The effect of cause-related marketing on firm value: a look at Fortune’s most admired all-stars
Companies are increasing their use of cause-related marketing as a means of communicating their commitment to corporate social responsibility while accomplishing their strategic goals. Although prior studies suggest that consumers react positively to cause-related marketing programs, understanding of their impact on financial performance remains limited. To address this gap, the authors employ an event study to examine the effects of cause-related marketing announcements on shareholder value using a sample of firms that appeared on Fortune’s Most Admired All-Star list between 2005 and 2017. Study results show that announcement of these initiatives results in a significant loss of shareholder value. These losses are most pronounced for firms making monetary-only contributions, in comparison to those that make in-kind donations. In addition, the negative effects are mitigated for firms that have stronger reputations, have greater resource slack, and operate in more dynamic industries. Moreover, low-reputation and low-slack firms benefit most from in-kind contributions.
KeywordsCause-related marketing Corporate social responsibility Shareholder value Event-study analysis Resource based view
We would like to thank the three blind reviewers for all of their valuable critiques throughout this process. We also greatly appreciate Dr. Michael Peasley and Dr. Stacey Robinson for the feedback and insight they provided along the way.
- Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Donnelly, G., Hauser, O., & Gino, F. (2017). Giving to receive: Moral self-regard and positive affect increase when giving time but not money. ACR North American Advances, 45, 191–195.Google Scholar
- Edelman. (2017). Edelman trust barometer. Retrieved on March 10, 2018 from https://www.edelman.com/trust2017/.
- Elfenbein, D. W., & McManus, B. (2010). A greater price for a greater good? Evidence that consumers pay more for charity-linked products. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 28–60.Google Scholar
- Frazier, M. (2007). Costly (RED) campaign reaps meager $18 million: Bono & co. Spend up to $100 Million on Marketing, Incur Watchdogs. Wrath’. AdvertisingAge. http://adage. com/article.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1–21.Google Scholar
- Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Hambrick, D. C., & Snow, C. C. (1977). A contextual model of strategic decision making in organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1977(1), 109–112. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
- International Events Group (2018). Cause sponsorship spending to total $2.14 billion in 2018. Retrieved on March 10, 2018 from http://www.sponsorship.com/Latest-Thinking/Sponsorship-Infographics/Cause-Sponsorship-Spending-To-Total-$2-14-Billion.aspx.
- Islam, M. M., & Vate, J. V. (2013). Surplus product donation and sustainability strategy: Channels and challenges for corporate product donations. In IFIP international conference on advances in production management systems. Berlin: Springer Press.Google Scholar
- Krishna, A. (2011). Can supporting a cause decrease donations and happiness? The cause marketing paradox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 338–345.Google Scholar
- Madsen, P. M., & Rodgers, Z. J. (2015). Looking good by doing good: The antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention to corporate disaster relief. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 776–794.Google Scholar
- McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.Google Scholar
- McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (1997). Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 626–657.Google Scholar
- Moses, O. D. (1992). Organizational slack and risk-taking behaviour: tests of product pricing strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5, 38–54.Google Scholar
- Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Sharpe.Google Scholar
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.Google Scholar
- Raassens, N. (2011). The performance implications of outsourcing. CentER, Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
- Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559.Google Scholar
- Stewart, D. W., & Gugel, C. T. (Eds.). (2016). Accountable marketing: Linking marketing actions to financial performance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar