Show
Show
Show
Universiteit Maastricht
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Master Thesis
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
3. RESEARCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................33
3.1 The Research Setting .................................................................................................33
3.2 The Experiment ..........................................................................................................34
3.3 The Questionnaire ......................................................................................................35
3.4 The Measures.............................................................................................................37
3.4.1 Measuring Loyalty and Underlying Constructs......................................................37
3.4.1.1 Measuring Purchase Intention........................................................................38
3.4.1.2 Measuring Word of Mouth..............................................................................38
3.4.1.3 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty .........................................................................39
3.4.1.4 Measuring Propensity to be Loyal ..................................................................39
3.4.2 Controlling Extraneous Variables..........................................................................40
3.4.2.1 Measuring Personal Support of the Good Cause ...........................................40
3.4.2.2 Measuring Perceived Sincerity.......................................................................41
3.4.2.3 Measuring Perceived Fit between Company and Good Cause ......................41
3.4.2.4 Controlling Product Quality and Price.............................................................41
3.4.2.5 Controlling Consumer-Company Identification ...............................................42
3.4.2.6 Controlling Perceived Personal Affect ............................................................42
3.4.3 Demographics ......................................................................................................45
3.5 Conducting the Research............................................................................................45
3.6 The Sample ................................................................................................................46
3.7 Data Preparation.........................................................................................................47
3.8 Reliability and Validity of the Scales............................................................................48
5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................62
5.1 Theoretical Implications ..............................................................................................63
5.2 Practical Implications ..................................................................................................64
5.3 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................65
6. REFERENCE LIST...........................................................................................................69
7. APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................78
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
The safety of children as well as the continuous trust of their parents are the two most
important principles a toy company strives for. However, in the case of the world’s largest toy
company, Mattel, customers’ confidence was severely shaken when in 2007 Mattel
announced that a range of its toys are posing a serious health hazard to children. It turned
out that Mattel first of all made severe construction and design mistakes and second did
knowingly not control the safety and quality standards of their Chinese production partners.
The produced toys included hazardous paint and little magnets that could easily be
swallowed by small children (www.focus.de). Thousands of these dangerous toys were
brought to market because Mattel missed to react to the grievances on time. When the
severe shortcomings on quality became public, Mattel was forced to start several callbacks,
in particular of large parts of the Fisher-Price series and Barbie dolls. In total, more than 20
million Mattel products were retrieved from the market. Not only did the trust parents had in
Mattel deteriorate dramatically with disastrous consequences for Mattel’s image, but also did
Mattel incur heavy losses. The Barbie brand alone noted a loss of $46.6 million in the first
quarter of 2008 due to stagnating revenues and the drastic additional costs of the recall
(www.focus.de).
The recent example of Mattel shows impressively how irresponsible behavior can harm a
company’s success. Mattel has not been the first company suffering from tremendous
damages to the corporate image. Already in the 1990s, for example, the famous case of
Nike’s sweatshops drew the attention of the public towards socially irresponsible company
politics. In 1997, an audit by Ernst & Young assigned by Nike Inc. leaked to the public. It
revealed that Nike let produce its footwear and apparel in Asian factories where workers
were exploited or had to work under unacceptable conditions (Hammond, 1997). Nike’s
unethical behavior led to severe negative repercussions for the firm. Especially as not only
social activists heavily criticized Nike’s immoral behavior publicly, exerting “intense pressure
(...) on the athletic giant [and] forcing it to take a long hard look at corporate responsibility”
(Zadek, 2004, p.125). More strikingly, there was an immense public outcry in western
societies in general and among Nike’s customers in particular. Still today, social activists
report about Nike’s (in)actions concerning their production policies (www.info-center.tv) and
call consumers to boycott Nike for its unethical behavior (www.stopnikesweatshops.org).
Both examples show that a company is never an isolated institution for itself but is part of the
environment it operates in. In fact, a company is always an active and influential part of
society and should therefore act responsibly – for the sake of its stakeholders and not at
1
INTRODUCTION
least for its own benefits. This perception is called corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
is nowadays a much-discussed topic in business contexts. The European Commission
defines CSR as "a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns
in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary
basis" (http://ec.europa.eu). CSR is supposed to bring benefits to various stakeholder
groups. As a consequence, stakeholders might establish a positive behavior towards the
firm, which in turn can result in benefits for the firm again. As Creyer and Ross (1997) proved
this certainly holds for one of the most important stakeholder groups, namely customers:
customers expect a company to be socially responsible and – most crucial – are willing to
reward ethical behavior.
Indeed, a steadily growing group of consumers has been starting to look for socially
responsible companies from which to buy sustainable products. These consumers are said
to be sophisticated and environmentally and socially conscious (Forster, 2007). The new
type of consumer poses a growing target group as already the Cone Corporate Citizen Study
showed: In 2004, 80% of the U.S. citizens stated that corporate support of causes wins their
trust – a 21% increase compared to 1997 (www.coneinc.com). Furthermore, a recent study
by Alloy Media+Marketing (2006) confirms the emerging trend towards social consciousness
among customers as it revealed that 24% of the U.S. college students bought a product in
the antecedent year because they considered the brand as socially aware (Seckler, 2006). In
2007, a LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) study investigated consumer habits
and attitudes in the U.S. and 8 countries of the EU (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France,
Spain, Portugal, Great Britain and Italy). It revealed that 14.5% of the population (49 million
people) of the European countries and 13% of the U.S. American population (40 million
people) are LOHAS supporters (www.fundh.de). The percentage of consumers that live
according to the so-called ‘lifestyle of health and sustainability’ are estimated to grow to 15%
in Germany and 30% in the USA in 2008 (Forster, 2007). Hence, in two of the world’s biggest
consumer markets, the U.S. and Europe, a significant percentage of customers is apparently
thinking in new ways towards more sustainability of companies and products. This evolution
has grave implications for the business strategies of global companies.
Due to the changing consumers alone, CSR is certainly an issue of importance in every
industry. However, in some industries the need to adopt a CSR-strategy is even more
apparent than in others. For one reason, some industries are naturally involved with sensitive
issues just based on the business they are in. For instance, the oil industry obviously has a
special responsibility towards the environment whereas the tobacco industry has a special
responsibility towards society and especially the youth. Other industries, however, just gain a
2
INTRODUCTION
high level of public attention through the media and are very much in the awareness of
consumers. This has certainly been the case for the fashion industry through Nike’s case in
the 1990s. As a result, consumers today know that due to globalization and the consequent
need to cut costs most fashion companies worldwide have outsourced their production to
development countries. And that this often happens under questionable conditions – child
labor, dumping wages and inhuman working conditions are just some examples of social
irresponsibility in the apparel production. Above that, the methods of the manufacturing and
supply of raw materials are also issues often criticized. The main factors are (unfair) trade
conditions with cotton farmers (Kleinewiese, 2007) and the treatment of cotton with
pesticides that are harmful to the environment (www.icac.org). Many fashion companies
today are aware of the special situation of their industry that is involved with many issues that
require the development of CSR policies. Furthermore, the companies have acknowledged
the urgent need to adapt strategies according to the demands of the changing consumers.
The opinion of a consumer is of great significance for a fashion company as a consumer only
buys, wears and recommends a branded apparel if his attitude towards the company is
positive. There are numerous examples of fashion companies that successfully communicate
their commitment. American Apparel, for instance, suggests already with its slogan “Made in
Downtown L.A.” its social contribution: They produce apparel in their home country where
they pay their factory workers above industry-average and offer their employees additional
benefits like private health insurance (Hendley, 2002). After a sweatshop scandal in the
1990s, Levi Strauss & Co. has started cooperating with unions and activists in order to
improve working conditions in its factories (Colwell, 2002). Since then, Levi Strauss & Co.
has engaged in community support, environmental friendly apparel production (partly with
organic cotton) and many more social issues, like the Red Tab Foundation
(www.levistrauss.com). Levi Strauss & Co. is obviously aware of the fact that consumers pay
attention to the company’s social engagement and that social activists closely monitor the
company’s activities. Consequently, the company tries to communicate that it takes its role
as a corporate citizen very seriously.
Clearly, those companies do not aim to become ideal corporate citizens merely out of
altruism but also in order to receive benefits in return. CSR can be a competitive advantage
as it influences customers and their behavior in a positive way, which leads to beneficial
outcomes for the company in the end. In the fashion industry, three facets of customer
behavior are of particular relevance and hence a desired outcome of CSR activities. What
these behaviors are and why CSR is an efficient tool for a fashion company to enhance
these behaviors is described below.
3
INTRODUCTION
Loyalty
The fashion industry is competitive and fast-moving. Hence, in order to survive and prosper,
it is crucial for a company to build a stable customer base that stays loyal in a fast-changing
environment. Loyalty is not just a matter of repeated purchases but also of a personally held
belief about a brand or product (Oliver, 1999). Especially in fashion it is crucial that
customers trust and believe in a brand and the company behind it as consumers publicly
show their support for a brand when wearing branded apparel. They would not wear a brand
if they would not feel loyal or at least positive towards it. CSR is expected to enhance loyalty
(Pirsch et al. 2007). However, it has to be considered that „loyalty is an outcome of the
consumer-company identification concept” (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004, p.19) which is in
turn influenced by the personal support of the CSR issue. Thus, proposedly, only the CSR
initiatives that fit the target group find customers’ personal support and can trigger consumer-
company identification and thus leverage loyal behavior.
Purchase Intention
For a fashion company, as for any other company, the purchase intentions of customers are
of utmost importance for two reasons. First of all, they potentially create sales and profits and
are a precursor of behavioral loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) that enhances cash
flows and secures long term survival (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Second, purchase
intentions are also an indication of positive experiences the customer has made and thus a
signal for a company that customers perceive their products as favorable (Gupta and
Zeithaml, 2005). In order to positively influence their customers’ purchase behavior, a fashion
company can use CSR as an efficient tool. CSR can leverage purchase behavior (Creyer
and Ross, 1997), especially when the customer personally supports the CSR issue
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001) and perceives the CSR activity as
sincere (Bronn and Vrioni, 2001; Yoon et al., 2006) and the fit between the good cause and
the company as high (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).
Word of Mouth
“One of the key behavioral outcomes of positive CSR activities is consumers’ willingness to
talk positively about the socially responsible company” (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004, p.20).
For a fashion company word of mouth (WOM) is indeed especially important. This is due to
the fact that by choosing an apparel brand consumers often rely on what their peers buy or
recommend to them. Especially young people consider it important which brands their friends
wear or consider as ‘cool’ (Grant and Stephen, 2005). Eventually, WOM can improve the
image of a brand and thus also leverage purchase intentions. It is advisable for a fashion
company to employ CSR as an efficient tool in promoting a brand as CSR positively
4
INTRODUCTION
influences word of mouth. However, it is proposed that certain types of CSR might enhance
word of mouth more than others (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).
Also in theory, CSR has long been a relevant topic. The academic discussion on CSR can be
traced back into the 1950s where CSR as an overall construct was mainly relevant in
management literature (Carroll, 1999). Since the 1970s CSR’s impact on different
stakeholders has been studied. Research in this field started with examinations of CSR’s
influence on shareholders and employees (Gavin and Maynard, 1975) but gradually led to
research on the relationship between CSR and customers and hence became a relevant
topic for marketing scholars, too. The most significant studies in this field evolved in the late
1990s and focused on the relationships between CSR activities and different facets of
customer behavior. CSR was found to influence attitude (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006; Folkes
and Kamins, 1999), product and company evaluations (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001), purchase intention (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Boulstridge and
Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001), willingness to pay (Creyer and Ross, 1997),
loyalty (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Pirsch et al., 2007) and word of mouth (Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2004). During these studies the need emerged to learn more about which CSR
strategies have an impact on customers. Authors found that it does matter what kind of CSR
activity a company chooses and that not all CSR activities influence customer behavior in the
same way or to the same amount: Already in 1997, Creyer and Ross said that further
insights are needed under which circumstances customers care about ethics the most. Later,
Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) concluded that “managers may want to research a variety of
CSR initiatives and select those that enjoy the highest and most widespread support among
the company’s key consumer segments” (p.238). Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000) claim that
only a CSR activity that impacts personally upon the consumer would influence purchasing
behavior. They suggest that “further research on this subject may produce some useful
insights and provide guidance to business on how to best plan corporate behavior for most
impact on consumers” (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000, p.365). Similarly, Carrigan and
Attalla (2001) found low interest of consumers in social issues and no influence on purchase
behavior. However, when exploring the reasons for this the authors found that respondents
cared only about certain kinds of social issues. Some issues “did matter to them enough to
affect purchase behavior. Respondents stated they would be willing to pay a premium price
and actively search for a socially responsible produced product” (p.569). This is obviously
contradictive to what was said before by the respondents and calls for closer investigation.
Further the authors find that “young consumers seem to find animals more sympathetic than
people, while other consumer groups may champion different issues. This is something else
5
INTRODUCTION
that future research should investigate as it has important implications for the ethical profile
of any company and its products” (p.571).
In conclusion, CSR does have a positive impact on customer behavior, however this impact
is not consistently proven across different studies. Researchers assume the reason for this to
lie in the CSR activity itself. In general, CSR activities are an under-researched topic. Thus
far, just one attempt was made to classify CSR activities for subsequent analysis (Pirsch et
al., 2007). However, a classification of CSR activities is indispensable when wanting to
explore their effects and most importantly their differences. Apparently, there is a gap in
literature when it comes to the question which types of CSR activities exist and which of
them are most influential on customer behavior and hence bring the most benefit to a
company. An answer to this question would not only contribute to academic research but
also facilitate efficient decision making for managers. The study at hand intends to examine
different types of CSR activities in relationship with three of the most crucial behavioral
outcomes, i.e. loyalty, purchase intentions and word of mouth, in the context of the retail
industry. Characteristic for the retail industry is a close customer contact. Thus, a direct
influence on customer behavior is desirable and – given the right strategies – possible. CSR
can be one of these strategies to positively impact customers. Thus, CSR is especially for
the retail industry an important issue. Consequently, in summary this study proposes the
following as the central problem statement:
“How do different types of CSR activities impact customer loyalty, purchase intentions and
word of mouth in the retail industry?”
In order to solve this question, first of all a valid classification of CSR activities is needed.
The study develops a new taxonomy of CSR activities based on two dimensions that each
have two levels: direct vs. indirect customer involvement and external vs. internal company
engagement. Accordingly, four different types evolve: Good Deed For Sale (Type 1), Good
Produces Good (Type 2), Distant Benefactor (Type 3) and Sustainable On The Inside (Type
4). The taxonomy is easy to implement and hence useful in practice but also in theory since it
might deliver a commonly understood basis for further research. It will be the core of this
research to find out if CSR indeed affects word of mouth, purchase intention and loyalty
positively, and if all four types of CSR activities lead to the desired behavioral outcomes or if
there are differences in their effectiveness. It is also explored which type has the most impact
on which element of customer behavior. For example, a certain type might be most suitable
to enhance word of mouth, while in order to leverage purchase intention another type is most
appropriate. In order to test for differences, an experiment with four scenarios is developed.
6
INTRODUCTION
Each scenario represents one type of CSR activity. Respondents are randomly assigned to
one scenario. Finally, one-way ANCOVA is used to analyze the differences between the
types (i.e. scenarios) on the behavioral outcomes. Additionally, it is tested which types of
CSR activity appeal to which customer segments within the retail industry (i.e. demographic
groups across age, gender, education and income). Maybe some customers only react to
direct CSR activities that affect them personally (like for example clothing made of organic
cotton which guarantees that they are wearing chemical-free fabric on their skin), whereas
other customers might tend to react more strongly to company-internal CSR activities (like
extraordinary positive treatment of employees) because they render them a higher credibility.
As mentioned before, the field of CSR in customer behavior research is still relatively young
and many of the first studies are based on exploratory research. Often studies produce
opposing results. However, CSR is becoming a crucial topic in practice: First of all, because
consumers more and more expect companies to engage in CSR (Creyer and Ross, 1997;
Foster, 2007) and second because managers increasingly see the potential of CSR as a
competitive advantage (Pohle, 2008). Thus, it is essential to know how CSR operates.
Consequently, marketing theory has the task, if not the responsibility, to fully investigate
CSR’s effects on customer behavior and how it can be successfully implemented as a
marketing tool. This is where this study is positioned: It intends to clarify how CSR influences
customer behavior. Marketing researchers asked for the identification of CSR activities that
are most effective for companies when using CSR to positively influence customer behavior
(Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). The study at hand attempts to
close this gap in marketing literature and to increase the understanding of CSR activities as
an important marketing tool.
CSR does not only have relevance for marketing theorists but also for marketing
practitioners. Often a company is engaged in supporting several good causes and hence
mostly also in performing different types of CSR activities. When promoting a certain cause
though, managers face the challenge to decide what kind of CSR activity to integrate into
marketing strategy. A good cause can be supported in different ways, for example the
customer can be involved directly or indirectly, the engagement of the company can be
internal or external to the organization. In order to use CSR as a successful marketing tool
when communicating with its customers, a company has to know which CSR activity is most
effective in influencing customer behavior. When it comes to CSR activities directed at
customers it is certain that “one size does not fit all” (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004, p.10).
Different customers are responsive to different types of CSR activities. Therefore, this study
develops a taxonomy classifying all possible CSR activities into four different types and tests
7
INTRODUCTION
the effectiveness of the four different types on customer behavior in general and on certain
customer groups in particular (e.g. customer segments based on age and gender). The
results of the study help managers decide which CSR activity to implement and to
consequently communicate to their environment. This decision might also depend on the
characteristics of the customer base a company has. It is important for managers to ensure
that a CSR activity has the desired impact on customers otherwise they risk that resources
are being wasted. Besides, a successful CSR strategy leads to actual payback for the
company. When a company engages in CSR it does this also for its own benefit as the role
of a benefactor alone is simply not the function of a business. However, as an outcome of the
company’s engagement, three parties are positively affected (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004),
which equals a win-win situation: First of all, the good cause receives financial support and
public attention. Second, the customers’ sense of well-being is enhanced and often
customers directly benefit from CSR based products (e.g. organic food, clothes of organic
cotton etc.). Third, CSR positively effects customer behavior by increasing loyalty and word
of mouth engagement and enhancing purchase behavior. This is in turn beneficial for the
focal company. Eventually, the overall beneficiary is society.
The remainder of this thesis consists of four further chapters. First, a literature review gives a
detailed overview of CSR as a relevant topic in a business context. The historical
development and CSR’s diverse definitions are examined. A particular focus lies on the
meaning of CSR in marketing. Thereby the most crucial research of CSR in relation to
customer behavior is reviewed. Customer responses to CSR and influencing factors on
CSR’s effects are introduced and the role of CSR initiatives in this context is discussed.
Especially for the study at hand, a taxonomy of CSR activities is developed that is
considered to build the basis to solve the research problem. Subsequently, according
hypotheses are derived. The subsequent chapter illustrates the research design. A
questionnaire for an online survey has been developed to collect the required data. The
measures employed, the execution of the research and the profile of the actual sample are
specified. Next, the hypotheses are tested through according statistical tests whose results
are introduced and explained in a separate chapter. Finally, the conclusion summarizes
relevant implications of the results in a theoretical and managerial context and gives direction
for future research on CSR activities.
8
LITERATURE REVIEW
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
With CSR activities a company can support a broad range of good causes in different fields
of social and environmental issues. However, CSR activities do not simply differ in the good
cause they support. In fact, it is proposed that the most significant factor that differentiates
CSR activities from each other is the way in which a company engages in CSR. This is
assumed to be deciding in how much effect CSR has on customers and their behavior. It is
the aim of the study to extend existing marketing literature by examining how different types
of CSR activities (i.e. ‘Good Deed For Sale’, ‘Good Produces Good’, ‘Distant Benefactor’ and
‘Sustainable On The Inside’) impact customer behavior (i.e. purchase intention, loyalty and
word of mouth). The objective of this chapter is first to reveal a detailed understanding of
CSR (2.1) and to introduce CSR’s role in a marketing context (2.2) with a focus on CSR’s
effects on customer responses. Based on this, CSR initiatives (2.3) and the related gap in
research are described. Finally, CSR activities are classified into four new types whose
potential effects on customer behavior are discussed (2.4).
9
LITERATURE REVIEW
responsibilities a firm acknowledges that extend beyond legal and economic obligations.
Examples would be engaging in politics, welfare of community, education, or employee well-
being (Davis, 1967). Exerting social responsibility was seen as voluntary activities that create
cost to the firm but not necessarily economic returns (Walton, 1967). Thus, social
responsibility was not considered as a source for generating profit, but as a matter of
morality. Still, the main responsibility of a company stayed economic to that time; a company
was supposed to produce goods and services and sell them at a profit (Carroll, 1999). This
perception is rooted in Milton Friedman’s stockholder theory. He claims that CSR does not
go beyond the obligation towards stockholders, hence that “there is one and only one social
responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase
its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” (whereby ”rules of the game”
means obeying the law) (Friedman, 1982, p.133). Parallel to Friedman’s stockholder theory a
contrary view on social responsibility was developed by some academics. Already Johnson
(1971) said that a firm is responsible to ‘society’ and that the entities incorporated in this
‘society’ are “employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities and the nation” (p.50). This
can be seen as a first approach to the stakeholder theory that was formulated and advanced
by Freeman in the 1980s. Freeman described the firm as being responsible for its own well-
being and that of its stakeholders, whereby stakeholders are “entities and interests that are
involved, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in the operations of the firm” (Post et al., 2002,
p.6). (In contrary to Johnson’s entities of society, Freeman’s stakeholders also include
customers.) A firm should coordinate the interests of different stakeholders and be guided by
them rather than by its own economic interests (Evan and Freeman, 1988).
A remarkable statement by Johnson (1971) on CSR was that it could serve as a mean to
create long-term profit for a corporation. It was the first time CSR was considered as being a
potential benefit to a company itself. This thought was pushed further later on: In the 1980s
more and more researchers examined the implications of CSR in practice and CSR’s
meaning for a company and its performance. To that time the consensus on the meaning of
CSR was a strong emphasis on the voluntary character and the obligation towards a broad
range of stakeholders (employees, suppliers, customers, communities) – in congruence with
Freeman’s stakeholder theory. Moreover, the “core concepts of CSR began to be recast into
alternative concepts, theories, modules or themes” (Carroll, 1999, p.284) like corporate
social responsiveness, corporate social performance, public policy, business ethics, or
stakeholder management. Epstein (1987) argues that these concepts are all linked and even
overlap and are so closely related that they present the same principles. During these
discussions, eventually the question arose if a firm can be socially responsible and at the
same time profitable. It was indeed argued that social problems could be turned into
10
LITERATURE REVIEW
economic opportunities (Carroll, 1999). First of all, this depends on how CSR is perceived. It
can either be seen as an ethical stance or as a business strategy (Wan-Jan, 2006). Both
perceptions incorporate the importance of shareholders and profitability. However, if CSR is
considered as an ethical stance, profit is desirable to be able to exercise social responsibility
at all – because if the business does not prosper it is not capable of contributing to society’s
well-being. Thus, CSR is the goal set that can only be achieved by a certain tool, namely
profit. On the other hand, when CSR is viewed as a strategy and integrated into overall
business strategy it works as a tool that helps reaching a certain goal, namely generating
incremental profit (Wan-Jan, 2006). Thus, CSR as a business strategy is by definition able to
translate into profits. Studies over the past decade confirmed that CSR has an impact on
company performance through positively impacting different stakeholders, mostly employees
and consumers. Bronn et al. (2001) confirm this by saying that “CSR requires investments
and yields measurable outcomes” (p.207) and that CSR can be leveraged to a competitive
advantage.
Also managers changed from seeing CSR as the fulfillment of an obligation to considering it
as a tool. According to manager George Pohle (IBM Global Business Service) and his
experience from practice, CSR can help generate (new) revenue streams, increase customer
loyalty and market share and support development of new products and services. 68% of the
executives interviewed in a study by the IBM Institute for Business Value in 2008 say that
they are using CSR activities to help generate revenue (www.ibm.com). CSR has become so
vital that it is a topic even in politics and economics. It has become understood that
companies have a responsibility – internally and externally. The European Commission
defines CSR as the following: "A concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis" (http://ec.europa.eu). From this definition it can be
retrieved that CSR should not be a separated concept but be integrated into business
strategy and into interactions with (internal and external) stakeholders. Again, there is an
emphasis on the fact that CSR is a voluntary engagement, thus reaching beyond legal and
economic constraints and embracing all stakeholders and their needs (http://ec.europa.eu).
11
LITERATURE REVIEW
do and does not merely create costs, but that CSR has the potential to create a competitive
advantage and generate additional revenue. As a consequence, the focus of recent research
studies has been mainly on performance outcomes of CSR and its impacts in context with
different stakeholders (Carroll, 1999). This section gives a short overview of literature on
CSR with a focus on marketing research. CSR can influence customer behavior, which has
positive consequences for the socially responsible company. The different behavioral
outcomes of CSR and the influences that moderate these outcomes are discussed and form
the foundation for the basic assumptions of this study.
12
LITERATURE REVIEW
could be negatively impacted if a company behaves unethically. Thus, it is the first step
towards the exploration of the various impacts of CSR, for example with image as the
transmitter of CSR influencing customers. The authors conclude the article with the question
“Is it possible for marketers to behave ethically in a competitive world and both survive and
prosper?” (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987, p.56) The answer is given in the 1990s by
numerous studies in the field of marketing. Even though some authors neglect that CSR has
an effect on customers and their behavior, the general bottom line of the different research
efforts is that CSR indeed enhances company performance by leveraging customer
satisfaction, loyalty and attitude, and eventually increasing sales. For instance, Creyer and
Ross (1997) were one of the first to find that ethical behavior is considered important during
purchase decisions. In general, customers do expect ethical corporate behavior. They are on
the one hand willing to reward ethical behavior by paying a price premium and are on the
other hand willing to punish unethical behavior by paying lower prices (Creyer and Ross,
1997). Consequently, positive CSR benefits the company since it can lead to higher
revenues while unethical behavior harms it as it might force the company to decrease prices.
However, the authors say that further insights are needed into under which circumstances
customers care about ethics the most.
2.2.1.1 Attitude
Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) examined the circumstances under which CSR initiatives
embedded in promotions positively influence consumer responses (beliefs, attitudes and
intentions). How a CSR-based promotion is perceived depends on three factors: consumers’
perception of the fit between the product and the promoted good cause, the perceived
corporate motive (profit-oriented vs. other-oriented) and the timing of the promotion
(proactive vs. reactive). The authors found that CSR-based promotions are only successful
when they are not perceived as the reaction to a negative incident in the past (like a natural
disaster or a corporate crisis etc.) and the motives of the company are not perceived as
being profit-oriented. Further, the perceived fit between the good cause and the promoted
product has to be high. Thus, CSR in promotions can – under certain circumstances –
enhance attitude. Also Folkes and Kamins (1999) were able to prove a link between CSR
13
LITERATURE REVIEW
and customer attitude. (Un)ethical behavior of companies influences the forming of customer
attitudes, and customer attitude influences the customer evaluation of the firm or product.
Folkes and Kamins (1999) examine how “consumers are influenced by information about
firms’ ethical behaviors and product attribute information when forming attitudes towards the
firm” (p.243). Product attribute information plays definitely a larger role in influencing attitudes
than information about ethical behavior. Information about ethical behavior has only an
amplifying effect. If a product is superior customer attitude is enhanced far more towards an
ethically behaving firm than towards an unethically behaving firm. Ethical behavior takes
influence on product evaluation and hence attitude even “when the action lacks a direct
impact on the customer (...), when the unethical action is legal (...), [and] when there is no
overt social pressure” (p.257). However, ethical behavior that is perceived to be rooted in
extrinsic motives is not as favorably for the customer as ethical behavior for intrinsic motives.
Also Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) confirm that customers value proactive social company
behavior more than defensive social behavior. When a product’s attributes are inferior
though, information about a firm’s ethical behavior hardly has an impact on product
evaluation. In general, “virtuous behavior is not a substitute for product quality, nor does
superior quality [totally] compensate for unethical behavior in influencing attitudes towards
the firm” (Folkes and Kamins, 1999, p.257). In a market where products cannot be
distinguished as their attributes are of equal quality, CSR can help to differentiate a product
from its competitors since CSR can create a superior customer attitude towards a particular
quality product and make it stand out from the mass (Folkes and Kamins, 1999).
14
LITERATURE REVIEW
with a company and generally supports the company’s CSR domain. Thereby “consumers’
company evaluations are more sensitive to negative CSR information than positive CSR
information” (p.238). This sensitivity depends mainly on customers’ support of a CSR
domain. Hence it is strongly recommended that “managers (...) research a variety of CSR
initiatives and select those that enjoy the highest and most widespread support among the
company’s key consumer segments” (p.238). Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) were among the
first to say that not all CSR initiatives have a successful effect and that it has to be
investigated which types of CSR initiatives deliver the desired output. Overall, marketers
need to “adopt a strategic perspective in making CSR decisions, aligning their CSR initiatives
with not only the company’s overall strategic thrust but also its competitive positioning and
the positions of key stakeholder groups on alternative CSR issues” (p.238).
15
LITERATURE REVIEW
social responsibility and whether ethical issues influenced their purchase decisions. In
general, the results indicated low awareness of consumers in social issues. A poor ethical
record of a company had no effect on purchase intentions, nor did CSR have an influence on
purchase decision. Above that, consumers were not willing to boycott products of unethically
behaving companies. However, when exploring the reasons for this the authors found that
respondents cared only about certain kinds of social issues. Some issues (e.g. dolphins
being killed) “did matter to them enough to affect purchase behavior” (p.569). Interestingly,
“young consumers seem to find animals more sympathetic than people, while other
consumer groups may champion different issues” (p.571). Respondents stated they would be
willing to pay a premium price and actively search for a socially responsible produced
product. This is obviously contradictive to what was said before by the respondents and calls
for closer investigation by future research. Carrigan and Attalla (2001) assume that only a
CSR-strategy that fits the firm’s target market encourages positive customer behavior. It is
important to “attract consumers wanting to make a difference in society through their
purchasing” (Bronn and Vrioni, 2001, p.208). Based on Carrigan and Attalla’s (2001) and
Boulstridge and Carrigan’s (2000) claim that it depends on the characteristics of a CSR
activity whether purchase behavior is influenced, this study assumes the following:
Assumption 1: Not all types of CSR initiatives impact purchase intentions.
2.2.1.4 Loyalty
Loyalty is “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service
consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set
purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause
switching behavior” (Oliver, 1999, p.34). As this definition shows, loyalty is not just a matter
of repeated purchase but also of a personally held belief about a brand or product.
Researchers distinguish between behavioral loyalty (consistent repurchase) and attitudinal
loyalty (a psychological commitment combined with positive beliefs, feelings and intentions
towards the product) (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Behavioral loyalty incorporates, for
instance, repeat-purchase frequency or relative volume of purchasing whereas attitudinal
loyalty includes such factors as repurchase intentions, intend to recommend to others,
likelihood of switching or likelihood of buying more (Gupta and Zeithaml, 2005). These two
loyalty dimensions can appear separately (i.e. someone can just have a loyal attitude or just
show a loyal behavior). True loyalty, however, incorporates both, consistent attitudes and
behaviors and is called ‘intentional loyalty’ (Day, 1969). The drivers of loyalty are manifold.
Oliver (1999) argues that loyalty is driven by a combination of perceived product superiority,
personal determinism and social bonding. Satisfaction can be a driver, too, however even
though all loyal customers are satisfied, satisfaction in turn does not always translate into
16
LITERATURE REVIEW
loyal behavior (Oliver, 1999). Depending on the loyalty dimensions, the drivers of course
differ. Behavioral loyalty, for instance, can also be driven by a certain dependency on the
product (e.g. lack of alternatives), whereas attitudinal loyalty is driven by a positive attitude
and commitment towards the brand or product (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Loyalty
induces beneficial outcomes for a company. Loyal customers express “preference for a
company over others, by continuing to purchase from it or by increasing business with it in
the future” (Zeithaml et al., 1996, p.34). Loyalty can also translate into engagement in word-
of-mouth communication (Reichheld, 2003). Thus, customer loyalty is indeed a worthwhile
objective, and CSR can be extremely helpful in achieving it (Pirsch et al., 2007). CSR
activities have a positive impact on customer attitude (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Folkes and
Kamins, 1999). A positive attitude, in turn, is a driver of loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001). Also Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) find a positive relationship between a company’s
CSR activities and customer loyalty towards this company. However, they see the reason for
this relationship in the fact that “such loyalty is an outcome of the consumer-company
identification concept” (p.19). In other words, customers buy from a company because they
identify with and are convinced of it based on their CSR engagement. A respondent said: “If
you keep supporting what your customers believe in they keep coming back” (Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2004, p.19). A key condition for the consumer-company identification is the
customer support of the social issue (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). Proposedly, only the
CSR initiatives that fit the target group find customers’ personal support and can trigger
consumer-company identification. Thus, this study makes the following assumption:
Assumption 2: Not all types of CSR initiatives impact loyalty.
17
LITERATURE REVIEW
(Carrigan and Attalla, 2001). Through WOM, however, the awareness of a company’s CSR
commitment among customers can be increased. WOM can help creating a basis on which
CSR’s impact can unfold. „In the face of decreasing product differentiation and heightened
competition, CSR initiatives are an innovative and less-imitable means of strengthening
customer relationships“ (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004, p.11) and thus companies should also
concentrate on relational outcomes of CSR like WOM. Thereby it is assumed that one driver
of WOM in this context is individual identification with an organization and that certain types
of CSR might enhance an individual’s identification with an organization more than others.
Consequently, this study makes the following assumption:
Assumption 3: Not all types of CSR initiatives impact word of mouth.
18
LITERATURE REVIEW
company and the perceived fit between the company and the supported good cause
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004).
19
LITERATURE REVIEW
Table 1: Overview of the most significant literature concerning CSR and its effects.
Becker-Olsen Attitude CSR-based promotions CSR enhances customer attitude if perceived fit
et al. between company and good cause is high,
(2006) perceived corporate motive is not profit-oriented and
timing is proactive.
Bhattacharya Loyalty CSR and its internal and The positive relationship between CSR and
and Sen external outcomes customer loyalty is driven by customer-company-
(2004) identification and personal support of the good
cause.
Word of CSR and its internal and Positive CSR leads to positive WOM.
Mouth external outcomes Customer-company-identification is assumed to be
a driver of WOM.
Boulstridge Purchase Corporate behavior and its A relationship between CSR and purchase behavior
and Carrigan Behavior influence on consumers is not found but an effect is assumed if perceived
(2000) personal affect is high.
Bronn and Company CSR as a marketing tool The positive relationship between CSR and
Vrioni image company reputation is moderated by skepticism.
(2001)
Attitude CSR as a marketing tool Positive CSR leads to positive customer attitudes.
Brown and Product and Corporate associations Positive CSR leads to positive corporate
Dacin Company associations, which in turn leads to positive product
(1997) Evaluation evaluation.
Carrigan and Purchase Effect of good and bad CSR’s impact on purchase intentions is not proven
Attalla Behavior ethical conduct on but it is assumed that CSR has an effect if it fits the
(2001) consumers’ purchase target market.
behavior
Creyer and Purchase Consumers and business CSR influences purchase decisions. Customers
Ross Behavior ethics reward ethical and punish unethical behavior.
(1997)
Folkes and Attitude Product evaluation Positive CSR leads to positive product evaluation,
Kamins which in turn leads to positive customer attitude.
(1997)
Pirsch et al. Customer Differences in CSR Depending on the program, CSR has an effect on
(2007) Behavior programs loyalty, intention to purchase, skepticism, and
attitude.
Sen and Product and Moderating influences on Customer-company-identification and personal
Bhattacharya Company CSR (company and support of the good cause moderate the positive
(2001) Evaluation individual specific factors) relationship between CSR and product and
company evaluation.
Purchase Moderating influences on Personal support of the good cause moderates the
Behavior CSR (company and positive relationship between CSR and purchase
individual specific factors) intention.
Yoon et al. Company Consumer perceptions of The positive relationship between CSR and
(2006) image a company’s motives for company reputation is moderated by perceived
CSR sincerity.
20
LITERATURE REVIEW
21
LITERATURE REVIEW
questionable if the seven categories proposed really cover all potential CSR initiatives a
company can engage in. For example, there is no category where the funding of charity
organizations (like for instance AIDS funds or global organizations for animal protection)
would fit in. Furthermore, the used classification does not differentiate if the CSR program
approaches a customer directly or indirectly. However, this makes a difference when it
comes to purchase intentions: if a customer is directly affected, for example through certain
product features, e.g. healthy ingredients, his purchase intention is assumed to be higher
than when he is only indirectly affected by a CSR activity (Boulstridge ad Carrigan, 2000). In
conclusion, the classification of Pirsch et al. (2007) has several major drawbacks. Overall,
their study does not deliver sufficient results to solve the problem of which CSR initiatives
work best. Thus, further research on this subject is urgently needed. This study attempts to
close this gap by classifying CSR initiatives in an innovative way – as described below – and
by subsequently testing their impact on customer behavior.
2.4 Taxonomy
In the following, first a short definition of the concept of a taxonomy in general will be given.
After that, criteria will be introduced that define a good taxonomy. Then, explicitly for the
study at hand, a new taxonomy will be developed that classifies CSR activities into four
distinct types. The quality of the taxonomy will be proven by checking its accordance with the
criteria described before. Subsequently, each of the four types is introduced and according
hypotheses are developed.
22
LITERATURE REVIEW
Taxonomies are a dominant and elaborated technique in the field of the sciences of biology
and chemistry where they emerged first. However, they are extremely relevant not only in
these contexts but in almost every scientific discipline as “perhaps the most important and
basic step in conducting any form of scientific inquiry involves the ordering, classification, or
other grouping of the objects or phenomena under investigation” (Carper and Snizek, 1980,
p.65). Thus, taxonomies are a relevant method in business research, too. Taxonomies pose
numerous advantages as a research tool. For instance, taxonomies include a wide array or
even a definitive array of types. Hence, they allow a “researcher to ascertain quickly how a
particular type scores on a particular dimension and which types are contiguous to a
particular type” (Bailey, 1994, p.12). Through a taxonomy data masses can be condensed
into few types and be made easier to analyze (Bailey, 1994). Also Carper and Snizek (1980)
reinforce that “a taxonomy would allow large amounts of information (...) to be collapsed into
more convenient categories that would then be easier to process, store and comprehend”
(p.73). Furthermore, a taxonomy helps to detect similarities. All cases belonging to one type
(scoring equally on the dimensions deployed) share certain similarities. Knowing this helps
analyzing them. In the same way, a taxonomy is useful to detect differences, which helps
avoiding treating two cases the same way when they are actually different (belonging to
different types) and require different treatment. A taxonomy allows fast and easy
comparisons between types and above that allows the inventory and management of types.
Thus, it provides researchers with opportunity to locate any case and to know what types are
available for research (Bailey, 1994).
“One basic secret to successful classification (...) is the ability to ascertain the key or
fundamental characteristics on which the classification is to be based” (Bailey, 1994, p.2).
These fundamental characteristics or dimensions a taxonomy is based on define the
characteristics of the different types, i.e. the different cells. All types have different
dimensional characteristics. Empirical cases can be allocated to a type based on matching
dimensional characteristics. It is a great challenge to define the right dimensions for a
taxonomy and find adequate empirical cases for each cell, as there does not exist any
specific method for this. Bailey (1994) argues that it should be relied on “prior knowledge and
theoretical guidance” (p.2) and that “care and foresight generally result in successful
typologies” (p.16). If the dimensions are well chosen the resulting taxonomy should be able
to fulfill three fundamental criteria that judge the quality of a taxonomy. These criteria are
comprehensiveness (every case needs to be included), mutual exclusivity (each case can,
according to the chosen characteristics, only belong to one type) and explicitness (the basis
for building the typology is clear and traceable) (Speed, 1993). In order to evaluate the
quality of a taxonomy next to the three classical criteria, Speed (1993) proposed four
23
LITERATURE REVIEW
24
LITERATURE REVIEW
partnership with Unicef where Hugo Boss supports the project ‘Schools for Africa’
(http://group.hugoboss.com). Second, customers are of course always a part of a CSR
activity as well, as it is aimed at customers and intended to trigger positive reactions from
them. However, companies differ in how far they involve customers in their CSR activities.
Some do not involve them in the activity itself but only communicate the activity and its
beneficial consequences to them (as would be the case with companies donating to charities
or paying factory workers above average). Other companies directly affect customers with
their CSR and make them a part of it. In 2008, for instance, “H&M teamed up with some of
the world’s most contemporary artists to produce a special Fashion Against AIDS collection
where 25% of the sales price are donated to youth HIV/AIDS awareness projects“
(http://projects.greatworks.se). Such a CSR activity gives the customer the feeling that he
himself can decide when and how much to contribute to a good cause. Other companies
involve their customers directly by letting them benefit from products that have a higher
quality in terms of environmental friendliness, tolerance, or health benefits. For example, Levi
Strauss & Co. engages in environmentally friendly apparel production and thereby also uses
organic raw material. What the consumers receive from that in the end are jeans on the basis
of organic cotton and the good feeling of wearing chemical-free fabric on their skins
(www.levistrauss.com).
Based on the examples above functioning as empirical cases, and according to logical and
intuitive considerations, two dimensions for the CSR activity taxonomy have evolved: the
dimension of customer involvement (which can be direct or indirect) and the dimension of
company engagement (which can be firm-internal or firm-external).
In the following, the quality of the proposed dimensions is checked based on the three
classical criteria (mutual exclusiveness, comprehensiveness, explicitness) and Speed’s
(1993) additional criteria (meaningfulness, usefulness, parsimony, adding of value) described
before. This way the quality of the resulting fourfold taxonomy can be guaranteed. First of all,
since the dimensions are dichotomized a case can always just be one of the two opposing
characteristics, i.e. a CSR activity cannot at the same time affect a consumer in its role as a
customer directly and indirectly. Thus, a case can always just belong to one type, which
guarantees mutual exclusiveness. Second, all CSR activities naturally involve the company
and the customer. The company is, of course, the initiator of its own CSR activities, whereas
also the customer is always part of CSR as he is the one to be influenced by these activities.
Consequently, as there is no CSR activity that does not involve both parties, the taxonomy is
comprehensive. (In this context, it has to be mentioned that companies and customers are
not the only parties involved in a CSR activity. Lastly, there is a third party, namely the good
cause itself that is also affected. CSR activities can create awareness and enhance people’s
general support for the good cause in terms of time, money and word of mouth
25
LITERATURE REVIEW
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). However, the supported cause itself is merely the aim of a
CSR activity and – compared to customer and company involvement– does not account for
the approach that should be used in order to influence customer response. Due to this,
characteristics of the social issue are not included in this taxonomy.) Third, the basis for
building the typology is clear and traceable since the basis incorporates a simple and
obvious concept, namely the degree of involvement of the two parties being mainly affected
by a CSR activity. This means that it also fulfills the criteria of explicitness. In addition, the
dimensions chosen for this taxonomy offer another significant advantage. They incorporate
variables (e.g. degrees of customer and company involvement) that are known and easy to
interpret and that can be controlled and determined by the company itself. The taxonomy
does not incorporate dimensions (such as perceived fit between company and cause or
customer’s personal support of the cause) that cannot or only very difficultly be controlled.
The presented classification is the first taxonomy of CSR activities in literature. It is an
essential basis of the study at hand that in turn will close an important gap in marketing
literature and might become the foundation for further research. Above its academic
contribution, the taxonomy will pose a relevant tool for managers developing a CSR program.
Thus, the taxonomy fulfils the criterion of meaningfulness in a research and a managerial
context. Furthermore, as it will be the basis for testing an innovative model and the according
hypotheses, it will lead to new insights and hence be a taxonomy of high usefulness.
According to Speed’s (1993) third criterion, parsimony, the types within the taxonomy must
not be too few. Looking at other taxonomies in the field of marketing, four types are a
commonly used quantity of types. Sausen et al. (2002) developed a fourfold taxonomy of
strategic market orientation, Sawhney et al. (2005) used a fourfold typology of web-based
applications in the customer co-creation process and Shih (2004) employed a fourfold
typology of different user types in the context of a use-diffusion model for innovations. Carper
and Snizek (1980) examined the most frequently cited taxonomies in the field of organization
theory. Thereby they introduced 14 taxonomies (1947-1977) out of which six used four types
and five even less than four types. Thus the introduced fourfold taxonomy should satisfy
Speed’s (1993) criterion. Eventually, the taxonomy also fulfils the last criterion of adding
value to the research. The taxonomy at hand will lay the foundation for a model that will be
able to answer the question posed by marketing researchers (i.e. Bhattacharya and Sen,
2004; Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Creyer and Ross, 1997)
on which type of CSR activity is most effective in influencing customer behavior and thus
should be employed. In conclusion, the taxonomy of CSR activities does not only fulfill the
three classical evaluation criteria but also satisfies Speed’s additional criteria and can
consequently be considered of good quality.
26
LITERATURE REVIEW
Type 1 Type 2
Good Deed For Sale Good Produces Good
Type 3 Type 4
Distant Benefactor Sustainable On The Inside
indirect
external internal
COMPANY ENGAGEMENT
27
LITERATURE REVIEW
gains no direct benefit. Thus, the customer feels that he does not merely support the
company with its purchase, recommend or loyalty intention, but most importantly rather
serves a good cause and consequently makes a difference for society. This thought might
increase the consumers’ motivation to react upon a type 1 CSR activity. Second, the
customer’s direct involvement leads to increased awareness of the company’s CSR
engagement. High awareness of a CSR activity is the ideal precondition if behavior is to be
influenced (Folkes and Kamins, 1999). In more detail, this would mean the following for the
customer behaviors in the focus of this study: First of all, when customers are convinced of a
company based on the information they have about it, they become loyal. This information
they receive may well include the company’s CSR engagement. Thus, a convincing CSR
activity can enhance customer loyalty (Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Pirsch et al., 2007),
especially when the customers’ awareness of it is high. Consequently, this study proposes
the following:
H1a: CSR Activity Type 1 has a positive impact on loyalty and this impact differs
from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
A CSR activity can still lead to the intention to recommend the company to others even if no
other behavior is stimulated at the customer (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). CSR activities
enhance word of mouth especially if the awareness at the customer is high – which is the
case as the customer is directly affected by a type 1 CSR activity. Thus, it is proposed:
H1b: CSR Activity Type 1 has a positive impact on word of mouth and this impact
differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
Further, if customers feel directly affected CSR is assumed to particularly impact purchase
behavior (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). Thus, it is proposed:
H1c: CSR Activity Type 1 has a positive impact on purchase intention and this
impact differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
28
LITERATURE REVIEW
hence ‘good produces good’. An example for a type 2 CSR activity would be a company that
engages in environmentally sound production thereby abandoning chemistry. This results in
products that are environmentally friendly and are not posing a hazard to customers’ health.
It is assumed that customer behavior is positively influenced by a type 2 CSR activity as the
customer is (again) personally affected and the CSR activity is company-internal. Next to the
perception described before that external involvement evokes greater credibility and
customer motivation, there is an oppositional theory: External engagement could also be
perceived as a mere marketing strategy as it has a greater publicity effect. However, a
company that acknowledges its social responsibility within its internal policies might be
perceived as motivated by intrinsic motives – which is perceived as positive by the customer
(Folkes and Kamins, 1999). Further, the customer knows that the company’s products are
created under CSR aspects that not only benefit the corporate employees or the environment
but also the products and thus the customer himself. This thought of a closed chain of
sincere sustainability, and of the personal benefit for the customer might wake the
customer’s desire to support such a company. For the focal facets of customer behavior the
following propositions are consequently made: As described in the previous section, a CSR
activity is assumed to have a positive effect on loyalty (Pirsch et al., 2007), which might be
even stronger if the customer is directly involved (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). Thus, it is
proposed:
H2a: CSR Activity Type 2 has a positive impact on loyalty and this impact differs
from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
Customers’ awareness of the CSR activity is a prerequisite for engaging in word of mouth
(Folkes and Kamins, 1999). If the customer is directly involved in the CSR activity awareness
is guaranteed. Thus, it is proposed:
H2b: CSR Activity Type 2 has a positive impact on word of mouth and this impact
differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
H2c: CSR Activity Type 2 has a positive impact on purchase intention and this
impact differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
29
LITERATURE REVIEW
that is not related to internal policies. The customer, on the other hand, is only affected
indirectly by the CSR activity. This means, he cannot actively contribute to the good cause
nor are the products any different through CSR. The company acts in this case as a ‘distant
benefactor’ that engages in charitable support for a good cause to which neither the
company nor the customer is directly related. Whereas internal engagement could also be
seen as a direct benefit for the company and thus not as altruistic but as self-serving,
external engagement signals more strongly the support of a good cause that benefits society
as a whole, which might be a higher motivation for customers (see ‘Good Deed For Sale’).
For instance, a customer might choose to buy from a company because he knows it makes
regular donations to an aids fund. Knowing that a company shows high engagement for a
certain cause, the customer may develop a positive attitude towards this firm (Becker-Olsen
et al., 2006; Folkes and Kamins, 1999) and find it worth supporting this firm through regular
purchases or recommendations to friends (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004). In support of this,
Folkes and Kamins (1999) found that CSR takes influence on attitude and thus on loyalty
and word of mouth – even when the customer is not directly affected (which is contradictive
to Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). Thus, it is proposed:
H3a: CSR Activity Type 3 has a positive impact on loyalty and this impact differs
from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
and accordingly:
H3b: CSR Activity Type 3 has a positive impact on word of mouth and this impact
differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
CSR activities have a positive impact on purchase behavior (Creyer and Ross, 1997),
especially if the customer beliefs in a company (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Thus, it is
proposed:
H3c: CSR Activity Type 3 has a positive impact on purchase intention and this
impact differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
30
LITERATURE REVIEW
that creates domestic jobs while employing excellent labor policies. The company
communicates its social engagement to its customers, who in turn form a positive attitude,
which may be followed by positive behavior towards the company (Bhattacharya and Sen,
2004; Folkes and Kamins, 1999). Following the theory that an internal CSR activity signals
intrinsic motives and thus has a positive impact on customers’ reactions on CSR (see ‘Good
Produces Good’), a type 4 CSR activity is strongly assumed to lead to a positive effect on
customer behavior. Even though the customer is not directly involved, CSR takes influence
on attitude and thus loyalty and word of mouth (Folkes and Kamins, 1999). Consequently, it
is proposed:
H4a: CSR Activity Type 4 has a positive impact on loyalty and this impact differs
from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
and accordingly:
H4b: CSR Activity Type 4 has a positive impact on word of mouth and this impact
differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
CSR activities have a positive impact on purchase behavior (Creyer and Ross, 1997),
especially if the customer believes in a company (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), which is
presumably leveraged by internal engagement. Thus, it is proposed:
H4c: CSR Activity Type 4 has a positive impact on purchase intention and this
impact differs from the impacts of the other types of CSR activities.
31
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.5 Model
The model below summarizes the hypotheses and their directions and the applied control
variables.
Type 2 H2abc +
Word of
Mouth
Type 3 H3abc +
Purchase
H4abc + Intentions
Type 4
32
RESEARCH DESIGN
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
The objective of this study is to find out if all four types of CSR activities have a positive
impact on loyalty, word of mouth and purchase intention. Furthermore, it is detected if the
types differ in their effectiveness. The required data have been obtained through an online
survey. The following will reveal the most important factors concerning the setting for the
experiment (3.1; 3.2), the development of the questionnaire (3.3) and the measures (3.4), the
conduction (3.5), the sample profile (3.6) and the reliability and validity of the scales (3.7).
33
RESEARCH DESIGN
environment. An appropriate CSR-strategy that makes the customer feel connected to the
product can help enhancing the relationship between the customer and the product and thus
create a competitive advantage. Particularly in fashion it is crucial that customers trust a
brand and the company behind it as consumers publicly show their support for a brand when
wearing branded apparel. They would not wear a brand if they would not feel loyal or at least
positive towards it nor would they talk about it to peers (Reichheld, 2003). For a fashion
company, as for any other company, the purchase intentions of customers are of utmost
importance. Especially as purchase intentions are a precursor of behavioral loyalty (repeated
purchases) that has the potential to enhance cash flows and secure long term survival
(Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Furthermore, purchase intentions are an indication of positive
experiences the customer has made and thus a signal for a company that customers
perceive their products as favorable (Gupta and Zeithaml, 2005). When choosing an apparel
brand consumers often rely on what their peers buy or recommend to them. In particular
young people who want to be up-to-date and wear the latest trends consider it important
which brands their friends talk about or consider as ‘cool’ (Grant and Stephen, 2005). Hence,
word of mouth influences purchase decisions and can consequently be an efficient tool in
promoting a fashion product. This makes word of mouth another desirable outcome of CSR
for a fashion company.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Scenario 3 Scenario 4
indirect
external internal
Company Engagement
34
RESEARCH DESIGN
35
RESEARCH DESIGN
The questionnaire was distributed in the German language, as the target population of the
survey were Germans. Germany is Europe’s biggest consumer market (www.mb-
research.de) and thus an interesting target for market research in a retail context. In order to
guarantee that results are not falsified or biased due to comprehension problems, the survey
has been translated from English into German. Before publishing the German survey,
however, it was translated back into English for reasons of validity and reliability. Six neutral
persons with a very good command of the English language performed the translation. The
gathered translations were then compared to the original items. In all cases the meaning had
basically stayed the same and only slight adjustments had to be made to the German
version.
Before distributing the online questionnaire, a pretest was conducted in order to identify and
eliminate potential difficulties concerning the wording, the scenario content, question content,
the instructions and the sequence. Each scenario was pre-tested on two respondents from
the target population in a personal interview. Thereby the methods of protocol analysis and
debriefing (Malhotra, 2007) were applied. Afterwards the questionnaire was corrected and
adapted accordingly. Thereby misleading or confusing items were rephrased or deleted. A
second pretest was then conducted in the actual form of the survey, i.e. as online
questionnaire. Four respondents each tested one scenario on comprehension difficulties and
ease of administration. Except a slight change in the introductive part, the questionnaire
required no further adjustments and was consequently published and sent to a larger target
population.
Gender m f m f f f m f
Age 26 50 33 25 54 25 55 24
Gender m f m f
Age 26 24 57 29
36
RESEARCH DESIGN
37
RESEARCH DESIGN
the product tested is fictitious and the respondents have not known the product before. The
same holds for ‘behavioral loyalty’ as it consists of measures that refer to past purchase
behavior. The adequate factors are thus ‘behavioral intention’ (refers to the dimension of
behavioral loyalty and is subsequently called ‘purchase intention’ as in this case both terms
represent the same construct), ‘word of mouth’, ‘attitudinal loyalty’ (refer both to the
dimension of attitudinal loyalty) and ‘propensity to be loyal’ (tests the general tendency of the
respondent to engage in loyal behavior or attitudes) (Rundle-Thiele, 2005). These four
factors are tested as separate constructs and are afterwards taken together to form a single
result for the construct ‘loyalty’ that includes all aspects in one. How the single factors are
measured is described in the following.
38
RESEARCH DESIGN
items reflecting word of mouth from Zeithaml et al. (1996). Lam et al. (2004) measured
customer loyalty in a B2B service context with the recommend dimension by Zeithaml et al.
(1996). As Zeithaml et al.’s (1996) measurements seem widely accredited, they were applied
for measuring word of mouth in this study as well. Therefore, a three-item scale by Zeithaml
et al. (1996) from the recommend dimension of the behavioral-intentions battery is adapted,
which is based on a seven-point likelihood scale ranging from 1 meaning ‘not at all likely’ to 7
meaning ‘extremely likely’. Again, the scale is reduced to five points to fit the other measures.
Word of mouth is one aspect of loyalty measurement. However, the construct itself is so
crucial that it deserves separate analysis and interpretation.
39
RESEARCH DESIGN
40
RESEARCH DESIGN
Originally, the ‘actions taken dimension’ is scored on a five-point ‘never’ to ‘always’ scale.
However, considering the content of the items and considering conformity issues, the
application of a five-point ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ scale seemed much more
appropriate for this study.
41
RESEARCH DESIGN
with an excellent fit’) and the price as appropriate (high quality ‘at a fair price in the medium
price segment’). This way, respondents’ perception of price and quality should be neutral and
a response bias through price and quality consciousness should be eliminated.
42
RESEARCH DESIGN
Purchase 7-point (1) Would you like to try (1) Würden Sie Kleidung von Baker &
Intention semantic clothes from VelveTin? VelveTin gerne ausprobieren? Churchill
differential (2) Would you buy clothes (2) Würden Sie Kleidung von (1977)
(1 yes from VelveTin if you VelveTin kaufen, wenn Sie sie
definitely, happened to see them in a zufällig in einem Geschäft
7 no definitely store? sehen würden?
not) (3) Would you actively seek (3) Würden Sie gezielt in einem
Changed to out clothes from VelveTin in Geschäft nach Kleidung von
5-point sem.d. a store in order to purchase VelveTin suchen?
them?
Word of 7-point How likely is it that you Wie wahrscheinlich ist es, Zeithaml et
Mouth likelihood scale would... dass Sie... al. (1996)
(1 not at all (1) say positive things about (1) anderen Leuten Positives
likely, VelveTin to other people? über VelveTin berichten
7 extremely würden?
likely) (2) recommend VelveTin to (2) VelveTin jemandem
Changed to someone who seeks your empfehlen würden, der Ihren
5-point advice? Rat sucht?
likelihood scale (3) encourage friends and (3) Ihre Freunde und
relatives to purchase Verwandte bestärken würden,
VelveTin products? Kleidung von VelveTin zu
kaufen?
Attitudinal 5-point Likert (1) I am committed to (1) Ich bin von VelveTins Chaudhuri &
Loyalty scale VelveTin Produktkonzept überzeugt Holbrook
(1 strongly (2) I would be willing to pay a (2) Ich wäre bereit einen (2001)
disagree, higher price for this brand höheren Preis für diese Marke
5 strongly over other brands als für vergleichbare Marken zu
agree) bezahlen
Propensity 5-point Likert (1) I would rather stick with a (1) Ich würde eher bei meiner Bennett &
to Be Loyal scale brand I usually buy than try gewohnten Marke bleiben, als Rundle-
(1 strongly something I am not sure of. etwas auszuprobieren, von Thiele (2002)
disagree, dem ich mir nicht sicher bin.
5 strongly (2) If I like a brand, I rarely (2) Wenn ich eine Marke mag,
agree) switch from it just to try wechsele ich sie selten nur um
something different. etwas anderes auszuprobieren
(3) I rarely introduce new (3) Ich stelle meinen Freunden
brands and products to my und Kollegen selten neue
friends and colleagues. Marken und Produkte vor.
(4) I would rather wait for (4) Ich warte immer bis Andere
others to try a new brand eine neue Marke ausprobiert
than try it myself. haben, bevor ich diese selbst
ausprobiere.
43
RESEARCH DESIGN
Scale
Origin of the
Construct Adapted Items Translated Items
measure
Scale
Personal 5-point (1) Excess packaging is one (1) Verschwenderisches Verpacken Stone et al.
Support of Likert scale source of pollution that could ist eine Quelle von Umwelt- (1995)
the Good (1 strongly be avoided if manufacturers verschmutzung, die vermieden werden ECOSCALE
Cause disagree, were more environmentally könnte, wenn die Hersteller
5 strongly aware. umweltbewusster wären.
agree) (2) Economic growth should (2) Ökonomisches Wachstum sollte
take precedence over envir- Vorrang vor umweltpolitischen
onmental considerations. Überlegungen haben.
(3) The burning of the oil (3) Die brennenden Ölfelder in Kuwait,
fields in Kuwait, the meltdown das Kernschmelzen in Tschernobyl
in Chernobyl, and the oil spill und Ölverschmutzung in Alaska sind
in Alaska are examples of Beispiele für Umweltunfälle, deren
environmental accidents Auswirkung nur kurzfristig ist.
whose impact is only short
term.
(4) The earth‘s resources (4) Die Ressourcen der Erde sollten
should be used to the fullest voll genutzt werden um den
to increase the human menschlichen Lebensstandard zu
standard of living erhöhen.
(5) There is nothing the (5) Es gibt nichts, was der
average citizen can do to Durchschnittsbürger tun kann, das
help stop environmental helfen würde, die
pollution. Umweltverschmutzung zu stoppen.
(6) My involvement in (6) Wenn ich mich heute an
environmental activities today Umweltschutzaktivitäten beteilige,
will help save the helfe ich die Umwelt für zukünftige
environment for future Generationen zu bewahren.
generations.
(7) I would not car pool (7) Ich würde keine
unless I was forced to. It is Fahrgemeinschaften bilden, es sei
too inconvenient. denn ich würde dazu gezwungen. Es
ist zu lästig.
(8) I turn in polluters when I (8) Ich melde Umweltverschmutzer,
see them dumping toxic wenn ich sehe wie sie giftige
liquids. Flüssigkeiten illegal abladen.
(9) The earth is so large that (9) Die Erde ist so groß, dass
people have little effect on Menschen eine geringe Auswirkung
the overall environment. auf die allgemeine Umwelt haben.
(10) People who litter should (10) Leute, die Müll verstreuen, sollten
be fined $500 and be forced 500€ Strafe zahlen und gezwungen
to work on road crews and werden am Straßenrand zu arbeiten
pick up garbage. und Müll aufzusammeln.
Perceived 7-point (1) VelveTin has genuine (1 )Der Natur- und Umweltschutz ist Yoon et al.
Sincerity sem. diff. concerns for environmental VelveTin ein echtes Anliegen, wenn (2006)
scale protection and conservation es Umweltorganisationen unterstützt.
(1 extr. when it supported various
unlikely, environmental organizations
7 extr. (2) VelveTin sincerely cares (2) VelveTin kümmert sich aufrichtig
likely) about environmental um den Natur- und Umweltschutz,
Changed to protection and conservation wenn es Umweltorganisationen
5-point when it supported various unterstützt.
sem. d. environmental organizations
Perceived 7-point (1) low fit vs. strong fit (1) passen kaum zusammen vs. Becker-
Fit between sem. diff. passen extrem gut zusammen Olsen et al.
Company scale (2) inconsistent vs. consistent (2) unvereinbar vs. vereinbar (2006)
and Good Changed to (3) not complementary vs. (3) ergänzen sich nicht vs. ergänzen
Cause 5-point complementary sich
sem. d.
44
RESEARCH DESIGN
3.4.3 Demographics
To which type of CSR activity a customer is most responsive might depend on individual
characteristics. Carrigan and Attalla (1997) claim that age and gender play a role in CSR’s
effectiveness. Barksdale and Darden (1972) found already earlier that age made a
difference, however in their study gender had no effect. The study at hand examines the
potential differences across consumer groups concerning age, gender, education,
employment status and income. Next to age and gender, income could play a major role as it
influences what the priorities of a customer during purchase decisions are. Consumers with a
small income might consider first of all (and perhaps only) price, whereas a consumer with a
higher disposable income might consider other criteria first, like for instance the sustainability
of a product. The consumers’ awareness and knowledge of the environmental or social
issues a company supports with its CSR might differ across education level. A highly
educated and thus highly knowledgeable consumer might be more supportive of a socially
responsible company than a consumer who is not aware of the problems that the company is
trying to alleviate.
45
RESEARCH DESIGN
46
RESEARCH DESIGN
Age
< 20 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 1 1.7
20-30 28 59.6 25 42.4 29 54.7 38 63.3
31-40 8 17.0 10 16.9 8 15.1 4 6.7
40-50 3 6.4 10 16.9 3 5.7 5 8.3
> 50 8 17.0 13 22.0 13 24.5 12 20.0
Education
Graduation
Hauptschule 4 8.5 4 6.8 2 3.8 4 6.7
Realschule 10 21.3 15 25.4 9 17.0 6 10.0
Gymnasium 33 70.2 40 67.8 42 79.2 50 83.3
Professional
Education
Apprentice
Training 14 29.8 18 30.5 10 18.9 14 23.3
College Degree 18 38.3 20 33.9 19 35.8 14 23.3
University Degree 11 23.4 18 30.5 19 35.8 27 45.0
No professional
education 4 8.5 3 5.1 5 9.4 5 8.3
Profession
employed 37 78.7 45 76.3 38 71.7 41 68.3
not employed 10 21.3 14 23.7 15 28.3 19 31.7
Income
< 1,000€ 10 21.3 12 20.3 8 15.1 16 26.7
1,000€ - 2,400€ 20 42.6 20 33.9 20 37.7 17 28.3
2,500€ - 3,500€ 10 21.3 12 20.3 13 24.5 13 21.7
> 3,500€ 7 14.9 15 25.4 12 22.6 14 23.3
47
RESEARCH DESIGN
next step, several new variables were created. First of all, in reference to an approach
described by Hadler (2005) the new variable ‘Scenario’ assigned values from 1 to 4 to the
cases according to the treatment they were assigned to. A variable ‘Loyalty’ representing the
construct loyalty in the model of this study was created by adding the single item scores of
the variables of ‘Word of Mouth’, ‘Purchase Intention’, ‘Attitudinal Loyalty’ and ‘Propensity to
be loyal’ – 17 items in total. Further, average summated scales were also calculated for
‘Word of Mouth’, ‘Purchase Intention’, ‘Attitudinal Loyalty’, ‘Propensity to be loyal’, ‘Personal
Support’, ‘Perceived Fit’ and ‘Perceived Sincerity’.
48
RESEARCH DESIGN
constructs range between .700 and .895 indicating moderate to very good internal
consistency.
Purchase Intention
I. .494 .745
Try VelveTin 3.68 1.040 .662
Buy VelveTin 3.42 .897 .554
Seek out VelveTin 2.34 1.003 .278
II. .583 .803
Unlikely – Likely 3.25 1.094 .694
Impossible – Possible 3.73 .999 .664
Would not wear – Would wear 3.50 .832 .618
Attitudinal Loyalty
I. .543 .700
Committed 3.23 1.034 .543
Pay higher price 2.77 1.182 .543
II. .682 .811
Bad – Good 4.06 .821 .682
Unfavorable – Favorable 3.84 .837 .682
49
RESEARCH DESIGN
In order to obtain a better understanding of the quality of the higher-order construct loyalty,
construct validity is assessed, which reveals the extent to which the loyalty measure used is
representative. Loyalty here is measured based on four different constructs (i.e. word of
mouth, purchase intention, attitudinal loyalty and propensity to be loyal) that together have 16
items. If these items measure the construct they are supposed to measure is tested by
confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) that assesses “the degree to which the data meet the
expected structure” (Hair et al., 2006, p.105). First, the pattern coefficients revealed that the
item ‘seek out VelveTin’ (construct purchase intention) and the items ‘committed’ and ‘pay
higher price’ (construct attitudinal loyalty) load on factors (i.e. constructs) they are not
supposed to load on. Thus, they are excluded from further analysis. Repeating CFA with
oblimin rotation, all remaining 13 items load significantly on the appropriate constructs (see
Table 8) and above that have high communalities above .5 indicating that “a large amount of
the variance in a variable has been extracted by the factor solution” (Hair et al., 2006, p.149).
In total, the four constructs explain 71.4% of the variance. As no item is cross-loading but
only representing one latent construct with a high value, discriminant validity is adequate.
Also convergent validity is appropriate as every construct has a variance extracted between
.54 and .74, which is above the critical value of .5 (Hair et al., 2006). Consequently, the
loyalty measure can be considered of sufficient validity.
50
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1.1 Normality
For each level of the independent variable (i.e. scenario) the dependent variables (i.e. word
of mouth; purchase intention; loyalty) have to be normally distributed. First, values for
skewness indicating the symmetry of distribution and kurtosis indicating the peakedness of
the distribution were examined for all three dependent variables. All values showed the
required value of |1| or smaller implying normality (Pallant, 2007). The histograms, normal Q-
Q plots and box plots further confirmed the assumption of normality and indicated that there
were no problematic outliers. Also the very small differences between the mean and the 5%
trimmed mean of the four scenarios on the different dependent variables indicate normal
distribution.
4.1.2 Linearity
“The ANCOVA model is based on the assumption that the relationship between each
covariate and the dependent variable and the relationships among pairs of covariates are
linear” (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007, p.236). The linear relationships of all twelve pairs have
been examined by scatterplots that were checked for each treatment (i.e. scenario). All
scatterplots showed straight lines indicating linear relationships.
51
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
was significant. However, this violation does not pose a problem as the analysis of
covariance is reasonably robust (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).
52
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to test the hypotheses of the positive impact of all CSR types on loyalty and of
whether the types differ in their impact (H1a, 2a, 3a, 4a) while controlling for extraneous
variables, a one-way ANCOVA is performed. The independent variable is scenario and has
four levels, each representing a unique combination of the two levels of customer
involvement (direct vs. indirect) and company engagement (internal vs. external). The
dependent variable loyalty is measured on a five-point scale. The value 3.0 is seen as
neutral, with higher values indicating greater loyalty and lower values indicating weaker
loyalty. As the respondents’ personal support of the good cause, the perceived sincerity of
VelveTin’s CSR activities and the perceived fit between VelveTin and environment protection
are assumed to obscure the effects of CSR (and thus of the scenarios), these three variables
are treated as covariates. All covariates are measured on a continuous scale ranging from 1
(indicating low personal support, low perceived sincerity and fit) to 5 (indicating high personal
support, high perceived sincerity and fit). The test of between-subjects effects was not
significant (F (3, 212) = 1.684, p=.172) suggesting that there is no significant difference
between the scenarios’ scores on loyalty. Consequently, none of the hypotheses related to
the differences between the CSR types on loyalty (H1a, 2a, 3a, 4a) can be fully supported.
However, next to the assumption that there are significant differences between scenarios,
the hypotheses all state that CSR types 1, 2, 3, and 4 have a positive effect on loyalty. All
values above the neutral point of 3.0 are considered as positive tendency towards loyalty. As
the scenarios’ mean scores are MScenario1=3.21; MScenario2=3.02; MScenario3 =3.00; and MScenario4
=3.04; it can be said that Type 1 with the highest mean score has a positive effect on loyalty,
thus the hypothesis H1a can be partially supported. The effects of the other three types,
however, can be merely considered as neutral as their mean scores are very close to or
exactly 3.0. Consequently, H2a, 3a and 4a have to be rejected.
As a next step, the influences of the three covariates are explored. It is inspected if there is a
significant relationship between the covariate and the dependent variable while controlling for
the independent variable. The covariates sincerity and fit indeed exert influence on the
relationship between the dependent and independent variable. Sincerity is a significant
covariate at F (1, 212) = 7.393, p=.007 and fit is significant at F (1, 212) = 10.155, p=.002.
Both have a medium effect size according to Cohen and together explain 8% of the variance
53
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
in loyalty. Personal support, however, proved to be insignificant at F (1, 212) = .184, p=.668
and presumably has no influence on how a respondent scores on the loyalty measure.
Table 10 shows the means without controlling for the covariates and the adjusted means
after controlling for the covariates. The difference between these two categories of values is
rather small. The ranks remain the same before and after the adjustment.
54
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to find out between which groups the significant difference(s) lie, a post hoc test was
conducted. The main effects were compared using a Bonferroni confidence interval
adjustment (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The pair wise comparisons showed that Scenario
1 was significantly different from all of the other three scenarios. No other significant
differences were found among the other scenarios.
Inspecting the covariates, it is revealed that again personal support is insignificant, whereas
perceived sincerity is significant at F (1, 213) = 14.738, p=.000. Thus, sincerity does have
significant influence as a covariate with an effect size of .065, indicating moderate strength.
Personal support does not add adjustment to the dependent variable over that of perceived
sincerity. However, the comparatively low correlation of personal support with word of mouth
had already given reason to take this possibility into consideration.
The fact that one out of two covariates did not have a significant effect might be a reason
why the corrected mean values of word of mouth do not differ a substantially from the
unadjusted means. However, the ranks slightly changed (between Scenario 2 and 4).
55
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall, the findings indicate that one type of CSR activities, namely Type 1, significantly
differs from all other three types. Type 1 positively influences word of mouth (MScenario1=3.463)
and has thereby a significantly greater effect than the other types. Thus, hypothesis 1b is
fully supported. The other related hypotheses (H2b, 3b, 4b) made assumptions that Type 2,
3, and 4 have a positive effect on word of mouth and that this effect differs from other types.
These hypotheses are not supported. First of all, types 2, 3, and 4 do not significantly differ
from each other in their impact. Second, they do not even have a positive impact on word of
mouth as all their mean scores are below 3.0 (MScenario2=2.90; MScenario3 =2.74; MScenario4
=2.90), hence below the neutral level and thus already in the rather negative zone of the
word of mouth scale.
56
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Eventually, the influence of the three covariates is explored. Again, personal support was
insignificant (F (1,212)= .641, p=.421), meaning that it had no extraneous influence on
purchase intention. Also sincerity did not add any adjustment to the dependent variable as it
proved to be insignificant as well (F (1, 212)= 3.402, p=.066). Perceived fit, however, is a
significant covariate (F (1, 212)= 7.702, p=.000), explaining 7.3% of the variance in purchase
intention, which implies a medium effect size.
4.3 Discussion
What the statistical results mean for the effectiveness of the types of CSR activity, for the
importance and validity of the control variables and for the role of demographic groups in
context with CSR’s outcomes is elaborated below.
57
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
58
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Even though the types did not significantly differ besides the exception of Type 1 in relation
with word of mouth, tendencies can be detected. It is striking that Type 1 (Good Deed For
Sale) scores always highest and positive across all behavioral outcomes.
3,5
Loyalty
3,0 Word of mouth
Purchase Intention
2,5
1 2 Scenario 3 4
59
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
mouth than of mere behavioral construct like purchase intention. It was also contemplated if
external or internal company engagement evokes higher perceived sincerity, however, there
are no tendencies in one or the other direction. The only covariate that was always significant
when applied was perceived fit. It evidentially is an influential extraneous variable in context
with purchase intention and loyalty. This confirms the findings of CSR research by
Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) who revealed the influence of fit on purchase intention and by
Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) who found that fit is related to attitude and thus to loyalty.
Perceived fit is hence a valuable covariate for future studies.
60
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
61
CONCLUSION
5. CONCLUSION
Being highly discussed by business theorists and practitioners for almost a century, CSR has
finally become a relevant topic in marketing. For the last decade, researchers have examined
the impact CSR has on customer behavior in order to detect CSR’s effectiveness and
adequacy as a marketing tool. CSR was found to positively affect customer attitudes, product
and company evaluation, purchase behavior, word of mouth, and loyalty. However, not all
researchers can confirm these positive relationships. Missing links are attributed to
extraneous influences that undermine the positive effects of CSR on behavior. The key
influence is attributed to the CSR activity itself. Researchers claim that it depends on the
CSR activity if the customer is influenced or not. Thus far, research on CSR activities is
limited. There has been just one minor attempt to classify CSR activities. A classification,
however, would first create a common basis for comparisons of different studies and second
allow comparing types and test which types of CSR activities are most efficient. This study
has aimed to shed light on whether the type of CSR activity employed actually influences the
behavioral outcome. Thereby it was concentrated on three customer behaviors of major
importance and on an industry that is characterized by close customer contact and thus
directly dependent on customer behavior. Hence, the following question guided the research
at hand:
“How do different types of CSR activities impact customer loyalty, purchase intentions and
word of mouth in the retail industry?”
Thereby it was of interest if all types of CSR activity lead to positive customer behavior, if
types differ in their effectiveness and which type has the most impact on which element of
customer behavior (i.e. loyalty, purchase intentions, word of mouth). Additionally, it was
contemplated if the effects of the different types differ across demographic groups. In order
to solve these questions, several steps were taken. First of all, an extensive literature review
showed the larger context of CSR in business and especially in marketing. The most
important findings were reviewed and put into perspective. The findings on CSR’s effects on
loyalty, word of mouth and purchase behavior built the basis for the conceptual model. The
study intended to examine if these relationships hold for all types of CSR activities or just for
particular types. Based on the thorough research of CSR activities applied in practice, a new
taxonomy of CSR activities was developed based on two dimensions that each has two
levels: direct vs. indirect customer involvement and external vs. internal company
engagement. Accordingly, four different types evolved: Good Deed For Sale (Type 1), Good
Produces Good (Type 2), Distant Benefactor (Type 3) and Sustainable On The Inside (Type
62
CONCLUSION
4). The taxonomy equals a 2x2 factorial design and has formed the basis of the research
design. An experiment was created with four scenarios, each representing one CSR type. In
an online survey 219 respondents were randomly assigned to one scenario. Subsequently,
using one-way ANCOVA the scenarios were tested for differences on word of mouth,
purchase intention and loyalty while controlling for the influences of perceived fit, perceived
sincerity and personal support of the good cause. The results indicated that the types did not
substantially differ in their effect on purchase intention and loyalty. All types had a positive
impact on purchase intention, whereas the impact on loyalty was neutral for Types 2, 3 and
4. Type 1 (Good Deed For Sale) had a positive impact on loyalty, however the difference was
not significant. Nevertheless, a clear tendency was observable: Type 1 always scored
highest and had a positive effect on all three behavioral outcomes. Most importantly, Type 1
was significantly different from other types in its positive influence on word of mouth. As
control variables only sincerity (in relation with word of mouth and loyalty) and perceived fit
added significant adjustment. In conclusion, when word of mouth is to be influenced, the type
of CSR activity matters: Only ‘Good Deed For Sale’ (Type 1) has a positive impact. For other
behaviors, the type of CSR was not deciding in this study.
63
CONCLUSION
activity is indeed relevant. Even though the assumption did not hold for loyalty and purchase
intention, the finding can still be seen as an indication that other behavioral or emotional
outcomes that were not subject of this study might be susceptible by the type of CSR activity.
Examples would be attitudes, product or brand evaluation, or perceived reputation. However,
it should be kept in mind that the type of CSR explained only a small part of CSR’s influence
on customer behavior in this study – which implies that the type of CSR might not be a major
explaining factor with other behavioral outcomes either.
The study gives a further implication concerning extraneous influences. Although the control
variables employed represented theoretically based effects, they explain only little of the
variance in the dependent variables. This of course gives reason to question the value and
the explanatory power of these factors. Personal support has repeatedly been said to
influence purchase behavior by several researchers (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Carrigan
and Attalla, 1997, Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), however, in the study at hand this has not
been the case. As a consequence, future studies should consider dropping personal support
as a covariate. Perceived fit and perceived sincerity were significant and are thus valuable
control variables. However, their small effect size implies that there must be other extraneous
factors that play a role in context with CSR’s effects.
64
CONCLUSION
its project partner WWF, who uses the money to buy and thus protect one square meter of
rain forest in Central Africa (www.wwf.de). These companies deliver examples of how a Type
1 activity can be translated into practice. They can be a guide for companies who want to
develop a type 1 activity to use as an efficient tool to push word of mouth. Moreover, the
study also showed that sincerity has an influence on CSR’s effect on word of mouth. To fully
exploit the potential of a ‘Good Deed For Sale’, managers should employ CSR activities that
are authentic and credible from a customer’s perspective. Thereby the way of communicating
the CSR activity is crucial: the communication style should be neutral and should suggest
intrinsic rather than profit-oriented motives (Becker and Olsen et al., 2006; Folkes and
Kamins, 1999).
Further, CSR can also positively influence purchase intention, independently from the type of
CSR. Hereby it is crucial that managers choose a good cause for the focus of their CSR
activity that fits to the company’s business and image. How customers perceive this fit
influences CSR’s effectiveness on purchase intention: it can be disrupted or leveraged. For
instance, a marketing manager of Krombach said that as Krombach’s overall marketing
strategy evolves around the topic ‘close to the nature’ a CSR activity that supports nature
conservation is consistent and thus promising (www.wwf.de). If this consistency were not
given, customers’ responsiveness would be limited.
A CSR activity’s success does not depend on the personal support of the customer, which
makes researching CSR topics that concern customers personally abundant. Further, a
company does not need to adapt its CSR activities for different target groups: CSR’s effects
are independent from age, gender, educational background or income. Knowing this,
managers can avoid investing valuable resources in issues – like customer research or the
adjustment of CSR activities – that are not required to reach the intended goal.
65
CONCLUSION
information and is thus not fully comparable to a real life situation. To alleviate this weakness
of the experiment itself, field studies should be employed in the future that measure customer
behavior in real situations where emotions and involvement are certainly higher and have
greater impact.
The effectiveness of CSR was found to be influenced by several factors. The study tried to
control for the most important ones that were also introduced in the literature part. This was
done either through statistical or design control. To eliminate the influence of quality and
price, the scenarios described both as adequate. However, as elaborated above, this
description cannot do justice to a real situation. In real life, a customer would know the exact
price. Under this circumstance, price might play a much greater role than it did in this study,
as the customer might give priority to price considerations (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000).
The customer usually has a certain price range in mind that he is willing to spend, especially
in relation with the quality he attributes to the product. Also there, a product description can
never replicate a real shopping situation where a customer can see and touch the product,
which allows a more thorough judgment. Presumably, price and quality considerations were
eclipsed in the manipulation since the respondents were aware of the hypothetical character
of the situation. As a negative effect of poor quality would not be neutralized by CSR (Folkes
and Kamins, 1999), quality will always take precedence in reality. Hence, the findings of this
study certainly not apply when the product’s quality is considered insufficient. Whereas
Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000) say that price has priority in purchase decisions, Creyer and
Ross (1997) contradict by saying that if the CSR activity is convincing price is secondary and
the customer might even be willing to pay a price premium. In this research, purchase
intentions were rather high despite the price in the medium price range. However, this could
have been different if a price in numbers had been announced. Future research should
attempt to clarify how a CSR activity takes effect in relation with price and if the types
proposed differ under those conditions. For instance, it could be that a customer is willing to
spend more on a product if a percentage of the sales price goes to a charity project (i.e.
‘Good Deed For Sale’). In this case, the customer makes an indirect donation and might thus
be willing to pay an extra on the price he usually is willing to pay. However, if the company
‘merely’ employs socially responsible policies internally (i.e. ‘Sustainable On The Inside’) the
customer might see no direct inducement to pay a price premium.
CSR’s effectiveness is apparently complex and influenced by factors that are not part of this
study. The scenarios together with the according control variables never explained more than
13% of the variance in a behavioral outcome. Opposed to prior expectations that were based
on Bhattacharya and Sen (2004), Carrigan and Attalla (2001) and Sen and Bhattacharya
(2001) personal support even had no influence at all. Consequently, there must be more
66
CONCLUSION
influential factors that determine the strength of CSR’s effects on behavior. What these
factors are and how they operate should be addressed by future research.
Former research has assumed that brand familiarity takes precedence over CSR in purchase
decisions (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). How influential brand familiarity is for the
conceptual model of this study would also be an interesting topic for future research. Results
might have been different if the manipulations had not been based on a fictitious company
but on an existent company. Of course, in the study at hand none of the participants was
familiar with VelveTin and thus participants were neither positively nor negatively biased in
their responses. If the exact same study were conducted with a familiar brand, results would
certainly depend on the respondents’ attitudes towards the brand and the company. Those
attitudes would also be strongly related to if not even rooted in the degree of the consumer-
company identification, which again influences CSR’s effectiveness (as described by Becker-
Olsen et al., 2006). How a respondent perceives a CSR activity depends also on what he
associates with the company based on former experience, attitudes and preferences (Brown
and Dacin, 1997). Some companies, like for example The Body Shop might – based on the
image it cultivates – evoke stronger associations with positive CSR and maybe also a higher
credibility than a company that is rather associated with negative incidences like Royal Dutch
Shell. CSR activities certainly have a different effect on someone who perceives a company
as favorable as on someone who dislikes a company or a brand. In this context, does it
matter which CSR type is employed? For example, might a certain type be more effective for
customers with rather negative attitudes and another type for customers with a positive
attitude? As Type 1 (‘Good Deed For Sale’) surely possesses the greatest publicity effect, it
might be more suitable to attract new customers and outrival competitors than, for instance,
Type 3 (‘Distant Benefactor’). A manipulation with existing brands would shed light on these
questions and furthermore contribute to brand research in relation with CSR.
Another limitation of this study is that the scenarios describe a fashion company. Even
though the study attempts to find implications for the retail industry in general, the findings
might not hold for every product category. As clothing gives people pleasure, helps their self-
expression and is an important part of their lifestyle (Michalidou and Dibb, 2006), it can be
considered as a high involvement product that is of rather hedonic than utilitarian meaning to
most consumers. Thus, the findings should be applicable with product categories that evoke
a similar degree of involvement, but might not be adequate in context with utilitarian
products.
67
CONCLUSION
68
REFERENCE LIST
6. REFERENCE LIST
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer Satisfaction and
Shareholder Value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 172–185.
Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1977). The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on
Advertising Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(November), 538–555.
Barksdale, H. C., & Darden, W. R. (1972). Consumer Attitudes toward Marketing and
Consumerism. Journal of Marketing, 36(4), 28–35.
Bayus, B. (1985). Word of Mouth: The Indirect Effects of Marketing Efforts. Journal of
Advertising Research, 25(June/July), 31–39.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate
social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why and How
Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1),
9–24.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (1st ed.). New York:
Harper & Row.
69
REFERENCE LIST
Bronn, P.S., Vrioni, A.B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related
marketing: an overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207–222.
Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations
and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.
Bruner, G.C., Hensel, P.J. (1992). Marketing Scales Handbook: a compilation of multi-item
measures. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Carper, W. B., & Snizek, W. E. (1980). The Nature and Types of Organizational
Taxonomies: An Overview. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 65–75.
Carrigan, M., Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.
Chaudhuri, A. (1999). Does Brand Loyalty Mediate Brand Equity Outcomes? Journal of
Marketing - Theory and Practice, (Spring), 136–146.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand
Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(April),
81–93.
Cone Inc. Cone Corporate Citizen Study. Retrieved 14 Feb 2008, from
http://www.coneinc.com/Pages/pr_30.html.
Converse Inc. (2008). Converse (Product) Red Debuts Its Fall/Holiday 2008 Converse
1Hund(Red) Artists and African Canvas Footwear Collections. Retrieved 6 October, 2008
16:00, from http://www.converse.com/index.aspx?mode=pd&sku=1W541#press.
70
REFERENCE LIST
Creyer, E.H., Ross, W.T. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do
consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, (14), 421–
432.
Donahay, B., & Rosenberger, P. J. (2007). Using Brand Personality to Measure the
Effectiveness of Image Transfer in Formula One Racing. Marketing Bulletin, 18, Article 1, 1-
15.
Educating for Justice. Victory - Nike Discloses Factory Locations. Retrieved 25 April 2008,
from http://www.educatingforjustice.org/stopnikesweatshops.htm.
Epstein, E. M. (1987). The Corporate Social Policy Process: Beyond Business Ethics,
Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Social Responsiveness. California
Management Review, (29), 99–114.
Esprit Corporation (2008). Esprit Group Donates RMB5 Million: Sichuan Earthquake Relief
Day. Retrieved 6 October 2008, 16:00, from
http://www.esprit.com/index.php?command=Display&page_id=65&navi_id=54&identity=27.
Evan, W., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation:
Kantian Capitalism (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Folkes, V.S., Kamins, M.A. (1999). Effects of Information About Firms’ Ethical and Unethical
Actions on Consumers’ Attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243–259.
71
REFERENCE LIST
Great Works (2008). H&M Fashion Against AIDS. Retrieved 17 June 2008, from
http://projects.greatworks.se/hm/faa/.
Gupta, S., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2005). Customer Metrics: The Past, the Present, the
Future. MSI Special Report, 200(05).
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Hammond, K. (1997). Leaked Audit: Nike Factories Violated Worker Laws. Retrieved
14 April 2008, from http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/11/nike.html.
Hendley, N. (2002). American Apparel wears its ethics. Marketing Magazine, (107), 30.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are All Smiles
Created Equal? How Emotional Contagion and Emotional Labor Affect Service
Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70(July), 58–73.
72
REFERENCE LIST
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-
Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective. Journal
of Consumer Research, 17(March), 454–462.
Iwanow, H., McEachern, M.G., & Jeffrey, A. (2005). The influence of ethical trading
policies on consumer apparel purchase decisions. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 33(5), 771–387.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management
(1st ed.). Wiley Series on Marketing Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2006). The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions.
Journal of Marketing, 70(April), 122–132.
Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, C., Andreassen, T. W., & Akzoy, L. (2007). A Longitudinal
Examination of Net Promoter and Firm Revenue Growth. Journal of Marketing, 71(3),
39–51.
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer Value,
Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Switching Costs: An Illustration From a Business-to-Business
Service Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293–311.
73
REFERENCE LIST
Levi Strauß & Co. (2006). Levi's brand launches 100% organic cotton jeans (Press
Release). Retrieved 17 June 2008, from
http://www.levistrauss.com/News/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?pid=784.
Mackenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The Role of Attitude Toward the
Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 23(May), 130–143.
MB Research GmbH (2006). Kaufkraft 2006: Deutschland, der kranke Mann Europas
oder Europameister? Retrieved 5 November 2008, 16:00, from http://www.mb-
research.de/content/view/38/2/.
Outfit 6 (2007). Zielgruppen, Marken, Medien: Studie zum Thema Bekleidung und
Accessoires. Hamburg: Spiegel Verlag.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual (3rd ed.). Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Open
University Press.
Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., Grau, S.L. (2007). A Framework for Understanding Corporate
Social Responsibility Programs as a Continuum: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
Business Ethics, 70(2), 125–140.
74
REFERENCE LIST
Post, J.E., Preston, L.E., Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the Extended Enterprise: The
New Stakeholder View. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–25.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The One Number You Need To Grow. Harvard Business
Review, (December), 46–54.
Robin, D.P., Reidenbach, R.E. (1987). Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing
Strategy: Closing the Gap between Concept and Application. Journal of Marketing, 51,
44–58.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The internet
as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.
Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Grewal, D., & Godfrey, A. L. (2005). Do Satisfied Customers
Buy More? Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context. Journal of
Marketing, 69(October), 26–43.
Sen, S. Bhattacharya C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38, 225–243.
Sheth, N. S., & Mittal, B. (2004). Customer Behavior: A Managerial Perspective (2nd
ed.). Ohio: Thomson South Western.
75
REFERENCE LIST
Shih, C. -F, & Venkatesh, A. (2004). Beyond Adoption: Development and Application of
a Use-Diffusion Model. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 59–72.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer Trust, Value and Loyalty in
Relational Exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
Söderlund, M. (2006). Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item scales – A case for
caution. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 76–98.
Stone, G., Barnes, J. H., & Montgomery, C. (1995). ECOSCALE: A Scale for the
Measurement of Environmentally Responsible Consumers. Psychology & Marketing,
12, 595–612.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Pearson
International Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Typologie der Wünsche (2007). Menschen, Medien, Märkte 2008. Offenburg: Burda
Community Network GmbH.
Wildt, A. R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1978). Analysis of Covariance (1st ed., Vol. 12). Sage
University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 12. New
Bury Park: Sage Publications.
76
REFERENCE LIST
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., Schwarz, N. (2006). The Effect of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The Behavioral Consequences
of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(April), 31–46.
77
APPENDIX
7. APPENDIX
Appendix 1
The Questionnaire.
The following shows screen prints of the online questionnaire used for data collection. The
questionnaire was distributed in German only. The respondents were randomly assigned to
one of the four scenarios displayed. However, every respondent had to answer the same
subsequent questions.
78
APPENDIX
79
APPENDIX
80
APPENDIX
81
APPENDIX
82
APPENDIX
83
APPENDIX
84
APPENDIX
85