�  

Master Thesis  Marketing programme  

Corporate social responsibility in Brand equity: A study on how CSR can increase local franchised fast food

restaurants brand equity.  

 

 

Authors: Swedenborg, Jesper  

Mattsson, Frans

Supervisor: Billore, Soniya

Examiner: Pehrsson, Anders

Semester: Spring 2015

Subject: CSR and Brand Equity

Level: Master

Course code: 4FE07E  

Acknowledgments    

This thesis was conducted during the last semester of the one-year master program in

marketing. The thesis purpose was to investigate the importance of philanthropic CSR

activities on local level and see if these activities can be used to strengthen franchised

fast food companies brand equity. The authors have in addition to contributing

research in the subject, received a broader understanding of the field. The authors

would like to express our graduates towards all those who have been engaged in the

process and helped us through our thesis. During the process there have been a few

people that we would like to give a special thanks to, the results have not been the

same without you. Foremost we would like to thank our tutor Soniya Billore that has

been helpful throughout the process. Also we are grateful to our examiner, Anders

Pehrsson that has provided valuable feedback and comments. Finally the authors want

to thanks all the respondents that have participated in the study. Without you the study

�  2

could not have been executed, the authors are deeply grateful that they chose to

dedicate their time to the survey.

�  3

Abstract    

University: School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University Växjö, Sweden.

Course: 4FE07E

Authors: Swedenborg, Jesper, Mattsson, Frans

Tutor: Billore, Soniya.

Examiner: Pehrsson, Anders.

Title: Corporate social responsibility in Brand equity: A study how CSR can increase

local franchised fast food restaurants brand equity.

Introduction: Research claims that it is hard to divide the responsibility for the local

community between the franchisee and the franchisor because of the franchisee does

not have clear understanding to what degree they should be committed to local CSR.

This research will study the importance of philanthropic CSR activities on local level

and see if these activities can be used to strengthen fast food companies’ brand equity.

Purpose: To further investigate the importance of philanthropic CSR activities on

local level and see if these activities can be used to strengthen fast food companies

brand equity.

Research questions: Research have shown that fast food companies are involved in

different kinds of philanthropic CSR activities, what part of brand equity has to be

dealt with first? What are the important factors in building brand equity with

philanthropic CSR activities? How important is the focus on local activities for

franchised fast food companies when it comes to the philanthropic CSR activities?

Methodology: This study is targeting the population of Kronobergs region between

18 and 64 years old. The literature review showed that the field of CSR effects on

brand equity needed further studies. A construction of four variables within

philanthropic CSR was matched towards brand equity with a sample size of 192.

Conclusion: There is a weak positive significant relationship between CSR and brand

equity in this study around fast food companies. As authors, we believe that the

customers’ awareness is too low, for CSR to affect brand equity the level of awareness

needs increase to motivate internal stakeholders for further investments in

philanthropic CSR and to get more response from local citizen.

�  4

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility, Fast food restaurants, Franchise, Brand

Equity, Philanthropic CSR

�  5

�  6

1  Introduction   9  .....................................................................................................................1.1  Current  situation  of  the  fast  food  companies   9  .............................................................1.2  CSR  in  media   11  .......................................................................................................................

2  Problem  discussion   13  .....................................................................................................3  Purpose   16  ...........................................................................................................................4  Research  Question   16  .......................................................................................................5  Delimitation   16  ...................................................................................................................6  Conceptual  Framework       18  ............................................................................................6.1  CSR   18  .................................................................................................................................6.2  Philanthropic  CSR   19  .............................................................................................................

6.3  Brand  equity   22  ..............................................................................................................6.3.1  Brand  image   22  ....................................................................................................................6.3.2  Brand  Attitude   23  ................................................................................................................6.3.3  Brand  identity   24  .................................................................................................................6.3.4  Brand  awareness   25  ...........................................................................................................

6.4  Cause  related  marketing   26  ........................................................................................7  Hypothesis   27  .....................................................................................................................The  analysis  model   28  ..................................................................................................................7.1  Motivation  of  Hypothesis   28  ................................................................................................

8  Method   32  .............................................................................................................................8.1  Sampling  and  data  collection  -­‐  Probability  and  nonprobability  sampling   32  ....8.2  Survey  design   33  .....................................................................................................................8.3  Operationalization   33  ...........................................................................................................8.3  Analysis  method   33  ................................................................................................................8.4  Validity   35  ..................................................................................................................................8.5  Pilot  test     35  ..............................................................................................................................8.6  Reliability   35  ............................................................................................................................

9  Analysis  and  results     37  ...................................................................................................9.1  Frequency  test   37  ....................................................................................................................

10  Results     40  ..........................................................................................................................11  Discussion     43  ...................................................................................................................11.1  Brand  Image   43  .....................................................................................................................11.2  Brand  Identity   43  .................................................................................................................11.3  Brand  Awareness     44  ...........................................................................................................11.4  Brand  Attitude   44  .................................................................................................................11.5  Philanthropic  CSR   45  ...........................................................................................................11.6  Strategic  CSR   45  ....................................................................................................................11.7  Ethical  CSR   46  ........................................................................................................................11.8  Altruistic  CSR   46  ...................................................................................................................11.9  Environmental  CSR   47  ........................................................................................................

12  Conclusion  and  contribution     48  ................................................................................12.1  Conclusion   48  .........................................................................................................................12.2  Contributions  to  the  Vield   49  .............................................................................................

13  Managerial  suggestion           50  .........................................................................................14  Limitation  and  further  studies   51  .............................................................................15  Reference  list   52  ..............................................................................................................

�  7

Appendix  1   61  .........................................................................................................................1.1     61  .................................................................................................................................................1.2   61  ..................................................................................................................................................

Appendix  2   64  .........................................................................................................................Table  2.1   64  ......................................................................................................................................Table  2.2   65  ......................................................................................................................................Table  2.3   66  ......................................................................................................................................Table  2.4   67  ......................................................................................................................................Cronbach’s  Alpha  Test  Tables   67  ...............................................................................................Strategic  CSR  2.5   67  .......................................................................................................................Ethical  CSR  2.6   67  ...........................................................................................................................Altruistic  CSR  2.7   67  ......................................................................................................................Environmental  CSR  2.8   68  ...........................................................................................................Brand  Equity  2.9   68  .......................................................................................................................

ANOVA  Test   68  ........................................................................................................................Table  2.10   68  ...................................................................................................................................

Pearson’s  r   69  .........................................................................................................................Table  2.11   71  ...................................................................................................................................

Crosstab  test     72  .....................................................................................................................Table  2.12   72  ...................................................................................................................................Table  2.13   73  ...................................................................................................................................Table  2.14   74  ...................................................................................................................................Table  2.15   75  ...................................................................................................................................

Frequencies  test     76..............................................................................................................

�  8

1 Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (shorten to CSR) is the responsibility a company has

towards itself and society (Lichtenstein et al., 2013). Ray Kroc founder of

McDonald’s said, “none of us is as good as all of us”. McDonald’s has been engaged

helping the community for over 35 years. It started with the Ronald McDonald House

of Children; a place for children who needs medical attention for a longer period of

time could stay closer to the hospital (Mcdonalds.com 2015). CSR has almost become

a necessity for companies today where many practice it more extensively than ever

(Sitkin, 2013). The companies that are in focus in this study are in the fast food

industry (McDonald's, Burger King, Max Hamburgers and Subway). All of the fast

food companies use a franchising business model where the majority of the

restaurants are owned and operated on local or regional level. Franchising is the

business relationship between two independent units involving the franchisor (the

head company) and the franchisee (the new store, shop or restaurant). The franchisees

pay the franchisor for the right to sell their products or services under the trademark

of the franchisor (Dant & Grünhagen, 2014).

1.1 Current situation of the fast food companies The majority of these fast food restaurants state on their main website (not everyone

on the website for the specific country, e.g Sweden) that they encourage the franchise

branch to work with CSR on local level. Subway headquarters work with franchisees

to try to eliminate the ethical issues in any kind of discrimination towards race,

gender, sexual orientation or religion (subway.com, 2015). On their Swedish website

they communicate their CSR such as minimization of environmental impact of their

food and just mentions small encouragement to supporting the local community

(ibid). Max Hamburgers are working with Samhall an organisation that involves

people with disabilities into society (max.se 2015). Burger King headquarters have a

consistently focus on environmental performance, they recycling 90% of all waste in

the restaurants. They have also a strong focus on ethical and qualitative requirements;

�  9

they have continuous controls to ensure it fulfilments (Burgerking.se 2015).

McDonalds is the fast food company that work with locally focused CSR the most.

According to McDonalds Swedish website, they want to be the local company that

care for its community. They have examples of four different franchisees that are

involved in the local community. They engage in local youth sports, hiring people

with disabilities, building playrooms at hospitals, and helping security guards at night

which has lead to a decrease in crime rates (Mcdonalds.se 2015). According to Carroll

(1979), companies have a corporate responsibility to be involved in social issues

while they also have the responsibility to ensure that economic gains will be achieved.

One common concept in CSR is CRM (cause related marketing) that is about using

marketing strategies to supportive activities meanwhile they build business. These

activities are partnerships between businesses and e.g. charities to market a product or

services for mutual benefits (Adkins, 1999). Companies hope CSR will lead to good

reputation, employee and customer satisfaction, and long-term relationships and in the

end good performance (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013) i.e increase brand equity. If the

company dismiss this type of social responsibility it can have an impact on the profit

and their reputation can be harmed. There have been situations where consumer

groups have boycotted companies who do not practiced CSR (Snider et al., 2003).

Examples of boycotts in among food companies can be found in the appendix 1.1.

Researchers have long discussed the impact of CSR. The basic idea of CSR is that

companies should be a part of society, receive legitimacy in society and have an

obligation to work for social improvements (Fredrick, 1998). The philanthropic idea

is to go beyond the basics of the CSR pyramid of economics and legal requirements.

To reach the level of responsibility that CSR advocates, the local community and

company needs to be integrated with each other (Wood, 1991) i.e. CRM. This will

make it easier to achieve the community’s expectations and needs of corporate

contributions to the community because the company does not always know what is

expected from the local customers preferences and with an alignment between

contributions and need the outcome have a higher potential to be positive (ibid).

�  10

Carroll (1979) and Woods (1991) both have the conclusion that there is a connection

between CSR and the customer.

1.2 CSR in media The importance today is where consumers, government and other corporate

stakeholders are becoming more interested in giving back to society (Skarmeas &

Leonidou, 2013). Many companies see CSR to the extent of “do well by doing good”

to reach its goals (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Companies are following the CSR

trend to feed of its benefits and avoid bad reputation. Media has the role of pointing

out companies’ wrongdoing on any scale, from environmental disaster (e.g. BP in the

Gulf of Mexico) to misconduct from employees (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013).

Misconduct of employees is where fast food companies, especially McDonald’s in

Sweden, have received a bad reputation from being investigated by media and other

authorities for different scandals. In 2007, SVT (Swedish television) “Uppdrag

Granskning” discovered that McDonalds had a cleaning staff that worked all night

every night with awful labour conditions and salaries (SVT, Uppdrag Granskning,

2007).

For companies to defend themselves from media and flaws of a company they interact

in activities that are beneficial for society. Groups in society have pointed out the fast

food industry to cause obesity among a population. An example is the documentary

Super Size Me where a person ate McDonalds every meal, every day for a month and

suffered health problems (Super  Size  Me,  2004). The major companies in the fast food

industry use CSR, together with other marketing tools i.e. CRM, to retrieve their

reputation of not only causing damage to society but also do good i.e. reclaim brand

equity. Many of them work on large scale with CSR but are franchised owned and

have a connection to the local community where they could implement more of its

CSR activities (Schwitzer et al., 2005). There are many stakeholders that are affected

by CSR activities. Business owners, business investors, customers and local citizen all

have their opinion about what level or type of CSR that should be implemented.

However is their one problem regarding the responsibility for the local community

between the franchisee and the franchisor, the reason is that the franchisor does not

have a clear understanding to what degree they should be committed in CSR (Barkays

�  11

2013). As mentioned earlier media mediate one image of a company that influence the

attitude and awareness of customers. Brand equity and cause related marketing

(shorten to CRM) are closely related in these areas. Brand equity is a combined mind-

set of aspects that people have in their mind about when they think of a company

(Huang & Sarigüllò, 2015). As consumers have taken control of both their media

choices and the commercial messages they choose to receive, a firm's communication

activities can contribute to the brand knowledge by creating awareness and positive

associations among its customers (Keller, 2009). One of the key objectives for CRM

programs is to generate a positive attitude towards the brand (Palazon-Vidal &

Delgado-Ballester 2005; Brito & Hammond 2007). Furthermore, sponsorship is well-

known and powerful platform for building a brand's image and recognition (Cliffe &

Motion 2005). Companies engage in sponsorship for a variety of brand-related

objectives such as increasing brand awareness and establishing, strengthening or

changing brand image (Farrelly & Quester 2005). There are examples where fast food

companies sponsor sport teams to gain recognition. During the world cup 2014,

McDonald's sponsored the Swedish ski team (kostdoktorn.se 2014) and Max

Hamburgers sponsors Jon Olsson Big Air in Åre (max.se 2015). As authors of this

paper, it shows that CRM is more than just sponsorship of individuals or teams and it

can also be expanded into the local community in different ways. Franchise

restaurants can build brand equity by being involved in CSR activities. This paper’s

goal is to get a better understanding of how franchised fast food companies work with

CSR to increase the customers brand equity in the forms of cause related marketing

with emphasis on philanthropic CSR activities, their interaction on local level and the

response of the customers. With CSR companies can integrate social and

environmental concerns in their business operations and interactions with their

stakeholders (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Companies have something to gain when they

care for the local markets well-being. Over the past decade consumers have become

more and more interested in corporate social responsibility (Carrigan & Attalla 2001).

�  12

2 Problem discussion

In this chapter are the authors describing the problem surrounding franchise

companies CSR activities and how they could use CSR in to build brand equity to

connect to the local community.

Many larger companies have ignored the importance of CSR on local level (Sitkin,

2013). Barkay (2013) is a spokesperson to the problem with the responsibility for

CSR within the local market. Barkays (2013) research claims that it is hard to divide

the responsibility for the local community between the franchisee and the franchisor

because of the franchisee does not have clear understanding to what degree they

should be committed to local CSR (ibid). The study’s findings show that the local

communities are exposed to two forces. The first one is the company’s willingness to

increase sales by disillusioned branding strategies. The second one is the company’s

response to the public interest for the benefit to the stakeholders within social

responsibility. The idea is that corporate values shall be emphasized in community

programs in a capitalist ideology, which will gain profits for the company (Barkay,

2013). What is experienced is an unequal balance between the corporation local

responsibilities and the stakeholders’ (business owners and investor) interest of return

on investments. The difference between the capitalistic ideology and the socialistic

ideology is that the capitalistic is undertaking the opportunity of value creation. It sets

a price on everything and calculates the return on the investment to make the

company or individual wealthier while the socialistic advocates the stability for the

many peoples best interest (Marques, 2005).

Meiseberg and Ehrmann (2012) present a linkage between CSR and franchisee and

what the CSR relationship is between franchisee and franchisor. The study explores

prevalence, performance and outcome of CSR in franchising. When the franchise

systems behave in a socially responsible manner and the performance effects of CSR

initiatives. If the franchisee makes a mistake can it affect the brand and influence the

whole organization's reputation i.e. decrease brand equity. Examples can be found for

McDonalds employee scandals were only a few restaurants did something wrong but

it affects the whole Swedish organization. The other way around is if the company

�  13

does something good it generates something good for the whole company. The article

is targeted towards various stakeholders and presents a view of strategic CSR, a use

that not only serves philanthropic motives but create competitive advantages,

advantages that will lead to increased reputation enhancement, ability to charge

premium price, better recruits and retain high quality workers i.e. brand equity. The

franchisee plays an active role in the implementation of CSR initiatives within the

company (ibid). Meiseberg and Ehrmann (2012) also raise the question of customer’s

reaction to local adaptation versus system wide campaigns in CSR strategies. Albaum

and Duerr (2011) makes a further statement than Meiseberg and Ehrmann that there is

a lack of the local franchisees engagement in non-market strategies, this is due to the

franchisor does not know to what degree they should be committed to non-market

strategies activities in their region (Albaum & Duerr 2011). They advocates that there

is an amount of social responsibility operations on a headquarter level but not at the

local franchisees level. This seems to be a problem on the local market because of the

social responsibility delegated from the company’s headquarter is not reaching the

local customer (ibid).

Dougherty and Olsen (2014) article of adapting CSR strategies points to an increase

in value of CSR and that there is an importance of adaptation to the local community

rather than a one size fits all model. Dougherty and Olsen suggest that focus should

be on customer’s reaction to local adapted CSR rather than reaction to system wide

CSR strategies that Meiseberg and Ehrmann suggested in 2011. Therefore it is

important to understanding the local culture and threats of entrance for the local

stakeholders (customers and citizen) i.e. CRM. In their study about CSR and gold

mining industry in Guatemala, the local threats to the stakeholder were when mining

companies entered the area was water pollution and occupation of farmland

(Dougherty & Olsen, 2014). Previous authors statements remain of the importance of

local CSRs adaptation increase value but what is interesting is finding out what is

important in a socialistic and well-developed country as Sweden. In many parts of

Sweden we do not have the same problems they have in Guatemala i.e. CRM.

Perez (2009) conducted a study of consumer identification towards a company’s CSR,

where attitude and affective commitment to the company were measured. Perez found

�  14

that there is a positive relationship between the consumer, the attitude and the

commitment to the company based upon the company's CSR (Pérez, 2009) i.e brand

equity. In contrast to Perez, the conclusion of Öberseder (2011) was that CSR only

had a limited role in the purchase decision of customers and that managers could only

communicate CSR that are aligned with the company's core values. The difficult

factor to investigate for Öberseder was the personal concerns that customers had in

their purchase decision (Öberseder et al., 2011). Menon and Kahn (2003) have found

that consumers are more likely to support firms that have a given social issue than

firms that does not have one i.e. CRM. Customers find it interesting to support

companies that engage in cause-related marketing in comparison to firms that works

with normal advertising (price and product related advertising) (Menon & Kahn,

2003). There is research that shows that not all consumers perceive all forms of CSR

in the same manner, research shows that customers are more dedicated to purchase

from a company when there is a “win-win” situation. This means that the companies

needs to “win” trust of the consumer and the consumer must feel they receive value

from the exchange and understand the company’s contribution of CSR to the

community (Green, T., & Peloza, J. 2011).

To narrow the problem down to a problem conclusion; the franchisor does not have a

clear directions of how they should promote their engagement in the local

community’s CSR. This can be a problem on managerial level of the franchisor or the

attitude of the franchisee that they do not see the investment pay off. Previously

knowledge from research shows that different stakeholders reaction on CSR

strategies. Owners and investors want a high rate of return on their investment but

they also want to do by doing good. While the other two stakeholders (customers and

citizens) have more public interests. Regarding the introduction it is clear that there is

a positive relationship between CSR and attitude and that media influence the image

of a company i.e. brand equity.

Local franchisors can engage in local CSR questions to change the brand equity of the

company. Local communities with its inhabitants have different values of what they

consider needs to be improved on and what companies can support. Then companies

could use the local CSR as a marketing tool to change the brand equity of customers

�  15

to gain a competitive advantage. Within philanthropic CSR there are different

components, environmental, altruistic, strategic and ethical that the consumers can

consider more or less important and affect their brand attitude on local level.

3 Purpose

To further investigate the importance of different philanthropic CSR activities on

local level and see if these activities can be used to strengthen fast food companies

brand equity.

4 Research Question

Research have shown that fast food companies are involved in different kinds of

philanthropic CSR activities, what part of brand equity has to be dealt with first?

What are the important factors in building brand equity with philanthropic CSR

activities?

How important is the focus on local activities for franchised fast food companies

when it comes to the philanthropic CSR activities?

5 Delimitation

Out of three different CSR models (concentric circles and intersecting circles) this

papers delimitation are narrowed down to the top two categories of third model, the

CSR pyramid, ethical CSR and philanthropic CSR. Due to the bottom (economic and

legal) two categories are more focused on generating profit back to the company

rather than just do something good for society. The delimitation of not being profit

focused has lead to not focus on owner and investor and just focus on customers and

people in Kronoberg region. With the emphasis on the local community and the time

limitation of this project is it only going to focus on Kronoberg region. Different

regions can have different values of what can influence their opinion about a company

and the CSR activities. The authors have limited this research down to just brand

�  16

equity towards franchised fast food companies due to the connection with the local

community. Instead of the attitude towards nations wide CSR philanthropic strategies.

Öberseder (2011) problem was how personal concerns and CSR activities affected the

purchasing behaviour. The authors are interested in personal concerns and CSR

activities but not how it affects purchasing decision. It considering more interested in

how those two affect the brand equity. Brand equity can be divided in different

categories or branches. To our thesis the authors have chosen brand image, brand

identity, brand awareness and brand attitude as our cornerstones of brand equity.

There are brand equity models including brand knowledge, brand association, brand

loyalty and brand preference to mentions some. Cornerstones for philanthropic CSR

are strategic CSR, altruistic CSR, ethical CSR and environmental CSR. These four

fitted the best into our project where CSR and Brand equity are going to match.

�  17

6 Conceptual Framework

This chapter contains the theoretical framework, which the project is built upon. All

the material is collected from books and academic papers concerning CSR and Brand

Equity different components

6.1 CSR

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the responsibility a company has towards

itself and society. CSR involves economic (business need to produce goods or

services that society wants and sell them with profit), legal (they need to obey the

law), ethical (need to exhibit ethical norms and behaviours) and discretionary (they

may play a voluntary roles driven by social norms) responsibilities (Lichtenstein et

al., 2013). There are CSR activities that are not always beneficial for the company

economic situation. The activities can be seen as immoral towards the company’s

internal stakeholders. Stakeholders are mostly interested in the company’s economic

success and the highest rate of return on their investment. These activities are more in

the lines with the philanthropic motives such as care, justice and utilitarianism. These

activities are not required by the company and should only be taken into action when

a company can be beneficial and enhance the value to the company (Lantos, 2002)

(see fig. p16 ).

There are three different models of CSR, the CSR pyramid (hierarchy of separate

responsibilities), intersecting circles (non hieratical set of intersecting Circles) and

concentric circles (integration of responsibilities; all sharing a central core) (Geva,

2008).

The pyramid divides CSR in different terms of social expectation that responsible

corporations should strive to meet. The first three parts, economic where profit

making is the emphasis, legal responsibilities to obey the law and ethical where the

social expectations are met that is not covered by the legal framework. The last one is

philanthropic were voluntarily interaction in society is where the bottom three narrow

�  18

down to (Geva, 2008). Other models do not match the research, do to their focus on

economic profit or sustainability (sd-network.eu).

�  

CSR  Pyramid  (Carroll  1991)  

6.2 Philanthropic CSRThe role of philanthropy in CSR is that it goes beyond the first three, economic, legal

and ethical. It exceeds the bare minimum of CSR and distinguish itself from the

neoclassical view and more of the new notion of citizenship that emphasis on the

companies giving back (Geva, 2008). The subcategories of philanthropic CSR are

ethical, altruistic, strategic and environmental, see fig. on pg 22.

Philanthropic responsibility deals with corporate humanitarians contribution that are

not required or expected by society. Instead have a company choose to engage in

philanthropic projects like aiding poor in developing countries, build houses for

people in need, sponsoring local communities or events, donations to charitable etc.

However, CSR philanthropy can be seen as help to create a better world by actively

engaging in programs to promote human welfare and goodwill (Carroll, 1991). The

communities firms desire that firms should contribute with their money, facilities and

time to humanitarian programs or purpose, but if the firms not will fulfil the

communities desire will they not regard the firms as unethical. It is stressed that the

philanthropy is more discretionary or voluntary on the part of businesses even if their

will always be a societal expectation from the communities. One notable reason to

making a distinction between philanthropy and ethical responsibility is that some

Philantropic  CSR

Ethical  CSR

Legal  CSR

Economic  CSR

�  19

firms feel that they are just socially responsibility to be good citizens in the

community. There's one critical factor with philanthropic CSR, their might see as an

conflict between companies a firm's concern for profit and their concern for the

society. The firms want to be engaged in the society and assist to create a better world,

but at the same time need they to focus on their profit to be sure that the business will

survive. When it came to the shareholders who want to maximize the profit is it easy

that the management forget their responsibility to the society and only focusing on the

profit. This is the critical factor with philanthropy CSR, in the theory is it a very good

idea but when it comes to the implementing on the company needs they to voluntary

want to give the society a favour (Carroll, 1991).

6.2.1 Ethical CSR Within philanthropic CSR sub categories, ethical CSR is morally required and goes

beyond fulfilling a company’s internal economic and legal obligations, to its ethical

external responsibilities to avoid harm or social injuries, even if the business might

not appear to benefit from this. Examples are to prevent crime and help homelessness

or sick people. Hence, a corporation is morally responsible to any individuals or

groups where it might inflict actual or potential injury from a particular course of

action (Lantos, 2002). Zhu et al (2014) investigated the effects of ethical leadership in

199 tourist firms in China. They found that it modified the firm's reputation indirectly.

The direct effect was that it positively influenced the firm's performance and

reputation. The conclusion on the study was that ethical CSR in the form of leadership

was only positive when the firm was strong.

6.2.2 Altruistic CSR Altruistic CSR is the philanthropic responsibilities and involves contributing to the

good of various community stakeholders, even if this sacrifice parts of the business’s

profit. Companies practicing altruistic CSR help to alleviate various social problems

within a community or society, such as lack of sufficient funding for educational

institutions, inadequate funding for the arts, chronic unemployment, urban blight,

drug and alcohol problems, and illiteracy, among others. The explanation lies in the

�  20

fact that the modern corporation has been entrusted with massive economic and

human resources and has the power to affect many parties beyond the participants in

its transactions. Thus, there is an implicit corporate social contract between business

and society, whereby firms agree to be good stewards of society’s resources (Lantos,

2002). Altruistic CSR from the companies’ side is often met by gratitude from the

consumers. Algoe and Haidt (2009) study show that gratitude brings people together

and strengthen ties and move beyond an exchange relationship into a communal

relationship. Not just the communal relationships were strengthened; the image and

the attitude were also strengthened and the company received positive word of mouth

feedback (Romani et al., 2013).

6.2.3 Strategic CSR Strategic CSR involves caring of the corporate community service activities that

accomplish strategic business goals, e.g. city developments and create new jobs in the

community. Here, corporations contribute to their constituencies, not only because it

is a kind and generous thing to do but also because they believe it to be in their best

financial interests to do so, thereby fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to the

stockholders (Lantos, 2002). Porter and Kramer (2006) make a case of strategic CSR

that companies benefits from a strategic approach to CSR. They should align the

corporate plan with a social issue that could carry a competitive value. Quoted from

the Porter and Kramer (2006) “no business can solve all of society’s problems or bear

the cost of doing so”. That is why companies have to choose one that is aligned with

the company’s core beliefs.

6.2.4 Environmental CSR Environmental CSR relates to contribution of the well being of the biotic community,

the coherence of land and ecosystems and the risk of letting threats damaging the

biodiversity. It concerns the existing living and non-living creatures within earth’s

biodiversity (Safit, 2013).

Shareholders are sensitive towards revealing bad and harmful corporate behaviour.

Flammer (2013) study show that the environmental impact can reflect in decreased

�  21

stock value. This have over times made companies more interested in environmental

CSR to eliminate their carbon footprint. By engagement in environmental concerns

can generate competitive resources, and then see the environment as a resource. The

backside is that a company’s environmental CSR lower the profit in the short term

because of the cost of involvement, and have caused managerial implications but have

shown positive signs for innovation in the long term. The revealing of positive

environmental CSR both gives an increase in stock value for shareholders and a

positive image for the company in the long term. The investments in environmental

CSR have to be coherent with the shareholders of the company (Flammer, 2013).

6.3 Brand equity

Within the concept of brand equity are identity, image, attitude and awareness, which

reflect on the company’s economic and social system. It is an indicator of the level of

acceptance from the stakeholders. Keller (2002) states that brand image plays out a

big role in the consumer purchase decision process on different levels of

psychological, sociological and economical. Strategically incorporated CSR has

strong influence on the brand image. This makes a combination of what company

does in terms of products, operations, and behaviour in the competitive environment

and later the profit made for the company and value generated for the society (Popoli,

2011). In the conducted research of Popoli (2011) many articles have proved a strong

link between social behaviour and profitable performance. See fig. pg 22.

6.3.1 Brand imageBrand image can be defined as how a brand is represented in people’s minds. The

image is a perception that a target group associates the specific brand with (Echeverri

& Edvardsson 2002). The perception can be created in two different ways, logical and

emotionally. Because of this the brand also have a symbolic meaning that affects the

image. People see the “M” or the “golden arches” of McDonalds and associate it with

food. The associations to the brand can be perceived through service, advertising,

experience, media and reputation (Holger et al., 2002). If the company has succeeded

�  22

with their brand products, then the brand image should convey a distinctive message

that communicates the product’s benefits (Kotler et al., 2003). An advantage with

having a strong brand image is that it can be protected from competition and establish

a good market position for the company. A strong brand image cannot be created over

a night; it takes time to create a strong brand image. The company needs to have a

clear view over which signals they want to communicate to the customer and not

forget that the image should both be geared towards to customers and the employees

(Echeverri & Edvardsson 2002). Everything the company communicate with the

public needs to be matched with the brand image, if the public view of the brand

image reflects differently from the company's core values the brand can experience

setbacks from both clients and customers (Kotler et al., 2003). According to Maio

(2003), it is important to see it in a long term perspective, their needs to be a strategic

long term company plan to create a clear message that share the right image of the

brand. In the study of Blombäck and Scandelius (2013) presents the studies that

corporation in CSR’s communication is positively related to brand image according to

the customer’s options. The connection between the brand and CSR activities

increases the customer’s ability to more easily remember and recognize the brand

image. The main reason is that CSR entails trust is because it is a critical and an

important factor when it is represented in people’s minds (ibid). From a customer's

perspective has it been verified that a company with a credible CSR activities is more

successful to generate longer terms consumers purchase intentions and loyalty.

Similar with brands that have a CSR identity, they can easier attract and changes a

consumer's perception to the brand (Blombäck & Scandelius, 2013).

6.3.2 Brand AttitudeThe customer’s attitude is the connection between the customer and the product

(Olsen et al., 2014). The concept brand attitude included what the customers think the

product does, how well they found it useful and how well the brand treats their

employers and the community (ibid). If a person having a strong attitude towards a

brand it affects the brand consideration, purchase intention and brand choice. By

having a strong attitude all key factors from a company's point of view are met to

�  23

maintain customers loyalty (Park et al., 2010). The attitude is based on earlier

perceptions to the brand and external sources that influence the customer. The

external sources can be things that media writes or example things that the brand do to

support the community (Olsen et al., 2014). Previous research has shown that

companies who work with CSR have a positive impact on the consumer's attitude.

Thanks to the increased loyalty that is carried when a brand works with CSR will

brand identity be affected very positively (ibid). Research has also been found that

when a company are introducing a new product on the market can CSR influences on

the products credibility positively. Because of the knowledge and awareness

customers have about CSR creates automatically a sense of security to the brand when

they know that a brand support the community (Olsen et al., 2014). A person's attitude

to a brand influences also from the people that are close to you, because of people's

increased willingness to work against pollution have this become a topic that are

considering to be very important. Just like people are categorization themselves in

different groups are brand also doing the same, if a person's group identity are similar

to a brand's identity will the person directly feel a connection to the brand thanks to

their similar identity (Woo Jin & Winterich 2013).

6.3.3 Brand identityAccording to Ghodeswar (2008) the concept brand identity is to create unique

associations between the brand and the customers. An association can be a name or a

symbol that reflect the products differentiations in relation to the competitors. Brand

identity works as a protection against the company’s competitors, it is important that

the core identity in a brand constitutes the essence in the company’s identity. When a

company builds its brand identity it is important to have a good knowledge about the

customers understanding, their attitude and how the product differentiate itself from

other similar products and who the competitors are. A strong brand identity needs to

match the customer expectations, values, characterizes and items that customers

consider being distinctive and creates value for them. Because of the market constant

development of products and services and the increased competition companies need

to strategically position the brand identity to easier create a strong identity around its

�  24

brand. This creates a strong relationship between the customer and the brand in terms

of they feel connected and engaged in the brand (Ghodeswar, 2008). According to

Morsing and Roepstroff (2015) is there a clear connection between CSR and

associations that can reflect a brand. The influence that CSR have on the brand helps

the customer to unconsciously create associations and trust to the brand. The more

associations that a customer can connect to brand the stronger will the correlation be

between them. The articles focus is to develop a conceptual framework to understand

how a company's CSR identity becomes defined with helps from political activities

and if it can create a strong identity-relation with the customers. The survey has been

made with corporations with IKEA to get a deeper understanding how a brand will be

affected if they implement CSR (Morsing & Roepstorff 2015).

6.3.4 Brand awarenessBrand Awareness is defined as the consumer’s awareness of the product or a company

and how familiar they are with the brand or if the company gives a feeling of

acquaintance. If the customer recognize the brand and experience a relationship to it

the company succeeded with their brand awareness (Kotler 2010). Early memories

from a brand can attach the customer to the store, this happen because the consumer

feels a reassurance to the brand. Because of the awareness and the information the

customer possesses, this affects the purchase decision and creates a higher affinity to

the brand. The primary sources to awareness are advertising, Internet, the staff in the

stores and personally contacts, but the strongest impact on the consumers is still the

media. The media impact is much stronger than the others, if media writes something

negative that have a connection to the brand it can influence the sales in a negative

way (ibid). A hot topic when media report companies activities is their social

responsibility. Media is a channel of information that makes people aware of company

activities in the world. Bad publicity can quickly reach the target group of the

company and hurt the brand. There's also a strong relationship between CSR and the

consumers awareness regarding to the article. A company's willingness to apply CSR

increases the customer’s willingness to pay more and choose the product that is

environmentally friendly instead for the substitute (Hartmann et al., 2013).

�  25

6.4 Cause related marketing

CRM (cause related marketing) is about using marketing strategies to supportive

activities meanwhile they build business. These activities are partnerships between

businesses and e.g. charities to market a product or services for mutual benefits

(Adkins, 1999). When a company introduce cause related marketing is it with the

purpose to increase customers goodwill and improve the company's image, which will

influence the reputation (Koschate et al 2012). The general responses of CRM are

positive and contributes to consumers are more willing to purchase the company’s

product (Adkins, 1999). Because of the effort that the firms do increases the

relationship between the company's donation and the customers willingness to

purchase the company's products. Further research has also shown that there is a

connection between a company's donations and the customer’s willingness to pay

more. If a company give something back to the society is not only the purchase

decision that will increases, also the customers willingness to pay more for the

product comparing to substitute who does not give something back to the society

(Koschate et al., 2012). However is there a disadvantage with donation, donating

more involves greater cost for the company, which will reduce the profitability.

Reduced profitability leads to dissatisfaction among internal shareholders that can

lead to reduce donations because of their desire to increase their profit. That is why it

is important to find a connection between the donation and the customers willing to

purchase the company’s product (ibid). There are different types of genre of CRM

from companies, from altruistic motivation to social motivation but what they all have

in common is that there needs to be a relationship towards the personal values of the

consumer (Nan & Heo, 2007). This means that the customer must feel a connection

between the donation and himself, either that the donation has affinity with the

customer’s value (Koschate et al., 2012). According to Jahdi (2014) CSR have

become a very important tool to consider; due to the growing importance of creating a

sustainable community. This is a concept that the consumers demand from the firms.

To fulfil the customer's expectations regarding donations and the society is a

�  26

combination of CRM and CSR something that complementing each other very well.

CRM ensure that the firms will fulfil the expectations regarding donation and CSR

ensure that the firms will get something back in terms of higher profit and higher

demand from the customers (Jahdi 2014)

�

Figure 2: Summery of the concepts and sub concepts that will be research in this paper.

7 Hypothesis

To achieve the stated purpose, the following hypotheses were formulated and

visualised in the research model

H1 There is a significant relationship between brand equity and Strategic CSR

H2 There is a significant relationship between brand equity and Ethical CSR

H3 There is a significant relationship between brand equity and Altruistic CSR

H4 There is a significant relationship between brand equity and Environmental CSR

After the first four hypotheses were tested for significance more hypothesis were

added to find out more about the relationship. If the relationship is positive or

negative.

H5 There is a positive relationship between altruistic CSR and brand equity.

H6 There is a positive relationship between ethical CSR and brand equity.

H7 There is a positive relationship between strategic CSR and brand equity.

H8 There is a positive relationship between environmental CSR and brand equity.

For further understanding of the relationship and after a second round of hypotheses

were tested for a positive or negative relationship between the different kinds of CSR

and brand equity a third set hypothesis were added to the investigation. These

Philanth

Ethical   Alturisti Strategic   Envirom

Brand  

Brand   Brand   Brand   Brand  

�  27

hypothesis are conducted regarding respondents high and low level of importance of

brand equity.

H9 There is a significant relationship between high brand equity and environmental

CSR.

H10 There is significant relationship between low brand equity and strategic CSR.

H11 There is a significant relationship between low brand equity and altruistic CSR

H12 There is a significant relationship between high brand equity and ethical CSR

�  

The analysis model A model of how the hypotheses are created. There are the four different variables of

Philanthropic CSR against Brand Equity. What questions are included in each variable

can be seen on pg. 28 ch. 8.3.

7.1 Motivation of Hypothesis The hypotheses are designed through hypothesis null method, in null hypothesis the

theories are assumed to be true by the researcher and then it will be used as a base of

an argument (Bryman and Bell 2011). In other words, null hypothesis is a statement

created by the researchers based on the theories and literature review of the research

(ibid).

H1 Companies that implement altruistic CSR help to alleviate various social problems

within a community or society. Companies that implement altruistic CSR consider to

also increases their customers brand equity. The customers are aware about the

different social problems that existing in the community and tending to increase their

trust to a brand when they know that a company prevent and help alleviate various

social problems in the community.

Brand  Equity

Alutristic  CSR Ethical  CSR Enviromental  CSR

Strategic  CSR

�  28

H2 The revealing of positive environmental CSR both gives an increase in stock value

for shareholders and a positive image for the company in the long term. By having a

strong environmental CSR gives advantages that can protect the brand from their

competition and establish a good market position for the company. This advantages

increases the brand equity.

H3 Ethical CSR is morally required and goes beyond fulfilling a company’s economic

and legal obligations, ethical responsibilities to avoid harm or social injuries, provide

crimes and help homelessness or disease people. This entails to benefits that will

increase the brand equity, when a company do operations in the competitive

environment will the value be generated to the society and increase their trust to the

brand.

H4 Strategic CSR involves caring of the corporate community service activities that

accomplish strategic business goals. Corporations contribute to their constituencies,

not only because it is a kind and generous thing to do but also because they fulfilling

their fiduciary responsibilities to the stockholders. By fulfilling their fiduciary

responsibilities will this affect the customers brand equity, the equity tending to

increases when a brand indicates that they care about the community.

H5 Altruistic CSR involves philanthropic responsibilities and contributing to the good

of various community stakeholders, even if this sacrifice parts of the business’s

profitability. By giving something back to the community even if it sacrifices parts of

the business's profitability will the customers perceiving this, as goodwill and it is

assumed to affect the band equity.

H6 Ethical CSR is morally required and goes beyond fulfilling a company’s internal

economic and legal obligations, to its ethical external responsibilities to avoid harm or

�  29

social injuries, even if the business might not appear to benefit from this. By taking

external responsibilities that the company might not, as it appears, benefits from this

shows that the company not only cares about profit, they also want to contribute to a

correct ethical community which is assumed to impact the brand equity positivity.

H7 Strategic CSR involves caring of the corporate community service activities that

accomplish strategic business goals, e.g. city developments and create new jobs in the

community. By contributing to new jobs and development cities will the customers

associate the company with caring of the corporate community which is assumed to

increase the brand equity.

H8 Environmental CSR relates to contribution of the well being of the biotic

community, the coherence of land and ecosystems and the risk of letting threats

damaging the biodiversity. By contribution of the well being of the biotic community

will the brand awareness increases which is assumed to affect the brand equity

positive.

H9 According to previous studies is CSR environmental something that the customer’s

finds very important and can increase a company's brand equity. By having a high

brand equity are the customers more aware about the company's activities and also

their impact on the environment.

H10 By not having high brand equity shows this that the customers not have a high

awareness but they care about things that have impact in their life and the city they

live in. Strategic CSR is about creating new jobs and develop cities is assumed to

have a relationship with low brand equity.

H11 Altruistic CSR is to help alleviate various social problems within a community or

society, such as lack of sufficient funding for educational institutions. This is assumed

to have a relationship with low brand equity because it focusing more on problem that

is around the customers instead of example environmental problem.

�  30

H12 It’s assumed that there is a significant relationship between high brand equity and

ethical CSR because this is about customers that have a high involvement and cares

about problem in the whole world not only in the city they live in.

�  31

8 Method

The following chapter provides empirical analysis. This comprises of the following

phases: survey design; pilot testing and the sampling and data collection.

8.1 Sampling and data collection - Probability and nonprobability samplingAccording to Bryman and Bell (2011) sampling is the process where the researcher

chooses representatives from a population in order to get its empirical data. There are

two types of samples, non-probability and probability (Saunders et al., 2003). In non-

probability the researchers do not do random selection of sampling while in

probability sampling the researchers choose the samples randomly (ibid).

This study has chosen a probability sampling method and targeting the population in

Kronoberg region in Sweden to get a to get a broad opinion. The target sample was to

find people between 18 and 65 for the questionnaire. The collected sample of

respondents was between 18 and 64 years old. The way the sample was collected

were through handing out questionnaires manually to people downtown in Växjö, at

the shopping mall Grand Samarkand and at the Linneaus university. The survey had a

few people answering the questionnaire online through shared link on Facebook.

According to Bryman and Bell (2011), surveys are the best options to conduct

questionnaires for a quantitative study. Surveys are used in order to gather primary

data in many areas; this method is also commonly used in business studies (ibid).

Furthermore surveys are normally used in studies that contain two or more variables,

in this paper the authors are using five variables, thus conducting survey is suitable

for this paper. The survey will be conducted offline (i.e hard copies of the survey will

be handed out to people within the sample segment), in order to have a larger

response rate. Convenient sampling method has been chosen for this research,

convenience sampling is a root in non-probability sampling technique normally

conducted when researcher wants to choose the target groups that is easiest to reach

out to. In other words the researcher chooses the most convenient population to gather

its data from (Beheshti et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2003).

�  32

8.2 Survey design The survey was composed out of the questions regarding the different categories of

philanthropic CSR and the components of brand equity. The questions are made up by

what different CSR activities fast food companies are involved in based on research

(appendix 1.2) and what they can contribute to in the local community i.e. CRM.

The brand equity questions are based on the theory of brand equity and its different

components of identity, image, awareness and attitude that match the topic of fast

food restaurants.

Questions 1 to 3, are designed to make sure the diversity of the respondents are

representable for this area. Questions 4 to 9, are created to get a general opinion of the

problem in this area and later be able make conclusion, contribution and managerial

suggestions in the industry.

A five point likert scale and “Yes/No or both” questions were used to answer the

survey.

8.3 OperationalizationIn the table below are the five variables illustrated that are used in this study

For more details about the questions please see the questionnaire in appendix (pg. 54)

8.3 Analysis methodSince this is a quantitative study, descriptive statistic analysis has been chosen as the

method of analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The author’s mention that descriptive is a

method that is often carried out with SPSS (ibid). Hence, the analysis will be made

with the use of SPSS. According to Hair et al., (2006) descriptive analysis allows the

researcher to translate raw data from the survey to a more understandable form, it also

gives the investigator the ability to track the missing data. When the surveys were put

T h e o r y a n d

constructs:

Questions:

Strategic CSR 10, 11, 12 V1

Ethical CSR 13, 14, 15 V2

Altruistic CSR 16, 17, 18 V3

Environmental CSR 19, 20, 21 V4

Brand Equity 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 V5

�  33

in SPSS, 34 questionnaires were invalid for not being complete or the respondent did

not live in Kornberg’s region, which resulted in a sample size of 192. Additionally,

the mean value and frequency test will be calculated too to investigate trends within

our sample size. An Anova test between the four variables and brand equity has been

carried out with the sample size of 192 respondents. An Anova test is used when there

are more than two variables in each category while a crosstab test are used when there

are two variables (e.g. yes/ no) tested against more than two ( e.g. 1 to 5 scale)

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). Anova will tell us if weather the scores significantly differ

across the table. It also allows us to investigate more than one independent variable.

The dependent variable comprises data measured at interval or ratio level. The

independent variable measures random samples from taken from a population. When

SPSS perform ANOVA test, the output reports the exact p value for that particular F-

ratio. F-ratio will be a number greater or less than one dependent on the ratio of the

variance. An F-ratio equal to or less than one indicates a non-significant result as it

shows that scores were equally affected or more affected by a nuisance variables. The

significant level is set to p< 0,05 due to the sample size. The level of significance can

differ depending on the sample size. When the sample size is smaller (less then 150)

then level of significance can be set to p<0,1 (Brace et al., 2012)

Pearson’s r has also been used to carry out a parametric test of correlation between the

variables of CSR and brand equity. The aim is to see if there are positive correlations

in the variables of CSR and brand equity. The test was carried out in a two-tailed

significance. A one-tailed test is used if only deviations in one direction are

considered possible. The value of r indicates the strength of the correlation. As a rule

of thumb from the book SPSS for Psychologists (2012) r-values from 0-0.2 are

generally considered weak, 0,3-0,6 moderate and 0,7-1 strong. Large to very large

sample sizes (over 100) can be considered statistically very strong but then the r-value

still has its significant role. 0,2 is than still considered weak correlation (Brace et al.,

2012).

Advice from professor Anders Pehrsson at Linneaus University in Växjö after results

from the first four hypotheses were tested. For further investigation of the correlation

�  34

between the variables of CSR and brand equity a crosstab test were made. To be able

to make a crosstab test the variables have been recorded to a two by three matrix to

differentiate the low and high importance of brand equity and CSR. To divide the

brand equity respondents in high and low the mean value was used as cut line. Those

respondents that scored above mean value in each brand equity category were

considered “high” and those below were considered “low”. When this was carried out

into a new variable 74 were considered low and 118 were high. The CSR categories

were slimmed down from five variables to three. The “not important” and “less

important” became “less important”, “neither” remained the same and “important”

and “very important” became “important”. For the Pearson's chi square the significant

level was set to 0,05.

8.4 ValidityAccording to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005) validity is the process that an expert in the

area test to see how accurate the table of operationalization is measuring what is

intended to measure. The construct and face validity of this study has been done

through a pilot test. Both validity of questions and constructed measurement validity

has been made and the results are presented in the pilot test.

8.5 Pilot test After completing the survey questions, a pilot test was carried out to seven

participants due to the risk of getting invalid data. Two of the participants were

professors at Linneaus University in Växjö. One was a marketing research student at

Linneaus University and four other students. All participants read through the survey

and provide us with valuable feedback. The pre-test had both negative and positive

feedbacks; the most crucial and common feedback was to add more info regarding the

questions to the survey. After completing the pilot test stage, all the feedbacks of the

participants were used to improve the survey questions.

8.6 ReliabilityBryman and Bell (2011) state that reliability has two ways to be measured;

repeatability (when the research gets the same outcomes or results if it was made by

�  35

another researcher through the same procedures) and internal consistency. Internal

consistency is measured by Cronbach alpha, this method shows how the

intercorrelations exist in a sample of items on scale of 0 and 1, it must be also

mentioned that this value must be over 0.6 in order to give reliable internal

consistency (Bryman & Bell, 2011). For repeatability validity researchers can run the

study freely in order to test if the investigation gives them the same results. For

internal consistency reliability, it examined the reliability by executing a Cronbach

alpha test to test the results. The results showed that all five variables was reliable as

Cronbach's alpha > 0,60 level (Strategic CSR; =0,601, Ethical CSR; =0,626,

Environment CSR; =0,835, Altruistic CSR =0,877 and Brand Equity =0,710).

According to Bryman and Bell (2011), if the Cronbach alpha is over 0.6, the results

are reliable. (Appendix 2, Cronbach’s Alpha test tables 2.5- 2.9).

�  36

9 Analysis and results

9.1 Frequency test(Fast food companies’ questions 4, 5, 6, 7, see tables in appendix)

Within the question of what the respondents overall impression of the fast food

companies McDonald’s, Max, Subway and Burger King. On the question, answered

out of 192 respondents 74 (39%) that they like McDonald’s (table 2.36). Regarding

Max answered 116 (61%) respondents that they had a good overall impression to the

brand (table 2.37), Subways was a little lower with 88 (46%) respondents who

admitted that they had a good overall impression (table 2.38). For Burger King said

75 (39,5%) of the respondents that they had a good overall impression to their brand

(table 2.39). The mean value in brand attitude is 3,28 and the standard deviation is

0,62 within 95% confidence interval (table 2.1).

(Philanthropic question 8, 9)

Questions regarding theories of philanthropic CSR was made to investigate the

respondent's opinion regarding franchise companies engagement in taking social

responsibility and if they rather seen a local engagement than a worldwide. Out of 192

respondents, 158 (83%) respondents answered that the philanthropic CSR

engagement was something that they found important (table 2.40). Regarding if the

respondents rather seen a local engagement than a worldwide answered 125 (66%)

that they prefer engagement in both of this categories and 49 (26%) that they would

like to see a local engagement (table 2.41). The mean value in CSR Philanthropic is

4,24 and the standard deviation is 0,79 within 95% confidence interval (table 2.2).

(Strategic CSR questions 10, 11, 12)

This theory contain of three different questions, develop Växjö city with example

finer parks, create more jobs in Växjö and preserve cultural objects in Växjö. Create

more jobs in Växjö was something the respondents really cared about, out of 192

respondents 166 (86%) answered that this was something they found important (table

�  37

2.16). Regarding the other two questions develop Växjö city and save the culture in

Växjö answered only 78 (41%) (table 2.15) respondents that they found it important

and only 88 (45%) respondents that they found it important to save the culture in

Växjö (table 2.17). The mean value in CSR Strategic is 3,54 and the standard

deviation is 0,66 within 95% confidence interval (table 2.3) i.e. CRM.

(Ethical CSR questions 13, 14, 15)

Within ethical CSR there is also three different questions, prevent crime, work against

discrimination and create more jobs for disabled. These three questions was

something the respondents considered important. The first question, what the

respondents think about franchise companies that are trying to prevent crime

answered out of 192 respondents 138 (71%) that this was something they considered

important (table 2.18). The second question regarding work against discrimination

answered 172 (90%) respondents that this was something they found important for

companies to work against (table 2.19). The last question in ethical CSR was to create

more jobs for disabled answered 154 (81%) respondents that this was something the

found important (table 2.20). The mean value for ethical CSR is 4,16 and the standard

deviation is 0,664 within 95% confidence interval (table 2.3) i.e. CRM.

(Altruistic CSR questions 16, 17, 18)

In altruistic CSR were the three questions about support local sport clubs, support

local unions and support local events. The respondents did not find these questions as

important as the previous questions. The first question regarding support local sport

clubs answered out of 192 respondents 124 (65%) that they found it important (table

2.21). The second question regarding support local unions was almost the same, 122

(63%) respondents answered that it was important (table 2.22). The last question

about support local events was almost similar to, 132 (69%) respondents answered

that this is something they care about (table 2.23). The mean value for altruistic CSR

is 3,83 and the standard deviation is 0,83 within 95% confidence interval (table 2.3)

i.e. CRM.

(Environmental CSR questions 19, 20, 21)

�  38

Within environmental CSR, the three questions were about preventing environmental

impact, protecting the nature and recycling. All this three questions was very

important according to the respondent’s opinions. Preventing environmental impact

answered out of 192 respondents 170 (88%) that they found important (table 2.24).

Regarding protect the nature answered 164 (85%) respondents that they conceded it

important (table 2.25). Regarding recycling answered 176 (92%), almost all the

respondents that this is something that is important (table 2.26). The mean value in

CSR Environmental is 4,44 and the standard deviation is 0,66 within 95% confidence

interval (table 2.3) i.e. CRM.

(Brand Image questions 22, 23)

The two questions that concern brand image was if the fast food restaurants reputation

was important for the respondents when they choose fast food restaurant and if their

choice of fast food restaurant was influenced by media reports. Regarding the first

questions if the fast food restaurant's reputation has influence on the respondents

answered out of 192 respondents 137 (71%) that it influences their choice of fast food

restaurant (table 2.27). The second question was not as important for the respondents,

only 120 (62%) respondents influences by medias reporting (table 2.28). The mean

value for brand image is 3,66 and the standard deviation is 0,90 within 95%

confidence interval (table 2.4) i.e. Brand Equity.

(Brand Identity questions 24, 25)

The questions involving brand identity was regarding if the respondents thought it

was important to have the same values as the fast food restaurants and if their

confidence in the fast food restaurant would increases if they were engage in the

society. On the first question answered only 105 (54%) out of 192 respondents that

they found it important (table 2.29). The second question answered 135 (72%) of the

respondents that their confidence would increases if the restaurants were engaged in

the society (table 2.30). The mean value in brand identity is 3,59 and the standard

deviation is 0,82 within 95% confidence interval (table 2.4) i.e. Brand Equity.

(Brand Awareness questions 26, 27)

�  39

Regarding the questions that concerned brand awareness did the respondents have low

awareness and interest? The first question if the respondents knew of any fast food

restaurants that works with social responsibility. Only 25 (13%) out of 192

respondents answered that they are aware of fast food restaurants that work with

social responsibility (table 2.31). The second question was if the respondents are

interested to know more about the fast foods restaurants local social responsibility.

Only 83 (42%) respondents answered that they want to know more about the

franchise restaurants local social responsibility (table 2.32). The mean value in brand

awareness is 2,55 and the standard deviation is 0,89 within 95% confidence interval

(table 2.4) i.e. Brand Equity.

(Brand Attitude questions 28, 29)

The last two questions had connection to brand attitude and was about if it was

important for the respondents that the fast food restaurant live up to their expectations

and if they considered it important that the local franchise companies treat their

employees well. The first question did only 134 (69%) out of 192 respondents agree

with (table 2.33). The second question answered 170 (89%) of the respondents that

they found it very important that the company treat their employees well (2.34). The

mean value in Brand Attitude is 4,11 and the standard deviation is 0,72 within 95%

confidence interval (table 2.4) i.e. Brand Equity.

10 Results

An ANOVA test was used to test the first set of hypotheses (H1 to H4 ). All the

hypotheses were significant at the level of p< 0.05. Which shows that there is a

relationship between different kinds of CSR and Brand Equity.

The levels of significance were 0.001 for Strategic CSR with a F value of 2,508, sig.

0,003 for Ethical CSR and a F value of 2,237, sig. 0,010 for Altruistic CSR with a F

value of 1,962, and sig. 0.014 for Environmental CSR with a F value of 1,894.

(Appendix 2, Table 2.10)

�  40

The Pearson's R (correlation for H5 to H8) shows us wheter there are positive or

negative relationship between the different kinds of CSR and brand equity. The

correlation will indicate if the correlation is weak, moderate or strong according to the

rule of thumb scale from the Brace et al (2012). The hypotheses were stated that there

is a positive relationship between these. The results of the hypothesis were all

significant when the bivariate correlation tests were executed. The two tailed

correlation significant level were set to 0,01.

In strategic CSR vs brand equity there was a sig. level of 0,000 and a moderate

positive correlation of 0,345. For ethical CSR vs brand equity the sig. level where

0,001 and there was a weak positive correlation of 0,238. In altruistic CSR vs brand

equity was the sig. level of 0,004 and there was a weak positive correlation of 0,206.

For environmental CSR vs brand equity was the sig. level of 0,003 and there was a

weak positive correlation of 0,211. (Appendix 2, table 2.11)

Crosstab tests were conducted to strengthen the correlations of the third set of

hypotheses (H9 to H12). Where the variables were recoded to low and high importance

of brand equity and the different CSR variables were reduced to less important,

neither and important (see analysis method). The level of significance were set to

p<0,05 to measure Pearson Chi square. When respondents were divided up in the

categories of what was considered low brand equity and high brand equity, 74 ended

up in low brand equity and 118 in high brand equity. Further these were tested against

the different types of CSR.

Results between brand equity and environmental CSR were p= 0,064. Of the

respondents in low brand equity, 59 of the total 74 (79,7%) considered environmental

CSR important. Of the respondents in high brand equity 103 out of the 118 (87,3%)

considered environmental CSR important (see further statistics in table 2.11)

Results between brand equity and strategic CSR were p= 0,076. Of the respondents in

low brand equity, 22 out of 74 (29,7%) considered strategic CSR important. Of the

respondents in the high brand equity category 46 out of 118 (38,9%) considered

strategic CSR important (see further statistics in table 2.12).

�  41

Results between brand equity and altruistic CSR were p= 0,520. Of the respondents in

low brand equity, 41 out of 74 (55,4%) considered altruistic CSR important. Of the

respondents in the high brand equity category 67 out of 118 (56,7%) considered

altruistic CSR important (see further statistic in table 2.13).

Results between brand equity and ethical CSR p= 0,099. Of the respondents in high

brand equity 97 out of 118 (82,2%) considered ethical CSR important. Of the

respondents in the low brand equity, 51 out of 74 (68,9%) considered ethical CSR

important (see further statistics in table 2.14).

All of the third sets of hypotheses (9 to 12) were rejected at the p< 0,05 significance

level.

�  42

11 Discussion

11.1 Brand ImageBrand image is defined as how a brand is represented in people’s minds. The

associations to the brand can be perceived through service, advertising, experience,

media and reputation (Holger et al 2002) i.e. Brand equity. In the survey, 62% of the

respondents said that media does have influence on their choice of fast food

restaurant. This shows that there is correlation between the theory of Holger et al

(2002) regarding media's influences and the respondent’s answers that confirm the

influence of media. There are 38% that are not or to little extent influenced by media.

According to how an important the reputation is for the customers was it proven that

the reputation had an influence on the customer's choice when they choose fast food

restaurant. Of the respondents 72% answered that the reputation of the fast food

restaurant is important for them. Holger et al (2002) claim that a brand reputation

influence the customers are confirmed by the respondents i.e. Brand equity.

11.2 Brand IdentityAccording to Ghodeswar (2008) is the concept of brand identity to create unique

associations between the brand and the customers. A strong brand identity needs to

match the customer expectations, values, characterizes and items that customers

consider being distinctive and creates value for them i.e. Brand equity. In the survey

the respondents were asked if they found it important that the fast food restaurant

have they same value as them. It turned out that this was not something they really

cared about, only 54% of the respondents found it important that they needed to have

the same values as the fast food restaurant. Regarding to the respondents’ answers it

was proven that their opinions do not have a strong correlation to the brand identity

theory i.e. Brand equity.

According to Morsing & Roepstroff (2015) there is a clear connection between CSR

and associations that can reflect a brand. The influence that CSR have on the brand

�  43

helps the customer to unconsciously create associations and trust to the brand. This

was something the respondents agreed with. The respondents have been asked if their

confidence will increases to a fast food restaurant if they were engaged in CSR. 72%

of the respondents answered that their trust will increase if a fast food restaurant

works with CSR i.e. Brand equity.

11.3 Brand Awareness The first question of brand awareness was if the respondents know any fast food

restaurants that work with CSR. Brand awareness is defined as the consumer’s

awareness of the product or a company, and if the customers are familiar with the

brands engagement proving this with a high connection between the brand and the

customer (Kotler 2010) i.e. Brand equity. The response from the question is very low,

only 13% of the respondents knew many fast food restaurants that work with CSR.

According to the theory brand awareness show that there is a very low correlation

between the respondents awareness regarding to what the fast food restaurants are

engaged in. The respondents proves that their awareness regarding the brands

engagement in CSR needs to increases, otherwise will the companies work with CSR

be for nothing.

The second question of brand awareness was if the respondents want to know more

about the local franchisers social responsibility. The answer was also low on this

question; only 42% wants to know more. This reinforces the low correlation between

the customer’s interests and awareness to know more about the fast food restaurants

CSR. According to Kotler (2010) who advocates the importance of that the costumers

needs to be familiar with the brands engagements shown the results from these two

questions that there is lack of knowledge from the customer's side.

11.4 Brand AttitudeRegarding if it is important for the customers that the company fulfil the expectations

thought 70% of the respondents that it was important. The concept of brand attitude

includes what the customers think the product does, how well they found it useful and

�  44

how well the brand treats their employers and the community (Olsen et al, 2014). The

question shows that there is a strong correlation between the customers expectations

should be fulfilled and the theory brand attitude. The respondent’s answer confirms

the theory.

The last question in brand attitude is if it is important that the franchise companies

treat their employees well. Most of the respondents, 89% answered that this was

important. This have a strong correlation to the theory Brand attitude regarding to

Olsen et al (2014) that writes about the importance of that companies need to treat

their employees well because it have a huge influence on the customers attitude to a

brand.

11.5 Philanthropic CSRResults from the philanthropic CSR question where 83% of the respondents thought it

was important for companies to be involved in the community does correlate with

what Geva (2008) says about the importance of companies giving back to the

community.

In question nine where the respondents asked whether they like to see a local rather

than a world wide engagement in CSR the answer from 66% were; “both”. It goes

back to what Carrol said in 1991, that companies should contribute to both a better

world and society. All our fast food companies do give back to society and to different

projects around the world, which is all presented in the introduction.

11.6 Strategic CSRHypothesis shows that there is a positive moderate significant relationship between

strategic CSR and brand equity. Strategic CSR was conducted of questions regarding

city development. This category scored the lowest among the CSR categories in terms

of mean value. If a company should invest in this kind of CSR they should focus on

job creation which 86% of the respondents thought was important or very important

i.e. CRM. As Porter and Kramer (2006) says, a company can not solve all society's

problems and that they should only focus on one area, because it is not financially

�  45

possible to solve them all. According to the crosstab test was the results between

brand equity and strategic CSR were p= 0,076. Of the respondents in low brand

equity, 22 out of 74 (29,7%) considered strategic CSR important. Of the respondents

in the high brand equity category 46 out of 118 (38,9%) considered strategic CSR

important. Both high and low brand equity had quite low connection to strategic CSR.

11.7 Ethical CSRHypothesis showed that there are a weak positive relationship between ethical CSR

and brand equity. According to Lantos (2002) companies have moral obligation to

help less fortunate people in society, people with drug addiction or disabilities. This

correlates with what the respondents thought about they considered important. Within

the ethical CSR there are three different questions, prevent crime, work against

discrimination and create more jobs for disabled. All this three questions was

something the respondents considering important i.e. CRM. The first question of what

the respondent’s thinks about franchise companies that are trying to prevent crime

answered 71% of the respondents that this was something they considered important.

The second question regarding work against discrimination answered 90%

respondents that this is something they found important for companies to work

against. The last question in ethical CSR was to create more jobs for disabled

answered 81% of the respondents that this was something the found important. In the

crosstab results between brand equity and ethical CSR p= 0,099. Of the respondents

in the low brand equity, 51 out of 74 (68,9%) considered ethical CSR important. Of

the respondents in high brand equity was it 97 out of 118 (82,2%) that considered

ethical CSR important.

11.8 Altruistic CSRThe results from the hypothesis show that there is a weak positive relationship

between altruistic CSR and brand equity. Questions of altruistic CSR were focused

on supporting and sharing with local clubs. As Lantos (2002) describes Altruistic CSR

are companies that are good stewards in their communities i.e. CRM. Which are then

�  46

met with strengthen relationships within the community and also better image and

attitude from the community's side i.e. Brand equity. The respondents of the survey

thought this was third most important type of CSR companies should be involved in.

The highest score within this category that they found important was supporting local

events (69%), rather than sport clubs or other associations 65% and 63%. The results

between brand equity and altruistic CSR were p= 0,520. Of the respondents in low

brand equity, 41 out of 74 (55,4%) considered altruistic CSR important. Of the

respondents in the high brand equity category 67 out of 118 (56,7%) considered

altruistic CSR important.

11.9 Environmental CSRTesting of the hypothesis between environmental CSR and brand equity showed a

weak positive relationship. Environmental CSR is reflected in an increase in stock

value, a positive image of the company and show positive signs in innovation

(Flammer, 2013). The respondents’ level of importance was very high in this category

of CSR. Recycling measured a total of 92% from the respondents that either thought

this was important or very important. To care for the environment is something all of

the fast food companies does, and like to point out on their websites concerning CSR

activities. The results between brand equity and environmental CSR were p= 0,064.

Regarding to respondents in low brand equity, 59 of the total 74 (79,7%) considered

environmental CSR important. Of the respondents in high brand equity 103 out of the

118 (87,3%) considered environmental CSR important i.e. CRM.

�  47

12 Conclusion and contribution

12.1 ConclusionThere is a positive significant relationship between CSR and brand equity in this

study around fast food companies. The relationship is weak according to Pearson's

correlations test. The ethical, altruistic and environmental relationships were weakly

positive except strategic whom is moderate positive.

The purpose was to investigate the importance of philanthropic CSR activities on

local level and see if these activities can be used to strengthen fast food companies’

brand equity. Research has shown that fast food companies are involved in different

kinds of philanthropic CSR activities i.e. CRM.

What part of brand equity has to be dealt with first? The fast food franchise

companies are already prioritizing the right things within philanthropic CSR

according to our survey (such as work against discrimination, creating jobs for

disabled and recycling etc.). Most of the other questions regarding brand equity had

between 55% to 70% of the respondents saying that it was important or very

important to them except the awareness questions. As authors, we believe that the

level of awareness is too low, for CSR to affect brand equity the level of awareness

needs increase to motivate internal stakeholders for further investments in

philanthropic CSR and to get more response from local citizen. To increase the

customers awareness of CSR activities can be done through advertising and other

information sharing channels.

What are the important factors in building brand equity with philanthropic CSR

activities? The results from the crosstab test show the relationship between “high” and

“low” brand equity and what the level of importance the CSR activities have to the

respondents. The strongest factor is the involvement in environmental CSR where the

frequency test showed importance between 85% and 90% in the different categories.

Where the crosstab test showed that 87.3% of high brand equity respondents also

considered environmental CSR important.

�  48

Ethical CSR showed the same tendencies as environmental where 82,2% of those in

the high brand equity respondents thought that ethical CSR is important.

Regarding to the important factors in building brand equity with philanthropic CSR

activities, the most vital factor is that the customer with a high brand equity

considering the CSR activities more. The results from the crosstab test showed that

the respondents with high brand equity have easier to appreciate the engagement fast

food restaurants have in philanthropic CSR. Low brand equity respondents cannot be

excluded because many of them also consider philanthropic CSR important. As

previously mentioned there are different parts of brand equity that are also important

to work with within themselves.

How important is the focus on local activities for franchised fast food companies

when it comes to the philanthropic CSR activities? It was not a clear YES rather

“Both” on the questions that the respondents in Kronoberg would like to see a local

rather than a worldwide engagement in philanthropic CSR activities was the focus on

local activities not essential. What the fast food companies do is right with their

CRM, they focus their donations on ethical issues on local level and environmental on

broader scale.

12.2 Contributions to the fieldCause related marketing theory states that the CSR activities should be aligned with

the company's business to create a win win situation. The authors want to add CRM to

what Carroll (1979) and Wood (1991) about the importance of CSR activities

connection to customers, that company activities also are aligned with these. From

research during this project is it clear that all of the fast food companies are involved

in taking care of the environment since food and nature is closely related to the

environment. This makes our respondents opinion, the CSR activities and business

activities aligned within the fast food industry. With these aligned and an increase in

awareness will hopefully enhance brand equity.

�  49

According to the theory there is a connection between the theory CRM and the

companys brand equity (Koschate et al 2012). The respondents answered that a

brand's reputation have an influence on their image to the brand and are a crucial

factor when they chose fast food restaurant. The connection between these two

theories shows that it is very important that the company focusing on the right activity

that the target market finds important, if the brand focusing on the wrong CSR

activities can this get negative effects on the market shares because this isn’t

something the customer considering important i.e. CRM. Regarding to the survey who

showed that the respondents had a high influence from the reputation which is an

important factor in CRM is the solution that the they brand needs to have a clear

knowledge about what the customers care about and finds important regarding CSR

activities when they works with CRM.

13 Managerial suggestion

For managers to take into consideration is that not all regions face the same problems

and the local adaptation is important. Managers have to address the social problems

and what stakeholders think is important aligned with the franchise company’s

business activities or affect on the community. Important for the respondents and for

the franchisor are working with ethical issues and discrimination at the local

restaurant i.e. CRM. This category score high on the importance scale.

The results indicated low level of awareness in our study of fast food companies’

involvement in CSR. The authors would like to give the suggestion to managers to

make the customers more aware of what the individual fast food company does for

the community and/or the world. This can be made through campaigns or different

kinds of advertising in different media channels or in the local restaurant. Regarding

to that the respondents rather seen a local and a worldly engagement in CSR thought

to be because the respondents think that we in Sweden already have a safe and fair

society and that's why they want the companies to have worldly engagement.

�  50

14 Limitation and further studies

Suggestions for further studies are to raise the communication and awareness aspect

of CSR to the customers of these fast food restaurants. In our survey answered 34%

that they did not know about any CSR activities from fast food companies. During the

time of research did the authors visit a few of these restaurants and the authors did not

see any obvious advertising or information of CSR activities in the restaurants. It

could be seen that McDonald's have information out about the Ronald McDonald

house for children in their restaurant. The rest of the fast food restaurants are keeping

the CSR information on their websites.

Our survey showed results that both local and worldwide CSR engagement was

important. We think it would be interesting to deeper into why people think this way

or those who said that companies should only focus on helping other countries. One

of our original thoughts were that it would be interesting to see if companies could

help out in the community where the government funds fell short. Is the standard of

living that high in Sweden that we should rather solve problems in other countries

then in our own?

Still further investigations needs to be made in the relationship between the franchisor

and franchisee.

�  51

15 Reference list

Adams, R., 2005. Fast Food, Obesity, and Tort Reform: An Examination of Industry

Responsibility for Public Health. Business and Society Review 110, 297–320.

Adkins, S., 1999. Cause related marketing: who cares wins. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford  ; Boston.

Albaum, G.S. and Duerr, E. (2011), ”Nonexport Entry Modes” International

marketing and export management, 7th ed. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow,

England  ; New York, pp. 573-575.

Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The

‘‘Other-Praising’’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration.The Journal of

Positive Psychology, 4 (2), 105–127.

"Ansvar." - BURGER KING®. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. (https://burgerking.se/

foretaget/vart-ansvar)

Barkay, T. (2013), When Business and Community Meet: A Case Study of Coca-Cola.

Critical Sociology, Vol 39, No 2, pp. 277–293.

Blombäck, A., & Scandelius, C. (2013). Corporate heritage in CSR communication: a

means to responsible brand image?. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 18(3), 362-382.

Beheshti, H., Oghazi, P., Mostaghel, R., & Hultman, M. (2014). Supply chain

integration and firm performance: an empirical study of Swedish manufacturing

firms. Competitiveness Review, 24(1), 20-31.

�  52

Brace, N., Kemp, R., Snelgar, R., 2012. SPSS for psychologists. Palgrave Macmillan,

Basingstoke, 152–155.

Brito, P.Q., and K.Hammond. 2007. Strategic versus tactical nature of sales

promotions. Journal of Marketing Communications 13, no. 2: 131–48.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods 3e. Oxford university

press.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics

matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.

Carroll, A.B. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, July-August: 39-48.

Carroll, Archie B. (1979) A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate

Performance. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, s. 497-505.

Cliffe, Simon J., and Judy Motion. "Building contemporary brands: a sponsorship-

based strategy." Journal of Business Research 58.8 (2005): 1068-1077.

"Current List of Consumer Boycotts." Current List of Consumer Boycotts. Ethical

Consumer.org, 17 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2015. (http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/

boycotts/boycottslist.aspx)

Dant, R.P., Grünhagen, M., 2014. International Franchising Research: Some Thoughts

on the What, Where, When, and How. Journal of Marketing Channels 21, 124–132.

Det Lokala Företaget - 80% Av Våra Restauranger Drivs Av Franchisetagare ::

McDonalds.se. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. (http://www.mcdonalds.se/se/

om_mcdonald_s/det_lokala_foeretaget.html)

�  53

Dougherty, M.L., Olsen, T.D., 2014. Taking Terrain Literally: Grounding Local

Adaptation to Corporate Social Responsibility in the Extractive Industries. Journal of

Business Ethics 119, 423–434.

Echeverri, P, & Edvardsson, B 2012, Marknadsföring I Tjänsteekonomin, n.p.: Lund :

Studentlitteratur, 2012, Linnaeus University Library, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 May

2015.

Farrelly, F., and P.Quester. 2005. Investigating large-scale sponsorship relationships as

co-marketing alliances. Business Horizons 48, no. 1: 55–62.

Flammer, C., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Reaction: The

Environmental Awareness of Investors. Academy of Management Journal 56, 758–

781.

Frederick, W. C. (1998). Moving to CSR What to Pack for the Trip. Business &

Society, 37(1), 40-59.

Geva, A., 2008. Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility: Interrelationships

between Theory, Research, and Practice. Business and Society Review 113, 1–41.

Ghauri, P. & Grønhaug, K., 2005. Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical

Guide. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Ghodeswar, Bhimrao M. "Building brand identity in competitive markets: a

conceptual model." Journal of Product & Brand Management 17.1 (2008): 4-12.

Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social responsibility create value

for consumers?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 48-56.

Hack, Lucy, Alexandra J. Kanyon, and Emma H. Wood. "A Critical Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) Timeline: How Should It Be Understood Now?" A Critical

�  54

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Timeline: How Should It Be Understood Now?

16.4 (2014): 46-55.

Hair, Joseph F, Robert P Bush, and David J Ortinau (2006), Marketing Research:

Within a Changing Information Environment (Revised international ed.). Boston,

MA: McGraw-Hill.

Hartmann, M., Heinen, S., Melis, S., & Simons, J. (2013). Consumers' awareness of

CSR in the German pork industry. British Food Journal, 115(1), 124-141.

Holger, L & Holmberg, I. (2002) Identitet om varumärken tecken och symboler,

Raster Förlag.

Huang, R., Sarigüllò, E., 2015. Assessment of brand equity measures. International

Journal of Market Research 56, 783.

Jahdi, K. (2014). Cause-related marketing (CaRM) and corporate social responsibility

(CSR). Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 674.

Keller, K.L. (2002) Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing

Brand Equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Keller K.L.. 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications

environment. Journal of Marketing Communications 15, no. 2–3: 139–55.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing. Pearson Education.

Kotler, Philip, John Bowen and James Makens (2003) Marketing for Hospitality and

Tourism, New Jersy: Prentice Hall. 3rd ed.

�  55

Koschate-Fischer, N., Stefan, I. V., & Hoyer, W. D. (2012). Willingness to Pay for

Cause-Related Marketing: The Impact of Donation Amount and Moderating Effects.

Journal Of Marketing Research (JMR), 49(6), 910-927.

Lantos, G.P., 2002. The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Journal

of Consumer Marketing 19, 205–232.

Lichtenstein, S., Badu, E., Owusu-Manu, D.-G., John Edwards, D., D. Holt, G., 2013.

Corporate social responsibility architecture and project alignments: A study of the

Ghanaian construction industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 11,

334–353.

Maio, E. (2003). Managing brand in the new stakeholder environment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 44(2-3), 235-246.

Marques, Joan. "Socializing a Capitalistic World: Redefining the Bottom Line."

Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 7.1 (2005): 283+287. Web. 28

Apr. 2015.

"MAX Burgers." Ansvar. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. (http://max.se/sv/Ansvar/Det-

ansvarsfulla-foretaget/)

"MAX Burgers." Socialt Ansvar. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. (https://www.max.se/

sv/Ansvar/Socialt-ansvar/)

"Max Samarbete Med Jon Olsson I Åre." Max Hamburgers. N.p., 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 2

May 2015. (https://www.max.se/sv/Om-Max/Presscenter/Max-samarbetar-med-Jon-

Olsson-i-Are1/?page=2)

“McDonalds.se." Samhällsansvar. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. (http://

www.mcdonalds.se/se/om_mcdonald_s/samhallsansvar.html)

�  56

"McDonalds Sponsrar Svenska Skidlandslaget - Kostdoktorn." Kostdoktorn. N.p., 28

Oct. 2014. Web. 3 May 2015. (http://www.kostdoktorn.se/mcdonalds-sponsrar-

svenska-skidlandslaget)

Meiseberg, B. and Ehrmann, T. (2012), "Lost in Translation? The Prevalence and

Performance Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility in Franchising. "Journal of

Small Business Management, Vol 50, No 4, pp 566-95.

Menon, S. and Kahn, B.E. (2003), “Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic

activities: when do they impact perception of sponsor brand?”, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 316-27.

Martinuzzi, Andre, Barbra Krumay, and Umberto Pisano. "The New Communication

of the EU Commission on CSR and National CSR Strategies and Action Plans."

European Sustainabel Development Network. N.p., Dec. 2011. Web. 11 May 2015.

http://www.sd-network.eu/?k=quarterly%20reports&report_id=23

Morsing & Roepstorff (2015). CSR as Corporate Political Activity: Observations on

IKEA's CSR Identity-Image Dynamics. Journal Of Business Ethics, 128(2), 395-409.

Nan, Xiaoli, and Kwangjun Heo. "Consumer responses to corporate social

responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related

marketing." Journal of Advertising 36.2 (2007): 63-74.

Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green Claims and

Message Frames: How Green New Products Change Brand Attitude. Journal Of

Marketing, 78(5), 119-137.

"Our People Our Communities." Our People Our Communities. Subway, 2015. Web.

08 Apr. 2015. (http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/about_us/Social_Responsibility/

OurPeopleOurCommunities.aspx)

�  57

Palazon-Vidal, M., and E.Delgado-Bellaster. 2005. Sales promotions effects on

consumer-based brand equity. International Journal of Market Research 47, no. 2:

179–204.

Park, C., MacInnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand

Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of

Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers . Journal of Marketing , 74, pp. 1-17.

Pérez, R.C., 2009. Effects of Perceived Identity Based on Corporate Social

Responsibility: The Role of Consumer Identification with the Company. Corporate

Reputation Review 12, 177–191.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2011) "Creating Shared Value." Harvard Business

Review, Vol 89 Issue 1/2, pp. 62-77.

Popoli, P., 2011. Linking CSR strategy and brand image: Different approaches in local

and global markets. Marketing Theory 11, 419–433.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2006) Strategy and society: the link between

competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review,

December, 78–92.

Romani, S., Grappi, S., Bagozzi, R.P., 2013. Explaining Consumer Reactions to

Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values. Journal

of Business Ethics 114, 193–206.

"Ronald McDonald House Charities :: McDonalds.com." Ronald McDonald House

Charities :: McDonalds.com. McDonalds, n.d. Web. 8 May 2015.

Safit, I. (2013). The Ethics of Survival: Responsibility and Sacrifice in Environmental

Ethics. Phenomenology & Practice, 7(2), 78-99.

�  58

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., (2003) Research methods for business

students, 5th edition, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Schwitzer, G., Mudur, G., Henry, D., Wilson, A., Goozner, M., Simbra, M., Sweet,

M., Baverstock, K.A., 2005. What Are the Roles and Responsibilities of the Media in

Disseminating Health Information? PLoS Medicine 2, e215.

Sitkin, A., 2013. Working for the local community: Substantively broader/

geographically narrower CSR accounting. Accounting Forum 37, 315–324.

Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C.N., 2013. When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of

CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research 66, 1831–1838.

Snider, J., Paul, R. H., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st

century: A view from the world’s most successful firms.

SUBWAY® Åtagande." SUBWAY Sverige. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. (http://

subway.se/sv/subway/subway-atagande/)

Super Size Me. Dir. Morgan Spurlock. Perf. Morgan Spurlock. The Con, 2004. DVD.

Super Size Me. YouTube, 30 Jan. 2004. Web. 8 May 2015.

"SVT: Uppdrag Granskning - Nattstädarna." YouTube. SVT Uppdrag Granskning, 24

Oct. 2007. Web. 7 May 2015. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5CUxH8rfI)

"Our People Our Communities." Our People Our Communities. Subway, 2015. Web.

08Apr .2015. (http://www.subway.com/subwayroot/about_us/Social_Responsibility/

OurPeopleOurCommunities.aspx)

�  59

Van Marrewijk, Marcel. "Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate

sustainability: Between agency and communion." Journal of business ethics 44.2-3

(2003): 95-105.

Woo Jin, C., & Winterich, K. P. (2013). Can Brands Move In from the Outside? How

Moral Identity Enhances Out-Group Brand Attitudes. Journal Of Marketing, 77(2),

96-111.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management

review, 16(4), 691-718.

Zhu, Y., Sun, L.-Y., Leung, A.S.M., 2014. Corporate social responsibility, firm

reputation, and firm performance: The role of ethical leadership. Asia Pacific Journal

of Management 31, 925–947.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Gruber, V., 2011. “Why Don’t Consumers Care

About CSR?”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role of CSR in Consumption

Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 104, 449–460.

�  60

Appendix 1

1.1 Such  as  KFC  (Kentucky  Fried  Chicken)  was  boycotted  for  cramming  birds  into  

small  cages,  or  Canadian  Farmed  salmon  who  was  treated  with  antibiotics  whom  

later  leaked  out  in  the  sea  and  people  were  asked  to  boycott  BlueQin  tuna  whom  

was  on  the  edge  of  extinction  (ethicalconsumer.org).  

1.2In the paragraphs above, the authors of the paper have stated the important benefits

and consequences of CSR, the lack of CSR in the franchise branches of companies a.

The companies that are in focus in this study are in the fast food industry

(McDonald's, Burger King, Max Hamburgers and Subway). All of these state on their

main website (not all on the website for the specific country, e.g Sweden) that they

encourage the franchise branch to work with CSR on local level. Subway

headquarters work with franchisees with ethical issues to eliminate any kind of

discrimination towards race, gender, sexual orientation or religion (subway.com). On

their Swedish website they communicate their CSR on larger scale such as

minimization of environmental impact of their food and just mentions small

encouragement to supporting the local community (subway.se). Max Hamburgers are

working with Samhall an organisation that intrigue people with disabilities into

society (max.se). Burger King headquarters have a consistently focus on

environmental performance, they recycling 90% of all waste in the restaurants. They

have also a strong focus on ethical and qualitative requirements; they have continuous

controls to ensure it fulfilments (Burger king Sweden 2015). McDonalds is the fast

food company that work with locally focused CSR the most. According to McDonalds

Swedish website, they want to be the local company that care for its community. They

have examples of four different franchisees that have a engagement in the local

community. They engage in local youth sports, hiring people with disabilities,

building playrooms at hospitals, and helping security guards at night which has lead

�  61

to a decrease in crime rates (mcdonalds.se). After research of academic articles and

these fast food companies’ websites there was a discovery of that there is a unclear

part of CSR that fast food companies do not market very well.

�  62

Questionnaire

1 What is you gender Demographics

2 What is your age

3 Do you live in Kronobergs län

4 McDonalds Franchised

5 Max fast food

6 Subway companies

7 Burger King

8 What do you think of franchise companies involvement in local CSR Philanthropic

9 Would you rather see local CSR involvement then World wide from franchise companies

CSR

10 Develop Växjö city Strategic

11 Create more jobs Växjö CSR

12 Cultivation of historical artefacts

13 Prevent crime and help drug abusers Ethical CSR

14 Work against discrimination

15 Create more jobs for disabled people

16 Support local sport clubs Altruistic CSR

17 Support local associations

18 Support local events

19 Prevent pollution Environmental

20 Protect environment CSR

21 Recycling

22 Is the restaurants reputation important to you when you choose fast food restaurant

23 Does media reports influence your choice of fast food restaurant

�  63

Appendix 2

Table 2.1

24 Is it important that you as a customer and the restaurants have then same values

25Would your confidence in to a fast food restaurant change if they were involved in local CSR

Brand Equity

26 Do you know any fast food restaurant that are involved in local CSR

27 Are you interested in knowing more about franchise restaurants local CSR activities

28 Is it important that a franchise company meet your expectations

29 Is it important to you that franchise companies treat their employees well

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

FASTFOODNEW

73,399

191 ,000 3,28385 3,1956 3,3721

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

FASTFOODNEW 192 3,2839 ,61993 ,04474

�  64

Table 2.2

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

What do you think of franchise

companies involvement in local

CSR

192 4,240 ,7893 ,0570

Would you rather see local CSR

involvement then World wide

from franchise companies

192 2,396 ,8740 ,0631

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

What do you think of

franchise companies

involvement in local

CSR

74,431

191 ,000 4,2396 4,127 4,352

Would you rather see

local CSR involvement

then World wide from

franchise companies

37,981

191 ,000 2,3958 2,271 2,520

�  65

Table 2.3

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Environmental CSR

192 4,4427 ,65803 ,04749

Ethical CSR 192 4,1632 ,64267 ,04638

Alutristic CSR 192 3,8264 ,83129 ,05999

Strategic CSR 192 3,5382 ,66206 ,04778

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

EnvironmentalCSR

93,552

191 ,000 4,44271 4,3490 4,5364

EthicalCSR 89,762

191 ,000 4,16319 4,0717 4,2547

AlutristicCSR 63,780

191 ,000 3,82639 3,7081 3,9447

StrategicCSR 74,052

191 ,000 3,53819 3,4440 3,6324

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Image 192 3,6563 ,89884 ,06487

Identitiy 192 3,5885 ,81701 ,05896

awareness 192 2,5547 ,89406 ,06452

attitude 192 4,1120 ,71937 ,05192

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

�  66

Table 2.4

Cronbach’s Alpha Test Tables

Strategic CSR 2.5

Ethical CSR 2.6

Altruistic CSR 2.7

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Image 56,364

191 ,000 3,65625 3,5283 3,7842

Identity 60,861

191 ,000 3,58854 3,4722 3,7048

Awareness

39,593

191 ,000 2,55469 2,4274 2,6820

Attitude 79,204

191 ,000 4,11198 4,0096 4,2144

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,601 ,598 3

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,626 ,635 3

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,877 ,877 3

�  67

Environmental CSR 2.8

Brand Equity 2.9

ANOVA Test

Table 2.10

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,835 ,838 3

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

,710 ,718 8

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Strategic Between Groups 24,772 21 1,180 2,508 ,001

Within Groups 79,950 170 ,470

Total 104,722 191

Ethical Between Groups 19,461 21 ,927 2,237 ,003

Within Groups 70,441 170 ,414

Total 89,902 191

Altruistic Between Groups 29,180 21 1,390 1,962 ,010

Within Groups 120,389 170 ,708

Total 149,569 191

Environmental Between Groups 16,494 21 ,785 1,894 ,014

Within Groups 70,492 170 ,415

Total 86,986 191

�  68

Pearson’s r

�  69

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Brand Equity 3,4779 ,58041 192

Strategic 3,5295 ,74046 192

Ethical 4,1441 ,68607 192

Altruistic 3,8003 ,88492 192

Environmental 4,4358 ,67485 192

Correlation

Brand Equity

Strategic Ethical Altruistic Environmental

Brand Equity Pearson Correlation

1 ,345** ,238** ,206** ,211**

Sig. (2-tailed)

,000 ,001 ,004 ,003

N 192 192 192 192 192

Strategic Pearson Correlation

,345** 1 ,446** ,308** ,366**

Sig. (2-tailed)

,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 192 192 192 192 192

Ethical Pearson Correlation

,238** ,446** 1 ,368** ,522**

Sig. (2-tailed)

,001 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 192 192 192 192 192

Altruistic Pearson Correlation

,206** ,308** ,368** 1 ,252**

Sig. (2-tailed)

,004 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 192 192 192 192 192

Environmental Pearson Correlation

,211** ,366** ,522** ,252** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

,003 ,000 ,000 ,000

N 192 192 192 192 192

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

�  70

Table 2.11

�  71

Crosstab test

Environment CSR and Brand Equity

Table 2.12

Crosstab

Brand Equity Total

Low High

EnviroCSR

Less important

Count 3 0 3

% within EnviroCSR 100,0% 0,0% 100,0%

% within brand equity 4,1% 0,0% 1,6%

Neither

Count 12 15 27

% within Enviro CSR 44,4% 55,6% 100,0%

% within brand equity 16,2% 12,7% 14,1%

Important

Count 59 103 162

% within Enviro CSR 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%

% within brand equity 79,7% 87,3% 84,4%

Total

Count 74 118 192

% within Enviro CSR 38,5% 61,5% 100,0%

% within brand equity 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5,489a 2 ,064

Likelihood Ratio 6,421 2 ,040

Linear-by-Linear

Association

3,515 1 ,061

N of Valid Cases 192

a. 2 cells (33,3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 1,16.

�  72

Strategic CSR VS Brand Equity

Table 2.13

Crosstab

Brand Equity Total

low high

stratCSR

less important

Count 15 11 26

% within strategic

CSR

57,7% 42,3% 100,0%

% within brand equity 20,3% 9,3% 13,5%

neither

Count 37 61 98

% within strategic

CSR

37,8% 62,2% 100,0%

% within brand equity 50,0% 51,7% 51,0%

important

Count 22 46 68

% within strategic

CSR

32,4% 67,6% 100,0%

% within brand equity 29,7% 39,0% 35,4%

Total

Count 74 118 192

% within strategic

CSR

38,5% 61,5% 100,0%

% within brand equity 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5,151a 2 ,076

Likelihood Ratio 5,038 2 ,081

Linear-by-Linear

Association

4,180 1 ,041

N of Valid Cases 192

a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is 10,02.

�  73

Altruistic CSR vs. Brand Equity

Table 2.14

Crosstab

brandequity Total

low high

Altruistic

CSR

less important

Count 10 10 20

% within Autistic CSR 50,0% 50,0% 100,0%

% within brand equity 13,5% 8,5% 10,4%

neither

Count 23 41 64

% within Altruistic

CSR

35,9% 64,1% 100,0%

% within brand equity 31,1% 34,7% 33,3%

very important

Count 41 67 108

% within Altruistic

CSR

38,0% 62,0% 100,0%

% within brand equity 55,4% 56,8% 56,3%

Total

Count 74 118 192

% within Altruistic

CSR

38,5% 61,5% 100,0%

% within brand equity 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1,307a 2 ,520

Likelihood Ratio 1,279 2 ,528

Linear-by-Linear

Association

,408 1 ,523

N of Valid Cases 192

a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is 7,71.

�  74

Ethical CSR vs Brand Equity

Table 2.15

Crosstab

Brand equity Total

low high

Ethic

CSR

less important

Count 4 3 7

% within ethic CSR 57,1% 42,9% 100,0%

% within brand equity 5,4% 2,5% 3,6%

neither

Count 19 18 37

% within Ethic CSR 51,4% 48,6% 100,0%

% within brand equity 25,7% 15,3% 19,3%

very important

Count 51 97 148

% within ethic CSR 34,5% 65,5% 100,0%

% within brand equity 68,9% 82,2% 77,1%

Total

Count 74 118 192

% within ethic CSR 38,5% 61,5% 100,0%

% within brand equity 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4,627a 2 ,099

Likelihood Ratio 4,534 2 ,104

Linear-by-Linear

Association

4,402 1 ,036

N of Valid Cases 192

a. 2 cells (33,3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is 2,70.

�  75

Frequencies test

Develop växjö city table 2.15Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Not

important

13 6,8 6,8 6,8

Less

important

36 18,8 18,8 25,5

Don’t care 65 33,9 33,9 59,4

Important 68 35,4 35,4 94,8

Very

important

10 5,2 5,2 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Create more jobs in Växjö table 2.16Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Not important 5 2,6 2,6 2,6

Less

important

4 2,1 2,1 4,7

Don’t care 17 8,9 8,9 13,5

Important 100 52,1 52,1 65,6

Very

important

66 34,4 34,4 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Save cultural artefacts table 2.17 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Not important 10 5,2 5,2 5,2

Less

important

36 18,8 18,8 24,0

Don’t care 58 30,2 30,2 54,2

�  76

ValidImportant 59 30,7 30,7 84,9

Very

important

29 15,1 15,1 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  77

Prevent crime table 2.18Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 4 2,1 2,1 2,1

Less Important 13 6,8 6,8 8,9

Don’t care 37 19,3 19,3 28,1

Important 81 42,2 42,2 70,3

Very Important 57 29,7 29,7 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Work against discrimination table 2.19Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 3 1,6 1,6 1,6

Less Important 5 2,6 2,6 4,2

Don’t care 12 6,3 6,3 10,4

Important 73 38,0 38,0 48,4

Very Important 99 51,6 51,6 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Create jobs for disabled people table 2.20Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 4 2,1 2,1 2,1

Less Important 4 2,1 2,1 4,2

Don’t care 29 15,1 15,1 19,3

Important 73 38,0 38,0 57,3

Very Important 82 42,7 42,7 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  78

Sponsor youth clubs table 2.21Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 7 3,6 3,6 3,6

Less Important 12 6,3 6,3 9,9

Don’t care 49 25,5 25,5 35,4

Important 72 37,5 37,5 72,9

Very Important 52 27,1 27,1 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Sponsor other clubs table 2.22Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 5 2,6 2,6 2,6

Less Important 15 7,8 7,8 10,4

Don’t care 50 26,0 26,0 36,5

Important 71 37,0 37,0 73,4

Very Important 51 26,6 26,6 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Sponsor local events table 2.23Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 3 1,6 1,6 1,6

Less Important 11 5,7 5,7 7,3

Don’t care 46 24,0 24,0 31,3

Important 84 43,8 43,8 75,0

Very Important 48 25,0 25,0 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  79

Prevent environmental pollution table 2.24 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 2 1,0 1,0 1,0

Less Important 4 2,1 2,1 3,1

Don’t care 16 8,3 8,3 11,5

Important 59 30,7 30,7 42,2

Very Important 111 57,8 57,8 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Help the nature 2.25Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 2 1,0 1,0 1,0

Less Important 5 2,6 2,6 3,6

Don’t care 21 10,9 10,9 14,6

Important 58 30,2 30,2 44,8

Very Important 106 55,2 55,2 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Recycling table 2.26Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Don’t care 16 8,3 8,3 8,3

Important 59 30,7 30,7 39,1

Very Important 117 60,9 60,9 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  80

Is the reputation important to you table 2.27Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 5 2,6 2,6 2,6

Less Important 16 8,3 8,3 10,9

Don’t care 34 17,7 17,7 28,6

Important 101 52,6 52,6 81,3

Very Important 36 18,8 18,8 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Are you influenced by media table 2.28Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 12 6,3 6,3 6,3

Less Important 22 11,5 11,5 17,7

Don’t Care 38 19,8 19,8 37,5

Important 89 46,4 46,4 83,9

Very Important 31 16,1 16,1 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Is it important that you and the fast food restaurant have the same values Table 2.29

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 18 9,4 9,4 9,4

Less Important 11 5,7 5,7 15,1

Don’t care 58 30,2 30,2 45,3

Important 79 41,1 41,1 86,5

Very Important 26 13,5 13,5 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  81

Faith in the restaurant change if involved in CSR Table 2.30 Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 6 3,1 3,1 3,1

Less Important 11 5,7 5,7 8,9

Don’t care 40 20,8 20,8 29,7

Important 105 54,7 54,7 84,4

Very Important 30 15,6 15,6 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Do you know any fast food restaurant working with CSR Table 2.31Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 64 33,3 33,3 33,3

Less Important 61 31,8 31,8 65,1

Don’t care 42 21,9 21,9 87,0

Important 23 12,0 12,0 99,0

Very Important 2 1,0 1,0 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Do you want to know more about fast food restaurant involvement in CSR Table 2.32

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 36 18,8 18,8 18,8

Less Important 34 17,7 17,7 36,5

Don’t care 39 20,3 20,3 56,8

Important 69 35,9 35,9 92,7

Very Important 14 7,3 7,3 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  82

Is it important that te restaurant live up to your expectations Table 2.33

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 4 2,1 2,1 2,1

Less Important 5 2,6 2,6 4,7

Don’t care 49 25,5 25,5 30,2

Important 96 50,0 50,0 80,2

Very Important 38 19,8 19,8 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Important that the franchise company treat their employees well Table 2.34

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Not Important 2 1,0 1,0 1,0

Less Important 5 2,6 2,6 3,6

Don’t care 15 7,8 7,8 11,5

Important 63 32,8 32,8 44,3

Very Important 107 55,7 55,7 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Statistics table 2.35McDonalds MAX Subway BurgerKing

NValid 192 192 192 192

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 3,010 3,604 3,323 3,167

Std. Deviation 1,0634 ,9207 ,9378 ,9939

Minimum 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Maximum 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0

�  83

�  84

McDonalds table 2.36Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Bad 16 8,3 8,3 8,3

Less

important

50 26,0 26,0 34,4

Don’t care 51 26,6 26,6 60,9

Good 66 34,4 34,4 95,3

Very good 9 4,7 4,7 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

MAX table 2.37Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Bad 2 1,0 1,0 1,0

Less

important

25 13,0 13,0 14,1

Don’t care 47 24,5 24,5 38,5

Good 91 47,4 47,4 85,9

Very good 27 14,1 14,1 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Subway table 2.38Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Bad 5 2,6 2,6 2,6

Less

important

32 16,7 16,7 19,3

Don’t care 67 34,9 34,9 54,2

Good 72 37,5 37,5 91,7

Very good 16 8,3 8,3 100,0

�  85

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  86

BurgerKing table 2.39Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Bad 8 4,2 4,2 4,2

Less

important

42 21,9 21,9 26,0

Don’t care 67 34,9 34,9 60,9

Good 60 31,3 31,3 92,2

Very good 15 7,8 7,8 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

What do you think of companies involved in CSR tabel 2.40Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Bad 1 ,5 ,5 ,5

Less bad 2 1,0 1,0 1,6

Don’t care 30 15,6 15,6 17,2

Good 76 39,6 39,6 56,8

Very good 83 43,2 43,2 100,0

Total 192 100,0 100,0

Local vs the world table 2.41Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Yes 50 26,0 26,0 26,0

No 16 8,3 8,3 34,4

Both are

important

126 65,6 65,6 100,0

�  87

Total 192 100,0 100,0

�  88