Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17
Donald R. Lichtenstein, Minette E. Drumwright, & Bridgette M. Braig The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits Both theory and recent research evidence suggest that a corporation's socially responsible behavior can positively affect consumers’ attitudes toward the corporation. The effect occurs both directly and indirectly through the behaviors effect on customer-corporation identification. The authors report the resulls of four studies designed to replicate and extend these findings. Using a field survey design, Study 1 provides evidence that perceived corpo- rate social responsibilty affects not only customer purchase behavior through customer-corporate identification but also customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofit organizations. Using experimental designs, Studies 2 and 8 replicate and extend the Study 1 findings by providing additional evidence for the mediating role of ‘customer-corporate identification on the relationship between corporate social responsibilty and customer dona- tions. However, the combined results of Studies 2 and 3 also show that because of a ‘perceived opportunity to do good" by supporting a company that is changing its ways, consumers are more likely to donate to @ corporate- Supported nonprofit when the corporation has a weaker historical record of socially responsible behavior. Finally, Study 4 tests the relationship between the nonprofit domain and the domain of the corporation's socially responsi- ble behavior as a boundary condition for this effect various nonprofit organizations through various ini iatives, including philanthropy, cause-related mar- keting, employee volunteerism, and other innovative pro- ‘grams, For example, Avon has raised more than $200 million for breast cancer education and early detection ser- vices through the Avon Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade. Coca-Cola has signed an agreement to provide $60 million ‘and significant staff time to the Boys & Girls Clubs of ‘America over ten years. Starbucks is the largest North ‘American contributor to CARE, an international relief orga- nization with programs in coffee-growing countries.! Patag- ‘onia donates 1% of its sales to groups that are focused on E= ‘year, companies donate millions of dollars to We note that there often are normative debates about what is and wit is not CSR behavior, For example, Starbucks, which has ‘been lauded for its donations to CARE, has also been citcized for its expansion policy that allegedly drives out small independent companies and for its allegedly insufficient use of fair-trade coffee. Donald R Lichtenstein is Profesor of Marketing, Leeds Schoo! of Bus ness, University of Colorado, Boulder (e-mal’ Donald Lichtenstein Minette E. Drumaright is Associate Professor of Adverts ing, Colege of Communication, University of Texas at Austin (-nal morn @mailutexes. ecu). Bridgette M. Brag is an independent consul ‘ant (ema bridgetebreig@earthinkne) This research was funded by leeds Schoo! of Businoss Rescarch Grant to tho fist author and a research grant rom the University of Texas at Austin tothe second author. The authors gratefully acknowedge the comments and help of da Berger, Dipankar Chakravert, Amar Cheema, Peggy Cunningham, Chris aniszewst, Charles Judd, Peggy Sue Lor, John Lynch, Gary MC land, ick Netemeyer, H.W. Pery Jr, and Kelly Tian. 16/ Journal of Marketing, October 2004 environmental protection and restoration. Calphalon, a ‘gourmet cookware manufacturer, has raised millions of dol- lars to feed hungry people through its sponsorship of Share ‘Our Strength’s Taste of the Nation events. Home Depot donates materials and its employees to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. As these examples show, many com- panies engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) ini- tiatives (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; Strahilevitz and Mey cers 1998), Companies are called on to address deep and persistent social ills of great magnitude, ranging from mal- nutrition and HIV to illiteracy and homelessness (Margol and Walsh 2003). The Fortune cover story “America’s Cor- porate Social Conscience” (Ioannou 2004) and the more than $9 billion that U.S. companies alone spent on social ‘causes in 2001 (Cone, Feldman, and DaSilva 2003) provide further testament to corporate involvement with serious social problems. ‘The increase in CSR initiatives has been prompted both by companies that increasingly recognize it 8s @ key to suc ccess and by nonprofits that have ever-increasing needs for resources. Corporate social responsibility refers to the obligations of the firm to society (Smith 2003), and we use the term “CSR initiatives” to refer to the various forms of ‘company involvement with charitable causes and the non- profits that represent them.? Research findings provide sup- 2Yoint nonprofit-company initiatives now encompass a plethora fof approaches that extend beyond traditional corporate philan- thropy, which historically largely involved companies writing checks in response to fund-raising appeals (Drumuright and Mur- phy 2001), Nonproft-company initiatives have been refered to by various terms, including eause-related marketing, corporate social initiatives, joint issue promotion, sales-elated fund-raising, social Journal of Marketing Vol. 68 (October 2004), 16-32 port for the benefits that CSR initiatives provide companies, particularly in terms of enhanced consumer perceptions of the company (e.g., Brown and Dacin 1997; Drumwright 1996; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001), but more research is needed. In particular, little is known about the effects of CSR initiatives on nonprofits. Despite some obvious bene- fits, CSR initiatives ean be particularly risky for nonprofits, ‘which usually are the less powerful partner, and they may not ultimately serve the nonprofits long-term interests (Andreasen 2003; Berges, Cunningham, and Drumvight, in press). It is important not only that nonprofits benefit from CSR initiatives but also thatthe extent to which firms rake effective use of such relationships is ultimately inflv- enced by the benefits tothe nonprofits. Thus, the purpose of our research isto investigate effets of CSR initiatives on nonprofits and companies. ‘A way that CSR initiatives create benefits for compa- nies appears to be by increasing consumers” identification ‘with the corporation, or customer-corporate (CC) identifi- cation, which is the degree of overlap in a consumer's self- concept and his or her perception of the corporation (Dut- ton, Dukerich, and Harquail 1994). For example, when company undertakes a CSR initiative, to the extent thatthe initiative signals to consumers that the company has traits that overlap with their self-concept (e.g. civie minded, compassionate), consumers have higher degrees of identifi- cation with the company and, in tum, are more likely 0 support the company. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) manipu- late CSR to find that it positively affects CC identification In addition, CSR has a positive effect on consumer evalua- tions of the company, and this effect is partially mediated bby C-C identification. The rationale for the mediated effect is that when consumers perceive companies behaving in 1 socially responsible manner, they are more attractive tar- gets for C-C identification, and they are more likely to sup- port corporations with which they identify We extend this rationale to hypothesize that CSR- induced C-C identification leads not only to customer sup- port for the corporation but also to increased support for nonprofits that the corporation supports. This rationale is based on the premise that when a company visibly aligns with a nonprofit, consumers may reasonably infer that sup- port of the nonprofit is also support of a goal ofthe corpo- zation with which they identify: Although researchers have recognized benefits that acerue to the entities directly involved in the identification process (e.g., Ashforth 1998; Dutton, Dukerich, and Har- quail 1994; Elsbach 1998; Glynn 1998; Sen and Bhat- tacharya 2001), (0 our knowledge, mo research has addressed benefits that may accrue to third parties to the identification process, such as nonprofits. As collaborative ‘marketing relationships flourish in Various forms (e.., CSR initiatives, cabeanding, eross-promotions, strategic alliances) it is particulaly important to understand any potential effects of identification on third parties. Our Alliances, and corporate community involvement (Andreasen 2003; Berger, Cunningham, and Drumvright 2004; Hess, Rogov- sky, and Dunfee 2002). Although such {quately represent the totality of @ firm's CSR, they are typically ‘esigned tobe expressions oF it research addresses this void with respect to third partis in the context of CSR initiatives that involve both companies and nonprofits. Conceptual Underpinnings and Rationale Over the past 15 years or so, organizational behavior researchers have studied the process by which people (usu- ally employees) come to identify with some organization (usually the employer company). Researchers have coined the term “organizational identification’ to refer tothe over- lap of a person's self-perceptions with his or her percep- tions about the organization. For example, Dutton, Duk- ctich, and Harquail (1994, p, 242) define organizational identification as “a cognitive link between the definitions of the organization and the self.” They also note that “when {people] identify strongly with the organization, the atrib- Utes they use to define the organization also define them" (p. 239). The concept has moved beyond the employee to others, such as the consumer (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). A factor tat is hypothesized to underlie consumer mot vation to identify with an organization is the perceived attractiveness of the organization’s identity. People identify with organizations with which they believe, or with which they want to believe, that they share common traits and that provide for a sense of selfenhancement (Ashforth 1998; Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995; Elsbach 1998; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Thus, corporations attempt to position themselves in an attractive manner to increase consumer identification with the corporation. With the application of this logic to the present study, when a corporation behaves in a manner that is perceived as socially responsible, con- ssumers are likely to infer that it has certain desirable traits that resonate with their sense of self, As a result, consumers ‘re more prone to identify with the corporation; in so doing, they behave in a manner that supports the corporation's goals. For example, consumers who are aware of Timber land’s CSR initiative with City Year, a youth service corps that works with disadvantaged urban youth, might infer that Timberland is compassionate and civic minded.3 If the same customers believe that they too have these traits and thus identify with Timberland, they are more likely to sup- por Timberland by buying its products. There is evidence to support this contention (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001), and Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) theorize that the range of identification-driven behaviors extends beyond patronage to include behaviors that support other corporate goals, such 25 company promotion, customer recruitment, and resilience to negative corporate information. Our research hypothesizes that consumers’ identifica- tion with a corporation may lead to their support of addi tional corporate goals that have more direct implications for the welfare of third parties to the identification process, namely nonprofits with which the corporation is affiliate. it that when a socially responsible corporation is vis- aligned with a nonprofit cause, corporate customers For a description of the Timberland-City Year initiatives, see Austin (2000). Customer Donations to Nonprofits /17 ccan reasonably infer that support of the cause is a goal of the corporation. As such, to the extent that customers iden- ‘ify with the corporation, they are more likely to support the particular nonprofit cause and the corporation. Thus, we hhypothesize that the perception of CSR positively affects C-C identification; through that identification, customers are ‘more likely to support directly the nonprofits thatthe corpo- ration supports and the corporation itself (see Figure 1). Study 1 We assessed constructs depicted in Figure 1 in afield sur- vey of 1000 customers at four locations of a national food chain (n = 250, per store), two in each of two different nearby cities over a twovday period. As shoppers paid for their groceries, tained interviewers positioned at the end of the checkout aisles observed whether they handed the cashier a frequent shopper card. We restricted the sample to only consumers who used a frequent shopper card because ‘we could track one of the dependent variables (i.e, year-to- date dollars spent atthe store) for only customers who used the frequent shopper card. Interviewers approached the shoppers as they exited the cashier line and asked for their participation in a customer perception study that was con- ducted by professors from a local university. If a shopper agreed to participate, the interviewer asked the shopper to surrender his or her cash register receipt and to answer a few questions. Respondents then were given a take-home survey with a postage-paid return envelope addressed to the university and two $3.00 vouchers to encourage participa- tion. The customer’s store receipt, survey, and vouchers were all erass-coded with identification numbers. The two $3.00 vouchers were in the form of two postage-paid post- cars addressed to corporate headquarters, either or both of which could be used as cash in the store or mailed to the corporation, which in turn would make a donation to a non- profit that it supports. The reverse side was a postage-paid postcard. The vouchers were valid for purchases or dona- tion for three weeks from the time of the study. The voucher side of the card is shown in Figure 2. Before conducting the study, we pretested the entire procedure, ‘The take-home survey contained measures of several of the study constructs. All scale items, descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and sources are provided (for all stud- ies) in the Appendix. We measured perception of CSR with a five-item scale that assessed perceptions of the corpora tion's commitment to giving back to the community by sup- porting nonprofits through both traditional philanthropy (e., check writing in response to nonprofit fund-raising appeals) and newer forms of CSR initiatives that involve integrating charitable activities into business activities (Dromwright and Murphy 2001; Hess, Rogovsky, and Dun- fee 2002). We measured C-C identification by having sub- jects complete a trait-matching battery of 12 character ‘rails. Subjects were provided with 12 traits and asked t0 circle the 5 that best described themselves and the 5 that Dest described the corporation, We then used the number of ‘raits that customers circled as being common to themselves ‘and the corporation (0-S) as a measure of C-C identifica tion. The traits were based on interviews with corporate per- sonnel and customers. We assessed benefits that accrue to the corporation by two different constructs: perceptual benefits and behavioral benefits, We operationalized perceptual benefits by stan- FIGURE 1 The Effect of Perceptions of CSR and C-C Ident ation on Corporate and Nonprofit Benefits (€-Cidentification Nonprofit Donations. Behavioral Corporate Benefits “Percentage of ‘shopping done at store “Year-to-date purchases: Perceptual Corporate Benefits “Store loyalty ‘Emotional attachment to the store +Store interest 18 / Journal of Marketing, October 2004 FIGURE 2 Donations and Cash Vouchers for Study 1 ‘CU would like to thank you for participating in the CU “research project by giving you the opportunity to danate back to "your community @¢ to get a discount on your next purchase, ‘Notes: We sanitized the voucher card hereto Conceal the Kenily af the corporation. Th that supported many local nonprofits dardizing and then summing three different measures: (1) a three-item measure that assessed customer loyalty to the store, (2) a fouritem measure that assessed emotional attachment to the store, and (3) a single-item measure that assessed customer interest in leaming more about the store. We assessed behavioral benefits by standardizing and then summing two measures: (1) a single-item measure through which customers estimated the percentage of their total gro- cery shopping done at the store and (2) the year-to-date total dollar purchases at the store, printed on the grocery receipt of each customer (printed for all customers who used a frequent shopper card). Because we conducted the study in mid-November, we coded the ten-and-a-half month cumulative dollar amount spent at the store for each cus- tomer (X = $1,103.09, range = $0-$8,855.00, standard deviation [s.4.] = $1,294.64), ‘We operationalized nonprofit donation asthe customer's decision of whether to use the $3,00 vouchers as cash or to donate them to a nonprofit that the corporation supports ‘Thus, each customer could have a score of O (did not donate either voucher), | (donated one voucher), or 2 (donated both vouchers) (X = .60, range = 0-2, s.d. = 87). Results For the 1000 customers across the four stores who were approached and who agreed to participate in the survey, Wwe deemed 31 of the surveys unusable for various reasons (e.g., iret nonprofit onthe card was a corporate foundation ‘customer was an off-duty store employee). Of the 969 respondents who completed the in-store interviews, 508 take-home surveys were completed and mailed back (response rate = 52.4%). OF the 2000 $3.00 vouchers dis- tributed (2 for each of 1000 people), 314 people redeemed a total of 582 for either cash (419) or donation (163). Con- 4Sample sizes reported in the rogression analyses for the voucher dependent variable are smaller than for other dependent ‘variables for two reasons. First, because of administrative error, there were several missing values for voucher redemptions. Many ‘of the customers who redeemed the voucher for cash cu along the ‘dashed line (See Figure 2) and redeemed oaly the inner portion of the voucher, However, we had placed the unique respondent iden- tification number in the upper-ight-hand comer ofthe card; thus, we were unable to match the survey responses ot cash register receipts to vouchers of customers who did this. For coding pur- poses, we coded the donation variable as 2 for people who mailed Jn both vouchers, as 1 for people who mailed in one voucher, and 88 0 fr people who did not mail in ether voucher but for whom ‘ve had a valid (ie. respondent identification present) redemption for cash. The effect was that we treated some of the cash redemp- tions as missing values, and we based the interpretation of the onation variable on the population for which we knew either donated the voucher or used it as cash Although we do not believe tha this resulted in any bias, in Studies 2 and 3, there were no missing data on the donation choice variable, and the results were consistent with those of Study 1. The second factor undeeying reduced sample sizes for analyses involving the voucher depen- dent variable pertained to missing values on measures we used as Customer Donations to Nonprofits / 19 sistent with the store’s target market, the 508 customers who returned their take-home survey were socioeconomi- cally “upscale.” The median age group was 35-44, 79% of the sample was female, the median income was $50,000- 364,999, and the median education was college graduate. Tests of Predictions The results of regression analyses that test hypothesized relationships are reported in Table 1, where each row repre- sens a separate regression model. The dependent variables are in the first column, and the independent variables entered into the equation for each of the respective regres- sion models are in subsequent columns, As Table 1 shows, perception of CSR was related to perceptual corporate ben efits (p < 01), and perceptual corporate benefits were posi tively related to behavioral comporate benefits (p< 01). Fur- thermore, perception of CSR was related to C-C identification (p < .01), and C-C identification was related to perceptual corporate benefits (p < 01). Finally, C-C ‘identification was related to nonprofit donations (p <.01), Discussion Findings of Study 1 provide support for the proposition that the beneficiaries of organizational identification are broader than has previously been conceptualized, In addition to ben- efits that accrue to organizations and individuals, Study 1 provides evidence that customers who identify more strongly with the corporation are more likely to donate 10 corporate-supported nonprofits. The findings from Study 1 also are consistent with the proposition that CSR has both a direct and an indirect effect, through C-C identification, on corporate benefits. Although Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) find evidence in support of this by manipulating CSR and independent variables fo predict voucher redemptions in the regression analyses. Specifically, some of the 314 voucher redeemers did not return a survey. Thus, for analyses for which we assessed predictor variables in the survey, sample sizes were fur ther reduced. Follow-up analyses revealed no significant iffer- ‘ences on several variables aseessed during the store encounter between voucher redeemers who did and did not return theit surveys assessing student subject response in a lab setting, our research provides support in a field setting with actual shop- pers as subjects and actual purchase behavior as a depen- dent variable. Thus, the results of the two studies jointly provide support for the internal and external validity of our finding, However, our findings must be considered in light of the study limitations, most of which pertain to the use of a cor: relational field design. For example, three limitations include the inferring of construct sequence from cross- sectional data, respondent self-selection, and the possibility of omitted variable bias. Another limitation is the missing values in the data in general and (partially due to adminis- tration error) the voucher redemption variable in particular. In addition, there are theoretical questions about the opera tionalization of CSR. We operationalized CSR using mea- sures of the corporation's commitment to supporting non- profits. However, CSR has been conceptualized more broadly as the company’s status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations (Brown and Dacin 1997; Hess, Rogovsky, and Dunfee 2002; Sen and Bhat tacharya 2001; Smith 2003). Thus, our measures may tunderrepresent the CSR construct. The generalization of results to the CSR construct would be enhanced by a broader operationalization with regard to how the corpora tion performs its core business activities. Consequently, given the number of remaining questions about the influ- tence of CSR on donation behavior, we conducted a second study, Study 2 In Study 2, 61 subjects enrolled in marketing courses were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions. Subjects were given an experimental packet that consisted of four pages (the second page contained the manipulation) followed by several pages of dependent measures. Subjects were told that the experimenters were working with a com- pany that produced computers and calculators, which, for reasons of confidentiality, would simply be referred to as Company X in the materials that they would read. They TABLE 1 OLS Regression Unstandardized Betas for Study 1 Variables Independent Variables Perceptual Perception co Corporate Degrees of Model R2/ Dependent Variables ofCSR Identification Benefits Freedom Model F__ Adjusted R? Perceptual corporate benefits 20" 1,428 95.58" 181.18 er 1,475 48.56" ‘09/09 18" 5a 2427 63.07" 24124 Behavioral corporate benefits am ari 26.18" 15/15 os" 1, 446 9:70" ‘02/02 01 3" 2, 425 38.097" 151.15 (©-C identification os" 1449 9.877" Nonprofit donations 15" sait 8.35" 02 1, 189 228 ot 14 2) 188 440" 20/ Journal of Marketing, October 2004 ‘were fold that Company X was researching to gain informa- tion for input into a decision about whether it should offer a ‘unique type of promotion. However, subjects were told that before they “responded” to the promotion, they needed to hhave an understanding of Company X and its corporate practices and attitudes so that they would be able to evalu- ate the promotion in context. Company X"s corporate prac tices then were presented in a scenario description that served as the manipulation. The positive condition explained that Company X had been a “pioneer” in issues of combating sweatshop conditions in overseas manufactur- ing, and the negative condition explained that Company X had been a “laggard” on this issue (this is the exact CSR manipulation that Sen and Bhattacharya [2001] use. Because Sen and Bhattacharya show these manipulations to have an effect on C-C identification, our use of them increased our confidence that we would obtain the neces- sary variance in C-C identification to test for its effect on the outcome variable of primary interest (ie., nonprofit donations). This manipulation of CSR is also broader and more encompassing of the construct as Brown and Dacin (1997), Hess, Rogovsky, and Dunfee (2002), Sen and Bhat- tacharya (2001), and Smith (2003) conceptualize than that in Study 1 Afier reading the scenario, subjects were told that to understand the promotion that Company X was considering, it would help to review a Barnes & Noble promotion, because Company X’s promotion would be patterned after it The experimenter then reviewed an actual Barnes & Noble promotion with the subjects to make certain that they understood it (see Figure 3). As Figure 3 shows, the promo- tion allowed existing customers of Barnes & Noble to receive a 5% commission for referring new customers to Bames & Noble, or customers could elect to have the com- mission donated directly to one of five nonprofits that Bames & Noble supports. The experimenter then told sub- jects that given Company X's record on sweatshop opera- tions, they were considering a similar promotion. Subjects then reviewed a description of the product that Company X was considering placing on promotion (ie., the Model #XP15 calculator) and the promotion itself. The promotion was described as follows: Given its record on issues of international fair labor prac- tices, Company X is considering inoducing a new “Inter- national Fair Labor Partnership Program” on its best- selling calculator (Model #XP15). The International Fair Labor Partnership Program is designed to representa pat netship between Company X and nonprofit organizations that have increasing monitoring of fair Isbor practices in “less-developed countries,” especially manufacturing “sweatshops:" as their focus. The program would run, trough Company X's online ordering on its Web site Here is how it would work: 1LA customer visits Company X's Web site to purchase the Model #XPIS5 caleulator 2, The customer will be abe to click on one of the following ‘wo pricing options. This description was followed by two boxes that were designed to look like Web-clickable boxes. In each of the two boxes, the pricing option was named (see the Appen- dix), Directly under each box was a description that detailed the implications of choosing the particular pricing option. ‘The first box contained the text “You Pay the 5% Dis- counted Price of $123.45, You Save $6.50” and was accom- panied by the text “Ifthe customer chooses this option, the customer keeps the 5% ($6.50) discount.” The second box contained the text “You Pay the Regular Price of $129.95, You Donate $6.50 to Nonprofits” and was accompanied by the following text Ifthe customer chooses this option, the customer gets to donate 5% ($6.50) of the purchase price to a nonprofit ‘organization that has promoting interational fair labor practices as its goal, Clicking on this option brings up a Web page where five different fair labor practice-related ‘nonprofits appear on the screen, and the customer can click on the one that he ar she wants to receive the $6.50 donation ‘The experimenter then verbally reviewed the promotion with subjects to ensure that all subjects understood it, after Which subjects responded to the dependent measures on the pages that followed. Respondents then were debriefed and thanked for their participation, Dependent Measures Dependent measures included a five-item manipulation check scale to assess the success of the experimental manip: ulation. Because subjects might respond differentially 10 a given nonprofit cause on the basis of the importance of the cause (0 them, we added a six-item scale to assess the per- ceived importance of issues in the manufacturing sweatshop domain. As we noted previously, we developed the opera- tionalization of C-C identification used in Study 1 and cus- tomized it to the specific natural foods supermarket that represented the target of identification. Given this and our use of Sen and Bhattacharya's (2001) scenario manipula- tions in Study 2, we also assessed the C-C identification construct with the same two operationalizations that they used and showed to be sensitive to the scenario manipula tions across two studies. The first ofthe two measures is a Euclidean distance measure based on subjects” responses 19 40 scale items that assessed perceptions of both themselves and Company X across 20 common traits. The second mea- sure we used to assess C-C identification was Bergami and Bagozzi’s (2000) seven-point, single-item identity circle measure of the overlap between self and organization. We coded the two measures of C-C identification so that higher values reflected higher identification, and we standardized and summed them to form a two-item scale Finally, subjects responded to two donation measures. ‘The first measure assessed probability of donation om a seven-point scale. The second measure was a dichotomous donation choice measure. We initially standardized and summed the wo measures to form an overall measure. However, because analyses showed that the dichotomous measure was more sensitive o the manipulation and other study constructs, we used it alone for testing the hypothe- sized relationships. Customer Donations to Nonprofits /21 FIGURE 3 Barnes & Noble Prom: SHARE YOUR LOVE OF BOOKS (and share some of the profit) Earn money for your favorite charity or yourself whenever someone you know ‘buys books from through.. @wybolink” Transforming e-commerce through e-mail tom DN WHAT IS MybaLink'? vba an cing i progr ht line or aa chs ot intr Npbinallone Jou to eed your lends snd nny to becom tig ata a in poet ‘Ar hiybaLisk mcmber, you got any lala fered sgh your ls acl EARN MONEY FOR YOUR FAVORITE CHARITY OR FOR YOURSELF Ab MpbLink member you can choose to donste ening ane a fe taional hares, ora he profiyouell berenndte com wil do donee ‘radio ofall ert Bt Book the natin ronnie doi millon of ened caliente oe & GET A FREE E-MAIL ADDRESS FROM MAIL.COM yo dont have your ew roa addes, of want 1 cond one, you ca ge oe ee from al com {Me offical eal provider for Mink. Wa eyo vir op Jo got maihcom and imply follow the nntretions TO FIND OUT MORE LOG ON TO @ Mybning ‘Notes: Used with permission Tests of Predictions Before testing the predictions, we conducted an analysis of variance fo assess the success of the experimental manipu- lation. The effect of the manipulation on the manipulation check was significant (Fy, 99 = 128.74, p < 01, and X 14,90 and 29.22 for negative and positive conditions, respectively). The results of regression analyses that test the relationships between study variables are reported in Table 22/ Journal of Marketing, October 2004 2. As Table 2 shows, when the CSR manipulation was the sole predictor, it had a direct effect on C-C identification (p < 01) but not on nonprofit donations. In addition, the bivariate relationship between C-C identification and non- profit donations was not significant, but when we used both CSR and C-C identification as predictors of nonprofit donations, both were significant (p < 05). However, the direct effect of the CSR record was unexpectedly negative: TABLE 2 OLS and Logistic Regression Unstandai 1d Betas for Study 2 Variables Independent Variables Nonprofit, Degrees Model F/ Manipulation cc Domain of -2 Log- Model F2/ Dependent Variables of CSR Identification Importance Freedom Likelihood __ Adjusted Re (C-€ identification 285" 1,55 0.3" 1591.59 "Nonprofit donations 10 i 70.87 o1 <7 1 75.28 03 3.30" 84 2 63.01" 13 -274 75 08 3 61.25" 16 p< 0. For logistic regressions, this i the log-tkelihood rato; n akon, the significance level refers to the fikehood ratio chi-square, For logistic regression, the Ri? values are Cox ana Snell's F? values. Notes: We estimated models using OLS and logistic regression for cortinuousidichotomous dependent varlables. For ease of readailty, we indicate logistic models fr which there is a single numeric valve for degrees of freedom. A positive record on fighting sweatshops led to a decrease in customer donations. Thus, CSR had a direct, negative cffect on donation choice and an indirect, positive effect on donation choice through C-C identification. Finally, non- profit domain importance did not significantly affect dona- tion behavior (nor was it affected by the manipulation). Discussion of Results Consistent with Study 1, Study 2 provides evidence for the indirect, positive effect of CSR on donation behavior, through C-C identification, However, Study 2 also provides ‘an unexpected finding: When the CSR record is accompa- nied by C-C identification as a second predictor, it has a direct, negative effect on nonprofit donations. It seems to be ‘counterintuitive that a positive record on social issues leads to fewer nonprofit donations in the particular domain while also leading to increased identification (Studies 1 and 2), increased donations as a result of identification (Studies 1 and 2), and more favorable corporate perceptions (Study 1). However, itis possible that consumers identify with a cor- poration that “does the right thing” (thereby leading to increased corporate benefits) but do not believe that corpo- rations should ask consumers to donate directly to nonprof- its, Perhaps by supporting socially responsible corporations with their purchases, consumers believe that they have done their share (e., they have “given at the office”; Andreasen ‘and Drumwright 2001) and thus that corporations cross a boundary when they ask consumers to make additional donations. Given the potential implications of this finding, ‘we conducted a third study to explore this effect further. Study 3 We designed Study 3 on the basis of Study 2, but we included additional measures to asess possible explana: tions forte negative effect of CSR on donations. We added a three-item scale to assess the “corporate boundary” expla- nation we provided previously Furthermore, after the dona- tion choice measure we added an open-eaded question tht asked subjects about the reasons for their choice. Finally we assessed the seven-point donation probability scale along with the dichotomous choice measure. We standard: ized and summed the measures as the operationalization of donation choice. Coding of Open-Ended Responses Before we tested study relationships, responses to the open- ended question were coded into categories. The experi- menter first read through all responses and, on the basis of| the reading, constructed ten categories. Then, two coders ‘who were blind to the experimental conditions indepen- dently coded each of the responses across alten categories. Three categories emerged that contained enough responses to be relevant and that did not overlap with factors already assessed by scale items. They were “to save money” (ie., frugality), “negative attributions about Company X,” and “perceived opportunity to do good.” Coder agreement across categories was 100%, 99%, and 91%, respectively. Discrepancies between coders were reconciled after discus- sion with the experimenter. Tests of Predictions Before testing the predictions, we conducted an analysis of variance to assess the success of the manipulation. The cffect of the manipulation on the manipulation check was highly significant (F,,99 = 500.45, p< .O1, X = 8.24 and 28.43 for negative and positive conditions, respectively), ‘The results of the regression analyses that test study rela- tionships are reported in Table 3, Consistent with results of Studies 1 and 2, the CSR ‘manipulation positively affected C-C identification. Also consistent with Study 2, when we used the CSR manipula- tion and C-C identification simultaneously as predictors of ‘nonprofit donations, both were significant (p < .05). Fur- thermore, the direction of effects was consistent with the results in Study 2; C-C identification had a positive effect and CSR had a negative effect on donations. To investigate the relationship between CSR and dona- tion choice further, we added the additional variables assessed in Study 3 to the analysis, First, we individually Customer Donations to Nonprofits / 23 ‘2105 @ 5] ovo YoIY 10} sjopow onS!60, 2y2pU! am KNGEDEEL Jo o6Be Jo4 “SIGE “arenbs-up ones pooway ato} si4o: Jans soueDHUGIS Ou ‘wop2s 1 $98:89p 10} one p60} pus S10 Buss sjapou ps fepuedp snoworo\p/snonu0D en 2 aa Iss nS sways eee 108P ee ~56 08 20 50 eh wae = 10160 wae $82 er wei 00/00 90 06" 60 20/40 eee 98" ze so .ghe8 1 +1851 pOo6 op of ‘fauroddo ansaid er ghee ' Lee- 0 ‘eneon 090 ze 98" 08% Wap! =) i —-ePOOwIENT] —wiopeey —«poon—=—AyeBnza_—souepunog eoueuoduy suopnqumy un «SO jOUON —_—sejqeuen paisnipyied — -B01z~ jo seaiBoq 0g 0) Ayu ‘aieiodiog —ujewog——yesodiog —-eoynuep) —-eindueyy—yuepuadeg, fepow 14. POW -muoddo jorduon —_eane6 aN oo Penlooieg SorqeHea wepuedepuy Se1qeHeA € APMS 40) Se1eq PezIPiepUEISUN UO|SSe:B0y 991607 PUe S10 ea7avL 24 Journal of Marketing, October 2004 regressed corporate boundary, domain importance, frugal- ity, negative Company X attributions, and perceived oppor- tunity to do good on the manipulation using ordinary least squares (OLS) or logistic regression as appropriate. Corpo- rate boundary, domain importance, and frugality were not affected by the manipulation; however, both negative attri: butions toward Company X and perceived opportunity to do ‘200d were affected by it (both at p < 01, see the second and third regression models in Table 3). Second, we regressed donation behavior on frugality, negative Company X attributions, corporate boundary, domain importance, organizational identification, perceived opportunity to do good, and the CSR manipulation. As is shown in the last regression model in Table 3, with the exception of the CSR manipulation, all variables were sig- nificant (p< .05 or better) and in the hypothesized direc- tion, Follow-up analyses showed that when perceived ‘opportunity to do good was absent/present in the model, the CSR manipulation hadsdid not have (p < 01 and p > 10, respectively) a negative effect on the donation measure, and this was the only variable that mediated the negative rela- tionship. In line with Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger's (1998) procedures, with all other variables in the model, perceived ‘opportunity to do good completely mediated the effect of the CSR manipulation (2 = 4.37, p<.01), Discussion of Results ‘The findings in Study 3 replicate and extend findings from Studies 1 and 2. Of particular interest in Study 3 is the neg: ative relationship between CSR and consumer donation behavior. This negative effect may be generated by a differ- tential negative influence on respondents in the positive sce- nario to give or a differential positive influence on those in the negative condition to give. From our review of the nature of the open-ended responses to perceived opportu- nity t© do good, it seemed that many respondents stated motivations that could not be present in the positive condi- tion, For example, a more frequent reason that was coded in this category was the “desire to help Company X change its “ways” of, in other words, to help rehabilitate Company X. This represents a motivation to give in the negative condi tion that is not present in the positive condition, and it results in the negative relationship mediated by perceived ‘opportunity to do good. Thus, from a substantive perspec- tive, the mediated negative effect of CSR on customer dona- tions is a positive outcome for nonprofits because it reflects a desire for consumers who were in the negative condition to donate rather than a motivation for consumers in the pos- itive condition not to donate. That said, an issue that remains unaddressed by the ‘Study 2 and 3 results pertains to boundary conditions for the negative relationship between CSR and donation behav- ior. Specifically, an aspect of the promotion that may have implications for this relationship is the connectedness of the nonprofit domain to that of Company X's CSR record. In both Swidies 2 and 3, consumers could choose to donate to cone of five charities that targeted unfair labor practices in foreign manufacturing operations, which was the exact domain in which Company X had a poor record of CSR ‘behavior (in the negative condition). Seemingly, for con- sumers in the negative condition to be motivated to give, they would need to perceive Company X as sincere about changing its ways. Thus, when the nonprofits were in the same domain as when Company X had previously behaved in a socially irresponsible manner, there was a “match” in that Company X was undertaking behavior to address its previous negative behavior, However, considera situation in Which the nonprofits are in a domain other than that in which Company X has a poor record of CSR behavior (e.z., increasing the reading skills of youths). Consumers may be less likely to perceive this as a sincere effort on the part of ‘Company X to change its ways because the company is silent about whether it is trying to “right its wrongs.” Rather, consumers may make some other attribution (e.2., a public relations ploy). Consequently, as a boundary condi- tion on the direct, negative relationship found in Studies 2 ‘and 3, there is reason to expect that the nonprofit domain ‘must be connected to the domain in which Company X had previously behaved in a socially iresponsible manner. We designed Study 4 to test for this boundary condition Study 4 ‘We designed Study 4 on the basis of Studies 2 and 3, nd the major differences are the addition of a second independent variable and the inclusion of additional dependent mea- sures. Specifically, 115 subjects participated in one of four experimental sessions ina 2x 2 between-subjects design in which cach of the four sessions was randomly assigned to one ofthe experimental conditions. We used the same oper. ationalization of CSR behavior as in Suulies 2 and 3, 50 Company X had either @ postive or a negative record in overseas manufacturing practices (coded as 1 and 0, respec tively). The other variable was connectedness of the non- profit domain tothe domain of Company X’s previous CSR. behavior. n the connected condition, the nonprofits were the same as in Studies 2 and 3: They had “promoting interna tional far labor practices” as their goal (coded as 1). Inthe tunconnected condition, they had “increasing the reading skis of America’s youth as their goal (coded as 0), Dependent measures included C-C identification, cor: porate boundaries, and nonprofit donations, all of which we assessed as in Study 3. We also included two single-item measures to capture frugality and negative comporate atti butions, both of which were open-ended variables in Study 3. We also measured nonprofit domain importance in Stady 4. However, because we manipulated the nonprofit domain in Study 4, we developed new measures that, with minimal akterstion of wording, assessed nonprofit domain impor- tance for overseas manufacturing practices and reading skills of US. youths, respectively. In addition, we included to variables to assess their potential impact on donation choice. First, we included a single-item measure to assess respondents” self-perceptions of social consciousness, Sec ond, onthe bass of Hess, Rogovsky, and Duafee's 2002) 50n the basis ofthe suggestion of a reviewer, we also dropped the introductory pase “Given its record on issues of international {aie labor practices” from the description ofthe promotion, ‘Customer Donations to Nonprofits / 25 contention that CSR is evidenced by corporate programs that reflect the core values of the firm, we included a mea- sure that assessed this perception (which we called “promo~ tional consistency with core values"). Results ‘The results of regression analyses for Study 4 are provided in Table 4, Consistent with previous studies, CSR had a positive effect on C-C identification (p < .01), as did con- nectedness (p< .05, see the first model). As in Study 3, CSR negatively affected the propensity for respondents to make negative attributions toward Company X (p <.01, see the second model). In addition, CSR positively affected respondent perception that the promotion was consistent with Company X's core values (p < .01, see the third model). Finally, respondents perceived the connected non- profit domain (fair labor practices) as significantly less ‘important than the unconnected domain (reading kills) (p< 05, se the fourth model). None of the ther variables were affected by the manipulations. "The results relevant to the central question motivating Swudy 4 are provided in the final model in Table 4. There is a significant interaction between the two manipulated vari- ables (p < 05) Replicating the results of Studies 2 and 3, the tests of the simple effects show that when the nonprofit domain was connected, the effect of CSR on donation behavior was negative (beta = -1.23, p < 05). However, ‘when the nonprofit domain was unconnected, CSR had no effect on donation behavior (p > .10).§ Beyond this effect, nonprofit domain importance and promotional consistency ‘with core values both positively affected nonprofit dona- ns (p <.05 and p <.01, respectively), and frugality nega- tively affected nonprofit donations (p < .01). However, inconsistent with previous studies, C-C identification and corporate boundaries filed to affect donation choice. Given the centrality of the relationship between C-C identification and nonprofit donations to the current investi- zation, in conjunction with the findings in Studies 1-3 of a significant relationship between the two variables, we per- formed additional analyses to gain insights into the non- significant relationship between CC identification and nonprofit donations in Study 4. Specifically, we estimated three models in which we first regressed the donation vasi- able on C-C identification; tnen on C-C identification, CSR. record, and connectedness; and finally on C-C identifiea- tion, CSR record, connectedness, and CSR record x con- Because ofa loss of statistical power, our spliting the sample ‘on the basis of the level of the connectedness manipulation and ‘our investigating the effect of CSR on donation choice revealed ‘nonsignificant effets in bath levels of connectedness. However, 0 aid substantive interpretation of dhe overall interaction, we esti- ‘mated both models, The resulls showed that for the unconnected condition, the unstandardized beta for CSR record was -.16, =.28, and p <_78, These values for the connected condition were =1,00,==1.29, and p< 22, respectively. Thus, considering these effects in the context of the significant overall interaction (and the Significant simple effect) forthe total sample, the effect of CSR on donation choice was negative in the connected condition but notin the unconnected condition, 26 / Journal of Marketing, October 2004 nectedness, The unstandardized beta and associated signifi- ‘cance level for C-C identification in the three models was 19 (p < 06), 21 (p< 12), and 19 (p < .15), respectively. ‘The near-significant bivariate effect in the first modal, in conjunction with the decreasing level of statistical signifi- cance as we added the additional independent variables, suggests that the lack of an effect is at least partially the result of collinearity between C-C identification with the other independent (and manipulated) variables. The signifi- cant effect of both manipulations on C-C identification is consistent with this explanation. Furthermore, the reduced beta estimate (in relation to the .19 bivariate beta estimate) of C-C identification in Table 4 suggests that some explana- tory power of C-C identification is attenuated by the addi- tional independent variables estimated in the final model in Table 4. In particular, the respondent's perception of promo- tional consistency with core values in Study 4 was corre: lated with C-C identification and nonprofit donations at 66 and .31, respectively. Thus, when we added this variable as, a predictor to the third model, the unstandardized beta for ‘C-C identification dropped from -I9 to O1. This was the only added variable in Study 4 that produced such a drastic ‘effect. Because this variable was only present in Study 4, it accounts for much of the obtained difference in the relation- ship between C-C identification and nonprofit donations ‘compared with that in the previous studies. General Discussion ‘The results of our four studies (one field-based survey and three follow-up laboratory experiments) provide support for the notion that CSR behavior can result in (1) an array of corporate benefits (e.g., more favorable corporate evalua- tions, increased purchase behavior) and (2) increased non- profit benefits in the form of consumer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. The relationships we found among all constructs investigated across the four studies provide general support for the model provided in Figure 4, CSR and Corporate Benefits ‘The Study 1 results provide evidence that CSR has both a direct and an indirect effect, through C-C identification, on perceptual corporate benefits, which in turn translate into behavioral corporate benefits. These findings, which we obtained in a natural field setting using consumer purchases as a measure of behavioral corporate benefits, support the extemal validity of benefits that companies can realize through CSR. Given the convergence of results from Study. 1 with the results ofthe Inb experiment of Study 2 and with ‘Sen and Bhattacharya’s (2001) experimental results, there is strong support for the direct and indirect effects of CSR on corporate benefits, CSR and Nonprofit Benefits Our results also show that CSR may provide benefits from the identification process to third parties. Specifically, across three of the four studies (one in which we measured CSR and two in which we manipulated it), CSR had an indirect, positive effect on nonprofit donations through C-C wer 068 60 80- eESCSSC« CSD a Joh lowe ee se 6 rise HEZ0E Hee i} 6 69% ShuLt wb OL Hee ier en lO ee7ly 80% SOLE Ve eed za ePOW sens Meng sone ous —_—suon uso parsnip -punog -iodul)_-naumy usp joulon -ueaiep sa oP aywiodiog uyewog aieiodso0 -eindiuew ”-tedog qwyoiduon eane5on, -windwuew ‘sejqel4en wopuedepuy se1geveA y Apmis 40) Se16q pazipiepuelsun uoIssiBey S10 vaTev Customer Donations to Nonprofits / 27 FIGURE 4 The Effect of Perceptions of CSR on Corporate and Nonprofit Benefits Negative Attributions ‘About the Company Opportunity to Do Good C-€ Identification [connectedness of Nonprofit Domain to CSR Domain Company Exceeding Its ‘Boundaries Nonprofit Domain Importance Behavioral Perceptual Corporate Corporate Benefits Benefits identification, In addition, forall three studies in which the nonprofit domain was the same (ie. “connected”) as that for which the company had a record of CSR (ie, for Stud- ies 2 and 3 and the connected condition in Smdy 4), there ‘was a negative, direct effect of CSR on donation choice. However, that the effect of CSR on donation choice was negative in a statistical sense should not be equated t0 a negative effect ina substantive sense. The results of Study 3 provide evidence that the negative effect occurred because Socially conscious people in the negative CSR condition had a motivation to donate that people in the positive condi- tion did not have. The mediated negative relationship sug- gests that when corporations with a poor record of CSR tempt to change their ways by affiliating themselves with nonprofits, consumers in the negative condition who per- ceive an opportunity to do good by helping rehabilitate the corporation have a different motivation to give than do con- sumers in the positive condition. This finding seems akin to variables related to promoting change in a recent study of consumer boycotting behavior. Klein, Smith, and John (2004) find that variables that reflect a boycotter’s desire to bring about some kind of change and to communicate message to the target firm are important moderators of @ consumer's decision to boycott. Likewise, upon encounter- ing a company with a poor record on social responsibility, some consumers viewed the donation to the corporate- supported nonprofit asa way to support a company that had rade the decision to “do the right thing” and possibly as a ‘way to communicate support to the company. That said, we emphasize that our findings should not be taken to suggest that itis to a nonprofit’s benefit more to partner with @ company that has recently changed its ways than fo partner with a company with a consistently strong 28/ Journal of Marketing, October 2004 CSR record. Rather, our findings suggest that there is a pos- itive influence that may be realized by their doing so. The results of follow-up regression analyses in Smdy 3 reveal that the positive effect of a historical record of CSR on cus- tomer donations (through reduced negative attributions and increased identification) is three times that of the negative effect (through perceived opportunity to do good). Thus, our results suggest that itis in a nonprofit’s interest to part ner with companies with a strong historical record of CSR. Another issue that warrants consideration isthe general- ‘zability of our findings. At a theoretical level, we believe that the type of promotion we used corresponds to many ‘marketplace decisions that consumers commonly make. For example, Hess, Rogovsky, and Dunfee (2002) note that con- sumers often face trade-offs between their desire for lower- priced goods and their moral desires (¢.g., donation of a dollar to a retailer-sponsored charity at time of payment, donation of a can of food to a “feed the hungry” charity ‘when exiting a grocery store). As with the Bares & Noble promotion, these types of decisions involve trade-offs between consumer economic self-enhancement and altruis- tic socially responsible behavior. Couched at this Ievel of abstraction, our theory would predict that to the extent that, a corporation (e.g., a grocery chain) is perceived as socially responsible, it will engender greater identification among its ‘customer base, thus leading customers to make the trade-off ‘of economic self-enhancement (e.g., donate rather than keep canned food) in favor of their moral desires, in the form of supporting third-party nonprofit causes (e.g. a par~ ticular homeless shelter) that are affiliated with the corporation, Following this logic, we view these findings as having important implications for theory. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of transference of the affect and goodwill that a customer has for a corporation to a third- party organization. In addition, the mechanism by which this transference occurs is specified and empirically sup- ported across three of four studies. ‘Managerial Implications for Nonprofits Nonprofits can benefit from CSR not only through the donations and other resources that companies provide but also through donations from the company's customer base ‘through corporate-nonprofit promotion programs. This pro- vides an attractive “double-kick” for nonprofits and miti- {gates concerns that a nonprofits involvement with the com- pany will lessen its support among the company’s ‘customers. Beyond that, our studies provide guidance to nonprofits in choosing company partners. First, nonprofits should choose company partners that are attractive targets for C-C identification and already are adept at prompting it Ideally, a company partner should have a strong CSR record, and its organizational values should be widely per- ceived as consistent with the CSR initiative. The risk to a nonprofit is always increased when a company partner has @ tarnished CSR reputation, However, our findings suggest that if the dimension on which a company's CSR record has been criticized is related to the nonprofits cause, the risk ‘may be offset, at least in part, by support from consumers ‘who perceive the CSR initiative as a genuine attempt by the ‘company to reform its ways. Second, at a minimum, non- profits that are considering working with a company with {tarnished record should be certain that the CSR initiative and their involvement in it can be clearly and credibly posi- tioned as a genuine and enduring attempt to reform on the company’s part. Managerial Implications for Companies Corporate social responsibility can bea viable promotional strategy that leads to broader company benefits than imme- diate purchase behavior. The finding that company benefits are based, at least in part, on C-C identification has several implications. An important implication pertains to the build- ing of corporate brand equity. Some scholars have identified our measures of perceptual corporate benefits (company loyalty and emotional attachment to the company) as mea- sures or strong correlates of brand equity (see Keller 1998) Moreover, the creation of meaningful associations that per~ tain to an organization's identity is particularly key to build- ing a strong brand identity. Aaker (1996) argues that organi- ational identity, which focuses on the attributes of the organization, is one of four key perspectives around which brand identity is organized, The more attractive the organi- zational attributes and the more meaningful the associations they create, the more brand equity is enhanced. Given that ‘consumers identify with an organization because its atib- utes are meaningful, atractve, and similar to their own characteristics or to characteristics that they aspire to have, it stands to reason that an increase in C-C identification through CSR initiatives is likely to enhance brand equity However, we emphasize that increases in brand equity through CSR initiatives are typically predicated on the use of a cause that resonates with, or at least does not offend, the company’s customer base. If customers find that a com: pany is supporting a cause that is inconsistent with their val- ues, the CSR initiative is unlikely to increase brand equity and may even harm it Aaker (1996) also asserts that organizational attributes fare more enduring and resistant to competitive claims than are product attributes. He argues that it is easier for com- petitors to copy product attributes than organizational attrib tutes, which in large part are based on people, values, and programs. Inasmuch as CSR initiatives enhance and com- ‘municate organizational attributes and increase C-C identi- fication, they may contribute to the creation of a competi- tive advantage. These effects are likely to be particularly strong for retailers whose company name is, in essence, the brand name and for other companies that use a corporate branding strategy. ‘nally, our results suggest that if a company has a poor CSR record, it should choose a nonprofit partner with a ‘cause directly related to the area of criticism, and it should engage in the CSR initiative as part of a genuine effort 10 change its ways. This speaks t0 the importance of fit between the firm and the nonprofits with which it may align. This also highlights the importance of a company’s ability to position its alliance in a credible way, Further Research Although the findings and implications of our studies pro- vvide an important extension of previous examinations of C- C idemtfication, they also raise other issues, particularly with respect to the effect on nonprofits. First, we found that nonprofits can benefit from donations from the company's customer base, but do CSR initiatives also increase the probability that customers will support nonprofits in non- ‘monetary ways, such as by volunteering their time or by supporting political initiatives that benefit the nonprofit? Second, we discovered an important boundary condition related to the willingness of customers to donate to the non- profit: the degree to which a cause is connected to the dimension on which a company had a poor CSR record. ‘What other boundary conditions may come into play? For example, does the degree to which consumers believe that their donations are likely to have an impact matter? Does the influence that a nonprofit is perceived as having over the issue matter? Do the nonprofit’s reputation and/or compe- tencies come into play? Although we examined C-C identification driven by CSR initiatives, consumers identify with corporations on the basis of other factors as well (e.g., athletes and Nike, bikers and Harley-Davidson). To date, the extent to which identification created in one domain (e.2., athletics) can be leveraged in another (e.g., CSR) is unknown, Thus, it is unclear whether the influence of identification is limited to the basis of that bond or whether it transfers. Research of this nature is likely to provide guidance not only for CSR initiatives but also for other forms of collaborative market- ing relationships. In summary, opportunities provided by CSR seem to be vast but complex. The same can be said for further research in the area. ‘Customer Donations to Nonprofits / 23 Appendix Measurement Scales Used in Studies 1-4 For the following scale descriptions, unless we note other- items on seven-point scales (1 j= we developed all scale items, and we measured all, “Strongly disagree,” and ‘Strongly agree”) and (re)coded the items such that higher scores reflect higher levels of the constructs, Perceived CSR (Study 1:X = 27.10, range = 5-35, 5.d.= 5.26, a= .90) 1 (Company name) is committed to using a portion of its profits to help nonprofits. (Company name) gives back tothe communities in whi does business. Local nonprofits benefit from (company name)’s contributions (Company name) integrates charitable contributions into its business activites, (Company name) is involved in corporate giving hit (C-€ Identification (Study 1:X = 2.03, range = 0-6, sd. 1.13) Consider the following lists of character traits. On the lft- hhand [side ofthe] ls, citcle the five that best describe you on the right-hand (side ofthe list, please circle the five that you think best describe (company name) ‘You (Circle 5) ‘Company Name (Circle 5) Committed ‘Committed Progressive Progressive Community involved Community involved Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Gutsy Gutsy Active Active Responsible Responsible Compassionate ‘Compassionate Competitive Competitive Free-spirited Free-spirited Assertive Assertiv Risk taking Risk taking Perceptual Corporate Benefits In Study 1, we measured perceptual corporate benefits as the sum of store loyalty, emotional attachment (o the store, and store interest. We adapted all of the following measures taken from the work of Hess (1998), ‘Store Loyalty (X 81) 1 3 Emotional Attachment to Store 2.93, range 3-21, sd. = 4.89, a 1 could easily switch from (company name) to another store. (reverse coded) Tam a committed shopper at (company name). eel a sense of loyalty to (company name). 17-10, range 4-28, sd. = 5.85, «= .85) 30/ Journal of Marketing, October 2004 last two categories collapsed]: X 1.55) CSR Record Manipulation Check (Study 2/3: X 18.85/18.55, range = 535/585, s.. = 10.58/11.02, a =.98/.97) 1. The emotional reward 1 get from shopping at (company name) makes it wort it for me. 2 Shopping at (company name) gives me a sense of wash and comfort. 5. Shopping at (company name) makes me happy. 1 would experience an emotional loss if I could no longer shop at (company nam. Store Interest (X = 3.99, range 1-7, sd. = 1.67) 1. Lam interested in learning about (company name. Behavioral Corporate Benefits Percentage of Shopping at Store (Study 1 [first two and 94, range = 1-5, s 1 What percentage of your grocery shopping do you normally 4 at (company namie)? — less than 10% — 10-20% 21-40% 41-608 51-80% 81-90% —91-100% 1. Company X has 2 strong record on fair labor practices in its ‘overseas manufacturing plans, 2, Company X has a strong record of compensating foreign employees fairly, 3, Company X has a strong record of providing fair benefit packages for al of its employees. 4. Company has a record of nothing underage children in ts ‘overseas manufacturing plans. 5. Company X's working conditions in overseas factories are ‘equal fo those in U.S. factories, Nonprofit Domain Perceived Importance (Study 218: X = 36.36/96.24, range 6.60621, a 15-42/13-42, sd. 93/91) 1.1 strongly believe that companies should treat workers in theie foreign manufacturing plants as well as they teat workers in their U.S. manufacturing plants, 2. Lam committed to the corporate practice of treating work- ers in foreign and US, manufacturing plans equally well, 3.1 believe that corporations should monitor their overseas manufacturing operations to make sure their business prac tices are fair to their workers, 4.T believe that corporations have a responsibility to. make sure thatthe working conditions in their overseas manutfac~ turing plants are as good as the werking conditions in their S. plants, 5. Standing up for fair manufacturing practices in overseas plants is important 6. Corporations will have a better foreign workforce if work- ers age treated the same as workers in their U.S. plants Organization Identification Euclidean Distance ‘Measure (Study 2/3/4: X = 9.28/10.17/9.04, range 3.32-24.25/3.00-21.54/2.83-21.21, 6.d. = 4.44/4.64/ We adopted the organizational identification Euclidean dis tance measure from the work of Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Match 20 self-corporate attribute pairs along dimen- sions of activist, best, capable, dishonest, innovative, enlightened, a leader, expert, progressive, compassionate, fair, risk averse, conservative, high quality, sincere, cooper- ative, inconsiderate, sensitive, democratic, and inefficient. Format as follows: “Inefficient” accurately describes: Me ‘Company X cauococoa ooooogG Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree ‘Agree Disagree ‘Agree Organization Identification Identity Overlap Scale (Study 2/3/4: X = 2.75/2.87/2.89, range 1-7/1-7/1-6, 80. = 1.45/1.40/1.38) ‘We adopted the organization identification identity overlap scale from the work of Bergami and Bagozzi (2000). My Company X Identity Kdentity O O- OO Close together but separate Small overlap Moderate overlap Large overlap Very large overlap Complete overlap eleleicis Donation Choice (0 = donation not choser/t = donation chosen; Study 2 = 20/41; Study 3 = 55/37, Study 4 = 74/41) Assume that you decided to buy the Model #XPIS calcula- tor from Company X. Which button would you click? Please circle one. Corporate Boundary (Study 3/4: X = 9.89/9.83, range = 3-21/3-21, 8.0. = 4.11/4.31, a = .65/.70) 1. Corporations are asking too much of consumers if they ask them to donate to charities. 2. is not a corporation's role to give to charities: They should pass the savings on to consumers instead and let consumers donate to whatever charities they want, 3.1fT purchase products from corporations that support char- ties, I'm doing my part: I shouldn't be asked to donate directly tothe charities in addition, Donation Probability (Study 3/4 range = 1-7/1-7, 8.0. = 2.32/2.45) = 3.98/3.85, 1. If you made the decision to purchase the Model #XP1S csl- ‘ulator from Company X, how likely is it that you would ‘choose to pay the full price whereby you would donate 5 ‘of the purchase price to nonprofits” (1 = "Very unlikely, and 7 = “Very likely”) Frugality (Study 4: X = 3.96, range = 1-7, s. 2.65) For the frugality variable, respondents were asked to state the “extent to which you thought of each of the following factors when you considered whether or not to donate the $6.50 to the charity,” on a seven-point scale of | = “Did not think about at all;” and 7 = “Thought of a lot.” IT simply do not have the extra money at this stage in my life, ‘Negative Corporate Attributions (Study 4: X 3.45, range = 1-7, 6d. = 2.26) For the negative corporate attributions variable, respondents were asked to state the “extent to which you thought of each of the following factors when you considered whether or not to donate the $6.50 to the charity.” on a seven-point seale of 1 = “Did not think about at all.” and 7 = “Thought of a lot” 1. Tdo not lke the way that Company’ X does business. Customer Donations to Nonprofits / 31, Nonprofit Domain Importance (Study 4 [labor prac- tices and reading skils}: X = 17.71/20.99, range = 5 28/4-28, s.d. = 6.21/5.49, c= .92/.86) 1. Supporting nonprofits that fight manufacturing sweatshops {help increase the reading skills of U.S. youths) is important 2. Teould see myself donating some of my time to supporting nonprofits that help fight manufacturing sweatshops (help increase the reading skils of our youths). 3. Nonprofits that have the goal of fighting manufacturing sweatshops (increasing the reading skills of our youth) rake this world a better place to live 4. can identity with nonprofits that have the goal of fighting rmanufactaring sweatshops (increasing the reading skills of our youths) Social Consciousness (Study 4: X = 5.29, range = 1-7, s.d. = 1.38) 1. Teonsider myself to be a socially conscious person, Behavior Consistent with Core Values (Study 4 X = 4.22, range = 1-7, 8.0. = 2.08) 1. The promotion that Company X is considering running is ‘consistent with its core vas, REFERENCES ‘Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press, Andreasen, Alan (2003), Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Orga- nizations. Upper Saddle River, NI: Prentice Hal ‘and Minette E. Drumright (2001), “Ethical Tssves in Social Alliances” in Ethical Issues in Social Marketing, Alun ‘Andreasen, ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 95-124, Ashfomt, Blake B. (1998), “Becoming: How Does the Process of Tdentfication Unfold?” in Identity in Organizations, David A. Wherten and Paul C. Godiey, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 213-22, Austin, James E, (2002), The Collaboration Challenge. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass. Bergami, Massimo and Richard P. Bagozzi (2000), “Self Catego- ization, Affective Commitment, and Group Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the Organization,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (A), 555-11 erger, Tda E., Peggy H. Cunningham, and Minette E. ‘Drumvright (in press), “Social Alliances: Company/Nonprofit Collaboration,” California Management Review, forthcoming. Bhattacharya, C.B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), “Caderstanding the Bond of Identification: An Invest- gation of ls Cormlates Among Art Museu Members,” Jour: hal of Marketing, 59 (October), 46-S7. ‘and Sankar Sen (2003), “Consumer-Company Identifies- tion: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relation ships with Companies," Journal of Marketing, 67 (ApriD, 16-88. Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses," Journal of Marketing, 61 (anvary), 68-84, Cone, Carol L., Mark A. Feldman, and Alison T. DaSilva (20083), auses and Effects,” Harvard Business Review, 81 uly), 95-101 Drumvright, Minette B, (1996), “Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteta;” Jour nal of Marketing, 60 (October), 71-88. ‘and Patrick E, Murphy (2001), "Corporate Societal Mar- keting” in Handbook of Marketing and Society, Pal N. Bloom and Gregory Gundlach, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi cations, 162-88. Dutton, Jane M., Janet M, Dukerich, and Celia V. Harquail (1994), “Organizational Images and Member Identification." Adminis trative Science Quarterly, 39 (2), 239-63, 32 Journal of Marketing, October 2004 Eisbach, Kimberly D. (1998), “The Process of Social Identifica- tion: With What Do We Kdenify” in Identity in Organizations David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, eds. Thousand Oaks, (CA: Sage Publications, 232-27. Glynn, Mary Ann (1998), Individuals’ Need for Organizational ‘enttiation (OID): Speculations on Individual Ditlerences in the Propensity to Identify” in Identity in Organizations, David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 238-44 Hess, David, Nikolai Rogovsky, and Thomas W. Dunfee (2002), “The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement: Cor- porate Social Initiatives," California Management Review, 44 (), 110-25, Hess, Jeffrey Scott (1998), “A Multidimensional Conceptualiza- tion of Consumer Brand Relationships: The Differential Impat of Relationship Dimensions on Evaluative Relationship Out- comes,” doctoral dissertation, Leeds School of Business, Uni versity of Colorado, Boulder. Toannou, Losi (2004), “Corporate America’s Social Conscience.” (accessed January 27, 2004), [available at hipzlwwwfortune. ccom/fortune/services!sectionsfortunelcorp/2003_0Ses hm]. Keller, Kevin Lane (1988), Strategic Brand Management: Build ing, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NI: Prentice Hal Kenay, David A., Deborah A. Kashy, and Niall Bolger (1998), ‘Data Analysis in Social Psychology,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., Vol. 1, D. Gilbert, ST. Fiske, and G.Lindzey, eds. New York’ MeGraw-Hil, 233-65. Klein, Jill Gabrielle, N. Craig Smith, and Andrew Job (2004), “Why We Baycort: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Parc pation! Journal of Marketing, 68 (July), 92-108. Margolis, Foshua D- and James P. Walsh (2003), “Misery Loves Companies: Whither Socal Initiatives by Business?” Adminis. trative Science Quarterly, 48 (Ione), 268-305. Sen, Sankar and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001), “Does Doing Good ‘Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corpo rate Social Responsibility” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May), 225-43, Smith, N. Craig (2003), “Comporate Social Responsibility Whether or How?" California Management Review, 45 (Sur mer), 52-76. Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 434-26,