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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5265.htm

Corporate social responsibility

and consumers response:
the missing linkage
Yongqiang Gao
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan,
Peoples Republic of China

CSR and
consumers
response
269
Received January 2009
Revised March 2009
Accepted March 2009

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework to explain why corporate
social responsibility (CSR) activity leads to different consumers responses, especially why, in some
cases, CSR activity might backfire on the company.
Design/methodology/approach Based on a review of previous literature, the aspects of a CSR
activity and the contrasting objectives that may influence consumers responses are discussed. Several
propositions are put forward.
Findings The structure of a CSR activity, mainly including type of issue/cause, its form, timing and
commitment, leads to consumers different attributions, which in turn leads to consumers different
responses to the firm. Also, consumers make attributions about a firms CSR activity in terms of the
contrast effect between the firms corporate social performance (CSP) and other objectives for
reference, such as the firms CSR ability, its past CSP, its negative social impact of operation and other
firms CSR activities. Moreover, even though consumers can make positive attribution to a firms CSR
activity, the significant contrast effect of it against the objectives might also lead to consumers making
negative responses.
Research limitations/implications Given the complex psychological processes of consumers, it
is not known if there are other components of a CSR activity and other contrasting objectives that
might influence consumers responses.
Originality/value The paper helps business managers to realize the risks embedded in CSR
activities, and helps them to use CSR strategically to promote business goals by carefully considering
the mix of components of CSR activity and the fit with other contrasting objectives.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Consumer research, Corporate social responsibility, Business policy
Paper type General review

Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is something no sane chairman would be without,
as expressed by Fombrun and Gardberg (2000) and countless others, it is a strategic
tool to create business opportunities, mitigate threats and manage reputational risk.
Crowther (2003) and Idowu and Towler (2004), among others, pointed out the enormous
benefits that corporations of the twenty-first century can derive when they are
perceived by their stakeholders as being socially responsible.
CSR literature has well documented the positive effects of being socially responsible.
At first, a large number of empirical researches reported a positive relationship between
CSR and corporate financial performance (CFP) (Griffin, 2000; Orlitzky et al., 2003;
Maron, 2006). Second, a growing number of researches suggest that CSR activities have
a significant influence on several consumer-related outcomes such as consumer product

Baltic Journal of Management

Vol. 4 No. 3, 2009
pp. 269-287
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5265
DOI 10.1108/17465260910990984

BJM
4,3

270

responses (Pirsch et al., 2007), attitudes toward that company and its products (Brown
and Dacin, 1997; Ellen et al., 2000; Berens et al., 2005), corporate and brand images (Ellen
et al., 1997; Webb and Mohr, 1998), purchase intention (Smith and Alcorn, 1991; Adkins,
1999), as well as consumer-company identification (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Third,
CSR has been identified as a tool to create and maintain favorable reputations and
safeguard their interests in the event of socially irresponsible conduct (Brammer and
Pavelin, 2005). A favorable reputation has also been identified as enhancing consumer
perceptions of product quality (Grewal et al., 1998), raising employee morale, increasing
productivity, improving recruitment and retention (Turban and Cable, 2003), and
allowing easier access to capital (Beatty and Ritter, 1986).
Spurred at least in part by such evidences, more companies than ever before are
backing CSR initiatives such as corporate philanthropy, cause-related marketing
(CRM), minority support programs, and socially responsible employment and
manufacturing practices with real financial muscle (Drumwright, 1994; Smith, 1994;
Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). Not surprisingly, this trend is also reflected in the
pervasive belief among business leaders that CSR is an economic imperative in todays
national as well as global marketplace (Beh, 1994; Murray and Vogel, 1997; The World
Economic Forum, 1999).
Despite this increasing emphasis on CSR in the marketplace, little is known about
the effects of CSR action on consumers (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). It is not clear
when and how CSR activities influence consumer evaluations (Yoon, 2003). Recent
researches have suggested that a CSR activity might backfire on the company if
consumers become suspicious and infer that the companys true motive for the CSR
activity is only to improve its image to sell more products without trying to act for the
sake of consumers (Cui et al., 2003; Yoon, 2003), or the CSR activity distracts a
company from its ability to produce quality products (Brown and Dacin, 1997). The
backfire effect of CSR activity is partly supported by the negative relationship between
CSR and CFP identified by some empirical researches (Griffin and Mahon, 1997;
Wright and Ferris, 1997).
However, the mechanism of consumers attribution toward the motivation of a
firms CSR activity is seldom discussed (Yoon, 2003). In other words, the question of
under what conditions may consumers perceive a CSR as self-interested? is still to be
answered. Further, present CSR literature has so far not discussed whether a
completely altruistic CSR activity may backfire on company or not, given the quality of
the firms products and services are unchanged.
This paper tries to understand the underlying conditions under which a CSR
activity may not contribute to the companys image and reputation, or even hurt the
firm, in the eyes of consumers. This study contributes to the present CSR literature by
deepening peoples understanding of the mechanism of CSR and consumers response.
The paper is structured as follows. Relevant literature is reviewed in the next
section, followed by the theoretical background, namely attribution theory and
contrast effect. The fourth and fifth sections discuss the attribution and contrast effects
on consumers towards CSR, respectively. Finally, the conclusion.
Literature review: the effectiveness of CSR
In CSR literature, numerous researches suggest that companies involved in CSR can
obtain consumers positive product and brand evaluations, brand choice, and brand

recommendations (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Vitell, 2003),
good attitude to firm (Webb and Mohr, 1998; Cavill & Co., 2001; Mohr et al., 2001), good
impression/image of firm (Cone/Roper Reports, 1999; Lachowetz et al., 2002), purchase
intention (Smith and Alcorn, 1991; Adkins, 1999), and even enjoy a premium price
(Lachowetz et al., 2002). More importantly, when a corporation behaves in a manner
that is perceived as socially responsible, consumers are likely to infer that it has certain
desirable traits that resonate with their sense of self (Lichtenstein et al., 2004, p. 17).
Besides, CSR is also widely identified as a contribution to the enhancement of a
firms overall reputation (Turban and Greening, 1997; Brammer and Millington, 2004;
Brammer and Pavelin, 2005). Williams and Barrett (2000) show that corporate
philanthropy and social activities can lessen the damaging effects on corporate
reputation of certain criminal activities and bad behaviors (e.g. violations of employee
safety standards, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Environmental Protection
Agency, criminal misconduct, as well as product recalls) (Davidson et al., 1994;
Dranove and Olsen, 1994; Frooman, 1997). Reputations allow firms to signal their
true attributes over time (Rindova et al., 2005). The information asymmetry that
invariably exists between a firm and its consumers (and other stakeholders) requires it
to use signals that will convey characteristics about its products, activities and
intentions (Spence, 1974). A good signal is one that is relatively well correlated to the
underlying, but unobservable characteristic or characteristics, since corporate
reputation is a multidimensional construct (Dowling, 2004).
Moreover, CSR is also reported to be positively associated with CFP. Roman et al.
(1999) reviewed 52 empirical researches on the relationship between corporate social
performance CSP, (practical measurement of CSR) and CFP, and 33 researches
reported a positive relation while only five reported a negative relation. Orlitzky et al.
(2003) performed a meta-analysis of 52 studies in search of the relationship between
CSP and CFP, and concluded that socially responsible investing pays off. The positive
relationship between CSR (or CSP) and CFP is frequently mentioned or reported in
more recent studies (Allouche and Laroche, 2005; Maron, 2006; Wu, 2006; Beurden and
Gossling, 2008).
Partly supported by such evidences, CSR actions are gradually becoming a leading
issue in business, with companies taking a variety of initiatives all aimed at making
sense of CSR (Cramer et al., 2004). Firms rely increasingly on a good CSP reputation to
enhance, protect or repair their overall corporate image (Dowling, 2004; Fombrun and
Riel, 2004; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Turban and Greening, 1997). Some argue that decisions
regarding CSR should be treated by managers precisely as they treat all investment
decisions (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001, p. 125) or that it should be considered as a
form of strategic investment (McWilliams et al., 2006, p. 4).
However, CSR does not always bring positive effects. Although the majority of
empirical researches investigating the relationship between CSR/CSP and CFP confirm
a positive relationship, there are still studies, which found a negative relationship
between CSR and CFP (Griffin and Mahon, 1997; Wright and Ferris, 1997; Roman et al.,
1999). This may suggest that CSR is not risk free, and in some cases, CSR might do
harm to business interests.
CSR is also far from being the most dominant criterion in consumers purchasing
decisions (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). Traditional criteria such as price, quality,
and brand familiarity seem to remain the most important choice criteria.

CSR and
consumers
response
271

BJM
4,3

272

Consumers buy for personal reasons rather than for societal ones (Beckmann et al.,
2001). Market and Opinion Research Institutes (MORIs) survey of important attributes
when making a judgment about a company also showed social responsibility as the
least important attribute of a company in the eyes of the general public. This may be
because social responsibility is too broad a term on which to make a yes/no decision
on a company (Sarbutts, 2003). Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found that when
consumers perceive incongruence between their own characters and that of the
company in their reactions to its CSR initiatives, the CSR initiatives can even decrease
consumers intentions to buy a companys products.
Based on a study of the relationship between CSP and overall corporate reputation
of UK firms, Brammer and Pavelin (2004) also concluded that corporate reputation and
social performance scores are often inconsistent. In other words, CSR activity does not
automatically contribute to corporate reputation.
In addition, some contend that the perceived motivation of the company to engage in
CSR influences the consumers perceptions of the firm and the likelihood of a purchase
(Barone et al., 2000). Unless consumers trust the companys pro-social position, they are
not willing to reward the company for its CSR activity (Osterhus, 1997). A similar point is
reported by Ellen et al. (2000) who contended that consumers will respond positively to a
CSR only when they believe the company is rejecting its basic self-interested nature or
somehow making a sacrifice. Based on attribution theory, some researchers have
reported that different CSRs lead to different (positive versus negative) outcomes
because consumers make different attributions. Those CSRs vary in different types of
issues/causes (in CRM) such as disaster relief versus ongoing causes (Ross et al., 1991;
Skitka, 1999) or local versus national causes (Cui et al., 2003); in different types of CSR
supports such as sponsorship, employee volunteerism and CRM (Creyer and Ross, 1996),
or transaction and non-transaction-based donations (Cui et al., 2003); in continuity/time
commitment to CSR (Drumwright, 1996; Mullen, 1997) or frequency of CSR (Cui et al.,
2003); in magnitude of donation or level of money commitment (Strahilevitz, 1999;
Pracejus et al., 2004).
Some others questioned CSR for fear of it distracting a company from its ability to
produce quality products (Brown and Dacin, 1997). The irreversible commitments of
CSR can easily backfire in the form of negative effects on the companys competitiveness
and competitive positioning (Rugman and Verbeke, 1998). Also, companies are in
especially grave danger when they adopt a low-effort CSR profile (Stevens et al., 2005),
when they do not free up sufficient managerial capacity to manage CSR activities
rigorously (Bansal, 2005), or when their CSR triggers the interest of previously dormant
stakeholder groups (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003).
Despite the achievement made in studying the association between CSR and
consumers responses, the mechanism under the CSR and consumers response is still to be
achieved. Furthermore, previous researches emphasized the effect of attribution towards
CSR on consumers responses (Ellen et al., 2000; Dean, 2004). We still do not know if a
completely altruistic (from consumers perception) CSR may backfire on company or not.
This study is from the viewpoint of CSR. We do not consider the segmentation of
consumers (though it is absolutely correct that for a given CSR activity, different
segments of consumers perceive it differently). Our purpose is to propose a theoretical
framework to explain why some CSR activities may result in good outcomes (namely
positive responses of consumers) while others do not.

Theoretical background: attribution theory and contrast effect

Two theories, namely attribution theory and contrast effect, are widely used to explain
why consumers perceive and respond differently to different CSR activities. We also
base this study on these two theories.
Attribution theory
Attributions are the result of a cognitive process by which people assign an underlying
cause or explanation to an observed event (Kelly, 1973; Kelly and Michela, 1980). That
is, individuals will try to develop a commonsense explanation of why actions have
occurred and make causal inferences.
Attribution theory provides a well-developed approach for describing how people
make causal inferences about the behavior of others (Folkes, 1984). According to
attribution theory, people seek information clues to explain why certain events occur.
Depending on various dimensions of what they come to perceive as the cause of an
event, people then experience different emotional reactions and develop different
expectations and behavioral tendencies (Schiff and Bento, 2000).
Attribution theory predicts a relationship between attributions and subsequent
attitudes and behaviors (Kelly and Michela, 1980). Different attributions made by a
person about the behavior of others will result in his/her differently subsequent
attitudes and behaviors. Attributions may be positive as well as negative. That is, the
attribution process could result in positive attributions as well as negative attributions
(Dean, 2004).
Applying attribution theory to the analysis of CSR and consumers response, if
consumers make positive attribution towards a CSR activity (CSR as an act of corporate
altruism), they will respond positively to the corporate image and products. However, if
consumers make negative attribution towards a CSR activity (the CSR serves a
corporate self-interest), they will not respond positively to corporate image and
products. In some cases, they may even respond negatively.
Contrast effect
The contrast effect is one of the most obvious biases we have. A contrast effect is the
enhancement or diminishment, relative to normal, of perception, cognition and related
performance as a result of immediately previous or simultaneous exposure to a
stimulus of lesser or greater value in the same dimension (Wikipedia, 2009). Here,
normal perception or performance is that which would be obtained in the absence of
the comparison stimulus, i.e. one based on all previous experience (Johansson and
Westling, 1988). In other words, the contrast effect is the tendency to judge things
based on the things that are near them (either in time or in space). For example, when
subjects first lifted a heavy weight, they underestimated the weight of lighter weights
they were subsequently asked to lift (Davidson and Wolpert, 2004).
Contrasts vary among simultaneous, successive contrast and metacontrast or
paracontrast, and between negative and positive contrast (Wikipedia, 2009). For the
purpose of this paper, simultaneous contrast and successive contrast are discussed.
Simultaneous contrast, identified by Chevreul (1855), refers to the manner in which
the colors of two different objects affect each other. The effect is more noticeable when
shared between objects of complementary color. Simultaneous contrast is a kind of
latitudinal contrast in which a thing is judged based on the things near it in space

CSR and
consumers
response
273

BJM
4,3

274

(Wu and Wardman, 2007). Comparatively, successive contrast occurs when the
perception of currently viewed stimuli is modulated by previously viewed stimuli.
A thing will be judged based on its previous form (Schifferstein and Oudejans, 1996).
The contrast effect suggests that companies conducting identical CSR activities
might be evaluated differently by consumers depending on the firms reputation
regarding social responsibility (previous CSR) (Dean, 2004). Besides, the contrast effect
also suggests that a companys CSR activity will be evaluated by consumers
comparing it with other companies CSR and other contrasting objectives.
CSR activity and consumers response: an attributional analysis
CSR literature suggests that many factors embedded in CSR influence consumers
responses. Ellen et al. (2000) applied a conceptual framework for categorizing behavioral
attributions and posited that in a CRM effort consumers may use aspects of the CRM
offer to assess whether the company is extrinsically or intrinsically motivated.
The aspects/factors of CRM differ in terms of the type of cause supported, the
geographic scope of the cause, the type of support, and the duration of the program
(Cui et al., 2003).
Based on and adapted from Cui et al. s (2003) argument, here we consider four aspects
of CSR, namely: type of issue/cause, form of CSR, timing of CSR, and commitment of CSR
(Figure 1). We do not consider the geographic scope of a CSR activity, because we do not
distinguish local consumers from national consumers. Besides, we add another aspect of
CSR, which has not been discussed in previous researches: the timing of CSR.
Type of issue/cause
Given the broad conceptualization of CSR, it is not surprising that the domains of
socially responsible behavior are many and diverse. A comprehensive summarization
of the different CSR actions in contained in SOCRATES: The Corporate Social Ratings
Monitor (Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & Co. Inc., 1999), a database that describes and
rates more than 600 companies in terms of their CSR records. This database reduces
the CSR initiatives undertaken by these companies into six broad domains: community
support, diversity, employee support, environment, non-US operations, and product.
Different issues are evaluated differently by consumers. For example, MORIs
(2002) survey of the factors that the public take into consideration about a company
revealed that the first three factors are customer service, quality of product or services,
and treatment of its staff.
Type of
issue/cause

Form of
CSR

Figure 1.
Aspects of CSR and
consumers response

Consumers
response

Timing of
CSR

Commitment
of CSR

In CRM, researchers have found that people are more likely to support causes aimed at
supporting disaster relief than ongoing causes (Ross et al., 1991) because disasters
might provide the strongest opportunity to examine whether people would abandon
their typical responses of self-interest and respond to the affective or situational needs
(Skitka, 1999; Ellen et al., 2000). Moreover, Ellen et al. (2000) pointed out that in a CRM
offer, where consumers focus on a specific CRM program, rather than CRM in general,
the attributions consumers make to the companys motivations for conducting the
program may influence how they respond and the ultimate success of the program.
Thus, we conclude:
P1.

Different social issues addressed by a CSR activity might lead to different

consumers attributions, which in turn lead to different responses of
consumers towards the company.

Form of CSR
To address a social issue, companies face several choices. For instance, to support
community, companies can select volunteerism, educational donation, CRM, and other
forms of CSR activities. Even in CRM, a widely identified categorization of support is
transaction-based or non-transaction-based (Cui et al., 2003). In transaction-based
support, the firms donation is based on consumer sales. It can take the form of dollar
support, percent support, or product-for-product support. For instance, American
Express donated two cents per dollar of sales to the anti-hunger organization Share
Our Strength (Fiske, 1997). That is a typical dollar support campaign. Another mode of
transaction-based support is product-to-product support. For example, schools were
offered Apple computers in exchange for cash receipts from purchases at a particular
store (Nichols, 1990). Conversely, in non-transaction-based support, the firm itself
serves as a facilitator and, in some situations, an additional contributor, and no
consumer purchase is required.
Consumers tend to make different attributions towards different forms of CSR. For
example, Webb and Mohr (1998) tested the effect of CRM in their in-depth interview
study and reported that some respondents expressed reservations toward a company
donating a certain percentage of the sale price to a non-profit organization or a cause.
More importantly, approximately half the respondents in the study reported that they
believed the company ran CRM campaigns only to achieve gains for itself. Consumers
respond more positively to the non-transaction-based donation (Cui et al., 2003).
Therefore, it is reasonable to propose:
P2.

Different forms of CSR activity might lead to different consumers

attributions, which in turn lead to different responses of consumers
towards the company.

Timing of CSR
Timing, as one of the aspects of CSR, has never been discussed in CSR literature as a
potential factor affecting consumers response. However, it is a reasonable inference
that pioneers of a CSR activity may succeed while the followers may suffer failure,
though the reverse might occur.
The literature on the first-mover advantage (FMA) field has documented the
importance of the timing of a behavior. Research suggests that first movers may gain

CSR and
consumers
response
275

BJM
4,3

276

competitive advantage not only because of the positional advantage associated with
entry timing, such as acquiring better quality resources (Barney, 1991) or preempting
scarce assets (Lieberman and Montgomery, 1988), erecting entry barriers (Patterson,
1993; Robinson, 1988), and increasing buyer switching costs (Lieberman and
Montgomery, 1988), but also because of the favorable consumer information
processing and attitude formation towards pioneers (Denstadli et al., 2005). Research
has shown that consumer information processing is conducted in a way that benefits
pioneers (Alpert and Kamins, 1995; Carpenter and Nakamoto, 1989; Kardes and
Kalyanaram, 1992).
The FMA might exist in CSR. Consumers might make more altruistic attribution
towards pioneers of a CSR activity than the followers. Therefore, consumers respond
more positively to well-organized CSR pioneers than followers:
P3.

Different timings of CSR activity might lead to different consumers

attributions, which in turn leads to different response of consumers towards
the company.

Commitment of CSR
In making attribution of CSR, consumers also consider the commitment of the firm as
an indicator of their altruistic versus self-interested motivation. Commitment is defined
as an implicit or explicit pledge to relational continuity between exchange partners
(Dwyer et al., 1987). The three components of commitment they identified are inputs
(both economic and emotional), durability over time (long versus short-term), and
consistency (regular versus occasional).
Evidences show that the input level of company to CSR, such as magnitude of a
donation, influence consumers attitudes to the company (Strahilevitz, 1999; Pracejus
et al., 2004). In addition, companys time commitment to CSR or frequency of CSR
activity is also identified to positively influence consumers evaluation towards the
company (Drumwright, 1996; Cui et al., 2003). The commitment is used by consumers
to infer the companys motivation: the higher the commitment, the less the CSR was
perceived as exploitative, and the more the companys motivation was perceived as
altruistic (Smith and Alcorn, 1991; Holmes and Kilbane, 1993; Dahl and Lavack, 1995;
Strahilevitz, 1999; Olsen et al., 2003). Thus, we reach the following proposition:
P4.

Different level of commitment of CSR activity might lead to different

consumers attributions, which in turn lead to different responses of
consumers towards the company.

CSR activity and consumers response: a contrast analysis

In making attribution, consumers not only rely on the aspects of CSR activity, but also
contrast a companys CSR activity with other companies or other objectives. Moreover,
consumers make positive attribution towards a companys socially responsible
activity; the contrast effect results from comparing it with others and can still lead to
the negative response of consumers to the company.
There are four objectives that consumers might compare a companys CSR activity
with, including the companys CSR ability, past CSP, negative social impact of
operation and other firms CSR activity (Figure 2).

CSR and
consumers
response

CSR activity
Other firms
CSR

CSR ability
Consumers
response

CSR activity

CSR activity

Negative
social impact

Past CSP
CSR activity

CSR ability and CSR activity

Consumers evaluations of a CSR activity of company might be moderated by its CSR
ability. CSR ability can be seen as the proxy of corporate social power (Davis, 1967).
Companies social responsibility originate from the amount of social power they
possess, and companies with larger amounts of social power are expected to take on
more social responsibility (Davis, 1967).
CSR literature has documented that larger firms are more likely to give more in
dollars to philanthropy (Wood and Jones, 1995; Galaskiewicz, 1997; Buchholtz et al.,
1999) and experience economies of scale in CSP and reputation building (Brammer and
Millington, 2005; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990).
Meanwhile, it is widely accepted in the CSR literature that CSR such as corporate
philanthropy depends on available resources, often referred to as slack resources
(Buchholtz et al., 1999, p. 171; Waddock and Graves, 1997, p. 306). Firms with higher
financial returns can more easily take on social responsibility and secure a good overall
corporate reputation (Hammond and Slocum, 1996; Robert and Dowling, 2002). Besides,
Navarros (1988) study suggests that the debt level of a firm constrains its CSR.
However, in previous research, little attention has been paid to the expectation of
consumers on the CSR of companies with different CSR ability. It is obvious that
consumers, as we all are, have different expectations of social responsibility from
different firms with different CSR ability. Large firms with good financial performance
are expected to take on more social responsibility than the small firms with average or
even bad financial performance.
Although there is no uniform measurement of CSR ability or corporate social power,
CSR literature suggests that firm size, financial performance and debt level are factors
reflecting a companys CSR ability. When a companys CSP is significantly under
its perceived CSR ability (negative gap), consumers might think that the company
is stingy and respond to it negatively. When the companys CSP matches or is
significantly above its perceived CSR ability (positive gap), consumers might think the
company is generous and respond to it positively:
P5a. A significant negative gap between a firms CSR ability and CSP might lead to
the negative response of consumers towards the company.
P5b. A significant positive gap between a firms CSR ability and CSP might lead to
the positive response of consumers towards the company.

277
Figure 2.
Contrast effect and
consumers response

BJM
4,3

278

Past CSP and CSR activity

A firms past CSP influences consumers evaluation of its present CSR activity, as the
contrast effect theory suggested. Brown and Dacin (1997) focused most directly and
explicitly on the effect of a companys CSR record on consumers evaluations of that
company and its products. The authors argued that a companys CSR record, instead of
providing information about the attributes or overall quality of its products, creates a
general context for consumers evaluation.
Cui et al. (2003) found that a companys previous CSR (e.g. donation) activity has
significant impact on the evaluation of a present CSR activity. Dean (2004) investigated
the effect of company donation in CRM on consumers perception of social performance
of company. The author concludes that though the irresponsible and average firms do
not risk a loss of public goodwill when using CRM (conditional donation), a scrupulous
firms image is damaged by pursuing CRM. The differentiation among irresponsible,
average and scrupulous firms is in terms of the firms past CSP.
The above researches indicate that consumers do evaluate a firms CSR activity in
terms of its previous CSP, just as successive contrast literature suggested (Schifferstein
and Oudejans, 1996). When a firms present CSP is not significantly different from its
past CSP, the contrast effect might not appear and consumers keep their past
evaluation of the firm. However, when the firms present CSP is significantly different
from its past CSP, the contrast effect is expected to appear. Consumers may respond
positively to a firms socially responsible activity if they perceive the strength of
present CSR is significantly bigger than it was in the past (a extreme case is a firm
changes its image from irresponsible to scrupulous, as Dean (2004) suggested). On the
contrary, if consumers perceive the strength of present CSR as significantly smaller
than it was in the past, they will not respond to the company positively, and even
negatively. Therefore, we put forward the following proposition:
P6.

A significant difference between a firms present CSR activity and its past
CSP might lead to the different responses of consumers towards the company.
When consumers perceptions of the strength of present CSR activity of a
company is significantly bigger than it was in the past, they may respond
positively to the company, and vice versa.

Negative social impact and CSR activity

In CSR literature, there is an argument that businesses are responsible for outcomes
related to their primary and secondary areas of involvement (i.e. economic impact) with
society (Wood, 1991, p. 697). In other words, corporations are responsible only for
solving the direct and indirect problems they cause. Solving these problems is their
public responsibility (Swanson, 1995). This argument reflects such a trend that
consumers emphasize not only corporate philanthropy but also corporations action
aiming at solving the problems they caused or the problems associated with their
operation. For example, more and more consumers base buying decisions on who made
their Nike shoes, where Exxon Mobil gets its gasoline, or what McDonalds does with
its paper waste (Colvin, 2001).
Such a trend is also reflected in the cross-industrial variance towards an identical
CSR activity. Dowling (2004) suggested that CSR activities are interpreted differently
across industries and will consequently have different impacts on corporate reputation.
Similarly, Brammer and Pavelin (2004) showed that firms in the retail, construction,

business services and engineering sectors have overall corporate reputations that
respond positively to good CSP, whilst the overall reputation of firms in the finance,
utilities and chemicals industries are less responsive.
Firms are expected to solve, firstly, the social problems they caused. If they conduct
a CSR activity while leaving aside the problems (negative social impact) they cause,
their motivation is to be questioned. For instance, a firm might do lots of public service
work and contribute heavily to charities but systematically foul the environment, steal
from its employees pension fund, or discriminate against women in the workplace
(Campbell, 2007). In such cases, consumers may react negatively to the firm. Moreover,
a CSR activity may be evaluated by consumers by comparing it to the negative social
problem it caused. If the CSR effort is significantly less than the negative social impact
caused by the firm, consumers might consider that the firm adopts CSR to cover up the
impact of corporate misdemeanors. Skeptics have accused companies of taking a
public ethical stance in order to project a good image, regardless of their unpublicized
unethical practices (Caulkin, 2002):
P7a. A CSR activity might be evaluated negatively if consumers perceived the firm
ignored the problems they caused.
P7b. A significant gap between a firms CSR effort and the negative social
impact/problem it caused might lead to the negative responses of consumers
towards the firm.
Other firms CSR and CSR activities
In an intense competitive environment, a firms socially responsible activity may
motivate its rivals and other firms to imitate it. This may even be true if the socially
responsible activity is taken as a strategic tool to achieve an organizations target.
Mintzberg (1983) argued that social responsibility involves a host of complex and
contradictory needs and that competition, from within or without the firm, influences
the corporations ability to respond to social needs.
When there are many companies undertaking the same CSR activity, simultaneous
contrast may occur (Davidson and Wolpert, 2004; Wu and Wardman, 2007).
Consumers perception of a firms CSR endeavor will be moderated by other firms
endeavors. Recently, the Wenchuan earthquake which took place on May 12, 2008 in
Sichuan province of China provides a good example of how a firms CSR activity (here
it is donation) is influenced by other firms CSR (donation). China Vanke Co. Ltd
(Vanke), the leading company of real estate in China, donated 2 million Renminbi
(RMB) immediately (on May 12) to the disaster relief voluntarily and unconditionally.
However, such a donation is criticized widely in China by the public because other
firms, including other far smaller real estate companies, donated several times in RMB
than Vanke. Under the immense social pressure, Vanke had to make a decision to
invest 100 million RMB to reconstruction of the disaster field on May 21, so as to make
up the damage to the corporate image (Beijing Wan Bao, 2008).
As the Vanke case demonstrates, there is typically simultaneous contrast in
consumers evaluations of a companys CSR activity. A significant negative gap
between a firms CSR effort/performance and other firms for reference (the firms CSR
effort is significantly less than other firms) would lead to the negative response of
consumers to the firm, and vice versa:

CSR and
consumers
response
279

BJM
4,3

280

P8a. A significant negative gap between a firms CSP and other firms with similar
CSR ability for reference might lead to the negative response of consumers to
the firm.
P8b. A significant positive gap between a firms CSP and other firms with similar
CSR ability for reference might lead to the positive response of consumers to
the firm.
Conclusion and discussion
This paper reviews the previous research on the relationship between CSR and
consumers response. Although many researchers report there is a positive association
between CSR/CSP and consumers response to the company and its product, there are
some recent examples which indicate that a CSR campaign can actually hurt the
company (Yoon, 2003).
The point is that socially responsible corporate behavior may mean different things
in different places to different people and at different times, so we must be careful in
how we use the concept and how we define it (Campbell, 2007). Therefore, Webb (1999)
concludes that understanding how the different elements in the structure of the CSR
affects consumer processing and response is important for practitioners and
policymakers.
Consumers evaluate a firms CSR/CSP and thus make response to the firm and its
products based on a complex psychological process in which attribution and contrast
effect might take an important place. A positive attribution towards a CSR will lead to
the positive evaluation and response of consumers (Barone et al., 2000; Mohr and
Webb, 2005). Four aspects of a CSR activity, namely type of issue/cause, form of CSR,
timing of CSR, and commitment of CSR, associate with consumers attribution. Besides,
consumers make attribution about a firms CSR activity not only based on the nature of
the CSR activity, but also based on the contrast effect between the firms CSP and other
objectives for reference, such as the firms CSR ability, its past CSP, its negative social
impact of operation and other firms CSR activity. Furthermore, such contrast effect
influences consumers evaluation on and response to the firm and its product, even a
self-interested attribution is not made. In other words, even consumers who believe in
the altruistic motivation of a firms CSR activity, will not respond positively or even
negatively to the firm if there exists a significant negative gap between the firms CSR
effort and consumers expectation of it.
Although the theoretical framework is still to be tested, both theoretical and
practical implications are suggested by this paper. From a theoretical viewpoint, the
backfire effect of CSR activity may imply that a negative relationship between
CSR/CSP and CFP indeed exists. Present CSR/CSP-CFP relation studies have covered
up the backfire effect of CSR activity because most of them measure a firms CSR/CSP
in a whole rather than in individual. Therefore, further CSR/CSP-CFP relation studies
should consider the CSR activity both in a whole and in an individual. From a practical
viewpoint, the existence of the backfire effect of CSR requires business executives to
conduct CSR activity more strategically and carefully. In adopting a CSR practice,
business executives should consider the type of cause/issue, the form of CSR, the
timing and strength of CSR activity, the contrasting firms CSR, and the like
simultaneously.

Further research should aim at identifying other possible factors that contribute to
the backfire effect of a CSR activity and test the theoretical framework proposed in this
paper.
References
Adkins, S. (1999), Cause-Related Marketing: Who Cares Wins, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Allouche, J. and Laroche, P. (2005), A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between
corporate social and financial performance, Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 8-41.
Alpert, F.N. and Kamins, M.A. (1995), An empirical investigation on consumer memory and
perception toward pioneer and followers bands, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 34-45.
Bansal, P. (2005), Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development, Strategic Management Journal, No. 26, pp. 197-218.
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, No. 17, pp. 99-120.
Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K.A. (2000), The influence of cause-related marketing
on consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another?, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, No. 28, pp. 248-62.
Beatty, R. and Ritter, J. (1986), Investment banking, reputation and underpricing of initial public
offerings, Journal of Financial Economics, No. 15, pp. 213-32.
Beckmann, S.C., Christensen, A.S. and Christensen, A.G. (2001), Myths of nature and
environmentally responsible behaviours: an exploratory study, Proceedings of the 30th
European Marketing Academy Conference, Bergen.
Beh, H. (1994), Going green is not optional, Asian Business, Vol. 30 No. 9, p. 70.
Beijing Wan Bao (2008), Brand capital shrank 1.2 billion Yuan because of 10 Yuan accident,
Beijing Wan Bao, pp. 4-6.
Berens, G., Riel, C.B.M. and Bruggen, G.H. (2005), Corporate associations and consumer product
responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance, Journal of Marketing,
No. 69, pp. 35-48.
Beurden, P. and Gossling, T. (2008), The worth of values a literature review on the relation
between corporate social and financial performance, Journal of Business Ethics, No. 82,
pp. 407-24.
Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M. (2000), Do consumers really care about corporate
responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behavior gap, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-68.
Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2004), The development of corporate charitable contributions
in the UK: a stakeholder analysis, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8,
pp. 1411-34.
Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005), Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical
analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2004), Building a good reputation, European Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 704-13.
Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2005), Corporate reputation and an insurance motivation for
corporate social investment, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, No. 20, pp. 39-51.

CSR and
consumers
response
281

BJM
4,3

282

Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), The company and the product: corporate associations and
consumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, No. 61, pp. 68-84.
Buchholtz, A.K., Amason, A.C. and Rutherford, M.A. (1999), Beyond resources: the mediating
effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy, Business and
Society, No. 38, pp. 168-87.
Buysse, K. and Verbeke, A. (2003), Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder
management perspective, Strategic Management Journal, No. 24, pp. 453-70.
Campbell, J.L. (2007), Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?
An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 946-67.
Carpenter, G.S. and Nakamoto, K. (1989), Consumer preference formation and pioneering
advantage, Journal of Marketing Research, No. 26, pp. 285-98.
Caulkin, S. (2002), Good thinking, bad practice, The Observer, April 7, p. 11.
Cavill & Co. (2001), Heart and sold: Australian consumers speak from the heart on cause-related
marketing, available at: www.cavill.com.au/Australia/heart&sold.html
Chevreul, M.E. (1855), The Principles of Harmony and Contrast of Colours, and Their
Applications to the Arts, 2nd ed., Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London.
Colvin, G. (2001), Should companies care?, Fortune, Vol. 143 No. 12, p. 60.
Cone/Roper Reports (1999), A Benchmark Survey of Consumer Awareness and Attitudes
Towards Cause-related Marketing, Cone Communications, Boston, MA.
Cramer, J., Jonker, J. and Heijden, A. (2004), Making sense of corporate social responsibility,
Journal of Business Ethics, No. 55, pp. 215-22.
Creyer, E. and Ross, W.T. (1996), The impact on corporate behavior on perceived product
value, Marketing Letters, No. 72, pp. 173-85.
Crowther, D. (2003), Corporate social reporting: genuine action or window dressing?,
in Crowther, D. and Rayman-Bacchus, L. (Eds), Perspectives on Corporate Social
Responsibility, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 140-60.
Cui, Y., Trent, E.S., Sullivan, P.M. and Matiru, G.N. (2003), Cause-related marketing: how
generation Y responds, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, No. 31,
pp. 310-20.
Dahl, D.W. and Lavack, A.M. (1995), Cause-related marketing: impact of size of corporate
donation and size of cause-related promotion on consumer perceptions and participation,
in Stewart, D.W. and Vilcassim, N.J. (Eds), Proceedings: 1995 AMA Winter Educators
Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, 6th ed., American Marketing Association
Winter, Chicago, IL, pp. 476-81.
Davidson, P.R. and Wolpert, D.M. (2004), Internal models underlying grasp can be additively
combined, Experimental Brain Research, No. 155, pp. 334-40.
Davidson, W.N., Worrell, D. and Cheng, L.T.W. (1994), The effectiveness of OSHA penalties:
a stock-market-based test, Industrial Relations, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 283-96.
Davis, K. (1967), Understanding the social responsibility puzzle, Business Horizons, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 45-51.
Dean, D.H. (2004), Consumer perception of corporate donations: effects of company reputation
for social responsibility and type of donation, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 91-102.
Denstadli, J.M., Lines, R. and Gronhaug, K. (2005), First mover advantages in the discount
grocery industry, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 872-84.

Dowling, G.R. (2004), Corporate reputations: should you compete on yours?, California
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 19-36.
Dranove, D. and Olsen, C. (1994), The economic side effects of dangerous drug announcements,
The Journal of Law and Economics, No. 37, pp. 323-48.
Drumwright, M.E. (1994), Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental buying as
a noneconomic buying criterion, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 1-19.
Drumwright, M.E. (1996), Company advertising with a social dimension: the role of
noneconomic criteria, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 71-87.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing buyer-seller relationships, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (1997), Can retailers benefit from cause marketing?
Consumer responses to different promotional offers, working paper, Georgia State
University, Atlanta, GA.
Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2000), Charitable programs and the retailer: do the mix?,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 393-406.
Fiske, C.A. (1997), Understanding the effects of cause-related advertising on consumer
attitudes, PhD dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Folkes, V.S. (1984), Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional approach, Journal of
Consumer Research, No. 10, pp. 398-409.
Fombrun, C.J. and Gardberg, N.A. (2000), Opportunity platforms and safety nets:
corporate citizenship and reputational risks, Business and Society Review, Vol. 105
No. 1, pp. 85-106.
Fombrun, C.J. and Riel, C.B.M. (2004), Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build
Winning Reputations, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990), Whats in a name: reputation building and corporate
strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 213-32.
Frooman, J. (1997), Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth:
a meta-analysis of event studies, Business & Society, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 221-49.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1997), An urban grants economy revisited: corporate charitable contributions
in the twin cities, 1979-81, 1987-89, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 445-71.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), The effect of store name, brand name
and price discounts on consumers evaluations and purchase intentions, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-52.
Griffin, J.J. (2000), Corporate social performance: research directions for the 21st century,
Business and Society, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 479-91.
Griffin, J.J. and Mahon, J.F. (1997), The corporate social performance and corporate financial
performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research, Business and Society,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Hammond, S.A. and Slocum, J.W. (1996), The impact of prior firm financial performance on
subsequent corporate reputation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 159-65.
Holmes, J.H. and Kilbane, C.J. (1993), Cause related marketing: selected effects of price and
charitable donations, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 67-83.

CSR and
consumers
response
283

BJM
4,3

284

Idowu, S.O. and Towler, B.A. (2004), A comparative study of the contents of corporate social
responsibility reports of UK companies, Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 420-37.
Johansson, R.S. and Westling, G. (1988), Coordinated isometric muscle commands adequately
and erroneously programmed for the weight during lifting task with precision grip,
Experimental Brain Research, No. 71, pp. 59-71.
Kardes, F.R. and Kalyanaram, G. (1992), Order-of-entry effects on consumer memory and
judgment: an information integration perspective, Journal of Marketing Research, No. 29,
pp. 343-57.
Kelly, H.H. (1973), The process of causal attribution, American Psychologist, No. 28,
pp. 107-28.
Kelly, H.H. and Michela, J.L. (1980), Attribution theory and research, Annual Review of
Psychology, No. 31, pp. 457-501.
Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & Co. (1999), SOCRATES: The Corporate Social Ratings Monitor,
Kinder, Lydenberg, & Domini Co., Cambridge, MA.
Lachowetz, T., Clark, J., Irwin, R. and Cornwell, T.B. (2002), Cause-related sponsorship: a survey
of consumer/spectator beliefs, attitudes, behavioral intentions, and corporate image
impressions, in Kehoe, W.J. and Lindgren, J.H. Jr (Eds), American Marketing Association
Educators Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Markets, Vol. 13, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 14-20.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), The effects of corporate social
responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits, Journal of
Marketing, No. 68, pp. 16-32.
Lieberman, M.B. and Montgomery, D.B. (1988), First mover advantages, Strategic
Management Journal, No. 9, pp. 41-58.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-27.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. and Wright, P.M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility:
strategic implications, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Maron, I.Y. (2006), Toward a unified theory of the CSP-CFP Link, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 191-200.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), The case for corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 3-16.
Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2005), The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on
consumer responses, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-47.
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001), Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior, Journal of
Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
MORIs survey (2002), Have Your Say Serco Employee Survey 2002, Market and Opinion
Research Institute, London, November.
Mullen, J. (1997), Performance-based corporate philanthropy: how giving smart can further
corporate goals, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 42-7.
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 firm: financial versus nonfinancial
impacts, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 141-59.
Navarro, P. (1988), Why do corporations give to charities?, Journal of Business, No. 61, pp. 65-93.

Nichols, D. (1990), Promoting the cause, Incentive, Vol. 164 No. 8, pp. 28-31.
Olsen, G.D., Pracejus, J.W. and Brown, N.R. (2003), When profit equals price: consumer
confusion about donation amounts in cause-related marketing, Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 170-81.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance:
a meta-analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-41.
Osterhus, T.L. (1997), Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when and how do they work?,
Journal of Marketing, No. 61, pp. 16-29.
Patterson, W.C. (1993), First-mover advantage: the opportunity curve, Journal of Management
Studies, No. 30, pp. 759-77.
Pirsch, J., Gupta, S. and Grau, S.L. (2007), A framework for understanding corporate social
responsibility programs as a continuum: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 125-51.
Pracejus, J.W., Olsen, G.D. and Brown, N.R. (2003/2004), On the prevalence and impact of vague
quantifiers in the advertising of cause-related marketing (CRM), Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 19-28.
Rindova, V.P., Williamson, I.O., Petkova, A.P. and Server, J.M. (2005), Being good or being
known: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents and consequences of
organisational reputation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1033-49.
Robert, P.W. and Dowling, G.R. (2002), Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial
performance, Strategic Management Journal, No. 23, pp. 1077-93.
Robinson, W.T. (1988), Marketing mix reaction to entry, Marketing Science, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 368-85.
Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S. and Agle, R.B. (1999), The relation between social and financial
performance: repainting a portrait, Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 109-25.
Ross, J.K., Stutts, M.A. and Patterson, L.T. (1990-1991), Tactical considerations for the effective
use of cause-related marketing, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 58-65.
Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (1998), Corporate strategies and environmental regulations:
an organizing framework, Strategic Management Journal, No. 19, pp. 363-75.
Sarbutts, N. (2003), Can SMEs do CSR? A practitioners view of the ways small and medium
sized enterprises are able to mange reputation through corporate social responsibility,
Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 340-7.
Schiff, A.D. and Bento, R.F. (2000), The use of financial and non-financial information for
evaluating performance: an attributional perspective, Journal of Applied Business
Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 47-62.
Schifferstein, H.N. and Oudejans, I.M. (1996), Determinants of cumulative successive contrasts
in saltiness intensity judgments, Percept Psychophys, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 713-24.
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, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 225-44.
Skitka, L.J. (1999), Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: reactions to
individuals and communities affected by a natural disaster, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 792-808.
Smith, C. (1994), The new corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, No. 72, pp. 105-16.

CSR and
consumers
response
285

BJM
4,3

286

Smith, S.M. and Alcorn, D.S. (1991), Cause marketing: a new direction in the marketing of
corporate social responsibility, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 19-35.
Spence, A.M. (1974), Market Signalling, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Stevens, J.M., Steensma, H.K., Harrison, D.A. and Cochran, P.L. (2005), Symbolic or substantive
document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives decisions, Strategic
Management Journal, No. 26, pp. 181-95.
Strahilevitz, M. (1999), The effect of product type and donation magnitude on willingness to
pay more for a charity-linked brand, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 215-41.
Swanson, D.L. (1995), Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social
performance model, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 43-64.
Turban, D.B. and Cable, D.M. (2003), Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 24, pp. 733-51.
Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997), Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 658-72.
Varadarajan, R.P. and Menon, A. (1988), Cause-related marketing: a coalignment of marketing
strategy and corporate philanthropy, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 58-74.
Vitell, S.J. (2003), Consumer ethics research: review, synthesis and suggestions for the future,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 33-47.
Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997), The corporate social performance-financial performance
link, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 303-19.
Webb, D.J. (1999), Consumer attributions regarding cause-related marketing offers and their
impact on evaluations of the firm and purchase intent: an experimental examination, PhD
dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), A typology of consumer responses to cause-related
marketing: from skeptics to socially concerned, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 226-38.
Wikipedia (2009), The Free Encyclopedia, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_
effect, 2009.1.18
Williams, R.J. and Barrett, J.D. (2000), Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity and firm
reputation: is there a link?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 341-50.
Wood, D.J. (1991), Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.
Wood, D.J. and Jones, R.E. (1995), Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical
research on corporate social performance, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 250-79.
(The) World Economic Forum in Partnership with Deloitte Touche Tomahatsu (1999), Innovative
Leaders in Globalization, Deloitte Consulting, New York, NY.
Wright, P. and Ferris, S. (1997), Agency conflict and corporate strategy: the effect of divestment
on corporate value, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-83.
Wu, M. (2006), Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size:
a meta-analysis, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 163-71.
Wu, R.C. and Wardman, R.H. (2007), Lightness and hue contrast effects in surface (fabric)
colours, Color Research and Application, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 55-64.

Yoon, Y. (2003), Negative consequences of doing good: the effects of inferred motives underlying
corporate social responsibility (CSR), PhD dissertation, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Further reading
Sherif, M., Taub, D. and Hovland, C.I. (1958), Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring
stimuli on judgements, Journal of Experimental Psychology, No. 55, pp. 150-5.
Corresponding author
Yongqiang Gao can be contacted at: yqgao@mail.hust.edu.cn

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

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

CSR and
consumers
response
287