uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 383–391 | Cite as

Forschungskooperationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis zum Thema „Corporate Social Responsibility“ am Beispiel von IKEA Deutschland

Schwerpunktthema

Zusammenfassung

Kooperationen zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis sind häufig durch beiderseitige Skepsis geprägt. Der vorliegende Artikel beschäftigt sich am Beispiel der mit dem Wissenschaftspreis 2016 ausgezeichneten Forschungskooperation zwischen IKEA und einer Forschergruppe damit, wie solche Kooperationen ausgestaltet sein könnten, um für beide Parteien gewinnbringende Erkenntnisse zu generieren. Insbesondere wird dabei die wichtige Rolle von Feldexperimenten beleuchtet. Der Artikel schließt mit zehn Erfolgsfaktoren für eine erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit zwischen Wissenschaft und Unternehmenspraxis.

Abstract

Joint research projects between academia and managerial practice are often marked by a high degree of mutual skepticism. The paper at hand carves out how to approach such cooperation projects in order to generate valuable insights for both parties. The paper reports a research collaboration between IKEA Germany and a group of researchers that was honored with the “German Science Award 2016”. Special attention is paid to the importance of conducting field experiments. As take-away learning, the article sums ups ten success factors for joint research projects between academia and management.

Literatur

  1. Habel J, Schons LM, Alavi S, Wieseke J (2016) Warm glow or extra charge? The ambivalent effect of corporate social responsibility activities on customers’ perceived price fairness. J Mark 80(1):84–105. doi:10.1509/jm.14.0389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Haumann T, Güntürkün P, Schons LM, Wieseke J (2015) Engaging customers in coproduction processes: How value-enhancing and intensity-reducing communication strategies mitigate the negative effects of coproduction intensity. J Mark 79(6):17–33. doi:10.1509/jm.14.0357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. List JA (2011) Why economists should conduct field experiments and 14 tips for pulling one off. J Econ Perspect 25(3):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Morsing M, Schultz M (2006) Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response, and involvement strategies. Bus Ethics 15(4):323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Scheidler S, Schons LM (2016) Not guilty? The many faces of corporate social irresponsibility and the role of consumers’ perceived guilt as a determinant of boycotting. AMA Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference, Las Vegas, February 2016.Google Scholar
  6. Scheidler S, Schons LM, Spanjol J (2015) Striking the right Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) balance: a portfolio approach to externally- vs. internally-oriented CSR-strategies. AMA Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference, Chicago, August 2015.Google Scholar
  7. Schons LM, Cadogan J, Tsakona R (2015a) Should charity begin at home? An empirical investigation on consumer’s responses to companies’ varying geographical allocations of donation budget. J Bus Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2832-9 Google Scholar
  8. Schons LM, Scheidler S, Sen S, Wieseke J (2015b) I don’t buy your story! A field experimental study on the detrimental effects of narrative storytelling in corporate social responsibility communication. EMAC Conference, Leuwen, May 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Schons LM, Mende G, Wieseke J, Sen S (2015c) Are two reasons really better than one? What companies can do (wrong) in selling sustainable products. AMA Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference, Chicago, August 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Schons LM, Scheidler S, Bartels J (2015d) Tell me how you treat your employees! A field-experimental study on customers’ preferences for companies’ CSR efforts in the employee domain. AMA Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference, Chicago, August 2015.Google Scholar
  11. Wieseke J, Kolberg A, Schons LM (2015) Life could be so easy – the convenience effect of round price endings. J Acad Mark Sci. doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0428-7 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität MannheimMannheimDeutschland
  2. 2.Sales & Marketing DepartmentRuhr Universität BochumBochumDeutschland

Personalised recommendations