JBR-08878; No of Pages 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR):

The mediating role of perceived altruism and organizational identification
Hyejoon Rim a,⁎, Sung-Un Yang b, Jaejin Lee c
a
School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, 206 Church St. SE., 111 Murphy Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States
b
School of Journalism, Indiana University, Bloomington, 940 E Seventh Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States
c
College of Communication, Florida State University, P.O. Box 3062664, Tallahassee, FL 32306, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To provide insight for nonprofits and for-profits generating synergetic alliance, this study investigates how prior
Received 8 February 2015 corporate reputation, nonprofit brand familiarity, and fit between company and nonprofit influence supportive
Received in revised form 22 February 2016 CSR outcomes. The study also examines the mediation role of perceived altruism and consumer–company iden-
Accepted 23 February 2016
tification in such associations. The results show the significant main effects of corporate reputation, nonprofit fa-
Available online xxxx
miliarity, and company–nonprofit fit on supportive CSR outcomes. More importantly, results show that perceived
Keywords:
altruism and the consumer–company identification significantly mediates the influence of a CSR partnership on
CSR supportive CSR outcomes. Interestingly, the direct effect of corporate reputation on consumer–company identi-
Company reputation fication was not significant, suggesting that for a company to induce strong identification from consumers, the
Nonprofit partnership effects of corporate reputation should be mediated by its altruistic motives for practicing CSR activities.
Perceived altruism © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Consumer–company identification

1. Introduction
A company–nonprofit partnership to support causes has become a
popular corporate social responsibility (CSR) practice that adds value
to both partnered organizations (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005). From a
nonprofit's point of view, a company partner works as new sources of
revenue, which is vital to a nonprofit's operation (Park, Hitchon, &
Yun, 2004). A company, on the other hand, takes advantage of the trust-
worthy images and expertise of nonprofits that may attenuate con-
sumers' skepticism toward CSR practices while enhancing consumers'
support of both organizations and CSR. Consumer surveys confirm a
growing interest in supporting social causes and nonprofits, as 78% of
Americans believe a partnership between a nonprofit and a company
they trust makes a cause stand out, and 59% of Americans are more like-
ly to purchase a product associated with a nonprofit (Cone Inc., 2010). In
addition to creating economic value, a company–nonprofit partnership
contributes to establishing social, cultural and political capital by
exploiting both sectors' expertise (Shumate & O'Connor, 2010).
While partnership between companies and nonprofits has been
gaining attention, little is known about its contingent effects. For in-
stance, depending on each partner's existing attributes, such as reputa-
tion or brand familiarity with consumers, partnership effects may differ.
Past research has documented the importance of corporate credibility
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 612 624 2491.
E-mail addresses: hrim@umn.edu (H. Rim), yang223@indiana.edu (S.-U. Yang),
Jaejin.Lee@cci.fsu.edu (J. Lee).
and familiarity that alter the partnership effects (e.g. Lafferty, 2007,
Lafferty, 2009, Perera & Chaminda, 2013), but mostly focused on their
impact on consumer attitudes toward the company and/or purchase in-
tention. As the ultimate goal of a company–nonprofit partnership is to
support a cause, partnership effects should also be examined based on
consumers' supportive CSR intentions.
Moreover, partnership effects may differ by how consumers attri-
bute alliance motives and to what extent consumers identify with
the company, which we propose as possible missing links between
partnership effects and supportive CSR outcomes. Studies suggest
that when people question a company's sincerity in its CSR commitment,
they may judge a company's CSR practices negatively (Becker-Olsen,
Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulou, & Avramidis,
2009). Given the nature of a nonprofit, a company's partnership with a
nonprofit may help a company in diminishing its self-driven motives of
CSR in the public's eye. In addition, as a nonprofit's cause or brand pro-
vides symbolic benefits rather than functional ones to the consumers,
partnership may increase consumer–company identification (CCI) inten-
tion, but no research has yet focused on these relationships.
Thus, the purpose of this study is two-fold. First, expanding previous
research on company–nonprofit partnership, the study examines the
moderating roles of prior corporate reputation, nonprofit familiarity,
and a company–nonprofit fit on consumer attribution of CSR motives,
CCI intentions, and supportive CSR outcomes. Second, to further under-
stand consumers' evaluation process of a company–nonprofit partner-
ship, the study investigates the mediating roles of perceived altruism
of the partnerships and the degree of consumer–company identification

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
2 H. Rim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
intention. Examining the factors that influence partnership effective-
ness, including consumers' attribution of partnering motives and CCI,
is a necessary step for both for-profits and nonprofits furthering their
strategic CSR practices.
2. Literature review
2.1. Partnership with nonprofits as strategic CSR
Broadly, CSR can be defined as a corporation's involvement and in-
vestment of its resources for the betterment of society and the public
that has supported the organization (Frederick, 1994). The concept of
CSR expanded in the late 1950s and 1960s in response to the increased
business regulations, but the concept progressively rationalized and as-
sociated with broader organizational goals such as reputation manage-
ment (Lee, 2008). According to Carroll (2000), “strategic philanthropy”
helps an organization to achieve its objectives and to create social ben-
efits at the same time (p. 37). A growing number of studies confirmed
that consumers have generally favorable attitudes toward companies
that support social causes (Bae & Cameron, 2006), and are more likely
to purchase products from socially responsible companies (Perera &
Chaminda, 2013; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Wang, Chen, Yu, and
Hsiao (2015) demonstrate positive relationships among CSR, brand
equity, and firm performance, suggesting that CSR, as an intangible cor-
porate asset, positively affects firm performance. The benefits of CSR are
also confirmed by employees' relationship perspectives. Lee, Park, and
Lee (2013) argue that a company's support of a social cause strengthens
an employee's emotional attachment to the company, hence, creating a
lower turnover intention.
One way that CSR creates such transactional and relational bene-
fits appears to be by increasing perceived altruism and CCI intention,
which refers to the public's perception of oneness with or connection
to an organization due to attributes shared with the company's cor-
porate identity (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Sen and
Bhattacharya (2001) manipulated CSR to find its effects on CCI and
revealed that CSR activities influence consumers' intentions to iden-
tify with the company by positioning themselves in a socially attrac-
tive manner. Findings by Murray and Vogel (1997) are consistent
with these results.
Partnering between a company and a nonprofit organization in sup-
port of a social cause creates a synergistic alliance by sharing objectives
and resources. For example, nonprofits can help a company partner to
increase the company image and the bottom line, while the company
can offer a nonprofit partner the new sources of revenue that is a vital
for its sustainability (Park et al., 2004). Shumate and O'Connor (2010)
describe NGO-corporate alliance as a symbiotic sustainability model,
which presents co-creating value of “economic, social, cultural, and
political capital” (p. 578). That is, nonprofit partnership increases the
possibility of corporations supporting communities in a sustainable
form. Researchers argue that a company can expect halo effects from
the nonprofit brand in terms of shared credibility, visibility, and warmth
images, thereby generating communication efficiencies (Aaker, Vohs, &
Mogilner, 2010). In the advertising context, Park et al. (2004) suggest
that alignment advertising that promotes a social cause while promot-
ing a brand as a sponsor of the cause produces more favorable consumer
responses, therefore is an effective form of marketing communication
tool for both nonprofit and profit organizations.
2.1.1. Effects of nonprofit partnership on supportive CSR outcomes
Research has supported the soundness of CSR as a business strategy
by demonstrating positive links between consumer perceptions of
CSR and company evaluations (e.g. Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003, Du,
Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007). Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) suggest
that a company's involvement with a nonprofit has a positive effect
on both consumers' attitudes toward the company and their willing-
ness to support the nonprofit. Partnering with a nonprofit is also a
Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
persuasion strategy that influences the public to support a worthy
cause (Cornwell & Coote, 2005). Aaker et al. (2010) explain the part-
nership effects based on consumer psychology literature. They dem-
onstrated that coexistence of a nonprofit's stereotypical image of
warmth and a company's competence boosts consumers' feelings of
admiration for the organization, which eventually increases their
willingness to buy products from the organization either nonprofit
or for-profit. Partnering with nonprofit organizations to engage in
cause-supporting activities help a company brand to create intangi-
ble associations and feelings, which are relatively difficult to create.
CSR activities enhance brand image by creating brand meaning and
differentiation. The current study considers enhancing positive atti-
tudes toward a company and positive word-of-mouth (WOM) commu-
nications toward both company and nonprofit organizations as
supportive outcomes of CSR partnership.
2.1.2. Effects of nonprofit partnership on perceived altruism
Perceived altruism in this study refers to when people attribute a
company's motives for CSR to enhancing the welfare of society even at
the expense of the company's own benefit. While CSR stands for a
company's commitment to maximizing its long-term beneficial impact
on society, the motivation is not entirely altruistic. Rather, in many
cases, companies consider the impact of CSR investment on the bottom
line (Van Rekom, Go, & Calter, 2014). More importantly, the public
reacts differently depending on what it perceives as a company's mo-
tives for engaging in CSR. Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal (2005) focus on
cause-related marketing and suggest that people form less positive atti-
tudes when they are suspicious about a company's sincerity. Bae and
Cameron (2006) also show that suspicion of true intention negatively
affects people's attitudes toward a company. One study finds that
value-driven attributions positively influence consumer trust and rec-
ommendation intention whereas ego-driven attributions diminish
trust and negatively influence supportive intention (Vlachos et al.,
2009). Given that a nonprofit has greater public trust regarding social is-
sues than a corporation (Wootliff & Deri, 2001), a company may strate-
gically take advantage of a nonprofit's trustworthy image and its
expertise in supporting a cause, and thus can enhance the public's ten-
dency to view the company's CSR practices as sincere and rooted in
goodwill.
2.1.3. Effects of nonprofit partnership on consumer–company identification
(CCI)
This study considers CCI as a consequence of nonprofit partnership
and explores the possible mediating role of CCI between partnership
effects and supportive CSR outcomes. Scholars suggest that one way
that CSR creates relational benefits appears to be by increasing CCI
(Du et al., 2007; Marin & Ruiz, 2007; Perez, 2009). CCI is defined as
the consumer's perception of his or her oneness with or connection to
a brand, where the customer defines himself by the same attributes
that he believes define the corporate brand (Dutton et al., 1994). The
extent to which individuals identify with organizations depends on
whether identifying with organizations contributes to their self-
esteem (Du et al., 2007). That is, individuals are more likely to identify
with organizations that have socially desirable qualities because it
may help them enhance their self-esteem. Du et al. (2007) argue that
engaging in CSR initiatives “humanizes” organizations (p. 225) and
makes it possible for consumers to go beyond simply liking organiza-
tions to identifying with them.
When organizations engage in discretionary actions for the commu-
nity and society, the public is likely to appreciate these organizations,
and a feeling of connection to these organizations may emerge (Perez,
2009). Marin and Ruiz (2007) state that consumers tend to identify
with companies that undertake CSR activities, and that by doing so,
they may accomplish “self-difference and self-enhancement” (p. 249).
Such a feeling of identification fosters a consumer's company supportive
behaviors. Perez (2009) confirmed that CSR-based CCI mediates the
 H. Rim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
relationships between a company's perceived CSR engagement and
the consumers' purchase intention. Similarly, Cornwell and Coote
(2005) found that the more the consumers identify themselves
with the nonprofit organization, the more they are willing to pur-
chase sponsoring firms' products. Moreover, a nonprofit partnership
can be helpful for the company in diminishing self-driven motives
for CSR practice as it provides clear evidence of corporate citizenship.
Therefore, the nonprofit partnership works as a signal, and can in-
crease consumers' intentions to identify with companies and sup-
portive intentions.
2.2. Conditional effects of partnership
2.2.1. Prior corporate reputation
Company reputation, which refers to “a cognitive representation of a
company's actions and results that crystallizes the firm's ability to deliv-
er valued outcomes to its stakeholders” (Fombrun, Gardberg & Barnett,
2000, p. 87), can influence the effectiveness of communication activities
directly and indirectly. Prior company reputation can play an important
role in how consumers evaluate the company–nonprofit partnerships
for CSR practices. According to attribution theory, people engage in
more complex message processing when they have reason to suspect
the validity of the presented information, but people are less suspicious
about intent if the message or behavior is consistent with what is
known about previous behavior (Fein, 1996). In an experimental set-
ting, Bae and Cameron (2006) demonstrate the role of prior corpo-
rate reputation in leveraging the effectiveness of CSR activities. Past
studies on advertising effectiveness have also confirmed that adver-
tisers with favorable reputations or credibility, which is considered
one dimension of corporate reputation, attain more positive atti-
tudes toward advertisements (Lafferty, 2007) and increased pur-
chase intentions (Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000). Therefore, it
can be inferred that consumers may use company reputation as a
cue for the intention of company–nonprofit partnership and their
evaluation. Simply put, a strong reputation can serve as a signal for
positive company characteristics, which may spill over to compa-
ny–nonprofit partnerships. Therefore,
H1a–c. When a company with positive reputation forms a CSR partner-
ship with a nonprofit, consumers are more likely to show stronger
(a) supportive CSR intentions, (b) perceived altruism, and (c) CCI inten-
tions than when a company with negative reputation forms a CSR part-
nership with a nonprofit.
2.2.2. Nonprofit familiarity
Brand familiarity is a collection of brand associations that consumers
have stored in their memory (Lafferty, 2009). According to attitude
accessibility theory, if the attitude toward a certain object is strong, it
is easier to store the information in the memory, and thus, easier to ac-
cess that information from memory (Fazio, Powell, & Williams, 1989).
Familiar brands tend to produce stronger attitudes due to the extensive
associations the consumer has with them in their memories, making
them more stable and less likely to change as new information is re-
ceived (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Moreover, when consumers become fa-
miliar with a brand, they perceive associated messages as similar to
their existing knowledge and even consider the brand to be more truth-
ful (Lafferty, 2009). Studies also suggest that familiar brands signal trust
and preference, particularly for consumers who rely solely on brand fa-
miliarity when making a judgment. Ha and Perks (2005) argue that a
high level of brand familiarity generates stronger brand satisfaction
and brand trust as long as consumers do not have a negative perception
of a certain brand. Similarly, Park et al. (2004) found that the effects of
an alignment advertising were greater for an established brand than a
new brand, which supports the advantages of partnering with a familiar
brand. Based on previous literature, we expect that when the
Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
3
consumers are familiar with a nonprofit, the knowledge they have
about that nonprofit will influence CSR partnership effectiveness.
H2a–c. When a company forms a partnership with a nonprofit that
has high familiarity, consumers are more likely to have stronger
(a) supportive CSR intentions, (b) perceived altruism, and (c) CCI in-
tentions than when a company forms a partnership with a nonprofit
that has low familiarity.
2.2.3. Company–nonprofit cause fit
In a cause–brand partnership, perceived fit indicates “how comfort-
able consumers are with the cause–brand pairing” (Lafferty et al., 2004,
p. 513), and is present when both the company and nonprofit's cause
serve a similar target consumer or when both the brand and social
cause share a similar value (Kuo & Rice, 2015). Previous studies showed
that consumers rely on perceived cause–brand fit to infer the appropri-
ateness of the brand to advocate a certain cause (Sen & Bhattacharya,
2001), and a strong fit between company and cause, generally, is more
beneficial because people prefer consistency in their thoughts (Kim,
Sung, & Lee, 2012). In particular, when consumers use simple heuristic
cues to judge the appropriateness of associations, they prefer a close
match that verifies transferability of expertise between partnered
brands (Kuo & Rice, 2015). One study suggests that a good perceived
fit increases perceived authenticity and genuineness of the company’'s
social engagement, and thus enhances customers' loyalty (Van Rekom,
Go, & Calter, 2014). Kim et al. (2012) differentiate a business fit versus
an activity fit, and find that consumers attribute the firm's motive to
be more public-serving for high activity fit than for a low-fit. One
study even found that low congruence negatively influences consumer
evaluation in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and purchase intentions
(Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). Therefore, a close match between a
company's core business and a cause is likely to lead consumers to per-
ceive the company as an expert in the related field and to transfer their
positive feelings about the cause to the company.
H3a–c. When a company–nonprofit cause partnership involves high fit,
participants are more likely to have stronger (a) supportive CSR inten-
tions, (b) perceived altruism, and (c) CCI intentions than when a com-
pany–nonprofit partnership involves low fit.
2.3. The mediating roles of perceived altruism and identification
2.3.1. Relationship between perceived altruism and identification
Previous studies investigating motivations for engaging in prosocial
behavior suggest that people intend to position themselves as socially
conscious and communicate this by ‘going green.’ In a similar vein, Park,
MacInnis, and Priester (2006) noted that a person may use a brand for
self-expression, which when successful, positively affects attitudes to-
ward a company. Kim, Han, and Park (2001) empirically demonstrated
that the self-expressive value of a brand personality has a significant effect
on the attractiveness of the brand personality and that the attractiveness
of corporate brand personality is positively related to the consumer's
identification with the company. Therefore, this study suggests that the
perceived altruism of a partnership can stimulate consumer's CCI inten-
tion that may result in enhanced support for that company.
2.3.2. Effects of altruism and identification on supportive CSR outcomes
As aforementioned, when consumers identify themselves with a
brand or a company, they are more likely to show supportive behaviors
such as recommending the company to others and proactively commu-
nicating potential problems to the company. Ahearne, Bhattacharya,
and Gruen (2005) note that individuals who identify with companies
engage in self-interested tasks as well as tasks “directed toward
preserving, supporting, and improving the organization” (p. 577). Du
et al. (2007) suggest that when individuals identify with a company,
4 H. Rim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
they become “psychologically attached to and care about the company
and its products” (p. 227), and consequently, they align their interests
and behaviors with those that benefit the company. Focusing on trust
and CCI as mediators, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) report that CSR
activities affect not only purchase intention, but also the overall evalua-
tion of a company when mediated by consumer–company congruence.
In sum, based on the preceding discussion, we posit hypotheses related
to three independent variables that may influence of CSR partnership
(i.e., prior company reputation, nonprofit's familiarity, perceived fit
between a company and a nonprofit) on supportive CSR outcomes,
perceived altruism, and CCI intention, and the mediating role of perceived
altruism and CCI intention in such associations.
H4. Perceived altruism of a CSR partnership will lead to an increase in
CCI intention.
H5. Perceived altruism of a CSR partnership will lead to an increase in
supportive CSR outcomes.
H6. CCI intention will lead to an increase in supportive CSR outcomes.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
All participants (N = 337) were volunteers recruited from introduc-
tory communication courses at a large southeastern university. Extra
credits were offered for completing the behavioral experiment. Of the
participants, 68.5% were female and 31.5% were male. The average age
of participants was 20 years (SD = 1.20).
3.2. Research design and procedure
A 2 (corporate reputation: favorable or unfavorable) × 2 (nonprofit's
familiarity: high or low) × 2 (company–nonprofit cause fit: high or low)
between-subjects design was employed. Because the main purpose of
the current study was to provide insights to a company brand when it
comes to choosing a nonprofit for alliance, we used a fictitious company
brand to reduce variations potentially caused by participants' previous
experience with a known company brand.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental
conditions. After completing a consent form, participants were asked
to read stimulus materials with company information (i.e., positive or
negative). Then, they were asked to read information about a partner-
ship, which had two levels of nonprofit familiarity (i.e., high or low),
in high- and low-fit conditions, respectively. Participants were given
questions to measure supportive CSR intentions, identification inten-
tions, and perceived motivation for partnership followed by questions
about the manipulations checks.
3.2.1. Stimulus materials
Company information was created to manipulate prior company
reputation, which is operationalized as previous CSR behavior and com-
pany ability (i.e., financial record). The general company information
was identical in length and content except for two sentences describing
socially responsible or irresponsible behaviors and financial record. The
positive treatment contained information about the company's high cit-
izenship ranking according to a reputable business magazine and its
strong commitment to community welfare whereas the negative treat-
ment contained information about a recent consumer boycott due to
withdrawing drugs for profit. Brief information about a partnership
was also created and provided.
3.2.2. Pretest
Prior to conducting the experiment, a pretest was employed (1) to
check the manipulation of company brands with high and low
Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
reputations, (2) to select nonprofit organizations with high and low fa-
miliarity, and (3) to assess the level of company–nonprofit congruence.
Based on “The Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100” report (Cone, 2010),
twelve nonprofit brands from various sectors (i.e., health, environmen-
tal/animal, domestic social needs) were initially chosen. Twenty-eight
participants were asked to evaluate their familiarity of nonprofit and
perceived fit between the given pharmaceutical company and nonprofit
organization. To this end, for the high-fit condition (M = 6.0), St. Jude
Children's Research Hospital was selected as the high-familiarity non-
profit brand (M = 6.4) whereas the United Cerebral Palsy Association
was selected as the low-familiarity cause brand (M = 2.7). For the
low-fit condition (M = 2.0), the Humane Society of the United States
was selected as the high-familiarity cause brand (M = 6.5) whereas
Ducks Unlimited was selected as the low-familiarity cause brand
(M = 1.6).
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Dependent variables
Perceived altruistic motives are operationalized as the degree of the
consumer's understanding of company's CSR engagement as public-
serving. This perception was measured on a seven-point Likert scale
adopted by Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004) study with three items
(e.g., the company launched the partnership campaign because it truly
cares about the public; α = .91). Considering that CSR partnerships pro-
vide more symbolic values than functional values, we operationalized
CCI intention as the extent of the self-brand connections. CCI intention
was measured by the Escalas (1996) scale with seven items (e.g., the
company reflects who I am, I feel a personal connection to the company;
α = .95). This study operationalized Supportive CSR outcomes as the
consumers' positive attitudes and WOM intentions toward organiza-
tions that engage in CSR practices. We assessed supportive CSR out-
comes with two constructs (i.e., perceptual and behavioral benefits)
by standardizing and then summing three measures (α = .94): (1) a
three-item measure that assessed attitudes toward the company's part-
nership adopted by Simonin and Ruth (1998), and (2) a three-item
measure that assessed WOM intention toward a company, and (3) the
same measure that assessed WOM intention toward a nonprofit organi-
zation adopted by Price and Arnould (1999). All measures were
assessed with seven-point bipolar semantic differential scales.
3.3.2. Manipulation check items
Thirteen items were adopted from the Reputation Quotient scale
(Fombrun, Gardberg, & Sever, 2000) to check the success of manipulat-
ing prior company reputation (α = .97). Example statements include
“this company supports good causes,” “this company has a strong re-
cord of profitability.” Each item was measured on a seven-point Likert
scale. Nonprofit familiarity was measured with three items (e. g., did rec-
ognize/not recognized; α = .95) and perceived company–nonprofit fit
was measured with five items (e.g., consistent/not consistent, comple-
mentary/not complementary; α = .94) adopted by the Simonin and
Ruth (1998) study. Each item was measured on a seven-point semantic
differential scale.
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation checks
A series of t-tests were performed to confirm the success of manip-
ulation. The results show that there were significant effects of company
reputation manipulation, t(335) = − 13.35, p b .001. Participants
assigned to the positive reputation condition (M = 4.90, SD = .95)
felt significantly more favorably than those in the negative reputation
condition (M = 3.46, SD = .95). The results also indicated a significant
effect of nonprofit familiarity, t(323) = − 16.18, p b .001. Partici-
pants who were exposed to the high nonprofit familiarity condition
 H. Rim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

(M = 5.65, SD = 1.53) were more likely to feel familiar toward a non- Table 2
profit than those who were exposed to the low familiarity condition Univariate analysis of variance for simple main effects (n = 337).

(M = 2.68, SD = 1.83). Lastly, a t-test indicated a significant effect of Company reputation

company–nonprofit fit, t(323) = − 16.18, p b .001. Participants who Positive Negative
were exposed to the high fit condition (M = 5.03, SD = 1.14) were
Dependent variables M SD M SD F df η2p
more likely to evaluate congruency between company and nonprofit
cause than those who were exposed to a low fit condition (M = 4.24, Supportive CSR outcomes 4.97 1.07 4.36 1.07 29.94⁎⁎⁎ 1 .08
Perceived altruism 5.05 1.01 4.35 1.02 39.96⁎⁎⁎ 1 .11
SD = 1.29).
CCI intentions 3.60 1.18 3.31 1.20 5.07⁎ 1 .02

4.2. Hypotheses testing Nonprofit familiarity (FAM)

High FAM Low FAM

Prior to testing the mediated model, which is the primary focus of
M SD M SD F df η2p
the study, the main effects of partnership conditions (i.e., company rep-
utation, nonprofit familiarity, company–nonprofit fit) on each depen- Supportive CSR outcomes 4.95 1.03 4.38 1.12 26.13⁎⁎⁎ 1 .07
dent variable were tested. The results of a multivariate analysis of Perceived altruism 4.85 1.05 4.55 1.07 7.68⁎⁎ 1 .02
CCI intentions 3.65 1.20 3.25 1.17 10.09⁎⁎ 1 .03
variance (MANOVA) showed significant main effects of prior corporate
reputation, Wilk's λ = .88, F(3, 324) = 14.37, p b .001, familiarity Wilk's Company–nonprofit Fit
λ = .92, F(3, 324) = 9.11, p b .001, and nonprofit-company fit, Wilk's
High fit Low fit
λ = .96, F(3, 324) = 4.69, p b .001.
M SD M SD
(Table 1)
Supportive CSR outcomes 4.87 1.07 4.46 1.12 13.32⁎⁎⁎ 1 .04
4.2.1. Conditional effects of partnership Perceived altruism 4.82 1.03 4.59 1.10 3.99⁎ 1 .01
CCI intentions 3.61 1.11 3.30 1.27 5.57⁎ 1 .02
H1a–c predicted a main effect of prior corporate reputation on
supportive CSR outcomes, perceived altruism, and CCI intention. CCI = consumer–company identification.
⁎ p b .05.
The univariate analysis indicated that positive corporate reputation ⁎⁎ p b .01.
(M = 4.97, SD = 1.07) had a greater influence on CSR supportive ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
outcome than negative corporate reputation (M = 4.36, SD =
1.07), F(1, 326) = 29.94, p b .001, η2p = .08. Regarding the perceived
altruism, participants who were exposed to a positive reputation high-fit condition were more likely to infer altruistic motives
condition (M = 5.05, SD = 1.01) were more likely to infer altruistic (M = 4.58, SD = 1.1) than those exposed to the low-fit condition
motives of partnership than those who were exposed to a negative (M = 4.81, SD = 1.03), F(1, 326) = 3.99, p b .05, η2p = .01. Lastly, peo-
reputation condition (M = 4.35, SD = 1.02), F(1, 326) = 39.96, ple exposed to the high-fit condition showed a greater CCI intention
p b .001, η 2p = .11. The results also show that positive corporate (M = 3.61, SD = 1.11) than those exposed to the low-fit condition
reputation (M = 3.59, SD = 1.18) had a greater influence on CCI in- (M = 3.3, SD = 1.26), F(1, 326) = 5.57, p b .02, η2p = .02. Therefore,
tention than negative corporate reputation (M = 3.31, SD = 1.20), H3a–c were supported.
F(1, 326) = 5.07, p b .05, η2p = .02. Therefore, H1a–c were supported.
H2a–c posited a positive impact of nonprofit familiarity on support- 4.2.2. Mediating effects of perceived altruism and CCI
ive CSR outcomes, perceived altruism, and CCI intention, respectively. The study also examined the effects of the company–partnership
As expected, partnering with a familiar nonprofit organization led factors on supportive CSR outcomes when mediated by the perceived
greater supportive CSR outcome intention (M = 4.95, SD = 1.03) than altruism and CCI. In the multivariate mediated path model, corporate
partnering with a non-familiar nonprofit organization (M = 4.38, reputation turned out to be strongly associated with supportive CSR
SD = 1.12), F(1, 326) = 26.13, p b .001, η2p = .07. Also, participants outcomes (B = .27, S.E. = .09, β = .12, p b .01) and altruistic motives
who learned about the company's partnership with the familiar non- (B = .70, S.E. = .11, β = .33, p b .001), but corporate reputation did
profit were more likely to infer altruistic motives of partnership not strongly influence CCI intention (B = .06, S.E. = .13, β = .02, ns).
(M = 4.85, SD = 1.05) than those who learned about the partnership In addition, nonprofit's familiarity had significant impacts on all of
with a non-familiar nonprofit (M = 4.55, SD = 1.07), F(1, 326) = three variables the researchers examined, including supportive CSR out-
7.68, p b .01, η2p = .02. In addition, partnering with familiar nonprofit comes (B = .25, S.E. = .08, β = .11, p b .01), altruistic motives (B = .31,
had a greater influence CCI intention (M = 3.65, SD = 1.2) than non- S.E. = .11, β = .14, p b .01), and identification (B = .30, S.E. = .12, β =
familiar nonprofit (M = 3.25, SD = 1.17), F(1, 326) = 10.09, p b .01, .13, p b .01). This study also found that the company–nonprofit fit was
η2p = .03. Therefore, H2a–c were supported (Table 2). one of the relevant independent variables influencing all three depen-
Regarding H3a–c, participants exposed to high-fit condition be- dent variables in this study: supportive CSR outcomes (B = .26,
tween the company and nonprofit's cause showed a greater supportive S.E. = .08, β = .12, p b .01), altruistic motives (B = .22, S.E. = .11,
CSR intention (M = 4.87, SD = 1.07) than those exposed to the low-fit β = .10, p b .05), and CCI intention (B = .23, S.E. = .12, β = .10,
condition (M = 4.46, SD = 1.12), F(1, 326) = 13.32, p b .001, ηp2 = .04. p b .05). Regarding the relationships between perceived altruism and
The results also revealed a significant effect of company–nonprofit fit CCI, respectively, results revealed that perceived altruistic motives was
on the perceived altruism. Experiment participants exposed to the the variable that had the strongest impact on supportive CSR outcomes
(B = .67, S.E. = .05, β = .65, p b .001). Also, CCI intention was positively
Table 1 associated with supportive CSR outcomes (B = .24, S.E. = .04, β = .26,
Multivariate analysis of variance on combined dependent variables. p b .001), suggesting that H5 and H6 were supported (see Table 3).
Independent variables Wilks' lambda df Error df F η2p Lastly, H6 posited that more altruistic motives would result in stronger
CCI intention. This study found that indeed altruistic motives led to a
Company reputation .883 3 324 14.37*** .12
Nonprofit familiarity (FAM) .922 3 324 9.11*** .08 significant increase in the levels of identification between research par-
Company–nonprofit fit (FIT) .958 3 324 4.69** .04 ticipants and the company studied (B = .33, S.E. = .21, β = .30,
⁎ p b .05
p b .001); thus, H6 was supported.
⁎⁎ p b .01. To test the mediation effects of perceived altruistic motives and
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. identification, the researchers compared two structural models in a

Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
6 H. Rim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 3 even when it is partnering with nonprofits. The study extends previous
Standardized coefficient of direct effects in the hypothesized SEM model (n = 337). study that demonstrated the impact of corporate credibility on con-
Independent factor Dependent factor B S.E. β sumers' attitude to brand, attitude to company and purchase intention
Baseline model
(Lafferty, 2007). Instead of the direct effects of company reputation,
Company Reputation → Supportive CSR Outcomes .92 .12 .39⁎⁎⁎ this study took into account the broader consequences of company–
Nonprofit familiarity → Supportive CSR Outcomes .48 .12 .20⁎⁎⁎ nonprofit partnership and examined the role of company reputation
Company–NPO fit → Supportive CSR Outcomes .46 .12 .19⁎⁎⁎ on supportive CSR outcomes. The study also attempted to understand
Mediated model (selected) the consumers' evaluation process by testing the direct and indirect ef-
Company reputation → Supportive CSR outcomes .27 .09 .12⁎⁎ fects of company reputation on perceived altruism and CCI intention.
Company reputation → Perceived altruism .70 .11 .33⁎⁎⁎ Interestingly, our findings suggest that having a favorable company
Company reputation → CCI intentions .06 .13 .02
reputation is not a sufficient condition for CCI. Rather, triggering the
Nonprofit familiarity → Supportive CSR outcomes .25 .08 .11⁎⁎
Nonprofit familiarity → Perceived altruism .31 .11 .14⁎⁎ perception of altruistic motives behind CSR is a critical factor that en-
Nonprofit familiarity → CCI intentions .30 .12 .13⁎ genders the consumers' intention to identify with the company. Even
Company–NPO fit → Supportive CSR outcomes .26 .08 .12⁎⁎ though a company enjoys a good CSR reputation, the company's mo-
Company–NPO fit → Perceived altruism .22 .11 .10⁎ tives for supporting CSR and partnering with a nonprofit should be per-
Company–NPO fit → CCI intentions .23 .12 .10⁎
ceived to be altruistic by the consumer as that stimulates their intention
Perceived altruism → CCI intentions .33 .21 .30⁎⁎⁎
Perceived altruism → Supportive CSR outcomes .67 .05 .65⁎⁎⁎ to identify with the company. Research in brand attachment suggests
CCI intentions → Supportive CSR outcomes .24 .04 .26⁎⁎⁎ that individuals develop attachment to brands that can be counted on
Baseline model: χ2(21, n = 337) = 401.83, p b 0.01, SRMR = .23, RMSEA = .23 (90% to fulfill needs to gratify, enable, and enrich the self (Park et al., 2006).
Confidence Interval: .21, .25), AIC = 447.83, and CFI = .50. By supporting CSR, particularly when it is perceived as altruistic, the
Mediated model: χ2(12, n = 337) = 53.73, p b 0.01, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .10 (90% public is more likely to identify with a company as a means of self-
Confidence Interval: .08, .13), AIC = 117.73, and CFI = .95. gratification. From a practical point of view, CSR messages should con-
χ2/df test: Δ χ2 = 348.1, Δ df = 9, p b .01.
⁎ p b .05. vey altruistic motives to the consumer. This study further implies the
⁎⁎ p b .01. potential of incorporating a positive corporate image into a company's
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. communication strategy.
The study revealed the benefit of partnering with familiar nonprofits
and thereby increasing partnership effectiveness when mediated by al-
truism and identification. This study confirms that a nonprofit's famil-
hierarchical/nested relation in terms of the χ2–df test: a model with
iarity can transfer to CSR evaluations, supporting previous studies of
structural paths from those mediators and another model (i.e., the base-
cause–brand alliance and the moderating role of familiarity (Lafferty,
line model) without such paths to see if the mediation model is statisti-
2009; Perera & Chaminda, 2013). We suggest that partnering with a
cally better than the baseline model in the nested relation. The
familiar nonprofit is one of the key strategies in boosting partnership
mediation model turned out to perform substantially better than the
effects that create synergies. Our findings also imply the need for non-
baseline without mediating paths via the mediators (i.e., altruistic
profit organizations to invest in branding to leverage their images and
motives and CCI intention). According to Hu and Bentler's (1999)
to get involved in active brand communications. Increasing awareness
joint-cutoff criteria, the baseline model is not acceptable: χ 2(21,
of nonprofit brand names and their causes can eventually increase
n = 337) = 401.83, p b 0.01, SRMR = .23, RMSEA = .23 (90% Confi-
their competitive advantages as familiar nonprofit brands are often per-
dence Interval: .21, .25), AIC = 447.83, and CFI = .50. Across all data-
ceived to be more important and may find the right company partners
model fit criteria, it is clear that the baseline model without mediat-
more easily (Lafferty & Edmondson, 2014).
ing paths via the mediators is not tenable as a valid model. However,
In terms of company–nonprofit fit, which has been controversial in
when mediating paths were added to the baseline model, its perfor-
CSR studies, we found that when a company partners with a nonprofit
mance was significantly improved so as to be retained as a valid
organization that is similar to the company's expertise and cause do-
model: χ2(12, n = 337) = 53.73, p b 0.01, SRMR = .04, RMSEA =
main, consumers show stronger CSR supportive intentions. Our findings
.10 (90% Confidence Interval: .08, .13), AIC = 117.73, and CFI =
confirm the role of goodness of fit in consumers' evaluations of partner-
.95. Therefore, in terms of the nested/hierarchical model comparison
ship. Past studies have considered fit as a determinant of consumer atti-
procedure, although the baseline model is more parsimonious by 9 df
tude toward a brand extension, suggesting that a good fit generates easy
(Δ df = 9), the mediation model should be selected as a better
transferability of an organization's expertise and image with a simple
model: χ2change (9, n = 337) = 348.1, p b .01.
heuristic cognitive process (e.g. Lafferty et al., 2004, Van Rekom et al.,
2014). The current study empirically demonstrated the positive effects
5. Discussion of fit in partnership evaluation.
Most importantly, to better understand the logic behind company–
5.1. Major findings and implications nonprofit partnership effects, the current study tested and confirmed
the mediation effects of perceived altruistic motives and CCI intentions
The main focus of the study was to provide insights for a company to on supportive CSR outcomes. In addition, we found that perceived altru-
determine ideal nonprofit partners by demonstrating the indirect and ism for CSR partnership led to a significant increase in the level of identi-
direct effects of partnership on supportive CSR outcomes through con- fication between the consumer and a company. Our findings support past
sumers' attribution of CSR and CCI intentions. First, this study showed studies that suggested that the success of CSR varies depending on per-
that a company's prior reputation significantly influences supportive ceived motivation (e.g. Bae & Cameron, 2006, Vlachos et al., 2009) and
CSR outcomes and perceived altruism whereas it has no impact on the put emphasis on delivering sincerity in messages. As more and more
public's identification with the company. The findings complement a companies adopt and promote their CSR activities, the public does not
growing body of literature on the benefits of strong company reputa- simply take CSR at face value because it recognizes the use of CSR as a
tion. Consistent with previous studies (e.g. Bae & Cameron, 2006, marketing strategy. Given the public's need to engage in prosocial behav-
Lafferty, 2007, Vlachos et al., 2009) consumers tend to perceive sincere iors to express self-value and to gratify the self (Park et al., 2006), sincere
motives behind CSR initiatives and engage in supportive behaviors and altruistic motives for CSR should be emphasized in the partnership
when a company has a good reputation. However, it is challenging for message, not only to increase the public's supportive behaviors, but also
a company with a negative reputation to communicate its good deeds, to enhance consumer–company identification intention.

Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
 H. Rim et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Partnering with nonprofits has become a popular form of CSR, but
there is limited understanding of which counterparts work best for both
companies and nonprofits. The study provides practical implications for
both. To enhance nonprofit-company partnership effectiveness, it is bet-
ter for the for-profit organizations to choose a familiar nonprofit partner,
which is related to the company's business. For nonprofit organizations,
choosing a company partner with a favorable reputation may increase
the consumers' intention to support a cause. When it comes to under-
standing the consumers' evaluation process of a nonprofit-company part-
nership, we confirmed that a nonprofit partnership increases perceived
altruism of the company's motives for supporting CSR, which eventually
enhances CCI intentions and supportive CSR outcomes. However, corpo-
rations should note that having a good reputation does not guarantee
the consumer's intention to identify with the company. Only when a con-
sumer infers a company's sincere motives for supporting a cause are they
likely to identify themselves with the company. In that regard, working
with a familiar nonprofit which supports a cause relevant to the
company's business would work best for a company seeking to enhance
perceived altruistic motives, consumer identification with the company,
and supportive CSR outcomes.
5.2. Limitations and suggestions for future studies
While this research provides answers to some questions about the
effectiveness of nonprofit partnerships from a CSR management per-
spective, it has limitations. First, more work is necessary to understand
to what extent a partnership may garner trust and improve brand atti-
tudes, and the possible interaction effects of partnership conditions.
Also, it would be worth to examine whether any negative spillover ef-
fects occur for nonprofit brands after alliances with negatively regarded
companies. The college students are one of most important consumer
groups, but future research could replicate the findings of this study
by using more representative samples. In addition, this study used a fic-
titious company for manipulation to exclude potential influences
caused by the public's previous experience with a known brand. Future
studies may consider using a real brand to measure the effect of partner-
ship on CSR supportive outcomes, especially to examine CCI intention.
Lastly, negative company reputation also can vary in severity, but the
findings are restricted to the conditions tested in this experimental
study. Further research is necessary to understand the degree to
which negative company reputation may trigger suspicion about a
company's motives for pursuing CSR activities and the subsequent sup-
portive intentions across different industry settings.
Reference
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as
competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224–237.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of
customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585.
Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of
corporate giving. Public Relations Review, 32, 144–150.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate so-
cial responsibility on customer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for
understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67,
76–77.
Carroll, A. B. (2000). Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: Corporate so-
cial responsibility and models of management morality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10,
33–42.
Cone (2010). More than three-quarters of Americans say a nonprofit–corporate partner-
ship makes a cause stand out. Retrieved September 10, from http://www.coneinc.
com/research/archive.php
Cornwell, T. B., & Coote, L. V. (2005). Corporate sponsorship of a cause: The role of iden-
tification in purchase intent. Journal of Business Research, 58, 268–276 (p. 7).
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate so-
cial responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 24, 224–241.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.
Please cite this article as: Rim, H., et al., Strategic partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social responsibility (CSR): The mediating role of
perceived altruism and orga..., Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.035
7
Escalas, J. E. (1996). Narrative processing: building connections between brands and the
self. Unpublished dissertation, Duke University.
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the
attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 280–289.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164–1184.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2000a). Opportunity platforms and safety
nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105(1),
85–106.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. (2000b). The reputation quotient: A
multistakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management,
7(4), 241–255.
Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business and society
thought. Business and Society, 33, 150–166.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility
and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands.
Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43–54.
Ha, Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the
web. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 438–452.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. -B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identi-
fication on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Journal of
Psychological Research, 43(4), 195–206.
Kim, N., Sung, Y., & Lee, M. (2012). Consumer evaluations of social alliance: The effects of
perceived fit between companies and non-profit organizations. Journal of Business
Ethics, 109, 163–174.
Kuo, A., & Rice, D. H. (2015). The impact of perceptual congruence on the effectiveness of
cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 78–88.
Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause–brand alliance when consumers eval-
uate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447–453.
Lafferty, B. A. (2009). Selecting the right cause partners for the right reasons: The role of
importance and fit in cause–brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 26(4), 359–382.
Lafferty, B. A., & Edmondson, D. R. (2014). A note on the role of cause type in cause-
related marketing. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1455–1460.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause–brand alliances: Does the cause help the
brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423–429.
Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the
partners: A look at cause–brand alliance. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 509–531.
Lee, E. M., Park, S. -Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its ante-
cedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1716–1724.
Lee, M. -D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolu-
tionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10,
53–73.
Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). “I need you too!” Corporate identity attractiveness for con-
sumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245–260.
Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy of effects approach to gauge the ef-
fectiveness of CSR to generate goodwill towards the firm: Financial versus nonfinan-
cial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38(2), 141–159.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., & Priester, J. (2006). Beyond attitudes: Attachment and con-
sumer behavior. Seoul Journal of Business, 12(2), 3–35.
Park, S. -Y., Hitchon, J. B., & Yun, G. W. (2004). The effects of brand familiarity in alignment
advertising. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 750–765.
Perera, L. C. R., & Chaminda, J. W. D. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and product
evaluation: The moderating role of brand familiarity. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 20, 245–256.
Perez, R. C. (2009). Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility:
The role of consumer identification with the company. Corporate Reputation Review,
12(2), 177–191.
Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: Service provider–client rela-
tionships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 38–56.
Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. R. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship
— The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor
motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29–42.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Con-
sumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38,
225–243.
Shumate, M., & O'Connor, A. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing
NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60, 577–609.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps?
Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes.
Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30–42.
Vaidyanathan, R., & Aggarwal, P. (2005). Using commitments to drive consistency:
Enhancing the effectiveness of cause-related marketing communications. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 11(4), 231–246.
Van Rekom, J., Go, F. M., & Calter, D. M. (2014). Communicating a company's positive im-
pact on society — Can plausible explanations secure authenticity? Journal of Business
Research, 67, 1831–1838.
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulou, A. P., & Avramidis, P. A. (2009). Corporate so-
cial responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of
Academy Marketing Society, 37, 170–180.
Wang, D. H. -M., Chen, P. -H., Yu, T. H. -K., & Hsiao, C. -Y. (2015). The effects of corporate
social responsibility on brand equity and firm performance. Journal of Business
Research, 68, 2232–2236.
Wootliff, J., & Deri, C. (2001). NGOs: The new super brands. Corporate Reputation Review,
4, 157–164.