1. DO WE CARE? THE POWER OF BRAND RECOGNITION IN A SOCIAL
MARKETING CAMPAIGN
By
Alisha Chanthinith
A Capstone Project Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in
Strategic Communication
Supervisor: Dr. Filippo Trevisan
April 26, 2016
3. 3 | P a g e
Acknowledgments
This master’s capstone is dedicated with my most sincere gratitude to the following
people who have supported me through this process or the entire graduate school experience:
To my capstone advisor, Dr. Filippo Trevisan, for your guidance, advice, and editing
diligence that directed me towards completing this capstone.
To my capstone seminar cohort for contributing to brainstorms, discussions, and overall
support that made this capstone possible.
To my friends, Melanie ‘Tup’ McDowell, Allie Lemire, Annalise Setorie, Michelle
Swiger, Allison Cantrell, and Megan Niegisch. I appreciate the work you volunteered to
help collect research or gather my jumbled thoughts, and especially your continuous
support when I was dragging along.
To my parents, Swath and Thera Chanthinith, for your love and support throughout my
life, which allows me to be able to accomplish anything if I work hard at it.
Finally, Daniel Adams, for your never-ending encouragement and love. You deserve an
honorary degree for these past two years. Thank you for all that you did and all you do to
support me and keep me on the path to achieving my goals.
4. 4 | P a g e
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the relationship between a company’s corporate social responsibility
reputation and social marketing campaign outcomes. The research used companies that have a
positive or negative reputation as established by actual media articles and how the public will
respond to the association with the social marketing campaign. By the guide of cognitive
dissonance theory, the researcher established expectations of outcomes of the study. Through the
method of focus groups, key themes emerged; (a) companies with a recognizable brand can
enhance the visibility of the CSM in addition to boasting that companies’ brand credibility, (b) a
company that has a positive CSR reputation is preferred over a company with a negative CSR
reputation and thus has a higher potential to benefit from association with a CSM, and (c) the
researcher advises practitioners to consider attitudes of millennials who are against CSR programs
by developing communications focused on the cause and not the company. In summation, the
study revealed corporate brand matters to the outcomes of a social marketing campaign. The
research hopes to bring more discussion around CSR and social marketing campaigns, and to help
companies or social marketing professionals consider the findings when thinking about this unique
strategy.
5. 5 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction:..........................................................................................................................................7
2. Literature Review: ................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Defining Corporate Social Responsibility ......................................................................................8
2.2 Defining Social Marketing and CSM..............................................................................................8
2.3 Relationship: CSR Reputations and Cause Associations................................................................9
2.4 Cognitive Dissonance Theory.......................................................................................................11
2.5 Literature Review Considerations.................................................................................................11
3. Research Questions and Expectations.................................................................................................12
4. Methods ..............................................................................................................................................13
4.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................13
4.2 Participants....................................................................................................................................17
4.3 Recruitment...................................................................................................................................20
4.4 Consent and Confidentiality..........................................................................................................21
5. Results.................................................................................................................................................22
6. Discussion...........................................................................................................................................28
7. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................32
References...............................................................................................................................................34
Appendix.................................................................................................................................................36
Appendix I. Focus group guide...........................................................................................................36
Appendix II. Description for Social Marketing Campaign:................................................................37
Appendix III: Description for Company prAna..................................................................................38
Appendix IV: Description for Company Jansport ..............................................................................39
Appendix IV: Supplemental Images for CSM Campaign...................................................................40
Appendix V: Consent Form................................................................................................................41
Appendix V: Screening Questions......................................................................................................42
6. 6 | P a g e
List of Abbreviations:
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT)
Corporate Social Marketing (CSM)
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
List of Tables and Charts:
Table 1: Order in which focus group participants received information……………………...16
Table 2: Focus Group participants, age, mobile phone owner, mobile phone use, physical
activity, and self-identified familiarity with CSR……………………………………………...20
Chart 1: How often would you say you use your phone throughout the day? (n=13)….….….18
Chart 2: How much physical activity do you do in the day? (Walking/Yoga to strenuous
physical exercise) (n=13)……………………………………………………………………....19
Chart 3: How much physical activity do you do in the day? (Walking/Yoga to strenuous
physical exercise) (n=13)………………………………………………………………………19
7. 7 | P a g e
1. Introduction:
There has been extensive research and studies on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
especially around how and why corporations communicate their efforts. Not only has research
covered companies use of communications strategies, but also on how that communication is
perceived by the public. CSR is one factor that has been said to have positive associations with a
company’s brand.
One aspect within CSR is corporate social marketing (CSM). CSM is when a company
uses marketing tactics to influence human behavior change related to a particular cause. Social
marketing wants people to change a specific behavior, in order to achieve a specific outcome.
Social marketing is traditionally used in public health, but it has found a way towards the interest
of companies, giving the corporate strategy the title of CSM.
This study investigates how companies with a positive or negative CSR reputation
influence attitudes towards social marketing campaigns’ outcomes. Would the target audience be
more receptive to behavior change from a company with a positive CSR reputation or a negative
CSR reputation? This study uses cognitive dissonance theory to see if an inconsistency between
the social marketing campaign message and the company's CSR reputation influences the
public’s attitudes. Through the use of focus groups, a fictitious single social marketing campaign
message (constant) and two actual companies that have media articles reporting positive or
negative CSR practices (variable) are tested for their association with the social marketing
campaign. The research question explores the relationship between a company’s corporate social
responsibility reputation and social marketing campaign outcomes.
This study hopes to contribute to the CSR conversation and provide suggestions or
insight to companies interested in developing a CSM campaign. Currently, there is little or no
8. 8 | P a g e
academic literature examining how CSM campaigns influence the outcomes of the campaign.
Through the literature review, the study will pull from previous research that is supportive and
critical of CSR, CSM, and the relationship of CSR with social cause associations.
2. Literature Review:
2.1 Defining Corporate Social Responsibility
CSR has been around for some time, usually in the form of charitable giving and
corporate philanthropy. As the stakeholder landscape evolved, so have companies, and the
definition of CSR has been defined in different ways. This study will use the definition,
“corporate social responsibility as the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically
and contribute to the economic development while improving the quality of life of the
workforce, their families, the local community, and society at large,” (Holme and Watts, 2000).
However, CSR has had its critics. Milton Friedman’s 1970 article in The New York Times
Magazine, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” describes the
priority of a company is on its profits. Friedman wrote, “What does it mean to say that ‘business’
has responsibilities? Only people have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and
in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but ‘business’ as a whole cannot be said to have
responsibilities, even in this vague sense,” (Friedman, 1970). Taking this criticism into
consideration may factor into a company’s reputation by the public.
2.2 Defining Social Marketing and CSM
Putting on the seatbelt while riding in a car may seem like second nature to some,
however, that was not always the case. In 1993, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration began the ‘Click It or Ticket’ campaign to increase the use of seatbelts (National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014). This is a successful example of a social
9. 9 | P a g e
marketing campaign. Social marketing is defined as “a distinct marketing discipline … and
refers primarily to efforts focused on influencing behaviors that will improve health, prevent
injuries, protect the environment, contribute to communities, and, more recently, enhance
financial well-being,” (Lee and Kotler, 2011). Social marketing campaigns have been found to
“be effective across a range of behaviors, with a range of target groups, in different settings, and
can influence policy and professional practice as well as individuals,” (Stead, Gordon, Angus,
and McDermott, 2007). One key factor “to qualify as social marketing, all the interventions had
to demonstrate that they had considered what competing behaviors and forces might hinder
consumers from adopting the desired behavior changing,” (Stead, Gordon, Angus, and
McDermott, 2007).
CSM is an emerging activity within CSR. Examples of recent campaigns include,
AT&T’s “It Can Wait,” to encourage the public not to text and drive, and Colgate’s “Every Drop
Counts,” encouraging people to turn off the faucet while brushing their teeth. One assumption as
to why companies are beginning to get involved with CSM is by “creat(ing) a differential
advantage through an enhanced corporate image with and differentiat(ing) themselves from the
competition by building an emotional, even spiritual, bond with consumers,” (Hoeffler and
Keller, 2002). Despite its growing popularity and use, there is no academic literature examining
how CSM campaigns influence the outcomes of the campaign.
2.3 Relationship: CSR Reputations and Cause Associations
A large part of CSR strategies and building a company’s reputation is through association
with a cause, whether social or environmental. Academic research has thoroughly investigated
the attitudes the public has towards a company when they are associated with a cause. One study
focused on CSR campaigns and the public opinion found “for corporations with positive images,
10. 10 | P a g e
CSR campaigns enhanced people’s perceptions of the image, reputation and credibility of
corporate sponsors,” (Pfau, Haigh, Sims, & Wigley, 2008). The same study suggests “that
corporations that seek to positively influence the public perceptions are advised to, first, adopt
behaviors that contribute to a more just and healthier society, and, secondly, to feature these
behaviors in sustained communication campaigns,” (Pfau, Haigh, Sims, & Wigley, 2008).
Parallel research analyzed public attitudes with cause-brand alliances. Cause-brand
alliance is “when a social cause is partnered with a specific consumer brand,” (Trimble and
Holmes, 2013). A study examining cause-brand alliances suggests “a company with strong
parallels to a social cause is expected to result in fewer consumer elaborations about the cause-
brand alliance, thus leading to less resistance to the corporate endorsement of the social cause,”
(Trimble and Holmes, 2013). Additionally, there are findings showing that companies “obtain
better returns through creating an affinity with a social cause than through affiliating with other,
more clearly commercial ventures,” (Bloom, Hoeffler, Keller, & Meza, 2006). This shows the
motivations for companies to be involved in CSR and the impact it may have on its CSR
reputation.
However, one study challenges this notion of the influence a cause-brand alliance has on
the public’s attitude towards the brand. A study on Pepsi conducted in Spain found “attitudes
towards Pepsi worsens after being acquainted with the contents of the CRM [cause related
marketing] campaigns,” (Garcia, Gibaja, and Mujika, 2012). Garcia, Gibaja and Mujika suggests
that “although skepticism towards CRM [cause related marketing] appears to be declining,
consumers remain critical of these efforts, often questioning whether a company’s support of a
social cause is designed to benefit the cause or the company,” (Garcia, Gibaja, and Mujika,
2012). The study on Pepsi focused on cause-related marketing, although different from social
11. 11 | P a g e
marketing, is relevant to this study because of similar strategies developed to affect the
company’s CSR reputation in which companies look to gain benefits for the company and the
cause.
2.4 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Festinger introduced “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” in 1957 presenting a case for
the human need to find harmony in their beliefs. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) is defined
as “the distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a
belief and an action,” (Griffin, 2012). Festinger wrote that when a person is in dissonance they
“find themselves doing things that don’t fit with that they know, or having opinions that do not
fit with other opinions they hold,” (Festinger, 1957). Since Festinger’s original theory was
published, there have been other developments and research that tested CDT. One finding was
“to reduce the dissonance, individuals could add consonant cognitions, subtract dissonant
cognitions, increase the importance of consonant cognitions, or decrease the importance of
dissonant cognitions,” (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2007). This theory is relevant to
testing attitudes and changes in the public’s attitudes.
This social psychology theory impacts communications in understanding how beliefs and
attitudes may change. In regards to CSR and CSM, this theory tests the outcomes of a
partnership regarding influence on the motivations the public has to act or not act on a social
marketing campaign.
2.5 Literature Review Considerations
In light of these considerations, the association between CSR and CSM gives the
company an opportunity to engage with the public. CSR seeks involvement by contributing to
society’s overall well-being. CSM campaigns are a venue for companies to influence behavior
12. 12 | P a g e
change in the public that can have a positive impact. However, these alliances should be
carefully considered. The literature suggest that CSR and cause association works in favor of the
company if the behaviors of that company that aligns with the cause or the act of being involved
in the cause. This study tests that finding using CDT as a motivator determining the public’s
attitudes towards the social marketing campaign.
3. Research Questions and Expectations
This study is designed to explore the relationship between a company’s CSR reputation
and social marketing campaign outcomes. The study first explores participants’ perceptions of a
fictional social marketing campaign related to mobile phone use. The participants were given
two companies with CSR reputations reflected positively or negatively through actual media
articles. Through the guide of CDT, comments and notes of attitude changes from focus group
participants were collected and analyzed to answer the research question.
CDT suggests that if a person is experiencing inconsistencies with their two beliefs they
will take action to minimize the feeling of conflict and discomfort. This study looks at one
constant of someone’s belief by introducing a fictional social marketing campaign and
establishing a belief with participants. Then, the study challenges that belief by introducing the
two companies, one that tests consistencies and the other that presents a dissonance. In
communication, media contributes to what is known about a company or actions done by the
company, which factor into shaping the public’s attitude towards that company. This paper uses,
“one of the most often assessed ways of reducing dissonance, [which] is [observing] change in
attitudes,” (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2007). Thus, with CDT in mind, four reasonable
expectations were formulated:
13. 13 | P a g e
E1: Participants will respond positively to the fictitious social marketing campaign and
establish a belief they will be open to that behavior change.
E2: Participants who express favorable attitudes towards the social marketing campaign
will continue to support the campaign with the company that has positive media articles
and is associated with the campaign.
E3: Participants who express favorable attitudes towards the social marketing campaign
will change their attitudes when presented with the company that has negative media
articles and is associated with the campaign.
E4: Participants will not support a social marketing campaign if it is associated with a
company with media articles reflecting negative corporate social responsibility.
The findings are intended to provide CSR and CSM campaign practitioner’s relevant
information, insight, and recommendations into the public’s attitudes of social marketing
campaign associations that may influence outcomes.
4. Methods
4.1 Overview
This study explore attitudes of the public on a fictional social marketing campaign and
how those attitudes change when the campaign is associated with two actual companies that have
positive or negative media articles regarding that company’s CSR reputation. The study used
focus groups for qualitative data collection. Alan Bryman explains, “the focus group contains
elements of two methods: the group interview, in which several people discuss a number of
topics, and what has been called a focused interview, in which interviewees are selected because
they ‘are known to have been involved in a particular situation’ and are asked about that
14. 14 | P a g e
involvement,” (Bryman, 2008). The focus group method was selected because of the
complexity of the research question. Focus groups promote discussion and the ability for the
researcher to use probing questions to strengthen the findings.
Before conducting the two focus groups, the researcher used a test focus group. Friends
and acquaintances were recruited for this test group. During the test focus group, the researcher
used a draft focus group guide to lead the discussion. Changes were made to the initial focus
group guide through feedback and discussion in order to design a stronger focus group guide for
use with the actual focus groups. The changes determined the themes and questions of the focus
group such as, initial thoughts, opinions on the company and the social marketing campaign, and
comparing the two companies’ CSR reputations.
A fictitious social marketing campaign was chosen because there were limited existing
campaigns and the researcher wanted to establish a neutral constant to measure the company’s
CSR reputation. Additionally, the researcher wanted an issue that was not controversial.
Accordingly, during the focus group, the research focused on the concept of a social marketing
campaign as opposed to the actual issue. The social marketing campaign asked the public to
“Take a Digital Break” by encouraging people to put their mobile phones down and become
active by enjoying the moments of life and improving physical health. The aim of the campaign
was to target young people, specifically for this study, undergraduate college students. Each
focus group participant was given a one page brief of the campaign to read and two supplemental
visuals of how the campaign may look in print. Participants were then asked to share their
attitudes and opinions on the campaign to establish a baseline belief of whether or not they
would follow the campaign and adopt the behavior.
15. 15 | P a g e
Next, the researcher decided on two variable companies. These companies are lifestyle
and activewear related brands. The researcher choose companies that could be loosely related to
the campaign, but not a big brand where participants might bring their own opinions of the
company. This decision was made because the researcher wanted to focus the discussion on the
concept of CSR on a neutral level with not well-known or established CSR reputations.
The first variable company selected was prAna, a lifestyle and activewear apparel
company focused on sustainable business practices. Presented to the participants were the ‘About
Us’ section of the prAna website, and two media article found online at http://ecopreneurist.com
and http://www.prweb.com. These articles indicated prAna’s CSR reputation with themes that
the company is proactive in sustainable operations, and care for the environment and people. The
researcher defined these themes as positively reflective of the CSR reputation. Participants were
asked to read the brief on the company with the information provided, then participants were
asked to share their attitudes and opinions of the company and the association with the social
marketing campaign.
The second variable company selected was Jansport, a backpack, collegiate and
activewear apparel company. Presented to the participants were the ‘About Us’ section found on
the Jansport website, and two media articles found online at http://www.thenation.com and
http://www.wdrb.com. These articles presented Jansport’s CSR reputation in themes of
discontinued contracts with universities and their association with Rana Plaza, the collapse of a
garment factory with poor working conditions. The researcher defined these themes as
negatively reflective of the CSR reputation. Participants were asked to read the brief on the
company with the information provided, then were asked to share their attitudes and opinions of
the company and the association with the social marketing campaign.
16. 16 | P a g e
Focus Group 1 and Focus Group 2 received information of the companies in different
orders. The researcher wanted to vary the order of information participants received to see if
established beliefs change differently during the discussion. Focus Groups 1 and 2 received the
constant, the social marketing campaign, at the beginning and discussed them first. Focus Group
1 received information on prAna first, asked to discuss, and then was given Jansport second and
asked to discuss. Focus Group 1 was asked if there were any changes in their attitudes or
opinions between prAna, Jansport (variables) and the association with the social marketing
campaign (constant). Focus Group 2 received information on Jansport first, were asked to
discuss, and then were given prAna second and asked to discuss. Focus Group 2 was asked if
there were any changes in their attitudes or opinions between Jansport, prAna (variables) and the
association with the social marketing campaign (constant).
Table 1: Order in which focus group participants received information.
CSM Campaign (Constant) Company Presented
First (Variable)
Company Presented
Second (Variable)
Focus Group 1 “Take A Digital Break” prAna Jansport
Focus Group 2 “Take A Digital Break” Jansport prAna
Data was collected through different media forms. Prior to the focus group, participants
were asked to fill out a questionnaire revealing their demographics and activity around mobile
phone use, amount of physical activity, and knowledge of CSR. During the focus group, the
researcher facilitated the conversation and one note-taking graduate student was present at each
of the discussions.
17. 17 | P a g e
4.2 Participants
Thirteen undergraduate students at American University took part in this study. The
participants were asked to share opinions and discuss this study’s fictional social marketing
campaign, “Take a Digital Break.” The campaign established the target group as emerging adult
undergraduate college students. College students have been a focus of studies related to mobile
phone use and health. According to one study, “the ubiquity of mobile devices may tempt
emerging adults to turn to their technology for immediate gratification, rather than be present for
mutual fulfillment to unfold within social interactions in the physical world,” (Brown, Manago
and Trimble, 2016). Additionally, looking at the CSR attitudes of undergraduate students, one
study found that “half the sample [of undergraduate students] agreed that organizational CSR
was important,” (Leveson and Jointer 2014). According to the 2006 Cone Study “millennials are
prepared to reward socially responsible companies… [with] 83% are likely to trust the company
more, [and] 74% are more likely to pay attention to that company’s message because it has a
deep commitment to a cause,” (Cone, 2006). Through this research, the participants selected
were a relevant group for data collection.
Before the start of each focus group, a brief questionnaire was administered to bring
context to the responses of the participants regarding the attitudes of CSR reputation and social
marketing campaign. The questions hoped to establish a background of the participants if any of
the information would relate back to the participant’s decision or discussion of CSR reputation
and social marketing campaign. The questionnaire asked each of the thirteen participants about
their age, if they owned a mobile device, how long did they used their mobile device on a daily
basis, how long were they involved with physical activity on a daily basis, and to self-identify
their familiarity with CSR. Participants were between 18 and 21 years old. All thirteen
18. 18 | P a g e
23%
31%
46%
How often would you say you are use your phone
throughout the day? (n=13)
1 - 2 hours 2 - 4 hours 4 or more hours
participants owned a mobile device. In regards to their daily mobile phone usage, 23 percent
(n=13) said they used their phones from 1 to 2 hours, 31 percent (n=13) claimed 2 – 4 hours, and
46 percent (n=13) claimed 4 or more hours. Since the campaign encourages more physical
activity, participants were asked to report their daily physical activity. 7 percent (n=13) answered
less than 30 minutes, 31 percent (n=13) answered 31 minutes – 1 hour, and 62 percent (n=13)
answered 1 – 2 hours. Finally, participants were asked to rate their familiarity with CSR, 46
percent (n=13) were not familiar, 39 percent (13) were somewhat familiar, and 15 percent (n=13)
were familiar.
Chart 1: How often would you say you use your phone throughout the day? (n=13)
19. 19 | P a g e
7%
31%
62%
How much physical activity do you do in the day?
(Walking/Yoga to strenuous physical exercise) (n=13)
< 30 Minutes 30 Minutes - 1 Hour 1 hour - 2 hours
Chart 2: How much physical activity do you do in the day? (Walking/Yoga to strenuous
physical exercise) (n=13)
Chart 3: How familiar are you with Corporate Social Responsibility? (n=13)
15%
39%
46%
How familiar are you with Corporate Social Responsibility?
(n=13)
Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar
20. 20 | P a g e
Table 2: Focus Group participants, age, mobile phone owner, mobile phone use, physical
activity, and self-identified familiarity with CSR.
Focus Group 1
Pseudonym Age Mobile
Phone
Owner
Daily Mobile
Phone Use
Daily Physical
Activity
Self-identified
Familiarity with
CSR
Brad 21 Yes 4 or more hours 1 – 2 hours Somewhat
Familiar
Matt 19 Yes 1 – 2 hours 1 – 2 hours Not Familiar
Susie 20 Yes 4 or more hours Less than 30
minutes
Not Familiar
Jen 19 Yes 4 or more hours 1 – 2 hours Not Familiar
Ann 18 Yes 2 - 4 hours 31 minutes – 1 hour Not Familiar
Betty 19 Yes 2 - 4 hours 31 minutes – 1 hour Somewhat
Familiar
Focus Group 2
Pseudonym Age Mobile
Phone
Owner
Daily Mobile
Phone Use
Daily Physical
Activity
Self-identified
Familiarity with
CSR
Rachel 20 Yes 2 - 4 hours 1 – 2 hours Somewhat
Familiar
Nancy 20 Yes 4 or more hours 31 minutes – 1 hour Familiar
Tabby 20 Yes 4 or more hours 1 – 2 hours Not Familiar
Peter 19 Yes 4 or more hours 31 minutes – 1 hour Familiar
Tess 18 Yes 1 – 2 hours 1 – 2 hours Not Familiar
Camy 20 Yes 1 – 2 hours 1 – 2 hours Somewhat
Familiar
Joy 18 Yes 2 - 4 hours 1 – 2 hours Somewhat
Familiar
4.3 Recruitment
The researcher was able to recruit participants from her personal contacts and
relationships with colleagues who have connections to American University undergraduate
students. Through a standard email template, it was made clear that participation in the study was
21. 21 | P a g e
strictly voluntary and no undue pressure was placed upon participants. In a snowball recruitment
effort, some participants brought along a friend or asked a friend to go in their place if they were
unable to make it. Overall, the researcher invited 30 students and of the 30, thirteen
participated.
Each participant was asked to participate in an hour long focus group revolved around
questions regarding CSR and attitudes. Each participant was incentivized by a complimentary
meal for their time.
4.4 Consent and Confidentiality
Each participant completed a consent form. In the consent form, participants were
notified that information will be collected for research to understand CSR and attitudes.
Participants were told that by participating in the study, they will be in an hour long focus group
and asked to discuss their thoughts and attitudes. The consent form shared that all the data and
participant information will be confidential. In addition, participants were told that participation
in the study is voluntary, and if they wish to withdraw they may do so at any time and not face
any consequences. By signing the consent form, participants agreed to the terms given.
In addition to the consent form, the researcher verbally discussed the consent form prior
to beginning the focus group, and the use of video and audio recording. The video and audio
recording devices were used to document the focus group conversation and to assist with
transcription. Both focus groups were transcribed by the researcher through the use of the
researcher’s personal computer. All data was stored on a flash drive and used on password
protected devices. Additionally, at the end of the focus group, the researcher reiterated
confidentiality, withdrawal from participation, questions, and shared contact information to the
participants. Privacy of the participants supported the confidentiality agreement in the consent
22. 22 | P a g e
form. Participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms in this report so they cannot be
identified.
5. Results
5.1 E1: Participants will respond positively to the fictitious social marketing campaign and
establish a belief they will be open to that behavior change.
Overall, participants in Focus Group 1 and Focus Group 2 were in agreement by
responding positively to the social marketing campaign. First, participants shared their initial
reactions to the campaign. Participants said,
“I think this is a great campaign because people are using their phones too
frequently… People are spending too much time on their phones and causes
a lot of like emotional problems, problems between relationships,” (Matt,
19).
“Everyone is affected whether you’re on your phone all the time or you’re the person
who is on the other end of it who gets annoyed by the person doing it,” (Jen, 19).
Tess, 18 years-old, shared a personal story in which she experienced negative interaction
because her dad was on his phone during a recent visit, “he was sitting on his cell phone
and I wanted to tell him about my college experience and he was on Facebook and texting
with his sister… I would have liked to like have a longer conversation with my dad,”
(Tess, 18).
23. 23 | P a g e
The conversation focused on how taking a break from mobile phone use has negative impacts on
the participants when interacting with others.
Participants shared their personal relationships and attitudes they have to their phones.
This discussion established that although participants admitted they use their phones more than
they would like, participants were open to the behavior the social marketing campaign is
promoting.
“I’m on a site or I’m on twitter like reading news, I use it more for like news and stuff,”
(Jen, 19).
“Trying to communicate with a lot of people, being in touch with people [family, friends
and work] is a huge aspect of life,” (Brad, 21).
“My phone causes me problems and gives me a lot of anxiety. Like this whole culture of
immediacy we have, like if someone asks me to do something and I’m at work so I don’t
respond, then they get really upset,” (Rachel, 20).
Generally, the group expressed openness to what the social marketing campaign through some
none verbal body language with nods and verbal expression.
“I’ll try to do it once a day… maybe more communicating face to face with my friends
more. Cause I feel like that’s more valuable than talking in a digital space,” (Susie, 20).
“Yes, I would definitely say yes… I feel like I might use it too much,” (Nancy, 20).
24. 24 | P a g e
5.2. E2: Participants who express favorable attitudes towards the social marketing
campaign will continue to support the campaign with the company that has positive media
articles and is associated with the campaign.
The next expectation looks at the attitudes the participants had regarding prAna, and the
association prAna has with the social marketing campaign. Overall the participants expressed
positive reactions to prAna’s CSR from reading the media articles and the association with the
social marketing campaign.
“It seems like a company that a lot of AU students would like, would want to purchase
from, and would want to associate with because of their practices. I feel like in general
it’s a large millennial generation feels the same way, it’s kind of important to this
generation.” (Brad, 21).
“I like their vision, their ideas and stuff, a company I would be for,” (Ann, 18).
In addition to the comments on the CSR and social marketing association, a participant
expressed how the campaign supports the reputation of the company as opposed to prAna’s
reputation supporting the campaign.
“I definitely think that having the campaign makes them a better company… it makes me
feel that campaign improves the company or the company is doing something right. It
gives the company more credibility,” (Matt, 19).
25. 25 | P a g e
5.3 E3: Participants who express favorable attitudes towards the campaign will change
their attitudes when presented with the company that as negative media articles and is
associated with the campaign.
Participants expressed initial attitudes of distrust and inconsistencies in their beliefs
towards Jansport after reading the information given. This reveals negative and uncomfortable
feelings towards Jansport and social marketing campaign association.
“One thing sticks to mind. It’s like the saying where if one person is nice to you but is
mean to the janitor, isn’t a nice person. It’s like saying that they are always going to be
nice to you because you are their target market base because they want to sell to you, but
if they are not nice to their employees then are they really nice people,” (Peter, 19).
“It makes me more passive, not like want to have anything to do with them now,
especially with the stories that are on here,” (Susie, 20).
“If your workers are not kept in good condition, something like this campaign is trying
to encourage people to live healthier lives and for them not to want to have their workers
be healthy then it contradicts each other,” (Tabby, 20).
“It could also reflect poorly, on the ‘Take a Break’ campaign to be associated with
something that treats their workers so poorly would not be good for the campaign.
Whereas, Jansport could benefit from this, I think the campaign might not and lose out,”
(Tess, 18).
26. 26 | P a g e
5.4 E4: Participants will not support a social marketing campaign if it is associated with a
company with media articles reflecting negative corporate social responsibility.
When comparing the two companies, several themes became apparent and discussion
became conflicted. About 85 percent (n=13) of participants preferred prAna over Jansport to be
the company associated with the social marketing campaign,
“So out of the two companies, I would want this company (prAna) to be associated. But I
think that it would be better to have a nonprofit to it instead…. Even if there is a
company that wants to do something good for the human race, my mind first goes that
they are doing this for advertisement” (Peter, 19).
“It would turn people away from the campaign to know it is associated with the company
especially with all of these negative components are publicized,” (Tabby, 20).
Additionally, 46 percent (n=13) of the participants further expressed that with a brand that is
recognizable will bring association or interest to the social marketing campaign without caring
too much about the negative reputation of that company.
“I would see a Jansport backpack and think ‘oh take a digital break’ they are doing that
thing to be cooler but then I would still think, take a digital break and think maybe I
should put my phone down?” (Betty, 19).
“I feel like I would still even look into it [the campaign] even if it’s with a company with
a bad reputation because I’m more like into ‘oh what they trying to do?’ But I guess it’s
also what the consumer values. For me personally, I would chose the other one [prAna]
because of my values, but I think other people might choose that [Jansport] because of
27. 27 | P a g e
the brand name… It’s like saying, by participating it doesn’t mean you’re saying, I like
Jansport. It’s like the campaign is mainly using Jansport instead of maybe it being
switched,” (Jen, 19).
“I might think good of the brand too. I mean I’ll see the brand and think of taking a
break, but then I think I’ll also put my phone down to take a break but think about the
company. Like, if a friends or someone asks me what I’m doing, I would, like, tell them
‘Oh, I’m just taking a digital break, you know, that cool campaign by so and so’,” (Joy,
18).
“The campaign would maybe still resonate to me but the idea of buying a Jansport item
wouldn’t kind of fit in because knowing their history and what they stand for doesn’t
necessarily align with what I am for…. It like also makes it seem like the, it discredits the
campaign and company because it like seems like they are being fake,” (Brad, 21).
5.5 Other Comments to Note:
To the surprise of the researcher, two participants in the focus groups shared their
discomfort with the motivations of any (positive or negative reputation) CSR involvement.
Discomfort with Jansport:
“I think the idea of a corporation getting involved in a campaign like this makes me
uncomfortable because I can’t imagine their interests possibly aligning that promotes
with people’s health and well-being because I think they are only after increasing their
own capital which is fine… But I think it would work for them to cover up their own
backlash on their own organization. I think that’s why they would want to do it, to cover
28. 28 | P a g e
it up, like, ‘Oh man we messed up we need to do something good now so it seems like a
cop out almost to me,” (Rachel, 20).
Discomfort with prAna:
“I think I can’t shake the fact that this is a corporation and I know that corporations
infringe upon every aspect of our lives but knowing the behind the scenes parts always
ticks me off.” Rachel made a suggestion altogether on how this campaign might work for
her, “So if prAna just donated to an NGO and backed it. I think that would change it for
me that their name isn’t on it, it wasn’t emblazoned on everything, and it was totally
behind the scenes and it just did that. I think that I would be more okay with it,” (Rachel,
20).
The motive of advertisement:
“I feel they want to get involved it seems like a way for them to sell more product they
don’t care if you’re on your phone a lot, they just want to sell product… For me it’s not
like, workers’ rights aside, I would just view it as an advertisement and I would disregard
it in total… I will always question the motives and not be completely sold on it.” (Peter,
19).
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between a company’s CSR
reputation and social marketing campaign outcomes. The contribution of this research
differentiates from past work because of the focus on CSR and CSM, and presents new themes
for discussion. The themes that arose from the focus groups brought more insight to CSR and
CSM, specifically around beneficial outcomes for recognizable brands and social marketing
29. 29 | P a g e
outcomes, a preference towards a company with a positive reputation to be associated with a
social marketing campaign, and of some participant’s strong attitudes against CSR programs.
The most interesting theme was the focus on the company’s brand. For CSR
professionals and social marketing professionals, there are mutually beneficial aspects to
behavior campaign associations in regards to CSR brand and awareness of the campaign.
Participants commented that as long as there is a recognizable brand, it would trigger an
association to the CSM. Social marketing campaign outcomes will benefit from being associated
with a big brand, whether or not there are positive or negative media articles around that
company’s CSR. The public will attached that behavior change when they see that brand. Further
conversation revealed that if the behavior is beneficial to the participant, then the participant may
look favorably towards the company because of the association. There is value in the public
seeing a brand and triggering a behavior change or the public acting on that behavior and
associating it with the company brand. For this study, the research suggests companies with a
recognizable brand to develop a CSM and for social marketing professionals to seek support
from recognizable brands. This finding supports the literature by Pfau, Haigh, Sims, and
Wigley’s study on CSR campaigns and public opinion where CSR “campaigns enhance people’s
perceptions of sponsors’ image, reputation and credibility,” (Pfau, Haigh, Sims, and Wigley,
2008). Pfau, Haigh, Sims, and Wigley’s study suggests companies interested in building positive
perceptions through CSR should “feature these behaviors in sustained communication
campaigns,” (Pfau, Haigh, Sims, and Wigley, 2008). The results of this study suggests for
recognizable brands, participating in a CSM can produce sustainable benefits for the company
and the social marketing campaign outcomes.
30. 30 | P a g e
The second theme of the focus group found companies with a positive CSR reputation are
the public’s preference to be associated with a social marketing campaign. The researcher
suggests the potential for the highest benefits regarding corporate brand and CSM promotion will
be for companies with positive CSR reputations by aiding in credibility. The information
collected showed 85 percent (n=13) of participants preferred prAna over Jansport as the
company associated with the CSM. In relation to CDT, participants preferred consistency over
inconsistency when given the choice to attach one company to the social marketing campaign.
Participants expressed distrust towards Jansport and felt that because of media articles
highlighting Jansport involvement with worker’s rights issues, it appeared as disingenuous
motives, and discredits the social marketing campaign and the company. However, participants
did not explicitly change their attitude towards Jansport, instead showed that the campaign would
not be as strongly supported if the public was informed of Jansport’s human right’s issues. This
finding further supports the CSR reputations and cause-brand alliances literature by Trimble and
Holmes. Trimble and Holmes’ study suggest benefits for companies’ “when consumer accept an
alliance that their perceptions of corporate credibility are stronger… then lead to more positive
attitudes towards the corporate alliance partner,” (Trimble and Holmes, 2013). This study finds
that there is a higher potential for acceptance with a company that has a positive CSR reputation,
which in turn benefits the company’s credibility.
Interesting to note is the last theme in which participants who were adamantly against
CSR programs or associations due to dishonest motives. The participants who rejected the
associations viewed marketing and public relations as the driving factor in CSR. They expressed
that it was a way for companies to manipulate the public by promoting “doing good” for the
community, but in reality, the company is only looking at the bottom line. Relating back to
31. 31 | P a g e
Friedman’s article on CSR that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to
use its resources and engages in activities designed to increase its profits," (Friedman, 1970).
Additionally, this attitude supports the study by Garcia, Gibaja, and Mujika in which they found
“almost half they surveyed think that the main reason for companies to support social causes is
obtaining profit and improving brand image,” (Garcia, Gibaja, and Mujika, 2012). The authors
hypothesized that “young people will improve their attitudes towards Pepsi after knowing the
contents of the CRM [cause related marketing] campaigns developed by the brand,” (Garcia,
Gibaja, and Mujika, 2012). But the study found the opposite where “CRM [cause related
marketing] programs can create a negative attitude within consumers, as they may distrust the
reasons that made the companies undertake this kind of program,” (Garcia, Gibaja, and Mujika,
2012). By looking at Friedman’s statement and the case study on Pepsi, the participant’s
opinions are supported by the argument that companies may not viewed through completely
altruistic motives. By accounting for this theme, practitioners should consider this factor when
intending to target this population with a CSR and CSM campaigns. The researcher suggests
developing communications strategies focused on the cause and not the company.
Finally, when evaluating the results, several factors in the research design revealed no
importance. First, the questionnaire did not contribute to any insight towards deciding to
participate in the fictional social marketing campaign. All participants, whether they were heavy
mobile phone users or not, or even the level of active physical activity, ended up agreeing to the
social marketing campaign. Thus, these factors were not used. Second, having the two
companies presented in different orders as a variable did not reveal any explicit change in
attitudes. The researcher’s expectation that attitudes would immediately be challenged was not
present. Instead, participants in both groups expressed the same level of preference or discomfort
32. 32 | P a g e
based on reading the media articles. Therefore, these two elements in the research design, which
were expected to affect the outcomes, do not provide any insight towards the research.
6.1 Limitations
The results of the study must be considered in the context of its limitations. First the
limitations of the focus group regarding gender, age, and education level. Female participants
(n=10) outnumbered male participants (n=3). The participants were all between the ages of 18-
21, a fairly narrow range. In addition, all participants were American University students and
thus represent a group that generally values sustainability and social responsibility. Another
limitation was although the participants were recruited because of literature around the
millennials attitudes of CSR in the Cone 2006 report, the participants’ self-reported knowledge
of CSR varied. Future research recommendations include recruiting a gender and age diverse
participant group to gain a more accurate portrayal of the public perceptions.
Additionally, the method of the study by using fictitious CSM campaign and lesser
known companies contributed to limitations. The fictitious CSM campaign asked only if
participants would be open to adopting this behavior with the limited knowledge they have of the
campaign and the company. The study did not test if participants would truly act on the behavior,
but only measured initial reactions. Along with this, only two articles were presented to the
participants of each of the companies, where participants could only develop initial attitudes
towards the company from the information given. Thus, future research of more depth will
strengthen the results.
7. Conclusion
In summation, the study revealed that corporate brand matters to the outcomes of a social
marketing campaign. When companies have a recognizable brand, that brand can enhance the
33. 33 | P a g e
visibility of the CSM in addition to boasting that companies’ brand credibility. Also, companies
that have a positive CSR reputation are preferred over companies with a negative CSR reputation
to be associated with a social marketing campaign, and thus have a higher potential to benefit
from having a CSM. Finally, by looking at millennials, the researcher advises to consider
attitudes of the public who are against all CSR programs by developing communications
strategies focused on the cause and not the company. Through testing focus groups on a fictitious
social marketing campaign and two companies, with media articles reporting positive or negative
practices, the researcher was able to determine these themes.
The limitations of this study suggest further exploration for future research. Future
research should consider using targeted group of respondents, such as diverse demographic
populations, and populations that share similar attitudes and knowledge about CSR or CSM. This
will give a more concise understanding of the needs of the population and how to access this
population if trying to appeal social marketing campaigns. Additionally, since there is a limited
amount of literature focused on CSR and CSM, the researcher suggests a case study on actual
CSM campaigns. Specifically, there are opportunities to examine AT&T’s “It Can Wait”,
Nationwide’s “Make Safe Happen”, or Colgate’s “Every Drop Counts.” By investigating these
campaigns, CSR and CSM professionals may learn from these campaigns and see results in their
outcomes.
This study can act as a foundation for understanding the strategy of CSR and CSM. This
unexplored topic provides insight to practitioners seeking to develop associations that are
mutually beneficial for the company and for the public to adopt new behaviors that are socially
impactful.
34. 34 | P a g e
References
1. Baker, M. (2008). Corporate responsibility news and resources. Retrieved from
http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/definition.html
2. Brown, G., Manago, A. M., & Trimble, J. E. (2016). Tempted to Text: College Students
Mobile Phone Use During a Face-to-Face Interaction With a Close Friend. Emerging
Adulthood.
3. Bloom, P., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K., & Meza, C. (2006). How Social-Cause Marketing
Affects Consumer Perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47 NO.2 (Winter
2006), 49-55.
4. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Cone. (2006). The 2006 Cone Millennial Cause Study The Millennial Generation: Pro-
Social and Empowered to Change the World. Cone Communications.
6. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.
7. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.
New York Times Magazine 32-33, 122-124.
8. Garcia, I., Gibaja, J., & Mujika, A. (2003). A Study on the Effect of Cause-Related
Marketing on the Attitude Towards the Brand: The Case of Pepsi in Spain. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 11(Issue 1), 111-135. Retrieved from
Academic Search Premier.
9. Griffin, E. A. (2012). A First Look At Communication Theory (8th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
10. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive dissonance theory after 50
years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(1), 7-16.
35. 35 | P a g e
11. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2002). Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal
Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21(Spring 2002), 78-89.
12. Holme, R., & Watts, P. (2000). Corporate responsibility: Making good business sense.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
www.wbcsd.ch/DocRoot/IunSPdIKvmYH5HjbN4XC/ csr2000.pdf
13. Lee, N. R., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social marketing: Influencing behaviors for good. Sage.
14. Leveson, L., & Joiner, T. A. (2014). Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Values of
Millennial Job-seeking Students. Education Training, 56.2, 21-34.
15. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). Click It Or Ticket Fact Sheet
[Brochure]. Author.
16. Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Sims, J., & Wigley, S. (2008). The Influence of Corporate
Social Responsibility Campaigns on Public Opinion. Corporate Reputation Review, 11
(2), 145-154.
17. Stead, M., Gordon, R., Angus, K., & McDermott, L. (2007). A systematic review of
social marketing effectiveness. Health education, 107(2), 126-191.
18. Trimble, C., & Holmes, G. (2013). New Thinking on Antecedents to Successful CRM
Campaigns: Consumer Acceptance of an Alliance. Journal of Promotion Management,
19, 352-372.
36. 36 | P a g e
Appendix
Appendix I. Focus group guide
37. 37 | P a g e
Appendix II. Description for Social Marketing Campaign:
Take a Digital Break is a social marketing campaign to get people to put their phones down and become active by
enjoying the moments of life and physical health.
Recent studies have found the addiction and overuse of smartphones may lead to unhealthy effects such as:
When people attend events or are part of a social gathering, they are engrossed in their phones instead of
conversing with the people around them. Studies have found that adolescents are most affected by phones
than anyone else.
When a person is with friends / family, he/she stays busy socializing through their phones rather than
socializing with the people physically present in front of them, which has led to fights, arguments, and even
strains of relationships.
A person addicted to a phone sometimes fails or has a decrease interest to take part in all the healthy
activities including physical activity and socializing. This could lead to problems developing healthy forms
of interpersonal communication.
Slouching over your phone for hours at a time is ruining your neck and hurting your back muscles.
"iPosture" or "Text Neck" are just two of a few phrases doctors throw around to describe the excessive
stress on neck muscles. According to a study of young adults in the U.K., 84% of those tracked experienced
back pain during the last year, mainly due to being hunched over smartphones, tablets, and computers.
Even taking a quick break from your phone will help reduce the risks of some of these symptoms. This campaign
wants to encourage people to take walks, join a socially active community, take yoga classes, and participate in
activities with other people. So, put on your comfy clothes and take a digital break!
38. 38 | P a g e
Appendix III: Description for Company prAna
About prAna:
We create versatile, stylish, and sustainable clothing and accessories that you can wear during every activity, every
adventure, every day.
We go out of our way to ensure the impact we make on the world is mostly confined to our aesthetic. By using
materials and partnering with companies and factories that adhere to strict guidelines for safety and efficacy, we’re
able to make the beautiful and functional products we love, in a way that we can all feel good about.
Sustainability Stories: prAna’s Journey to Fair Trade Certified Apparel
One of the hallmarks of a responsible business is their willingness to go the extra mile to make sure there’s more
than a single bottom line. By taking care of the people involved in the supply chain of the business, and contributing
to planet-positive solutions in their industry and location, companies can design sustainability into their operations,
instead of simply trying to mitigate any negative effects after the fact.
For responsible clothing companies, it’s not enough to simply focus on sourcing organically and sustainably grown
fiber (though that is an important element), but another step has to be taken to ensure that the labor for the business
isn’t coming from a typical factory in an industry that already has notoriously bad working conditions and wages.
Companies such as prAna are using their businesses as vehicles for change, not only in the apparel industry as a
whole, but also in the homes and communities of the people working in the Fair Trade factories, by committing to
sourcing as many Fair Trade Certified products as possible.
prAna was one of the first companies to offer Fair Trade Certified apparel, as part of their ongoing three-fold
sustainability strategy. The company has defined several main goals for each of the three elements in their
sustainability strategy (the materials in their products, the resources to run the business, and the people that make the
products), all of which can help to move the needle on important issues across the board.
Because of the company’s commitment to its values, and its ‘people first’ social responsibility focus, it doesn’t just
source product from a factory that claims to have good working conditions and pay a living wage. prAna is instead
instrumental in helping factories get up to Fair Trade standards in order to get certified, which allows the workers to
be able to earn a premium for that work.
prAna’s commitment to sustainability strategies:
prAna continuously looks for materials that have a reduced impact, including recycled fibers, organic cotton,
recycled polyester, and hemp because they require less energy and pesticide to create. prAna is also a member of the
Textile Exchange—a non-profit committed to the responsible expansion of sustainable textiles—and is proud to be
able to prove all of its claims, thanks to an emphasis on traceability throughout its supply chain.
prAna is an active member of the Fair Labor Association and takes ownership in providing quality working
conditions for people who make its products. That’s why prAna was one of the first major apparel makers to offer
Fair Trade Certified. Fair Trade certification is the first social, economic and environmental standard that directly
benefits the farmers who grow the cotton and the workers who sew the garments.
39. 39 | P a g e
Appendix IV: Description for Company Jansport
About Jansport:
We’re the original. JanSport started making packs and outdoor gear back in 1967. We're about the journey, the discovery
of fun, freedom, and adventure.
At JanSport we are continually committed to making sure that the products you select for your next journey or experience
deliver not only on the quality, performance, and innovation expectations that you have, but on the safe, positive, and fair
working environments in which they are manufactured.
NYU Just Dropped Its Contract With JanSport—Why Is That a Victory for Global Labor Rights?
New York University’s Student Labor Action Movement got the administration to finally act responsibility when doing
business with the global fashion industry.
The Nation MAY 12, 2014 By Michelle Chen
JanSport might be a high-profile brand on college campuses, but some savvy student activists are exposing the corporate
dirt beneath the label. After months of protests, New York University’s Student Labor Action Movement got the
administration to finally act responsibility when doing business with the global fashion industry. The group has persuaded
the University to cut its merchandise licensing deal with JanSport “until and unless” the manufacturer signs onto the
Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety. The Accord is a landmark independent agreement that imposes binding
rules and standards for building safety on the country’s massive and poorly regulated garment shops, aimed at preventing
massive disasters like the Rana Plaza factory collapse, which left more than 1,100 people dead a year ago.
The fallout of the Rana Plaza disaster put it under global scrutiny, and is now one of the major holdouts in the industry,
along with Walmart and GAP, who have balked at signing the Accord. Instead, these manufacturers have tried to advance
a weaker factory safety agreement, devoid of the crucial legally binding measures that would directly, contractually, hold
global manufacturers responsible for factory conditions. USAS decries that agreement, known as the “Alliance for
Bangladesh Worker Safety,” as a sham that “does not legally commit to ensure that a single unsafe factory is fixed.”
Activists argue that the Bangladesh Accord, by contrast, would establish a binding commitment to uphold basic health and
safety protections, and cooperate with workers’ advocates and unions on oversight.
USAS has catalogued shameful labor track record: its Bangladesh supplier factories were hit with major fires in 2010 and
2012, and the company has been linked to rampant labor abuses in various countries, from widespread wage theft in the
garment sectors of Honduras and Haiti, to suppression of labor organizing in Cambodia.
University of Louisville ends license agreement with Jansport over 'workers' rights'
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – The University of Louisville has severed ties with an organization that was the subject of a
protest by students recently.
According to a statement from the University, the school has opted not to renew a licensing contract with Jansport –
among other companies – due to “several business factors including workers' rights practices, financials and product
design.”
“After taking these factors into consideration and reviewing all proposals, CLC and U of L have decided not to renew the
license of Jansport and several other companies,” the statement read.
Concerned students held protests outside university president James Ramsey's office, asking the school not to do business
with Jansport and other companies they believed to have unethical business practices.
40. 40 | P a g e
Appendix IV: Supplemental Images for CSM Campaign
41. 41 | P a g e
Appendix V: Consent Form
FORM OF CONSENT
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by American University. The purpose of
this study is to understand Corporate Social Responsibility and attitudes.
Research Procedures:
Should you decide to participate in this research study, you will be asked to sign your consent by
checking the box below. This study consists of a focus group that will be administered to participants in
person. You will be asked discuss your thoughts and attitudes
Time Required:
Participation in this study will require approximately one hour of your time.
Confidentiality:
The results of this research will be used to prepare a report on how attitudes of corporate social
responsibility influence social marketing campaigns. The data captured from this survey will remain
anonymous and respondents’ names or personal identifiable information will not appear in the report. The
researcher retains the right to use and publish non-identifiable data. All data will be stored securely and
will not be shared with any third parties outside of the researcher.
Participation & Withdrawal:
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you choose to
participate, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to
answer any individual question without consequences.
Questions about the Study:
If you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study or after its
completion, please contact: Alisha Chanthinith (alishac@american.edu)
Giving of Consent
By signing below, I agree I have read this consent form and I understand what is being requested of me as
a participant in this study. I freely consent to participate. I have been given satisfactory answers to my
questions. I certify that I am at least 18 years of age.
__________________________________________________________________________
Participant signature
______________________
Date
42. 42 | P a g e
Appendix V: Screening Questions
1. What was your age at your last birthday?
___________
2. What is your identified gender?
__ Male
__ Female
__ Prefer not to say
__ Other: _________________________________
3. How familiar are you with Corporate Social Responsibility?
__ Familiar
__ Somewhat Familiar
__ Not Familiar
__ Prefer not to say
4. How much physical activity do you do in the day? (Walking/Yoga to strenuous physical
exercise)
__ Less than 30 minutes
__ 31 minutes - 1 hour
__ 1 - 2 hours
__ 2 - 4 hours
__ 4 more
__ Prefer not to say
5. Do you own a mobile phone?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Prefer not to say
6. How often would you say you use your phone throughout the day?
__ Less than 30 minutes
__ 31 minutes - 1 hour
__ 1 - 2 hours
__ 2 - 4 hours
__ 4 more
__ Prefer not to say
