the two age categories for this variable and condition. When respondents were exposed to the influencer condition, the 25-34 age category was more likely to purchase the product in question compared to the younger category.

6. Discussion

Results show that mean values for credibility for both groups were situated close to the mid-point of the scale, indicating that respondents had a fairly neutral stance towards credibility. This is perhaps because not much details were given on the fictious company and the charity, resulting in respondents being hesitant to respond with extreme opinions. The fairly neutral responses could also suggest that perhaps credibility of the source is not as important when looking at CSR communication effectiveness as argued in celebrity endorsement literature, or perhaps simply there was not enough data to achieve meaningful results.

The mean value for brand attitude was over the midpoint toward more positive statements. This suggests that for both conditions, respondents rated XtraFresh rather positive. However, it may not be accurate to argue that this is because of the credibility of the source, rather there may be various factors such as brand name or the product that may have influenced responses. Furthermore, the type of CSR activity, charitable giving, is likely to have created positive attitudes. Schmeltz (2012) suggest that the personal relevance of the CSR activity to the consumer is likely to be a critical factor in how attitudes are formed when processing messages, as argued in the Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo (2004) (Schmeltz, 2012). The chosen CSR message was very broad and deliberately unnamed in order to avoid a certain CSR initiative to influence results. Despite no details were given in regard to the charity, the relatively large amount of proceeds (50%) going to charity is probable to have created positive attitudes.

Furthermore, the mean values of the dependent variables were compared across the two sources of CSR communication. From observations it was proposed that there was no clear difference in credibility, but attitude and purchase intention were slightly higher for influencer condition. However, there was no statistically significant difference in results, suggesting that the slight difference in mean values are due to chance. This may be due to a relatively small sample size or the idea that the two sources are in fact very similar in the sense that the influencer content is still controlled by the company. Or simply the influencer is not considered any more credible than the company, suggesting that it is not more efficient in creating positive consumer responses.

As argued in literature, the multidimensional construct of credibility is often identified as source-dependent (Ohanian, 1991), suggesting that different sources of communication are seen with different degree of credibility. However, hypothesis 1 was rejected as there was no statistically significant difference between the CSR communication sources. However, influencers were rated slightly higher on the trustworthiness dimension, whereas the company was rated higher for the expertise. Indeed, there was a statistically significant difference in results for the dimensions separately. This seems logical, as influencer literature suggest that ‘normal people’ are more trustworthy. Moreover, companies are more experts as they have knowledge of whole range of factors regarding the company, compared to influencers who are paid to create content based on a brief.

Moreover, to examine the possible reasons why the credibility means had no significant difference between the two groups, we go back to the controllability and credibility trade-off (e.g. Du et al., 2010; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). It was argued that the higher company controllability the CSR communication has, the lower the credibility is because of higher skepticism. However, it was argued that influencers could thus be the ideal choice because it has some company-controlled nature, but the more personal approach would increase credibility. Nevertheless, the results of hypothesis 1 support the controllability-credibility trade-off, as it could be argued that paid influencer content is highly controlled by the firm, and hence the credibility was not higher for the influencer content than for the company. Indeed, results showed fairly similar credibility values. In fact, the value was slightly lower than the midpoint value suggesting that in fact respondents rated both sources as more so ‘not credible’ than ‘credible’. It is likely that results would have been different if instead of the influencer CSR content, a user generated post or eWOM, would have been used. These would have had a clearer non-company-controlled nature, thus imaginably higher perceived credibility.

Moreover, we could argue that because social media influencers are now commonly used by companies, it has perhaps reduced its effectiveness in terms of credibility. Indeed, consumers may not see influencers as ‘normal people’ anymore rather simply another advertising platform, as many influencers now promote company products for a living. Thus, consumers may be increasingly skeptical towards communication coming from influencers. Additionally, respondents may have perceived the influencer post to be professional content from the brand because of the endorsing nature of it and thus perhaps did not perceive the influencer to be any more credible than the company. Evidently the two posts were fairly identical with only the username being different and slight difference in the description.

whether credibility of the source does indeed differ in the context of CSR communication, especially in regard to newer communication sources such as social media influencers.

Furthermore, hypothesis 2 was confirmed: when respondents rated the source of the CSR communication more credible, their attitude toward the brand was also more positive. Likewise, when they rated credibility to be lower, brand attitudes were also relatively more negative. As argued, the source credibility model suggests that information coming from a credible source is like to increase communication persuasiveness and induce more positive attitudes and behavior (Wang et al., 2017; Ohanian, 1991). Even though respondents rated credibility in both conditions to be fairly low, this still correlated with the attitude they had. Hence, the results support the literature discussed before.

Interestingly, this relationship was stronger for the company condition than the influencer condition which suggests that the credibility of company CSR content is more likely to predict attitudes than influencer CSR content on Instagram. This may be because there is a clearer link between a company’s own social media content and attitude toward the brand as it is more evident who the sender of the message is. Perhaps due to this clearer link, respondents who viewed the company content to be more credible also had a more positive attitude. In other words, there was perhaps less confusion, which lead to solider results. Similarly, it could be argued that respondents exposed to the influencer condition may have interpreted the trustworthiness or expertise of the source of the message as either the influencer or the brand in question. Perhaps this statement was not so clear as a prompt to consider the username as the source of the message and thus the relationship between credibility and brand attitude was not as strong for the influencer condition as it was for the company condition, despite the fact that there was no statistically significant difference in the mean values of credibility.

intention was also stronger for the company condition. Compared to the influencer condition, this relationship followed more of a linear pattern for the company condition. This indicate that when companies use their own company Instagram page to promote CSR activities, the attitudes toward the brand are more likely to foretell purchase intentions.

Interestingly, it was found that the third hypothesis is slightly less strong than the credibility-attitude relationship. This could be because even if respondents rated their attitude to be positive, they may still not intend to purchase the product in question for various reasons. Even though the statement prompted the respondents to imagine themselves in need of the toothbrush in the picture, it is very likely that respondents responded with their personal need or want for a toothbrush. Hence, it is probable that the product in question was not something wanted by all respondents hence low purchase intentions. Also, it is likely that there was not enough information on the product or the brand for respondents to make that decision, hence perhaps responded along the midpoint.

7. Conclusion

The main research aim was to compare the effect of using the company itself vs. a social media influencer for CSR communication, on credibility, brand attitude and purchase intention. This was argued to be a timely topic because of indication that current CSR communication strategies may be inefficient due to low overall awareness of CSR initiatives and high consumer skepticism towards CSR advertising. An online experiment was conducted with two conditions: one Instagram post from a made-up influencer, and another from a fictious toothbrush brand. Results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in credibility between the two sources, however there was a significant difference in trustworthiness and expertise with trustworthiness being higher for the influencer condition and expertise higher for the company. Nevertheless, results suggested that the overall degree of credibility was the same for the two sources suggesting that the influencer is not more credible as predicted. However, results were fairly neutral overall likely due to the fact that not enough information was present for respondents.

Credibility was found to have a positive relationship with brand attitude, and brand attitude to have a positive relationship with purchase intention, as expected. However, the credibility-brand attitude relationship was slightly stronger perhaps due to the fact that there was not enough information to make strong purchase intention decisions. Interestingly, these positive relationships were stronger for the company condition, perhaps due to the fact that there was a clearer link between the company Instagram post and the brand, compared to the influencer and the brand. Nevertheless, this difference was not seen as a difference in credibility, which is interesting. Overall, the small sample size is likely to have caused insignificant results. Nevertheless, the few significant results that were obtained are argued to be of importance due to their presence despite the small sample size. More research is arguably needed to make solid conclusions.

7.1 Theoretical Implications

hypothesized. This may be due to a small sample size, similarity of the two conditions in terms of influencer content being controlled by the company, the idea that consumers are more aware and thus more skeptical of influencer marketing efforts today or simply perhaps the concept of credibility is not as important as argued before in terms of creating positive brand attitudes. Despite the insignificant results in credibility, this finding poses questions for further research in this field as there was in fact a statistically significant difference when comparing trustworthiness and expertise. This perhaps provides rationale to measure these as distinct dimensions. Furthermore, the outcomes provide insight into the relationship between credibility and brand attitudes as well as attitudes and purchase intentions, by extending and confirming current theory in a unique social media CSR communication context.

7.2 Managerial Implications

This study helps managers understand the efficiency question of using different CSR communication sources in regard to positive consumer responses. Companies should not be afraid to communicate CSR through internal sources, as there was no evidence that this is viewed more negatively by consumers. This study provides reasoning that managers should not distinguish sources as one being better than the other, rather identify that utilizing both together may be the most efficient strategy because one is rated more trustworthy and the other more of an expert. Indeed, using both creates multiple touchpoints with the target audience and can be used simultaneously to create a unified CSR message. Despite neutral perceptions toward credibility, the relatively positive brand attitudes suggest that CSR communication is still viewed positively. Likewise, the correlation between brand attitudes and purchase intentions, suggest that creating positive attitudes (through CSR activity promotion) can indeed lead to purchase intentions. However, it is important for managers to be aware that measuring purchase intentions does not necessarily equate to actual purchase behavior, as there may be an attitude-behavior gap. Nevertheless, measuring this may provide indication towards actual purchasing patterns, and thus considered worthwhile.

Indeed, there may be various factors that come into play when measuring consumer responses to CSR. Pivato et al. (2008) suggest that many factors should be considered at the individual level (e.g. personal values of consumers and their perceptions) and at the company level (e.g. the specific domain of the firm’s CSR activity). It is important to note that stakeholder expectations frequently change, thus a firms CSR communication strategy should be evaluated frequently (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). In other words, even if one CSR communication source is currently more efficient, this should be constantly evaluated as consumer preferences habitually change. Overall, these findings help marketing managers fine-tune their communication strategies and implement actionable decisions.

7.3 Limitations

It is important to note that the findings of this thesis do not come without limitations. These are discussed to see what factors could have impacted results with the prospect of these being addressed in future research. Some of these were noted before conducting the research, but carried out due to benefits outweighing drawbacks, however others were only acknowledged afterwards.

Methodological Limitations

One of the most significant shortcomings is sampling error. Only a fraction of the entire population of interest (Instagram users) could have been reached. Evidently, the sample size is very small compared to the entire population (one billion) and it is argued that respondents perhaps did not represent the wider population of Instagram users. Thus, it could be argued that the sample size is not big enough to make generalizations of the entire population, rather the findings are only applicable to the sample. To address this, future research could focus on a more narrow and specified population in order to make generalizations. Furthermore, in a larger sample size, results are less likely to be reflected by randomness.

selected, and thus results would have been more accurate in representing the entire population. However, for this to be feasible, a complete sampling frame would be needed, which is evidently not achievable for such a large population and the limited scope of a master’s thesis in regard to costs and time.

Artificial Setting

Instagram users usually see influencer or company posts in between other photos and thus it may not be a natural setting when asking respondents to observe a single post. It is unlikely that in an everyday setting these users would spend that long looking at one specific post. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a user would follow an unknown brand on Instagram however it is likely that they follow influencers, one of which could be promoting a brand’s CSR activities. Consumers who would be following a specific brand would probably already have more positive attitudes toward the brand and higher purchase intentions than those who did not know the brand.

Instagram Post Content

Low External Validity

Experimental designs tend to have high internal validity but low external validity meaning that it may be problematic to apply the findings to other situations. The results may not be applicable to a different Instagram post for example with a different brand, product category, image, description, CSR activity, or even for a different social media platform. Thus, applying findings to alternative contexts may be misleading. Therefore, it is recommended that more research explore this topic with different elements.

7.4 Future research Different Context

Because of low external validity in generalizing findings to other contexts, further research could be conducted in different contexts. Because of the moderately neutral responses to all variables, future research could benefit from experimenting with different types of CSR activities instead of a broad charitable giving. Using more specific cases in for example environmental concerns, could give more meaningful responses. Intriguingly some literature suggest that environmental causes are considered most important CSR activities and supposedly play an even more vital role than price in regard to purchase intentions (Schmeltz, 2012). Hence this type of CSR could be tested in more detail together with the source efficiency question. Moreover, different types of CSR communication platforms on social media could be tested, such as YouTube, as there is limited research on these rapidly expanding video platforms. The current study had a relatively small sample size that limited the aspiration to effectively test the impact of demographic factors. However, with a larger sample, future research could focus on comparing results across for example different generational cohorts and by controlling for an equal number of respondents in each category.

Manipulation Checks

Qualitative Research

References

Adparlor (2019). Ad Mockup Generator, Retrieved from: https://adparlor.com/ad-mockups/ Ali, I., Jimenez-Zarco, A. I., & Bicho, M. (2015). Using social media for CSR communication and engaging stakeholders. In Corporate social responsibility in the digital age (pp. 165-185). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Audrezet, A. & de Kerviler, G. (2019). How Brands Can Build Successful Relationships with Influencers, Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2019/04/how-brands-can-build-successful-relationships-with-influencers

Bai, X., & Chang, J. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: The mediating role of marketing competence and the moderating role of market environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2), 505-530.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24.

Bouquet, C., & Deutsch, Y. (2008). The impact of corporate social performance on a firm’s multinationality. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 755-769.

Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228-248.

Cortado, F. J., & Chalmeta, R. (2016). Use of social networks as a CSR communication tool. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1187783.

De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57(9), 1528-1545.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19.