An examination of the interplay between corporate social responsibility, the brand’s home country, and consumer global identification

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine two contextual factors with respect to the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) messages on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. First, the authors examine the interplay between CSR messages and country image, and second, how consumers’ global identity affects their response to CSR signals. Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual framework is examined in two samples of US consumers evaluating a new foreign entrant into the US market. Findings – The empirical findings largely support the conceptual framework. Consistent with expectations, CSR and country image influence attitudes and purchase intentions. Most importantly, the authors also find a significant interaction effect between CSR and country of origin (COO). Further, consumers high on global identity are more responsive to positive CSR signals. These findings are confirmed in two complimentary studies. Practical implications – CSR has become an important strategic priority for managers. This study allows managers to make more informed decisions regarding the CSR initiatives of their organizations. Originality/value – This study connects the CSR literature with the COO literature, both of which are very important in the international marketing literature. Viewed through a signaling theory lens, this study provides new insights when, where, and how positive and negative CSR messages help or hurt the firm.

Spatial Distance Construal Perspectives on Cause-Related Marketing: The Importance of Nationalism in Russia

“…Table 1 lists empirical research that addresses CSR or CRM, referencing the research context (i.e., country of investigation and CSR or CRM focus); the spatial distance of the firm (local or global), cause, and consumer cultural identity beliefs; and key findings. Research has examined local, regional, national, and global causes, with several studies contrasting local versus global causes (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al 2011; Grinstein and Riefler 2015; Gruber and Schlegelmilch 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Kolk, Van Dolen, and Ma 2015; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Russell and Russell 2010; Vanhamme et al 2012). Perhaps not surprisingly with expanding globalization, a majority of these cause-focused studies have examined global companies and brands (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al 2011; Gruber and Schlegelmilch 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Torres et al 2012) and paid little attention to local, domestic firms (see Choi et al 2016 for an exception).…”

“…Research has examined local, regional, national, and global causes, with several studies contrasting local versus global causes (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al 2011; Grinstein and Riefler 2015; Gruber and Schlegelmilch 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Kolk, Van Dolen, and Ma 2015; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Russell and Russell 2010; Vanhamme et al 2012). Perhaps not surprisingly with expanding globalization, a majority of these cause-focused studies have examined global companies and brands (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al 2011; Gruber and Schlegelmilch 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Torres et al 2012) and paid little attention to local, domestic firms (see Choi et al 2016 for an exception). Further, a few more recent studies have examined the impact of cultural identity beliefs on CRM effectiveness, paying the most attention to global identity (Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Russell and Russell 2010) and cosmopolitanism (Grinstein and Riefler 2015).…”

“…Perhaps not surprisingly with expanding globalization, a majority of these cause-focused studies have examined global companies and brands (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al 2011; Gruber and Schlegelmilch 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Torres et al 2012) and paid little attention to local, domestic firms (see Choi et al 2016 for an exception). Further, a few more recent studies have examined the impact of cultural identity beliefs on CRM effectiveness, paying the most attention to global identity (Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Russell and Russell 2010) and cosmopolitanism (Grinstein and Riefler 2015). A review of this work, however, indicates that the extant research has not systematically investigated spatial proximity propositions across the firm, the cause, and consumer cultural identity beliefs at the global and local levels.…”

“…Second, although CSR-CRM is a global phenomenon, most studies have been conducted in developed markets (e.g., Cui et al 2003; Grau and Folse 2007; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Vanhamme et al 2012). Some, however, have focused on emerging markets (e.g., Gruber and Schlegelmich 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015), and a few have examined both developed and emerging markets (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al 2011; Choi et al 2016; Torres et al 2012).…”

“…Recently, local and global environmental causes have demanded more attention from consumers and firms worldwide (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Morgan 2013; Pfitzer, Bockstette, and Stamp 2013; Torelli, Monga, and Kaikati 2012; Varadarajan 2014), and interest in ethical consumption is growing in emerging markets (Crang and Hughes 2015). Notably, research has examined broader environmental CSR initiatives (Grinstein and Riefler 2015; Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Vanhamme et al 2012) and focused on developed markets (Eteokleous, Leonidou, and Katsikeas 2016; Trudel and Cotte 2009). Herein, our work provides a unique lens by contrasting consumers’ reactions to global and local firms supporting global versus local environmental causes in Russia, a country with vast environmental resources and growing support and concern for the environment (Bedtisky 2012; Bobylev and Perelet 2013).…”