Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 154, Issue 4, pp 1143–1159 | Cite as

The Process Model of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Communication: CSR Communication and its Relationship with Consumers’ CSR Knowledge, Trust, and Corporate Reputation Perception

  • Sora KimEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Using a national survey of US consumers, this study demonstrates the positive effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication factors on consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and perceptions of corporate reputation. The study also examines the role of a stakeholder-specific factor of consumer–company identification in the process of CSR communication. The findings suggest that the positive effects of CSR informativeness are enduring and independent of consumers’ identification levels with a company, whereas the positive consequences of the personal relevance, transparency, and factual tone of CSR communication intensify as the identification levels increase. Although CSR communication in which a self-promotional tone is adopted has a negative relationship with consumer trust and corporate reputation, such negative effects are not evident among consumers with very high identification levels with a company. Such CSR communication in fact improves consumers’ CSR knowledge and, in turn, has a positive effect on corporate reputation.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility communication Process model Moderated mediation Consumer knowledge of CSR Consumer trust Engagement Corporate reputation Process 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a Page Legacy Scholar Grant from the Arthur W. Page Center at the Penn State College of Communications under Page Legacy Scholar Grant. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pennsylvania State University [N.1303CSR].

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author(s) declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  2. Bentele, G., & Nothhaft, H. (2011). Trust and credibility as the basis of corporate social responsibility: (Mass-) mediated construction of responsibility and accountability. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 208–230). Boston: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76–88.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.Google Scholar
  5. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.Google Scholar
  6. Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435–455.Google Scholar
  7. Brønn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207–222.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 299–317.Google Scholar
  9. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). Managing corporate social responsibility: A communication approach. Malden: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. CR Magazine. (2013). CR’s 100 best corporate citizens 2013. Retrieved from http://www.thecro.com/files/100Best2013_web.pdf.
  11. Crane, A. (2001). Unpacking the ethical product. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 361–373.Google Scholar
  12. Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 215–226.Google Scholar
  13. Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 108–119.Google Scholar
  14. Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation, response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2), 192–211.Google Scholar
  15. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (2000). Precis for ties that bind. Business and Society, 105, 436–444.Google Scholar
  16. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x.Google Scholar
  17. Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is enough! when identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185–194.Google Scholar
  18. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Server, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 241–255.Google Scholar
  20. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.Google Scholar
  21. Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. (2007). Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review, 33, 1–9.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Hair, J. H., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction of mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heismann, K. (2014). Why stakeholder engagement is key to successful CSR programs. Retrieved from http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/10/23/stakeholder-engagement-key-csr-online-communities.
  26. Hou, J., & Reber, B. H. (2011). Dimensions of disclosures: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting by media companies. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 166–168.Google Scholar
  27. Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. Boston: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Kim, S. (2011). Transferring effects of CSR strategy on consumer responses: The synergistic model of corporate communication strategy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(2), 218–241.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, S., & Ferguson, M. T. (2014). Public expectations of CSR communication: What and how to communicate CSR. Public Relations Journal, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/intelligence/prjournal/documents/2014kimferguson.pdf
  30. Kim, S., & Ferguson, M. T. (2016). Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectation. Journal of Marketing Communications. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2015.1118143.Google Scholar
  31. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.Google Scholar
  32. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 3–19.Google Scholar
  33. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.Google Scholar
  34. McMillan, S., & Hwang, J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.Google Scholar
  35. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.Google Scholar
  36. Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 171–182.Google Scholar
  37. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.Google Scholar
  38. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The “catch 22” of communicating CSR: findings from a Danish Study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97–111.Google Scholar
  39. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.Google Scholar
  40. Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 418–430.Google Scholar
  41. Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 285–301.Google Scholar
  42. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.Google Scholar
  43. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. H. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.Google Scholar
  44. Reputation Institute. (2012). The 2011 corporate social responsibility index. Retrieved from http://www.bcccc.net/pdf/CSRIReport2011.pdf
  45. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.Google Scholar
  46. Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Pollach, I. (2005). The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 267–290.Google Scholar
  47. Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 681–692.Google Scholar
  48. Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2014). Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2282-9.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Singh, S., Kristensen, L., & Villasenor, E. (2009). Overcoming skepticism towards cause related claims: The case of Norway. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 312–326.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 296–313.Google Scholar
  52. Steltenpool, G., & Verhoeven, P. (2012). Sector-dependent framing effects of corporate social responsibility messages: An experiment with non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 627–629.Google Scholar
  53. Waddock, S., & Googins, B. K. (2011). The paradox of communicating corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 23–43). Boston: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Journalism and CommunicationThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations