6-page project in 6 hrs

Understanding Corporate Social

Responsibility and Product Perceptions

in Consumer Markets:

A Cross-cultural

Evaluation

Jaywant Singh

Maria del Mar Garcia de los Salmones Sanchez

Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque

ABSTRACT. The concept of corporate social responsi-

bility is becoming integral to effective corporate brand

management. This study adopts a multidimensional and

cross-country perspective of the concept and analyses

consumer perceptions of behaviour of four leading con-

sumer products manufacturers. Data was collected from

consumers in two countries – Spain and the UK. The

study analyses consumers� degree of interest in corporate responsibility and its impact on their perception about the

company. The findings here suggest a weak impact of

company-specific communication on consumers� per- ception. The implications of this study are relevant to

companies for strengthening their social responsibility

associations with the consumers.

KEY WORDS: Corporate Social Responsibility, con-

sumer perceptions, corporate communication, product

evaluations

Introduction

Corporate brand image management has become a

key strategic activity for many companies today. The

importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

for companies is seen in the form of numerous ini-

tiatives, forums and associations arising in public and

private sector environments. Examples include The

European Multi-stakeholder Forum for CSR, the

European Commission Green Paper and the OECD

guideline directives for multinational companies.

International networks have also been created to

develop the concept, e.g. CSR Europe, the Euro-

pean Ethic Business Network, along with the

appearance of financial indices composed of com-

panies that fulfil a series of social criteria, such as the

FTSE4Good and the Down Jones Sustainability.

Currently there are over 2200 members supporting

the United Nations World Pact 1 . Around 90 com-

panies are following Global Reporting Initiatives

Principles 2

as guidelines for drawing up their annual

reports.

Frederick (1994) foresaw the birth of a new era in

which a sense of proactive corporate responsibility

would mature. In more recent times, academic

research has focused on understanding the nature of

corporate social behaviour as a part of overall cor-

porate brand image. In this respect, a number of

Dr. Jaywant Singh is Senior Lecturer at Kingston University,

London where he teaches consumer behaviour and interna-

tional marketing. His research interests include customer

loyalty, product variants, new brands, corporate social

responsibility, and consumer panel data. He received his PhD

in marketing in 2004.

Dr. Maria del Mar Garcia de los Salmones is Lecturer at

University of Cantabria (Spain). Her current research inter-

ests include corporate social responsibility, brand image and

consumer behaviour. She received her PhD in business

administration in 2002.

Dr. Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque is Professor of Marketing at

the University of Cantabria (Spain). His current research

interests include business communication, relationship mar-

keting and distribution channels. He has published in several

international journals such as Tourism, Management,

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services and

Industrial Marketing Management.

Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 80:597–611 � Springer 2007 DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9457-6

studies (e.g. Barich and Kotler, 1991; Barich and

Srinavasan, 1993; Marckwill and Fill, 1997) have

identified corporate image as a multidimensional

concept. Two important dimensions of this concept

identified by the researchers are – corporate social

and commercial responsibilities (e.g. Brown and

Dacin, 1997; Berens et al., 2005; Sen and Bhat-

tacharya, 2001).

The purpose of this study is twofold – to estimate

the degree of interest aroused in consumers through

a company�s CSR information reaching to them, and to verify how perceptions of a company�s so- cially responsible behaviour affects its corporate

image. Specifically, the study examines the direct

effects and the possible existence of a non-linear

relationship between CSR perception and the brand

image. The relationship between variables could be

affected by external factors, such as demographic and

behavioural features. These factors are also taken

into consideration here.

This study has been carried out across two coun-

tries – United Kingdom (UK) and Spain. A cross-

cultural analysis could help identify the similarities

and the differences between the consumers� percep- tions of CSR issues. Specifically, four leading man-

ufacturers of frequently bought consumer products

were chosen on the basis of their market-share

leadership in their respective product categories. The

choice of leading and well-known brands enabled

better responses with higher levels of accuracy about

recall of how the companies� social actions are per- ceived and also how they affect various associations of

their image. The primary data analysed here were

collected through personal surveys.

Corporate social responsibility: Current state

of research

A majority of the large corporations function under

an obligation to maximise shareholder earnings by

undertaking actions that increase business profit

(Friedman, 1962). However, in order to create value

they are also increasingly taking other interest groups

into account, such as their employees, customers,

suppliers, the government and the community in

which they operate (e.g. Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson

and Preston, 1995; Esrock and Leichty, 1998). The

idea started taking shape from the 1960s onwards

with the realisation that firms have responsibilities

towards their environment that go beyond their legal

and economic obligations (McGuire, 1963). Thus

companies have ethical obligations with all their

stakeholders and are expected to be society-oriented,

having voluntary activities aiming to raise the well-

being of the society as a whole (e.g. Carroll, 1979,

1991; Lewin et al., 1995; Maignan and Ferrell,

2001). Together these aspects constitute the basis for

corporate social responsibility.

The economic dimension is supposed to be a part

of the CSR. However, the way this dimension is

perceived and its relationship with CSR differs

greatly amongst companies and the consumers.

Some studies (e.g. Maignan and Ferrell, 2001) have

cast doubt on the way the construct of CSR is

understood by the companies. Aupperle et al. (1985)

suggest that the economic dimension inversely cor-

relates to ethical, legal and philanthropic associations.

These authors also consider the categories of �con- cern for society�, which include the three dimen- sions, along with the �concern for economic results�. Garcia de los Salmones et al. (2005) demonstrated

that for consumers, the economic dimension need

not be included in the overall CSR construct.

The economic responsibility, however, does not

merely suggest a pursuance of profit. It also includes

generating value and it translates into training and

motivating the staff involved in the sales process,

innovation and improvement of the productive

processes to offer quality products (De la Cuesta

and Valor, 2003). Thus from the consumer view-

point it is closely related to product commercialisa-

tion (Graafland et al., 2004). This dimension may

therefore be termed ‘‘commercial responsibility’’.

The management of socially responsible behav-

iour is important because of its impact on the per-

ception of the corporate brand. This is often evident

in the corporate brand dominance strategies where

brand associations include both attributes pertaining

to the product and those related to the company�s social activities (Balmer, 1995; Brown and Dacin,

1997). Rust et al. (2000) suggest enriching a brand

with ethical and social questions increases its value.

These associations may influence the consumer in

their assessment of products and in their recom-

mendations or brand loyalty (e.g. Brown and Dacin,

1997; Berens et al., 2005; Handelmann and Arnold,

1999; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; Maignan et al.,

598 Jaywant Singh et al.

1999), as well as their evaluation of a brand manu-

facturer (e.g. Brown and Dacin, 1997; Fombrun and

Shanley, 1990; Swaen and Vanhamme, 2005).

Most studies testing consumers� perceptions of socially responsible behaviour are usually experi-

mental in nature. This means that the respondents

are presented with contrived scenarios, often with

fictitious brands and their responses are subsequently

measured (e.g. see Berens et al., 2005; Brown and

Dacin, 1997; Handelmann and Arnold, 1999; Sen

and Bhattacharya, 2001; Swaen and Vanhamme,

2005). In a real context (with well-known consumer

brands) the results may vary, because CSR practices

are not well-known, either due to their complexity

and their multidimensional nature (Mohr et al.,

2001), or due to the lack of communication forth-

coming from the companies about these matters.

Thus, it would be interesting to determine, first, to

what extent consumers know about the social

responsibility records of some CSR-oriented cor-

porations (Maignan, 2001).

Another significant issue is the possible existence

of cross-cultural differences in perceptions and

positioning about CSR. Culture has been docu-

mented as one of the most important variables

influencing ethical decision-making (Rawwas, 2001;

Rawwas et al., 2005). Crucially, consumer ethics has

been reported to vary from nation to nation due to

historical patterns of behaviour (Babakus et al.,

1994) and different concepts, norms and values

(Rawwas et al., 2005). This has previously been

studied in works generally focused on students and

other groups from dissimilar cultures. For instance,

Vitell and Paolillo (2004) and Vitell and Ramos

(2006) measured the perceived role of ethics and

social responsibility as a component of business

decisions on a sample of marketing professionals

from Europe and the United States. Similarly, Quazi

and O�Brien (2000) tested a two-dimensional model of CSR with a survey of chief executive officers

from Bangladesh and Australia.

With students as sample, some of the studies have

analysed differences in attitudes towards business

ethics (e.g. Grünhaum, 1997; Lysonski and Gaidis,

1991), ethical beliefs and moral philosophies

(Ahmed et al., 2003; Babakus et al., 2004; Rawwas

et al., 2005). Other studies, such as Burtin et al.

(2000) and Maignan (2001) are more focused on the

CSR concept and they examine differences in eco-

nomic, ethic, legal and philanthropic orientation

between students from different cultural settings –

USA and Hong Kong in the first case and between

U.S. and Europe in the second one.

The studies cited above have covered several

aspects of CSR, however most are focused on coun-

tries or continents that are economically and culturally

divergent. Little is known about the cross-cultural

perceptions in culturally homogeneous settings, such

as countries within one trading block or economic

area. Analysing differences in a culturally less-distant

setting would have more relevance, primarily because

the differences are less evident a priori (Polonsky

et al., 2001). Studies by Polonsky et al. (2001),

Rawwas et al. (1994) and Al Khatib et al. (2005)

compare neighbouring countries, but they focus on

ethics only. More work is needed to understand this

aspect of cross-cultural CSR perceptions.

Moreover, the existing literature does not have

many studies focused on consumers. Rawwas et al.

(2005) gathered data of a sample of individuals, but

they analyse the ethical and moral positioning, not

their perceptions about the business in CSR matters.

This study aims to fill this gap.

Research hypotheses

This study is centred on CSR perceptions of con-

sumers from two European countries – UK and

Spain. Their geographical location, in northern and

southern Europe, marks differences on several issues.

The two are culturally similar to an extent being part

of the European Union. At the same time, they have

differences that make their comparison interesting.

For instance, these are countries with their own

political traditions, historical and cultural develop-

ments (Bohata, 1997) that explain cultural (Hofstede,

1983) and ethical differences (Al Khatib et al., 1997;

Polonsky et al., 2001; Rossouw, 1994). Besides their

location in the north and south of Europe, marked

differences exist in overall economic development

and growth (Polonsky et al., 2001).

Even though a number of studies have attempted

to establish the link between CSR and a corporate

brand�s market performance, not much is known about how consumers perceive socially responsible

behaviour of frequently bought consumer goods

brands. Generally, consumers may show a high level

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 599

of awareness about a brand in a product category,

and at the same time might not know about the

manufacturer�s activities for the society�s benefit. Therefore it is appropriate to determine the extent

to which consumers perceive the manufacturers of

well-known brands inform them about their social

practices and analyse if they show an interest in

information about their social and ethical practices.

This knowledge of the consumers� perceptions could be crucial for developing an informed communica-

tion strategy for a CSR-minded company.

The corporate social communication directed to

consumers is still at an early stage of development

(Bigne et al., 2005). Mostly information on these

matters are found in the companies� annual reports. In fact several studies (e.g. Gray et al., 1995) con-

sider the CSR information to be directed to the

financial segment. However, consumers are known

to notice the more tangible aspects that might

influence their buying decisions directly, such as,

quality, innovation, compliance to standards, guar-

antees and other information provided about the

product (Fombrun, 1996; Maignan and Ferrell,

2001) – issues generally subsumed under commercial

responsibility. The ethical and social associations go

relatively unnoticed because the influence is usually

indirect and the concepts being of secondary

importance for most customers.

The impact of this commercial responsibility is

that businesses try to reach the consumers with a

concerted marketing effort, because this is easily

perceived. This is independent of the country or

cultural differences. However in different countries,

differences about the perception of CSR informa-

tion may appear. For example, UK is ahead of Spain

in the development of CSR, and it is considered an

exemplary case in its promotion. In Spain this con-

cept arrived much later, and it did not have credi-

bility until 2002 (Fundación Ecologı́a y Desarrollo,

2004). In fact, the concept is still unknown to a wide

percentage of Spanish people (Forética, 2006).

Therefore, it may be said that:

H1: Consumers from Spain consider communica-

tion about CSR practices to be less visible than

consumers from UK.

Each interest group has its own expectations and a

relationship with firms. The attributes of the latter

will, therefore, be valued to a greater or lesser extent

in certain situations, depending on the company�s interaction with its audiences (Caruana, 1997; Kel-

ler, 1993). Consumers are generally more interested

in information about marketing practices, a logical

attitude which also a reason why CSR is not a

dominant criterion in buying decisions (Boulstridge

and Carrigan, 2000). While accepting the impor-

tance of commercial perceptions, the question arises

about the interest generated by information on

corporate social responsibility. In this sense and

considering a different perspective on the concept, it

is proposed that Spanish consumers may have a

minor knowledge, which can cause a smaller public

awareness and interest for CSR. Therefore, it may

be said that:

H2: Consumers from Spain are interested to a

minor extent in obtaining information about

companies� CSR than consumers from UK.

While evaluating a company, perceptions

regarding commercial responsibility are most com-

monly taken into consideration. In spite of compa-

nies responding to social needs in a variety of ways,

these efforts seem to lack a unified collective impact

on public opinion (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987).

The ethical and social association go relatively

unnoticed mainly because the influence is usually

indirect and the concepts being of secondary

importance for most customers. This lack of

awareness may become an inhibitor of consumer

sensitivity and explain why they might not be taken

into account while appraising a company (e.g.

Maignan and Ferrell, 2004).

This suggests that the commercial responsibility

dimension, given its greater visibility and the fact

that it is more customer-focussed, will exert a greater

effect on overall perception of the company, inde-

pendent of the country analysed. Differences may

appear with the importance of CSR activities

involved in image generation. Taking into account

the same reasoning discussed on the previous

hypothesis, it is possible to say:

H3: CSR will have a minor influence on the

overall evaluation of a company in the case of

consumers from Spain than consumers from

UK.

600 Jaywant Singh et al.

Independent of the country differences, the

influence of CSR dimensions on image may be

conditioned by various moderator variables. A

moderator variable can be defined as a variable that

systematically modifies either the form and/or the

strength of the relationship between a dependent

variable and an independent variable (Anderson,

1986). Several issues could be proposed as modera-

tors of the relation between the corporate image and

corporate social responsibility dimensions. One of

them is the demographic profile of the individual

(Arlow, 1991; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001; Miesing

and Preble, 1985). The findings show that working

experience affects perceptions of these issues (Arlow,

1991) as younger people are found to be usually

more sensitive to the companies� social behaviour (Arbuthnot, 1977; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980).

Similarly it has been shown that students see them-

selves as more concerned about social responsibility

than professionals (Beggs and Lane, 1989) while they

are less exposed to ethical questions (Miesing and

Preble, 1985). Therefore, it may be said that:

H4: The occupation of consumers moderates the

influence of CSR on the overall company

image.

The corporate social behaviour is linked to loy-

alty. Many proactive corporations monitor customer

satisfaction closely and as a result individuals may

express their trust and appreciation of the CSR

efforts by continuing to buy its products (Maignan

et al., 1999). On the other hand, the familiarity or

the degree of general user knowledge of a company

resulting from their experiences with that firm and

their loyalty may lead to conditioning the perception

of corporate behaviour (Park et al., 1992). Cus-

tomers� experience could allow them to develop strong beliefs and a more elaborate cognitive struc-

ture (Mitchell and Dacin, 1996) which implies

possible reference schemes to make different

appraisals, as compared to the customers at a lower

awareness level (Soderlund, 2002), and stronger ties

(Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). It is foreseeable then,

that those with closer relations with a company will

have more information about it and will be able to

make a more conscious judgement of its behaviour.

It might also influence customer loyalty – the more

proactive the corporate citizenship, the greater the

loyalty. On the contrary, people who are less familiar

with that company will base their evaluations on

more subjective and less elaborate judgements, and

the influence of socially responsible behaviour will

be less acute. Therefore the hypothesis:

H5: User experience with a company moderates

the influence of CSR on the overall company

image.

Lastly, another moderator variable is the personal

values of the consumers (Maignan and Ferrell, 2001)

or their predisposition towards the socially respon-

sible practices of the companies (Sen and Bhattach-

arya, 2001). It follows that the consumers who

consider these practices as a purchasing criterion will

focus on them to a bigger extent. It is possible then

that they might take into account this behaviour

strongly in the valuation of a company, i.e.,

H6: The support to socially responsible business

when shopping moderates the influence of

CSR on the overall company image.

Methodology

This study investigates the above hypotheses for four

market leaders in their respective product categories

– dairy products (Danone), soft drinks (Coca Cola),

cereals (Kelloggs) and toothpaste (Colgate). These

brands represent a wide range of consumer products

and have high market shares. The selection of well-

known brands facilitates responses that correspond to

the respondent�s preference for the brands and their awareness of the brands� CSR activities. The survey carried out in this research, therefore, is less con-

trived as it includes brands that are well-known to

the consumers because of their market size. This is

also supported by the literature on attitude-behav-

iour link. A number of behavioural studies have

suggested that customers show stronger attitudes

towards bigger brands (e.g. Barnard and Ehrenberg,

1990; Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1985). The choice of

brands from across the categories obliterates the

comparisons within the product category. Moreover

consumers take activities of strong and powerful

organisations into account more easily and are more

affected as compared to the smaller companies

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 601

(Schröder and McEachern, 2005). These companies

are all active in the field of CSR, as evident from the

detailed profiles provided on their websites. They

have an ethical code of conduct and they draw up

annual company reports that give a breakdown of all

the actions they undertake for their interest groups.

Data was collected through surveys in the UK and

Spain. Altogether 144 and 148 valid questionnaires

were obtained from the two countries respectively,

through fieldwork carried out in the summer of

2005 at a number of busy public places. The

respondents were chosen through convenience

sampling. Table 1 shows the sample profile. Since

the hypotheses are tested in both countries, a

homogeneous sample was created.

Corporate image is measured with a single-

dimension question (e.g. Brown and Dacin, 1997;

Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) which records the

general appraisal of each company on a ten-point

scale (1: highly unfavourable, 10: highly favourable).

The CSR scale is based on a commercial dimension,

which measures consumer perceptions about prod-

uct commercialisation strategy, an ethical dimension

referring to complying with the law and being

honest on their relations with the other interest

groups and a social dimension, which includes issues

referring to environmental protection and invest-

ment in the community (see Appendices).

For the questionnaire design, the reference vari-

ables taken are based on previous studies, such as

Brown and Dacin (1997), Lafferty and Goldsmith

(1999), Rust et al. (2000), Maignan (2001), Maignan

and Ferrell (2001) and Bigné et al. (2005). The

experience with each brand is measured by a cate-

gory question that records their purchase level:

regular purchaser, non-regular purchaser (knows the

brand and has tried it) and non-purchaser (knows the

brand but has never tried it). Consumers� support to responsible businesses was measured with Maignan�s scale (2001). Lastly, the survey analyses whether

consumers perceive that the communication on

commercial, ethical and social issues is adequate with

a categorical variable (yes/no) and the interest that

information on CSR dimensions arouses is evaluated

on a scale from one to ten (1: I am not interested at

all, 10: I am very interested).

Findings and analysis

For hypothesis 1, consumers recorded their opinion

on the level of communication about CSR practices

of the businesses. The information provided by the

companies concerning social and, above all, envi-

ronmental and ethic issues is perceived as insufficient

by the vast majority of individuals. This is reflected

in the results shown in Table 2 below. However

communication on questions related to product

commercialisation was generally considered ade-

quate. There are no statistically significant differ-

ences between consumers from UK and Spain with

regard to the communication on marketing issues. In

the same way, the degree of social communication is

perceived as similar in the two countries. It is

noteworthy that high-percentages consider the

information about social activities to be very poor,

although the other social responsibility issues (ethical

TABLE I

Sample profile

Population Percent UK Percent Spain

Gender Male 50.0 50.0

Female 50.0 50.0

Age Upto 34 years 25.7 28.4

34–54 years 43.7 45.3

More than 54 years 30.6 26.3

Employment status Student 17.4 15.0

Worker (self – employed or employed) 59.7 63.5

Unemployment, pensioner, homeworker 22.9 21.5

602 Jaywant Singh et al.

and environmental matters) are even less known.

This opinion was evident more prominently in the

Spanish consumers. There are significant differences,

so the hypothesis 1 can be partially supported. This

result could be because of the perspective taken in

this study – the minor public awareness, or simply

because Spanish people pay less attention on this

issue or, are less exposed to the information.

For hypothesis 2, an assessment is made for the

interest aroused by each dimension (Table 3). Com-

mercial responsibility specifically attracts the greatest

degree of interest, followed by the environmental

activities, social issues and ethical matters. These issues

have an intermediate interest in both countries, but

there are differences in the levels of emphasis. Spe-

cifically, the consumers from the UK are more

interested than their Spanish counterparts on envi-

ronmental and social issues, with significant differ-

ences in the level of interest on these matters. There

are no significant differences in the rest of issues,

therefore, hypothesis 2 is partially supported. The

interest regarding ethical issues is higher for the British

consumers, but the differences are not significant.

Therefore, hypothesis 2 is partially supported.

For other hypotheses, the validity and reliability

of the scales (CSR dimensions and support) is

assessed using a confirmatory factor analysis with

estimation for maximum likelihood in EQS 5.7

(Bentler, 1995). Firstly the goodness of fit of the

model is observed to be close to its reference

values (Hair et al., 1999). With respect to scale

reliability, the Cronbach�s alpha and composite reliability coefficients (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) lie,

in all cases, above the minimum acceptance value

of 0.7, thus assuring their validity. On the other

hand, all standardised lambda values are statistically

significant and above 0.5 confirming a strong

convergent validity and therefore the best fit of all

the measurements (Steenkamp and Van Trijp,

1991). Lastly, the analysis of confidence intervals

for correlation between pairs of latent factors

(Anderson and Gerbing, 1998) confirms that none

of the confidence intervals defined contains the

unit, which allows us to confirm the discrimina-

tory validity of the measurements, i.e. the three

social responsibility dimensions are statistically

significantly different despite being correlated. All

these results guarantee the validity of the

TABLE II

Information on CSR activities

Appropriate Information

London Spain

Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%) v2

Commercial issues 78.5 21.5 76.4 23.6 0.634

Ethical behaviour 26.2 73.8 19.6 80.4 6.868***

Environmental behaviour 34.7 65.3 25.7 74.3 10.922***

Social behaviour 41.0 59.0 42.6 57.4 0.243

***One tailed significance < 0.01

TABLE III

Degree of interest on CSR activities (scale from 1 to 10)

Interest UK Interest Spain T-test*

Commercial issues 8.13 8.07 0.557

Ethical behaviour 6.09 5.91 0.226

Environmental behaviour 7.43 6.63 0.000

Social behaviour 6.93 6.39 0.000

* (No similar variances have been assumed, Levene Test)

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 603

dimensions (Tables 4 and 5) and thus they become

our working tools 3 .

In order to test the remaining hypotheses a

moderated regression analysis is used. This is one of

the most frequently used methods to identify the

moderator variables (e.g. Aydin et al., 2005; Blo-

emer and De Ruyter, 1998; Bobko and Russell,

1994; De Ruyter et al., 1998) and it has been

recommended over multiple group analysis by a

number of authors (Micheals and Dixon, 1994;

Sharma et al., 1981). Moreover, for the purpose of

this study, the moderated regression analysis is con-

sidered more appropriate in comparison to multiple-

group analysis because relationships among latent

constructs are not taken into account.

A full model for each country is elaborated,

including the companies� overall image as the dependent variable. The dimensions of corporate

responsibility and the moderating effects are expli-

cative variables. The variables of occupation and

loyalty are dummy variables, showing the results

over a reference variable base 4 . In order to minimise

the risk of multicollinearity resulting from the cor-

relation between the main and interaction effects,

when calculating the full effects model the ‘‘residual

centering’’ regression approach was used (Lance,

1988). With the restricted models it was proved that

the occupation and the support do not have a direct

effect on image, and therefore they cannot be con-

sidered predictor variables. Nevertheless, the level of

loyalty was significant. This result seems logical also

because positive relationship between loyalty and

image has been reported widely (e.g. Andreassen and

Lindestad, 1998; Selnes, 1993).

Our main interest is with regards to the behaviour

of the variables as possible moderators (and we did

not include any hypothesis regardless), the models

presented only introduce the interaction term

(Tables 6, 7). First of all, it notices how commercial

responsibility has a significant influence on overall

TABLE IV

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility (UK)

Latent

variable

Measured

variable

Standard

lambda

R 2

Cronbach�s a Composite reliability

Goodness of

fit indices

Commercial

R. (CR)

CR1 0.52 0.27 0.78 0.80 BBNFI = 0.85

BBNNFI = 0.86

CFI = 0.88

IFI = 0.88

RMSEA = 0.07

CR2 0.60 0.34

CR3 0.86 0.74

CR4 0.84 0.71

Ethical

R. (ER)

ER1 0.64 0.38 0.78 0.81

ER2 0.77 059

ER3 0.73 0.53

ER4 0.74 0.55

Social R. (SR) SR1 0.76 0.59 0.84 0.83

SR2 0.83 0.69

SR3 0.70 0.49

SR4 0.71 0.52

Support

(SUP)

SUP1 0.72 0.72 0.83 0.84

SUP2 0.84 0.71

SUP3 0.72 0.52

SUP4 0.63 0.40

SUP5 0.66 0.43

Confidence intervals for the correlations

CR – ER CR – SR CR – SUP ER – SR ER – SUP SR - SUP

0.861 0.654 )0.112 0.77 )0.023 0.048 0.805, 0.917 0.574, 0.734 )0.192, –0.032 0.710, 0.803 )0.123, 0.077 )0.052, 0.148

604 Jaywant Singh et al.

ratings. Innovation, quality, accurate information

and the perception of honesty in their relations with

customers, as well as other issues related to product

commercialisation, all have a positive and direct

effect on company image. The social behaviour also

influences the overall valuation, although to a lesser

extent. However, the companies� ethics in relation to other interest groups was not significant. This

behaviour is less visible and people perceive that the

information is not enough. Besides, it generates less

interest in the consumers, the poor perception

explains that ethical behaviour has no influence.

People�s perception on information about social issues is relatively high. Here reinforced environ-

mental associations might help. The results in this

case are very similar in both countries. The

hypothesis 3 may therefore be rejected.

On including possible moderator effects, occu-

pation explains the differences between groups, i.e.

the strength of the relationship between image and

the CSR dimensions is not similar in all the intervals.

In the case of UK consumers, it is observed that the

individuals who are in a working environment or

individuals who are not working for different rea-

sons (e.g. pensioners, temporarily unemployed, etc.)

attach greater importance to the perceptions of

ethical behaviour when it comes to appraising a

company (as compared to the students).

However, in such groups, issues of a social nature

are given less weight. These findings seem to con-

firm that people have knowledge about the com-

panies in general, they notice or give greater

importance to companies� ethical behaviour when it comes to appraising them, whereas they give less

importance to their social activities. The students are

a contradiction, more likely because either they are

less knowledgeable about the ethical issues or less

exposed to them, or conversely because they might

have a greater social awareness.

In the Spanish market the relation between the

perception of social issues and the image is stronger

in the case of students as compared to other seg-

TABLE V

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility (Spain)

Latent variable Measured

variable

Standard

lambda

R 2

Cronbach�s a Composite reliability

Goodness of

fit indices

Commercial

R. (CR)

CR1 0.59 0.35 0.79 0.80 BBNFI = 0.86

BBNNFI = 0.88

CFI = 0.90

IFI = 0.90 RMSEA = 0.06

CR2 0.79 0.62

CR3 0.70 0.48

CR4 0.74 0.54

Ethical

R. (ER)

ER1 0.71 0.57 0.77 0.76

ER2 0.75 0.56

ER3 0.69 0.47

ER4 0.50 0.25

Social

R. (SR)

SR1 0.71 0.50 0.77 0.77

SR2 0.71 0.51

SR3 0.66 0.44

SR4 0.64 0.41

Support

(SUP)

SUP1 0.66 0.44 0.84 0.85

SUP2 0.84 0.70

SUP3 0.81 0.66

SUP4 0.82 0.82

SUP5 0.50 0.26

Confidence intervals for the correlations

CR – ER CR – SR CR – SUP ER – SR ER – SUP SR - SUP

0.771 0.602 0.277 0.780 0.319 0.272

0.703, 0.839 0.506, 0.698 0.181, 0.373 0.626, 0.790 0.219, 0.419 0.172, 0.372

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 605

ments. However, commercial responsibility has less

impact in creation of the image for this group. It may

include fewer actual buyers of the products; this

could explain the lack of attention given to these

issues. Finally, the ethical activities do not have any

influence on any group in the study. Therefore

hypothesis 3 is not rejected in any of the countries.

Second, the brand purchasing level does not

explain differences for any group. Working with

well-known companies or market leaders, might

explain that the respondents have knowledge about

the companies. In addition, the type of products

analysed in our study (low involvement products)

may justify that loyal consumers do not generate

strong beliefs or different cognitive structures, which

means this is not a moderator variable. Therefore

hypothesis 4 cannot be accepted.

Finally, only in the Spanish market, the support to

socially responsible business while shopping moder-

ates the influence of commercial dimension on the

overall image. Specifically, the relation between the

variables is stronger for the consumers with a smaller

predisposition towards social and ethical issues.

However, the support to these matters does not have

any effect on other dimensions. The lack of a clear

association of the companies with ethics and social

issues explains the result. Therefore hypothesis 5

cannot be accepted.

Conclusions

Our study analysed the degree of interest that is

aroused in consumers through information on the

three responsibility dimensions (commercial, ethical

and social) and the effects that these can have on

company image. A cross-cultural perspective was

adopted in order to identify possible differences

between opinions and positioning of consumers

from two European countries, UK and Spain. Sev-

eral dissimilarities were anticipated, mainly because

TABLE VI

Effect of CSR dimensions on global image and modera-

tor variables (UK)

Standardized

Coefficients

(Constant)

CR 0.599***

ER )0.314 SR 0.312*

CR* worker )0.282 ER* worker 0.668**

SR* worker )0.414* CR* not worker )0.350 ER* not worker 0.676**

SR* not worker )0.319 CR* not regular consumer )0.141 ER* not regular consumer )0.177 SR* not regular consumer 0.008

CR* not buyer )0.308 ER* not buyer )0.179 SR* not buyer 0.128

CR*support 0.032

ER * support )0.269 SR* support 0.199

R 2

= 0.458 Adjusted R 2

= 0.440

***One tailed significance < 0.01 **One tailed signifi-

cance < 0.05 *One tailed significance < 0.1

TABLE VII

Effect of CSR dimensions on global image and modera-

tor variables (Spain)

Standardized

Coefficients

(Constant)

CR 0.474**

ER )0.110 SR 0.332*

CR* worker 1.044***

ER* worker )0.333 SR* worker )0.785** CR* not worker 0.958***

ER* not worker )0.170 SR* not worker )0.919** CR* not regular consumer 0.148

ER* not regular consumer )0.220 SR* not regular consumer )0.212 CR* not buyer )0.012 ER* not buyer )0.263 SR* not buyer 0.020

CR* support )0.469* ER * support 0.130

SR* support 0.360

R 2

= 0.553 Adjusted R 2

= 0.539

***One tailed significance < 0.01 **One tailed signifi-

cance < 0.05 *One tailed significance < 0.1

606 Jaywant Singh et al.

the promotion and development of the concept

varies between the two countries.

The analysis of data on four leading manufacturers

in the consumer market show that consumers

perceive companies as not providing enough infor-

mation on their social, ethical and environment-re-

lated activities. The consumers� main interest centres around obtaining information on the companies� products, which seems logical given that individuals,

in their role as consumers, attach more attention to

commercial issues. Companies could benefit from

maintaining continuous marketing communication

for sustaining the consumers� level of awareness and enhancing purchaser preferences for CSR-minded

companies. The interest on corporate social

responsibility issues is relatively low, but its impor-

tance should not be underestimated. The high sig-

nificance of commercial associations seems to

dominate other associations and, above all, the big

brands considered here do not seem to have strong

ethical attributes. Well-known brand manufacturers

have continuous visibility and a considerable impact

on their environment. These companies would be

welladvised to strengthen their associations through

publicity, visible public relations exercises, socially

responsible marketing campaigns, and by other

means of effective marketing communication.

The findings in this study highlight the need for

more emphasis on the CSR concept and its company-

to-consumer communication. At present a number of

companies� websites and their annual reports include information on these practices but the results show

that either this information does not reach the con-

sumers or the current communication strategy is not

strong enough to link the CSR actions to brands. As

suggested by Swaen and Vanhamme (2005), compa-

nies claiming to be socially responsible are more

positively perceived in the market, but if any of these

companies is accused of unethical behaviour, the

damage to their reputation will be greater than to

those companies with a lower social profile. While

consumers� reaction to information about irresponsi- ble practices is strongly negatively, they are less sen-

sitive to positive messages (Mohr and Webb, 2005;

Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). As Bacon (2004) sug-

gests, consumers do not believe what is told to them,

they believe what the companies actually do. This

means that the ethical codes of company should not be

reduced to a mere declaration of principles, rather they

should underpin all the company�s activities that help in avoiding negative publicity.

While in consumer markets commercial associ-

ations will always have the greatest influence on

purchasing decisions and on overall appraisal of a

company, it cannot be overlooked that brand

positioning is also created through other impres-

sions. The results in this study show that social

issues are significant in order to create an image,

unlike ethical issues. This is either due to a lack of

knowledge or because of unclear perceptions.

However indirect effects have also been found,

explained by variables such as occupation. Loyalty

does not constitute a moderator variable (the

relationship with the image can be direct) and the

predisposition towards the socially responsible

practices of the companies while shopping does

not have a clear effect either.

Regarding the differences between the consumers

from Spain and the UK, several issues can be high-

lighted. First, Spanish consumers are more critical

about valuing the degree of information on ethical

and environmental activities. However, their interest

towards these practices is smaller. This finding

reflects a minor involvement of the Spanish con-

sumers in CSR, perhaps motivated by a lack of

general public awareness. Increasingly more com-

panies are becoming aware of this, and are trying to

raise the knowledge on CSR matters in different

segments of the consumers. Second, the commercial

issues do influence the global image more than the

others dimensions, and the moderator variables have

a similar effect in both countries.

This study has revealed several insights about the

influence of CSR on the perception of frequently

bought consumer brands. The study also has its

limitations. Four leading companies in the consumer

market have been studied in an aggregate way.

Though this has given conclusions on CSR per-

ceptions, a more specific individual brand-level

analysis could help to identify the differences be-

tween brands. Moreover, the sample was from large

cities, which might have an impact of the level of

CSR awareness. A future line of research could assess

this relationship by including further moderator

variables and by working with a bigger sample. A

future study could also use other methodologies,

such as multi-group analysis, to determine the dif-

ferences between the two countries.

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 607

Appendix

Notes

1 http://www.globalcompact.org

2 http://www.globalreporting.org

3 Values are averaged to facilitate the analyses.

4 The variable base of occupation is the category

‘‘student’’ (against the categories of ‘‘worker’’ [self

employed or employed] and ‘‘not worker’’ [unemploy-

ment, pensioner, home worker]) and the base for loy-

alty is ‘‘regular purchaser’’.

References

Ahmed, M., K. Chung and J. Eichenseher: 2003, �Busi- ness Students� Perception of Ethics and Moral Judg- ment: A Cross Cultural Study�, Journal of Business Ethics 43, 89–102.

Al-Khatib, J., S. J. Vitell and M. Y. A. Rawwas: 1997,

�Consumer Ethics: A Cross-Cultural Investigation�, European Journal of Marketing 31(11/12), 750–767.

Anderson, C. H.: 1986, �Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysis: A Useful Tool for Retail

Management Decisions�, Journal of Retailing 62(2), 186–203.

Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing: 1988, �Structural Equation Modelling in Practice: A Review and Rec-

ommended Two-Step Approach�, Psychological Bulletin 103(3), 453–460.

Andreassen, T. and B. Lindestad: 1998, �Customer Loy- alty and Complex Services�, International Journal of Service Industry Management 9(1), 7–23.

Arbuthnot, J.: 1977, �The Roles of Attitudinal and Per- sonality Variables in the Prediction of Environment

Behaviour and Knowledge�, Environment and Behaviour 9(2), 217–232.

The company….(1, total disagreement with the statement; 10, total agreement with the statement)

Commercial Responsibility is an innovator and launches new products into the market continuously

its products always maintain good quality

informs in a correct and truthful way about the characteristic/properties of

its products

behaves ethically/honestly with its customers

Ethical responsibility is concerned to fulfil its obligations vis-à-vis its shareholders, suppliers,

distributors and other agents with whom it deals

is concerned to respect the human rights when carrying out its activities

always respects the norms defined in the law when carrying out its activities

respecting ethical principles in its relationships has priority over achieving

superior economic performance

Social responsibility is concerned about protecting natural environment

directs part of its budget to donations and social works favouring the dis-

advantaged

supports the development of the society financing social and/or cultural

activities

is concerned to improve general well-being of the society

Give your opinion about the following aspects (1, total disagreement with the statement; 10, total agreement with the statement)

Support to socially responsible actions I avoid buying products from companies that don�t have an ethical and socially responsible behaviour

If the price and quality of two products are the same, I would buy from the

firm that has an ethical and socially responsible reputation

I would pay more to buy products from an ethical and socially responsible

company

I consider the ethical reputation of businesses when I buy

I consider the social activities of businesses when I buy

608 Jaywant Singh et al.

Arlow, P.: 1991, �Personal Characteristics in College Students: Evaluations of Business Ethics and Corporate

Social Responsibility�, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 63– 69.

Aupperle, K. E., A. B. Carroll and J. D. Hatfield: 1985,

�An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and

Profitability�, Academy of Management Journal 28(2), 446–463.

Aydin, S., G. Ozer and O. Arasil: 2005, �Customer Loyalty and the Effect of Switching Costs as a Mod-

erator Variable: A Case in the Turkish Mobile Phone

Market�, Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23, 89–103. Babakus, E., B. Cornwell, V. Mitchell and B. Schlegelmilch:

1994, �Reactions to Unethical Consumer Behavior Across Six Countries�, Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(4), 254–263.

Babakus, E., T. Cornwell, V. Mitchell and B. Schle-

gelmilch: 2004, �Reactions to Unethical Consumer Behaviour Across Six Countries�, Journal of Consumer marketing 21(4), 254–263.

Bacon, T.: 2004, �You Are How You Behave: Customer Can�t Be Fooled�, Journal of Business Strategy 25(4), 35– 40.

Bagozzi, R. P. and Y. Yi: 1988, �On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models�, Journal of the Academy of Management Science 16(1), 74–94.

Balmer, J. M. T.: 1995, �Corporate Branding and Con- noisseurship�, Journal of General Management 21(1), 24– 47.

Barich, H. and P. Kotler: 1991, �A Framework for Marketing Image Management�, Sloan Management Review Winter 32(2), 94–109.

Barich, H. and V. Srinivasan: 1993, �Prioritizing Mar- keting Image Goals Under Resource Constraints�, Sloan Management Review Summer 34(4), 69–76.

Barnard, N. R. and A. S. C. Ehrenberg: 1990, �Robust Measures of Consumer Brand Beliefs�, Journal of Marketing Research 27(4), 477–484.

Barwise, T. P. and A. S. C. Ehrenberg: 1985, �Consumer Beliefs and Brand Usage�, Journal of the Market Research Society 27(2), 81–93.

Bigne, E., R. Chumpitaz, L. Andreu and V. Swaen:

2005, �Percepción de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa: Un Análisis Cross-Cultural�, Primer Trimestre, 14–27.

Beggs, J. and M. Lane: 1989, �Corporate Goal Structures and Business Students: A Comparative Study of

Values�, Journal of Business Ethics 8(6), 471–478. Bentler, P. M.: 1995, EQS Structural Equations Program

Manual, Multivariate Software Inc (Encino, CA).

Berens, G. and C. G. Van Riel Bruggen : 2005, �Cor- porate Associations and Consumer Product Responses:

The Moderating Role of Corporate Brand Domi-

nance�, Journal of Marketing 69, 35–48. Bloemer, J. and K. De Ruyter : 1998, �On the Rela-

tionship Between Store Image, Store Satisfaction and

Store Loyalty�, European Journal of Marketing 32(5/6), 499–513.

Bobko, P. and C. J. Russell: 1994, �On Theory, Statistics and the Search for Interactions in the Organizational

Sciences�, Journal of Management 20(1), 193–200. Bohata, M.: 1997, �Business Ethics in Central and Eastern

Europe with Special Focus on the Czech Republic�, Journal of Business Ethics 16(14), 537–400.

Boulstridge, E. and M. Carrigan: 2000, �Do Consumers Really Care About Corporate Responsibility? High-

lighting the Attitude Behaviour Gap�, Journal of Com- munication Management 4(4), 355–368.

Brown, T. J., P. A. Dacin: 1997, �The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Prod-

uct Responses�, Journal of Marketing 61(1), 68–84. Burtin, B., J. Farh and H. Hegarty: 2000, �A Cross Cul-

tural Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility

Orientation: Hong Kong Vs United States Students�, Teaching Business Ethics 4, 151–167.

Carroll, A. B.: 1979, �A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance�, Academy of Management Review 4, 497–505.

Carroll, A. B.: 1991, �Corporate Social Performance Measurement: A Comment on Methods for Evaluat-

ing an Elusive Construct�, in L.E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 12, 385–401 .

Caruana, A.: 1997, �Corporate Reputation: Concept and Measurement�, Journal of Product & Brand Management 6(2), 109–118.

Clarkson, M. B.: 1995, �A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor-

mance�, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117. De Ruyter, K. , M. Wetzels and J. Bloemer: 1998, �On

the Relationship Between Perceived Service Quality,

Service Loyalty and Switching Costs�, International Journal of Service Industry Management 9(5), 436–453.

De La Cuesta, M. and C. Valor: 2003, �Respons- abilidad Social de la Empresa. Concepto, Medición y

Desarrollo en España�, Boletı́n Económico del ICE 2813, 45–58.

Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, �The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and

Implications�, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91.

Esrock, S. and G. Leichty: 1998, �Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages: Self Presentation or Agenda

Setting?�, Public Relations Review 24(3), 305–319. Fombrun, C.: 1996, Reputation: Realizing Value from the

Corporate Image (Boston, MA).

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 609

Fombrun, C. and M. Shanley: 1990, �What�s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy�, Academy of Management Journal 33, 233–258.

Forética: 2006, Evolución de la Responsabilidad Social de

las Empresas en España (www.foretica.es).

Frederick, W.: 1994, �From CSR1 to CSR2: The Maturing of Business and Society Thought�, Business and Society August 33(2), 150–166.

Friedman, M.: 1962, Capitalism and Freedom (University

of Chicago Press, Chicago).

Fundación Ecologı́a y Desarrollo: 2004, Responsabilidad

Social Corporativa y Polı́ticas Públicas (www.ecodes.org).

De Garcia Los Salmones, M. M. , A. Herrero and I. del

Rodriguez Bosque : 2005, �Influence Of Corporate Social Responsibility On Loyalty And Valuation Of

Services�, Journal of Business Ethics 61(4), 369–385. Graafland, J., S. C. W. Eiffinger and H. Smid: 2004,

�Benchmarking of Social Corporate Responsibility: Methodological Problems and Robustness�, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 137–152.

Gray, R., R. Kouhy and S. Lavers: 1995, �Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the

Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure�, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2), 47–77.

Grünham, L.: 1997, �Attitudes of Future Managers Towards Business Ethics: A Comparison of Finnish

and American Business Students�, Journal of Business Ethics 16(4), 451–463.

Hair, J. Jr., R. Anderson, R. Tatham and W. Black: 1999,

Multivariate Analysis, editorial, Prentice Hall.

Handelman, J. and S. Arnold: 1999, �The Role of Mar- keting Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to

the Institutional Environment�, Journal of Marketing 63, 33–48.

Hofstede, G.: 1983, �National Cultures in Four Dimen- sions: A Research Based Theory of Cultural

Differences among Nations�, International Studies of Management & Organization Spring/Summer 13, 46–47.

Keller, K. L.: 1993, �Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer Based Brand Equity�, Journal of Marketing 57(1), 1–22.

Lafferty, B. and Goldsmith: 1999, �Corporate Credibility�s Role in Consumers� Attitudes and Purchase Intentions when a High Versus a Low Credibility Endorser is

Used in the Ad�, Journal of Business Research 44(2), 141– 159.

Lance, C. E.: 1988, �Residual Centering, Exploratory and Confirmatory Moderator Analysis and Decomposition

of Effects in Path Models Containing Interactions�, Applied Psychology Measurement 12(2), 163–175.

Lewin, A., T. Sakano, C. Stevens and B. Victor: 1995,

�Corporate Citizenship in Japan: Survey from Japanese Firms�, Journal of Business Ethics 14(2), 83–101.

Lysonski, S. and W. Gaidis: 1991, �A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Ethics of Business Students�, Journal of Business Ethics 10(2), 141–150.

Maignan, I.: 2001, �Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Cross Cultural Comparison�, Journal of Business Ethics 30(1), 57–73.

Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2001, �Corporate Citizen as a Marketing Instrument – Concepts, Evidence and

Research Directions�, European Journal of Marketing 35(3/4), 457.

Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2004, �Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Frame-

work�, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(1), 3–19.

Maignan, I., O. C. Ferrell and G. T. Hult: 1999, �Cor- porate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business

Benefits�, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(4), 455–469.

Marckwill, N. and C. Fill: 1997, �Towards a Framework for Managing Corporate Identity�, European Journal of Marketing 31(5/6), 396–409.

Mcguire, J. B.: 1963, Business and Society (McGraw Hill,

New York).

Miesing, P. and J. Preble: 1985, �A Comparison of Five Business Philosophies�, Journal of Business Ethics 4(6), 465–476.

Micheals, R. and A. Dixon: 1994, �Sellers and Buyers on the Boundary : Potential Moderators of Role Stress-

Job Outcome Relationships�, The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(1), 62–73.

Mitchell, A. A. and P. A. Dacin: 1996, �The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise�, Journal of Consumer Research 23(3), 219–239.

Mohr, L., D. Webb and K. Harris: 2001, �Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying

Behaviour�, The Journal of Consumer Affair 35(1), 45–72. Mohr, L. and D. Webb: 2005, �The Effects of Corporate

Social Responsibility and Price on Consumer

Responses�, The Journal of Consumer Affairs 39(1), 121– 147.

Park, C., L. Feick and D. Mothersbaugh: 1992, �Con- sumer Knowledge Assessment: How Product Experi-

ence and Knowledge of Brands, Attributes and

Features Affects What We Think�, Advances in Con- sumer Research 19, 193–198.

Polonsky, M., P. Brito, J. Pinto and N. Higgs Kleyn:

2001, �Consumer Ethics in the European Union: A Comparison of Northern and Southern Views�, Journal of Business Ethics 31(2), 117–130.

Quazi, A. and D. O�Brien: 2000, �An Empirical Test of a Cross National Model of Corporate Social Responsi-

bility�, Journal of Business Ethics 25(1), 33–52.

610 Jaywant Singh et al.

Rawwas, M., J. Vitell and A. Al Khatib: 1994, �Consumer Ethics: The Possible Effects to Terrorism and Civil

Unrest on Ethical Values of Consumers�, Journal of Business Ethics 13(9), 223–231.

Rawwas, M.: 2001, �Culture, Personality and Morality: A Typology of International Consumers� Ethical Beliefs�, International Marketing Review 18(2), 181–211.

Rawwas, M., S. Ziad and O. Mine: 2005, �Consumer Ethics: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Ethical Beliefs of

Turkish and American Consumers�, Journal of Business Ethics 57(2), 183.

Robin, D. and E. Reidenbach: 1987, �Social Responsi- bility, Ethics and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap

Between Concept and Application�, Journal of Market- ing 51(1), 44–58.

Rossouw, G.: 1994, �Business Ethics in Developing Countries�, Business Ethics Quaterly 4(1), 43–51.

Rust, R., V. Zeithaml and K. Lemmon: 2000, Driving

Customer Equity (The Free Press, New York).

Selnes, F.: 1993, �An Examination of the Effect of Product Performance on Brand Reputation, Satisfac-

tion and Loyalty�, European Journal of Marketing 27(9), 19–35.

Sen, S. and C. B. Bhattacharya: 2001, �Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to

Corporate Social Responsibility�, Journal of Marketing Research May 38(2), 225–243.

Schröder, M. and M. McEachern: 2005, �Fast Foods and Ethical Consumer Value: A Focus on McDonald�s and KFC�, British Food Journal 107(4), 212–224.

Sharma S., R. M. Durand, O. Gur-Arie: 1981, �Identi- fication and Analysis of Moderator Variables�, Journal of Marketing Research 18(3), 291–300.

Soderlund, M.: 2002, �Customer Familiarity and Its Effects on Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions�, Psychology & Marketing October 19(10), 861–883.

Steenkamp, J. B. and H. Van Trijp : 1991, �The Use of LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs�, Interna- tional Journal of Research in Marketing 8, 283–299.

Swaen, V. and J. Vanhamme: 2005, �The Use of Corpo- rate Social Responsibility Arguments in Communica-

tion Campaigns: Does Source Credibility Matter?�, Advances in Consumer Research 32(1), 302–303.

Van Liere, K. D. and R. Dunlap: 1980, �The Social Bases of Environment Concern: A Review of Hypothesis,

Explanations and Empirical Evidence�, Public Opinion Quarterly 4, 181–197.

Vitell, S. and J. Paolillo: 2004, �A Cross Cultural Study of the Antecedents of the Perceived Role of Ethics and

Social Responsibility�, Business Ethics: A European Re- view 13, 185–199.

Vitell, S. and E. Ramos: 2006, �The Impact of Corporate Ethical Values and Enforcement of Ethical Codes on

the Perceived Importance of Ethics in Business: A

Comparison of US and Spanish Managers�, Journal of Business Ethics 64(1), 31–43.

Jaywant Singh

Kingston Business School,

Kingston University,

Kingston, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK

E-mail: [email protected]

Maria del Mar Garcia de los Salmones Sanchez and

Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque

Business Administration and Economic Faculty,

University of Cantabria,

Avenida de los Castros s/n, 39005, Santander, Spain

Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility 611