CSR across the globe: Dutch and Indian consumers’ response to CSR CSR Communication Conference  Amsterdam, the Netherlands...
Starting points <ul><li>strategic CSR (communication)    positive stakeholder outcomes? </li></ul><ul><li>debate on local...
<ul><li>Carroll’s CSR Pyramid (1991) </li></ul>Economic responsibility Legal responsibility Ethical responsibility Philant...
<ul><li>Visser’s CSR Pyramid (2007) </li></ul>Ethical responsibility Legal responsibility Philanthropic responsibility Eco...
Indian business: philanthropic policy stance <ul><li>Tata India’s Council for Community Initiatives & Literacy Programmes ...
Why this study? <ul><li>not much research on CSR (communication) in emerging economies </li></ul><ul><li>few cross-cultura...
Aim <ul><li>to investigate Dutch and Indian consumers’ attitudes to social responsibility (=CSR platforms), CSR initiative...
Survey <ul><li>1. importance social responsibilities:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>statements & 7-point scales (very important –...
Results: importance social responsibilities <ul><li>Dutch: </li></ul><ul><li>legal  >  ethical**;  ethical  >  philanthrop...
Results: importance CSR initiatives (most to least important) <ul><li>Dutch (%important/ unimportant) </li></ul><ul><li>En...
Results: response to CSR-based strategies (company image) Mean attitude to the company (sd) Strategy type Dutch (n = 95) I...
Results: response to CSR-based strategies (intent to buy) Mean intent to buy from company (sd) Strategy type Dutch (n = 95...
Discussion <ul><li>social responsibilities/ CSR platforms:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>importance assigned to the four responsi...
Discussion <ul><li>response to the CSR-based marketing strategies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>two (of the six) strategies –Caus...
Food for thought <ul><li>stakeholders in the two countries may be more similar with regard to the importance they attach t...
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION <ul><li>Brigitte Planken (Radboud University, the Netherlands) </li></ul><ul><li>[email_addre...
Background literature <ul><li>Arli, D. and Losmono, H. (2010), “Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility i...
Background literature <ul><li>Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (1998), “Social responsibility & corporate web pages: Self-presen...
Background literature <ul><li>Planken, B., Waller, R. and Nickerson, C. (2007), “Reading stories and signs on the internet...
CSR-based marketing strategies (Kotler & Lee, 2005) Strategy Description Aim(s) 1.Cause promotion corporation promotes awa...
Method 1 <ul><li>written survey on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>importance assigned to social responsibilities/ CSR platforms </...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Session 13, Planken, Nickerson & Sahu

816 views

Published on

Branding, Marketing & Management of CSR

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
816
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • By the way, the Indians in this study assigned significantly greater importance to all 4 responsibilities than the Dutch.
  • The second set of results relates to the relative importance the Dutch and Indians attached to specific CSR initiatives. This table reflects the findings for each of the two nationalities, with CSR initiatives ranked from relatively most to least important. Note that CSR initiatives reflecting ethical (planet &amp; people) concerns end up in the top two for both nationalities, and that some of the philanthropic (discretionary) CSR initiatives (for example, sponsoring and donating to causes) end op nearer the bottom of the list in both groups. Overall, findings for both groups are fairly similar: as was the case for the social responsibilities/ CSR platforms, the Indians seemed to hold similar views to the Dutch with regard to which types of CSR initiatives they see as relatively less or more important.
  • Let’s move to the third set of findings, relating to the respondents’ reaction to different CSR-based marketing strategies (with a philanthropic focus). -This table shows the results with respect to the extent to which each of the 6 csr-based marketing strategies distinguished by Kotler and Lee (2005) affected the two groups’ attitude to the company, that is their evaluations of corporate image. -The table shows means on a 7 point scale, where 1 is least positive and 7 most positive. -The strategies are described in shorthand, and their numbering does not reflect a hierarchy of any kind. 1. Most of the strategies led to relatively POSITIVE evaluations of corporate image, by both nationalities (that is higher than 5 on a 7-point scale) with one exception, the Cause promotion strategy (number 1). 2. WITHIN each of the nationalities (the yellow rows), the influence of at least some of the 6 marketing differences can be seen to differ significantly. For example, in the Indian group, Socially responsible business (6) led to a significantly more positive evaluation of the company than ANY of the other strategies (1 to 5). 3. The last two –orange coloured- rows in the table are perhaps most relevant as they show whether any of the marketing strategies led to significant differences BETWEEN nationalities and their evaluation of the company. -This is the case for two of the strategies, Cause promotion (1) and Socially responsible business (6), which both led to a significantly more positive evaluation of the company by the Indians than by the Dutch.
  • This table shows the results with respect to the extent to which each of the 6 CSR-based marketing strategies affected the two nationalities’ intent to support the company, that is purchasing intent. The table shows means on a 7 point scale, where 1 is least positive and 7 most positive. Again, the strategies are described in shorthand and their numbering does not reflect a hierarchy Overall, the first thing to notice is that intent to support the company as a reaction to each of the six strategies is reflected in LOWER means than was the case for ‘evaluation of the company’ reported in the previous slide/table In fact, with respect to all six CSR-based strategies, means for purchasing intent were found to be significantly lower than the corresponding means for corporate image (p &lt; .001). This was the case for both nationalities. Again, WITHIN each of the nationalities (the yellow rows), the influence of at least some of the 6 marketing differences can be seen to differ. For example, in the Dutch group, Cause promotion (1) led to a significantly lower intent to purchase than cause-related marketing and Socially responsible business (2 and 6). The last –orange coloured- rows of the table show whether any of the six CSR-based marketing strategies led to significant differences BETWEEN nationalities, and their intent to support the company. As was the case for evaluation of the company, two of the strategies -Cause promotion and Socially responsible business- led to significantly higher intent to purchase from the company in the Indian than the Dutch group.
  • -1 The findings with respect to attitudes to the four CSR platforms were similar across the two nationalities Contrary to our expectations, the Indians in this study did NOT rank philanthropic responsibility as more important than legal and ethical responsibilities In fact, ethical and legal platforms were seen as significantly more important by BOTH the Dutch and Indians than the philanthropic and economic platforms (Findings for Dutch mirror Maignan, 2001 for Dutch &amp; French consumers). -2 With regard to attitudes to different CSR initiatives, the Dutch and Indians AGAIN held largely similar opinions. Contrary to expectations, the Indians in this study did NOT rank philanthropic initiatives as relatively more important than initiatives reflecting legal and ethical concerns In fact, Environmental projects and initiatives to improve employees’ working conditions, both reflecting ethical (‘planet and people’) concerns, were ranked as relatively more important by a majority of both Dutch and Indians. -While Donating to causes and Sponsoring initiatives, reflecting a philanthropic platform, were assigned relatively less importance by a majority of Dutch and Indians. ++&gt; The findings that the Indians assigned relatively low importance to companies’ philanthropic responsibility and to CSR initiatives with a philanthropic orientation seem noteworthy given that Indian corporations tend to prioritize philanthopry, no doubt ALSO to appeal to their local stakeholders.
  • Finally, with respect to response to the CSr-based marketing strategies, the findings were only partially in line with expectations. Only two of the six CSR-based marketing strategies led to significantly different response across the two nationalities. Both the corporate social marketing and Socially responsible business strategies led to more positive evaluations of the company and higher purchasing intent, in the Indian than in the Dutch group. ******************************** Within: With respect to consumers’ response to Kotler and Lee’s six CSR-based marketing strategies, the inferential statistics showed that the ‘blanket’ strategy Socially responsible business led to a significantly more positive attitude to the company in the Indian group than any of the other marketing strategies, and to a significantly more positive attitude to the company by the Dutch than four of the (five) other strategies. The Socially responsible business strategy led to a significantly higher purchasing intent than any other strategy in the Indian group. Again, it seems noteworthy that the Corporate philanthropy strategy led to a significantly less positive response from the Indian group with regard to both attitude to the company and purchasing intent, at least in comparison to how they responded to (some) of the other marketing strategies.
  • Finally, let’s move to the potential implications (which are highly tentative, because this was an exploratory study, and samples were small &amp; restricted to name but two limitations) the findings seem to suggest that stakeholders in developed and developing countries are perhaps more similar in the importance they attach to CSR platforms and CSR initiatives than might be expected on the basis of earlier studies and case-based accounts (e.g. Arora and Puranik, 2004; Sagar and Singla, 2004; Jamali and Mirschak, 2007). the findings seem to provide at least some indication that the CSR platform and CSR initiatives generally pursued and emphasized by Indian businesses might not ‘match’ (local) consumer concerns and expectations. This could have implications for the effectiveness of Indian businesses’ CSR policy and CSR-based communications. With respect to how CSR-based marketing strategies influence stakeholder outcomes across the two nationalities studied, it would seem that such marketing strategies may influence outcomes within nationalities differently, and across nationalities to a DIFFERENT EXTENT Overall, the findings underline the importance of analyzing stakeholder attitudes in different countries in the interests of creating effective CSR policy (communication) that orients to CSR issues stakeholders regard as important and that meets their CSR expectations (see also Maignan, 2001). In terms of further research, what is still needed is: READ OUT.
  • Comment on slide…
  • Session 13, Planken, Nickerson & Sahu

    1. 1. CSR across the globe: Dutch and Indian consumers’ response to CSR CSR Communication Conference Amsterdam, the Netherlands 28 October 2011 Brigitte Planken (Radboud University, the Netherlands) Catherine Nickerson (Zayed University, United Arab Emirates) Subrat Sahu (Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India)
    2. 2. Starting points <ul><li>strategic CSR (communication)  positive stakeholder outcomes? </li></ul><ul><li>debate on localized v. universal approach in international marketing communication </li></ul><ul><li>cross-cultural differences in CSR policy </li></ul><ul><li>achieving ‘fit’ between CSR policy and (local) stakeholders’ CSR attitudes, concerns and expectations </li></ul><ul><li>CSR in emerging (versus developed) regions </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>Carroll’s CSR Pyramid (1991) </li></ul>Economic responsibility Legal responsibility Ethical responsibility Philanthropic responsibility *Be a good Corporate Citizen *Be Ethical *Obey the Law *Be Profitable
    4. 4. <ul><li>Visser’s CSR Pyramid (2007) </li></ul>Ethical responsibility Legal responsibility Philanthropic responsibility Economic responsibility Adopt voluntary codes of governance & ethics Ensure good relations with govt. officials Set aside funds for corporate social/community projects Provide investments, create jobs & pay taxes
    5. 5. Indian business: philanthropic policy stance <ul><li>Tata India’s Council for Community Initiatives & Literacy Programmes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http :// www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXUW6cTV3VA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sterlite Industries India’s Community Outreach programmes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y06NbT3K7tY&feature=related </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.’s adoption of ca. 50 rural villages </li></ul>
    6. 6. Why this study? <ul><li>not much research on CSR (communication) in emerging economies </li></ul><ul><li>few cross-cultural studies of stakeholders’ CSR attitudes, particularly involving emerging economies, like India </li></ul><ul><li>a philanthropic CSR policy focus in India makes sense historically and socio-economically; does it ‘match’ what (local) stakeholders regard as important? </li></ul><ul><li>differences between stakeholders in emerging vs. developed countries? </li></ul>
    7. 7. Aim <ul><li>to investigate Dutch and Indian consumers’ attitudes to social responsibility (=CSR platforms), CSR initiatives and CSR-based marketing strategies </li></ul><ul><li>expectations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Indians attach greater importance to philanthropic responsibility (vs. legal and ethical); the importance assigned to different social responsibilities by Dutch and Indian consumers differs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indians attach greater importance to CSR initiatives reflecting philanthropic (rather than legal & ethical) CSR domains; the importance attached to CSR initiatives by Dutch and Indian consumers differs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CSR-based marketing strategies (with a philanthropic orientation) influence Indian stakeholder outcomes (attitude to company & intent to support company) differently than Dutch stakeholder outcomes </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Survey <ul><li>1. importance social responsibilities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>statements & 7-point scales (very important – not at all important) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2. importance CSR initiatives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>descriptions: respondents asked to rank relative importance of each </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3. response to CSR-based marketing strategies (Kotler & Lee, 2005): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>scenario/ descriptions & 7-point scales to gauge: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>attitude to company (positive - negative) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>purchasing intent (likely - unlikely) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>examples of statements/ descriptions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Companies should pay their debt to society by contributing to social, community projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The company implements policy to promote ethical business practices, for example by signing Fair Business contracts or implementing a Code of Ethics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The company informs consumers that it will donate 5% of the proceeds from every product it sells to a research foundation that studies the effects of global warming </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Results: importance social responsibilities <ul><li>Dutch: </li></ul><ul><li>legal > ethical**; ethical > philanthropic***; legal & ethical > economic*** </li></ul><ul><ul><li>legal > ethical > [philanthropic] > economic responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Indians: </li></ul><ul><li>legal & ethical > philanthropic & economic*** </li></ul><ul><ul><li>legal & ethical > philanthropic & economic responsibility </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Results: importance CSR initiatives (most to least important) <ul><li>Dutch (%important/ unimportant) </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(75.8%/24.2%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Work conditions </li></ul><ul><li>(61.1%/38.9%) </li></ul><ul><li>Ethical code/ responsible business </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(55.8%/44.2%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social/community projects </li></ul><ul><li>(49.5%/50.5%) </li></ul><ul><li>Donating to causes </li></ul><ul><li>(34.7%/65.3%) </li></ul><ul><li>Sponsoring </li></ul><ul><li>(29.5%/70.5%) </li></ul><ul><li>Indians (%important/ unimportant) </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(80.3%/19.7%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Work conditions </li></ul><ul><li>(67.7%/32.4%) </li></ul><ul><li>Social/community projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(63.4%/36.6%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ethical code/responsible business </li></ul><ul><li>(42.3%/57.7%) </li></ul><ul><li>Donating to causes </li></ul><ul><li>(35.2%/64.8%) </li></ul><ul><li>Sponsoring </li></ul><ul><li>(14.1%/85.9%) </li></ul>
    11. 11. Results: response to CSR-based strategies (company image) Mean attitude to the company (sd) Strategy type Dutch (n = 95) Indians (n = 95) 1.Cause promotion 4.06 (1.51) 4.85 (1.31) 2.Cause-related marketing 5.47 (1.06) 5.51 (1.09) 3.Corporate social marketing 5.33 (1.16) 5.48 (1.12) 4.Corporate philanthropy 5.25 (1.30) 5.18 (1.38) 5.Volunteerism 5.18 (1.34) 5.49 (1.32) 6.Socially responsible business 5.67 (0.97) 6.06 (0.94) Within nationality: 1 < 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6*** 1 < 2, 5 & 6* 6 > 1, 3, 4 & 5* 6 > 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5***; 3 > 4* Between nationalities: Cause promotion (1): Indians > Dutch*** Socially responsible business (6): Indians > Dutch**
    12. 12. Results: response to CSR-based strategies (intent to buy) Mean intent to buy from company (sd) Strategy type Dutch (n = 95) Indians (n = 95) 1.Cause promotion 3.58 (1.56) 4.21 (1.38) 2.Cause-related marketing 5.02 (1.41) 4.85 (1.45) 3.Corporate social marketing 4.68 (1.35) 4.71 (1.39) 4.Corporate philanthropy 4.69 (1.49) 4.24 (1.52) 5.Volunteerism 4.37 (1.53) 4.42 (1.56) 6.Socially responsible business 4.96 (1.25) 5.35 (1.34) Within nationality : 1 < 2 & 6*** 6 > 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5* 2 & 6 > 5* 2 & 3 > 4* Between nationalities : Cause promotion (1): Indians > Dutch** Socially responsible business (6): Indians > Dutch*
    13. 13. Discussion <ul><li>social responsibilities/ CSR platforms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>importance assigned to the four responsibilities similar across the two nationalities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the Indians in this study did not regard philanthropic responsibility as more important than legal and ethical responsibilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>both the Dutch and Indians in this study assigned greater importance to ethical and legal responsibilities than to philanthropic and economic responsibilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CSR initiatives : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>importance assigned to different CSR initiatives similar across the two nationalities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the Indians in this study did not rank philanthropic initiatives as relatively more important than initiatives reflecting legal and ethical responsibilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>both the Dutch and Indians in this study assigned CSR initiatives reflecting ethical (planet & people) concerns relatively greatest importance, while philanthropic CSR initiatives were assigned less importance </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Discussion <ul><li>response to the CSR-based marketing strategies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>two (of the six) strategies –Cause promotion and Socially responsible business- affected stakeholder outcomes across the two nationalities to a different extent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the Indians’ response to these two strategies was more positive than the Dutch response, with respect to both evaluation of the company and intent to support the company </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Food for thought <ul><li>stakeholders in the two countries may be more similar with regard to the importance they attach to different social responsibilities and CSR initiatives than might be assumed on the basis of the literature on CSR in emergent versus developed countries </li></ul><ul><li>the CSR platform prominently pursued by Indian business (=philanthropic focus) may not ‘match’ some local stakeholders’ societal concerns and what they regard as important </li></ul><ul><li>(some) CSR-based marketing strategies seem to influence stakeholder outcomes differently within and across the nationalities studied </li></ul><ul><li>the findings underline the importance of monitoring (local) stakeholder concerns with different CSR issues; such information can be used to create ‘fit’ between CSR-based communications and what stakeholders regard as relevant in terms of CSR issues </li></ul><ul><li>future research emergent economies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>insight into opportunities & limitations of CSR (communication) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>insight into effects of different CSR content , s tances , message framing , etc. in CSR-based communication campaigns on stakeholder outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>local or universal CSR communication approach? </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION <ul><li>Brigitte Planken (Radboud University, the Netherlands) </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Catherine Nickerson (Zayed University, United Arab Emirates) </li></ul><ul><li>Subrat Sahu (Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India) </li></ul>
    17. 17. Background literature <ul><li>Arli, D. and Losmono, H. (2010), “Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility in a developing country”, International Journal of Consumer Studies , Vol. 34 , pp. 46–51. </li></ul><ul><li>Arora, B. and Puranik, R. (2005), “A review of corporate social responsibility in India”, Development , Vol. 47 No. (3), pp. 93–100. </li></ul><ul><li>Carroll, A. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons , Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48. </li></ul><ul><li>Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility in Asia: a seven-country study of CSR web site reporting”, Business and Society , Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-441. </li></ul><ul><li>Chaudri, V. and Wang, J. (2007), “Communicating corporate social responsibility on the Internet: a case study of the top 100 information technology companies in India”, Management Communication Quarterly , Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 232-247. </li></ul><ul><li>Christie, P., Kwon, I., Stoeberl, P. and Baumhart, R. (2003), “A cross-cultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United States.”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 46, pp. 263-287. </li></ul><ul><li>Dahl, F. and Persson, S. (2008), “ Communication of CSR. How Swedish consumers’ perceptions and behaviour are influenced by promoted CSR activities ” Unpublished MA thesis, University of Jönköping, Sweden. </li></ul>
    18. 18. Background literature <ul><li>Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (1998), “Social responsibility & corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda setting?”, Public Relations Review Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-319. </li></ul><ul><li>Gupta, A. (2007), “Social responsibility in India towards a global compact approach”, International Journal of Social Economics , Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 637-663. </li></ul><ul><li>Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country context”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol 72, pp. 243–262. </li></ul><ul><li>Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2005), Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause , Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. </li></ul><ul><li>Maignan, I. (2001), “Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-cultural Comparison”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 30 No.1, pp. 57-72. </li></ul><ul><li>Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies , Vol 33, pp. 497-514. </li></ul><ul><li>Muruganantham, G. (2010), “Case study on Corporate Social Responsibility in MNC’s in India”, paper presented at the International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), 8-10 November 2010, London, United Kingdom. </li></ul><ul><li>Planken, B., Sahu, S. and Nickerson, C. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility communication in the Indian context”, Journal of Indian Business Research , Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 10-22. </li></ul>
    19. 19. Background literature <ul><li>Planken, B., Waller, R. and Nickerson, C. (2007), “Reading stories and signs on the internet: analyzing CSR discourse on the BP website”, in Garzone, G., Poncini, G. and Catenaccio, P. (Eds), Multimodality in corporate communication. Web genres and discursive identity , Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 93-110. </li></ul><ul><li>Podnar, K. and Golob, U. (2007), “CSR expectations: the focus of corporate marketing”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 326-340. </li></ul><ul><li>Ra machandran, J. and Patvardhan, S. (2007), Fabindia: Crafting Success , Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Case, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India. </li></ul><ul><li>Rettab, B., Brik, A. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: the case of Dubai”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 89, pp. 371–390. </li></ul><ul><li>Sagar, P. and Singla, A. (2004), “Trust and corporate social responsibility: Lessons from India”, Journal of Communication Management , Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 282–290. </li></ul><ul><li>Visser, W. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility in developing countries”, in Crane, A. and Matten, D. (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Three volume set , Sage, London, pp. 473-499. </li></ul>
    20. 20. CSR-based marketing strategies (Kotler & Lee, 2005) Strategy Description Aim(s) 1.Cause promotion corporation promotes awareness of a societal cause as part of its CSR policy in an advertising campaign raise awareness of the cause; influence consumer attitudes/behaviour by combining corporate/ product promotion with cause promotion 2.Cause-related marketing corporation is seen to be actively involved with a particular societal cause as part of its combined CSR and marketing policies; specific product(s) explicitly associated with the cause raise awareness of the cause; actively involve consumer in supporting cause by purchasing company’s product (i.e. % of purchasing price is donated to cause) 3.Corporate social marketing corporation combines product/ service advertising with awareness-raising specifically targeted at changing consumer behaviour in a sustainable way persuade consumer to purchase; bring about structural change in stakeholder behavior beyond purchase 4.Corporate philanthropy corporation refers to its corporate giving policy as a marketing communication strategy which may be unrelated to specific product promotion raise awareness about CSR policy with regard to corporate giving; promote corporate reputation 5.Community volunteering corporation refers to its community volunteering policy as a marketing communication strategy which may be unrelated to specific product promotion raise awareness about CSR policy/activities with regard to community volunteering; promote corporate reputation 6.Socially responsible business practice corporation emphasizes its behaviour as a good corporate citizen in general and its overall commitment to sustainable business as a ‘blanket’ marketing strategy (essentially subsuming 1 to 5) promote corporate reputation as a responsible citizen
    21. 21. Method 1 <ul><li>written survey on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>importance assigned to social responsibilities/ CSR platforms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(economic, legal, ethical & philanthropic) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>importance assigned to different CSR initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(reflecting legal, ethical & philanthropic domains) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>response to six CSR-based marketing strategies: in terms of respondents’ evaluations of corporate image and purchasing intent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[CSR communication preferences] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>background data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>samples of consumers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dutch: n ≈ 95 (male: 38.9%, female:61.6%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indian: n ≈ 95 (male: 52.6%, female: 47.4%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Highly educated (higher vocational training to University) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Age range: 18-65, biggest cluster 25-35 (both samples) </li></ul></ul>

    ×