A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Effects

of Corporate Social Marketing on Consumer Behavior

Yuhei Inoue

Aubrey Kent
Received: 27 November 2012 / Accepted: 6 May 2013 / Published online: 16 May 2013
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract This theoretical paper develops a conceptual
framework that explains how companies can inuence
consumer behavior in terms of both social and business
benets through their corporate social marketing (CSM)
initiatives. Drawing from the source credibility literature,
the article asserts that the effectiveness of CSM depends
largely on the corporate credibility of a company in sup-
porting a social cause (CSM credibility). Based on this
assertion, the framework identies ten different anteced-
ents of CSM credibility, which are organized into (1)
attributes of the company, (2) attributes of the CSM ini-
tiative, and (3) attributes of the cause. Furthermore, this
framework shows that CSM credibility affects the two
examined consequences, intended prosocial behavior and
consumer loyalty. Several research and managerial impli-
cations are developed based on the propositions specied
in the framework.
Keywords Corporate social marketing Corporate social
responsibility Corporate credibility Value congruence
Customer loyalty Prosocial behavior
Introduction
In 1971, Kotler and Zaltman proposed the concept of social
marketing, referring to the design, implementation, and
control of programs calculated to inuence the accept-
ability of social ideas (p. 5). This concept has received
immense attention from researchers in marketing and other
disciplines and has been used to assess the effectiveness of
interventions designed to inuence ones voluntary
behavior related to areas such as health, community
involvement, injury prevention, and environmental pro-
tection (e.g., Andreasen 2004; Kotler et al. 2002;
McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999; Stead et al. 2007). Fur-
thermore, although the literature traditionally examined
social marketing programs implemented by government
agencies and nonprot organizations, this concept has been
relatively recently extended to a corporate context (Bloom
et al. 1997; Kotler and Lee 2005a, b). In short, the major
goal of corporate social marketing (CSM) initiatives is to
persuade consumers to perform desired prosocial behavior
(Bloom et al. 1997; Kotler and Lee 2005a, b). This inten-
ded inuence on behavior change distinguishes CSM from
other types of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activ-
ities implemented by rms, such as corporate philanthropy
and cause-related marketing, whose main aim is to raise
goodwill, money, and recognition of a cause, but not to
inuence or change ones behavior (Bloom et al. 1997;
Kotler and Lee 2005a). Examples of CSM efforts include
the Change Your Clock Change Your Battery Campaign
launched by the Energizer Battery Company, which
encourages individuals to make sure if their smoke alarms
are properly working and change alarm batteries on a
regular basis, to reduce the number of home re fatalities
(Energizer 2010). Coca-Cola established its subsidiary
Coca-Cola Recycling in 2007 to promote the recycling of
Y. Inoue (&)
Department of Health and Sport Sciences, The University
of Memphis, 208 Elma Roane Fieldhouse, Memphis,
TN 38152, USA
e-mail: yinoue@memphis.edu
A. Kent
School of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Temple
University, 349A Speakman Hall, 1810 N. 13th St., Philadelphia,
PA 19122, USA
e-mail: aubkent@temple.edu
1 3
J Bus Ethics (2014) 121:621633
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1742-y
beverage bottles and cans among consumers through the
installations of recycling bins and the communication of
recycling message (Coca-Cola Recycling, n.d.).
Given its intended inuence on consumer prosocial
behavior, CSM should create the greatest social benets
among other CSR activities (Kotler and Lee 2005a, b).
Furthermore, since CSM effects on voluntary behavior
should likely be translated into effects on customer
behavior, CSM is considered best of breedin terms of
support for marketing goals and objectives (Kotler and
Lee 2005b, p. 92). However, despite this acknowledged
effectiveness of CSM in generating social and business
returns, there has been limited research explicitly exam-
ining the process of how CSM inuences these outcomes
(Du et al. 2008; Peloza and Shang 2011). This is due to the
tendency of business scholars to focus mainly on limited
kinds of CSR activities, such as cause-related marketing
and philanthropy (Kotler and Lee 2005b; Maignan and
Ferrell 2004). Peloza and Shangs (2011) review of exist-
ing CSR studies, for example, showed that while over half
of the 163 reviewed articles investigated either cause-
related marketing (51 studies) or corporate donations (33
studies), none of them specically tested the effect of CSM
initiatives on consumer-related outcomes.
As an exception, although not identied in Peloza and
Shangs (2011) review, Du et al. (2008) investigated the
effectiveness of a companys CSM program that aimed to
promote oral care behavior on the intended health and
customer behaviors among program participants. While
the results showed that the program successfully promoted
oral health behavior and further beneted the company
through the participants increased reciprocal behavior, the
study focused solely on the moderating effects of a few
personal characteristics (e.g., level of acculturation among
the participants) to understand CSM effects. Drawing
from the social psychology literature (e.g., Petty and
Cacioppo 1981; Petty and Wegener 1998), however, the
effectiveness of CSM on ones behavior may be deter-
mined by not only the personal characteristics of partici-
pants but also the characteristics of: (1) the organization
implementing a CSM campaign (i.e., source characteris-
tics), (2) communication strategies used in the campaign
(i.e., message characteristics), and (3) the context where
the organization implements the campaign (i.e., context
characteristics).
Indeed, the characteristics noted above have been shown
to inuence the effectiveness of social marketing inter-
ventions implemented by nonprots and governmental
agencies (e.g., Bendapudi et al. 1996; Keller and Lehmann
2008; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). As CSM is an
extension of the general social marketing framework
(Bloom et al. 1997; Kotler and Lee 2005a, b), these nd-
ings identied in the context of nonprots and
governmental agencies should be largely applicable to the
CSM context. Nevertheless, Bloom et al. (1997) argue that
a signicant difference exists between general social mar-
keting initiatives and CSM initiatives in source character-
istics, especially in terms of the degree of credibility
perceived by audiences. That is, a corporation may have
less credibility with a target audience than the government
or a nonprot, hurting the persuasive ability of its mes-
sage (Bloom et al. 1997, p. 18). This notion that com-
panies may be seen as less credible sources of promoting
prosocial behavior is signicant because the credibility of
an organization is one of the most critical elements in
determining the effectiveness of its social marketing
campaign (Bendapudi et al. 1996; Craig and McCann 1978;
McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999).
Consequently, a clear need exists to understand what
factors may inuence the credibility of companies, or
corporate credibility, with respect to CSM involvement in
order for them to effectively promote desired prosocial
behavior. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to
develop a conceptual framework that explains how com-
panies might inuence consumer behavior in terms of both
social and business benets through CSM by focusing on
the role of corporate credibility.
CSM, CSR, and the Ethical Responsibility of Business
Before presenting our conceptual framework on CSM, we
provide a further understanding of this concept by clari-
fying its linkage with CSR and the ethical responsibility
of business. First, while CSM originates from social
marketing introduced by Kotler and Zaltman (1971), the
recent literature (e.g., Du et al. 2008; Kotler and Lee
2005a) has examined this concept in the framework of
CSR, or a companys commitment to improve commu-
nity well-being through discretionary business practices
and contributions of corporate resources (Kotler and Lee
2005a, p. 3). According to Kotler and Lee (2005a),
companies can assume their CSR by undertaking several
types of voluntary activities, collectively referred to as
corporate social initiatives, and CSM represents one type
of such initiatives.
It should be noted that although a companys engage-
ment in corporate social initiatives including CSM allows it
to demonstrate its CSR as dened above or its philan-
thropic responsibility, this does not necessarily mean that
the company assumes its ethical responsibility (Carroll
1979, 1991). Specically, the ethical responsibility of
business is based on the principle of business ethics, which
addresses fairness and morality in business-related prac-
tices and actions (Carroll and Buchholtz 2012), and refers
to meeting expectations that reect a concern for what
622 Y. Inoue, A. Kent
1 3
consumers, employees, shareholders, and the community
regard as fair, just, or in keeping with the respect or pro-
tection of stakeholders moral rights (Carroll 1991, p. 41).
This type of responsibility differs from the philanthropic
responsibility, which includes voluntary roles assumed by
corporations through the implantation of corporate social
initiatives, due to the fact that the latter exceeds the ethical
or moral expectations of the society (Carroll 1991). Nike is
a classic case of a corporation that shows its philanthropic
responsibility but fails to achieve its ethical responsibility
as it currently implements a number of corporate social
initiatives but has been accused of poor working conditions
in Asian countries.
However, as later discussed by Carroll who originally
made the distinction between the ethical and philanthropic
responsibilities, it is sometimes difcult to distinguish
between philanthropic and ethical activities on both a
theoretical and practical level (Schwartz and Carroll
2003, p. 506). For example, the implementation of corpo-
rate social initiatives, such as CSM, is thought to be con-
sistent with the ethical principle of utilitarianism, which
emphasizes the importance of maximizing the public
welfare (Schwartz and Carroll 2003). Despite this, we
acknowledge that the framework demonstrated below
focuses mainly on providing insight into the CSR or phil-
anthropic responsibility of business, and may have limited
implications for its ethical responsibility.
Conceptual Framework
We propose a conceptual framework that explains how
companies might inuence consumer behavior through
their CSM initiatives (Fig. 1). Our central assertion is that
the effectiveness of CSM depends largely on the corporate
credibility of a company in supporting a social cause
(hereafter called CSM credibility). The current frame-
work thus intends to specify the antecedents and conse-
quences of CSM credibility in the following ways. First,
this framework proposes that antecedents of CSM credi-
bility can be organized into three categories: (1) attributes
of the company, (2) attributes of the CSM campaign, and
(3) attributes of the cause. Based on implications drawn
from the existing literature (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al. 2006;
Haley 1996; Rifon et al. 2004), the framework further
identies several attributes for each category. Moreover,
building on the source credibility literature (e.g., Hovland
et al. 1953; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989) and Kelmans
(1958, 1961, 2006) theory of internalization, CSM credi-
bility is proposed to have effects on the two types of
consumer behavior, desired prosocial behavior and cus-
tomer loyalty, both directly and through the mediation of
value congruence.
Corporate Credibility
In the early 1950s, Hovland proposed that the credibility of
message sources (e.g., individuals, groups, organizations)
play an important role in determining the persuasiveness of
a communication (Hovland et al. 1953; Hovland and Weiss
19511952; Kelman and Hovland 1953). Since then, a
substantial body of the literature has investigated whether a
high-credibility source produces more persuasion toward
an advocacy message than a low-credibility source (e.g.,
Kelman 1958; Maddux and Rogers 1980; Mills and Harvey
1972). When broadly dened, source credibility refers to
one aspect of a source that presents a persuasive message
(Petty and Wegener 1998). In a more specic manner,
Kelman (1961) dened source credibility as the state of
being perceived as expert and trustworthy, and thereby
being seen as worthy of serious consideration by others. As
this denition suggests, source credibility consists of two
dimensions: expertise and trustworthiness (Hovland et al.
1953; Kelman 1961; McCracken 1989; Petty and Wegener
1998; Pornpitakpan 2004). Expertise refers to the perceived
ability of a source to provide precise information (Petty and
Wegener 1998), while trustworthiness refers to its per-
ceived willingness to provide accurate information (McC-
racken 1989).
Despite the richness of the source credibility literature,
the early work mainly focused on the credibility of indi-
viduals, such as celebrities or spokespersons (e.g., Kelman
1958; McCracken 1989; Ohanian 1990), and the investi-
gation of the credibility of companies, or corporate credi-
bility, has lagged (Haley 1996; Lafferty and Goldsmith
1999; Newell and Goldsmith 2001; Pornpitakpan 2004). As
one of the rst studies examining corporate credibility,
MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) investigated how advertiser
credibility, dened as the perceived trustworthiness of the
sponsor of the advertisement, inuences consumer attitudes
toward the advertisement. Results indicated that advertiser
credibility had a signicant positive effect on both adver-
tisement credibility and attitude toward the advertiser.
These two variables, in turn, positively affected attitude
toward the advertisement (Mackenzie and Lutz 1989). In a
related study, Goldberg and Hartwick (1990) tested the
interaction effect between advertiser reputation, repre-
senting the perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the
sponsoring company, and the extremity of advertising
claims on product evaluation and advertisement credibility.
Moreover, Lafferty and Goldsmith (1999) investigated the
effects of corporate credibility on consumer attitudes
toward the advertisement, attitudes toward the brand, and
purchase intentions, and found that corporate credibility
had a signicant main effect on each of the three outcomes
without any interactions with endorser credibility (Lafferty
and Goldsmith 1999). More interestingly, their results
Effects of CSM on Consumer Behavior 623
1 3
highlighted the signicance of corporate credibility by
revealing that the effect of corporate credibility on attitude
toward the brand and purchase intention was greater than
the effect of endorser credibility (Lafferty and Goldsmith
1999).
Although the earlier studies on corporate credibility
showed consistent support for the signicant effect of the
construct on consumer attitudes and behavior, there was a
lack of consensus about what corporate credibility repre-
sents (Newell and Goldsmith 2001). Goldsmith and his
colleagues (Goldsmith et al. 2000; Newell and Goldsmith
2001), however, made a substantial contribution to the
conceptualization of the construct in the following two
aspects. First, the researchers claried the distinction
between corporate credibility and reputation by arguing
that reputationis much broader in scope and includes,
but is not limited to [credibility] (Goldsmith et al. 2000,
p. 44). That is, corporate credibility represents one com-
ponent of corporate reputation, but the latter construct
incorporates other corporate characteristics, such as
responsibility (Fombrun 1996; Goldsmith et al. 2000).
Second, in line with the implications of the source credi-
bility literature (Hovland et al. 1953; Kelman 1961;
McCracken 1989), they explicitly indicated that corporate
credibility consists of the expertise and trustworthiness
dimensions (Goldsmith et al. 2000; Newell and Goldsmith
2001). In particular, corporate expertise refers to the
extent to which consumers feel that the rm has the
knowledge or ability to fulll its claim (Newell and
Goldsmith 2001, p. 235), and corporate trustworthiness
refers whether the rm can be trusted to tell the truth or
not (Newell and Goldsmith 2001, p. 235).
Antecedents of CSM Credibility
Researchers have identied several factors that may inu-
ence consumer perceptions of corporate credibility (e.g., de
Ruyter and Wetzels 2000; Haley 1996; Keller and Aaker
1998; Newell and Goldsmith 1998). For instance, Keller
and Aaker (1998) proposed that corporate credibility would
be affected by a companys innovativeness, support for the
environment, and community involvement. Results indi-
cated that all three factors had a positive effect on each of
the trustworthiness and expertise dimensions of corporate
credibility (Keller and Aaker 1998). de Ruyter and Wetzels
(2000) also found that consumer evaluation of a rms
corporate credibility varied depending on the nature of its
brand extension; a rm described as extending its brand to
a related market was perceived as more credible than
another rm described as expanding into an unrelated
market. Newell and Goldsmith (1998) further examined
how the characteristics of advertising messages would
affect the perceived credibility of a company. Their nd-
ings showed that consumers tended to rate the company
low in credibility when its advertisement contained a
deceptive claim on its environmental efforts.
While the above studies investigated determinants of
corporate credibility in general, Haley (1996) conducted
semi-structured interviews with 97 consumers to identify
factors that may inuence the credibility of organizations
(both companies and nonprot organizations) with respect
to their advocacy advertising campaigns (e.g., campaigns
that promote the importance of safe driving). Haley iden-
tied that the antecedents of organizational credibility in
this regard can be classied into three categories: (1)
characteristics of the organization, (2) characteristics of the
campaign, and (3) characteristics of the issue. The rst
category entails general characteristics of the organization
perceived by consumers (e.g., liking, familiarity), regard-
less of its involvement in advocacy advertising. The second
category involves attributes of the campaign, such as the
congruence between the organizations image and that of
the sponsored issue, the extent of expertise that the orga-
nization has in supporting the issue, and the perceived
P8-P10
P1-P2
P3-P7 P13
P14
P15
Corporate Attributes
- CSR associations
- CA associations
CSM credibility
CSM Attributes
- Company-cause fit
- Effort
- Personal investment
- Value-driven motives
- Impact
Cause Attributes
- Personal importance
- Cause proximity
- Familiarity
Value congruence
Intended
prosocial
behavior
Customer loyalty
P11
P12
Fig. 1 A conceptual framework for understanding the effects of corporate social marketing on consumer behavior
624 Y. Inoue, A. Kent
1 3
motive behind the organizations sponsorship of the cam-
paign. The third category encompasses consumers per-
ception of the cause, such as its importance to them and to
society (Haley 1996). Similar to Haleys ndings, Speed
and Thompson (2000) empirically demonstrated that con-
sumers evaluations of a companys sponsorship of a sport
event were determined by their perceptions of the company
(e.g., attitude toward the company), sponsorship (e.g.,
company-event t), and the event (e.g., status of the event).
A conceptual framework developed by Du et al. (2010)
also used these three categories to identify factors that
determine the effect of a companys CSR activities on
internal and external outcomes.
Drawing from the studies (Du et al. 2010; Haley 1996;
Speed and Thompson 2000), we propose that the factors
that inuence the CSM credibility of the company can be
classied into (1) attributes of the company, (2) attributes
of the CSM initiative, and (3) attributes of the cause. The
following sections identify specic attributes included in
each of the three categories and offer propositions
regarding how these attributes inuence CSM credibility.
Corporate Attributes Inuencing CSM Credibility
CSR associations refer to how well a company meets its
societal obligations through charitable and other corporate
social initiatives (Brown and Dacin 1997; Lichtenstein
et al. 2004; Sen et al. 2006). This construct captures a
rms overall social activities more than its involvement in
a specic CSM initiative (Kotler and Lee 2005a), and there
is some evidence that CSR associations inuence corporate
credibility (Keller and Aaker 1998; Walker and Kent
2012). Keller and Aaker (1998) found that a companys
involvement in environmental and community issues sig-
nicantly increased two dimensions of corporate credibility
including perceived trustworthiness and expertise. This
nding is replicated by Walker and Kent (2012), who
identied that consumers tended to perceive the PGA
TOUR as a credible organization if they were aware of its
CSR activities. Keller and Aaker (1998) suggest that this is
due to the ability of a company, through CSR, to demon-
strate its understanding of customer needs, which leads to
high trustworthiness. In addition, given that active social
involvement tends to require the adoption of advanced
technologies, rms with high social involvement may be
perceived as having expertise (Keller and Aaker 1998),
especially in addressing social causes. Based on these
arguments, we propose that a rms CSR associations have
a positive effect on its credibility in CSM involvement.
P1 Companies with more positively rated CSR associa-
tions gain higher CSM credibility than companies with
more negatively rated CSR associations.
Along with CSR associations, Brown and Dacin (1997)
identied the other type of corporate associations, namely
corporate ability (CA). The construct represents a com-
panys capability to produce quality services and products,
and has been found to have effects on consumer evaluations
of the company and its products (Brown 1998; Brown and
Dacin 1997; Sen et al. 2006). According to Brown and Dacin
(1997), CA associations inuence consumers perceptions
by providing cues about certain attributes of the company
especially when knowledge of these attributes is lacking. In
line with this, social psychology research has suggested that
ones general perception of an object may serve as a direct
predictor of perception of specic aspects of that same object
(Eagly and Chaiken 1998). Corporate credibility researchers
have also argued that individuals develop the perceived
credibility of a specic aspect of a company based on its
overall perceptions and images (Haley 1996; MacKenzie and
Lutz 1989). MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), for example,
demonstrated that consumers perceived credibility of a
claim about an advertisers brand in an ad was affected by
their perceived credibility of the advertiser in general. Haley
(1996) also documented that consumers tended to evaluate a
company as a credible source of an advocacy message if the
company offers a quality product and/or service. Consistent
with this line of research, this study proposes that a com-
panys CA association serves as an antecedent of its credi-
bility in CSM involvement.
P2 Companies with more positively rated CA associa-
tions in terms of their products and/or services gain higher
CSM credibility than companies with more negatively
rated CA associations.
CSM Attributes Inuencing CSM Credibility
Bloom et al. (1997) discussed that CSM programs can be
differentiated by the extent to which the supported cause is
tied with the companys operations and products. For
example, while consumers may perceive a high t between
Energizers operations (i.e., manufacturing of batteries)
and its promotion of changing smoke alarm batteries
through the Change Your Clock Change Your Battery
campaign, they may not see a strong connection between
Avons operations (i.e., selling of cosmetic products) and
its Breast Cancer Crusade that aims to educate cus-
tomers about the importance of early detection efforts for
breast cancer. Subsequent empirical studies suggest that the
extent of company-cause t has a signicant effect on
consumer perceptions of companies (e.g., Basil and Herr
2003, 2006; Lafferty et al. 2004; Lichtenstein et al. 2004;
Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006). For example, Basil and
Herr (2006) demonstrated that the t between a companys
business and its sponsored nonprots led to a more positive
Effects of CSM on Consumer Behavior 625
1 3
attitude toward the company. Rifon et al. (2004) and
Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) provided direct evidence that
consumers evaluated a company as more credible when it
supported a cause congruent with its operations than an
incongruent cause. A high t between the rm and the
cause is thought to affect a companys credibility by
increasing its perceived expertise in addressing a given
social cause (Haley 1996). In addition, consumers tend to
associate rms with altruistic motives in high t conditions,
leading to increased trustworthiness (Rifon et al. 2004).
Collectively, evidence suggests that the perceived t
between the company and the cause for which it advocates
positively inuences its corporate credibility in supporting
the cause, leading to the following proposition:
P3 Companies gain higher CSM credibility when they
support social causes that are congruent with their opera-
tions and products than when they support social causes
that are incongruent.
Effort refers to the amount of energy companies put into
their CSM programs to promote desired prosocial behavior
(Ellen et al. 2000). Du et al. (2010) discussed that the effect
of corporate social initiatives on consumer evaluations of a
rm may depend in part on the amount of input invested by
the rm. Experimental research has shown that the per-
ceived level of corporate effort can, in fact, signicantly
inuence consumer perceptions of the company and its
social initiatives (Ellen et al. 2000; Reed et al. 2007). In
Reed et al.s (2007) study, consumers with high moral
identity evaluated a company adopting an employee vol-
unteer program (i.e., high effort) as more socially respon-
sible than a company merely engaging in giving cash (i.e.,
low effort). Ellen et al. (2000) also demonstrated that
product donations (i.e., high effort) led to a more positive
consumer evaluation than cash donations (i.e., low effort).
Although CSM generally requires more inputs than other
CSR activities (Kotler and Lee 2005a, b), some CSM ini-
tiatives (e.g., Coca-Colas recycling program through the
establishment of its subsidiary, Coca-Cola Recycling) may
be considered more effortful than others (e.g., Staples in-
store recycling program as part of the companys envi-
ronmental efforts).Thus, if consumers perceive that the
company has made a large effort in its CSM initiative, they
are more likely to perceive it as credible in supporting the
cause. This leads us to the following proposition:
P4 Companies gain higher CSM credibility when they
put a large amount of effort in their CSM initiatives than
when they put a low amount of effort.
Personal investment refers to the degree to which the
members of the organization are personally involved in the
cause (Haley 1996). Although the literature has not
extensively examined the effect of this attribute, Haleys
qualitative study provided a consumer view that they ten-
ded to perceive an organizations advocacy advertising as
more trustworthy when its members were greatly involved
in the cause. For example, a participant noted: the thing
that makes MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] such
a good sponsor is that those mother have experienced
personally the pain of drinking and driving (Haley 1996,
p. 29). Given this, the company will likely increase its
credibility as to addressing a social cause if consumers
perceive that its management and/or employees have high
personal investment in the cause. Therefore, our next
proposition is:
P5 Companies gain higher CSM credibility when their
employees and/or management show personal investment
in the supported social causes than when they do not.
Rifon et al. (2004) identied the signicant effect of
perceived intent on corporate credibility in that a rm
implementing an initiative based on altruistic motives
tended to receive higher corporate credibility ratings. This
nding that a rms intent behind social involvement
affects consumer evaluations of the company, including
corporate credibility, was further supported by Barone
et al. (2000), Menon and Kahn (2003), Yoon et al. (2006),
and Speed and Thompson (2000). In addition, in Haleys
(1996) study, consumers indicated that they were less
likely to trust a company if its initiative was clearly used
for generating mere publicity.
While the above studies divided corporate motives into
either economic or altruistic motives, Ellen et al. (2006)
found that each of the two motives can be further classied
into two different kinds of motives, resulting in the fol-
lowing four types of motives: (1) egoistic-driven, (2)
strategic-driven, (3) stakeholder-driven, and (4) value-dri-
ven motives. The rst two motives constitute economic
motives but differ in terms of whether the company sup-
ports the cause to simply exploit it for publicity and tax
exemptions (egoistic-driven) or to achieve its business
goals, such as increasing sales and customers (strategic-
driven). The last two motives represent altruistic motives
but can be distinguished by whether the company engages
in social activities due to pressure from stakeholders
(stakeholder-driven) or due to its sincere motivation to
society (value-driven). Using this typology, a latter study
by Vlachos et al. (2009) identied that the four types of
motives had differential effects on consumer perception of
trust in the company, such that only CSR activities asso-
ciated with value-driven motives had a positive effect on
the outcome.
Relating to the different effects of the two altruistic
motives, Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) further proposed that a
corporate social initiative implemented as a reaction to
some negative actions and external pressures, such as
626 Y. Inoue, A. Kent
1 3
consumer boycott, would likely decrease the perceived
trust and honesty of the rm among consumers. The results
support this proposition by showing that a company
described as implementing a reactive initiative is perceived
as less credible than a company described as implementing
a proactive initiative (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006). These
ndings thus suggest that companies can gain high CSM
credibility only when their CSM involvement is viewed as
proactive and being motivated by sincere intentions (i.e.,
value-driven), leading to the following proposition:
P6 Companies gain higher CSM credibility when their
CSM involvement is associated with value-driven motives
than when it is associated with egoistic-, strategic-, or
stakeholder-motives.
CSM initiatives may further vary according to the amount
of benets accrued to an individual through the performance
of the intended prosocial behavior (Bloom et al. 1997),
something which Du and her colleagues (Du et al. 2008, 2009,
2010) explicitly examined with regard to consumer-related
outcomes. Specically, Du et al. (2008) found that the per-
ceived impact of Crests Healthy Smiles 2010 campaign
positively inuenced reciprocal intentions of participant par-
ents, such as buying products of the brand. In their 2009 study,
the researchers provided similar results, suggesting that con-
sumers were more likely to engage in advocacy behavior
toward a company if they perceived that its initiative made a
signicant impact on society. Their latest work further noted
that the perceived impact of CSRactivities would likely affect
consumer perceptions of the company, such as trust. Based on
the implications of these studies, it is likely that consumers see
the company as more credible in supporting a social cause if
they think that its CSM initiative have provided (or will pro-
vide) benets to them and society. Hence we propose:
P7 Companies gain higher CSM credibility when they
demonstrate the impacts of their CSM initiatives than when
they do not.
Cause Attributes Inuencing Corporate Credibility
Previous research has identied that the personal impor-
tance of the cause, or the degree to which consumers
personally support the companys sponsoring cause, has a
signicant effect on their perceptions of the company
(Marin and Ruiz 2007; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). For
example, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found that con-
sumers were more likely to identify with a company when
they perceived the social issue supported by the rm as
important for themselves. Marin and Ruiz (2007) also
showed that consumers who were highly supportive of
corporate involvement in social issues tended to perceive
higher congruence between them and a socially responsible
rm. The expected effect of cause importance on corporate
credibility can be explained by the notion that consumers
consider a company similar to them if it addresses a cause
that is important for them (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003).
Hovland et al. (1953) propose that individuals tend to see a
source as credible when they perceive a high similarity
with it. Thus, the personal importance of the cause may
affect the CSM credibility of the company due to the
consumer perceived similarity with the company, leading
us to the following proposition:
P8 Consumers are more likely to perceive the company
as having high CSM credibility when it supports a social
cause that is personally important to them than when it
supports a social cause that is not personally important.
Some CSM initiatives are designed to support causes
that are relevant to local communities. For example, in
response to growing concern about water conservation in
Arizona, all of the Home Depots Arizona stores joined a
water conservation campaign in 2003 to teach consumers
about effective ways of saving water (Kotler and Lee
2005b). Relating to this, Grau and Folse (2007) examined
the effect of cause proximity by testing whether corporate
involvement in a local cause would generate more positive
reactions than involvement in a national cause based on the
assumption that consumers are likely to place a greater
importance on the former than the latter. Results were
supportive of this proposition; consumers indicated a more
positive perception when a ctitious rm was described as
supporting local skin cancer research than when described
as supporting national skin cancer research (Grau and Folse
2007). Based on this nding, we propose that CSM ini-
tiatives that support locally positioned causes are likely to
enhance the CSM credibility of companies.
P9 Consumers are more likely to perceive the company
as having high CSM credibility when it supports a locally
positioned cause than when it supports a cause that is not
locally positioned.
Furthermore, Lafferty et al. (2004) demonstrated that
consumers tended to formulate positive perceptions of a
company if the cause supported by the rm is familiar to
them. This effect of familiarity can be explained by the
attitude accessibility theory, which suggests that accessible
memory plays an important role in evaluating an attitude
object (Petty and Wegener 1998). From this theory, a
highly familiar cause is thought to enable consumers to
easily retrieve memory about the cause and the CSM ini-
tiative, leading them to perceive high credibility about the
sponsor company (Lafferty et al. 2004). This leads us to
propose:
Effects of CSM on Consumer Behavior 627
1 3
P10 Consumers are more likely to perceive the company
as having high CSM credibility when it supports a social
cause that is familiar to them than when it supports a social
cause that is unfamiliar.
Consequences of CSM Credibility
Direct Effect of CSM Credibility on Intended Prosocial
Behavior
The role that the credibility of message sources plays in
determining the persuasiveness of a communication has been
examined since the early 1950s (e.g., Hovland et al. 1953;
Hovland and Weiss 19511952; Kelman and Hovland 1953).
This line of research has consistently shown that a high-
credibility source generally produces a more persuasive
advocacy message than a low-credibility source (e.g., Kel-
man 1958; Maddux and Rogers 1980; Mills and Harvey
1972; Pornpitakpan 2004). This notion can also be applied to
the promotion of prosocial behavior (Bendapudi et al. 1996;
Craig and McCann 1978; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999).
For example, Bendapudi et al. (1996) indicated that organi-
zational credibility was the single most critical element in
determining the effectiveness of interventions by nonprot
organizations that are designed to promote donation activi-
ties. Craig and McCann (1978) found that local residents
were more likely to engage in energy conservation activities
when they received a pamphlet froma highly credible source
(the State Regulatory Agency) than a low credible source (a
local utility rm). Consequently, it can be proposed that a
companys CSM credibility positively affects consumer
decisions to perform prosocial behavior promoted by the
company through its CSM initiative.
P11 CSM credibility positively affects consumers deci-
sions to engage in the intended prosocial behavior.
Direct Effect of CSM Credibility on Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty is dened as ones behavioral intentions
to buy the companys brand in the future, accompanied by
a high level of commitment (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich
2006; Homburg et al. 2010; Zang and Bloemer 2008).
Empirical evidence suggests that corporate credibility
signicantly affects ones attitudes and behavioral inten-
tions that are related to customer loyalty (e.g., Goldberg
and Hartwick 1990; Goldsmith et al. 2000; MacKenzie and
Lutz 1989; Lafferty and Goldsmith 1999). For example,
MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) showed that advertiser credi-
bility had direct effects on advertisement credibility and
attitudes toward the advertiser, and indirect effects on
attitude toward the advertisement through the mediation of
the two variables (Mackenzie and Lutz 1989). Goldsmith
and his colleagues conducted a series of experimental
studies examining the effects of corporate credibility on
consumers attitudes toward the advertisement and the
brand and their purchase intentions, and found that the
construct had a signicant main effect on each outcome
(Goldsmith et al. 2000; Lafferty and Goldsmith 1999). In a
more relevant study, Walker and Kent (2012) revealed that
corporate credibility enhanced by consumers awareness of
the PGA TOURs social initiatives had a signicant effect
on consumers loyalty to the organization operationalized
as advocacy and nancial sacrice. Based on these nd-
ings, we posit that CSM credibility is likely to have a direct
positive effect on customer loyalty to the company
implementing CSM.
P12 CSM credibility positively affects customer loyalty
to the company.
Mediating Effects of Value Congruence
While the aforementioned arguments suggest that CSM
credibility would have a direct effect on the two behavioral
consequences, Kelmans (1958, 1961, 2006) theory of
internalization explains that source credibility may inu-
ence individuals attitudes and behavior through the
mediation of value congruence. Value congruence refers to
the perceived similarity between an individuals values and
those of others (Chatman 1989; Edwards and Cable 2009;
Fombelle et al. 2011; Kristof 1996). Although some
overlap may exist between value congruence and cause
attributes discussed above, specically personal impor-
tance, they essentially differ in the following ways. First,
value congruence is concerned with values, which refer
to an individuals general beliefs on the signicance of a
certain end state or normatively desirable behavior (e.g.,
altruism, universalism, benevolence; Edwards and Cable
2009; Schwartz 1992); whereas personal importance
addresses the extent to which a given cause (e.g., breast
cancer, youth education, environmental protection) is per-
sonally important to that individual. Second, while per-
sonal importance rests on a persons perception of a cause,
value congruence is based on his or her perception of a
company in terms of how well pairs of components (i.e.,
values) t together (Nadler and Tushman 1980, p. 45)
between the person and the company.
Using value congruence, Kelman (1958, 1961, 2006), in
the context of persuasion, proposed that individuals tend to
perceive that actions and underlying values promoted by a
message source are congruent with their own values (i.e.,
value congruence) if they see the source as credible. Once
value congruence is activated, the individuals are likely to
incorporate the actions and values induced by the source
into their existing value systems (i.e., internalization). The
628 Y. Inoue, A. Kent
1 3
reorganized value systems, in turn, provide the individuals
with intrinsic needs that will be satised by performing
behavior consistent with the induced values and actions
(Kelman 1958, 1961, 2006). This perspective thus high-
lights the mediating effect of value congruence in the
relationship between CSM credibility and the two conse-
quences included in the framework. To demonstrate this
role of value congruence, we rst propose:
P13 CSM credibility increases perceived value congru-
ence with the company among consumers.
Indirect Effect of CSM Credibility on Intended Prosocial
Behavior through Value Congruence
Given the implications of value congruence explained
above, we propose that this construct at least partially
mediates the relationship between CSM credibility and
prosocial behavior. This is because CSM activities can be
seen as a communicator of the companys values; the
company communicates what it considers socially respon-
sible to consumers by promoting desired prosocial behavior
(Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Therefore, if consumers
evaluate the company as credible and increase value con-
gruence, they are likely to restructure their value systems in
accordance with the behavior and values communicated by
the company through its CSM initiative. In turn, to fulll
resultant needs, consumers perform the intended prosocial
behavior whenever they encounter related issues (Kelman
1958, 1961, 2006). This leads us to propose:
P14 Value congruence enhanced by CSM credibility
positively affects consumers decisions to engage in the
intended prosocial behavior.
Indirect Effect of CSM Credibility on Customer Loyalty
through Value Congruence
Furthermore, while no research has explicitly examined the
link among corporate credibility, value congruence, and
behavioral loyalty, the literature collectively indicates that
value congruence activated by CSM credibility can have a
positive effect on customer loyalty (e.g., Sen and Bhattach-
arya 2001; Walker and Kent 2012; Zang and Bloemer 2008).
As noted, Walker and Kent (2012) showed the positive direct
effect of corporate credibility on customer loyalty. Sen and
Bhattacharya (2001) identied the mediating role of com-
panycustomer congruence in the relationship between CSR
and consumers evaluation of the company. In addition, in a
different research context, Zang and Bloemer (2008) showed
the signicant effect of value congruence between con-
sumers and a brand on their loyalty to the brand, operation-
alized as willingness to pay more, repurchase intention, and
positive word of mouth communication. Drawing fromthese
ndings, we posit that CSM credibility inuences customer
loyalty through the partial mediation of value congruence.
P15 Value congruence enhanced by CSM credibility
increases customer loyalty to the company.
Discussion and Implications
Despite the potential of CSM to create the greatest social
and business returns among other CSR activities (Kotler
and Lee 2005a, b), the business literature has provided little
insight into how CSM leads to these benets (Du et al.
2008). The current theoretical paper, therefore, addresses
this lack of knowledge by developing the conceptual
framework that species the antecedents and consequences
of corporate credibility regarding CSM involvement,
namely CSM credibility. The theoretical, research, and
managerial implications of this paper are as follows.
Theoretical Implications
First, the framework developed here shows that consumers
formulate their perceptions of CSM credibility based on
corporate, CSM, and cause attributes. While several studies
attempted to identify the antecedents of corporate credi-
bility (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006; Keller and Aaker 1998;
Walker and Kent 2012), this study is distinguishable from
them in terms of the identication of multiple antecedents,
systematic classication of the antecedents, and focus on
corporate credibility specic to CSM involvement. Fur-
thermore, our framework advances the frameworks pro-
posed by the previous studies (Du et al. 2010; Haley 1996;
Speed and Thompson 2000) by incorporating empirical
evidence and theoretical implications drawn from the
existing literature and by identifying a more comprehen-
sive set of the antecedents of CSM credibility.
Second, this framework demonstrates that CSM credi-
bility increases the companys ability to persuade consumers
to perform the prosocial behavior promoted in its CSM ini-
tiative. To the best of our knowledge, although the literature
exists to support the persuasiveness of individual credible
sources (e.g., Kelman 1958; Maddux and Rogers 1980; Mills
and Harvey 1972) and the effect of corporate credibility on
business outcomes (Goldberg and Hartwick 1990; Gold-
smith et al. 2000; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), this article is
the rst to propose the linkage between corporate credibility
and consumer voluntary behavior. Moreover, building upon
Kelmans (1958, 1961, 2006) theory of internalization, we
explain that value congruence plays a key role in establishing
the relationship between CSM credibility and prosocial
behavior. While previous studies on corporate credibility
(e.g., Goldsmith et al. 2000) mainly examined the effects of
Effects of CSM on Consumer Behavior 629
1 3
attitudinal variables (e.g., attitude toward the ad) on the
credibilitybehavior relationship, our focus on value con-
gruence allows scholars to understand this relationship from
a novel and theoretically sound perspective.
Third, this framework provides an insight into how CSR
activities can simultaneously generate social and corporate
benets, an emerging research question in the business lit-
erature (Du et al. 2008; Lichtenstein et al. 2004; Porter and
Kramer 2006). As one of the rst studies addressing this
question, Lichtenstein et al. (2004) investigated whether
customer-corporate identication would mediate the effect
of CSR on both corporate benets (e.g., store loyalty) and
social benets (i.e., consumer donations to company-sup-
ported nonprot organizations). While the researchers
found a clear linkage among CSR, identication, and cor-
porate benets, their ndings about the mediation of iden-
tication in the relationship between CSR and social
benets were inconclusive, in that CSR increased customer
donations through the mediation of identication but also
had a direct negative effect on the behavior (Lichtenstein
et al. 2004). Given this mixed support for the role of iden-
tication, our framework, which is closely aligned with
Kelmans (1958, 1961, 2006) internalization perspective,
provides an alternative view by proposing the linkage
among CSM credibility, value congruence, and consumer
behavior with respect to both social and business returns.
Overall, this article contributes to the business literature
by identifying the role of corporate credibility in deter-
mining the effectiveness of CSM initiatives. Moreover, this
study, as well as future endeavors, helps companies
achieve their social and corporate goals in a simultaneous
manner, which ideally can lead to positive social change.
Research Implications
Our conceptual framework provides a number of important
propositions that require further empirical scrutiny. First,
future research should test whether each identied ante-
cedent has an effect on CSM credibility using some type of
experimental design. Previous studies examining the
antecedents of corporate credibility and other related con-
structs commonly adopted scenario-based manipulations
(e.g., Becker-Olsen et al. 2006; Keller and Aaker 1998). In
addition, although it may require more efforts, eld
experiments that compare different CSM programs char-
acterized with different levels of a given attribute (e.g.,
high effort initiative vs. low effort initiative) should
increase the external validity of the results. However, one
issue in using experimental design is that as the design
involves the manipulation of each antecedent, multiple
independent studies will be required to test the effects of all
antecedents identied. Given this, an alternative research
design is to conduct a eld survey of an actual CSM
program designed to assess consumer evaluations of the
program in terms of several attributes and CSM credibility,
as conducted by Du et al. (2008). Along with the ability to
assess multiple antecedents at the same time, this design
allows for the comparison of effect sizes across anteced-
ents, leading to the identication of more inuential ante-
cedents among others. However, as with any type of survey
research, this design has a major limitation in terms of its
inability to infer causality from the obtained results.
Future studies can also investigate the mediating effects
of value congruence on the relationship between CSM
credibility and the intended prosocial behavior as well as
customer loyalty. In line with previous research on corpo-
rate credibility (Goldberg and Hartwick 1990; Lafferty and
Goldsmith 1999), one way to undertake this investigation is
to conduct an experimental study that manipulates a com-
panys CSM credibility into different levels in ctitious
scenarios (e.g., high vs. low credibility). Alternatively, a
eld survey can be conducted to measure consumers per-
ception of a companys CSM credibility and examine its
relationships with value congruence and the two conse-
quences. However, both designs may face a common
challenge in the measurement of value congruence. In
particular, while social psychology researchers have
developed different measures of value congruence, no
optimal measurement has yet to be available (Cable and
Edwards 2004; Kristof 1996; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005).
Researchers will therefore need to carefully decide on how
to measure this construct before implementing their studies.
Furthermore, while our framework posits that all attri-
butes directly inuence CSM credibility, structural rela-
tionships may exist among attributes within the same
categories as well as across the categories. For the former
case, Rifon et al. (2004) showed that company-cause t
could indirectly inuence corporate credibility through the
mediation of corporate motives. For the latter, some
empirical evidence exists to suggest that CSM and cause
attributes signicantly affect the two types of corporate
associations (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006; Grau and Folse
2007). Given this, it may be that the two corporate attri-
butes function as mediators that transmit the effects of
some attributes in the other two categories to CSM credi-
bility. While the specication of these relationships
exceeds the scope of this article, it can provide promising
research opportunities for future work.
Managerial Implications
The framework informs managers how a company can gain
high credibility in CSM involvement. In particular, man-
agers need to ensure that the company maintains positive
image in its products and/or services, and further inform
consumers that it engages in various social activities along
630 Y. Inoue, A. Kent
1 3
with the CSM initiative. In addition, in launching a new
CSM program, it is critical for managers to proactively
initiate the program rather than in response to pressures
from the companys stakeholders. Moreover, managers
need to design CSM communication by featuring such
areas as the amount of efforts the company puts into the
program, potential, and actual benets accrued from the
performance of promoted prosocial behavior, altruistic
motives behind CSM involvement, and management and/or
employees that are personally involved in or affected by
the supported cause. In addition, when selecting which
causes the company supports in CSM, managers must
consider whether (1) the cause is important and familiar to
the consumers targeted at the initiative, (2) the cause is
relevant for local communities in which the company
operates, and (3) the support of the cause is congruent with
the companys operations and products.
Furthermore, this framework tells managers that main-
taining high credibility in CSM involvement helps the
company achieve both social and business goals. Speci-
cally, while a more prevalent view is that the creation of
social benets often conicts with the creation of corporate
benets (Porter and Kramer 2006), this framework demon-
strates that high CSMcredibility results in the adoption of the
intended prosocial behavior and enhanced customer loyalty,
generating both benets. In addition, given that the two
outcomes are closely connected with the antecedents of CSM
credibility, there may be positive feedback loops, such that
the creation of both outcomes increases positive consumer
perceptions about the company and its CSM initiative (i.e.,
customer loyalty may inuence consumer perceptions of
corporate attributes; the adoption of prosocial behavior may
affect consumer perceptions of CSM attributes). In turn, the
enhanced evaluation of the antecedents among consumers
eventually reinforces the two consequences.
In short, the current framework provides managers with
further insight into how and why the company can generate
social and corporate benets through CSM. Moreover,
given that CSM is clearly linked to the concept of CSR
(Carroll 1979, 1991) and has some connection to the eth-
ical responsibility of business based on the principle of
utilitarianism (Schwartz and Carroll 2003), the successful
implementation of CSM initiatives guided by our frame-
work would help managers fulll these two responsibilities
of their corporations.
References
Andreasen, A. R. (2004). A social marketing approach to changing
mental health practices directed at youth and adolescents. Health
Marketing Quarterly, 21(4), 5175.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The inuence
of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good
turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28, 248262.
Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2003). Dangerous donations? The effects
of cause-related marketing on charity attitude. Journal of
Nonprot & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 5976.
Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-
related marketing: An empirical application of balance theory.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 391493.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact
of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behav-
ior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 4653.
Bendapudi, N., Singh, S., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping
behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning.
Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 3349.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumercompany identi-
cation: A framework for understating consumers relationships
with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 7688.
Bloom, P. N., Hussein, P. Y., & Szykman, L. R. (1997). The benets
of corporate social marketing initiatives. In M. E. Goldberg, M.
Fishbein, & S. E. Middlestadt (Eds.), Social marketing: Theo-
retical and practical perspectives (pp. 313331). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, T. J. (1998). Corporate associations in marketing: Antecedents
and consequences. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 215233.
Brown, T., & Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product:
Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal
of Marketing, 61(1), 6884.
Cable, D., & Edwards, J. (2004). Complementary and supplementary
t: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(5), 822834.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:
Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.
Business Horizons, 34, 3948.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2012). Business and society:
Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (8th ed.).
Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research:
A model of person-organization t. Academy of Management
Review, 14(3), 333349.
Craig, S. C., &McCann, J. M. (1978). Assessing communication effects
on energy conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 8288.
de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2000). The role of corporate image and
extension similarity in service brand extensions. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 21, 639659.
Du, S., Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2008). Exploring the social
and business returns of a corporate oral health initiative aimed at
disadvantaged Hispanic families. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35, 483494.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening
consumer relationships through corporate social responsibility.
Working paper, Simmons College School of Management.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business
returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR
communication. International Journal of Management Reviews,
12(1), 819.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function.
In D. T. Gillbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook
of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 269322). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value
congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 654677.
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs
and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3),
393406.
Effects of CSM on Consumer Behavior 631
1 3
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mor, L. A. (2006). Building corporate
associations: Corporate attributions for corporate socially
responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 147157.
Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of
moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty model. Journal of
Service Research, 8(4), 330345.
Fombelle, P. W., Jarvis, C. B., Ward, J., & Ostrom, L. (2012).
Leveraging customers multiple identities: Identity synergy as a
driver of organizational identication. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 40, 587604.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the
corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goldberg, M., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertiser
reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 172179.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B., & Newell, S. (2000). The impact of
corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer
reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising,
29(3), 4354.
Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM):
The inuence of donation proximity and message-framing cues
on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Adverting, 36, 1933.
Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source:
Consumers understanding of organizational sponsorship of
advocacy advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 1935.
Homburg, C., Muller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When does
salespeoples customer orientation lead to customer loyalty? The
differential effects of relational and functional customer orien-
tation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39,
795812.
Hovland C., & Weiss, W. (19511952). The inuence of source
credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 15:635650.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communications
and persuasion: Psychological studies in opinion change. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1998). The impact of corporate
marketing on a companys brand extensions. Corporate Repu-
tation Review, 1, 356378.
Keller, P., & Lehmann, D. (2008). Designing effective health
communications: A meta-analysis. Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, 27(2), 117130.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identication, and internalization:
Three processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conict
Resolution, 2(1), 5160.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 25, 5778.
Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three
central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their
social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 126.
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. (1953). Reinstatement of the
communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(3), 327335.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005a). Corporate social responsibility: Doing
the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005b). Best of breed: When it comes to
gaining a market edge while supporting a social cause,
corporate social marketing leads the pack. Social Marketing
Quarterly, 11(3), 91103.
Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach to
planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35, 312.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing:
Improving the quality of life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization t: An integrative review of
its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Person-
nel Psychology, 49(1), 149.
Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R., & Johnson, E. (2005). Conse-
quences of individuals t at work: A meta-analysis of person-
job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor
t. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281342.
Lafferty, B., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibilitys 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), 109116.
Lafferty, B., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The impact of
the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliance.
Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 509531.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The
effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to
corporate-supported nonprots. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1632.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of
the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an
advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 4865.
Maddux, J., & Rogers, R. (1980). Effects of source expertness,
physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion:
A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(2), 235244.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility
and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 319.
Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). I need you too! Corporate identity
attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 245260.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural
foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer
Research, 16, 310321.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable
behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of
philanthropic activities: When do they impact perception of
sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),
316327.
Mills, J., & Harvey, J. (1972). Opinion change as a function of when
information about the communicator is received and whether he
is attractive or expert. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 21(1), 5255.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1980). A model for diagnosing
organizational behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 3551.
Newell, S., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1998). The effect of misleading
environmental claims on consumer perceptions of advertise-
ments. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(2), 48.
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale
to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business
Research, 52, 235247.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure
celebrity endorsers perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and
attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 3952.
Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsi-
bility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic
review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39,
117135.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion:
Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm.
C. Brown.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles
for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gillbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol.
1, pp. 323389). New York: McGraw-Hill.
632 Y. Inoue, A. Kent
1 3
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A
critical review of ve decades evidence. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34(2), 243281.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and corporate social responsi-
bility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 7892.
Reed, A., I. I., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and
judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71,
178193.
Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., &Hairong, L. (2004). Congruence
effects in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 33, 2942.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25,
pp. 165). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social
responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 13, 503530.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to
doing better? Consumer relations to corporate social responsi-
bility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of
corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stake-
holder relationships: A eld experiment. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 34, 158166.
Simmons, C., & Becker-Olsen, K. (2006). Achieving marketing
objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing,
70(4), 154169.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsor-
ship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(2), 227238.
Stead, M., Gordon, R., Angus, K., & McDermott, L. (2007). A
systematic review of social marketing effectiveness. Health
Education, 107, 126191.
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrecopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. A.
(2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty and
the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37, 170180.
Walker, M., & Kent, A. (2012). The roles of credibility and social
consciousness in the corporate philanthropyconsumer behavior
relationship. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1472-6.
Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Bozok, B. (2006). Drawing inferences
about others on the basis of corporate association. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 167173.
Zang, J., & Bloemer, J. M. M. (2008). The impact of value
congruence on consumer-service brand relationships. Journal of
Service Research, 11, 161179.
Effects of CSM on Consumer Behavior 633
1 3