Skip to main content

Linking cause assessment, corporate philanthropy, and corporate reputation

Abstract

This study analyzes the link between cause assessment, corporate philanthropy, and dimensions of corporate reputation from different stakeholders’ perspectives, using balance theory as a conceptual framework and the telecommunications industry in Austria and Egypt as the empirical setting. Findings show that corporate philanthropy can improve perceptions of the corporate reputation dimensions, but the results vary between customers and non-customers and depend on the country setting.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more details, see the 2012 CSR RepTrak 100 Study (Reputation Institute 2012b).

  2. 2.

    A different question would address whether companies should engage in CP only in order to enhance their reputation, or if CP can be considered a moral/societal duty. While this is an important issue for debate, this paper does not pursue this argument.

  3. 3.

    Prominent examples are The Coca-Cola Foundation, which awarded US$26 million in grants to 85 community organizations during the first quarter of 2012 (CSRWire 2012a), or Deloitte, announcing that its multi-year investment in pro bono services will rise to US$110 million by 2015 (CSRWire 2012b).

  4. 4.

    Egypt is a collectivist society, while Austria an individualist society. Especially on the humane orientation (society practices) dimension, Egypt scores highly compared to Austria (4.73 and 3.72, respectively). Humane orientation is defined as “the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others” (House et al. 2004: 569). In these societies, people are responsible for promoting the well-being of others (the state is not actively involved). In contrast, on the humane orientation society values (should be) dimension Austria scores highly (5.76) compared to Egypt (5.17). This indicates that Austrians aspire to a greater humane orientation. Austria is classified in band A, which includes countries with the highest scores on the construct. Egypt belongs to band C (among countries with low scores on the construct).

  5. 5.

    At the time of this study, the Austrian telecommunications company had recently been awarded the Austrian Sustainability Reporting Award, while the Egyptian telecommunications company was a member of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

  6. 6.

    For ACP we find glb = 0.96, alpha = 0.9, for Customer Orientation glb = 0.82, alpha = 0.82, for Good Employer glb = 0.76, alpha = 0.76, for Reliable and Financially Strong Company glb = 0.74, alpha = 0.73, for Product and Service Quality glb = 0.73, alpha = 0.72, and for Social and Environmental Responsibility glb = 0.71, alpha = 0.7.

  7. 7.

    Concerning the recent corruption scandal of the Austrian telecommunications company.

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barney, J. B. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-related marketing: an empirical application of balance theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 16(4), 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Batt, R. (2000). Strategic segmentation in front-line services: matching customers, employees and human resource systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(3), 540–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bearden, W. O., Sharma, S., & Teel, J. E. (1982). Sample size effects on chi square and other statistics used in evaluating causal models. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 425–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beatty, R. P., & Ritter, J. R. (1986). Investment banking, reputation, and the underpricing of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 15(1–2), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.

  9. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bentler, P. M., & Woodward, J. A. (1980). Inequalities among lower bounds to reliability: with applications to test construction and factor analysis. Psychometrika, 45(2), 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equation models. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2005). Corporate reputation and an insurance motivation for corporate social investment. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Winter, (20), 39–51.

  15. Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., & Porter, L. (2009). Corporate charitable giving, multinational companies and countries of concern. The Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 575–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brønn, P., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social initiative: legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: the mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Burlingame, D. F. & Frishkoff, F. A. (1996). How does form size affect corporate philanthropy? In D. F. Burlingame and D. R. Young (Eds.), Corporate philanthropy at the crossroads (pp. 86-104). Bloomington: Indiana University Press

  20. Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Caruana, A., Ramasashan, B., & Krentler, K. A. (2004). Corporate reputation, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty: What is the relationship? In H. E. Spotts (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science: Developments in marketing science, 27 (p. 301). Coral Gables: Academy of Marketing Science.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Casalo, L. V., Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2007). The influence of satisfaction, perceived reputation and trust on a consumer’s commitment to a website. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: a corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. CIA (2014). The World Factbook. Retrieved April 14, 2014 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.

  26. Crimmins, J., & Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: from management ego trip to marketing success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. CSRWire (2012a). The Coca-Cola Foundation Awards $26 Million to 85 Global Organizations During First Quarter 2012. Available at: http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/34250-The-Coca-Cola-Foundation-Awards-26-Million-to-85-Global-Organizations-During-First-Quarter-2012. (accessed June 13 2012).

  29. CSRWire (2012b). Deloitte Celebrates Culture of Service; Increases Pro Bono Pledge to $110 Million. Available at: http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/34244-Deloitte-Celebrates-Culture-of-Service-Increases-Pro-Bono-Pledge-to-110-Million-. (accessed June 13 2012).

  30. Davies, G., Chun, R., Vinhas da Silva, R. M., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dean, D. H. (2002). Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship: measuring the effects on corporate community relations. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dean, D. H. (2003). Consumer perception of corporate donations—effects of company reputation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. DJSI (2014). Dow Jones sustainability world index fact sheet. Retrieved April 2, 2014 from http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/downloads/fact_info/Dow_Jones_Sustainability_World_Index_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

  34. Dowling, G. R. (2004). Corporate reputations: should you compete on yours? California Management Review, 46(3), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name: reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C. (2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. New York: Financial Times/ Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: first steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4), 303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gautier, A., & Pache, A.-C. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: a review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1969-7.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Godfrey, P. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation management: living the brand. Management Decision, 39(2), 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM). Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gregory, J. R., & Wiechmann, J. G. (1991). Marketing the corporate image: The company as your number one product. Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Bonn, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Groenland, E. A. G. (2002). Qualitative research to validate the RQ dimensions. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4), 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hardaker, S., & Fill, C. (2005). Corporate service brands: the intellectual and emotional engagement of employees. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. (2007). Corporate responsibility and corporate reputation: two separate concepts or two sides of the same coin? Corporate Reputation Review, 10(4), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., & Pavelin, S. (2012). Stakeholder-defined corporate responsibility for a pre-credit crunch financial service company: lessons for how good reputations are won and lost. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hoeffler, S., Bloom, P. N., & Keller, K. L. (2010). Understanding stakeholder responses to corporate citizenship initiatives: managerial guidelines and research directions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 78–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  55. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1(1), 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hult, G. T. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jensen, M., & Roy, A. (2008). Staging exchange partner choices: when do status and reputation matter? Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jordan, N. (1953). Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and of cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kim, J.-B., & Choi, C. J. (2003). Reputation and product tampering in service industries. Service Industries Journal, 23(4), 3–11.

  63. Kitchen, P. J., & Laurence, A. (2003). Corporate reputation: an eight-country analysis. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lee, H., Park, T., Koo Moon, H., Yang, Y., & Kim, C. (2009). Corporate philanthropy, attitude towards corporations, and purchase intentions: a South Korean study. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 939–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lii, Y., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: when the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Luo, X. M., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. MacMillan, K., Money, K., & Downing, S. (2002). United Kingdom: best and worst corporate reputations—nominations by the general public. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4), 374–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Maden, C., Arikan, E., Telci, E. E., & Kantur, D. (2012). Linking corporate social responsibility to corporate reputation: a study on understanding behavioral consequences. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 655–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on customer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. McKinsey Quarterly (2008). The state of corporate philanthropy: A McKinsey global survey. Retrieved September 5, 2012 from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_state_of_corporate_philanthropy_A_McKinsey_Global_Survey_2106.

  73. Park, J., Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust, and corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’ perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

  75. Plunkett Research (2014). Telecommunications industry overview. Retrieved March 22, 2014 from http://www.plunkettresearchonline.com.

  76. 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(5), 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Rampal, M., & Bawa, A. (2008). Corporate philanthropy: a study of customer perceptions. Vision - The Journal of Business Perspective, 12(2), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Reputation Institute (2012a). Global RepTrakTM 100. The world’s most reputable companies. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://www.reputationinstitute.com/thought-leadership/complimentary-reports-2012.

  80. Reputation Institute (2012b). Global CSR RepTrak 100. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://www.reputationinstitute.com/thought-leadership/csr-reptrak-100.

  81. Revelle, W. (2014) psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychVersion=1.4.2.

  82. Ricks, J. M. (2005). An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions of brand equity variables. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.

  86. Russell, D. W., and Russell, C. A. 2010. Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 65–81.

  87. Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy when corporate charity ‘begins at home’. Business and Society, 42(2), 169–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 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(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Schwarz, G. E. (1978). “Estimating the dimension of a model”. Annals of Statistics 6 (2): 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136.

  91. Shamsie, J. (2003). The context of dominance: an industry-driven framework for exploiting reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sheikh, S.-u.-R., & Beise-Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or cause-related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Smaiziene, I., & Jucevicius, R. (2010). Organizations and competitiveness. Facing multidimensional nature of corporate reputation: challenges for managing reputation. Social Sciences / Socialiniai Mokslai, 3(69), 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 733–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Vaidyanathan, B. (2008). Corporate giving: A literature review. Center for the Study of Religion and Society, University of Notre Dame

  96. van Beurden, P., & Gossling, T. (2008). The worth of values—a literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: a coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens. Vision, values, value added. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Boston.

  99. Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Walker, K., & Dyck, B. (2014). The primary importance of corporate social responsibility and ethicality in corporate reputation: an empirical study. Business and Society Review, 119, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based Corporate Reputation of a service firm: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Walsh, G., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2004). A conceptualization of corporate reputation in Germany: an evaluation and extension of the RQ. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 304–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Walsh, G., Beatty, S. E., & Shiu, E. M. K. (2009a). The customer-based corporate reputation scale: replication and short form. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 924–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W., Jackson, P. R., & Beatty, S. E. (2009b). Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: a customer perspective. British Journal of Management, 20(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Wang, H. L., Choi, J. P., & Li, J. T. (2008). Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weiss, T. (2007). World’s most respected companies: Building blocks for success, Forbes Magazine, May 21.

  107. Williams, R. J., & Barrett, J. D. (2000). Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Yoon, Y., Gurhan-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 Ilona Szőcs.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 6 Study constructs

Appendix B

Table 7 Group-wise latent variance covariance matrix for the four-group model

Appendix C

Table 8 Group-wise latent variance covariance matrix for the two-group model

Appendix D

Table 9 Measurement model for the four-group model

Appendix E

Table 10 Measurement model for the two-group model

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szőcs, I., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Rusch, T. et al. Linking cause assessment, corporate philanthropy, and corporate reputation. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 44, 376–396 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0417-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate philanthropy
  • Corporate reputation
  • Balance theory
  • Austria
  • Egypt