Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 144, Issue 3, pp 559–576 | Cite as

Should Charity Begin at Home? An Empirical Investigation of Consumers’ Responses to Companies’ Varying Geographic Allocations of Donation Budgets

  • Laura Marie Schons
  • John Cadogan
  • Roumpini Tsakona
Article

Abstract

In our globalized and interconnected world, companies are increasingly donating substantial amounts to good causes around the globe. Many companies choose to donate “at home” while others give to causes in faraway places where recipients are in dire need of support. Interestingly, past research on corporate donations has neglected the question of whether consumers differentially reward companies for geographically varying allocations of donation budgets. Through a mixed methods approach, this paper remedies this gap by developing and empirically testing a conceptual framework of consumers’ preferences for geographically varying allocations of corporate donation budgets. In a first step, two preliminary field studies (N1 = 76; N2 = 80) involving real donations explored customers’ preferences for donation allocations varying in geographical focus. A qualitative focus group study then investigated underlying rationales to inform the research and led to the development of hypotheses. Subsequently a large-scale between-subjects scenario experiment (N = 5770) tested the predictions. Overall, results indicate that, in contrast with current managerial practice, customers prefer companies that split donations equally between domestic and foreign recipients or even donate only abroad.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility Corporate philanthropy Allocation of corporate donations In-group bias Priority for compatriots Moral intuitions Justice restoration potential 

References

  1. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 871–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, and materialism: An eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1996). The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause related marketing: How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6/7), 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dagger, R. (1985). Rights, boundaries, and the bonds of community: A qualified defense of moral parochialism. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  9. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, & cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables & measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979–1981, 1987–1989. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodin, R. E. (1988). What is so special about our fellow countrymen? Ethics, 98(4), 663–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guthrie, D. (2003). Survey on corporate-community relations. New York: Social Sciences Research Council.Google Scholar
  15. Hou, J., Du, L., & Li, J. (2008). Cause’s attributes influencing consumer’s purchasing intention: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(4), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  17. Kanter, R. (1997). World class: Thriving local in the global economy. New York: Touchstone Books.Google Scholar
  18. Kim, J. Y., Natter, M., & Spann, M. (2009). Pay-what-you-want—A new participative pricing mechanism. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility & consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W, Jr. (2000). The measurement & dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, Gerald F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McElroy, K. M., & Siegfried, J. J. (1986). The community influence on corporate contributions. Public Finance Quarterly, 14, 394–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muller, A., & Whiteman, G. (2009). Exploring the geography of corporate philanthropic disaster response: A study of fortune global 500 companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, S. R., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of cause in cause-related marketing. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross, J. K., III, Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. T. (1990–1991) Tactical considerations for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58–65.Google Scholar
  31. Russel, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schons, L. M., Rese, M., Wiseke, J., Rasmussen, W., Weber, D., & Strotmann, W. C. (2013). There is nothing permanent except change—analyzing individual price dynamics in “pay-what-you-want” situations. Marketing Letters, 25(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shue, H. (1980). Mediating duties. Ethics, 98, 687–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takagishi, H., Kameshima, S., Schug, J., Koizumi, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2010). Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Reast, J., & van Popering, N. (2012). To do well by doing good: Improving corporate image through cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, & the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions & behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Marie Schons
    • 1
  • John Cadogan
    • 2
  • Roumpini Tsakona
    • 2
  1. 1.Ruhr-University of BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations