3. Inconsistent messages
„E.ON in Schulen und
Kindergärten
AKW-Lobbyisten bei unseren
Kindern”
(umweltrundschau.de)
(http://vorort.bund.net/
suedlicher-oberrhein/leuchtpol.html)
4. Types of media: Degree of
independence
Company- Third party-verified
verified
Company- Advertising Cause-related marketing,
constructed Disclosures
Third party- Publicity Labels, Consumer guides,
constructed Publicity
5. Advertising
• Skepticism vs. cynicism (e.g. Mayer et al. 1993, Youn
et al. 2008)
• Specific vs. general (e.g. Davis 1994, Maronick &
Andrews 1999)
• Actions vs. outcomes (Pomering & Johnson 2009)
• CSR vs. product benefits (e.g. Schaefer & Crane
2005, Luchs et al. 2010)
• CSR history (Pashupati et al. 2002, Vanhamme & Grobben
2009)
6. Types of media: Degree of
independence
Company- Third party-verified
verified
Company- Advertising Cause-related marketing,
constructed Disclosures
Third party- Publicity Labels, Consumer guides,
constructed Publicity
7. Cause-related marketing
• Perceived motives (Barone et al. 2000, Ellen et al. 2006)
• Company-cause fit (e.g., Pracejus & Olsen 2004; Zdravkovic
et al. 2011)
9. Disclosures
• Credible (Roe et al. 2001)
• Disclosures vs. labels (Roe et al. 2001, Teisl et al. 2008)
• Interpretative frame, e.g. “traffic light” (FSA
2005)
10. Types of media: Degree of
independence
Company- Third party-verified
verified
Company- Advertising Cause-related marketing,
constructed Disclosures
Third party- Publicity Labels, Consumer guides,
constructed Publicity
11. Publicity
• Awareness? (Sen et al. 2006)
• Positive vs. neutral vs. negative reputation
(Arnold et al. 1996, Handelman & Arnold 1999)
• Crisis situation (e.g. Wagner et al. 2009, Eisingerich
et al. 2011)
12. Types of media: Degree of
independence
Company- Third party-verified
verified
Company- Advertising Cause-related marketing,
constructed Disclosures
Third party- Publicity Labels, Consumer guides,
constructed Publicity
13. Labels & certifications
• Values and lifestyle (e.g. De Pelsmacker et al.
2005, Royne et al. 2011)
• Label proliferation (Giovannucci 2003, SER 2004)
• Positive versus negative labels (Grankvist et al.
2004)
• Labels versus disclosures (Roe et al. 2001)
14. Consumer guides
• Most trusted (Mohr et al. 2001)
• Information overload? (Shaw & Clarke 1999)
15. Conclusion
• Consumers are skeptical rather than cynical
regarding company-controlled CSR
communication
Specific
Outcomes
Benefits
History
Companies increasingly communicate to consumers about their CSR actions, but in many cases this communication is not effective in changing consumer attitudes or behaviors. Why is that the case?First, what consumers see is in many cases a brand, which is not identical to the company that produces the brand.
Second, in addition to companies, other parties also communicate about companies’ CSR actions, and these messages are sometimes inconsistent with each other.
Eco-label (Loureiro, McCluskey & Mittelhammer 2002)“No sweat” label (Dickson 2001)Fair trade (De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp 2005; Shaw & Clarke 1999)Organic food (e.g., Sparks & Shepherd 1992; Verhoef 2005)
Do consumersseecompanies‘ CSR actionsfrom a deontologicalperspective or from a consequentialistperspective?(Kant: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten; Mill: Utilitarianism)