Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 158–166 | Cite as

The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment

  • Sankar Sen
  • C. B. Bhattacharya
  • Daniel Korschun


This research relied on a field experiment involving a real-world instance of corporate philanthropy to shed light on both the scope and limitations of the strategic returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR). In particular, the authors demonstrate that the impact of CSR in the real world is not only less pervasive than has been previously acknowledged but also more multifaceted than has been previously conceptualized. The findings indicated that contingent on CSR awareness, which was rather low, stakeholders did react positively to the focal company not only in the consumption domain but in the employment and investment domains as well. Stakeholder attributions regarding the genuineness of the company’s motives moderated these effects.


corporate social responsibility corporate philanthropy consumers stakeholders 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alsop, Ronald. 2002. “For a Company, Charitable Works Are Best Carried Out Discreetly.”The Wall Street Journal January 16.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (December): 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barone, Michael J., Anthony D. Miyazaki, and Kimberly A. Taylor. 2000. “The Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another?”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (Spring): 248–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sankar Sen. 2003. “Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationship With Companies.”Journal of Marketing 67 (April): 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. — and —. 2004. “Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives.”California Management Review 47 (Fall): 9–25.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin. 1997. “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses.”Journal of Marketing 61 (January): 68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ——, Michael G. Pratt, and David A. Whetten. 2006. “Identity, Intended Image, Construed Image, and Reputation: An Interdisciplinary Framework and Suggested Terminology.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (2): 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cone. 2004 “Cone Corporate Citizenship Study.” Research Report. Boston: Cone.Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, Thomas and Lee E. Preston. 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications.”Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellen, Pam Scholder, Deborah J. Webb, and Lois A. Mohr. 2006. “Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Social Responsibility Programs.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (2): 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fein, Steven. 1996. “Effects of Suspicion on Attributional Thinking and the Correspondence Bias.”Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 70 (June): 1164–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forehand, Mark R. and Sonya Grier. 2003. “When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (3): 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greening, D. W., and D. B. Turban. 2000. “Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce.”Business & Society 39 (3): 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gourville, John T. and V. Kasturi Rangan. 2004. “Valuing the Cause Marketing Relationship.”California Management Review 47 (Fall): 38–58.Google Scholar
  15. Kerlinger, F. N. 1986.Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, Jill and Niraj Dawar. 2004. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumers’ Attributions and Brand Evaluations in a Product-Harm Crisis.”International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (3): 203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette E. Drumwright, and Bridgette M. Braig. 2004. “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits.”Journal of Marketing 68 (October): 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maignan, Isabelle, and O. C. Ferrell. 2004. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (Winter): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paul, Peter J., Gilbert A Churchill, Jr., and Tom Brown. 1993. “Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 19 (March): 655–677.Google Scholar
  20. Sen, Sankar and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2001. “Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility.”Journal of Marketing Research 38 (May): 43–62.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, N. Craig 2003. “Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?”California Management Review 45 (Summer): 1–25.Google Scholar
  22. Turban, D. B. and D. W. Greening. 1997. “Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees.”Academy of Management Journal 40 (3): 658–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ulrich, Dave and Norm Smallwood. 2004. “Capitalizing on Capabilities.”Harvard Business Review 82 (June): 119–128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sankar Sen
    • 1
  • C. B. Bhattacharya
    • 2
  • Daniel Korschun
    • 2
  1. 1.Baruch CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Boston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations