Content uploaded by Shelley Wigley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shelley Wigley on Jan 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 145–154
© 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,
1363-3589 $30.00
Corporate Reputation Review Volume 11 Number 2
145
www.palgrave-journals.com/crr
ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted to examine the
influence of corporate social responsibility cam-
paigns on public opinion. It was anticipated
that corporate social responsibility campaigns,
which communicate corporate good deeds, exert
considerable positive influence on public opin-
ion. Results supported this expectation. Cor-
porate social responsibility campaigns enhanced
people ’ s perceptions of sponsors ’ image, reputa-
tion and credibility.
Corporate Reputation Review (2008) 11, 145 – 154.
doi: 10.1057/crr.2008.14
KEYWORDS: corporate citizenship ; CSR
INTRODUCTION
This investigation examines the infl uence of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) cam-
paigns on public opinion. CSR embodies an
organization ’ s behaviors that contribute to
societal good ( Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001 ;
Smith, 2003 ). It is based on the premise that
organizations should contribute to the well-
being of communities in which they are
located and the broader society. Smith
indicates that CSR activities are ‘ more
widespread and more substantive ’ than in the
past (2003, p. 55). Esrock and Leichty (1998) ,
for example, report that 80 percent of
Fortune-500 company websites feature CSR
activities. CSR campaigns constitute system-
atic attempts to communicate about an
organization ’ s good deeds to infl uence
relevant stakeholders.
Scholarly research on corporate responsi-
bility dates back to the 1950s and 1960s
( Carroll, 1999 ; Wood and Logsdon, 2001 ).
Despite the increasing prevalence of CSR
initiatives ( Pava and Krausz, 1995 ; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001 ; Smith, 2003 ), evidence
documenting the benefi ts of such efforts is
equivocal. Many studies have examined the
link between CSR and fi nancial perform-
ance (for summaries see Margolis and Walsh,
2003 ; Orlitzky et al ., 2003 ) and found a
positive association. Most of these studies,
however, involve simple correlations between
corporate spending on CSR initiatives and
fi nancial performance indicators; they do
not assess people ’ s response to CSR efforts
( Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001 ; exceptions
are Brown and Dacin, 1997 ; Creyer and
Ross, 1997 ; Ellen et al ., 2000 ; Luo and
The Infl uence of Corporate Social
Responsibility Campaigns on Public Opinion
Michael Pfau
University of Oklahoma, OK, USA
Michel M. Haigh
Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA
Jeanetta Sims
University of Central Oklahoma, OK, USA
Shelley Wigley
University of Texas at Arlington, AR, USA
Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 © 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
146
Bhattacharya, 2006 ; Murray and Vogel, 1997 ).
Furthermore, even fewer studies have
focused specifi cally on the infl uence of CSR
campaigns on public opinion. This fact
prompted David, Kline and Dai to observe
that, despite the ‘ unprecedented growth ’ in
CSR initiatives, ‘ little is known about their
effects ’ (2005, pp. 291 – 292). This study offers
an empirical test of the benefi ts of CSR
campaign initiatives on people ’ s perceptions
of sponsor organizations.
CSR and Corporate Citizenship
Early advocates of CSR, such as Bowen
(1953) , urged organizations to take ‘ both the
profi t motive and legitimate social goals
seriously ’ ( Pava and Krausz, 1995: 6 ). Initial
conceptualizations of CSR were based on
‘ the idea that business could and should con-
tribute to a more just and healthier society ’
( Wood and Logsdon, 2001: 84 ).
Subsequent scholarship attempted to
defi ne CSR. Davis (1973) suggests that CSR
begins where legal compliance ends. Deetz
(2003) conceptualizes CSR as ‘ being respon-
sive to the needs of the wider society ’
(p. 610). Yet, Andriof and McIntosh (2001)
maintain that CSR consists of much more
than ‘ chequebook philanthropy ’ (p. 15).
Carroll offered four main corporate social
responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical and
philanthropic responsibilities ( Carroll, 1991 ;
Carroll and Buchholtz, 2000 ).
In the 1990s, complementary themes for
CSR began to gain prominence ( Wood and
Logsdon, 2001 ). Stakeholder theory, business
ethics theory, corporate social performance
and corporate citizenship emerged as alter-
native concepts to CSR ( Carroll, 1999 ). Of
the alternative concepts, corporate citizen-
ship is regarded as a broader, more encom-
passing notion, including within it the
concepts of CSR ( Maignan and Ferrell,
2001 ). David, Kline and Dai defi ne CSR as
‘ a citizenship function with moral, ethical,
and social obligations ’ (2005, p. 293).
This investigation focuses on CSR, which
is an element of corporate citizenship
( Altman and Vidaver-Cohen, 2000 ). David
and colleagues refer to it as ‘ a citizenship
function with moral, ethical, and social
obligations ’ (2005, p. 293). The study examines
the infl uence of ‘ instrumental ’ CSR initia-
tives, which Heath defi nes as ‘ demonstrated
attributions that the organization is good, ’
which are then communicated to the public
(2006, p. 103). The investigation anticipates
that CSR efforts produce positive outcomes,
enhancing consumer perceptions of the
sponsor ’ s image, reputation and credibility.
CSR and Consumer Behavior
The value of corporate citizenship is widely
accepted, although available evidence is some-
what equivocal. Although spending on CSR
initiatives exceeds $ 1bn per year in the US,
there is scant evidence of the effects of CSR
campaigns on consumers ( David et al ., 2005 ).
People readily assert that corporate behavior
matters to them. A national survey found
that 70 percent of consumers indicated that
they were more likely to buy from a so-
cially responsible fi rm; conversely, 50 percent
indicated that they would not buy from a
fi rm that was not socially responsible ( Gil-
dea, 1994 – 1995 ). A recent Hill & Knowlton /
Harris poll revealed that 79 percent of
consumers say that they consider corporate
citizenship in making purchase decisions
( Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ). A corporate
citizenship survey by Cone Communica-
tions reported that 84 percent of consumers
agreed that, if a brand is associated with a
positive cause, they would likely switch from
the brand they are using to the brand
associated with the cause ( Cone, 2004 ). Such
survey results, however, refl ect people ’ s
opinions in a vacuum, absent information
about the cause and company ’ s brands (eg,
price and quality). Survey results indicating
that corporate behavior matters do not
necessarily mean that corporate behavior
actually affects consumer behavior.
Pfau, Haigh, Sims and Wigley
© 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 Corporate Reputation Review
147
Systematic studies of the relationship
between CSR initiatives and consumer
purchase decisions reveal more complex
fi ndings. Brown and Dacin (1997) and
Keller and Aaker (1998) reported a link
between CSR and purchase behavior, but
one that was indirect, working through
general attitudes about companies. David
and colleagues (2005) found that consumer
familiarity with CSR initiatives exerted an
impact on purchase intentions. Sen and
Bhattacharya (2001: 238) concede that the
relationship between CSR and purchase
behavior is positive but insist that the rela-
tionship is ‘ more complex ’ than previously
thought. Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) con-
clude that the relationship is positive, but
only if consumers support the issue / cause
and only if they are not asked to sacrifi ce
either quality or price. Sen et al . (2006)
indicate that consumer awareness of CSR
efforts results in more positive attitudes about
companies and greater purchase intent for
brands but caution that consumer awareness
of such initiatives is typically low. Sen and
colleagues (2006) also identify moderating
factors, such as brand visibility and product
involvement. A study by Berens et al .
(2005) reported that CSR initiatives affect
product evaluation, but only if the brands
are less visible and the product class is more
involving.
If CSR campaigns affect consumer behav-
iors, they may indirectly infl uence the bot-
tom line. The available evidence focuses on
the relationship between the CSR spending,
or broader construct of corporate citizenship,
and fi nancial outcomes. Studies examining
the general relationship between CSR and
fi nancial performance suggests, at the most,
‘ a weak positive relationship ’ ( Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001: 226 ). Most of these
studies involve simple correlations; nothing
more. An extensive review of 127 such
studies conducted between 1972 and 2002
by Margolis and Walsh (2003) noted prob-
lems with sampling, measurement, lack of
controls and failure to include potential
mediating / moderating variables.
Nonetheless, summaries of these studies
are relevant. Pava and Krausz (1995) sum-
marized 20 years of research on CSR. They
examined 21 existing studies. They found 12
studies that reported a positive association
between social responsibility and fi nancial
performance, one study that reported a neg-
ative association between the two variables,
and eight studies that reported no measur-
able association. In addition, they conducted
their own study. Based on data involving 53
fi rms, they reported that CSR sometimes
contributes to better fi nancial performance.
Margolis and Walsh’s (2003) narrative
synopsis of 127 studies conducted between
1972 and 2002 affi rmed a positive associa-
tion between corporate social performance
and corporate fi nancial performance, but
also called attention to shortcomings in the
designs of most of these studies. Orlitzky and
colleagues (2003) conducted a meta-analysis
of 52 studies examining the relationship
between corporate social and fi nancial per-
formance and found a positive association.
The effects of socially responsible behav-
iors are, however, not automatic. Luo and
Bhattacharya (2006) found ‘ returns to CSR
can be both positive and negative depending
on the levels of the fi rm ’ s corporate abilities ’
(pp. 13 – 14). Furthermore, such behaviors
must be sustained and communicated. As a
research report by The Conference Board
(2000) concluded: ‘ The evidence shows it is
clearly possible to make fi nancial gains
through being good . . . However, it is equal-
ly possible to do all sorts of good things and
see no fi nancial gains, or worse, suffer fi nan-
cial losses … .The difference lies in whether
corporate citizenship is an integral element
of core business strategy, rather than an ad
hoc add-on ’ (p. 30). The Conference Board
added that good corporate citizenship, rather
than serving as a barometer for fi nancial
gain is increasingly important ‘ to sustain a
leadership position and even to stay in the
Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 © 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
148
game at all in some market segments ’
(p. 30).
Doing well also matters in the areas of
brand equity and public relations. Willmott
(2003) suggests corporate citizenship is tied
to branding (which he calls citizen brands)
with an indirect impact to building trust by
increasing perceived quality and creating a
‘ goodwill ’ bank. Both the ‘ goodwill ’ bank
and increased perception of quality lead to
greater loyalty and higher value customers.
Existing conceptualizations of corporate
citizenship in the extant literature all
emphasize corporate action focusing on
doing well . The literature gives credence only
to corporate rhetoric that is backed repeat-
edly with corporate action. Indeed, in situ-
ations in which a corporation ’ s actions do
not match its rhetoric, it is practicing decep-
tion, and a number of case studies chronicle
the failures of companies that ‘ talked ’ good
citizenship, but failed to practice it ( Pava and
Krausz, 1995 ; Schwarze, 2003 ; Townsley and
Stohl, 2003 ).
CSR and Corporate Image and Credibility
One benefi t of CSR is image, according to
Daugherty (2001) . A corporation ’ s image is
key to its survival. Image is determined by
perceptions of key publics. Bhattacharya and
Sen maintain that, ‘ People are more likely to
identify with an organization when they
perceive its identity … enhances their self
esteem ’ (2004, p. 15), concluding that, an
organization ’ s character, as it is revealed by
its CSR actions, is ‘ fundamental ’ and ‘ endur-
ing ’ (p. 15). Sen et al . (2006) found that
people ’ s awareness of CSR initiatives culti-
vates positive attitudes, but they caution that
awareness of such activities is typically low
and, therefore, that companies must generate
awareness in order to ‘ reap positive benefi ts
of CSR … ’ (p. 164). Abdeen (1991) recom-
mends businesses document their commit-
ment to social responsibility in published
annual reports and other venues, arguing that
social responsibility enhances a company ’ s
image and increases consumer trust and
loyalty. Daugherty (2001) agrees. She states
that charitable giving must be promoted to
‘ ensure visibility of such good deeds ’ because
it ‘ enhances its position in the marketplace ’
(p. 399).
Dutton and Dukerich (1991) characterize
image as the way that outsiders view an
organization. Dowling (2001) defi nes a
corporate image as a ‘ global evaluation a per-
son has about an organization, ’ whereas a
corporate reputation is ‘ the attributed values
evoked from the person ’ s corporate image ’
(p. 19). Dutton et al . (1994) maintain that
company reputation and construed external
image often converge, particularly when
mediated efforts are used to disseminate an
organization ’ s reputation. Keller (2000)
describes a variety of ways by which organi-
zations can foster corporate image. One
way ‘ involves the creation of consumer
perceptions of a company as contributing
to community programs, supporting artistic
and social activities, and generally attempting
to improve the welfare of society as a whole ’
(p. 122).
CSR enhances people ’ s perceptions of
credibility of organizations ( Daugherty,
2001 ). Positive corporate social behaviors
enhance people ’ s trust in companies. Fur-
thermore, consumers are more likely to
notice and to remember positive corporate
behaviors. Cone ’ s longitudinal research
(2004) reveals that 80 percent of respondents
in 2004 could recall the name of one or
more companies they consider to be strong
corporate citizens; only 49 percent could do
so in 2001. Consumers positively view those
corporations whose behaviors resonate with
their own values ( Cone, 2004 ). The reason
is the strong relationship between trust and
perceptions of credibility. Makovsky explains:
‘ If you provide me with accurate informa-
tion or you tell me something and it ’ s con-
sistent with my experience, then I believe
you and trust you. You become credible ’
(2003, p.11). Corporate credibility may assist
Pfau, Haigh, Sims and Wigley
© 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 Corporate Reputation Review
149
companies in times of crises since 83 percent
of Americans claim that they give the
benefi t of the doubt to those companies they
trust ( Makovsky, 2003 ).
The extant literature suggests that genuine
CSR efforts should result in a number of
favorable outcomes. Hence, this investigation
posits that, for companies with positive
images:
H
1
: CSR campaigns are effective in infl uenc-
ing people ’ s perceptions about sponsors,
as manifested in terms of more positive
assessments of
(a) corporate image;
(b) corporate reputation;
(c) and corporate credibility.
METHODS
The purpose of this investigation is to assess
the infl uence of CSR campaigns, which
systematically publicize the good deeds of
companies.
Selection of Exemplars
The investigation featured two corporations
as CSR exemplars. Johnson & Johnson and
McDonalds were selected based on their sus-
tained records of positive contributions. Both
organizations have been recognized for
positive environmental records and active
community involvement. Both corporations
publish a corporate responsibility report.
Participants
Participants for the study were recruited
from introductory communication classes at
midwestern universities in the US. A total of
94 research participants completed both
phases of the study.
Experimental Materials
Researchers prepared multiple messages
for use in the investigation. Messages
were constructed for the social corporate
responsibility exemplars of Johnson &
Johnson and McDonalds. These messages
were adapted from the corporate responsibil-
ity reports located on their corporate
websites and then reformatted into news
releases. The word counts of the CSR
messages ranged from 447 to 449 words.
Procedures
The investigation was conducted in two
phases. During Phase 1, the participants
completed a questionnaire designed to provide
sociodemographic information. Then, partici-
pants were assigned randomly to one of the
CSR conditions.
After being assigned to a condition,
participants completed questionnaire items
appropriate to the condition they had been
assigned to. Questionnaire items addressed:
the image, reputation and credibility of
Johnson & Johnson or McDonalds. Phase 1
of the study was administered the fi rst week
in April 2006, over a period of fi ve days.
Phase 2 was administered during the
third week in April. The Phase 2 booklets
contained a single message followed by a
questionnaire. Participants read a news release
extolling the contributions of either Johnson
& Johnson or McDonalds to their respective
communities. Next, the participants com-
pleted a questionnaire that measured the
image, reputation and credibility of the
respective corporation. Phase 2 was completed
over a period of fi ve days.
Measures
People ’ s perceptions of the image, reputation
and credibility of the corporate exemplars
were assessed at Phases 1 and 2 using meas-
ures developed by Dowling (2001) .
Dowling ’ s research indicates image, repu-
tation and credibility constitute independent
perceptions of corporations.
Corporate image . Dowling (2001) concep-
tualized corporate image as people ’ s global
perceptions of an organization. Dowling ’ s
image measure consists of fi ve seven-interval,
Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 © 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
150
Likert-type items that denote the name of
the organization and the following charac-
teristics: appears to be well managed, appears to
be technologically driven, appears to be successful,
appears to be innovative, appears to be customer
focused (or for front groups, appears to be mem-
ber focused ) and appears to be competitive . Alpha
reliabilities of the corporate image measure
were: Phase 1, 0.72 ( n = 177); and Phase 2,
0.76 ( n = 177).
Corporate reputation . Dowling viewed cor-
porate reputation as ‘ the attributed values
evoked from the person ’ s corporate image ’
(2001, p. 19). Reputation was measured using
four Likert-type items that feature the name
of the organization and the following
attributes: appears to be an industry leader,
appears to be honest, appears to be a good
corporate citizen and appears to be respected .
Alpha reliabilities of the corporate reputa-
tion measure were: Phase 1, 0.88 ( n = 175);
and Phase 2, 0.90 ( n = 177).
Organizational credibility . Dowling (2001)
considered organizational credibility as an
output variable that was measured using four
Likert-type scales that list the name of the
organization and the following features:
appears to have confi dence, appears to be trust-
worthy, appears to show support and appears to
have a positive word-of-mouth . Alpha reliabili-
ties of the organizational credibility measure
were: Phase 1, 0.86 ( n = 177); and Phase 2,
0.89 ( n = 177).
RESULTS
This study examined the infl uence of CSR
campaigns, which involve communication
about the good deeds of corporations; in
short, reports of corporations behaving
well. The hypothesis predicted that CSR
campaigns are effective in infl uencing
people ’ s perceptions of sponsors, as mani-
fested in terms of more positive assessments
of corporate image, reputation and credibility.
Two strategies were used to test this
hypothesis. First, the study assessed changes
in people ’ s perceptions of corporations from
Phase 1 to Phase 2, following their exposure
to the CSR campaign messages. Correlated
t -tests were computed on the changes in
perceptions of corporate image, reputation
and credibility.
The results indicated that the CSR
campaigns contributed to more positive
perceptions of corporate image, t (92) = 5.35,
p < 0.01; reputation, t (92) = 4.39, p < 0.01;
and credibility, t (93) = 5.59, p < 0.01. Changes
in perceptions over time are revealed in
Table 1 .
Secondly, the study compared Time 2
perceptions of corporations on the part of
those who received CSR campaign
messages and those who did not (controls).
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance was
computed comparing treatment and control
participants on the Time 2 measures of
corporate image, reputation and credibility.
Time 1 measures served as covariates.
The omnibus results indicated that all
covariates were statistically signifi cant.
1
In
addition, the results indicated a signifi cant
difference between treatment and control
means, F (3,167) = 10.56, p < 0.01, partial
2
= 0.16. Subsequent univariate tests
revealed that treated participants scored
higher than controls on ratings of organiza-
tional: image, F (1,169) = 9.87, p < 0.01,
2
= 0.03; reputation, F (1,169) = 21.60,
p < 0.01,
2
= 0.05; and credibility,
F (1,169) = 31.945, p < 0.01,
2
= 0.07. Time
2 treatment and control means are shown in
Table 1 .
The pattern of results supports the
hypothesis. It is clear that CSR campaigns
work: they enhance perceptions of corporate
sponsors over time.
DISCUSSION
CSR campaigns are based on corporations
behaving well, reports of which are com-
municated to the general public. The study
began with the hope that corporations
would be rewarded for doing well; that
social responsibility campaigns exert positive
Pfau, Haigh, Sims and Wigley
© 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 Corporate Reputation Review
151
infl uence on public opinion. The results of
the experiment supported this expectation.
For corporations with positive images, CSR
campaigns enhanced people ’ s perceptions
of the image, reputation and credibility of
corporate sponsors.
Past research has suggested a weak, posi-
tive relationship between CSR initiatives
and attitudes about companies, and the
association of both with consumer behavior
or corporate profi tability ( Berens et al ., 2005 ;
Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ; Brown and
Dacin, 1997 ; Creyer and Ross, 1997 ; David
et al ., 2005 ; Keller and Aaker, 1998 ; Ellen
et al ., 2000 ; Margolis and Walsh, 2003 ;
Orlitzky et al ., 2003 ; Pava and Krausz, 1995 ;
Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001 ; Sen et al ., 2006 ).
The effects of CSR initiatives must, how-
ever, be communicated effectively and
public awareness of such initiatives is low
( Sen et al ., 2006 ). Furthermore, most extant
research reports simple associations involving
CSR and outcome variables. There have
been very few controlled experiments
assessing social responsibility campaigns ( Sen
and Bhattacharya, 2001 ), which prompted
David and colleagues to conclude that,
despite the prevalence of CSR initiatives,
‘ little is known about their effects ’ (2005,
pp. 291 – 292).
This investigation assumed, as Brown and
Dacin (1997) , Keller and Aaker (1998) and
Sen et al . (2006) argue, that CSR initiatives
affect general attitudes about companies. The
results of this investigation demonstrate that
CSR campaigns directly infl uence public
perceptions of image, which constitutes the
global evaluation of a corporation, reputa-
tion, which is ‘ the attributed values evoked
from … corporate image ’ ( Dowling, 2001:
19 ), and credibility, which embodies the trust
and confi dence people have in corporations
( Makovsky, 2003 ). The results suggest that
corporations that seek to positively infl uence
public perceptions are advised to, fi rst, adopt
behaviors that ‘ contribute to a more just and
healthier society ’ ( Wood and Logsdon, 2001:
84 ) and, secondly, to feature these behaviors
in sustained communication campaigns. If
companies are to ‘ reap the positive benefi ts
of CSR ’ ( Sen et al ., 2006: 164 ), they must
overcome typical low levels of public aware-
ness of such activities. They must systemati-
cally communicate about CSR initiatives
to relevant stakeholders ( Abdeen, 1991 ;
Daugherty, 2001 ). The results of this study
suggest that such campaigns produce
tangible payoffs in terms of enhanced image,
reputation and credibility.
Three limitations of the results of this
investigation must be addressed. First, there
Table 1 : Corporate Social Responsibility
Campaign Sponsors ’ Ratings at Time
1 and Time 2 and Campaign Sponsors ’
Rating versus Controls at Time 2 on the
Measures of Corporate Image, Reputation
and Credibility
Dependent
variable
Time 1 Time 2
Treatment
(n=94)
Control
(n=83)
Treatment
(n=94)
Corporate image
M 5.20 5.19 5.59
a
SD 0.84 0.57 0.67
Corporate reputation
M 5.49 5.12 5.90
a
SD 1.14 0.97 1.06
Corporate credibility
M 5.58 5.16 6.03
a
SD 1.01 0.96 1.08
Note: Perceptions of corporate image, reputation and
credibility were measured using 1 – 7-interval scales.
Higher scores indicated more positive perceptions of
corporations
a
Signifi cantly more positive perceptions following
administration of the corporate social responsibility
campaign message at Time 2 compared to initial
assessment at Time 1 at p < 0.01 and compared to
controls (those not exposed to campaign messages) at
Time 2 at p < 0.01
Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 © 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
152
is evidence of multicollinearity across the
dependent variables of image, reputation and
credibility. Multicollinearity refers to inter-
relationships of what are assumed to be in-
dependent dimensions. Dowling’s (2001)
research indicates, both conceptually and
empirically, that image, reputation and cred-
ibility are independent constructs: image
refers to global perception of companies,
reputation involves the values evoked from
image and credibility functions as an output
variable. In this study, correlations among the
three variables are ranged from 0.62 to 0.78.
These associations, in themselves, are how-
ever not a cause for concern because the
results did not reveal symptoms that would
be expected if collinearity was a problem.
For example, with multivariate results, Phase
1 measures of image, reputation and credibil-
ity served as covariates. The results indicated
that each Phase 1 measure was signifi cantly
related to its respective Phase 2 measure
(eg, Phase 1 image was associated with Phase 2
image, etc), but was not signifi cantly
related to the other Phase 2 measures (eg.,
Phase 1 image was not associated with Phase 2
reputation or credibility).
1
The sole excep-
tion was Phase 1 credibility, which was re-
lated to Time 2 reputation and credibility.
Problems of collinearity stem from intercor-
relations that are so severe as to undermine
the integrity of results. As Asher explains,
‘ there is no automatic level at which col-
linearity becomes a problem ’ (1983, p. 52).
Secondly, this investigation did not feature
most moderator variables identifi ed in the
extant literature, including: attitudes toward
the issue supported in CSR initiatives
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ; Ellen et al .,
2000 ), brand visibility ( Berens et al ., 2005 ),
brand attributes (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004 ;
Madrigal, 2000 ) and involvement in the
product class ( Berens et al ., 2005 ). It did, how-
ever, address a moderator variable, identifi ed
as very germane by Sen and Bhattacharya
(2001) and Sen et al . (2006) , and the most
relevant to campaign communication: people ’ s
awareness of CSR initiatives; specifi cally,
whether campaign communication of
corporate CSR activities alters perceptions.
Results indicate that it does. Future research
is needed to determine the extent to which
campaign effects are moderated by the
other variables noted above.
Thirdly, compared to participants assigned
to the treatment condition, participants
assigned as controls manifested less positive
perceptions of corporate reputation and
credibility at both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
(Differences between control means from
Phase 1 to Phase 2 were not statistically
signifi cant.) This outcome is inexplicable,
but probably the result of small sample size,
which undermined stability.
NOTE
1 All three covariates were signifi cant, but effects
were primarily limited to the same variable assessed
during Phase 2. The omnibus test indicated that
Time 1 image was signifi cant, F (3,167) = 10.46, p <
0.01, partial
2
= 0.16, with univariate tests revealing
signifi cance on the dependent variable of Time 2
image, F (1,169) = 25.45, p < 0.01,
2
= 0.08, but not
on Time 2 reputation, F (1,169) = 0.21, p = 0.65 or
credibility, F (1,169) = 0.80, p = 0.37. Time 1 reputa-
tion also was signifi cant, F (3,167) = 5.54, p < 0.01,
partial
2
= 0.09, with univariate tests showing sig-
nifi cance on the variable of Time 2 reputation,
F (1,169) = 10.86, p < 0.01,
2
= 0.03, but not on
Time 2 image, F (1,169) = 0.03, p = 0.86 or credibil-
ity, F (1,169) = 1.52, p = 0.22. Finally, Time 1 cred-
ibility also was signifi cant, F (3,167) = 13.06, p <
0.01, partial
2
= 0.19, with univariate tests revealing
signifi cance on the dependent variables of Time 2
reputation, F (1,169) = 15.30, p < 0.01,
2
= 0.04,
and Time 2 credibility, F (1,169) = 35.02, p < 0.01,
2
= 0.08, but not on Time 2 image, F (1,169) = 2.84,
p = 0.09.
REFERENCES
Abdeen , A . M . ( 1991 ) ‘ Social responsibility disclosure
in annual reports ’ , Business Forum , 16 , 23 – 26 .
Altman , B . W . and Vidaver-Cohen , D . ( 2000 ) ‘ A frame-
work for understanding corporate citizenship ’ ,
Business and Society Review , 105 , 1 – 7 .
Andriof , J . and McIntosh , M . ( 2001 ) ‘ Introduction ’ , in
J. Andriof and M. McIntosh (eds.), Perspectives on
Pfau, Haigh, Sims and Wigley
© 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 Corporate Reputation Review
153
Corporate Citizenship , Greenleaf Publishing Limited,
UK .
Berens , G . , van Riel , C . B . M . and van Bruggen , G . H .
( 2005 ) ‘ Corporate associations and consumer prod-
uct responses: The moderating role of corporate
brand dominance ’ , Journal of Marketing , 69 ,
35 – 48 .
Bhattacharya , C . B . and 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 .
Bowen , H . R . ( 1953 ) Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman , Harper & Row, New York .
Brown
, T . J . and Dacin , P . A . ( 1997 ) ‘ The company and
the product: Corporate associations and consumer
product responses ’ , Journal of Marketing , 61 , 68 – 84 .
Carroll , A . B . ( 1991, July/August ) ‘ The pyramid of
corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders ’ , Business
Horizons , 34 , 39 – 48 .
Carroll , A . B . ( 1999 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility:
Evolution of a defi nitional construct ’ , Business &
Society , 38 , 268 – 295 .
Carroll , A . B . and Buchholtz , A . K . (
2000 ) Business and
Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management , 4th edn.,
South Western College, Cincinnati, OH .
Cone ( 2004 ) Multi-Year Study Finds 21% Increase in
Americans Who Say Corporate Support of Social Issues
is Important in Building Trust , retrieved 12 November,
2005 from http://www.coneinc.com .
Creyer , E . H . and Ross , W . T . ( 1997 ) ‘ The infl uence of
fi rm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers
really care about business ethics? ’ Journal of
Consumer Marketing , 14 , 421 – 432 .
Daugherty , E . L . ( 2001 ) ‘ Public relations and social
responsibility ’ , in R.L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of
Public Relations , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA .
David , P . , Kline , S . and Dai ,
Y . ( 2005 ) ‘ Corporate social
responsibility practices, corporate identity, and
purchase intention: A dual-process model ’ , Journal of
Public Relations Research , 17 , 291 – 313 .
Davis , K . ( 1973 ) ‘ The case for and against business
assumption of social responsibilities ’ , Academy of
Management Journal , 16 , 312 – 322 .
Deetz , S . ( 2003 ) ‘ Corporate governance, communica-
tion, and getting social values into the decisional
Chain ’ , Management Communication Quarterly , 16 ,
606 – 611 .
Dowling , G . ( 2001 ) Creating Corporate Reputations: Iden-
tity, Image, and Performance , Oxford University Press,
Oxford, NY .
Dutton , J . and Dukerich , J . ( 1991 ) ‘
Keeping an eye on
the mirror: Image and identity in organizational
adaptation ’ , Academy of Management Journal , 34 ,
517 – 554 .
Dutton , J . , Dukerich , J . and Harquail , C . V . ( 1994 )
‘ Organizational images and member identifi cation ’ ,
Administrative Science Quarterly , 39 , 239 – 263 .
Ellen , P . S . , Mohr , L . A . and Webb , D . J . ( 2000 )
‘ Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? ’
Journal of Retailing , 76 , 393 – 406 .
Esrock , S . L . and Leichty ,
G . B . ( 1998 ) ‘ Social responsi-
bility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation
or Agenda-setting? ’ Public Relations Review , 24 ,
305 – 319 .
Gildea , R . L . ( 1994 – 1995 ) ‘ Consumer survey confi rms
corporate social responsibility affects buying
decisions ’ , Public Relations Quarterly , 39 (4) , 20 – 21 .
Heath , R . L . ( 2006 ) ‘ Onward into more fog: Thoughts
on public relations ’ research directions ’ , Journal of
Public Relations Research , 18 , 93 – 114 .
Keller , K . L . ( 2000 ) ‘ Building and managing corporate
brand equity ’ , in M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, and M.
H. Larsen (eds.), The Expressive Organization
, Oxford
University Press, New York .
Keller , K . L . and Aaker , D . A . ( 1998 ) ‘ The impact of
corporate marketing on a company’s ‘ brand exten-
sions ’ ’ , Corporate Reputation Review , 1 , 356 – 378 .
Luo , X . and Bhattacharya , C . B . ( 2006 ) ‘ Corporate so-
cial responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market
value ’ , Journal of Marketing , 70 , 1 – 18 .
Madrigal , R . ( 2000 ) ‘ The role of corporate associations
in new product evaluation ’ , in S. J. Hoch and R. J.
Meyer (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research , Vol. 27,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT .
Maignan , I .
and Ferrell , O . C . ( 2001 ) ‘ Corporate
citizenship as a marketing instrument: Concepts,
evidence and research directions ’ , European Journal
of Marketing , 35 , 457 – 484 .
Makovsky , K . D . ( 2003, fall ) ‘ What price credibility? ’
The Strategist , 9 (4) , 11 – 13 .
Margolis , J . D . and Walsh , J . P . ( 2003 ) ‘ Misery loves com-
panies: Rethinking social initiatives by business ’ ,
Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 , 268 – 305 .
Murray , K . B . and Vogel , C . M . (
1997 ) ‘ Using a hierarchy
of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of
CSR to generate goodwill towards the fi rm:
Financial versus nonfi nancial impacts ’ , Journal of
Business Research , 38 , 141 – 159 .
Orlitzky , M . F . , Schmidt , F . L . and Rynes , S . L . ( 2003 )
‘ Corporate social and fi nancial performance:
A meta-analysis ’ , Organizational Studies , 24 ,
403 – 441 .
Pava , M . L . and Krausz , J . ( 1995 ) Corporate Responsibil-
ity and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost ,
Quorum Books, Westport, CT .
Schwarze , S . ( 2003 ) ‘ Corporate-state irresponsibility,
critical publicity, and asbestos exposures in Libby,
Montana ’ ,
Management Communication Quarterly , 16 ,
625 – 632 .
Corporate Social Responsibility Campaigns
Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 11, 2, 145–154 © 2008 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
154
Sen , S . and Bhattacharya , C . B . ( 2001 ) ‘ Does doing good
always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to
corporate social responsibility ’ , Journal of Marketing
Research , 38 , 225 – 243 .
Sen , S . , Bhattacharya , C . B . and Korschun , D . ( 2006 )
‘ The role of corporate social responsibility in
strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A
fi eld experiment ’ , Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science , 34 (2) , 158 – 166 .
Smith , C . N . ( 2003 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility:
Whether or how? ’ California Management Review ,
45 (4) , 1 – 25 .
The Conference Board ( 2000
) ‘ Doing good and
doing well: Making the business case for corporate
citizenship ’ , Research Report 1292-00-RR, Simon
Zadek, New York .
Townsley , N . C . and Stohl , C . ( 2003 ) ‘ Contracting cor-
porate social responsibility: Swedish expansions in
global temporary agency work ’ , Management Com-
munication Quarterly , 16 , 599 – 605 .
Willmott , M . ( 2003 ) ‘ Citizen brands: Corporate citi-
zenship, trust and branding ’ , Journal of Brand Manage-
ment , 10 , 362 – 369 .
Wood , D . J . and Logsdon , J . M . ( 2001 ) ‘ Theorizing
business citizenship ’ , in J. Andriof and M. McIntosh
(eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship , Greenleaf
Publishing Limited, United Kingdom .
Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.
