158707973-csr.pdf

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/158707973-csrpdf 1/12

Consumer social responses to CSR initiativesversus corporate abilities

Percy Marquina Feldman and Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga

CENTRUM Cato lica Business School, Pontificia Universidad Cato lica del Peru , Lima, Peru

AbstractPurpose – Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives when compared to consumer responses to corporate abilities (CA)have been elusory. Relevant empirical research on the subject shows unclear results. The objective of this research is to examine key antecedents toconsumer social responses (CnSR), in particular, the comparative effects of CSR initiatives and CA in the consumer purchasing behavior.Design/methodology/approach – A choice-based conjoint model was applied to quota consumer samples from two disparate countries (USA andPeru) in the shoe industry.Findings – The results demonstrate that some CSR initiatives, such as companies’ environmental commitments, along with some CA, such as productquality, significantly explain the nature of consumer responses and a trade-off effect on consumers’ willingness to pay for a product. The differencesbetween the two countries, and those expected for gender and age, strengthen the relationships tested.Practical implications – Implications for CSR policies, limitations of the findings, and considerations for future research supplement the contribution.Originality/value – Trade-off measures between traditional product features, that depend on CA, and CSR product features, that depend on CSRinitiatives, are used to show why consumers prefer CSR products to other products.

Keywords Consumer social responses, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate abilities, Willingness to pay, Choice-based conjoint model,Social responsibility, Corporate strategy

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

Research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) may be at a

mature stage, but consumer responses to CSR initiatives are

not. Results from surveys exploring or testing the relationship

between consumer responses to CSR actions generate

controversy. On the one hand, some surveys report a

positive relationship exists between a company’s CSR

actions and consumers’ reaction to that company and its

products (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Brown and Dacin,

1997; Carvalho et al., 2010; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Ellenet al., 2006; Smith and Langford, 2009). On the other hand,

other research indicates the relationship between a company’s

CSR actions and consumers’ reactions is not always direct

and evident, suggesting numerous factors for the effects of a

firm’s CSR activities on consumer purchase intentions

(Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and Attalla,

2001; Ellen et al., 2000; Maignan and Ferrell, 2004; Valor,

2008).

Controversy exists about what is relevant and what is not in

explanations about why consumers intend to buy productshaving CSR features and why they actually buy them

(Arredondo et al., 2010; Devinney et al., 2006). Auger et al.

(2003) attempt to clarify the controversy by noting

deficiencies in some studies like those that rank the

importance of CSR issues but avoid using trade-off

measures between traditional product features and CSR

product features. Without trade-off measures, results may not

show why consumers prefer CSR products to other products.

Consumers’ preferences for CSR products, when not

compared with other preferences, may not allow consumers’

actual purchasing behavior to be clarified (Fan, 2005).

The research and practical consequences of establishing aclear link between CSR actions and consumers’ responses to

such actions are many. A positive link between CSR and

consumer patronage spurs companies to devote greater

energies and resources to CSR initiatives (Mittal, 2008),

shifting the debate about CSR from “whether” to “how”

(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). Moreover, supporting CSR

activities affects not only purchase and loyalty motives, but

also, consumers’ evaluations of a company (Sen and

Bhattacharya, 2001). In addition, it affects more immediate

outcomes such as word-of-mouth, resilience to negative

company information and consumers’ awareness, attitudes

and attributions about why companies are engaging in CSR

initiatives. It also affects “secondary” outcomes such as

partner relationships and the cause or social issue at the core

of a company’s CSR efforts (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).

The purpose of this study is to re-examine key antecedents

to consumer social responses (CnSR) in order to establish a

clear link between CSR actions and consumers’ responses to

such actions. The key antecedents belong to CSR initiatives,

or the influence of CSR, in contrast to the corporate abilities

(CA) being used. In addition, the trade-off effects of CSR and

CA on consumer choices are captured using a measure of

consumers’ purchasing intentions, that is, consumers’

willingness to pay (WTP) for the product.

A literature review of trends found in CnSR to CSR actions

is first presented followed by a compact theoretical framework

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing

30/2 (2013) 100–111

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]

[DOI 10.1108/07363761311304915]

100

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


for CSR and CA. A model and research hypotheses are

derived from the literature review. The research design,

measurement, data gathering and analysis procedures and

sample is presented next, followed by an account of the results

obtained and a discussion of the empirical findings. The

conclusions, limitations of the research performed and ideas

for future research are addressed last.

Literature review

Consumer social responses

Consumer reactions, consumer responses, consumer product

responses, consumer attributions to CSR, consumer

awareness of CSR, consumer understanding of CSR,

consumer social responsibility, and socially responsible

consumer behavior are some of the terms referring to a

similar content called CnSR. Consumers respond to many

stimuli produced by marketers, sellers and other allied

agencies. Yet, CnSR refer to responses due to social causes

such as care for the environment, societal welfare, and ethical

responsibility on both sides of the transaction. These

consumers are called socially conscious consumers

(Anderson and Cunningham, 1972; Auger et al., 2006;

Mayer, 1976), socially responsible consumers (Mohr et al.,

2001; Webster, 1975) or ethical consumers (Crane and

Matten, 2004).

Consumer responses to corporate initiatives that attempt to

reach certain goals or outcomes have been evaluated and

reported often in the context of corporate decision making,

planning and controlling. CnSR to CSR initiatives and/or CA

to lead, innovate or produce value have also been evaluated

but to a much lesser extent. In reviewing the literature on how

CnSR were evaluated and the outcomes of such evaluations,

six trends are identified.

First, company CSR actions influence consumers’ reactions

to that company and its products (Brown and Dacin, 1997).

Often consumers include companies’ CSR standings in theirevaluations of company brands and products, brand choice

and brand recommendations (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).

Negative information about companies’ CSR practices often

generates negative evaluations of those companies products

(Biehal and Sheinin, 2007; Marin and Ruiz, 2007).

Conversely, positive views of companies’ CSR practices

favor consumer identification with the company and better

product evaluations as a result (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).

Empirical studies have shown some positive outcomes in two

countries. The stated importance of social responsibility to

purchase decisions rose from 24 percent in 1997 to 38 percent

in 2003 in the UK, whereas in the USA, eight out of ten

people trust in a company that supports social causes, which

represents a 21 percent increase since 1987 (Dawkins, 2004).

In another study, 86 percent of American people would

switch from one brand to another of the same price and

quality if the latter brand was associated with a social cause

(Cone LLC, 2004). The relationship between company CSR

practices and consumers’ responses to such practices is often

positive, as reported in previous literature (Beckmann, 2007).

In turn, consumers’ perceptions of CSR have a positive and

significant influence on customers’ attitudes and behavioral

intentions (Guchait et al., 2011).

Second, specific company strategies are found to include

CSR actions in order to attract and retain customers. For

instance, product category is used to moderate the

relationship between consumers’ awareness and trust of

companies’ CSR and their responses to CSR (Tian et al.,

2012). Retailer CSR actions have an effect on shopping

perceptions and evaluations for town shopping centers

(Oppewal et al., 2006). Negative retailer practices lead to

consumers’ perceptions of corporate social irresponsibility

(Wagner et al., 2008). For example, CSR product shoppers of

cotton apparel goods are willing to pay more for suchproducts (Ha-Brookshire and Norum, 2011). Similarly,

Brazilian consumers would be willing to pay an extra fee for

products from corporations that follow CSR practices

(Carvalho et al., 2010), and Vietnamese businesses are

interested in building a growing group of ethical consumers

who, in turn, help reinforce CSR actions that will enhance

their businesses in the end (Huong, 2010).

Third, consumers use trade-off criteria between CSR

product features and traditional product features such as

price, quality, convenience and lack of information (Pomering

and Dolnicar, 2009), corporate brand dominance (Berens

et al., 2005) or product quality. The importance of such

traditional features is balanced against a company’s specific

CSR actions, consumers’ personal support for CSR issues,and consumers’ general beliefs about CSR (Arredondo et al.,

2010; Pomering and Dolnicar, 2009; Sen and Bhattacharya,

2001). Other traditional factors considered include the

presence and magnitude of the price and performance

trade-offs (Barone et al., 2000), geographic distance from

the nea rest shop, a ge, awar eness of CSR criteria,

consumption habits a nd membership of v olunteer

associations (Becchetti and Rosati, 2007), nature of the

product, price, and individuals’ reactions to personal costs

and rewards (Belk et al., 2005).

Fourth, consumers’ evaluations of company CSR may be

linked to their perspectives of how responsible a company is in

relevant areas such as economic, legal, ethical, and

philanthropic (Ramasamy and Yeung, 2009). Similarly,consumers take into account companies’ motivations before

becoming involved in CSR programs. For instance,

consumers manifest positive reactions to companies showing

social motivation and negative reactions to companies

motivated by profit alone (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). Some

consumers regard companies favorably when they buy stock

in companies that make efforts to pursue CSR strategies with

a combination of values-driven (other-centered) and strategic

(self-centered) attributions (Ellen et al., 2006; Vlachos et al.,

2009). Other consumers include in their evaluations:. economic cir cumsta nces, type of political a nd

governmental institutions, and cultural norms in the

society in which consumers live (Devinney et al., 2006);.

involvement, certainty, perceived consumer effectiveness,and perceived availability (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006);

and. type of product and aspect of CSR (Arana and Leon,

2005).

Fifth, consumers’ evaluations of the fit between companies’

CSR activities and consumers’ characteristics (like life styles)

or interests (like values) positively affect consumers’

perceptions of companies’ CSR activities (Lee et al., 2011).

Similarly, consumers’ motivations to support company CSR

programs are often related to consumers’ characteristics and

attitudes. These include:

Consumer social responses to CSR initiatives versus corporate abilities



Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

101

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


. consumers’ intrinsic and extrinsic values and religiosity

(Ramasamy et al., 2010);. consumers’ perceived ethicality (Brunk, 2010; Shea,

2010);. consumers’ responses to enterprises’ ethical behaviors

(Deng, 2012);. CSR consumers tendency to consume ethical products

(Bui, 2011);. consumers’ sensitivity towards human rights issues, in

particular political rights (Puncheva-Michelotti et al.,

2010); and. consumers’ reactions to cause-related marketing efforts

based on the causes a company supports (Ellen et al.,

2000).

Sixth, consumers who receive communication about company

CSR activities increase their CSR awareness, which in turn,

generates positive attitudes towards buying products from

CSR companies (Pomering and Dolnicar, 2009; Sen et al.,

2006). Consumers showing a high level of awareness and trust

in companies’ CSR are “more likely to transform a good CSR

record into positive corporate evaluation, product association,and purchase intention” (Tian et al., 2012, p. 197). “What

consumers know about a company can influence their

evaluations of products introduced by the company” and

“different types of corporate associations (such as those with

CSR) can have important but different influences on

company and product evaluations” (Brown and Dacin, 1997

p. 68).

However, despite the positive effect of CSR on consumer

products and company evaluations, in some studies, the

influence of CSR on purchase intentions is limited, as only a

few consumers mention CSR as a factor affecting their

purchases on a regular basis (Mohr et al., 2001). In a similar

study, consumers’ beliefs about the virtues of CSR are found

to be inconsistent with their buying behavior, and acompany’s reputation for social responsibility is not usually

the most important factor in the consumers’ purchase

decisions. The results are, in many cases, contradictory and

identify numerous factors affecting whether a company’s CSR

activities translate into consumer purchases (Arredondo et al.,

2010). No doubt, consumers take CSR product features into

consideration, but “they are not interested in sacrificing

functionality for a cause” (Auger et al., 2006, p. 35).

Consequently, f ur ther inv estiga tion a bout CSR ’s

consequences on consumer perceptions and those apparent

contradictory results is needed (Marin and Ruiz, 2007).

The lessons learned from the trends and relationships noted

above are twofold. First, companies’ CSR programs and

practices have an impact on consumers’ responses tocompanies and their products. Second, companies’ CSR

initiatives can generate consumer purchase intentions and

secure WTP when consumers take into account companies’

motivations for becoming involved in CSR programs or

increase their CSR awareness as a result of communication

about companies’ CSR initiatives. Thus, the rationale for this

study in proposing an examination of companies’ CSR

initiatives, such as companies’ environmental commitments,

along with some CA, such as product quality, is to explain

their effects in terms of consumer responses and trade-off

effects on consumers’ WTP for the products.

Corporate social responsibility

CSR is currently defined as an establishment’s “obligation to

maximize its positive impact and minimize its negative effects

in being a contributing member to society, with concern for

society’s long-term needs and wants” (Lantos, 2001, p. 600).

The initial CSR concept, when generated in the 19th century

(1880), was linked to the social consequences of the Industrial

Revolution (Fernandez, 2005; Smith, 2003). CSR is nowlinked to the social consequences of commerce, business and

marketing and thus aims at mitigating and limiting the

negative consequences while enhancing and augmenting the

positive consequences of commerce, business and marketing.

Current business practice has adopted a definition of CSR

a long the same l ines. For insta nce, the I SO 2 60 00

I nter na tional Sta ndar d ( 20 10 , p. 3 ) defines socia l

responsibility as “[the] responsibility of an organization for

the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the

environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour”.

Overall, CSR aims at developing closer links with customers

and greater awareness of their needs, enhancing brand value

and reputations, increasing staff commitment and

involvement, enhancing a firm’s capacity to innovate,securing long-term return on investments, improving

financial performance, reducing operating costs, and

reaching long-term sustainability of the company (Jones

et al., 2005).

Although many frameworks exist to conceptualize and

operationalize CSR, a three dimensional framework is

adopted that captures the main features of CSR and

contributes parsimony to the research. The three general

attitude-based dimensions are:

1 human responsibility;

2 environmental responsibility; and

3 product responsibility (Anselmsson and Johansson,

2007).

These dimensions are in line with three of the six coresubjects expressing responsible behavior proposed by the ISO

26000 (2010): human rights assessed through conditions of

work (sub-clause 6.4.4), protection of the environment (sub-

clause 6.5.6), and labor practices in wealth and income

creation (sub-clause 6.8.7). Thus, these dimensions guide this

research when operationalizing CSR.

Corporate abilities

CA are defined as “the company’s expertise in producing and

delivering products and services” (Brown and Dacin, 1997

p. 68) and the “abstract dimensions that may summarize a

number of different attributes of a company” (Berens, 2004,

p. 56). These attributes refer to manufacturing expertise,

product quality, a company’s customer orientation, a firm’sinnovativeness, a firm’s research and development, employee

expertise, and after-sales service (Gupta, 2002).

Although many frameworks exist to conceptualize and

operationalize CA, three key attributes defining the

company’s expertise in producing and delivering products

and services are adopted: product quality, technological

innovation, and leadership in the industry. Because price is

taken into account when product quality is examined to

balance basic strategies of price versus value in strategic

decisions by most companies (Hunt, 2000), price is also

adopted as an independent variable.




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

102

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


Consequently, a model is generated in which three CSR

dimensions and three CA attributes, in addition to price,

i nfl ue nc e Cn SR (s ee Fi gu re 1 ). C SR a nd C A a re

conceptualized and operationalized separately in this

research so that a comparison of the separate effects of each

set can be performed and a contrast between social factors

(CSR) and economic factors (CA) can be examined. This is

done despite a suggestion by Deng (2012) for using bothconstructs, CSR and CA, as one construct on the basis that “a

company can both have social responsibility and produce

high-quality inexpensive products” (Deng, 2012, p. 18) and

“the social responsibility behavior of a firm should be paid out

of its resources” (Deng, 2012, p. 19).

Proposition 1. CSR initiatives have a direct and significant impact on CnSR

H1. A company’s environmental commitment positively

affects CnSR.H2. Corporate giving to worthy causes positively affects

CnSR.

H3. A company’s good labor practices positively affect

CnSR.

Proposition 2. CA attributes have a direct and significant impact on CnSR

H4. A company’s leadership in the industry positively

affects CnSR.

H5. A company’s product quality positively affects CnSR.

H6. A company’s technological innovation positively affects

CnSR.

H7. A company’s prices negatively affect CnSR.

Willingness to pay for the productCSR practices often justify consumers’ WTP higher prices for

products made by CSR companies, switch brands to support

companies that make donations to non-profit organizations,or buy products from a company simply because it supports

charitable causes (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). In addition,

WTP provides a measure that reflects intention, a more

definite consumer response than CnSR, an attitude, thus

allowing for a better understanding of the links portrayed in

the model.

Thus, we include WTP for the product in the examination

in order to compare the effects of CSR versus CA on CnSR.

WTP can reflect a trade-off between CSR initiatives and CA.

The underlying rationale behind this attempt lies in the way

consumers seek satisfaction, some on the basis of utility, or

McFadden (2001, p. 361) expresses it: “The individual

chooses the option yielding the greatest realization of utility”.

Yet, other consumers seek satisfaction based on other than

economic values, like social values. This research attempts to

obtain a trade-off measure of preference between CSR and

CA f actors using W TP, despite the mea sure being

hypothetical (Voelckner, 2006).

Method

A description of the research design, measurement, data

gathering and analysis, and sample characteristics follow.

Research design

This investigation is exploratory in character and uses a

binary experimental design based on a choice-based conjoint

model (CBC model) in order to measure consumer responses

to CSR initiatives and CA and a trade-off effect in consumers’

purchasing intentions as reflected by their WTP for

companies’ socially responsible actions. The CBC model is

based on a probabilistic choice theory named random utility

theory (McFadden, 2001) and is consistent with neoclassical

economics. When the perceived stimuli are interpreted as

levels of satisfaction, or utility, this can be understood as a

model for economic choice in which the individual chooses

the option yielding the greatest realization of utility. This

model of choice behavior allows estimation of separate

marginal values for each attribute of total values for any

particular collection on attribute levels (Lancsar and Savage,

2004). Researchers can also estimate the marginal rate of

substitution, or trade-offs, respondents are willing to make

between any two attributes, which are financial indicators of

W TP ( Ka nninen, 2 00 2) . T his a pproach r equires a

representative sample of consumers to make choices in

simulated situations derived from realistic variations of actual

product offerings, according to the foreseen experimental

design.The CBC model has several advantages for this research

when compared to conventional surveys. First, it allows an

estimation of the preferences of individuals for attributes or

characteristics of products that are currently nonexistent in

the market (Merino-Castello, 2003) and quantify the WTP

for socially desirable products (Auger et al., 2006). It reveals

consumers’ social responsible preferences by forcing them to

trade-off social features of products against CA or traditional

utilitarian features. In contrast, traditional survey methods

use simple rating scales, which may overstate the importance

of ethical purchase behavior, even in those who reveal

themselves as supportive of social causes. Thus, an

“experimental methodology that more closely mimics a real

purchase situation may be appropriate for this type of

research” (Auger and Devinney, 2007 p. 26).

Second, the research design allows a researcher to probe

whether beliefs (such as CnSR) and behaviors (such as CSR

initiatives and CA) are connected (Hensher et al., 2005;

Lancsar, 2002; Louviere et al., 2004). Third, the method

makes possible a comparison between countries about the

influence of the CA and CSR attributes on consumer

responses and a quantification of participants’ economics

valuation or willingness-to-pay (WTP) for CA and CSR

product attributes.

Consequently, this r esea rch f ollows the process

recommended to generate and set a discrete choice

Figure 1 Conceptual framework




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

103

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


experiment using the steps proposed by Verma et al. (2004):

identification of determinant attributes, specification of

attribute levels, and experimental design. The first two steps

are addressed with measurements and the last with data

gathering and analysis.

Measurement

The first step in implementing the discrete choice experimentwas to identify the determinant attributes used in CSR and

CA evaluations. Following Hensher et al. (2005), it was

necessary to build a set of attributes as small as possible to

make the experiment tractable but realistic. In addition, an

end-point design (Louviere et al., 2004) was applied using the

attribute levels at the extremes only. That is, each attribute

would have only two levels at the two extremes of the attribute

level range. These two levels are sufficient to estimate the

linear effects of the attributes of choice and reflect the upper

and lower extreme for each attribute. The resultant design

consists of six attributes (three CSR initiatives, and three CA

attributes), no interactions, and two levels of price, which

results in 16 choice tasks.

To measure CSR initiatives, three types of widely applied

initiatives that correspond to three general attitude-based

dimensions were derived from the literature:

1 companies’ environmental commitment reflecting

environmental responsibility;

2 corporate giving to worthy causes reflecting human

responsibility; and

3 companies’ good labor practices reflecting product

responsibility.

To measure CA, three company attributes were derived from

the literature:

1 companies’ leadership in the industry;

2 companies’ technological innovation; and

3 companies’ product quality.

The attribute of companies’ prices was added to contrast theeffects of product quality.

A CnSR to CSR and CA is defined as the conscious and

deliberate choice to make certain consumption choices based

on ethical principles. CnSR is mea sured using a n

experimental design following the CBC modeling.

To estimate the variable WTP, a monetary valuation of

CSR and CA attributes for the consumer is used. According

to Louviere et al. (2004), consumers’ WTP can be estimated

as follows: WTP ¼ MRS *kDP , where MRS k is the marginal

rate of substitution between attribute k relative to price, and

delta P represents the difference between the product prices

levels presented to the respondents. The main objective of

using this method is to obtain a monetary valuation of the

CSR initiatives and CA attributes for the consumer samplesin two countries. In order to make WTP comparable for

consumers in both countries, WTP is expressed in percentage

terms relative to the minimum wage in Peru (Secretarıa

General de la Comunidad Andina, 2012) and the USA

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011) in 2009 values.

Data gathering and analysis

The experimental design was applied for the measurement of

consumer v alua tions of CSR initiativ es a nd CA a s

implemented for athletic shoes, a product line characterized

by a high degree of consumer involvement and one in which

emotional criteria may dominate the moment of purchasing,

like fashion products as portrayed by the Foote, Cone, and

Belding Grid (Vaughn, 1986). This product line was chosen

mainly because it allows for the evaluation of environmental

issues, wor king conditions a nd other tra ditional

characteristics, in the same way as has been done in the

past with respect to world famous sport brands.

A binary discrete choice experiment was applied where the

respondents were asked a series of hypothetical choicequestions. Each experiment included a description of a two

sets of alternative products (two types of athletic shoes) with

different functional (CA) and social (CSR) attributes, and the

respondents stated which one they would buy. Respondents

had to address a set of 16 choice-tasks, with the attributes of

the products varying to determine how a respondent’s choice

changed when the attributes changed, as exemplified in

Figure 2.

Th e d at a w as g at he re d f ol low in g t he p ro po se d

methodology, where each of the CSR and CA product

attributes were components of the vector of observed variables

from the utility function of each respondent. Then, the logit

binomial model was estimated in order to calculate the

parameter values, the standard deviations and the asymptotic

statistics on the basis of several hundred observations. Finally,

a utility function using the CBC model was estimated,

specifically a main effects model, using the athletic shoes data.

The focus was to explore the influence of the explanatory

variables (CSR and CA attributes) on CnSR and the trade-off

between CSR and CA factors using WTP.

Sample

Quota samples of adult consumers from two distant and

different populations were drawn. The first sample represents

a multicultural population in a developed country, namely,

the USA. The second represents a multiethnic population in a

developing country, namely, Peru. The choice of such

disparate samples was guided by previous research

underscoring essential differences in those two worlds.Cross-cultural studies have revealed different outcomes

when exploring consumer perceptions of CSR. For example,

French and German respondents were more willing to

support socially responsible corporations than were their USA

counterparts (Maignan, 2001). English-speaking respondents

Figure 2 Questionnaire example for the US sample




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

104

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


had a greater interest in the ethical and environmental

practices of companies than their Spanish-speaking

counterparts, although they were not as critical as the later

ones when evaluating the available CSR activities information

(Singh et al., 2008). In contrast, a study of university students

in Spain, Portugal, Argentina and Chile found that CSR

perceptions and their relevance as purchasing criteria were

neutral in general (Bigne et al., 2005).Table I shows a profile of the two samples by gender and

age groups. The gender groups are almost the same size in the

American sample whereas males constitute two thirds of the

Peruvian sample. Age groups are similar between young and

mature adults in the Peruvian sample and concentrated on

young adults in the American sample. The Chi-squared

values are significant in both cases at p , .001.

Results and discussion

Table II shows the results after testing the proposed

hypotheses regarding the influence of CSR and CA

attributes on CnSR in both samples. All measured attributes

have a significant influence on CnSR, meaning the probability

of choosing an athletic shoe increases when the companyshows some of the six CSR and CA attributes in its practice,

but it decreases as the price of the athletic shoe increases.

These results support the expected relationships as

formulated in H1 through H7 for both countries. More

specifically, companies’ environmental commitments and

product quality registered the highest influence in both

samples.

The strength of the influences of either CSR initiatives or

CA attributes for CnSR is, however, somewhat different

across samples. The impact of CSR initiatives on CnSR is

stronger among American consumers, whereas the influence

of CA attributes on CnSR is higher among Peruvian

consumers in support of previous findings (Deng, 2012) in

which some consumers responded positively to company

social initiatives (like American consumers), and other

consumers held an indifferent attitude to companies’ social

behaviors, caring more about the products’ economic benefits(such as product quality, price and shopping convenience,

etc.) than about its social enhancements (like Peruvian

consumers). In addition, one CSR initiative (a company’s

good labor practices) and one CA attribute (a company’s

leadership in the industry) do not affect CnSR among

Peruvian consumers whereas they do among American

consumers.

The different levels of influence in each sample are also

reflected in an overall Chow test for discrete models between

the estimated parameters of the pooled sample and split

samples for each country. The null hypothesis of no

differences between the two samples was rejected because

the parameters of the model estimates for the two countries

were significantly different: the likelihood-ratio test ð2ð8Þ ¼67

:

07 at a p 2 value ¼ 0:

001.

As expected, following economic theory and in support of

H7 , the parameter for the price of athletic shoes is negative

and significant for the model, revealing that higher prices

decrease the maximum utility individuals can obtain at a given

income level.

Furthermore, the intercept (constant) in the binary logit

model measures inherent consumer preferences for buying

athletic shoes not gathered by the independent variables of the

model. It is significant in both samples and measures the

impact of all unobserved attributes and therefore provides an

assessment of switching or choice inertia (Verma et al., 2004).

In other words, consumers of athletic shoes would choose

more often the option of neither of the two alternatives offered

to them.Table III compares the results by gender groups and shows

no meaningful differences from the results recorded in Table

II. Nonetheless, Peruvian male consumers are somewhat

influenced by a company’s leadership in the industry

(p , 0:05) whereas Peruvian female consumers are not.

Table IV compares the results by age groups (young, mature

and senior) and reveals clear differences across samples

among senior consumers. Whereas American old consumers

recognize the influence of all attributes (except one) on their

CnSR, Peruvian old consumers do not, except for price. This

Table I Sample demographic characteristics

Peru USA

Variable (n 5

119) (n 5

118) l

2

Gender

Males 65.0 48.5 274,347 *

Females 35.0 51.5

Age groups

Young adults (20-29 years) 51.2 70.8 846,280 *

Mature adults (30-49 years) 47.8 22.0

Senior adults (50 years or more) 9.0 7.2

Notes: * p , 0:001

Table II CnSR to CSR and CA initiatives in both countries

Peru USA

Variables Estimated coefficient B p -value Estimated coefficient B p -value

Company’s environmental commitment 1.135 * 0.990 *

Corporate giving to worthy causes 0.525 * 0.396 *

Good labor practices 0.075 0.316 0.632 *

Price 21.132 * 20.738 *

Leadership in the industry 0.186 0.013 0.324 *

Product quality 1.585 * 1.391 *

Technological innovation 0.749 * 0.520 *

Constant 21.503 * 21.752 *

Notes: * p , 0:001




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

105

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


observation may reveal the state of progress in CSR practices

in both countries; quite advanced in the USA and more recent

in Peru. The result also reveals the lack of appreciation forgood labor practices by all age groups in Peru, whereas good

labor practice is a common concern for all ages in the USA.

Table V reports the results of the effects of CSR and CA

attributes on WTP that is estimated on the basis of

coefficients from Table II. The numbers in Table V reflect

percentages of the corresponding minimum income in each

country. The approach allows for the evaluation in monetary

terms of the trade-offs that consumers can make between

various CSR initiatives and CA attributes. Overall, CA

attributes are slightly more valued than CSR initiatives in

Peru, whereas they are the same in the USA, showing a partial

weakness of CSR initiatives to generate CnSR in Peru.

Overall, a company product quality and environmental

commitment are more valued and prompt more WTP inboth countries.

Summary, conclusions and managerialimplications

The central purpose of this research was to examine the

influence of CSR initiatives and CA attributes, plus price, in

CnSR and WTP using samples from two distant consumer

populations, one in the USA and another in Peru. The study

involved seven factors (three CSR initiatives, three CA

attributes and price) and two choice levels per factor, forcing

Table III CnSR to CSR and CA initiatives in both countries by gender

Variables Female Male

Peru USA Peru USA

Company’s environmental commitment 1.146 * * * 1.109 * * * 1.153 * * * 0.891 * * *

Corporate giving to worthy causes 0.551 * * * 0.501 * * * 0.512 * * * 0.318 * * *

Good labor practices 0.230 * 0.660 * * * 0.005 0.608 * * *

Price 21.153 * * * 20.783 * * * 21.138 * * * 20.707 * * *

Leadership in the industry 0.131 0.433 * * * 0.233 * * 0.230 * * *

Product quality 1.584 * * * 1.483 * * * 1.617 * * * 1.329 * * *

Technological innovation 0.713 * * * 0.569 * * * 0.779 * * * 0.491 * * *

Constant 21.539 * * * 21.978 * * * 21.522 * * * 21.577 * * *

Notes: * p , 0:1; * * p , 0:05; * * * p , 0:001

Table IV CnSR to CSR and CA initiatives in both countries by age group

Age group Variables Peru USA

20-29 years old Company’s environmental commitment 1.107 * * * 0.979 * * *

Corporate giving to worthy causes 0.512 * * * 0.411 * * *

Good labor practices 0.021 0.621 * * *

Price 21.175 * * * 20.747 * * *

Leadership in the industry 0.309 * * 0.336 * * *

Product quality 1.614 * * * 1.446 * * *

Technological innovation 0.897 * * * 0.525 * * *

Constant 21.581 * * * 21.781 * * *

30-49 years old Company’s environmental commitment 1.214 * * * 1.069 * * *

Corporate giving to worthy causes 0.532 * * * 0.530 * * *


Price 21.080 * * * 20.719 * * *

Leadership in the industry 0.078 0.230 *

Product quality 1.613 * * * 1.395 * * *

Technological innovation 0.603 * * * 0.504 * * *

Constant 21.505 * * * 21.840 * * *

50 years old onwards Company’s environmental commitment 0.685 1.014 * * *

Corporate giving to worthy causes 1.533 0.066


Price 23.554 * * 20.800 * * *

Leadership in the industry 0.528 0.592 * * *

Product quality 1.146 1.052 * * *

Technological innovation 1.223 0.634 * * *

Constant 20.254 21.578 * * *

Notes: * p , 0:1; * * p , 0:05; * * * p , 0:001




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

106

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


r espondents to mak e tra de-off s, a nd a llowing f or

measurement of the trade-offs they made. A discrete choice

modeling approach and a binary logit cross-sectional

experimental study were used to determine whether beliefs

(CnSR) and behavior (CSR initiatives and CA attributes) are

connected.

Results of the research show most CSR initiatives and CA

attributes considered are significantly and positively related to

CnSR in both countries. This means the probability of

selecting an athletic shoe increases when there are CSR

initiatives (a company’s environmental commitment, a

company’s good labor practices, corporate giving to worthy

causes) and CA attributes (a company’s product quality,

technological innovation, and leadership in the industry)

present, although at different levels of strength for consumers

in Peru and the USA. However, the probability of selecting an

athletic shoe decreases as prices increase in both countries. In

addition, respondents would be willing to pay higher prices

for product quality and a company’s environmental

commitment in both countries.

The impact of CSR initiatives on CnSR is stronger amongAmerican consumers, whereas the influence of CA attributes

on CnSR is higher among Peruvian consumers in support of

previous findings (Deng, 2012) in which some consumers

responded positively to company social initiatives, whereas

other consumers held an indifferent attitude to the company’s

social behavior, caring more about the product’s economic

benefits (such as product quality, price and shopping

convenience) than about its social enhancements. Two

attributes, product quality and company’s environmental

commitment, contribute to the consumer’s utility the most in

both countries. Yet, two other attributes, a company’s good

labor practices (a CSR initiative) and a company’s leadership

in the industry (a CA attribute) do not affect CnSR among

Peruvian consumers whereas they do among American

consumers.

An important contribution of the study is the empirical

validation of the competing role of CA and CSR attributes on

consumers’ behavior. Previous studies have generally found

both types of associations influence consumer behavior,

although CA associations have shown a stronger effect than

CSR associations in developed countries, mainly because CA

attributes can contribute to raising the brand value and

improving the financial results through greater consumer

WTP. This research shows a greater effect for CSR initiatives

on CnSR among consumers in a developed country, and a

contrasting greater influence of CA attributes on CnSR

among consumers in a developing country. A more mature

consumer values CSR attributes the most or CSR attributes

become a concern for mature consumers, for whom profit

maximization is not necessarily in conflict with social

investment. As a consequence company offerings can

enhance product quality at the same time CSR attributes

such as environmental commitment and a company’s good

labor practices or corporate giving to worthy causes. Besides,

firms that are able to provide successful combinations of CA

initiatives and CSR attributes may not have to compete on

price.

The research results showed a significant intercept,

meaning consumers have a significant switching barrier.

Customers need to be offered some substantial value to switch

or consider a new alternative. A well-considered combination

of price, CA attributes and CSR initiatives can become

powerful value proposals to overcome high consumer

switching barriers. Of course, such combinations should

privilege CA attributes for consumers in developing counties

and CSR initiatives for consumers in developed countries, as

suggested by the results obtained.Fi na ll y, t he o bt ai ne d r es ul ts c on tr ib ut e t o t he

understanding of business-to-consumer relationships within

the framework of the selected product (athletic shoes), which

according to the Foote, Cone, and Belding Grid (Vaughn,

1986) would be classified a fashion product. Using the results

obtained in this research, business decision makers should

supply the criteria needed for bundling and launching

products with social attributes, managing corporate social

initiatives, and contrasting the merits of using social attributes

with the economic attributes in line with the CA of the

company. In addition, they can help establish new advertising-

communication policies, ones in which socially responsible

attributes combine well with economic attributes so that both

enhance a company’s image and performance.

Limitations and future research

This research is limited by the number of factors identified

and used to test CSR initiatives and CA attributes, although

the limitation was imposed to gain necessary parsimony in the

process. Other attributes can be explored, added or

exchanged in new research. The research is also limited to

the product line explored, athletic shoes, a product line

characterized by a high degree of consumer involvement and

one in which the emotional criteria may dominate the

moment of purchasing, like fashion products. Other product

Table V CnSR to CSR and CA initiatives in both countries, and their trade-off effects on WTP for the product

Willingness to pay

Peru USA

Variables Per attribute Per construct Per attribute Per construct

Company’s environmental commitment 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.06

Corporate giving to worthy causes 0.03 0.01

Good labor practices 0.00 0.02Leadership in the industry 0.01 0.01

Product quality 0.09 0.15 0.04 0.05

Technological innovation 0.04 0.01

Notes: The number reflects an acceptable percentage with respect to the minimum monthly payment; To estimate WTP, minimum monthly payments for bothcountries were obtained from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011) for the USA and Secretarı a General de la Comunidad Andina (2012) for Peru




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

107

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


lines that are less prone to emotions in the process of purchase

or more rational products, like books, electronic products or

travel services could also be explored.

In addition, this research used consumer WTP to explore

trade-offs between CSR and CA factors in consumer

decisions. Other measures or procedures could be used to

provide more insights into the outcomes of CSR and CA

attributes when both sets are compared. Finally, new samplescan be used to corroborate or reject the outcomes identified in

a developed country context versus a developing country one.

Because the comparative findings of this research are

somewhat new and perhaps controversial when contrasted

to previous findings, additional research is urgent to validate

the results obtained and continue the exploration of the topic

at higher levels of isomorphism.

References

Anderson, T. and Cunningham, W. (1972), “The socially

conscious consumer”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 36 No. 3,

pp. 23-31.

Anselmsson, J. and Johansson, U. (2007), “Corporate socialresponsibility and the positioning of grocery brands: an

exploratory study of retailer and manufacturer brands at

point of purchase”, International Journal of Retail

& Distribution Management , Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 835-56.

Arana, J. and Leon, C. (2005), “Flexible mixture distribution

modelling of dichotomous choice contingent validation with

heterogeneity”, Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management , Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 178-88.

Arredondo, F., Maldonado, V. and De la Garza, J. (2010),

“Consumers and their buying decision making based on

price and information about corporate social responsibility

(CSR). Case study: undergraduate students from a private

university in Mexico”, Estudios Gerenciales, Vol. 26 No. 117,

pp. 103-17.Auger, P. and Devinney, T. (2007), “Do what consumers say

m at te r? Th e m is al ig nm en t o f p re fe re nc es w it h

unconstrained ethical intentions”, Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 361-83.

Auger, P., Devinney, T. and Louviere, J. (2006), “Global

segments of socially conscious consumers: do they exist?”

available at: www2.agsm.edu (accessed 6 January 2009).

Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. and Louviere, J. (2003),

“What will consumers pay for social product features?”,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 281-304.

Barone, M., Miyazaki, A. and Taylor, K. (2000), “The

influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice:

does one good turn deserve another?”, Journal of Academy

of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 248-62.

Becchetti, L. and Rosati, F. (2007), “Global social

preferences and the demand for socially responsible

products: empirical evidence from a pilot study on fair

trade consumers”, World Economy, Vol. 30 No. 5,

pp. 807-36.

Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B. and Hill, R. (2006), “The

impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on

consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59

No. 1, pp. 46-53.

Beckmann, S. (2007), “Consumers and corporate social

responsibility: matching the unmatchable”, Australasian

Marketing Journal , Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 27-36.

Belk, R., Devinney, T. and Louviere, J. (2005), “Consumer

ethics across cultures”, Consumption, Markets and Culture,

Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 275-89.

Berens, G. (2004), “Corporate branding: the development of

corporate associations and their influence on stakeholder

reaction”, doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University,

Rotterdam.

Berens, G., Van Riel, C. and van Bruggen, G. (2005),“Corporate associations and consumer product responses:

the moderating role of corporate brand dominance”,

Journal of Marketing , Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 35-48.

Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company

identification: a framework for understanding consumers’

relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 67

No. 2, pp. 76-88.

Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2004), “Doing better at doing

good: when, why and how consumers respond to corporate

social initiatives”, California Management Review, Vol. 47

No. 1, pp. 9-24.

Biehal, G. and Sheinin, D. (2007), “The influence of

corporate messages on the product portfolio”, Journal of

Marketing , Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 12-25.

Bigne, E., Chumpitaz, R., Andreu, L. and Swaen, V. (2005),

“Percepcion de la responsabilidad social corporativa: un

analisis cross-cultural”, Universia Business Review, No. 5,

pp. 14-27.

Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000), “Do consumers

really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the

attitude-behaviour gap”, Journal of Communication

Management , Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-63.

Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), “The company and the

product: corporate associations and consumer product

responses”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Brunk, K. (2010), “Exploring origins of ethical company/brand

perceptions – a consumer perspective of corporate ethics”,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 255-62.

Bui, T.L.H. (2011), “The Vietnamese consumer perceptionon corporate social responsibility”, Journal of International

Business Research, Vol. 9, No.SI 1, pp. 75-87.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), “Labor force statistics from

the current population survey”, available at: www.bls.gov/

cps/minwage2010.htm#2 (accessed 5 August 2011).

Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), “The myth of the ethical

consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behavior?”,

Journal of Consumer Marketing , Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-77.

Carvalho, S., Sen, S., Mota, M. and Carneiro, R. (2010),

“Consumer reactions to CSR: a Brazilian perspective”,


Cone LLC (2004), “The 2004 Cone corporate citizenship

study”, available at: http://twopercentclub.org/repository/

documents/2004_cone_corporate_citizenship_exec_

summary.pdf (accessed 6 January 2009).

Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2004), Business Ethics: A European

Perspective: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability

in the Age of Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Creyer, E.H. and Ross, W.T. (1997), “The influence of firm

behaviour on purchase intention: do consumers really care

about business ethics?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing ,

Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 421-33.

Dawkins, D. (2004), “The public’s views of corporate

responsibility 2003”, available at: www.ipsos-mori.com/_

assets/publications/pdf/publics-views-of-corporate-

responsibilty.pdf (accessed 6 January 2009).




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

108

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


Deng, X. (2012), “Understanding consumer’s responses to

enterprise’s ethical behaviors: an investigation in China”,


Devinney, T., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. and Birtchnell, T.

(2006), “The other CSR: consumer social responsibility”,

Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 30-7.

Ellen, P., Mohr, L. and Webb, D. (2000), “Charitable

programs and the retailers: do they mix?”, Journal of Retailing , Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 393-406.

Ellen, P., Webb, D. and Mohr, L. (2006), “Building corporate

associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially

responsible programs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-57.

Fan, Y. (2005), “Ethical branding and corporate reputation”,

Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 10

No. 4, pp. 341-50.

Fernandez, R. (2005), Administracio n de la responsabilidad

social corporativa (Corporate Social Responsibility

Management ), Internacional Thomson Editores, Madrid,

Spain.

Guchait, P., Anner, M. and Wu, L. (2011), “Customer

perceptions of corporate social responsibility of service

firms: impact on customer attitudes and behavioral

intentions”, working paper, Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA.

Gupta, S. (2002), “Strategic dimensions of corporate image:

corporate ability and corporate social responsibility as

sources of competitive advantage via differentiation”,

doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Ha-Brookshire, J. and Norum, P. (2011), “Willingness to pay

for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel”,

Journal of Consumer Marketing , Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 344-53.

Hensher, D., Rose, J. and Greene, W. (2005), Applied Choice

Analysis: A Primer , Cambridge University Press, New York,

NY.

Hunt, S. (2000), A General Theory of Competition: Resources,

Competences, Productivity, Economic Growth, Sage, NewYork, NY.

Huong, T. (2010), “The Vietnamese consumer perception on

corporate social responsibility”, Journal of International

Business Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 75-87.

ISO 26000 (2010), “The international standard ‘ISO 26000:

2010 guidance on social responsibility’”, available at: www.

techstreet.com/standards/iso/26000_2010?product_

id¼1748926 (accessed 9 May 2011).

Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D. and Eastwood, I. (2005),

“Corporate social responsibility: a case study of the UK’s

leading food retailers”, British Food Journal , Vol. 107 No. 6,

pp. 423-35.

Kanninen, B. (2002), “Optimal design for multinomial choice

experiments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 2,

pp. 214-27.

Lancsar, E. (2002), “Deriving welfare measures from stated

preference discrete choice modeling experiments”, available

at: http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/chere/research/discussion_

papers.cfm (accessed 6 January 2009).

Lancsar, E. and Savage, E. (2004), “Deriving welfare

measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to

Ryan and Santos Silva”, Health Economics, Vol. 13 No. 9,

pp. 919-24.

Lantos, G. (2001), “The boundaries of strategic corporate

social responsibility”, Journal of Consumer Marketing , Vol. 18

No. 7, pp. 595-630.

Lee, E., Park, S.-Y., Rapert, M. and Newman, C. (2011),

“Does perceived consumer fit matter in corporate social

responsibility issues?”, Journal of Business Research, doi:

10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.040.

Louviere, J., Hensher, D. and Swait, J. (2004), Stated Choice

Methods, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McFadden, D. (2001), “Economic choices”, American

Economic Review, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 351-78.Maignan, I. (2001), “Consumers’ perceptions of corporate

social responsibilities: a cross-cultural comparison”, Journal

of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-72.

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2004), “Corporate social

responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1,

pp. 3-19.

Marin, L. and Ruiz, S. (2007), “‘I need you too!’ Corporate

identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social

responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71 No. 3,

pp. 245-60.

Mayer, R. (1976), “The socially conscious consumer –

another look at the data”, Journal of Consumer Research,

Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 113-5.

Merino-Castello, A . ( 20 03 ), “ Eliciting consumers’

preferences using stated preference discrete choice

models: contingent ranking versus choice experiment”,

working paper 705, Department d’Economia, Empresa

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.

Mittal, R. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility –

consumers’ per spective”, dissertation f or MA in

Management, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

Mohr, L., Webb, D. and Harris, K. (2001), “Do consumers

expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of

corporate social responsibility on buying behavior”, Journal

of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72.

Oppewal, H., Alexander, A. and Sullivan, P. (2006),

“Consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility

in town shopping centres and their influence on shoppingevaluations”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 261-74.

Pomering, A. and Dolnicar, S. (2009), “Assessing the

prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: are

consumers aware of CSR initiatives?”, Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 285-301.

Puncheva-Michelotti, P., Michelotti, M. and Gahan, P.

( 20 10 ), “ The r elationship between indiv idua ls’

recognition of human rights and responses to socially

responsible companies: evidence from Russia and

Bulgaria”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 4,

pp. 593-605.

Ramasamy, B. and Yeung, M. (2009), “Chinese consumers’

perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR)”,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88, S1, pp. 119-32.

Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M. and Au, A. (2010), “Consumer

support for corporate social responsibility (CSR): the role

of religion and values”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91

No. 1, pp. 61-72.

Secretarıa General de la Comunidad Andina (2012),

“Compendio Estadıstico 2012” (“Statistical Summary

2012”), available at: http://estadisticas.comunidadandina.

org/eportal/contenidos/compendio2012.htm (accessed 5

May 2012).

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good

always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

109

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 225-43.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2006), “The

role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening

multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2,

pp. 158-66.

Shea, L. (2010), “Using consumer perceived ethicality as aguideline for corporate social responsibility strategy: a

commentary essay”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63

No. 3, pp. 263-4.

Singh, J., Sanchez, L. and Bosque, I. (2008), “Understanding

corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in

consumer markets: a cross-cultural evaluation”, Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 597-611.

Smith, N.C. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility: whether

or how”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 4,

pp. 52-76.

Smith, V. and Langford, P. (2009), “Evaluating the impact of

corporate social responsibility programs on consumers”,

Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1,

pp. 97-109.

Tian, Z., Wang, R. and Yang, W. (2012), “Consumer

responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) in

China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 1 01 No. 2,

pp. 197-212.

Valor, C. (2008), “Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis

and solutions for market failures”, Journal of Consumer

Policy, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 315-26.

Vaughn, R. (1986), “How advertising works: a planning

model revisited”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 26

No. 1, pp. 57-66.

Ver ma, R., Iq bal, Z. and Plasch ka, G. (2004),

“Understanding customer choices in e-financial services”,

California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 43-67.

Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006), “Sustainable food

consumption: exploring the consumer attitude-behaviourgap”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , Vol. 9

No. 2, pp. 169-94.

Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. and Avramidis,

P. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility: attributions,

loyalty, and the mediating role of trust”, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 170-80.

Voelckner, F. (2006), “An empirical comparison of methods

for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay”, Marketing

Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 137-49.

Wagner, T., Bicen, P. and Hall, Z. (2008), “The dark side of

retailing: towards a scale of corporate social responsibility”,

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management ,

Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 124-42.

Webster, F. (1975), “Determining the characteristics of the

socially conscious consumer”, Journal of Consumer Research,

Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 188-96.

About the authors

Percy Marquina Feldman (DBA, Maastricht School of

Management, and PhD, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del

Peru) is a Professor of Marketing and Corporate Social

Responsibility at CENTRUM Catolica Business School of

the Pontificia Universidad Catol ica del Peru. H e has

published books and cases on business and markets, and

articles in journals, including the International Marketing

Review, Journal of Employee Relations, and Journal of Centrum

Cathedra. His research interests include marketing, ethical

consumption, social responsibility, strategy, and project

evaluation. He is the Academic Director of CENTRUM

and Director of the Peruvian Marketing Society. He was

coordinator of the ISO 26000-CSR Peruvian committee, and

an executive in managerial positions at academic institutions,

multinational and local firms, and NGOs.Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga (PhD, Texas Tech University,

and PhD, The University of Texas at Austin) is Professor of

Marketing and International Business at the University of

Texas-Pan American and Affiliate Professor of CENTRUM

Catolica Business School of the Pontificia Universidad

Catolica del Peru. He has published over 50 refereed

articles in journals such as the Journal of Marketing Research,

Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business and Industrial

Marketing , Journal of Consumer Marketing , Journal of Retailing

and Consumer Services, International Journal of Services and

Standards, Journal of Travel Research, Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing , Journal of Academic Ethics, Journal of

Euromarketing , and Health Marketing Quarterly. His research

interests include marketing and business ethics, strategicmarketing, customer loyalty, firm competitiveness, business

strategies of Latin American companies in the USA,

employment and labor relations, acculturation of Hispanic

consumers, and competency-based learning methods. In

addition to his regular teaching at UTPA, he teaches graduate

courses in Peruvian, Chilean, Colombian and Mexican

universities during the summer months, and trains

executives and professionals using comprehensive workshops

dedicated to ethics auditing, competency-based learning, and

scientific research for journal publications. Arturo Z. Vasquez-

Parraga is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

[email protected]

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives

a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a

particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in

toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the

research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the

material present.

Firms that behave in a socially responsible manner consider

the impact of their decisions and operations on society and

the environment. The aim is to accentuate the positive effects

while keeping any negative consequences to a minimum.

Evidence shows that corporate social responsibility (CSR)

activities can benefit performance, financial well-being and

reputation in various ways.

Considerable research attention afforded to corporate social

responsibility (CSR) has thoroughly explored the issue from a

variety of angles. However, one area that warrants further

investigation is the response of consumers to CSR initiatives.

Different scholars have identified a population segment whose

consumption behaviors are motivated by their desire to

behave in an ethical or socially responsible manner.

Their reactions to CSR activities have been termed

consumer social responses (CnSR) and extant literature

indicates the existence of certain trends:




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

110

7/27/2019 158707973-csr.pdf


. A tendency for consumers to evaluate a company and its

brands and products based on how they perceive its CSR

efforts. Empirical evidence exists to show that people will

be willing to support firms that operate in socially

responsible ways.. Many organizations incorporate CSR activities into their

strategies as an attempt to attract and retain customers.

This might involve product category features to influenceconsumer perception of and response to CSR.

. Consumer evaluation of a firm can depend on their

perception of whether altruistic or profit motives drive its

involvement with CSR initiatives. Equally important is

how they consider its behavior with regard to different

aspects that include economic, legal and ethical.. Fit between an organization’s CSR programs and

characteristics of the consumer will influence their

evaluation. Lifestyle and values are especially important

and include consumer perception of their own ‘ethicality’,

compassion towards human rights issues, and connection

with specific causes that the firm supports.. Companies which communicate their CSR efforts

increase consumer awareness of CSR and their trust in

the firm. Such consumers thus become likelier to evaluateproducts more highly and consider making a purchase.

. Purchase decision making is determined by balancing

CSR knowledge about a firm against ‘traditional factors’

such as price, quality and convenience along with various

other product and non-product related attributes.

The positive impact of CSR on consumer perceptions of

companies and brands is confirmed in numerous studies.

Nevertheless, many individuals state that the social

r esponsibil ity of a firm is not necessa rily the main

determinant of their purchase behavior. Other factors are

also regarded as important. Several researchers support the

argument that consumer purchase decisions are often

influenced by corporate abilities (CA). These refer to a

range of firm-related attributes including manufacturingexpertise, product quality, innovativeness, customer

orientation and after-sales service.

The aim of the present study is to therefore consider the

influence of CSR efforts and CA factors and their relative

effect upon consumer response and purchase behavior. As

many consumers are seemingly prepared to pay more for

ethically-produced goods, CSA and CA are also explored in

relation to willingness to pay (WTP). The inclusion of this

construct is driven by the belief that WTP signals intention

and the knowledge that satisfaction to some consumers is

measured in economic terms and to others in such as “social

values”.

Feldman and Vasquez-Parraga conduct an exploratory

study involving adult consumers in the USA and Peru. Thesamples from these countries were respectively labeled as

representing multicultural and multiethnic populations.

Comparing subjects in developed and developing nations

was driven by the knowledge that previous cross-cultural

research had identified differences in how CSR is perceived.

Experimental design is used with the aim being to identify

which attributes are most preferred by respondents. The three

widely applied CSR dimensions chosen for the study were

environmental responsibility, human responsibility and

product responsibility. For CA, the selected attributed were

the firms’ industry leadership, technological innovation and

product quality.

Hypothetical choice questions were asked with regard to

athletic shoes. The product was selected because of high

consumer involvement and relevance of environmental

factors, working conditions and various traditionalattributes. Two sets of athletic shoe products containing

different CSR and CA features were used in the experiments

with particular attention paid to how attribute changes

impacted on consumer preference.

Analysis revealed that:. In each nation, most of the CSR and CA attributes

positively influence CnSR.. Increasing the price reduces the likelihood of purchase in

both countries. However, both samples indicated a

willingness to pay extra for a quality product manufactured

by a company committed towards the environment.. CSR initiatives more strongly influence American

respondents, whereas CA initiatives have a greater effect

on consumers from Peru.. The CSR attribute good labor practices and the CA

attribute industry leadership influence CnSR among

American respondents but not their Peruvian counterparts.. A consideration of WTP suggests that CSR has a greater

impact on consumers in developed nations and CA on

consumers in developing nations.. More mature consumers pay greater attention to CSR

than to CA.

With regard to the latter, the authors suggest targeting such

consumers with high-quality products that also emphasize the

firm’s commitment to various CSR issues such as fair labor

practices and concern for the environment. They also point

out that the right blend of CSR and CA initiatives can remove

the need for a product to compete on price.

The study identified consumer reluctance to switch toavailable alternatives. In the view of Feldman and Vasquez-

Parraga, companies can address this challenge with products

incorporating a “well considered combination of price, CA

attributes and CSR initiatives”. They point that such offerings

should emphasize CSR initiatives for consumers from

developed nations and CA attributes from those from

developing nations. And by creating advertisements which

highlight these effective attribute combinations, the image and

performance of the firm can be enhanced too.

Additional research might identify different CSR and CA

attributes and ascertain their effect. Scope also exists to

consider different product lines, including those whose

purchase is less determined by emotions. Books, travel

services or other “more rational” items might likewise beexplored. Measures other than WTP could be utilized to

assess the impact of CSR and CA attributes, while further

comparison of developed and developing nations using new

samples is advised.

(A precis of the article “Consumer social responses to CSR

initiatives versus corporate abilities”. Supplied by Marketing

Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2013 · 100–111

111

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

158707973-csr.pdf