Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 170–180 | Cite as

Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust

  • Pavlos A. Vlachos
  • Argiris Tsamakos
  • Adam P. Vrechopoulos
  • Panagiotis K. Avramidis
Original Empirical Research

Abstract

This study investigates whether consumers’ perceptions of motives influence their evaluation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts. The study reveals the mediating role of consumer trust in CSR evaluation frameworks; managers should monitor consumer trust, which seems to be an important subprocess regulating the effect of consumer attributions on patronage and recommendation intentions. Further, managers may allay the negative effects of profit-motivated giving by doing well on service quality perceptions. On the other hand, appropriately motivated giving continues to positively affect trust regardless of the performance of the firm on service quality provision.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility Consumer attributions Moderation effects Trust Service quality Mobile services 

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Arumi, A. M., Wooden, R., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Duffet, A., & Amber, O. (2005). The charitable impulse: A public agenda report. http://www.publicagenda.org.
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. doi:10.2307/2786945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–263. doi:10.1177/0092070300282006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437–445. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2007.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R. F., Bratislavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-quality trade-off: When can corporate social responsibility and corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 233–252. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9232-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459–472. doi:10.2307/259289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Bolton, R. N., Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2004). The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset management: A framework and propositions for future research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 271–292. doi:10.1177/0092070304263341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowen, J. (1990). Development of a taxonomy of services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 43–49 (Winter) doi:10.1007/BF02729761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brady, M., & Cronin, J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34–49 (July) doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.3.34.18334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brady, M. K., Knight, G. A., Cronin, J., Tomas, G., Hult, M., & Keillor, B. D. (2005). Removing the contextual lens: A multinational, multi-setting comparison of service evaluation models. Journal of Retailing, 81(3), 215–230. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2005.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. doi:10.1108/07363760110410263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 1–27. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201.Google Scholar
  17. Ellen, P. S., Web, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate social responsibility programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. doi:10.1177/0092070305284976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1164–1184. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin, D. (2008). Just good business: A special report on corporate social responsibility. The Economist, (January), 19.Google Scholar
  20. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(3), 223–248. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00002-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giving USA Foundation (2007). Annual Report on Philanthropy 2006. http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/gusa.cfm.
  23. Globe Scan-MRB (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Greece (in Greek). http://www.instofcom.gr/03CSR%202007.pdf.
  24. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.Google Scholar
  25. Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, J. A. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–48. doi:10.2307/1251774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helm, A. (2004). Cynics and skeptics: Consumer dispositional trust. Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 31, 345–351.Google Scholar
  27. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  28. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophic ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403. doi:10.2307/258851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Advances in experimental psychology (pp. 219–266). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59, 71–82 (April) doi:10.2307/1252074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lam, S. Y., Venkatesh, S., 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. doi:10.1177/0092070304263330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohr, L., Eroglu, D., & Ellen, P. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. doi:10.2307/1252308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005). Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 1–17. doi:10.1177/0092070305276149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ping, R. A. (1996). Latent variable interaction and quadratic effect estimation: A two-step technique using structural equation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 166–175. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ping, R. A. (2003). Latent variable interactions and quadratics in survey data: A source book for theoretical model testing, 2nd ed. [on-line monograph].Google Scholar
  39. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2004). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 5–12.Google Scholar
  40. Progressive Grocer (2008). Special report: Environmental sustainability: Seeing green. http://www.progressivegrocer.com/progressivegrocer/research-analysis/index.jsp.
  41. Reuters (2008). Consumers puts ads to greenwashing test. http://www.reuters.com/.
  42. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166. doi:10.1177/0092070305284978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 5–37. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Attributional processes and effects in promotional situations. The Journal of Consumer Research, 5(3), 149–158. doi:10.1086/208725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52, 58–74 (July) doi:10.2307/1251450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zafirovski, M. (2003). Some amendments to social exchange theory: A sociological perspective. Theory & Science, 4(2) Online paper. http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol004.002/01_zafirovski.html.
  48. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–36. doi:10.2307/1251929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavlos A. Vlachos
    • 1
    • 3
  • Argiris Tsamakos
    • 1
  • Adam P. Vrechopoulos
    • 1
  • Panagiotis K. Avramidis
    • 2
  1. 1.Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  2. 2.American College of GreeceAthensGreece
  3. 3.ELTRUN-IMES (Interactive Marketing and Electronic Services), Department of Management Science and TechnologyAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations