Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RESPONSES OF GLOBAL CITIZENS TO CAUSE-RELATED GREEN MARKETING
Working Paper
By
Yuliya Strizhakova, Rutgers University – Camden
Robin Coulter, University of Connecticut
Linda Price, University of Arizona
The authors acknowledge the support of University of Kentucky‟s Von Allmen Center for Green
Marketing.
RESPONSES OF GLOBAL CITIZENS TO CAUSE-RELATED GREEN MARKETING
Abstract
Corporations and consumers alike welcome cause-related green marketing in developed
markets but little is known about consumer responses to such actions in emerging markets. By
integrating research on global consumer culture and cause-related marketing, we examine
effectiveness of cause-related marketing in two developed (U.S. and England) and two emerging
(Brazil and Russia) markets. We focus on effectiveness of global and local water protection
causes in relation to both global and local companies and brands. We consider consumer global
citizenship as a moderator of consumer attitudinal responses and willingness to pay a premium
for cause-related marketing. Our research indicates positive attitudes toward cause-related
marketing across countries; however, there are no immediate effects of such efforts on a greater
willingness to pay. Global citizens are more positive and more likely to pay for global rather than
local causes, particularly in relation to global companies. Weak global citizenship predicts a
stronger support of local causes, particularly in relation to local companies and brands.
Consumers in emerging markets are more positive about global companies engaging with cause-
related marketing than consumers in developed markets, although they are willing to pay a
smaller premium for such efforts. They are also less likely to be positive and less willing to pay
for such efforts by local companies than consumers in developed markets.
RESPONSES OF GLOBAL CITIZENS TO CAUSE-RELATED GREEN MARKETING
Emergence and expansion of the global consumer culture is accelerated by global
communications, marketing, advertising, capital flows and tourism. Even though history records
global cultural exchanges in the past, never before have they reached the scale and speed of the
present time (Appadurai 1990). The global consumer culture challenges consumers‟ perceptions
of their citizenship, making them citizens of the global world in addition to of their respective
countries. In its basic form, global citizenship refers to consumer identity with and concern for
the global world, rather than one‟s own nation or locale (Russell and Russell 2010). In other
words, a global citizen is more likely to respond to and associate with the global consumer
culture than American, Brazilian, English or Russian culture. Others, however, argue that
globalization fuels and reactivates national and ethnic identities, leading to an interplay of local
and global citizenship (Cleveland and Laroche 2006; Wilk 1995).
In the complex globalizing marketplace, the challenge companies face is how to address
consumer perceptions of their citizenship effectively. Would global or local appeals work better?
In this respect, it is particularly interesting to examine effectiveness of cause-related green
marketing and corporate engagement with either local or global causes. Corporate social
responsibility (CSR) as a strategic marketing tool has become an important expectation of
consumers around the world (Holt et al. 2004). Recent marketing polls and surveys indicate that
about 95% of corporations recognize importance of CSR, see profit and market share increases
as a result of their environmental commitments and report enhanced brand reputations because of
such commitments (Russell and Russell 2010). Marketing research also speaks to the value of
CSR and cause-related marketing that lead to higher consumer-brand identification, consumer
advocacy of the brand, and higher willingness to pay for the socially committed brand (Du,
Bhattacharya, and Sen 2007; Lafferty 2007; Trudel and Cotte 2008).
In response, global and local companies are actively engaging in green marketing in the
U.S. and Western Europe, gaining competitive advantages and building up their brand equity
(Ottman 2009). Examples of brand commitment to environment, such as Ben & Jerry's fight
against global warming or Starbuck‟s commitment to eco-friendly coffee, bring attention and
valuable contributions to environmental issues; however, similar examples are rare in emerging
markets, even among global companies and brands. For example, Starbuck‟s replicates its
environmental mission on its international sites but does not build its marketing actions around
this eco-friendly orientation in emerging markets, such as Russia and Brazil.
One reason for such conflicting corporate actions is the lack of research on consumer
attitudes toward and willingness to pay for cause-related green marketing in emerging markets.
To date, the vast majority of research on effectiveness of green marketing has been conducted in
the U.S. and Western Europe. Many global firms perceive price-sensitivity of consumers in
emerging markets as a determinant factor of consumer choices in these markets. However, global
citizens in emerging markets are likely to have similar expectations of corporate environmental
commitment as do global citizens in developed markets and learn about cause-related campaigns
through global media and technologies. Environmental concerns and green stewardship are, in
their turn, an integral part of global citizenship because they relate well to the world at large and
are not restricted to a particular region.
The overarching goal of our research is to evaluate consumer attitudes and willingness to
pay for cause-related green marketing in developed and emerging markets. We focus on
countries from the Americas (the U.S. and Brazil) and Europe (England and Russia). We
examine whether consumers‟ expectations of cause-related green marketing are different for
global and local companies and brands. We also evaluate whether global or local environmental
causes matter more to consumers. Our second goal is to assess the role of global citizenship in
consumer responses to cause-related green marketing. Although recent research on global
citizenship of the U.S. consumers shows its moderating effects for a U.S.-based company
(Russell and Russell 2010), we aim to examine moderating effects of global citizenship in
consumer responses to global and local companies and their cause-related green campaigns
across countries. We focus on young adult consumers (ages 17-30) residing in countries with
varying levels of economic development but of similar age and exposure to global media. Our
findings provide insights into strategic implementation of green marketing actions in attracting
consumers, particularly global citizens, worldwide.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING AND ITS
EFFECTIVENESS IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE
Today, many local and multinational companies align themselves with worthy causes to
build up their socially responsible image and ultimately gain higher profits. According to IEG
Sponsorship Report, about $1.57 billion is expected to be spent on cause-related marketing in
2009, which is 9% of all dollars allocated to sponsorships. In 1990, this number barely touched
$120 million (http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=188). In addition, more than
80% of Fortune 500 companies address cause marketing on their websites (Sen and Bhattacharya
2001). More than two-thirds of Americans consider company‟s practices when making their
purchases, and a number of Americans who expressed preference working for a socially
responsible company almost doubled between 2001 and 2007 (Cone Cause Evolution Study,
2007). However, research that links cause-related efforts to corporate profitability is less
conclusive.
What factors impact effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns? First,
consumers‟ awareness, favorable perceptions and trust of the company‟s cause-related efforts are
prerequisites of success. If consumers do not trust the company‟s commitment to the cause, they
will not respond positively to the company‟s efforts to support the cause (Osterhus 1997).
Second, the fit between the firm and the cause is vital to cause marketing effectiveness (Bloom et
al. 2006; Lafferty 2007; Lafferty and Goldsmith 2005; Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006).
Although there are multiple definitions of the fit, Menon and Kahn (2003) suggest that it reflects
the common associations the brand shares with the cause, affinity with specific target segments
or a strong corporate image in a certain social domain. The closer the company‟s mission and
offerings are aligned with the cause, the more likely the company is to be effective in its efforts.
Third, consumer involvement with the cause and support of the cause increases effectiveness of
cause marketing efforts (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen 2007; Grau and Folse 2007; Nan and Heo
2007; Scholder, Webb and Mohr 2006). Consumers‟ support of social causes reflects their
personal values and needs. As such, causes that consumers deem vital and personally relevant
have the greatest potential to resonate emotionally with consumers.
Three major shortcomings are evident in prior research on cause-related marketing. First,
many studies rely heavily on attitudinal measures; only a include consumer willingness to pay as
an outcome measure. Specifically, Pelsmacker, Driesen and Rayp (2005) find a discrepancy
between consumer attitudes and willingness to pay, such that consumers were willing to pay
more than could have been predicted from their attitudes. In addition, Trudel and Cotte (2008)
conclude that consumers are indeed willing to pay a premium for ethically produced goods. In
their study, consumers are even more likely to punish unethical firm behavior with greater price
reductions than reward ethical behavior with premiums. Second, most cause-related consumer
research has been conducted in the U.S. and Western Europe; thus questions remain about the
applicability of findings to consumers in emerging markets. The few studies that touch upon
social responsibility in emerging markets mainly assess consumer attitudes toward social causes
and corporate social responsibility, yielding divergent results. Third, only one study focusing on
U.S. consumers and an U.S.-based firm has considered cause-related efforts in a global/local
context. Specifically, Russell and Russell (2010) find that purchase intentions and actual choices
are higher when CSR activity is performed at the local (vs. global) level but this effect is
moderated by a consumer‟s global identity.
Global Citizenship as a Moderator of Cause-Related Marketing
In the modern world, globalization processes fuel creation of the global consumer culture
in which consumers tend to value their global citizenship as much, if not more, as their national
belongingness. Specifically, Arnett (2002) argues that consumer may have multiple identities at
both local and global level. Global citizenship is defined as consumer identification with and
concern for global citizens and the world at large rather than a particular country (Russell and
Russell 2010). Global citizens associate similar meanings with certain places, people and things
regardless of their social, cultural and other differences (Alden et al. 1999). They are likely to
exhibit a stronger global identity, i.e., believe in positive effects of globalization, be more
interested in world events, and recognize similarities rather than cultural differences in people
(Zhang and Khare 2009). Cleveland and Laroche (2010) conclude that those who have
acculturated to global consumer culture tend to be cosmopolitan, speak English, interact with and
travel to foreign countries, have a high exposure to global mass media and marketing activities
by multinational corporations. They also desire to emulate global consumer culture and self-
identify with it.
For global citizens, brands are not only the product of globalization but they are the main
players in the globalization of consumer culture (Ritzer 2007). Specifically, global brands
endorse a belief in an individual‟s association with and participation in the global village.
Appadurai (1990) argues that the success of global brands may depend on whether consumers
believe global brands will enable them to “act out imagined or real participation in the more
cosmopolitan global consumer culture communicated by the media” (Alden et al. 1999, p. 76;
Appadurai 1990, p. 299). Holt et al. (2004) suggest that about 12% of consumers across 12
countries prefer global brands as a means to global citizenship. Strizhakova et al. (2008) also
demonstrate that global citizenship through global brands positively impacts identity meanings
of branded products. Hence, global citizens, as consumers, are more likely to express a stronger
global identity, value their global citizenship more and see global brands as expressions of their
global citizenship than those who perceive themselves as citizens of their nations.
Previous research suggests that local rather than global causes are more effective in
appealing to consumers, assuming that consumers identify more strongly with their region and
nation rather than a global community. Local causes are more likely to benefit consumers
directly, making them identify with these causes more and reciprocate in the form of increased
patronage and purchases (Morales 2005; Reed, Aquino and Levy 2007). Russell and Russell
(2010) explain effectiveness of local causes by consumer egoism, i.e., a consumer tendency to
exhibit self-serving behaviors. However, global citizens relate stronger to global events and
concerns and, hence, are expected to have a stronger positive response to global rather than local
causes. Indeed, Goig finds that the “global orientation” of Spanish consumers predicts purchases
of fair trade products. Russell and Russell (2010) further support the moderating effects of global
citizenship on consumer responses to global and local causes. We hypothesize:
H1: Consumers will have more positive attitudes toward companies (H1a) and brands
(H1b), and be willing to pay more for a brand (H1c) offered by a firm that does (vs.
does not) engage in cause-related green marketing.
H2: Global citizenship of consumers moderates the effectiveness of cause-related green
marketing: consumers with stronger (vs. weaker) global citizenship are likely to
express more favorable attitudes toward the company (H2a), the brand (H2b) and be
more willing to pay for products with global [local] causes (H2c).
Cross-Cultural Differences in Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing
The vast majority of studies on effectiveness of cause-related marketing have been
conducted in the U.S. and other developed markets. Global corporations that actively position
themselves around certain social causes downplay their cause commitments in emerging markets
in favor of price and product promotions. Such reluctance to promote cause-related campaigns in
emerging markets can be explained by usually higher premiums for socially-responsible products
and social support that consumers in emerging markets may be unwilling to pay.
Paucity of research about the effectiveness of cause-related marketing has been
conducted in emerging markets, and the results are conflicting. For example, Chan (1999)
demonstrated that ecological concerns of the Chinese are quite low, yet they express strong
emotional attachment to environmental issues. In contrast, Eisingerich and Rubera (2010) find
that brand social responsibility is more effective in terms of consumer commitment to the brand
in China than the U.K. In addition, Mostafa (2007) finds relatively high levels of green
consciousness among Egyptian consumers, with environmental orientation, and knowledge and
concern about the environment predicting their attitudes toward green products, which in their
turn, are strong predictors of consumer purchase intentions.
Global media and technologies make it possible for consumers in emerging markets to
learn about global firms‟ cause-related campaigns. Seeing these campaigns online but not being
a part of them can make consumers feel alienated from the global consumer culture and global
brands. If these global companies and brands extend their green campaigns to emerging markets,
where cause-related marketing is still a novelty, they are likely to receive more positive
responses than in developed markets. In other words, cause-related marketing by global
companies and brands may be perceived as an inclusion of consumers in emerging markets into
the global consumer culture. Although consumers in emerging markets may be more positive
about cause-related campaigns than consumer in developed markets, their willingness to pay
more for such efforts is likely to be lower than in developed markets because of lower disposable
incomes. We hypothesize:
H3: Young adult consumers in emerging markets will have more positive attitudes
toward global companies (H3a) and global brands (H3b) that engage in cause-related
marketing than young adult consumers in developed markets but they will be willing to
pay (H3c) less for such efforts than consumers in developed markets.
On the other hand, consumers in developed countries may be more positive and more
willing to pay for cause-related marketing initiated by local companies and local brands than
consumers in emerging markets. Local companies and brands are particularly strong on their
appeals of national associations and low prices in emerging markets; hence, support of social
causes may not be perceived as the strongest differentiating point for local companies and brands
in emerging markets. We hypothesize:
H4: Young adult consumers in developed markets will have more positive attitudes
toward local companies (H4a) and local brands (H4b) that engage in cause-related
marketing and will be more willing to pay (H4c) for cause-related marketing by local
companies and brands than young adult consumers in emerging markets.
METHOD
Our between-subjects experimental research was conducted in four countries (two
developed: U.S. and U.K.; two emerging: Russia and Brazil). To establish a common baseline
related to consumer knowledge and involvement, participants first read about a study conducted
by researchers at Cambridge University, U.K. that reported on the damage that humankind and
its actions has had on the world‟s water resources. Then, they read about a (global or local)
company offering a (global/local or local) brand of yogurt promoting a (global, local, or no)
social cause (see Appendix). We chose yogurt because: a) it is relevant to our sample, b) there
are global and local brands in the four markets in our study, and 3) it is affordable to price-
sensitive consumers. After reading the experimental manipulation, participants responded to
confound checks and dependent variables, completed an unrelated distraction task and were then
asked questions that measured their global citizenship, media use, travel, and demographics.
We used standard procedures for questionnaire design, carefully examining construct and
face validity of the items used to measure our constructs of interest and developing a
questionnaire in English. Native Portuguese and Russian speakers translated the questionnaire
into Portuguese and Russian, and then other native speakers back-translated it into English. In all
countries, participants were offered lottery participation for a chance to win monetary prices as
an incentive to participate in the study. Research assistants who were natives of Brazil and
Russia, but who received research and ethics training in the U.S., supervised data collection in
Brazil and Russia. Participants in the U.S. and England completed online surveys, whereas
participants in Brazil and Russia completed pencil-and-paper surveys. Research shows no
differences in response styles between the use of online and pencil-and-paper questionnaires in
cross-cultural settings (de Jong et al., 2008).
We recruited young adult consumers (N=1608) in four countries: the U.S. (n = 797),
Brazil (n = 185), U.K. (n = 317) and Russia (n = 309). All participants had at a minimum a high
school diploma and were either in a two- or four-year college. Because of increased global
immigration and education, we recruited participants who have resided in their corresponding
countries for seven years or more and were citizens/permanent residents of these countries.
Slightly more female than males participated (U.S.: 57%; Brazil: 66%, U.K: 60% and Russia:
55%). Age ranged from 17 to 30 (U.S.: M = 20.14, SD = 1.94, Brazil: M = 23.23, SD = 3.40;
U.K.: M = 21.35, SD = 2.63, Russia: M = 19.85, SD = 1.87).
Measures
Our dependent variables included three seven-point semantic differential items designed
to measure attitudes toward the company and attitude toward the brand (McKenzie and Lutz
1989) (see Table 1 for means, reliabilities and item loadings for multiple-item scale items).
Consumer willingness to pay for the new yogurt brand was assessed using and open-ended
question, “how much would you be willing to pay for the new yogurt?” and we derived our
dependent variable as a percentage change between the price the participant was willing to pay
relative to the price he/she typically paid for yogurt.
We assessed several potential covariates using seven-point scales. Specifically, we
included a one-item semantic differential measure of consumer attitudes toward yogurt, anchored
at healthy and unhealthy. To assess attitude toward the cause, we asked about concern (not at
all/very much) with conservation and preservation of: a) water resources and b) environment in
general. Two items were used to measure consumer trust (“completely trust/completely distrust”
and “completely believe/completely disbelieve”) of the information provided by researchers at
Cambridge University. To measure consumer trust of the company‟s concern for the cause and
consumers, we used four items (Cotte, Coulter and Moore, 2005).
To measure global citizenship, we developed a three-factor model that included
importance of global citizenship (four new items), global identity (two items from Der-
Kerabetian and Ruiz 1997) and global citizenship though global brands (Strizhakova, Coulter
and Price 2008).
Table 1. Reliabilities, Means and Factor Loadings
U.S. Brazil U.K. Russia
Global Citizenship
alpha
.89 .82 .93 .91
Mean (SD) 3.75
(1.09)
4.26
(1.11)
3.95
(1.17)
3.64
(1.35)
Factor 1 – Importance .81 .95 .96 .96
Feeling like a part of the global world is important to me. .85 .80 .85 .71
It is important to me to feel a part of the global world. .89 .92 .86 .83
Participation in the global world is important to me. .80 .88 .83 .77
I value my citizenship in the global world. .77 .61 .70 .80
Factor 2 – Identity .70 .50 .71 .93
I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they
were my family.
.88 .79 .90 .87
I feel like I am „next-door neighbors‟ with people living in
other parts of the world.
.90 .85 .94 .84
Factor 3 – Global Citizenship through Global Brands .60 .51 .75 .67
Buying global brands makes me feel like a citizen of the
world.
.90 .78 .91 .84
Purchasing global brands makes me feel part of something
bigger.
.93 .94 .95 .92
Buying global brands gives me a sense of belonging to the
global marketplace.
.88 .80 .89 .89
Attitude toward the Company alpha .95 .90 .97 .95
Mean (SD) 5.07
(1.07)
5.85
(1.07)
4.93
(1.26)
4.86
(1.35)
How would you describe your attitude toward this
multinational (local) company?
Very negative – very positive .92 .88 .95 .95
Very bad – very good .93 .89 .96 .96
Very unfavorable – very favorable .94 .84 .94 .93
Attitude toward the Brand alpha .96 .93 .95 .97
Mean (SD) 5.10
(1.10)
5.73
(1.08)
5.02
(1.25)
4.92
(1.47)
How would you describe your attitude toward this brand?
Very negative – very positive .96 .89 .88 .95
Very bad – very good .96 .91 .97 .96
Very unfavorable – very favorable .95 .90 .96 .95
Derived Willingness to Pay Mean (SD) 23.24%
(50.69)
25.78%
(77.21)
3.22%
(46.76)
1.97%
(80.33)
Concern for the Environment alpha .88 .91 .93 .91
Mean (SD) 5.74
(1.12)
6.33
(.86)
5.30
(1.42)
5.53
(1.44)
To what extent are you concerned with conservation and
preservation of:
Water resources .82 .93 .91 .94
Environment in general .96 .90 .96 .90
Trust in Presented Information alpha .87 .90 .91 .88
Mean (SD) 5.23
(1.12)
6.08
(.98)
5.04
(1.29)
4.94
(1.58)
To what extent do you trust information provided by
researchers at Cambridge University, U.K.?
.87 .93 .97 .88
To what extent do you believe that the above information
provided by researchers at Cambridge University, U.K. is
accurate?
.88 .88 .87 .89
Trust in Company’s Actions alpha .78 .73 .87 .76
Mean (SD) 4.67 (.90) 5.00
(1.07)
4.61
(1.04)
3.99
(1.17)
The company has consumers‟ best interests at heart. .70 .52 .85 .68
I have a good feeling about the company. .80 .59 .89 .69
The multinational company wants to make it easier to
consumers who care about the cause to support it.
.54 .73 .69 .61
The multinational company is giving back to improve the
environment.
.68 .85 .74 .68
Attitude toward Yogurt Mean (SD) 5.56 (.98) 5.38
(1.36)
5.21
(1.19)
4.97
(1.54)
How would you describe your opinion about yogurt?
(unhealthy – healthy)
We ran a multi-group CFA analysis to ensure cross-cultural invariance of our measures
(Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). The fit of the model was acceptable (χ2
(848) = 1978, CFI =
.96, TLI = .95, RMSEA < .03). All factor loadings were significant and above .50 and
correlations between factors were below .80, which indicated presence of configural invariance
(Steenkamp & Baumgartner 1998). Partial metric invariance was evident for our measures (χ2
–
difference (33) = 81.51, p < .001, all other indicators remained the same). Full scalar invariance
was evident for our measures (χ2
–difference (81) = 831.39, p < .001, all other indicators
remained the same).
Finally, participants reported their attitude toward globalization (1 item, Woodward et
al.2008), their level of materialism (5 items, Richins and Dawson 1992), and frequency of
engaging in following internet activities: emailing, searching information, reading world news
online, twittering, searching for goods, shopping, chatting, social networking, blogging, and
skyping. All items were measured on seven-point scales. Participants also reported how many
times they had traveled abroad in the last five years, how many hours of world news they
watched on television per week and how many hours they spent online per week.
RESULTS
Establishing Global Citizenship
We used a three-factor measure of global citizenship that included importance of global
citizenship to consumers (4 items), consumer global identity (2 items) and global citizenship
through global brands (3 items) (M = 3.83, SD = 1.17). We created a median split on global
citizenship to identify those who hold weak and strong global citizenship. A series of t-tests
indicated that global citizens were more positive about globalization, had higher exposure to
world news online and on television, were more likely to engage in the following activities
online: twittering, shopping, blogging and skyping than those who did not identify strongly as
global citizens. Participants with a strong (vs. weak) global citizenship also expressed higher
levels of materialism and concern for the environment. We found no significant differences
between the groups in relation to their travel abroad, emailing, seeking information online,
searching for goods, chatting, social networking and the total number of hours spent online (see
Table 2).
Table 2. Consumer Media Use, Travel and Materialism for Participants with Weak and Strong
Global Citizenship.
Weak Global
Citizenship
M (SD)
Strong Global
Citizenship
M (SD)
T-value
Positive attitude toward
globalization
4.39 (1.42) 5.24 (1.23) -12.71***
Concern for the environment 5.65 (1.27) 5.94 (1.10) -4.67***
Materialism 4.32 (1.27) 4.77 (1.18) -7.18***
Trips abroad in the last 5 years 1.91 (3.09) 1.65 (2.59) 1.82
Hours of world news watched on
television
.78 (.94) 1.06 (1.00) -3.37**
Total Internet hours per week 20.95 (17.46) 21.22 (22.59) -.25
Emailing 5.82 (2.25) 5.79 (2.31) .26
Seeking information 6.17 (1.82) 6.12 (1.88) .54
Reading world news online 4.27 (2.24) 4.64 (2.25) -3.20**
Twittering 1.67 (1.94) 2.10 (2.36) -3.98***
Searching for goods 3.69 (2.17) 4.16 (2.31) -1.69
Shopping online 3.02 (2.16) 3.27 (2.45) -2.12*
Chatting 4.69 (2.75) 4.92 (2.67) -1.63
Social Networking 5.20 (2.91) 5.33 (2.77) -.89
Blogging 1.81 (1.95) 2.29 (2.37) -4.31***
Skyping 2.35 (2.21) 2.86 (2.55) -4.18***
Hypotheses Testing
Our first hypothesis predicts that consumers will be have more favorable attitudes toward
companies and brands and be willing to pay more for products affiliated (vs. not affiliated) with
environmental causes. We ran a MANCOVA test with attitudes toward the company, attitudes
toward the brand and consumer willingness to pay a premium as dependent measures. In all tests
we used consumer attitudes toward yogurt, environmental concerns, consumer trust in the
presented research information and trust in the company‟s concern for the cause and consumers
as covariates. Our manipulations of causes, companies and brands were entered as independent
variables along with the country of residence of our participants.
The overall MANCOVA test was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 18.19, p < .001). Main
effects for the company (Wilks‟ Lambda = 3.82, p < .05), brand (Wilks‟ Lambda = 3.24, p <
.05), cause (Wilks‟ Lambda = 5.09, p < .001) and country (Wilks‟ Lambda = 11.40, p < .001)
were all significant. MANCOVA tests did not result in any significant interaction effects. In
addition, effects of our covariates were also significant: attitude toward yogurt (Wilks‟ Lambda =
39.44, p < .001), environmental concerns (Wilks‟ Lambda = 8.98, p < .001), trust in the
presented research information (Wilks‟ Lambda = 24.87, p < .001), and trust in the company‟s
concern for the cause and consumers (Wilks‟ Lambda = 82.26, p < .01).
We proceeded to analyze results for each of the dependent variables. In relation to
consumer attitudes toward the company, the main effect for the cause was significant (F(1,1530)
= 15.49, p < .001). Consumers were more positive about companies that engaged in cause-
related marketing (M = 5.25) than companies that did not engage in cause-related marketing (M
= 4.91). However, there were no differences in consumer attitudes toward companies that
engaged in local (M = 5.25) versus global (M = 5.25) causes. H1a was supported.
Figure1: Main Effect of the Cause on Consumer Attitudes toward the Company
In addition, the interaction effect between the cause and the country was marginally
significant (F(6, 1530) = 1.84, p < .09). Specifically, a different pattern was observed for
participants in Russia versus other countries where cause-related marketing was effective only in
relation to global (M = 5.27) but not local causes (M = 5.18 and no cause M = 5.20). In all other
countries there were no differences in effectiveness of global versus local causes.
Figure 2: Interaction Effect of the Cause and Country on Consumer Attitudes toward the
Company
In addition, we observed a significant main effect for the company (F(1,1530) = 4.49,p <
.05): participants were more positive about local (M = 5.20) companies introducing a new line of
yogurt than global companies (M = 5.15). We also observed a significant main effect for the
country (F(3,1530) = 12.85, p < .001): participants in Brazil (M = 5.46) were more positive about
a new product introduction, followed by participants in Russia (M = 5.22) and those in
developed countries (England: M. = 5.02, U.S.: M = 4.98). No other main or interaction effects
were significant. All covariates had a significant effect on consumer attitudes toward the
company.
Next, we examined consumer attitudes toward the brand. The overall ANCOVA test was
significant (F(35,1526) = 19.47, p < .001). Consistent with our H1b, the main effect for the cause
was significant (F(1,1526) = 9.14, p < .001). Participants were significantly more positive about
brands that engaged in cause-related marketing (M = 5.26) than those that did not engage (M =
4.95). There were no differences in significance of global (M = 5.24) versus local causes (M =
5.27). In addition, the main effect for the country was also significant (F(3,1526) = 8.52, p <
.001). Participants in Brazil (M = 5.36) were more positive about a new brand, followed by
participants in Russia (M = 5.23) and those in developed countries (England: M. = 5.11, U.S.: M
= 5.01). No other main or interaction effects were significant. All covariates had a significant
effect on consumer attitudes toward the brand.
In relation to consumer willingness to pay a premium, the effect of our cause
manipulation was not significant (F(1,1540) = 1.00, p > .05). H1c was not supported. The only
significant main effect was for the country (F(3,1540) = 10.14, p < .001): participants in
developed countries (U.S.: M = 22.24% and England: M = 23.60%) were significantly more
willing to pay for the new line of yogurt than participants in emerging markets (Brazil: M =
6.24% and Russia: M = 2.33%). No other main or interaction effects were significant. In
addition, consumer trust in the research information about nature conservation and consumer
trust in the company‟s concern for the cause and customers were significant covariates.
Our second hypothesis predicted moderating effects of global citizenship on consumer
responses to cause-related marketing. We ran MANCOVA tests with all variables that we used
to test hypothesis 1 but with global citizenship as an additional independent variable. The overall
MANCOVA test was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 12.47, p < .001). Although the main effect
for global citizenship was not significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = .83, p >.05), a two-way interaction
effect for the global citizenship and the cause was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 2.49, p < .05).
In addition, a three-way interaction effect for the global citizenship, cause and company was
significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 4.40, p < .01) and a three-way interaction effect for the global
citizenship, cause and brand was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 4.30, p < .01).
In relation to consumer attitudes toward the company and consistent with H2a, the
interaction effect of global citizenship and our cause manipulation was significant (F(2,1445) =
4.33, p < .05). Global citizens were more likely to have positive attitudes toward companies that
engaged with global causes (M = 5.27) than toward companies that engaged with local causes (M
= 5.18) or no causes (M = 5.03). Participants with weak global citizenship were more positive
about companies that engaged with local causes (M = 5.39) and global causes (M = 5.31) than no
causes (M = 4.92). The main effect for the cause and the interaction effect for the cause and
country remained significant and similar to our findings in relation to H1a.
Figure 3: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Attitudes toward the Company
A similar pattern of results was achieved for consumer attitudes toward the brands.
Consistent with H2b, the interaction effect of global citizenship and out cause manipulation was
significant (F(2,1441) = 5.17, p < .01). Global citizens were more likely to have positive
attitudes toward brands that supported global (M = 5.37) than local (M = 5.25) no (M = 5.11)
causes. Participants with weak global citizenship were more positive about brands that supported
local causes (M = 5.41) than brands that supported global causes (M = 5.18) or no causes (M =
4.85). Main effects of the cause and country remained significant and similar to our findings in
relation to H1b. No other main or interaction effects were significant.
Figure 4: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Attitudes toward the Brand
Finally, in relation to consumer willingness to pay a premium, two three-way interactions
were significant: company x cause x global citizenship (F(1,1330) = 15.61, p < .001) and brand x
cause x global citizenship (F(1,1330) = 13.18, p < .001). Specifically, in relation to global
companies and global brands, global citizens were willing to pay the highest premium for the
support of global causes (companies: M = 22.36% and brands: M = 23.23%) rather than local
causes (companies: M = 16.03% and brands: M = 9.89%) or no causes (M = 17.22%).
Participants low on global citizenship were more likely to pay for the support of local causes
(companies: M = 17.35% and brands: M = 21.43%) rather than global causes (companies: M =
14.91% and brands: M = 7.39%) or no causes (M = 3.54%).
Figure 5: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Cause-
Related Marketing by Global Companies and Global Brands
In relation to local companies and brands, those with strong (companies: M= 14.33%)
and brands: M = 21.05%) and weak (companies: M = 27.16% and brands: M = 16.88%) global
citizenship expressed willingness to pay the highest premium for the support of local causes.
Those who were low on global citizenship expressed a greater support of local causes by local
companies than those who perceived themselves as global citizens.
Figure 6: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Cause-
Related Marketing by Local Companies and Local Brands
Finally, hypotheses 3 and 4 assess cross-cultural differences in consumer attitudes and
willingness to pay for cause-related marketing by global and local companies. Consistent with
H4a, the country effect in the ANCOVA test was significant (F(3,854) = 7.90, p < .001).
Consumers in Brazil (M = 5.54) were more positive about cause-related efforts by global
companies than consumers in the U.S. (M = 5.09) and England (M = 5.05). However, there were
no significant differences in consumer attitudes toward global companies engaged in cause-
related marketing among consumers in Russia (M = 5.12) and the developed countries. There
were no significant differences in consumer attitudes toward the brand by global companies that
engaged in cause-related marketing (F(3,432) = 1.11, p > .05). H3b was not supported.
Consistent with H3c, the main effect for the country on consumer willingness to pay for global
companies engaging in cause-related marketing was significant (F(3, 857) = 4.66, p < .01).
Consumers in Brazil (M = 1.36%) were significantly less willing to pay for global companies
engaging in cause-related marketing than consumers in the U.S (M = 20.08%) and England (M =
25.57%). There were no significant differences among participants in Russia (M = 10.79%) and
developed countries in their willingness to pay for global companies engaging in cause-related
marketing.
Figure 7: Cross-Cultural Differences in Consumer Attitudes toward and Willingness to Pay for
Cause-Related Marketing by Global Companies
Hypothesis 4 predicted more positive attitudes and greater willingness to pay for cause-
related marketing by local companies and brands in developed countries than in emerging
markets. We did not support H4a and H4b because the country effect was not significant for both
the attitude toward the company and the attitude toward the brand (F(3,428) = .87, p >.05). We
did support H4c (F(3,428) = 7.72, p < .001). Consumers in Brazil (M = -.80%) and Russia (M = -
3.27%) were significantly less willing to pay for products by local companies engaging in cause-
related marketing than consumers in the U.S. (M = 29.13%) and England (M = 22.26%).
Figure 8: Cross-Cultural Differences in Consumer Attitudes toward and Willingness to Pay for
Cause-Related Marketing by Local Companies
DISCUSSION
In the modern world, global consumer culture impacts consumer responses to marketing
activities by both global and local companies. Our goal was to examine effectiveness of cause-
related green marketing in emerging and developed markets among consumers who hold a weak
and strong perception of their global citizenship. We assessed effectiveness of companies‟
associations with global and local causes in relation to consumer attitudes toward the company,
the brand and their willingness to pay for a premium for cause-related efforts. Although
effectiveness of cause-related marketing has been established in prior research in developed
markets, there is still a lack of understanding of consumer responses to cause-related efforts in
emerging markets. We focused on young adult consumers aged 17-30 who are attractive to
global corporations but who also vary in their degree of global citizenship. We recruited
participants in one developed and one emerging market of the Americas (the U.S. and Brazil)
and Europe (England and Russia).
Our research makes several important contributions to prior research on cause-related
marketing and globalization. First, we find that cause-related green marketing is effective in both
emerging and developed markets in creating more positive attitudes toward the company and the
brand that are engaged with such efforts. However, such efforts do not directly translate into
greater willingness to pay. Moreover, effectiveness of local versus global causes is moderated by
the degree of consumer global citizenship. Those who perceive themselves as global citizens are
more positive about companies and brands that are involved with global causes than local causes
or no causes, whereas those with weak global citizenship are more or equally positive about
companies and brands that are involved with local and global causes. In addition, global citizens
are more willing to pay for global companies engaged with global causes than global companies
engaged with local or no causes. Although both global citizens and those with weak global
citizenship are more willing to pay for local companies and brands engaged with local causes,
global citizens are more willing to pay for local brands engaged with global causes than non-
global citizens.
Second, consumers across countries are more positive about local companies that are
engaged with cause-related activities than global companies. This finding probably speaks to a
general protection and pride of local companies in the eyes of consumers. However, this positive
attitude toward local companies does not resonate with consumer attitudes toward brands or their
willingness to pay a greater premium for local brands and products than global brands and
products. Hence, cause-related green marketing appears to work well for both local and global
brands.
Third, we assessed cross-cultural differences in consumer responses to cause-related
marketing. Although consumers in Brazil were more positive about global companies and brands
engaged with cause-related marketing than consumers in other countries, they were willing to
pay the least amount of premium for their efforts. Cause-related marketing is almost non-existent
in emerging markets and consumers appear to be very enthusiastic about it, more so than
consumers in developed markets. They are willing to reward global companies for bringing
cause-related support to their emerging markets, but they are able to offer a smaller amount of a
reward than consumers in developed markets. This finding probably speaks to the discrepancy in
consumer disposable incomes across countries. There were no cross-cultural differences in
consumer attitudes toward local companies and local brands engaged with cause-related
marketing but consumers in developed markets were more willing to pay a premium for such
efforts than consumers in Brazil and Russia. Effects of consumer attitudes in Russia were not
statistically significant from those in the U.S. and England. However, there was another
interesting observation in Russia: consumers appeared to be more positive about companies that
were involved only with global but not local causes. We speculate two explanations for this
finding: Russian consumers distrust corporate engagement with local causes that they may
perceive as money laundering or they welcome a greater participation in the global world and
culture by showing their support to global causes above and beyond their local ones.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
In a globalizing world, where consumers relate to multiple geographic locales, including
the world at large, and where information about corporate actions can be easily accessed in many
places of the world, global companies should be careful about engaging in cause-related
activities in one country but not others. Managers seem to avoid disclosing their cause-related
efforts in emerging markets, mainly because of lower consumer incomes and higher premiums
for such efforts. Our findings demonstrate the value of cause-related green campaigns in both
developed and emerging markets. Moreover, consumers in emerging markets were much more
enthusiastic about such efforts by global companies than their counterparts in developed markets,
although they were able to pay a similar premium for such efforts than consumers in developed
markets. Cause-related campaigns are still a novelty in emerging markets and global companies
have a great opportunity to build up their reputation and image by bringing support of social
causes to these markets. Consumers in Russia were especially enthusiastic about companies that
engaged with global causes, possibly showing their desire to play a stronger part in the
globalizing world.
Even though global and local causes are effective in creating positive responses from
consumers, companies need to be cognizant of consumer groups they are targeting and the
degree of consumer association with the global world and citizenship. In our research, global
citizenship was a strong moderator of effectiveness of cause-related marketing. Similar to
Russell and Russell (2010), we find that global citizens across all four countries were more
positive about global causes and were more willing to pay a premium for global causes,
especially when they are initiated by global companies. Those who were low on their association
with global citizenship responded positively to both global and local causes but were willing to
pay more for local causes, particularly when they were supported by local companies. Hence, a
targeted and possibly multi-stage approach is necessary in securing the most effective cause-
related campaign. In the modern world, the use of both global and local causes may be most
appealing to consumers who tend to hold multiple identities and relate to multiple levels of their
citizenship. Overall, however, global companies appear to benefit the most from global causes
that become just another expression of their participation in the global consumer culture.
Finally, several important observations can be made in relation to local companies and
brands. Consumers do seem to be more positive about local companies engaging in cause-related
marketing than global companies but that does not hold true for local brands and consumer
willingness to pay. In addition, local causes appear to be most effective in increasing consumer
willingness to pay for local companies that are engaged in cause-related marketing but global
causes work equally well for global citizens. Although associating themselves with local causes
seems like a strategy to pursue, local companies may consider associations with global causes
when targeting those who associate more with the global world than their local communities. In
addition, consumer willingness to pay for local companies and brands engaged with cause-
related marketing was negative in Brazil and Russia. In other words, although positive in their
attitudes, consumers are willing to pay less than what they currently pay for cause-related
marketing by local companies. This finding speaks to the low value and perceived overpricing of
local merchandise in emerging markets. Local companies need to invest more efforts and
resources into improving quality and image of their offerings.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Our research extends a popular line of research on cause-related marketing to global
citizens and emerging markets. The study, however, has some limitations. First, we focused on
young adult consumers who are more likely to be cognizant of cause-related campaigns due to
their higher exposure to the internet and global mass communications. Different patterns of
findings may be observed in the context of older less “globalized” population segments or in
other cultures. Second, we focused on one product category and water protection as our cause
manipulation: future replication across a broader range of durable and non-durable products and
diverse causes is warranted. Finally, we considered global citizenship as a moderator of
effectiveness of cause-related marketing. Although global citizenship was a relevant and
interesting differentiating characteristic of our young adult consumer segment, other personality
variables and belief structures may impact effectiveness of socially responsible marketing and
should be considered in future research.
REFERENCES
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising
in Asia, North America and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. Journal of
Marketing, 63(January), 75 87.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M.
Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (pp.
295 310), London, U.K.: Sage Publications.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(October),
774 783.
Askegaard, S. (2006). Brands as a global ideoscape. In J.E. Schroeder & M. Salzer- Mörling
(Eds.), Brand Culture, (pp. 91-101). London: Routledge Press.
Bloom, P. N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K.L., & Basurto Meza, C. E. (2006). How social-cause
marketing affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 49-55.
Cayla, J., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2008). Asian brands and the shaping of a transnational imagined
community. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(August), 216 230.
Chan, R. Y. K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China: Survey
findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 25-52.
Cleveland, M. & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: Scale
development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60, 249-259.
"Cone 2007 Cause Evolution Study," http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=583.
"Cone Corporate Citizenship Study," http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=330.
Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad
credibility and manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361-368.
Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L., & Feick, L. (2003). Rethinking the origins of involvement and brand
commitment: Insights from postsocialist Central Europe. Journal of Consumer Research, 30
(2), 151-169.
de Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J-B. E. M., Fox, J.-P., & Baumgartner, H. (2008). Using item theory
to measure extreme response style in marketing research: A global investigation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 45(1), 104-115.
Der-Karabetian, A., & Ruiz, Y. (1997). Affective bicultural and global-human identity scales for
Mexican-American adolescents. Psychological Reports, 80(3), 1027-1039.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social
responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24(3), 224-241.
Eisingerich, A. & Rubera, G. (2010). Drivers of brand commitment: A cross- national
investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 64-79.
Goig, R. L. (2007). Fair trade and global cognitive orientation: A focus on Spanish fair trade
consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 468-477.
Grau, S. L., & Garretson Folse, J. A. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM). Journal of
Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard
Business Review, 82(September), 68 75.
Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate
corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447-453.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause-brand alliances: Does the cause help the brand
or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423-429.
McKenzie, S.B. & Lutz, R.J. (1989).An empirical examination of attitude toward the ad in an
advertising pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B.E. (2001). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: Do they help
the sponsor? Social Marketing Quarterly, 7(3), 76-79.
Morales, A.C. (2005). Giving firm an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high-effort firms.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 806-812.
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian
consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24(5), 445-473.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR)
initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of
Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
Osterhus, T.L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they work?
Journal of Marketing, 61 (October), 16-29.
Ottman, J. (2009, July 21), “Green Marketing Has Really Gone Mainstream,” (retrieved from
http://blogs.hbr.org/leadinggreen/2009/07/green-marketing-has-come-a-lon.html).
Pelsmacker, P. D., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness
to pay for fair-trade coffee. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363-385.
Reed, A., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors.
Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 178-193.
Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). Consumer value orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Measure development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(December), 303-316.
Ritzer, G. (2007). The Globalization of nothing 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Russell, D.W. & Russell, C.A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social
responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21,
65-81.
Scholder, P., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer
attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Academy of Marketing Science.
Journal, 34(2), 147-157.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social
sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-
national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), 78 90.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport to global
citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journal of International
Marketing, 16(4), 57-85.
Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 61-
69.
Wilk, R. (1995). Learning to be local in Belize: Global systems of common difference. In D.
Miller (Ed.), Worlds apart: Modernity through the prism of the local, (pp. 110-133). London:
Routledge Press.
Woodward, I., Skrbis, Z., & Bean, C. (2008). Attitudes toward globalization and
cosmopolitanism: Cultural diversity, personal consumption and the national economy. British
Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 207-226.
Zhang, Y., & Khare, A. (2009). The impact of accessible identities on the evaluation of global
versus local products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 524-537.
APPENDIX
We present our experimental scenarios in the U.S. Prices and geographic references were
modified in other countries to reflect cross-cultural differences.
No Cause-Related Marketing
“We ask your opinion regarding a company and it new product line. Please read the paragraph
below and answer the questions. Please understand that there are no correct or wrong answers,
we are interested in your reactions.
A multinational [local] company is conducting a market survey to investigate the possibility of
offering a new line of products. Your opinion is important for the company‟s decision to choose
this product line over others. Please circle the number that best represents your response.
The multinational [local] company promotes and distributes a widely recognized brand of yogurt
in over 100 countries around the world [in New England] and is considering launching a new
line of yogurt under this brand. Typical global [local] brands in this product category are priced
between $.75 and $1.50 for an 8oz.unit of yogurt.”
Cause-manipulation – the following sentence was added to the above paragraph
“The company plans to donate proceeds from its sales of this new product line of yogurt to help
conserve and purify waters of the world’s oceans [conserve and purify waters of New England
lakes and rivers].”