본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The Effects of the Perceived Motivation Type toward Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Customer Loyalty

박종철|김경진
한국마케팅과학회 (Korean Scholars of Marketing Science)|2009.09|Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구) (全球营销科学学报)|제19권 제3호|pp. 5-16

2

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Corporate social responsibilityCustomer loyalty动机企业社会责任顾客忠诚度Perceived motivation typePerceived reciprocity认知动机类型互惠的期待认知对等
주제분류경영학

초록

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities have been shown to be potential factors that can improve corporate image and increase the ability of corporations to compete. However, most previous studies related to CSR activities investigated how these activities influence product and corporate evaluation, as well as corporate image. In addition, some researchers treated consumers’ perceptions of corporate motives as moderator variables in evaluating the relationship between corporate social responsibilities and consumer response. However, motive‐based theories have some weaknesses. Corporate social responsibility activities cause two motives(egoistic vs. altruistic) for consumers, but recently, Vlachos et al. (2008) argued that these motives should be segmented. Thus, it is possible to transform the original theory into a modified theory model (persuasion knowledge model, PKM). Vlachos et al. (2008) segmented corporate social responsibility motives into four types and compared the effects of these motives on customer loyalty. Prior studies have proved that CSR activities with positive motives have positive influences on customer loyalty. However, the psychological reasons underlying this finding have not been determined empirically. Thus, the objectives of this research are twofold. First, we attempt to determine why most customers favor companies that they feel have positive motives for their corporate social responsibility activities. Second, we attempt to measure the effects of consumers’ reciprocity when society benefits from corporate social responsibility activities. The following research hypotheses are constructed. H1: Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a positive influence on the perceived reciprocity. H2: Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on the perceived reciprocity. H3: Egoistic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H4: Strategic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H5: Perceived reciprocity for corporate social responsibility activities has a positive influence on consumer loyalty. A single company is selected as a research subject to understand how the motives behind corporate social responsibility influence consumers’ perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty. A total sample of 200 respondents was selected for a pilot test. In addition, to ensure a consistent response, we ensured that the respondents were older than 20 years of age. The surveys of 172 respondents (males‐82, females‐90) were analyzed after 28 invalid questionnaires were excluded. Based on our cutoff criteria, the model fit the data reasonably well. Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities had a positive effect on perceived reciprocity (t = 6.75, p < .001), supporting H1. Morales (2005) also found that consumers appreciate a company’s social responsibility efforts and the benefits provided by these efforts to society. Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities did not affect perceived reciprocity (t = ‐.049, p > .05). Thus, H2 was rejected. Egoistic‐driven motives (t = ‐3.11, p < .05) and strategic‐driven (t = ‐4.65, p < .05) motives had a negative influence on perceived reciprocity, supporting H3 and H4, respectively. Furthermore, perceived reciprocity had a positive influence on consumer loyalty (t = 4.24, p < .05), supporting H5. Thus, compared with the general public, undergraduate students appear to be more influenced by egoistic‐driven motives. We draw the following conclusions from our research findings. First, value‐driven attributions have a positive influence on perceived reciprocity. However, stakeholder‐driven attributions have no significant effects on perceived reciprocity. Moreover, both egoistic‐driven attributions and strategic‐driven attributions have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. Second, when corporate social responsibility activities align with consumers’ reciprocity, the efforts directed towards social responsibility activities have a positive influence on customer loyalty. In this study, we examine whether the type of motivation affects consumer responses to CSR, and in particular, we evaluate how CSR motives can influence a key internal factor (perceived reciprocity) and behavioral consumer outcome (customer loyalty). We demonstrate that perceived reciprocity plays a mediating role in the relationship between CSR motivation and customer loyalty. Our study extends the research on consumer CSR‐inferred motivations, positing them as a direct indicator of consumer responses. Furthermore, we convincingly identify perceived reciprocity as a sub‐process mediating the effect of CSR attributions on customer loyalty. Future research investigating the ultimate behavior and financial impact of CSR should consider that the impacts of CSR also stem from perceived reciprocity. The results of this study also have important managerial implications. First, the central role that reciprocity plays indicates that managers should routinely measure how much their socially responsible actions create perceived reciprocity. Second, understanding how consumers' perceptions of CSR corporate motives relate to perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty can help managers to monitor and enhance these consumer outcomes through marketing initiatives and management of CSR‐induced attribution processes. The results of this study will help corporations to understand the relative importance of the four different motivations types in influencing perceived reciprocity.

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities have been shown to be potential factors that can improve corporate image and increase the ability of corporations to compete. However, most previous studies related to CSR activities investigated how these activities influence product and corporate evaluation, as well as corporate image. In addition, some researchers treated consumers’ perceptions of corporate motives as moderator variables in evaluating the relationship between corporate social responsibilities and consumer response. However, motive‐based theories have some weaknesses. Corporate social responsibility activities cause two motives(egoistic vs. altruistic) for consumers, but recently, Vlachos et al. (2008) argued that these motives should be segmented. Thus, it is possible to transform the original theory into a modified theory model (persuasion knowledge model, PKM). Vlachos et al. (2008) segmented corporate social responsibility motives into four types and compared the effects of these motives on customer loyalty. Prior studies have proved that CSR activities with positive motives have positive influences on customer loyalty. However, the psychological reasons underlying this finding have not been determined empirically. Thus, the objectives of this research are twofold. First, we attempt to determine why most customers favor companies that they feel have positive motives for their corporate social responsibility activities. Second, we attempt to measure the effects of consumers’ reciprocity when society benefits from corporate social responsibility activities. The following research hypotheses are constructed. H1: Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a positive influence on the perceived reciprocity. H2: Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on the perceived reciprocity. H3: Egoistic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H4: Strategic‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. H5: Perceived reciprocity for corporate social responsibility activities has a positive influence on consumer loyalty. A single company is selected as a research subject to understand how the motives behind corporate social responsibility influence consumers’ perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty. A total sample of 200 respondents was selected for a pilot test. In addition, to ensure a consistent response, we ensured that the respondents were older than 20 years of age. The surveys of 172 respondents (males‐82, females‐90) were analyzed after 28 invalid questionnaires were excluded. Based on our cutoff criteria, the model fit the data reasonably well. Values‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities had a positive effect on perceived reciprocity (t = 6.75, p < .001), supporting H1. Morales (2005) also found that consumers appreciate a company’s social responsibility efforts and the benefits provided by these efforts to society. Stakeholder‐driven motives for corporate social responsibility activities did not affect perceived reciprocity (t = ‐.049, p > .05). Thus, H2 was rejected. Egoistic‐driven motives (t = ‐3.11, p < .05) and strategic‐driven (t = ‐4.65, p < .05) motives had a negative influence on perceived reciprocity, supporting H3 and H4, respectively. Furthermore, perceived reciprocity had a positive influence on consumer loyalty (t = 4.24, p < .05), supporting H5. Thus, compared with the general public, undergraduate students appear to be more influenced by egoistic‐driven motives. We draw the following conclusions from our research findings. First, value‐driven attributions have a positive influence on perceived reciprocity. However, stakeholder‐driven attributions have no significant effects on perceived reciprocity. Moreover, both egoistic‐driven attributions and strategic‐driven attributions have a negative influence on perceived reciprocity. Second, when corporate social responsibility activities align with consumers’ reciprocity, the efforts directed towards social responsibility activities have a positive influence on customer loyalty. In this study, we examine whether the type of motivation affects consumer responses to CSR, and in particular, we evaluate how CSR motives can influence a key internal factor (perceived reciprocity) and behavioral consumer outcome (customer loyalty). We demonstrate that perceived reciprocity plays a mediating role in the relationship between CSR motivation and customer loyalty. Our study extends the research on consumer CSR‐inferred motivations, positing them as a direct indicator of consumer responses. Furthermore, we convincingly identify perceived reciprocity as a sub‐process mediating the effect of CSR attributions on customer loyalty. Future research investigating the ultimate behavior and financial impact of CSR should consider that the impacts of CSR also stem from perceived reciprocity. The results of this study also have important managerial implications. First, the central role that reciprocity plays indicates that managers should routinely measure how much their socially responsible actions create perceived reciprocity. Second, understanding how consumers' perceptions of CSR corporate motives relate to perceived reciprocity and customer loyalty can help managers to monitor and enhance these consumer outcomes through marketing initiatives and management of CSR‐induced attribution processes. The results of this study will help corporations to understand the relative importance of the four different motivations types in influencing perceived reciprocity.

참고문헌 (44)

  1. Adams,J.S., "Inequity in Social Exchange, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2. ed", pp.267~299 (1965), New York: Academic Press
  2. Bagozzi,R.P., "On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models", Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), pp.74~94 (1988)
  3. Barone,M.J., "The Influence of Cause‐Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another?", Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), pp.248~262 (2000)
  4. Becker‐Olsen,K.L., "The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility On Consumer Behavior", Journal of Business Research, 59(1), pp.46~61 (2006)
  5. Brown,T.J., "The Company and the Product:Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses", Journal of Marketing, 통권 : 61, pp.68~84 (1997)
  6. Carroll,A.B., "Business and Society:Ethics and Stakeholder Management" (2000), Ohio:South‐Western College Publishing
  7. Cone Communications, "Press Release", ~ (1997), January 1
  8. Dean,D.H., "Associating the Corporation with a Charitable Event through Sponsorship:Measuring the Effects on Corporate Community Relations", Journal of Advertising, 31(4), pp.77~87 (2002)
  9. Dean,D.H., "Consumer Perception of Corporate Donations", Journal of Advertising, 32(4), pp.91~102 (2004)
  10. Drumwright,M.E., "Company Advertising With a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteria", Journal of Marketing, 통권 : 60, pp.71~87 (1996)
  11. Ekeh,P.P., "Social Exchange Theory:The Two Traditions" (1974), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  12. Consumer Reaction to Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Attributions Make a Difference?, "Ellen,P.S.", Department of Marketing, Georgia State Univ., ~ (1996)
  13. Ellen, P. S, "Charitable Programs and the Retailer: Do They Mix?", Journal of Retailing, 76(3), pp.393~406 (2000)
  14. Ellen, P. S, "Building Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Social Responsibility Programs", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), pp.147~157 (2006)
  15. Folkes,V.S., "Effects of Information About Firms' Ethical and Unethical Actions on Consumers' Attitudes", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), pp.243~259 (1999)
  16. Forehand,M.R., "When is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), pp.349~356 (2003)
  17. Fornell,C., "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error", Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), pp.39~50 (1981)
  18. Friestad,M., "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts", Journal of Consumer Research, 21, pp.1~31 (1994)
  19. Friestad, M., "Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People's and Researchers' Beliefs about the Psychology of Advertising", Journal of Consumer Research, 통권 : 22, pp.62~74 (1995)
  20. Goranson,R.E., "Reciprocity and Responsibility Reactions to Prior Help", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 통권 : 3, pp.227~232 (1966)
  21. Gurin,M.G., "Caused‐Related Marketing in Question", Advertising Age, 통권 : 27, pp.1~16 (1987)
  22. Hess,D.,N., "The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement: Corporate Social Initiatives", California Management Review, 44(2), pp.110~125 (2002)
  23. Young “Sally” K. Kim, "The Moderating Role of Attribution in Penalty Judgment: an Empirical Study in the Financial Service Industry", Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구), 16(3), pp.1~16 (2006), 한국마케팅과학회
  24. Kline,R.B., "Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling" (1998), The Guilford Press, New York
  25. 구동모, "지속적 쇼핑동기로서의 개인가치가 할인점 점포연상 평가와 단골의도에 주는 계층적 영향", Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구), 16(1), pp.45~71 (2006), 한국마케팅과학회
  26. Lee,J., "Theory and Practice of Corporate Ethics and Ethics Management, 5th ed." (2003), Samyong Press,Seoul
  27. Marsh,H.W., "Assessing Goodness of Fit: Is Parsimony always Desirable?", Journal of Experimental Education, 통권 : 64, pp.364~390 (1996)
  28. Menon,S., "Corporate Sponsorships of Philanthropic Activities: When Do They Impact Perception of Sponsor Brand?", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), pp.316~327 (2003)
  29. Mohr,L.A., "The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Price on Consumer Responses", Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), pp.121~147 (2005)
  30. Morales,A.C., "Giving Firms an "E" for Effort:Consumer Responses to High‐Effort Firms", Journal of Consumer Research, 통권 : 31, pp.806~812 (2005)
  31. Murray,K.B., "Using a Hierarchy‐of‐Effects Approach to Gauge the Effectiveness of Corporate Social Responsibility to Generate Goodwill toward the Firm Financial versus Nonfinancial Impacts", Journal of Business Research, 통권 : 38, pp.141~159 (1997)
  32. Nunnally,J.C., "Psychometric Theory" (1994), New York:McGraw‐Hill
  33. 박경원, "쇼핑 가치 추구 성향에 따른 쇼핑 목표와 공유 의도 차이에 관한 연구 - 전자제품 구매고객을 중심으로", Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구), 19(2), pp.73~84 (2009), 한국마케팅과학회
  34. 박성규, "e-점포 속성이 신뢰, 만족 및 충성도에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구", Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구), 15(1), pp.21~39 (2005), 한국마케팅과학회
  35. Pracejus,J.W., "On the Prevalence and Impact of Vague Quantifiers in the Advertising of Cause‐Related Marketing", Journal of Advertising, 통권 : 32, pp.19~28 (2004)
  36. Rifon, N. J., "Congruence Effect in Sponsorship: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive", Journal of Advertising, 통권 : 33, pp.29~42 (2004)
  37. Ross,J.K.,L., "Consumer Perceptions of Organizations that Use Cause Related Marketing", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 93(97) (1992)
  38. Sen,S., "Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility", Journal of Marketing Research, 통권 : 38, pp.225~243 (2001)
  39. Stone,E.F., "Clarifying Some Controversial Issues Surrounding Statistical Procedures for Detecting Moderator Variable:Empirical Evidence and Related Matters", Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), pp.3~10 (1989)
  40. Strahilevitz M., "The Effects of Prior Impressions of a Firm's Ethics on the Success of a Cause‐Related Marketing Campaign: Do the Good Look Better While the Bad Look Worse?", Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), pp.77~92 (2003)
  41. Vlachos,P.A., "Corporate Social Responsibility: Attributions, Loyalty, and the Mediating Role of Trust", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)
  42. Webb,D.J., "A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause Related Marketing", Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), pp.226~238 (1998)
  43. Yoon,Y.S., "The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies with Bad Reputations", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), pp.377~390 (2006)
  44. Zeithaml,V.A., "The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality", Journal of Marketing, 60(2), pp.31~36 (1996)

관련 논문AI추천

The Effect of the Perceived Corporate Fit on Loyalty:The Mediating Roles of the Corporate Social Responsibility Perception박성연, Eun Mi Lee, Jae H. Pae한국마케팅과학회 · Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science(마케팅과학연구)2011 · 제21권 제1호The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: Exploring Affective and Cognitive Mechanisms왕용, 박종철, 이동진한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2022 · 제40권 제2호기업의 사회적 책임활동을 통한 기업이미지 및 고객가치 향상이 고객충성도에 미치는 영향김종호, 송인암, 황희중한국유통과학회 · 유통과학연구2014 · 제12권 제8호Corporate Social Responsibility Reloaded: The Role of Affective and Cognitive Mechanism박종철, 이동진한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2020 · 제38권 제6호The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities on Consumer Responses: The Mediating Role of Perceived Value and Trust이정, 박종철한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2022 · 제40권 제5호The Distribution Industry’s Social Responsibility and Ethics Management: Effects on Corporate Trust and Loyalty김영이, 윤남수한국유통과학회 · 유통과학연구2014 · 제12권 제7호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

The Effect of Price Promotional Information about Brand on Consumer's Quality Perception: Conditioning on Pretrial Brand이민훈, 임항섭pp. 17-27How Can Non-Chaebol Companies Thrive in the Chaebol Economy?김동재, Sanjit Sengupta, 김남국pp. 28-36Marketing Standardization and Firm Performancein International E-CommerceHeiko Dees, Wolfgang Fritzpp. 37-48Interpreting Bounded Rationality in Business and Industrial Marketing Contexts: Executive Training Case Studies정득교, Wen-Hsiang Lai, Arch G. Woodside, 김경훈pp. 49-61
원문 보기