Consumer reactions to business-nonprofit alliances: Who benefits and when?

Abstract

We investigate the effect of increased company involvement on consumer reactions to companies and nonprofits in business–nonprofit alliances to show that consumer reactions to the two parties in such alliances can, under certain conditions, diverge from each other. Specifically, we show that increased company involvement results in more positive consumer attitudes toward companies with low (but not high) reputation, while it leads to more positive consumer attitude toward nonprofits that partner with companies with high (but not low) reputation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these effects are independent of the perceived fit between the company and nonprofit forming the alliance. Finally, we show that when consumers elaborate on company motives, the observed effects of increased company involvement are mitigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    While business–nonprofit alliances can be of four types—business–nonprofit, business–government, government–nonprofit, and trisector (Selsky and Parker 2005)—in this research, we use the term “business–nonprofit” to refer only to alliances between corporations and nonprofits.

References

  1. Alcañiz, E., Cáceres, R., & Pérez, R. (2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: the influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amos, N. (2005). The new world of corporate giving. Corporate Responsibility Management, 2, 34–37 (August/September).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: the definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(Spring), 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). Does one good turn deserve another? Examining the influence of cause-related marketing efforts on consumer choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social alliances: company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(Fall), 58–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(Fall), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buffett, P. (2013). The charitable–industrial complex. The New York Times, July 26, Opinion pages. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?_r=0. Accessed 13 Oct 2013.

  11. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(June), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it: the use of persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 549–571). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Center for Nonprofit Success (2009). Cause marketing: building profitable relationships with corporate partners. Retrieved from http://www.cfnps.org/Chicago_Fundraising_Summit_56_16.aspx. Accessed 13 Oct 2013.

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellen, P. S., Weber, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Elving,W. J. L. (2013). Skepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19, 277–292. doi:10.1080/13527266.2011.631569

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1164–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fombrun, C. J. (2005). Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(Spring), 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 32–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gourville, J. T., & Rangan, V. K. (2004). Valuing the cause marketing relationship. California Management Review, 47(Fall), 38–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., Cronley, M. L., & Herr, P. M. (2008). Consumer inference. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 165–191). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 15 (pp. 192–240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2004). When it comes to gaining a market edge while supporting a social cause, ‘corporate social marketing’ leads the pack. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring, pp. 14–23.

  25. Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause–brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lai, C., Chiu, C., Yang, C., & Pai, D. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: the mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 457–46 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lichtenstein, D., Drumwright, M., & Bridgette, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Long, M. M., & Chiagouris, L. (2006). The role of credibility in shaping attitudes toward nonprofit websites. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 239–249 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lynch, J. G., Marmorstein, H., & Weigold, M. F. (1988). Choices from sets including remembered brands: use of recalled attributes and prior overall evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mannell, J. (2010). Are the sectors compatible? International development work and lessons for a business–nonprofit partnership framework. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1106–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: an investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(4), 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(November), 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Quelch, J. A., Austin, J. E., & Laidler-Kylander, N. (2004). Mining gold in not-for-profit brands. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 24–24.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. (1999). Signaling unobservable product quality through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Dispositional attribution: multiple inferences about motive-related traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 530–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ricks, J. M., Jr., & Williams, J. A. (2005). Strategic corporate philanthropy: addressing frontline talent needs through an educational giving program. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: creating value through business and social sector partnerships. California Management Review, 42(2), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Gibson, B. D. (1989). The impact of initial processing goals on memory based brand comparisons. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 429–432.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). ‘Implementing CSR through partnerships: understanding the selection. Design and institutionalisation of nonprofit–business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Business–nonprofit partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Silvera, D. H., & Laufer, D. (2005). Recent developments in attribution research and their implications for consumer judgments and behavior. In F. R. Kardes, P. M. Herr, & J. Nantel (Eds.), Applying social cognition to consumer-focused strategy (pp. 53–77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 154–169 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. The McKinsey Global Survey of Business Executives: Business and Society (2006). McKinsey Quarterly 2, pp. 33–39.

  48. Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caglar Irmak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Irmak, C., Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C.B. Consumer reactions to business-nonprofit alliances: Who benefits and when?. Mark Lett 26, 29–42 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9265-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Business–nonprofit alliance
  • Nonprofit
  • Company involvement
  • Company reputation
  • Alliance fit