Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, 310 Herty Drive, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Caglar Irmak

  2. Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College/CUNY, One Bernard Baruch Way, Box 12-240, New York, NY, 10010, USA

    Sankar Sen

  3. European School of Management and Technology, Schlossplatz 1, 10178, Berlin, Germany

    C. B. Bhattacharya

Authors
  1. Caglar Irmak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sankar Sen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. B. Bhattacharya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9265-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation