Corporate social responsibility and transparent pricing in the case of the euro changeover

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop a matrix of socially responsible behaviour and communication types (corporate social responsibility (CSR)-BC matrix) to explain different practices companies use when dealing with stakeholder issues, such as transparent changeover pricing. Design/methodology/approach -The analysis takes theories and research on CSR, transparent pricing and consumer expectations, and a case study approach as its starting point. It explores a case study of adoption of the euro in Slovenia, the 13th member state that joined the European Monetary Union. It deals with the importance of expectations about the changeover process and the responsible behaviour and communications of companies. Findings -According to the data, the cases of changeover can be explained with the CSR-BC matrix. According to the results, it seems that the majority of companies did not abuse the changeover process. This indicates that consumer expectations and actions can be a meaningful sign for companies to adopt appropriate CSR behaviours and communication regarding the euro changeover.Research limitations/implications -The case study has some limitations regarding the data. For a more thorough exploratory research stronger data such as interviews within the companies would be beneficial. Originality/value -The paper contributes to the CSR literature by explicitly linking pricing behaviour and CSR and by developing a CSR-BC matrix that can be used in exploring corporate pricing behaviours or other behaviours and communication practices as well. With the case study illustration it also allows for a theoretical understanding that such behaviours are not made in a vacuum.

Audience Enabling as Corporate Responsibility for Media Organizations

“…Furthermore, exceeding expectations was mentioned as a way to strengthen or improve reputation, whereas failing to meet expectations was seen as a source for reputational threats (e.g., . Responsibility was explained in my sample as conformance to societal expectations or as anticipation of societal expectations (e.g., Golob, Jancic, & Lah, 2009;Westhues & Einwiller, 2006), much in the same vein as legitimacy, which was defined as societal support for organizational actions that result from congruence with societal expectations and norms (e.g., Barnett, 2007;.…”

“…Table 6 below sums up the definitions. Grunwald and Hempelmann (2010, p. 266) originate from culturally based and learned mental prototypes that are used for comparisons Hallahan (2001, p. 49) reference points for future assessments Luoma-aho, Olkkonen, and Lähteenmäki (2013, p. 248) beliefs about what is to be expected Podnar and Golob (2007, p. 329) originate from the mental models people use as internal representations of the manner in which the world works Reichart (2003, p. 62) The definitions offered in the sample open up different views of expectationssuch as expectations as normative constructions of what should happen (Golob et al, 2009) and expectations as predictive constructions of what will happen -that are similar to what has been noted earlier in customer management and customer satisfaction studies (e.g., . Furthermore, expectations were referred to as judgment standards , reference points , and products of the institutional context .…”

“…article studied expectations of corporate responsibility and stakeholder support, studied expectations in connection with reputation risks, and studied expectation analysis in a case organization. The other five articles that included a definition focused on other topics-more specifically, issues management , corporate responsibility (Golob et al, 2009;, and crisis management -and thus did not study expectations as such.…”

“…For example, Golob et al (2009, p. 458) define social and stakeholder expectations as the main drivers of corporate responsibility, and Westhues and Einwiller (2006, p. 145) see corporate responsibility as the anticipation of societal expectations and correspondence with corporate behavior and prevailing social norms, values, and performance expectations. Societal expectations were also mentioned by Bitektine (2008), Colleoni (2013), Golob et al (2009), Ihlen (2008, , and Westhues and Einwiller (2006) in relation to legitimacy that was seen to derive from congruence with societal expectations and norms, or to be dependent on the ability to meet, exceed, or even anticipate different societal expectations. What these societal expectations are in more detail-and, in particular, how they are formed-was often left unexplained.…”

“…The sample included only five articles that recognize expectations as both positive and negative constructions. Of these five, the article by Golob et al (2009) is the only one that was included in the articles that offer a definition of expectations. They briefly mention "skeptical expectations" that are connected to issues such as nontransparency and distrust (Golob et al, 2009, p. 462).…”