Do Consumers Expect Muy Bueno

SUMMER 2001 VOLUME 35, NUMBER 1 45

LOIS A. MOHR, DEBORAH J. WEBB, AND KATHERINE E. HARRIS

Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social

Responsibility on Buying Behavior Companies are facing increasing pressure to both maintain profitability and behave in socially responsible ways, yet researchers have pro- vided little information on how corporate social responsibility impacts profitability. This paper reports the findings from in-depth interviews of consumers to determine their views concerning the social responsibilities of companies. A typology of consumers whose purchasing behavior ranges from unresponsive to highly responsive to corporate social responsibility was developed from the analysis.

According to a recent Gallup poll (1997), the public has less confidence in big business than other institutions such as the military, the police, public schools, and newspapers. The only institutions ranking lower in consumer confidence were Congress and the criminal justice system. Con- currently, firms are under increasing pressure to give money to charities, protect the environment, and help solve social problems in their communities-in other words, to behave in socially responsible ways. Although academics and business leaders have engaged in a great deal of debate about the social responsibilities of business, there has been little research on what the general public expects. As a result, those who run corporations lack a clear understanding of what the public wants from them and how far they are expected to go toward helping their communities.

This paper presents the results of a research project designed to investi- gate what one important public, the consumer, thinks about corporate social responsibility. The focus of the project includes the following questions:

Lois A. Mohr is Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, Georgia State University; Debo- rah J. Webb is Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, State University of West Georgia; and Katherine E. Hams is Doctoral Candidate, Department of Marketing, Georgia State University.

This research was supported by a grant from the Georgia State University Marketing Roundtable. The authors also wish to thank the following people for their help with interviewing and coding: Jim Bardzil, Alicia Edwards, Mark Leach, Victoria Miller, and Americus Reed.

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. I , 2001

Copyright 2001 by The American Council on Consumer Interests 0022-O078/OOO2- 1 1.50145

46 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

1. From the consumer’s perspective, do corporations have a responsibility to society?

2. If corporations are seen as having a responsibility to society, what is the nature of that responsibility?

3. How much knowledge do consumers think they have about the level of social responsibility of individual firms?

4. How much do consumers really care about a corporation’s level of social responsibility? Are their purchase and investment decisions affected by this factor? Why or why not?

5. What motives do consumers attribute to corporations that take action to help society? Do they believe firms are acting out of altru- ism, self-interest, or both? Does this make a difference to them?

The paper begins by examining the literature to define corporate social responsibility (CSR), to derive a definition of Socially Responsible Con- sumer Behavior (SRCB), and to determine the prevalence of SRCB in American society. The methods and results of this study, consisting of in- depth interviews with forty-four consumers, are then described. Implications are drawn for academics, marketing practitioners, and public policymakers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior

A major question for business historically has been whether corporate decision makers should be concerned with issues other than profitability. Adam Smith (1863) argued that business owners, in the pursuit of profit, will ultimately produce the greatest social good because of the invisible hand of the marketplace. Many contemporary thinkers, however (e.g., Petkus and Woodruff 1992; Smith 1995) believe that conditions that impede the effectiveness of the invisible hand are often present. These include, among other factors, the lack of consumer information and imper- fect competition. For this reason, there is a growing literature attempting to define what it means for a company to be socially responsible.

CSR is a broad concept, so it is not surprising that there are a variety of meanings given to this term. Mohr (1994) groups the definitions into two general types: (1) multidimensional definitions and (2) definitions based on the concept of societal marketing. Multidimensional definitions delineate the major responsibilities of companies. Of these, Carroll’s

SUMMER 200 1 VOLUME 35, NUMBER 1 47

(1991) work has received the most attention. He suggests that CSR includes four kinds of responsibilities or dimensions: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. In his model, each dimension of CSR can be examined in relation to the various stakeholders of the organization (e.g., owners, customers, employees, the community, and the public at large). The societal marketing concept can be used to define CSR at a more abstract level. Kotler (1991) defines the societal marketing concept as doing business in a way that maintains or improves both the customer’s and society’s well-being. Petkus and Woodruff ( 1 992) extend this concept, defining CSR to include both avoiding harm and doing good.

Although these two types of definitions vary in level of abstraction and, therefore, appear quite different, they both emphasize that a socially responsible company must have concerns beyond short-term profitability (Mohr 1996). This paper adapts Petkus and Woodruff’s (1992) interpretation, defining CSR as a company’s commitment to minimizing or elim- inating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run beneficial impact on society. The dimensions of CSR, while not included in the definition, specify important areas of responsibility, such as obeying laws and ethical norms, treating employees fairly, protecting the environment, and contributing to charities.

Having examined social responsibility from the corporate side, the socially responsible consumer is now defined. Webster (1 975) provides the most comprehensive definition of “the socially conscious consumer . . . [as] a consumer who takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption or who attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change” (I 88). Because this definition is compatible with the researchers’ conceptualization of CSR, it is adapted to define socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) as a person basing his or her acquisition, usage, and disposition of products on a desire to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects and maximize the long-run beneficial impact on society. SRCB, then, requires the inclusion of CSR as one of the criteria influencing a person’s consumption patterns. A socially responsible consumer would, therefore, avoid buying products from companies that harm society and actively seek out products from companies that help society.

Does CSR Affect Purchasing Decisions?

Consumers first need to become aware of a firm’s level of social responsibility before this factor can impact their purchasing. Building


awareness is arguably the major purpose behind cause-related marketing, a subset of CSR that is defined by Varadarajan and Menon (1988) as a company promoting that a percentage of sales will go to support a specific nonprofit organization or cause. Only two studies were found in the academic literature that measure awareness, and both used nonprobabil- ity sampling. Ross, Stutts, and Patterson (199091) found that 53 percent of a sample could recall a cause-related advertisement for a product, and Webb and Mohr (1 998) found that 79 percent of a sample could describe a specific cause-related marketing campaign after the concept was explained to them.

Studies that measure consumer awareness or knowledge of the more general social responsibility levels of companies could not be found. This is probably because CSR is a broad and complex concept that is chal- lenging to measure. It is speculated that knowledge is fairly low, however, because it is difficult for consumers to acquire and store such information about many of the firms that provide the products they buy. Lack of awareness is likely, then, to be a major inhibitor of consumer responsive- ness to CSR. On the other hand, over one million copies have been sold of Shopping for a Better World, a book rating major companies on eight aspects of CSR (Council on Economic Priorities 1994). From this purchasing information it could be inferred that there are a number of consumers who desire a greater knowledge of the social responsibility records of companies. Indirect evidence of consumer interest is also pro- vided by the fact that 2.16 trillion U. s. dollars are now estimated to be invested in socially responsible funds, an increase of 82 percent between 1997 and 1999 (Scherreik 2000).

Most of the research on consumer response has not taken the awareness problem into account. Rather, past studies have assumed awareness of CSR or created it by providing examples, then measuring consumer response. With that caveat in mind, the researchers review first surveys, and then experiments, that examine the impact of CSR knowledge on the consumer’s attitudes and purchase decisions. The surveys attempt to measure the size and composition of the consumer segment that is affected by CSR, while the experiments attempt to determine whether CSR has a significant impact on consumer responses.

Survey Results

The 1999 CondRoper Cause Related Trends Report examines consumer responses to companies’ participation in cause-related marketing (Cone


Communications Press Release 1999). Each year since 1993 at least 80 percent of those surveyed reported having a more positive image of a firm if it offers support to a cause they care about. Furthermore, given parity in price and quality, two-thirds or more of the sample said they are likely to switch brands or retailers to those participating in cause-related marketing. Impor- tantly, socially and politically active consumers are even more likely to have a positive image (94%) of firms practicing cause marketing and to change brands (79%) or retailers (77%) to support these companies. Roper’s Green Gauge Study reveals a similar finding: the 10 percent of Americans who are most committed to the environment, the True-Blue Greens, are also socially and politically active opinion leaders (Speer 1997).

Academics have also conducted research related to this topic. Ross and his colleagues conducted two surveys on consumer response to cause- related marketing. In interviews with a convenience sample of 225 people, Ross, Stutts, and Patterson (1990-91) found that 49 percent stated that a firm’s support of a cause had been a primary reason for them to purchase a product, and 54 percent said that they are likely to be influenced to try a new brand in the future as a result of a cause-related promotion. In a later study, Ross, Patterson, and Stutts (1992) showed respondents a cause-related ad and then measured their responses. They found that, on average, respondents said the ad would make them more willing to purchase products from the company running the ad (mean =

4.92 on a 7-point scale). In a national telephone study, Smith and Alcorn (1991) found that

almost half of their respondents (46%) reported that they are likely to switch brands to support companies that make donations to nonprofit organizations, and nearly a third (30%) stated that they sometimes buy products simply because the manufacturer supports charitable causes.

Creyer and Ross (1997) conducted a survey of parents of elementary school children to measure responses to the ethical and unethical behavior of firms. They found that their respondents expect companies to con- duct business ethically and see this as an important issue. Furthermore, the respondents state that they would pay higher prices for an ethical company’s products.

To summarize this research, survey results show that most consumers say they appreciate and either do or would reward firms that make charitable donations. Consumers also report that they expect firms to protect the environment and behave ethically and that they sometimes base their purchasing decisions on these factors. However, no surveys could be found that attempt to measure the proportion of people whose purchasing


is affected by the greater variety of behaviors summarized by the concept of CSR. Furthermore, survey data typically suffers from a social desirability response bias. When answering questions about their reactions to CSR, respondents may want to appear thoughtful and concerned to both the interviewer and themselves. Because the cost of answering questions is lower than the cost of actual behavior, surveys probably overestimate the potential impact of CSR on purchase decisions. Experiments are less likely to suffer from a social desirability bias because participants are less likely to guess the goal of the research. Next reviewed are experimental studies that attempt to determine whether various dimensions of CSR have a significant impact on consumer responses.

Experimental Results

Several researchers have created cause-related marketing scenarios to measure the impact of advertised philanthropy on consumer responses, and the results have been mixed. Holmes and Kilbane (1993) found that promising a donation to charity led to a more positive attitude toward the message than not promising a donation, but it did not affect attitude toward the store or purchase intention. Berger and Cunningham (1996) found no significant impact of cause-related ads for a travel agency on attitude toward the brand or purchase intention. Lafferty (1996) found no significant differences in responses to ads promising donations to causes when compared to ads with no cause mentioned. She did, however, find that responses were more positive when the cause was more, rather than less, important to the respondents. Dahl and Lavack (1995) manipulated size of donation and found that the product was evaluated as more appeal- ing when the donation was larger (i,e., ten cents per package of juice), and the company was evaluated as exploiting the nonprofit organization when the donation was smaller (i.e., one-fourth of a cent per package).

In several experiments CSR has been manipulated by creating different levels of corporate ethics. Creyer and Ross (1996) created scenarios describing breakfast cereal manufacturers as either unethical (i.e., lying to consumers about a health benefit) or ethical (acting quickly to refund customers’ money after learning that some boxes had not been completely filled). Subjects were then asked how much they were willing to pay for the cereal. The results showed that, when compared to a control group where the company’s ethics were not discussed, respondents were not willing to pay more for cereal made by the ethical firm, but they did demand lower prices on cereal sold by the unethical firm. In a hypothet-


ical newspaper article and ad for athletic shoes, Lafferty and Goldsmith (1 999) manipulated both endorser and corporate credibility. Positive corporate credibility was created in the newspaper article by describing the company’s community and environmental contributions, while the negative manipulation described the company’s poor quality control and alleged SEC violations. The authors found corporate credibility to have a significant impact on attitudes toward both the ad and brand and on purchase intention. Furthermore, the effect of corporate credibility on attitude toward the brand and purchase intention were stronger than the effect of endorser (i.e., spokesperson) credibility. Experimental findings by Folkes and Kamins (1999) are consistent with these results. In a hypothetical friend’s description of a brand of telephone, Folkes and Kamins manipulated sound quality and ethics of the company’s employment practices. They found ethics information to affect attitude toward the firm even more strongly than the quality of sound, an important product attribute. When the firm was described as unethical (i.e., employing child labor), attitude toward the firm was negative regardless of the sound quality of the telephone.

Brown and Dacin (1997) studied the impact of CSR by manipulating level of philanthropy and community involvement. They gave subjects a description of a fictitious firm, along with a CSR report card with A and B grades to show above average community involvement and D and F grades indicating below average involvement. Respondents were asked to rate products made by the firm as well as the firm itself. The results showed that a high CSR grade led to a higher evaluation of the company and corporate evaluation was positively related to product evaluation. In another experiment, Murray and Vogel(l997) had a control group of subjects read a fictitious newspaper article describing an electric company, while an experimental group read an identical article that also included information about the prosocial activities of the firm (e.g., participation in the economic development of the region, a latchkey children’s program, and energy conservation). Respondents had significantly more positive attitudes toward the company and more positive behavioral intentions (e.g., would be more likely to support the company in a government or labor dispute, would be more likely to write a newspaper editor in support of the company, and would be more likely to recommend a job appli- cation to a friend) when the company’s prosocial programs were described. Finally, in scenarios about a new retailer moving into a community, Handelman and Arnold (1999) manipulated store image attributes (assortment, prices, and convenience of location) and CSR (activities for


the family, community, and country), then measured respondents’ support for the retailer (e.g., supporting a zoning permit, not boycotting, and rec- ommending the store to friends). They found CSR to have a strong, significant impact on support. It is especially striking that, when the store was described as not being supportive of the family, not contributing to local charities, and not buying products made in-country, it received no more support when it was described as strong on assortment, price, and convenience than when it was described as weak on these attributes. In other words, being socially irresponsible overshadowed traditional criteria consumers use to select retailers.

Overall, the experiments indicate that information on CSR can have a significant impact on behavioral intentions as well as evaluations of products and companies. The least positive results were found in the cause- related marketing experiments-this marketing tactic did not always improve consumer responses to the company, and there is evidence that a small donation may be seen as exploitive of the nonprofit organization. When CSR has been experimentally communicated by means other than advertising and when the level of social responsibility has been described as being more extensive than making a donation to one cause, the results have been strikingly more positive. Furthermore, these experiments demonstrate a strong, consistently negative impact of unethical or irresponsible corporate behaviors, with this factor neutralizing or even dom- inating traditional purchase and retailer selection criteria.

What is missing from the literature is research on the details of what consumers think and feel about socially responsible and irresponsible companies. This qualitative study begins the process of filling this gap in the knowledge of consumers’ views.

DATA COLLECTION

Discovery is the goal of this exploratory, qualitative research; thus, the collection of data was structured to meet this goal (Strauss and Corbin 1990). It was decided that semistructured interviews would provide the best means of identifying and describing the variety of thoughts and feel- ings consumers have about CSR. Semistructured interviews provide some structure to the interview process while encouraging interviewees to freely discuss the phenomenon of interest in their own words and allowing the interviewer to probe thoughts as needed (Bernard 1988). The results of this study may then provide useful guidance for designing more structured, quantitative research in the future.

SUMMER 2001 VOLUME 35, NUMBER I 53

The researchers conducted forty-eight in-depth personal interviews ranging from forty-five minutes to an hour and a half with the person in the street in a major metropolitan area. Following accepted interview procedure of working from general to more specific inquiry (Bernard 1988), the researchers began each topic with general questions (e.g., views of business in general) and then became more specific (e.g., what a company’s primary responsibilities are) if the participant did not address all of the topics. The researchers developed the initial interview guide by con- ducting a pilot study with four respondents. Consistent with accepted interpretive data collection procedures (e.g., Hirschman 1986; Hudson and Ozanne 1988; Spiggle 1994), after beginning data collection, the research team continued to meet and discuss how the questions were working so it could modify ones that were not clear to respondents. The researchers gen- erated discussion about the ways companies help or harm the community, how respondents learn about what companies are doing, whether a company’s socially responsible or irresponsible behavior affects their product or stock purchasing, how respondents view socially responsible companies, what respondents think companies’ motives are for socially responsible behavior, and what responsibilities they think consumers have.

Five people conducted interviews for this project. Interviewees were anonymous to minimize any social desirability effects on responses. To accomplish this, interviewers approached people they did not know in public settings and solicited their participation. Everyone was offered $10 for participating to minimize the rejection rate.

Unlike positivistic research where prediction makes representation of the population of interest the guiding force in sampling, qualitative research focuses on understanding the phenomenon of interest. In this case the goal of sampling is to achieve variation and density in the descriptions of attitudes and behaviors among consumers (Strauss and Corbin 1990). As suggested by these authors, the researchers initially employed purposeful open sampling. During this phase of data collection, the researchers selected varied interview sites to maximize the variety of consumers who would be sampled. The sites were disbursed across different urban areas, suburban communities, and small towns in one metropolitan area and included the following: gyms, public parks, city squares, laundromats, bars, cafes, restaurants, retirement homes, book stores, university quadrangles, offices, barber shops, and post offices. After each interview, the researchers asked participants to complete a short demographic questionnaire and tracked the growing sample based on age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Imbalances in these


demographic criteria were used to proceed to a discriminant sampling procedure using established eligibility requirements for later interviews. For example, when the researchers had interviewed eleven people under age thirty, they asked the interviewers to solicit only people who appeared to be over thirty. The researchers continued the sampling process until theoretical saturation occurred and no new or relevant data seemed to be emerging from subsequent interviews. Forty-four transcribed, usable interviews resulted from this sampling process.

THE SAMPLE

Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample and demonstrates that the researchers did achieve the goal of obtaining a varied sample. It is gender-balanced with ages ranging from eighteen to eighty-six (mean of 42). It is racially diverse (only 73% Caucasian), and education ranges from not completing high school to attending graduate school. Socioeconomic status varies from lower class (two people even appeared to be homeless) to white collar. In self-reported political and social ideology, respondents range from conservative to liberal.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The researchers analyzed and interpreted the interview transcripts in three distinct ways to capture the richness of the data. First, they selected five variables and coded each one for every interviewee. Second, they examined each case (each transcript) to determine why each participant does or does not use CSR as a consideration when purchasing. Finally, the researchers read all the transcripts together to identify common themes.

Coding of Variables

The variable coding system was developed by two of the authors and two assistants. The researchers selected which variables to code from reading the transcripts, suggesting variables that emerged from the interviews and attempting to code a number of variables for a subsample of the transcripts. Three people coded each variable. As suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967), the researchers used an iterative process of reading and coding the relevant sections of the transcripts, meeting to discuss coding agreements, disagreements, and difficulties, modifying the coding system, reading and coding more transcripts, and so forth. The


Table 1 Respondent Characteristics

n % n %

Age Cohort Pre-DepressiodDepression Baby Boom Baby Bust

Gender Female Male

Ethnicity Caucasian African American Other

SES Lower SES Blue/Pink Collar White Collar

Income Under $8,000 $8,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 Over $75,000

11 17 16

22 22

32 9 3

4 14 26

3 7 8 8 7 9 2

25 39 36

50 50

73 20

7

9 32 59

7 16 18 18 16 21 5

Education Some High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Attended Graduate School

Children Yes No

Marital Status Single Married Living with a Partner SeparatedDivorced Widowed

Political Ideology Conservative Middle-of-the-Road Liberal

Social Ideology Conservative Middle-of-the-Road Liberal

Party Democrats Independents Republican Other None

2 10 10 9

13

21 23

18 19

1 4 2

12 I I 20

9 14 21

16 16 5 4 3

5 23 23 21 29

48 52

41 43 2 9 5

28 26 46

20 32 48

36 36 12 9 7

researchers decided that the system was complete for each variable when two criteria were met: (1) all respondents could be coded within one of the categories in the system, and (2) an inter-coder agreement level above S O was achieved. To measure inter-coder agreement, in addition to cal- culating the percentage of agreement between coders, the researchers also calculated proportional reduction in loss (PRL) reliability scores. Rust and Cooil (1 994) argue that a PRL level of .70 and above is acceptable for most academic research. The inter-coder agreement rates range from .53 to .78, and the PRL reliability levels range from .80 to .96. To improve the validity of the coding, when coders disagreed, the researchers deter- mined the final coding through group discussion.


Analysis of Cases

In addition to the structured coding of variables across all interviewees, the researchers also analyzed each case as a whole. Because this study examines consumer responses to CSR, the researchers were ultimately most interested in whether CSR affects consumer decisions and why it does or does not. For this reason, they divided the transcripts into four consumer response groups (varying from little or no response to fre- quent, strong response to CSR). One group at a time, the researchers then read each participant’s entire transcript with the goal of learning the reasons for his or her level of response. In this way the researchers tried to capture the thought processes that each respondent goes through in decid- ing what he or she thinks of socially irhesponsible companies and how to respond via consumer or investment decisions. The researchers believed that this method allowed them to tap what each respondent felt were the most important factors in his or her judgments.

Two of the authors worked on this analysis both independently and together, writing descriptions of each case and considering various ways of summarizing the results. They decided that the best way to describe the complex thought processes of so many people was to develop subcategories within each of the four response groups. Both the number and nature of the subcategories were allowed to emerge from the data. After the authors came to an agreement on the subcategories, they wrote descriptions of each one. With an additional assistant, the two authors then assigned each of the respondents to one of the subgroups. The inter- coder agreement rates range from .73 to 3 5 , and the PRL reliability rates range from .86 to .96.

Identification of Themes

For a final, holistic, analysis, the three authors reread all the interview transcripts searching for themes across the discussions of CSR, a process Spiggle refers to as “seeking patterns in meanings” (1994, 499). This form of interpretation was chosen because it allows the researchers to combine perspectives of a number of people to get beyond the meanings that are understood by individuals. While remaining connected to the data, the goal was to produce “an interpretation of interpretations” (Spig- gle 1994, 499). The researchers looked for thoughts that were expressed by a number of respondents and ones that had not been described in the previous analyses. Each of the researchers independently made notes on

SUMMER 2001 VOLUME 35, NUMBER I 57

important things said in each interview, and they periodically met and discussed this process. When they had worked through all forty-four transcripts, they independently made summary lists of themes. Together the researchers discussed these themes, combined them in different ways, and finally decided on three that they believe add the most insight about the relationship between the respondents and CSR.

RESULTS

The Coded Variables

The researchers developed the coding system for each variable based on the dimensions revealed by the interviews and, when appro- priate, relevant theory. They were able to identify and code five variables on views of business and CSR. (See Table 2 for a summary of the coding system and respondent distributions.) When the researchers were not able to code a respondent on a variable (i.e., when the topic did not come up in a particular interview), they did not include that respondent in the analysis of that variable. In this section the coding system and the distribution of respondents on each variable is described. Given the exploratory nature of this research, it should be noted that the coding system ought to be viewed as a preliminary typology requiring quantitative testing in the future. In addition, the fre- quencies and proportions are reported to give the reader a more complete understanding of the findings, but they are not intended to be projected to the general population.

I . General Attitude toward Business (Attitude toward Business)

Each respondent was rated on a five-point ordinal scale from extremely positive to negative. To be rated as extremely positive, a respondent needed to have expressed enthusiastic support without hesita- tion, while those rated as positive were less enthusiastic yet expressed no reservations. Those rated as qualified positive did include reservations but were more positive than negative. For those rated as qualified negative, the negative attitudes were stronger than the positive ones. Finally, those evaluated as negative expressed an overall negative attitude toward business. As can be seen from Table 2, respondents were basically positive toward business in general, with only about one-fourth rated as qualified negative or negative.


Table 2 Views of Business and CSR

n % n %

Attitude toward business Attitude toward SR firms Extremely positive 12 28 Extremely positive 20 46

Qualified negative 6 14 Qualified negative 4 9

Positive 9 21 Positive 12 27 Qualified positive 10 23 Qualified positive 8 18

Negative 6 14 Firm’s motives

Level of CSR desired Help self 12 29 Very low 3 7 Help self and others 21 51 Low 4 9 Help others and self 5 12 Moderately low 9 21 Help others 3 7 Moderately high 12 27 High 16 36 Impact of CSR on CB

Precontemplation 16 36 contemplation I I 25 Action 8 18 Maintenance 9 21

2 . Level of CSR the Respondent Expects or Would Like to See (Level of CSR Desired)

The emergent coding system for this item is a five-point ordinal scale ranging from very low to high. Those rated as very low expressed the view that firms are only responsible to stockholders or to make as much profit as possible while still obeying the laws. Those rated as low expressed the same view but added that they believe that doing more than this is good or nice. Respondents coded as moderately low still view the firm’s primary responsibility to be profit making, but they also believe that companies need to be concerned with additional responsibilities related to their business. This includes behaviors that may not necessar- ily or immediately improve profits, such as satisfying customers and treating employees fairly. The respondents that the researchers rated moderately high include contributing to the community (e.g., giving something back) as one responsibility of companies. Finally, those rated as high indicated that firms should be actively involved in improving the community and less concerned with short-term profits.

Over half of the sample expressed the desire for a moderately high or high level of CSR from companies. Those who reported that they desire, at most, a moderately low level mostly focused on their belief that companies should not be expected to be philanthropic or actively support their communities.


3. Attitude toward Socially Responsible Firms (Attitude toward SR Firms)

The researchers coded respondents on a four-point ordinal scale ranging from extremely positive to qualified negative. (Although a category for negative attitudes was created, no respondents fit into that category.) Extremely positive interviewees demonstrated enthusiastic support immediately, while positive respondents showed less engagement of emotions. Those coded as qualified positive expressed primarily positive attitudes along with reservations. These reservations came from distrust of the firm (e.g., its honesty or its motives), from distrust of the firm’s choice of ways of being socially responsible, from doubting that a company can make a positive impact, or from distrust of the media source of information about CSR. Those categorized as qualified negative expressed more negative than positive attitudes, and the same types of reservations were expressed. Overall, a strong majority of those interviewed expressed positive or extremely positive attitudes toward socially responsible firms, while less than one-tenth were more negative than positive.

4. Attributions of the Firm’s Motives for Being Socially Responsible (Firm’s Motives)

Using the basic distinctions in the literature between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations (e.g., Keaveney and Nelson 1993) and between ego- istic and altruistic motivations (e.g., Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi 1996), the researchers based the attribution coding on self-interested versus other-interested motives. They coded respondents’ thoughts about the company’s motives into one of four categories: (1) rewards sought for the firm itself (e.g., boosting sales, making more profits, publicity, goodwill in the community), (2) rewards sought mostly for the firm but partly for others (such as the community, society, or the environment), (3) rewards sought mostly for others but partly for the firm, and (4) rewards sought solely for others.

Close to one-third of the sample view CSR as a totally self-interested behavior on the part of the company. On the other hand, a strong majority attribute at least some of the motivation to helping others. Because only a few see CSR as totally altruistic, most of the respondents believe that there are mixed motives behind such corporate behavior.

5. Impact of CSR on Consumer Behavior (Impact of CSR on CB)

The researchers asked the respondents if it mattered to them, as a con-


sumer, if a company takes action to help society or not. After reading the transcripts a number of times, it was decided to base the coding system for this variable on Andreasen’s model of stages in behavior change (Andreasen 1995). The model assumes that “consumers do not undertake high-involvement behaviors rapidly and in one step. They move toward the desired outcome in definable stages” (1 43). The researchers consider it a high involvement behavior to base purchasing of goods, services, or company stocks on CSR because it involves a pattern of purchasing as opposed to making only one purchase decision. Furthermore, this pattern of purchasing requires breaking out of the traditional, self-oriented way of buying based primarily on price, quality, and convenience or, in the case of stocks, on financial returns. Using CSR as a criterion requires both learning about complex social issues and obtaining information about the social responsibility records of individual firms. These are high- effort behaviors that are only likely to be undertaken when CSR is seen as important. Changing such behaviors rarely happens quickly. The researchers expect, instead, that consumers who do respond to CSR work up to socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB) through a progres- sion of stages. As they advance through the stages they may even back- slide to an earlier stage from time to time.

Andreasen’s (1995) model has four stages of behavior change: precontemplation, contemplation, action, and maintenance. This study’s respondents were divided into these same four categories with the following descriptions. Precontemplators are really not thinking about basing their purchase behavior on CSR at this point in their lives. Con- templators are thinking about basing purchasing on CSR or have used CSR as a criterion in the past, but this criterion still does not play much of a role in their decision processes or purchase behavior. The action-oriented have decided to base some of their buying on CSR, and maintainers are committed to using this criterion in much of their purchasing.

The precontemplators are unaware of any need to consider CSR when choosing products. Approximately one-third of this sample fit into this group. They essentially believe that they should only base their purchasing on standard economic, rational criteria. However, one person in this group gave different reasoning: he does not base his buying on CSR because he believes that companies should only be responsible for making a profit; in other words, he does not believe that CSR is a good thing.

Contemplators (one-quarter of the sample) seem to occasionally think about CSR in relation to purchasing, but this criterion still does not play a


large role when they choose products. Over half of this group could not give any examples of their behavior being influenced by CSR. The others had boycotted at least one company for what they perceived to be irresponsible behavior, but they were not actively boycotting any company now.

The smallest group (8 of 44) were classified into the action stage. Respondents in this stage are more aware of CSR issues, and, as a result, they have made a decision to use CSR as a factor when purchasing. All of these respondents avoid buying from certain companies they consider irresponsible, and three respondents even buy products occasionally from companies they view as socially responsible.

The maintainers (one-fifth of the sample) are committed to socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB). CSR is important to them, they work to learn about social issues and the behaviors of specific firms, and they believe that they can have an impact on the social responsibility of companies. Members of this group are often willing to switch brands or stores and even willing to pay a little more to make purchases that they consider socially responsible. Interviewees in this group tend to have a higher SES and educational level and rate themselves as more politically liberal than the rest of the sample.

Consumer Response to CSR-Analysis of Cases

The researchers conducted a case-by-case analysis of each participant within each stage of readiness to come to a greater understanding of why consumers do or do not base their purchasing on CSR. As a result, each category was subdivided into two groups, each with a detailed description. These results and example quotations from the transcripts follow.

Precontemplators

Consumers in this group do not base their purchasing on CSR, so the researchers examined the transcripts to determine why. The respondents in the first subgroup of precontemplators do not believe that companies should need to be actively involved in helping society or their communities. A few are even opposed to CSR: they believe that companies are unable to really help or that CSR interferes with the true purpose of business. The overall view is that companies are as responsible as they need to be if they make a quality product, make a profit, and maybe also treat employees well. Several comments that illustrate these views follow:


I do not think that they should have to go out of their way to donate anything to society. If they do I think that’s strictly a charity cause, you know. (m, 20)

They exist to make money for their shareholders and their owners and their employees and their customers. They don’t owe anything to society in general. (f, 44)

The second group of precontemplators supports CSR more than those in the first group, but their support seems to be mostly hypothetical. That is, they believe that companies should be actively involved in their communities, but they still base their purchasing on traditional criteria (i.e., price, quality, and convenience). This is because they lack knowledge about what businesses are doing, they have never thought about the concept of SRCB (i.e., purchasing to reward socially responsible company behavior or to punish irresponsible behavior), or they themselves are simply too self-interested and short-term oriented. Illustrative comments follow:

You know, I wouldn’t just sit down and take, you know, a book to find out what they are doing. Unless I’m particularly interested in . . . one particular corporation . . . or unless I’m associated or have family that work for that corporation. Other- wise I would have no interest in it. (f, 52)

Nothing stands out in my mind. I’m sure there are a lot of good companies out there that do good and we really don’t realize it as individuals. . . . I hate to say this, but, as far as grocery stores, I go to the one that is closest to me [rather than to one that is donating to a charity]. (f, 40)

Unfortunately, I have to say my beliefs and my morals have not truly conflicted with desires and wants . . . yet. I believe that if they had. . . I mean that if that sit- uation ever. . . happens, then I wouldn’t bring my business to that particular company. But right now, it hasn’t. So for me, I just look for quality, and I tend to not try to determine whether or not a corporation has my belief system. (m, 37)

Contemplators

This group puts some thought into CSR, but they follow through with little or no actual behavior. Their behavior has been limited to participation in boycotts in the past, and even this participation was usually due to social pressure. Again, the question is why has SRCB been so limited? Respondents in the first group within this category believe that CSR is a good thing hypothetically, but they think that it has such a limited impact on improving conditions for society that it is not worth basing their purchase decisions on it. Examples of this thinking follow:


I don’t think there’s a way to actually help society. Because no matter what they do, society is still going to remain the same. Coca Cola gives grants, scholarships to different people, . . . I know that each big corporation does something like that . . . , but I still go back to none of it actually in my opinion helped the society. (m, 28)

I think those [cause-related marketing offers] are fake, most of them. Because what they give is so little it doesn’t amount to anything. (m, 86)

The second group of contemplators believes that buying based on CSR is a good idea, but they still rarely do it. Overall, the reasons for the min- imal follow-through are personally focused: they have not really thought about it much, they do not know enough about the social responsibility records of firms (even if they follow the financial situations of companies), or they imply that they do not buy enough to make SRCB worth the effort.

I guess I consider it, but then there’s also products that I buy where I have no idea of what the behavior of the corporation is. It does make a difference if I know. But if I don’t know it doesn’t bother me. (m, 31)

When I buy Heinz Ketchup, I’m not thinking about what the . . . corporation Heinz is doing. Basically I like that particular ketchup and I prefer that ketchup over Hunt’s, so I can’t say that I think about that. . . . I think we need to have a report card on them . . . of what these companies are doing. (f, 3 1)

I don’t buy many things-a lot of things are given to me, but yes, I think I would throw my little bit of business toward a company that I knew was really helping in the community. (f, 83)

The Action Group

The people in this group have stronger beliefs about CSR, they have more knowledge about the issues, and most are actively boycotting and recycling. But CSR is still not a determinant of most of their purchasing behavior. To explain why, this group was again divided into two subcategories. The interviewees in the first subgroup believe that SRCB would be a good thing, but most of them do not feel they have enough knowledge about specific companies to do this very often. They especially feel that it is difficult to learn about the good things that companies are doing.

I mean I subscribe to the paper. But it’s rare that I spend enough time that I should researching a company in what they do and what they believe in before I purchase something like a stock. I think I should, but I don’t do it. (m, 24)

I would be able to avoid ones that I consider not socially responsible a little bit more than I would be able to target ones that I thought were really good examples of a socially responsible company. (m, 30)


Times are just too busy and, there again, it would depend on the size of purchase if it’s something you’re gonna research a long time. (f, 51)

The second subgroup of the Action Group is cynical about company motives for CSR and about media reports. They are especially cynical about positive things in the media, including cause-related marketing campaigns.

All that Ben and Jerry’s kind of stuff. Yea. I don’t know. I don’t know if I believe it so I really don’t put that much stock in it. (m, 41)

It’s [cause-related marketing] just like a propaganda scam to draw you in to get you to buy the product for people who like to, you know, help out. I mean nine out of ten it’s not on the up and up. (f, 26)

Maintainers

This group does practice SRCB, and the question is why do they go to this effort? The people in the first subgroup express and act primarily upon concern for environmental issues (as demonstrated, for example, by recycling, buying products with recycled content, boycotting polluters) and/or health issues (e.g., buying organic foods). They discussed other CSR issues, too, but these issues do not seem to drive their behavior as strongly. They may boycott or even make purchases based on other social issues when selecting among parity products. Overall, however, the strongest issue for this group is the environment.

I buy all organic vegetables and fruits. I buy products that have recycled content. I recycle. So, it does matter to me when I make purchases. (f, 26)

[I have boycotted] plenty. Sure. The fur coat industry. I’ve boycotted Exxon, many companies during the sixties that were manufacturing plutonium and different mechanisms for both nuclear armament as well as energy. (m, 47)

When I buy most of the time, I buy stuff that I can carry in my hand, I don’t take a bag. For example, I don’t take a plastic bag. (m, 35)

The second subgroup goes further toward practicing SRCB than any other in the sample. These people are knowledgeable about a range of CSR issues and also about specific company behaviors. Some believe that large corporations have too much power and are often concerned too much with only profits and stockholders. This group sees SRCB as a major way for citizens to gain some control over businesses, pushing them to be more responsible to their communities.


Consumers really should have the upper hand. The business should not really exist to tower over the public and be like a dictator to them. Really the public should have a say in how they operate. If it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t exist. (f, 25)

I think consumem have the responsibility to be as informed as they can so that they can make responsible choices about what companies and industries they’re willing to support. . . . I think a lot of our power is in buying power. You think, well, what is my one little dollar gonna affect in the long run. But if enough people felt the same way, it could definitely affect them [companies], and then they might notice. (f, 39)

The people in this group engage in a variety of socially responsible consumer behaviors related not only to the environment but also to a number of other social issues. This group is the most committed to practicing SRCB. Respondents in this category who invest in stocks also use CSR as a factor in their investment decisions.

I support nonprofit groups. I try to keep my money in my neighborhood credit union, I shop at Sevenanda (organic food store), not only because I like the stuff but because I know where the money goes. . . . People should boycott everything from toilet paper that leaks dye into the water system to people that are screwing over the workers and not letting them organize. . . . I definitely participate and help plan and try to comply with boycotts of that nature and also preference buying. . . for example, I buy Guatemalan products from a catalog called Pueblo To People because they buy from cooperatives where the people get a living wage for their labor. (f, 53)

[In my investment decisions I] find out as much as I can about the internal work- ings of the corporation before I make my decision. [I evaluate] how it’s done . . . [which] refers to everything-where the goods are made, what do you mean they’re being made in Thailand, why in Thailand? They’re [the goods are] coming in and we’re putting the USA stamp on it which is because it’s assembled here. That’s not socially responsible. That’s trickery. So you take a look at all of that . . . at the product from its beginning until it’s in the consumer’s hands. (m, 47)

Themes

In the most holistic analysis the researchers uncovered three themes that were frequently apparent across the discussions. These themes capture additional perspectives that the respondents have about CSR and its relationship to themselves, the economy, and American society.

1 . Belief that the Invisible Hand Works in Relation to CSR, Paradoxically Combined with Not Making Purchase Decisions Based on CSR

Most respondents expressed the belief that being socially responsible


ultimately pays off for companies, and they think that many companies know this. For example, the major reason given for why companies do socially responsible things is to get or keep a positive image, thereby increasing sales. On the negative side, socially irresponsible companies are seen as being punished by the market. That is, they will lose customers and may even go out of business. These beliefs are expressed by most respondents, including those who say that their own purchasing is not affected much, if at all, by CSR. Several even stated that they do not believe that their purchase decisions could have an impact on corporate behavior. On the other hand, those respondents for whom CSR is important do believe their purchase decisions can impact the social behavior of companies.

Interestingly, the respondents who do not practice SRCB did not explicitly recognize the paradox that the invisible hand cannot work in relation to CSR if consumers do not use this as a purchase criterion. Because there were no interview questions about this issue, the researchers were left wondering about the reasons for the contradiction. Do these respondents believe that there is a significant proportion of consumers who do base purchasing on CSR so that they themselves do not need to do it for the invisible hand to work, or is it simply that they have not thought about these issues enough for their beliefs to be logically consistent? The researchers expect the latter to be the dominant reason.

2. Contrast between the View that the Quality of Life in the U.S. is Wonderful and Improving versus the View that Americans Have Become too Materialistic and Self-centered

Many of the interviewees believe that Americans have an extraordi- narily high quality of life: they live better than any people in history and better than people in other parts of the world. Furthermore, they believe business is responsible for this because it provides jobs and gives consumers the products that make life easier. In contrast, other respondents said that quality of life involves much more than income and material possessions. Thus, while they believe that Americans are the richest people in the world and they credit business for this, they believe that values are in a decline and business is partially responsible for this as well. They expressed dismay at the materialistic, self-centered values fos- tered by advertising and embraced by many Americans. This divergence in beliefs about what constitutes quality of life is manifested in contrast- ing views of the consumer’s role. Some told the researchers that they believe the major consumer responsibility to the world is to spend money


(and thereby keep the economy growing), while others said they believe a major consumer responsibility is to reduce spending (and, therefore, help reduce the rate of degradation of the environment).

3. Desire for More Information on the Social Responsibility Records of Companies.

Many respondents reported that it is difficult to use CSR in their buying decisions because they do not have enough information on what companies are doing, and they would have to work too hard to get it. They went on to express a desire for more readily accessible information on the social responsibility records of companies. Ideas for possible sources for this information varied, however. Some stated that companies should advertise and otherwise promote the good things they are doing, while others distrust advertising of this nature. Many expressed a distrust of the media as well. For example, a positive story could be just PR, while a negative story could be exaggerated to inflate viewer or reader ratings. Several stated that a corporate report card would be helpful, and others suggested that the Internet would be an efficient means of disseminating CSR ratings information.

Summary of Results

Based on the coded variable analysis, the researchers conclude that most of the respondents are positive toward business in general and toward socially responsible companies. They believe that at least some of the motivation for a company being socially responsible is to help others, but they recognize that companies see CSR as being in their own self-interest as well. Most respondents do not regularly use CSR as a purchasing criterion.

In a deeper analysis of cases and themes, the researchers found a small but articulate group of consumers who are actively practicing SRCB. They are willing to work to learn what companies are doing because they feel it is important. They view their role as a consumer in social as well as personal terms. In other words, purchasing is not simply an activity undertaken for oneself or one’s family; instead, every purchase has implications for the larger society, both in terms of environmental impact and rewarding or punishing companies that are seen as more or less socially responsible. While assuming this level of responsibility when making purchase decisions would be daunting for most of the respondents, this group seems to relish it because they believe in its importance. The most


committed of this group see themselves as self-appointed company watchdogs, attempting to pressure companies to behave with more concern for society. They are the implementers of the invisible hand.

While the majority of the respondents are not committed to SRCB, most have at least occasionally made a purchase decision based on such principles. Only a handful appear completely disinterested or opposed. Two major factors emerge as reasons for the lack of SRCB: (1) self-interest manifested in buying based on the traditional criteria of price, quality, and convenience, combined with the assumption that using CSR would compromise their choices on these criteria, and (2) low level of knowledge and difficulty obtaining information on the social responsibility records of companies. Many respondents stated that they would like to have systematic information on companies’ social responsibility records.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study is concluded by discussing implications for academics, marketing practitioners, and public policymakers. For academicians, this research makes a contribution toward understanding the underlying dynamics of the role of corporate social responsibility in consumer purchase decisions. It is believed that the finding of a group of consumers who actively practices SRCB contradicts a common assumption that consumer behavior is based only on the consumer’s immediate self-interest. This study also sets the stage for future research that focuses on some of the issues raised here. For example, research is needed on consumer awareness of the socially ir/responsible behaviors of companies: How much knowledge do consumers think they have? How accurate is their knowledge? What are their sources of information? And, which sources are most influential? As another example, a more thorough quantitative study should be conducted that measures the proportion of the population at each stage of readiness for SRCB. In addition, based on the findings, the following research propositions are suggested that could help guide future research on this subject:

1. Higher levels of a consumer’s knowledge about both social responsibility issues and the social responsibility records of companies will be positively related to the level of SRCB.

2. The more consumers view their purchasing power as influential over company behavior, the more likely they are to practice SRCB.

3. Consumers who define quality of life primarily in economic terms


(i.e., more money equals higher quality of life) will be less likely to practice SRCB than consumers who define quality of life more broadly.

4. Consumers are more likely to boycott irresponsible companies than to support responsible companies.

5. Consumers’ beliefs about CSR (i.e., that companies should be socially responsible, that social responsibility ultimately leads to higher profitability for companies) are often inconsistent with their behaviors (i.e., not purchasing based on CSR). The relationship between beliefs and behaviors will be stronger (a) the more knowledge consumers have about CSR issues, and (b) the more important they judge these issues to be.

Managers should note that this research supports previous results reported in the literature, suggesting that a substantial, viable, and identi- fiable market segment exists that considers a company’s level of social responsibility in its purchase and investment decisions. Manufacturers and retailers have an opportunity to appeal to this group while simultane- ously meeting their business objectives and making a contribution to society. One of Andreasen’s (1995) suggestions for supporting people in the maintenance stage of behavior change is to “make the hidden benefits visible” (283). Based on this, managers could develop marketing communications that provide details about how their companies have helped address specific social issues.

More generally, based on the large number of respondents across all stages who expressed a desire for more information on companies’ social performance, the researchers recommend that companies who are rated highly on CSR consider using these ratings in their marketing communications, similar to the way automobile companies use their customer sat- isfaction ratings. This would be feasible because there are unbiased evaluators who publicize their results. These include the Council on Economic Priorities, who published Shopping for a Better World (2000) and The Corporate Report Card (1998), and an increasing number of services that systematically evaluate CSR for the investment community (Scherreik 2000; Waddock and Graves 1997). Single-issue evaluations, such as the Toxic Release Inventory and Directory of Corporate Philan- thropy rankings, are also available (Maignan and Ferrell 2000). A caveat is that companies that promote themselves as socially responsible need to be prepared to deal with criticisms of any irresponsible behavior they are seen as committing.


It is also believed that it is important for socially responsible companies to work to develop consumer trust and to engage in strategic CSR programs that are meaningful to their customers. Because the motives for CSR are often questioned, companies should engage in credible CSR programs that consumers believe are motivated, at least in part, by a desire to help others. This may require assuring consumers that the company has not increased prices or lowered product quality in exchange for a higher level of social responsibility.

An understanding of consumer expectations of CSR at the industry or firm level is important in the development and implementation of successful CSR programs. At a general level, most of the interviewees were found to expect a fairly high level of CSR, indicating that companies who disregard these expectations may risk the price of consumer boycotts. On the other hand, companies operating in industries with bad reputations (e.g., tobacco, oil, and chemical) have an unusual opportunity to distin- guish themselves as leaders in social responsibility. While turning around a negative reputation may be extremely difficult, if successful it could lead to the enormous payoff of competitive advantage.

For public policymakers, this study suggests an important opportunity for educating consumers that information on the social responsibility records of companies is available. Because, as discussed previously, there now are a number of CSR ratings published by independent evaluators, a guide to the ratings could be extremely helpful. This guide could list the different ratings services, describe the factors that each service uses to evaluate each company, and provide information on how to obtain the ratings from each service. The Internet provides a potentially viable means of disseminating this information to consumers. Making such information more available should help consumers feel more confident in their abili- ties to practice SRCB. Andreasen (1995) would argue that this would increase the self-efficacy of consumers, thereby facilitating their shift from contemplation to the action stage.

Consumer education programs could also be conducted to teach people about CSR issues and about their role in encouraging CSR. These programs could promote a greater understanding among the public of why this is important and how the community benefits. Furthermore, suggesting that consumers do have the power to affect corporate behavior may engage those at early stages of readiness, support their positive attitudes toward responsible firms while providing arguments against some of their fears, and pull them in the direction of SRCB.


Finally, because there does appear to be a group of consumers for whom CSR matters and this group may be growing, policies need to be designed to discourage abuse of CSR marketing communications by unscrupulous marketers. In addition to consumer education programs to help consumers understand all the information available on companies, regulation may be necessary. A self-regulating industry group to monitor social responsibility claims would help protect this consumer segment against false or misleading claims.

REFERENCES

Andreasen, Alan R. 1995. Marketing Social Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra N. Singh, and Venkat Bendapudi. 1996. Enhancing Helping Behavior:

An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning. Journal of Marketing, 60 (July):33-49. Berger, Ida E. and Peggy H. Cunningham. 1996. Consumer Persuasion through Cause-Related

Advertising. Working Paper. Bernard, Russell. 1988. Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications. Brown, Tom I. and Peter A. Dacin. 1997. The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and

Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61 (January):68-84. Carroll, Archie B. 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Man-

agement of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 439-48. Cone Communications Press Release. 1999. (March 8), Boston, MA. Council on Economic Priorities. 2000. Shopping for a Better World, New York: CEP Books. ~. 1998. The Corporute Report Curd, New York Dutton. -. 1994. Shoppingfor a Better World, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Creyer, Elizabeth and William T. Ross Jr. 1996. The Impact of Corporate Behavior on Perceived

Product Value. Marketing Letters, 7, 2: 173- 185. ~. 1997. The Influence of Firm Behavior on Purchase Intention: Do Consumers Really Care

About Business Ethics? Journul of Consumer Marketing, 14, 6421 -432. Dahl, Damn W. and Anne M. Lavack. 1995. Cause-Related Marketing: Impact of Size of Corporate

Donation and Size of Cause-Related Promotion on Consumer Perceptions and Participation. In Proceedings of the Winter, 1995 American Marketing Association Conference, edited by David W. Stewart and Naufel J. Vilcassim, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 476-481.

Folkes, Valerie A. and Michael A. Kamins. 1999. Effects of Information About Firms’ Ethical and Unethical Actions on Consumers’ Attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 , 3:243-259.

The Gallup Organization. 1997. Small Business and Military Generate Most Confidence in Ameri- cans. In Poll Releases, Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization.

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 10th printing, Hawthorne, N Y Aldine Publishing.

Handelman, Jay M. and Stephen J. Arnold. 1999. The Role of Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal ofMurketing, 63 (July):33-38.

Holmes, John H. and Christopher J. Kilbane. 1993. Cause-Related Marketing: Selected Effects of Price and Charitable Donations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, I , 4:67-83.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1986. Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method, and Criteria. Journul of Marketing Reseurch, 23 (August):237-249.

Hudson, Laurel Anderson and Julie L. Ozanne. 1988. Alternative Ways of Seeking Knowledge in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March):508-521.

Keaveney, Susan M. and James E. Nelson. 1993. Coping with Organizational Role Stress: Intrinsic Motivational Orientation, Perceived Role Benefits, and Psychological Withdrawal. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2 1, 2: 1 13- 124.

Kotler, Philip. 199 1. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Lafferty, Barbara A. 1996. Cause-Related Marketing: Does the Cause Make a Difference in Con- sumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions toward the Product’? Working Paper.

Lafferty, Barbara A. and Ronald E. Goldsmith. 1999. Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions when a High Versus a Low Credibility Endorser is Used in the Ad. Journal of Business Reseurch, 44, 2: 109- 1 16.

Maignan, Isabelle and 0. C. Ferrell. 2000. Measuring Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The Case of the United States and France. Journul ofBusiness Ethics, 23:283-297.

Mohr, Lois A. 1996. Corporate Social Responsibility: Competitive Disadvantage or Advantage? In Proceedings of’thc 1996 Marketing and Public Policy Conference, edited by Ronald Paul Hill and Charles Ray Taylor, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 48-49.

Murray, Keith B. and Christine M. Vogel. 1997. Using a Hierarchy of Effects Approach to Gauge the Effectiveness of Corporate Social Responsibility to Generate Goodwill Toward the Firm: Finan- cial Versus Nonfinancial Impacts. Journul of’Business Research, 38, 2 141- 159.

Petkus, Ed, Jr. and Robert B. Woodruff. 1992. A Model of the Socially Responsible Decision-Making Process in Marketing: Linking Decision Makers and Stakeholders. In Proceedings of’the Winter 1992 American Marketing Association, edited by Chris T. Allen et al., Chicago: American Mar- keting Association, 154161.

Ross, John K., 111, Mary Ann Stutts, and Larry Patterson. 1990-91. Tactical Considerations for the Effective Use of Cause-Related Marketing. Journul ofApplied Business Reseurch, 7, 2:58-65.

Ross, John K. 111, Larry Patterson, and Mary Ann Stutts. 1992. Consumer Perceptions of Organiza- tions That Use Cause-Related Marketing. Journul c f t h e Acudemy ofMarketing Science, 20, I :93- 97.

Rust, Roland T. and Bruce Cooil. 1994. Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Impli- cations. Journal ojMurkering Reseurch, 3 1 (February): 114.

Scherreik, Susan. 2000. A Conscience Doesn’t Have to Make You Poor. Business Week, (May 1):204- 208.

Smith, Adam. 1863. An Inquiry into the Nature und Causes of’the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.

Smith, N. Craig. 1995. Marketing Strategies for the Ethics Era. Slum Munugement Review, 36,4:85- 97.

Smith, Scott M. and David S. Alcorn. 1991. Cause Marketing: A New Direction in the Marketing of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journul of Consumer Marketing, 8, 3: 19-35.

Speer, Tibbett L. 1997. Growing the Green Market. Americun Demogruphics, I9 (August):45-49. Spiggle, Susan. 1994. Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research. Jour-

nal ($Consumer Research, 21 (December):491-503. Straws, Anselm L. and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics uf’Quulitutive Reseurch: Grounded Theory Pro-

cedures und Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon. 1988. Caus-eRelated Marketing: A Coalignment of Market-

ing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journul c$Murketing, 52 (July):58-74. Waddock, Sandra A. and Samuel B. Graves. 1997. The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Per-

formance Link. Strutegic Munagement Journal, 18, 4303-3 19. Webb, Deborah J. and Lois A. Mohr. 1998. A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related

Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journul ofpubl ic Policy undhturketing, 17, 2: 226-238.

Webster, Frederick E., Jr. 1975. Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer. Journal of’Consumer Reseurch, 2 (December): 188- 196.

Documents

Do Consumers Expect Muy Bueno