Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building corporate reputation through consumer responses to green new products

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of sustainability to customers, companies, and society requires an examination of the effects of green new products (GNPs). This study extends past research by examining consumer responses to a GNP and their impact on a parent firm’s corporate reputation (CR). Survey responses were used to test a structural model that investigated whether consumer responses to a new wind farm bolstered an energy service company’s CR. Results suggest adding a GNP to a service company’s portfolio can improve consumer-based perceptions of CR. Perceptions of fit between the GNP and its larger parent company were also found to moderate explanatory links in the model. However, preexisting beliefs consumers held about the value of CSR practices and the importance of the CSR domain in which those actions were engaged did not. Strategic implications discuss how service managers can better use GNP associations to boost CR.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Incorporated in the e-survey, descriptions were adapted directly from each entity’s respective Web site.

References

  • Agarwal, J., O. Osiyevskyy, and P. Feldman. 2015. Corporate reputation measurement: Alternative factor structures, nomological validity, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics 130(2): 485–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia, R., and Z. Gürhan-Canli. 2000. The effects of extensions on the family brand name: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 27(3): 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali, R., R. Lynch, T. Melewar, and Z. Jin. 2015. The moderating influences on the relationship of corporate reputation with its antecedents and consequences: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Research 68(5): 1105–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. 1994. AMOS: Analysis of moment structures. Psychometrika 59: 135–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., and Y. Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H., A. Ellinger, J. Hadjimarcou, and P. Traichal. 2000. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing 17(6): 449–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, W., R. Netemeyer, and J. Teel. 1989. Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research 15(4): 473–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107(2): 238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berens, G., C. Van Riel, and G. Van Bruggen. 2005. Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing 69(3): 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C., and S. Sen. 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review 47(1): 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. 2001. Relationships between personal and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing 35: 316–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., and P. Dacin. 1997. The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 61(1): 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnkrant, R., and T. Page. 1982. An examination of the convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of Fishbein’s behavioral intention model. Journal of Marketing Research 19: 550–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S., and R. Netemeyer. 1992. The effect of enduring, situational, and response involvement on preference stability in the context of voting behavior. Psychology & Marketing 9(2): 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, T., and W. Zhu. 2011. Enhancing corporate reputation for market expansion in China: Customer orientation and the mediating effect of product and service quality. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19(2): 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A., and S. Blair. 2015. Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research 41(2): 1412–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, P., and T. Brown. 2002. Corporate identity and corporate asociations: A framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review 5(2/3): 254–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leaniz, P., and I. Del Bosque. 2013. Intellectual capital and relational capital: The role of sustainability in developing corporate reputation. Intellectual Capital 9(1): 262–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G., and P. Moran. 2012. Corporate reputations: Built in or bolted on? California Management Review 54(2): 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumaine, B. 2014. Is Apple “greener” than Starbucks? Fortune, 24 June 2014, http://fortune.com/2014/06/24/50-best-global-green-brands-2014/. Accessed May 26, 2016.

  • Edwards, J. 2009. Seven deadly myths of testing moderation in organizational research. In Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences, ed. C.E. Lance and R.J. Vandenberg, 143–164. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P., D. Webb, and L. Mohr. 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 

  • Fombrun, C., N. Gardberg, and J. Sever. 2000. The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management 7(4): 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. 2012. The building blocks of corporate reputation: Definitions, antecedents, consequences. In The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation, ed. M. Barnett and T. Pollock, 94–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, D., and M. Pritchard. 2006. Sport publicity: Commitment’s moderation of message effects. Journal of Business Research 59(5): 613–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin, J. 2016. Structural equation modeling: Testing interaction effects. Accessed March 1, 2016. From Gaskination’s StatWiki, http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com.

  • Habel, J., L. Schons, S. Alavi, and J. Wieseke. 2016. Warm glow or extra charge? The ambivalent effect of corporate social responsibility activities on customers’ perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing 80(1): 84–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., and P. Bentler. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3 (4): 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghiemstra, R. 2000. Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27(1): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. 2016. Reflections on customer-based brand equity: Perspectives, progress, and priorities. AMS Review 6(1–2): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M., and D. Whitney. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubin, D., and D. Esty. 2010. The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review 88(5): 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madrigal, R. 2000. The role of corporate associations in new product evaluation. In Advances in consumer research, vol. 27, ed. S. Hoch and R. Meyer, 80–86. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makower, J. 2015. Ecoimagination at 10: A status report. Green Biz, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ecomagination-10-status-report. Accessed May 27, 2016.

  • McKinsey and Company. 2015. Sustainability’s strategic worth, http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results. Accessed January 9, 2016.

  • Mittal, V., W. Ross, and P. Baldasare. 1998. The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing 62(1): 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mysen, T. 2012. Sustainability as corporate mission and strategy. European Business Review 24(6): 496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, G., M. Gorlin, and R. Dhar. 2014. When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research 41(3): 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. 1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research 20(3): 418–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, M., R. Slotegraaf, and S. Chandukala. 2014. Green claims and message frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing 78(3): 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E., and H. Thjømøe. 2011. Explaining and articulating the fit construct in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising 40(1): 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., and J. Shang. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina, J., F. Dall’Olmo Riley, and W. Lomax. 2013. Generalizing spillover effects of goods and service brand extensions: A meta-analysis approach. Journal of Business Research 66(9): 1411–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ping, R. 1995. A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research 32(3): 336–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., S. Mackenzie, J. Lee, and N. Podsakoff. 2003. Common methods bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pracejus, J., and G. Olsen. 2004. The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research 57(6): 635–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., and A. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(4): 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruekert, R., and G. Churchill Jr. 1984. Reliability and validity of alternative measures of channel member satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 21(2): 226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitz, A. 2012. The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success, and how you can too. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., and C. Bhattacharya. 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 

  • Sen, S., C. Bhattacharya, and D. Korschun. 2006. The role of CSR in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Research 34(2): 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheinin, D. 2000. The effects of experience with brand extensions on parent brand knowledge. Journal of Business Research 49(1): 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speed, R., and P. Thompson. 2000. Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinson, J., and M. Pritchard. 2014. Leveraging sport for social marketing and corporate social responsibility. In Leveraging brands in sport business, ed. M. Pritchard and J. Stinson, 221–237. New York, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, J., and M. Slattery. 2010. Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 38(5): 2508–2519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh, G., and R. Ettenson. 2010. Winning in the Green Frenzy. Harvard Business Review 88(11): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R., and C. Lance. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3(1): 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rekom, J., G. Berens, and M. Van Halderen. 2013. Corporate social responsibility: Playing to win, or playing not to lose? Doing good by increasing the social benefits of a company’s core activities. Journal of Brand Management 20(9): 800–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Walsh, G., B. Bartikowski, and S. Beatty. 2014. Impact of customer-based corporate reputation on non-monetary and monetary outcomes: The roles of commitment and service context risk. British Journal of Management 25(1): 166–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., and S. Beatty. 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 

  • Walsh, G., K. Dinnie, and K.P. Wiedmann. 2006. How do corporate reputation and customer satisfaction impact customer defection? A study of private energy customers in Germany. Journal of Services Marketing 20(6): 412–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., V. Mitchell, P. Jackson, and S. Beatty. 2009. Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective. British Journal of Management 20(1): 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., H.P. Lo, and Y.V. Hui. 2003. The antecedents of service quality and product quality and their influence on bank reputation: Evidence from the banking industry in China. Managing Service Quality 13(1): 72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, R. 1999. Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(3): 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., J. Lynch, and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37: 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, 400 East University Way, MS-7485, Ellensburg, WA, 98926, USA

    Mark Pritchard & Theresa Wilson

Authors
  1. Mark Pritchard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Pritchard.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Corporation/Product Descriptions UsedFootnote 1

Corporate Profile:

The state’s oldest, local energy utility, [Corporation] has a rich 135 year history of energy leadership, groundbreaking, innovation and dedicated customer service to local communities. [Corporation] focuses on delivering safe, reliable, affordable energy, and is committed to great customer service and making our communities better places to live and work.

Fast facts

  • Employees: 2800

  • Customers: 1.1 million electric, 750,000 + natural gas

  • Service: 6000 + sq.miles, approx.4 million + residents

Corporate mission

Ethics and Compliance: summarized in a sentence, “Do what is right.”

Environment: Doing smart things for the planet and customers with clean, green, efficient technology.

The Land: Protecting habitat, clearing trails, restoring stream banks and planting trees.

Fish Friendly: Enhancing fish populations and mitigating the impact of state hydropower operations.

Bird Safety: Modifying energy facilities and power lines to protect our avian friends.

Green New Product Profile:

[Product Name] Wind and Solar Farm has 149 turbines spanning across 10,000 acres. Since 2009, the facility can generate up to 273 megawatts of electricity, enough to serve more than 80,000 homes. [Product Name] benefits the surrounding community by creating jobs, lease income for landowners, significant local tax revenues, and contains the region’s largest solar power array.

Appendix 2

Factor analytic results of moderator variables (n = 139)

Factor/items

Factor Loadingsa

Mean/SD

F1

F2

F3

CSR domain b (Bang et al. 2000)

 CSRD 1 environmental impact

(6.0/1.2)

0.329

0.873

0.044

 CSRD 2 pollution

(6.3/1.0)

0.266

0.861

0.020

 CSRD 3 water usage

(5.8/1.4)

0.122

0.859

0.189

Product-corporate brand fit c (Berens et al. 2005)

 FIT 1 [product name] fits with the overall image of [corporate name]

(5.0/0.9)

0.082

0.051

0.933

 FIT 2 [product name] is a logical product for [corporate name] to have developed

(5.2/1.0)

0.248

0.047

0.864

 FIT 3 In many ways [product name] is similar to [corporate name]

(4.7/1.0)

0.024

0.061

0.884

CSR Beliefs d (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001)

 CSRB 1 SRe behavior weakens a company’s ability to provide the best

(5.6/1.6)

0.831

0.300

0.128

 CSRB 2 SR behavior drains company resources

(5.5/1.6)

0.781

0.384

0.020

 CSRB 3 SR behavior by firms often covers up for inferior products

(5.4/1.6)

0.828

0.040

0.132

 CSRB 4 SR firms produce worse products than other firms

(5.8/1.3)

0.900

0.167

0.053

 CSRB 5 All things equal, SR firms have lower technological expertise than others

(5.8/1.4)

0.876

0.157

0.045

 CSRB 6 Firms devoting resources to SR action have less for training employees

(5.8/1.3)

0.889

0.131

0.005

 CSRB 7 Companies can be both SR and manufacture products of high value

(6.4/0.9)

0.661

0.251

0.128

 CSRB 8 Resources devoted to SR come at the expense of improving product offerings

(5.4/1.6)

0.733

0.152

0.222

Eigenvalue

 

5.59

2.64

2.54

% Explained variance

 

39.93

18.88

18.15

  1. aPrincipal component factor analysis with varimax rotation. Rotated component matrix shown, see factor loadings in bold
  2. bAttached to seven-point bipolar importance rating scales (1—not important to 7—very important)
  3. cAttached to six-point Likert-style scales (1—strongly disagree to 6—strongly agree)
  4. dAttached to seven-point Likert scales (1—strongly disagree to 7—strongly agree)
  5. eSocially responsible

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pritchard, M., Wilson, T. Building corporate reputation through consumer responses to green new products. J Brand Manag 25, 38–52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0071-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0071-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation