i need you too_csr

‘‘I Need You Too!’’ Corporate Identity

Attractiveness for Consumers and The

Role of Social ResponsibilityLonginos MarinSalvador Ruiz

ABSTRACT. The extent to which people identify with

an organization is dependent on the attractiveness of the

organizational identity, which helps individuals satisfy one

or more important self-definitional needs. However, little

is known about the antecedents of company identity

attractiveness (IA) in a consumer–company context.

Drawing on theories of social identity and organizational

identification, a model of the antecedents of IA is

developed and tested. The findings provide empirical

validation of the relationship between IA and corporate

associations perceived by consumers. Our results dem-

onstrate that the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

contribution to company IA is much stronger than that of

Corporate Ability (CA). This may be linked to increasing

competition and of decreasing CA-based variation in the

marketplace.

KEY WORDS: consumer behavior, corporate social

responsibility, identification, identity attractiveness, rela-

tionship marketing

Introduction

While the customer-oriented literature on company

relationships has been growing (de Wulf et al., 2001;

Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995), the consumer�s view of

these relationships remains unexplored (Barnes,

1997). The effective management of customer rela-

tionships requires a previous consideration of why

customers enter into relationships with firms. While

from the firm�s perspective it is fairly clear that

engaging in a positive relationship with its customers

would enhance their loyalty and retention, leading

to greater company profitability (Reichheld, 1993;

Stephens et al., 1996), customers� motivation to

engage in a relationship with companies is not

always apparent. Companies, as organizations, con-

stitute a social group (Dutton et al., 1994) and recent

literature has found that one component of cus-

tomers� motivation to engage in relationships with

companies is to help companies provide to con-

sumers in order to satisfy one or more key self-

definitional needs through identification (Ahearne

et al., 2005; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).

Originally developed in the areas of social psy-

chology and organizational behavior, the concept of

identification satisfies the need for social identity and

self-definition, and in turn, has been demonstrated

to positively impact member loyalty (Mael and

Ashforth, 1992) as well as employees� citizenship

behaviors (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). Through

organizational identification, organizations contrib-

ute to individuals� social identity (Brewer, 1991;

Dutton et al., 1994), i.e., the internalization of a

group category as part of the self-concept and the

acceptance of the values and behavioral norms of the

collectivity.

Researchers and theorists have shown that the

extent to which people identify with an organization

is dependent on the attractiveness of the organiza-

tional identity (Dutton et al., 1994). Identity

attractiveness (IA) in the consumer–company con-

text is likely to be a necessary condition for identi-

fication (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Nonetheless,

despite the relevance of consumer–company iden-

tification in the marketplace, little is known about

the antecedents of company IA for consumers.

Furthermore, researchers (Maignan and Ferrell,

2004; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001) have suggested

that organizational identification theory may provide

a solid basis for understanding how positive corpo-

rate social responsibility (CSR) generates the active

Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 71:245–260 � Springer 2006DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9137-y

support of consumers. CSR associations reflect the

organization�s status and activities related to its per-

ceived societal obligations (Brown and Dacin, 1997).

In most cases, it is the customer who is courted and

who usually decides that a relationship is over, while

socially responsible corporate behaviors may trigger

consumer identification (Lichtenstein et al., 2004).

Building on this suggestion, it is of interest to analyze

how consumers� corporate associations, both related

to corporate ability (CA) and CSR (Brown and

Dacin, 1997) contribute to generate company IA.

Based on the assumption that consumers will

reward firms for their support of social programs,

many organizations have adopted social causes

(Levy, 1999). CSR has emerged in recent years as

both an important academic construct and a pressing

corporate agenda item (Klein and Dawar, 2004;

Mele et al., 2006; Waddock and Smith, 2000),

although it reveals itself among large companies not

as a uniform concept but as a variety of conceptions

(Whitehouse, 2006).

Firms have been found to engage in socially

responsible behaviors not only to fulfill external

obligations such as regulatory compliance and

stakeholder demands, but also due to enlightened-

self-interest considerations such as increased com-

petitiveness and improved stock market performance

(Drumwright, 1994; Klein and Dawar, 2004;

Waddock and Smith, 2000). Consumers� awareness

of CSR practices positively influence attitudes

toward the firm (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Creyer

and Ross, 1997), corporate reputation (Fombrun and

Shanley, 1990), and the evaluation of product

attributes (Bigne et al., 2005; Creyer and Ross,

1997). Consumers are demanding more out of

organizations than simply a product of quality at low

price (Handelman and Arnold, 1999), they expect

organizations to demonstrate congruence with some

social values as contribution to the community.

However, CSR is far from being the most dominant

criteria in consumers� purchasing decisions

(Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000), and traditional

criteria such as price, quality, and brand familiarity

seem to remain the most important choice criteria,

i.e., consumers continue buying for personal reasons

rather than societal ones (Beckmann et al., 2001).

These relatively contradictory results call for further

investigation about CSR�s consequences in con-

sumer perceptions.

The goal of this paper is to develop and test a

conceptual framework of the antecedents of IA for

consumers. Overall, our investigation contributes to

the growing research on consumer–company iden-

tification relationships in several ways. First, drawing

on literature on social identity (Tajfel and Turner,

1986), organizational identification (Dutton et al.,

1994; Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Whetten and

Godfrey, 1998), and member identification (Bhat-

tacharya et al., 1995), we provide additional support

to the finding that consumers use not only products,

but also the organizations that produce those prod-

ucts, to satisfy their more important self-definitional

needs. Second, we provide empirical validation of

the relationship between IA and corporate associa-

tions (both CSR and CA) perceived by consumers.

Third, we explore a new perspective of relationship

marketing from the consumer�s point of view.

Finally, our model also demonstrates that CSR may

influence IA, a basic antecedent of consumer–com-

pany relationships, through multiple paths. In addi-

tion, our model recognizes an important distinction

between company attractiveness and company

evaluation (CE).

In the following sections, we present a conceptual

framework of IA. We draw on extant research in

marketing, organizational behavior, and psychology

to elaborate on the nature of social identity. We then

articulate our customer-level conceptual framework

that offers propositions regarding the key determi-

nants for company IA in the marketplace. Next, we

present an empirical study where we test our model

and conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and

managerial implications of our findings.

Identity attractiveness: literature review

and research hypotheses

Research on identity indicates that individuals need

a relatively secure and stable sense of self-definition

of who they are within a given situation to function

effectively (Erez and Earley, 1993; Schwalbe and

Mason-Schrock, 1996). According to social identity

theory, self-definitions are an amalgam of the idio-

syncratic attributes (e.g., assertive, ambitious) and

social identities (e.g., gender, occupation) that are

most relevant (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Self-defi-

nitions are important because they help to situate

246 Longinos Marin and Salvador Ruiz

individuals in the context and, thereby, suggest what

to do, think, and even feel (Ashforth, 1998). Indi-

viduals have a strong desire to view their self-defi-

nitions in positive terms and seek to enhance their

self-esteem through their social identities (Hogg and

Abrams, 1990; Tajfel and Turner, 1986).

Organizational identity has been combined with

social identity theory to shed light on the process

whereby individuals identify with organizations

(Pratt, 1998). Organization identity is an individual-

specific perception and it derives from the (per-

ceived) central, distinctive, and enduring attributes

of the organization (Albert and Whetten, 1985).

Research has shown perceived organizational iden-

tity to be a powerful mental picture that influences

the degree to which an organizational member

identifies with the organization (Bergami and

Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton et al., 1994). Organizational

identification can then be seen as essentially a sub-

type of social identification (Ashforth and Mael,

1989), or in other words, the ‘‘degree to which a

member defines himself or herself by the same

attributes that he or she believes define the organi-

zation" (Dutton et al., 1994; p. 239). This strength

of members� psychological link to the organization is

also related to the degree to which employees are

motivated to fulfill organizational needs and goals,

their willingness to display organizational citizenship

and other cooperative behaviors, and their tendency

to remain with the organization (Dutton et al.,

1994; Kramer, 1993; Mael and Ashforth, 1995).

Marketing research has shown that through brand

preference, choice and consumption, consumers

create meaning and try to define or strengthen their

identity (Belk, 1988; McCracken, 1986). The

strength of the customer�s identification with the

organization depends, therefore, on the extent to

which that company or brand is viewed by the

customer as a partner (Fournier, 1998) or as a ref-

erence group (Escalas and Bettman, 2005).

One of the components leading to a customer�sidentification with a company is the attractiveness of

that company identity. Similarity-Attraction Theory

(Berscheid and Walster, 1969; Byrne, 1971), Social

Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), and Self-

categorization Theory (Turner, 1985) combine to

argue that people are attracted to, prefer, and support

relationships with similar others, in order to rein-

force their self-esteem and maintain balance of

congruity in self-identity. Interaction is easier and

less cognitively challenging with others who have

similar attitudes, values, activities, or experiences

(Kunda, 1999).

Identity attractiveness is the degree to which

subjects prefer, are attracted to and support rela-

tionships with a company given its enduring attri-

butes (Ahearne et al., 2005). The attraction exerted

by a company depends on its capacity to satisfy at

least one of the three basic consumer self-definitional

needs (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003): self-continuity

(the need to find the company�s identity similar to

their own), self-distinctiveness (the need to distin-

guish themselves from others in social contexts

identifying with a company that has a distinctive

culture, strategy, structure, or some other configu-

ration of distinctive characteristics), and self-

enhancement (the need to feel associated with a

company that has an attractive perceived identity to

enhance their self-esteem through acquiring a more

positive evaluation of themselves).

The model depicting our proposed relationships is

shown in Figure 1. We predict that company IA is

primarily determined by corporate associations and

consumer�s support of CSR activities carried out by

the company. In addition to a direct effect of CRS

associations, which may be due to the positive social

image related to these associations, these effects are

mediated by CE and consumer–company congru-

ence. How consumers value the company and how

similar to themselves they think it is constitute

essential elements required for consumers to prefer,

be attracted to and support relationships with that

company.

IDENTITY ATTRACTIVENESS

COMPANYEVALUATION

COMPANY-CONSUMER

CONGRUENCE

CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILIY

CSRSUPPORT

CORPORATE ABILITY

H5

R1

H6

H4

H3

H2

H1

Figure 1. Antecedents of identity attractiveness.

Corporate Identity Attractiveness for Consumers 247

Consumer–company congruence

Research on social cognition and memory has

established that people actively organize their per-

ceptions of other persons in their memories, using

abstract ‘‘personality trait’’ categories such as ‘‘hon-

est’’ or ‘‘intelligent’’ (Srull and Wyer, 1989). Such

abstract categories may also be used to classify cor-

porate associations. Similar to perceptions of persons,

these categories may correspond to different per-

sonality traits (Davies et al., 2001).

In the context of organization attraction,

Schneider�s (1987) ‘‘Attraction-Selection-Attrition

model’’ posits that applicants will be attracted to

organizations where they perceive similarity be-

tween their attributes and those of the organization.

Job seekers prefer organizations with whom they

perceive congruence between their and the organi-

zation�s primary values (Chatman, 1991). Finally, in

the job search process, individuals tend to be more

attracted to organizations with which they perceive a

match (Judge and Bretz, 1992).

For consumers, consumer–company congruence

is the overlap they perceive between the company�scharacter and their own (Sen and Bhattacharya,

2001). Scholars have demonstrated that people

identify with organizations when they perceive an

overlap between organizational attributes and their

individual attributes (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;

Dutton et al., 1994; Tajfel and Turner, 1986).

Both classical identity consumption theory (e.g.,

Belk, 1988) as well as the more recent consumer–

company identification model (Bhattacharya and

Sen, 2003) emphasizes the importance of identity

similarity and attractiveness in shaping consumer

attitudes, preferences, and choices. These two con-

tributions are rooted in the similarity-attraction

paradigm, which suggests that individuals are at-

tracted to other individuals and groups that are

similar to them (Berscheid and Walster, 1969).

People are attracted to, prefer, and support rela-

tionships with similar others in order to reinforce

their self-esteem and maintain balance of congruity

in self-identity (Byrne, 1971; Tesser et al., 1988).

Therefore, when there is a match between cor-

porate and consumer identity (C–C congruence),

the relationship with the company should enable

consumers to define more clearly and completely

who they are or where they belong. Consumers will

feel attracted to those companies they share common

traits with, which in turn provides for a sense of self-

enhancement (Asforth, 1998). Thus, we propose the

following hypothesis:

H1: The stronger the consumer–company con-

gruence perception, the greater the company�sidentity attractiveness for the consumer.

CSR associations

Over the last decade, a number of academic studies

have begun to look at the degree to which con-

sumers are influenced by the associations they have

regarding a company�s CA, on the one hand, and its

CSR, on the other (Berens et al., 2005; Brown and

Dacin, 1997). CSR associations reflect the organi-

zation�s status and activities related to its perceived

societal obligations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). The

company�s character revealed by its CSR actions is

not only fundamental and relatively enduring, but

also often more distinctive by virtue of its disparate

and idiosyncratic bases than other CA-based facets of

the company schema (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).

Consumers feel closer to some companies and

brands than to others (Fournier, 1998). When a

corporation behaves in a manner that is perceived as

socially responsible, consumers are likely to infer that

it has certain desirable traits that resonate with their

sense of self (Giacalone et al., 2005; Lichtenstein

et al., 2004; Maignan, 2001). Scott and Lane (2000)

point out that some organizations portray themselves

as exemplars of categories at higher levels of

abstraction (e.g., the Body Shop and animal rights

activism or Saturn and teamwork), inviting con-

sumers to cooperate (co-produce) with them in a

specific social movement. These organizations seek

to reinforce their legitimacy and to embody qualities

they believe are particularly valued by stakeholders.

If C–C congruence (CCC) is the overlap that con-

sumers perceive between the company�s character,

and their own, this CCC will be higher when a

company undertakes CSR initiatives, to the extent

that those initiatives signal to consumers that the

company has traits that overlap with their self-con-

cept (i.e., civic minded, compassionate, and activist).

In other words, it is easier to find a major congruity


in values for the companies considered as socially

responsible (Balazs, 1990). Therefore, we propose:

H2: The greater the CSR associations perceived

by the consumer, the stronger the consumer�sperception of consumer–company congru-

ence.

One stream of extant research investigates orga-

nizational characteristics and their effects on attrac-

tion to the organization. Structural attributes, such as

decentralized decision-making (Turban and Keon,

1993) and reward systems (Bretz et al., 1989), are

shown to influence perceptions of attractiveness

(Backhaus et al., 2002). Organizations with positive

affirmative action programs are more successful in

attracting high-quality applicants (Wright et al.,

1995). For example, Turban and Greening�s (1997)

study has found a positive relationship between

published ratings of firms� CSR and participants�ratings of firms� attractiveness. Since they found a

correlation between CSR and attractiveness, the

study concluded that organizational attractiveness

perceptions may be influenced by CSR. Similarly,

Albinger and Freeman (2000) have also showed that

CSR influences attractiveness ratings, but only for

those job seekers with high levels of job choice.

From a marketing perspective, the firm�s eco-

nomic benefits from CSR have been documented in

the link to consumers� positive product and brand

evaluations, brand choice, and brand recommenda-

tions (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattach-

arya, 2001; Vitell, 2003). In addition, ‘‘CSR

activities can affect consumers� general sense of well-

being, without such well-being necessarily translat-

ing to company-specific benefits’’ (Bhattacharya and

Sen, 2004, p. 13). That well-being may be associated

to the corporate IA as identification with an orga-

nization engaged in do-good CSR actions can

contribute to consumers� self-esteem (Sen and

Bhattacharya, 2001), as a result of a collaboration

(association) with an organization that is socially

responsible. In other words, even though the con-

sumer may not perceived his/her character as

overlapping with that of the company, he/she may

aspire to participate in relationships with the com-

pany that undertake CSR activities, indicating a high

IA, as being associated with the company may result

in benefits to the consumer in terms of self-differ-

ence and self-enhancement. ‘‘When a corporation

behaves in a manner that is perceived as socially

responsible, consumers are likely to infer that it has

certain desirable traits that resonate with their sense

of self’’ (Lichtenstein et al., 2004, p. 17). We

therefore propose:

H3: The greater the CSR associations perceived

by the consumer, the greater the company�sidentity attractiveness for the consumer.

Company evaluation

Company evaluation refers to the degree of posi-

tiveness or negativeness of the subject�s global

judgment of the company. This global judgment is

based on the company�s central, distinctive, and

enduring characteristics, which are key components

leading to the prestige of the organization�s identity

(Bhattacharya et al., 1995). It means that the orga-

nization is respected and admired by meaningful

referents (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton et al.,

1994).

By maintaining relationships with a company, the

consumer satisfies his/her needs of self-esteem and

security (Brewer, 1991; Kunda, 1999), one of the

three basic self-definitional needs, through the in-

crease of his/her social prestige (Mael and Ashforth,

1992), access to particular social opportunities

(Smith and Mackie, 2000), or simply the perception

of him/herself as ‘‘basking in reflected glory’’

(Cialdini et al., 1976). The more prestigious an

organization is, therefore, the better the opportunity

for a consumer to enhance self-esteem through

identification with the organization (Mael and

Ashforth, 1992). Taking into account that evaluation

leads to prestige (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) and that

identity prestige has been related to customers�identification with the company (Ahearne et al.,

2005; Albert and Whetten, 1985), a positive evalu-

ation of the company will lead to high levels of that

company�s IA. This leads us to formulate the fol-

lowing hypothesis:


H4: The more favorable the consumer�s evaluation

of the company, the greater the company�sidentity attractiveness.

Research on organizational identification has

yielded evidence of the positive effects of person–

organization congruence on organizational prefer-

ences, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

and turnover intentions (Kristof, 1996). In the

consumption context, research on the evaluation of

brand extensions has generally found that parent

brand associations� influence on customers� evalua-

tions of new products is stronger when customers

perceive a high fit between the product and the

brand (e.g., Aaker and Keller, 1990; Smith and Park,

1992). Perceived fit refers to the similarity between

the existing brand and the new product or service.

On the contrary, consumers who perceive an

incongruity have shown lower attitudes toward the

firm and its initiatives (Forehand and Grier, 2003;

Menon and Kahn, 2003).

CCC will have a positive effect on consumers�evaluations of a company because of consumers�greater commitment toward that company. As

suggested by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), the

effect of CSR on consumers� CEs is likely to be

mediated by CCC. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001)

proposed this relationship only for high CSR-

support consumers and tested it through regression

analysis. We propose that a more general (not only

for high CSR-support consumers) effect exists be-

cause CCC may be a consequence of overlapping

between consumer and company character traits

other than those specifically derived from CSR

associations (such as persistence in reaching some

goals or staying in a market). In addition to the

CSR consumer support, a higher CCC will gen-

erate an enhanced CE as the person–organization fit

always leads to a more positive global judgment of

the company (Tesser et al., 1988). Indirectly, it will

mean a more positive judgment of the consumer

him/herself, due to the overlapping of character

traits between him/her and the company. We then

propose:

H5: The stronger the consumer�s perception of

consumer–company congruence, the more

favorable the consumer evaluations of the

company.

Marketing literature has also demonstrated that

consumers use both performance-related corporate

associations and perceived social responsibility when

forming an impression of a company (Winters,

1988). More specifically, a reputation based on a

company�s abilities exerts a significant impact on

overall corporate evaluation (Brown and Dacin,

1997). Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) also showed this

effect through the quality of a new product launched

by the company (a variable that is a proxy for CA).

Therefore, in order to facilitate the comparison of

our model with those previously tested in the liter-

ature (e.g., Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhat-

tacharya, 2001), we include the following

relationship in the model:

R1: The greater the CA associations, the more

favorable the consumer�s evaluation of the

company.

CSR support

The social side of the consumer leads him/her to

avoid buying products from companies that harm

society, and actively seek out products from com-

panies that help society (Creyer and Ross, 1997).

According to Webster (1975), ‘‘the socially con-

scious consumer takes into account the public con-

sequences of his or her private consumption or who

attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring

about social change’’ (Webster, 1975, p. 188). When

buying, consumers take into account perceptions of

ethical or unethical activities carried out by busi-

nesses (Creyer and Ross, 1997). Consumers expect

businesses to behave ethically and are prepared to

punish those businesses when they see them falling

below the standards expected (Joyner and Payne,

2002; Vitell, 2003; Vitell and Muncy, 1992). The

effect of this social side of the consumer can be in-

cluded in our model through consumers� personal

support of the CSR domain (CSR support).

When the support of the company�s CSR domain

is high, consumers will perceive greater congruence

between themselves and the company, either in

terms of common attributes or a shared prototype,

than will those whose support of that domain is low

(Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Consumers with high


CSR support take into consideration the CSR

activities undertaken by the company. They will

check the company�s character attributes other than

those strictly related to CA, which will lead them to

find attributes that overlap with their personality

traits in those companies that carry out CSR activ-

ities. The less the CSR support, the less aware will

be the consumer of the common attributes he/she

shares with the company. Based on this, we propose

that:

H6: The greater the consumer�s CSR support, the

stronger the consumer�s perception of con-

sumer–company congruence.

Methodology

Sample

The model is tested in the context of financial ser-

vices relationships, defined as existing when there is

an ongoing series of interactions between parties

who know each other (Czepiel, 1990). The

respondents were customers of a large financial ser-

vices provider. All respondents were responsible for

financial matters in their families and were clients of

the bank at the time of the interview. Compared to

other industries, financial services providers do have

relationship marketing advantages because many

consumers are willing to establish relationships. This

fact is evidenced by a growing literature on rela-

tionships between financial services providers and

customers (Colgate and Alexander, 1998; Jarvinen

and Lehtinen, 2003; Roman and Ruiz, 2005),

relationship marketing efforts being implemented by

financial services providers in markets around the

world (Johnson and Greyson, 2005; Keltner, 1995),

and by the high effort developed concerning CSR in

this sector (Decker, 2004; Harvey, 1995; Ogrizek,

2002). The banking industry in Spain has under-

taken many CSR actions in the last years, spending

in these activities a total of 1300 million euros in

2005 (http://www.ceca.es).

Data was collected from personal interviews.

Twelve branches of a major retail bank in the region

were chosen at random. The interviews were carried

out in situ, at the main door of the branches, at

different times of the day over a two-week period.

One hundred and sixty-four consumers completed

the survey. Of the entire sample, 44% were female,

56% were male. Forty-two percent of the respon-

dents were between 26 and 45 years old, and 45%

between 46 and 64 years old. Twenty-seven percent

had a college degree, and 21.5% were entrepreneurs.

Twenty-seven percent reported being customers of

the bank for at least two but less than six years, and

52.4% of respondents did business with three or

more banks.

Measures

Preliminary versions of the questionnaire were

administered to a convenience sample of 18 con-

sumers, and pretest results were used to improve

measures and design an appropriate structure for the

questionnaire. The final measures and reliabilities are

provided in Table I.

Measures consisted of 11-point scales ranging

from 0 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree)1, except

for the CCC that was drawn from person–organi-

zation-fit research (Kristof, 1996) and measured as

the Euclidean distance between subjects� perceived

personality profile of the company and of them-

selves. Personality profiles consisted of subjects� rat-

ings of the extent to which they believed each of a

set of personality trait adjectives described both them

and the company (0 = ‘‘not at all’’, 10 = ‘‘very

much’’). The 19 adjectives (one was deleted after a

pretest, as it was not well understood) were previ-

ously used in a consumption context by Sen and

Bhattacharya (2001).

We measured corporate associations using a five-

item scale from Brown and Dacin (1997). CE was

measured using a six-item scale from Boulding and

Kirmani (1993). IA was measured using a four-item

scale adapted from Kim et al. (2001), following the

recommendations of Bhattacharya and Sen (2003).

Finally, we measured CSR support using a scale

from Mohr and Webb (2005).

Results

The models (CFA and SEM) described below were

run using LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001).


The multi-item scales were further evaluated through

confirmatory factor analysis using the maximum

likelihood procedure. The goodness-of-fit statistics

for the model were as follows: v2(242) = 389.09,

p� 0.00, RMSEA = 0.061, SRMR = 0.049,

NNFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98. Reliability of the

measures was confirmed with composite reliability

index higher than the recommended level of 0.6

(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), as shown in Table I.

Following the procedures suggested by Fornell and

Larcker (1981), the scales showed acceptable

convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent

TABLE I

Constructs and measures

ksc t-value Reliability

Corporate Ability (CA) qe = 0.91, AVE = 0.66

X is a leader in the industry 0.75 10.9 Alfa = 0,9078

X is an organization with strong technological innovation 0.74 10.69

X offers a high quality product 0.72 10.36

X offers a good customer service 0.78 11.39

X offers a wide range of products 0.73 10.52

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) qe = 0.88, AVE = 0.60

X is highly concern for ... Alfa = 0.8836

Local communities 0.8 11.98

Environment 0.84 12.81

Corporate giving to worthy causes 0.78 11.44

Women�s issues 0.73 10.47

Disabled minority issues 0.74 10.75

CSR support (SUP) qe = 0.91, AVE = 0.71

As a customer of X, you agree that it dedicates part of its activity to Alfa = 0.9030

Favor the integration of minorities and marginalized groups 0.79 11.91

Undertake actions to defend (protect) the environment 0.92 15.07

Make donations to causes of social justice 0.87 13.76

Support causes an organizations that defend culture and sports 0.8 12.10

Company evaluation (CE) qe = 0.95, AVE = 0.74

X is an organization with good reputation 0.87 13.94 Alfa = 8850

X is an organization financially stable 0.75 10.88

X is an organization I trust 0.88 14.03

I think X is a company long run oriented 0.72 10.52

I think X is and organization well established 0.86 13.51

I think X will be in business in 5 years from now 0.77 11.40

Identity attractiveness (IA) qe = 0.93 AVE = 0.76

X is an organization very attractive 0.9 14.49 Alfa = 9012

I like X because it is different from the rest of financial companies 0.82 12.62

When I deal with X I feel good because I see they understand me 0.88 14.26

Its identity is well recognized as prestigious 0.85 13.34

C–C congruence (CCC): Personality traits

Activist The Best Capable Compassionate Conservative Cooperative

Democratic Honest Enlightened Expert Fair Considerate Efficient Innovative

A leader Progressive Risk-averse Sincere Sensitive

v2 (242) = 389.09 (p = 0.000), AGFI = 0.80, GFI = 0.83, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.049, RMSEA = 0.061,

NNFI = 0.98


validity was assessed by verifying the significance of

the t-values associated with the parameter estimates

(Table I). All t-values were positive and significant

(p < 0.01).

The U-matrix (correlations between constructs) is

provided in Table II. As a first test of discriminant

validity, we checked whether the correlations

among the latent constructs were significantly less

than one. Since none of the confidence intervals of

the U-values ( ± two standard errors) included the

value of one (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), this test pro-

vides evidence of discriminant validity.

Second, for each pair of factors, we compared the

v2-value for a measurement model constraining their

correlation to equal one, to a baseline measurement

model without this constraint. A v2-difference test

was performed for each pair of factors (a total of 10

tests in all), and in every case resulted in a significant

difference, again suggesting that all of the measures

of constructs in the measurement model achieve

discriminant validity.

Third, we performed a test of discriminant

validity suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981).

This test is supportive of discriminant validity if the

average variance extracted by the underlying con-

struct is larger than the shared variance (i.e., the U2

value) with other latent constructs. This condition

was satisfied for all the cases (Table III).

In summary, internal consistency and discriminant

validity results enabled us to proceed to estimation of

the structural model.

Structural equations modeling (Joreskog and

Sorbom, 2001) was used to test the theoretical

model depicted in Table IV. Results show that

the model in Table IV fits the data well as evidenced

by the goodness-of-fit measures: v2 = 431.78

(p = 0.00), df = 266, RMSEA = 0.061, NNFI =

0.98, and CFI = 0.98).

All three determinants, CCC (H1; b = 0.23,

t = 3.51), CSR associations (H3; b = 0.36,

t = 4.78); and CE (H4; b = 0.38, t = 5.12), have

direct and positive effects on IA.

The relevance of CSR activities in the model is

highlighted both by its direct effect and by its indi-

rect effect on company IA. Both consumer–com-

pany congruence and CE contribute to this indirect

effect mediating the relationship between CRS

associations and IA.

TABLE II

U-Matrix of latent constructs for full sample

SUP CSR CA CE IA

CSR 0.28 (0.08) 1

CA 0.37 (0.07) 0.70 (0.05) 1

CE 0.44 (0.07) 0.64 (0.05) 0.75 (0.04) 1

IA 0.37 (0.07) 0.71 (0.05) 0.73 (0.04) 0.74 (0.04) 1

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

TABLE III

Test of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981)

PHI square AVE

SUP CSR CA CE IA

SUP 1 0.7187

CSR 0.0784 1 0.6035

CA 0.1369 0.4901 1 0.6618

CE 0.1936 0.4096 0.5625 1 0.7472

IA 0.1369 0.5041 0.5329 0.5476 1 0.7602


Table IV also shows that both CSR activities and

customer support of those CSR activities contribute

to CCC. The introduction of these two linear

relationships in the model allows us to determine the

contribution of each of them to CCC. The model

specification supports the idea that both parts (the

company and the consumer) contribute to the

congruence between them, including the company

undertaking CSR activities and the consumer being

pleased by those initiatives.

For the paths leading to CE, we suggested that

CA has a positive and direct effect on CE (R1;

b = 0.62, t = 8.40), while the effect of CSR is

mediated by CCC. The results indicate support for

both hypotheses H2 (b = 0.43; t = 5.93) and H5

(b = 0.26, t = 4.23). Results also confirm H6

(b = 0.26, t = 4.23), demonstrating that consumers�perception of CCC is higher when consumers sup-

port the CSR activities undertaken by the company.

In addition to the direct effects, we further

examined corporate associations to determine how

they were related to IA and CE. More specifically,

the indirect relationship between CSR associations

and IA via both CCC and CE was tested. The

indirect relationship between CA and IA via CE was

also examined. These links help to explain total

effects in Table V. The total effect of CSR on

company IA (0.51) is higher than that of CA (0.24),

while the opposite happens for CE.

In summary, the conceptual model developed was

well supported. The model also explains much of the

variance for the endogenous variables, with R2 val-

ues of 0.61 for CE and 0.68 for IA.

Conclusions, implications, and directions

for future research

One of the components leading to identification

with a company is the attractiveness of that com-

pany�s identity (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Such

attractiveness offers a new perspective of relationship

marketing because the consumer will also be inter-

ested in the strengthening of his/her links with the

company, going therefore beyond the traditional

conception of relationship marketing in which only

the company is interested in strengthening the links.

In this paper, we demonstrate the influence of

corporate associations and consumer support of CSR

activities on company IA for consumers. Results

contribute to the understanding of consumer–com-

pany relationships, while providing marketers with

insight into factors that can add value in marketing

relationships. Consumers feel closer to some com-

panies and brands than to others, speaking elo-

quently and passionately about those brands and

companies that have come to occupy a special place

in their lives (Fournier, 1998). Those organizations

and brands are used by consumers to satisfy personal

and social needs. Organizational affiliation creates a

positive social identity that increases the level of

overlap between how a member defines him- or

herself and the organization (Tajfel, 1988). This new

perspective is based on Social Exchange Theory, i.e.

relationships can be understood through the

exchange process (Lund, 1985). When rewards are

TABLE V

Direct, indirect, and total effects

Direct

effect

Indirect

effect

Total

effect

CSR-IA 0.36 CSR/CCC/IA: 0.099 0.51

CSR/CCC/CE/IA: 0.043

CA-IA CA/CE/IA: 0.24 0.24

CSR-CE CSR/CCC/CE: 0.11 0.11

CA-CE 0.62 0.62

TABLE IV

Structural equation model results for hypothesis testing

Paths Hip. Std. Coefficient

(t-value)

CCC (+)-IA H1 0.23 (3.51)***

CSR (+)-CCC H2 0.43 (5.93)***

CSR (+)-IA H3 0.36 (4.78)***

CE (+)-IA H4 0.38 (5.12)***

CCC (+)-CE H5 0.26 (4.23)***

SUP (+)-CCC H6 0.33 (4.61)***

CA (+)-CE R1 0.62 (8.40)***

v2 (266) = 431.78 (p = 0.002), v2/266 = 1.62,

AGFI = 0.78, GFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.98,

RMSEA = 0.061, NNFI = 0.98, PNFI = 0.85,

PGFI = 0.67

***p < 0.01.


greater than costs as compared to expectations,

relationship satisfaction results (Rusbult, 1983), and

the consumer is then interested in entering volun-

tarily into relationships with the company. One of

the main rewards is the satisfaction of self-defini-

tional needs.

Our results show that CSR activities exert a direct

influence on company IA, confirming the results of

previous studies that have demonstrated the link

between social initiatives and positive affective,

cognitive, and behavioral consumers� responses

(Brown and Dacin, 1997; Creyer and Ross, 1997;

Mohr and Webb, 2005; Sen and Bhattacharya,

2001). A positive affective component, which may

be of high relevance in the relationship between

CSR activities and IA, is a necessary characteristic of

close relationships without which those relationships

cannot exist (Barnes, 2003; Berscheid et al., 1989).

The CCC mediation effect is a good example of

the postulates of identity consumption theory: when

there is a true match between corporate and con-

sumer identity, the purchase of the corporate brand

should enable consumers to define more clearly and

completely who they are or where they belong

(Czellar and Palazzo, 2004). Nowadays, when the

media are constantly showing us the relevance of the

well-being of society, it is likely that the consumer

feels closer to companies that dedicate part of their

activity to contribute to that well-being. Addition-

ally, consumers� interest in sharing with the com-

pany that engages in social actions, as a personality

trait, makes that company identity more attractive to

them. These results support previous findings that a

strong fit between the pattern of organizational

values and members� values predicted members�intentions to stay (Chatman, 1991; O�Reilly and

Chatman, 1986). Our work is, therefore, an exten-

sion to consumers, based on and their interest in

being linked with the company (IA) through the

consumption of its products.

The two-step mediation effect through CE is

founded in the influence of corporate associations on

CE (Brown and Dacin, 1997) and the model of Sen

and Bhattacharya (2001), which demonstrated an

influence of CSR on CE mediated by C–C con-

gruency. This indirect effect shows, first, that other

forms of value, different from that related to the

main production activity of the company, such as

social support, may contribute to consumer�s emo-

tional rewards in addition to those obtained with the

product (also included in the model). CSR activities,

then, lead consumers to make more positive CEs.

The model specification supports the idea that

both parts (the company and the consumer) con-

tribute to the congruence between them, including

the company undertaking CSR activities and the

consumer being pleased by those initiatives. A sim-

ilar and significant contribution of both parts (0.43

the company through CSR activities, and 0.33 the

consumer through CSR support) seems to be nec-

essary condition in order to generate a consumer–

company congruence.

Our results also add to the discussion concerning

the contribution of corporate associations to the

consumer–company relationship. Over the last

decade, studies have generally found that both types

of associations influence CEs (Brown and Dacin,

1997), although CA associations have shown a

stronger effect than CSR associations (Berens et al.,

2005). Our results demonstrate that the CSR con-

tribution to company IA is much stronger than that

of CA. This may be a consequence of the increasing

competition in the face of decreasing CA-based

variation in the marketplace. In this context, com-

panies use CSR activities to increase their capacity to

compete in their markets, through the improvement

of links with consumers, which leads to higher

loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, etc. CA may have

become a base line below which companies face

great difficulties to stay in the market, and above

which companies benefit from competitive advan-

tages in the form of associations obtained from the

undertaken CSR activities.

In summary, our contribution consists on the

development and testing of a model about the

antecedents of IA, drawing on theories of social

identity and organizational identification. The find-

ings provide empirical validation of the relationship

between IA and corporate associations perceived by

consumers, demonstrating the stronger contribution

of CSR, compared to that of CA, which may be

linked to increasing competition and of decreasing

CA-based variation in the marketplace.

These conclusions have, therefore, direct impli-

cations for marketing managers. When communi-

cating with their stakeholders, companies often

position themselves either as a company with an

excellent CA, or as a company with excellent CSR


(Berens et al., 2005). Highlighting the role of the

non-product aspects of the company, such as its

values and characteristics, its social responsibility

efforts, and the networking opportunities it pro-

vides, constitutes a key aspect in building the con-

sumer–company bond (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).

Therefore, if the company wants to increase the

likelihood of long-term relationships with the con-

sumer through identification, i.e., when IA is

deemed desirable, it must articulate and communi-

cate its identity by providing information of both

CSR and CA actions, while simultaneously moni-

toring the consumer support of CSR actions. By

doing this, companies can identify more receptive

segments to which address this information in a

prompt and persuasive manner.

Companies should also take into account, how-

ever, consumers� attributions about the motives be-

hind CSR activities. Corporate social performance is

open to questions about impression management

and subjective bias (Tsoutsoura, 2004), and attribu-

tional inferences about CSR have been shown to

affect purchase intention (Ellen et al., 2006). If

consumers have preexisting beliefs that firms are

more interested in CSR activities for public relations

reasons than for reasons of integrity, communicating

CSR actions may lose its potential as a marketing

tool. This problem may be solved by taking into

account broader societal demands and expectations

when formulating policies and making decisions

(Vallentin, 2002). This broader perspective will re-

duce consumers� skepticism, as not only consumers

but also public opinion will be aware of how com-

panies respond to their social environment when

dealing with CSR issues.

While this study reports important findings, it is

not without limitations. First, we assessed people�sassociations regarding a single company, which im-

plies that we must exercise caution in generalizing

the results of this study to situations where people

acquire similar products (financial services) from

different companies. Future research could corrob-

orate the findings of this study through experimental

manipulations of corporate associations, balancing

CSR support, CCC, and consumers� product quality

perceptions across different companies. Second, the

context tested here provided a view of a single

industry. Testing in additional industry settings is

necessary to fully understand whether and how the

role of IA varies across contexts. For example, it may

be possible that IA could be a state easier to achieve

in service provider contexts than in markets for

goods. Third, although we examined IA driven by

CSR initiatives, consumers also identify with cor-

porations based on other factors such as the domain

(e.g., athletes and Nike, bikers and Harley David-

son). To date, the extent to which identification

created in one domain (e.g., athletics) can be lev-

eraged in another (e.g., CSR) is unknown. Research

of this nature is likely to provide guidance not only

for CSR initiatives but also for other forms of col-

laborative marketing relationships.

In addition, it is interesting to note that CSR has

been measured by adapting Brown and Dacin�s(1997) scale, therefore using a pre-defined concep-

tualization of corporate social responsibilities. This

procedure, followed by other researchers in mar-

keting (Berens et al., 2005; Lichtenstein et al.,

2004), implies that consumers� evaluations of CSR

when marking the items of the scale may not de-

scribe consumers� own definition of these responsi-

bilities (Maignan, 2001). Future research should then

carry out a preliminary study to analyze the types of

social responsibilities consumers consider when

evaluating a particular company or industry. With

that preliminary study, research findings will always

refer to corporate social responsibilities consistent

with those consumers use to evaluate that company

or industry.

Note

1 Questionnaire pretest showed that it was easier for

the respondents to position themselves on a 0–10 scale

than on a 1–7 scale.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Domenech Mele, Car-

men Valor, and two anonymous reviewers for many

helpful comments and suggestions. They also thank

Fundacion Cajamurcia for its generous support. This re-

search was funded by a grant SEJ2005-09358/ECON

from the Spanish Ministry of Science & Technology

and FEDER.


References

Aaker, D. A. and K. L. Keller: 1990, �Consumer Evalu-

ations of Brand Extension�, Journal of Marketing 54(1),

27–41.

Ahearne, M., C. B. Bhattacharya and T. W. Gruen: 2005,

�Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Com-

pany Identification: Expanding the Role of Rela-

tionship Marketing�, Journal of Applied Psychology 90(3),

574.

Albert, S. and D. A. Whetten: 1985, �Organizational

identity�, in L. L. Cummings and B. M. y Staw (eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press, Green-

wich, CT), pp. 263–295.

Albinger, H. S. and S. J. Freeman: 2000, �Corporate

Social Performance and Attractiveness as an Employer

to Different Job Seeking Populations�, Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 28(3), 243–253.

Ashforth, B. E. and F. A. Mael: 1989, �Social Identity

Theory and the Organization�, The Academy of Man-

agement Rewiew 14(1), 20–39.

Ashforth, B. E.: 1998, �Becoming: How Does the Pro-

cess of Identification Unfold?�, in D. A. Whetten and

P. C. Godfrey (eds.), Identity in Organizations: Building

Theory through Conversations (Sage, Thousand Oaks,

CA), pp. 213–222.

Backhaus, K. B., B. A. Stone and K. Heiner: 2002,

�Exploring the Relationship Between Corporate Social

Performance and Employer Attractiveness�, Business

and Society 41(3), 292–318.

Bagozzi, R. and Yi: 1988, �On the Evaluation of Struc-

tural Equation Models�, Journal of the Academy of Mar-

keting Science 16(1), 74–94.

Balazs, A. L.: 1990, �Value Congruency: The Case of the

Socially Responsible Firm�, Journal of Business Research

22(2), 171–181.

Barnes, J. G.: 1997, �Closeness, Strength, and Satisfaction:

Examining the Nature of Relationships Between

Providers of Financial Services and Their Retail Cus-

tomers�, Psychology and Marketing 14(18), 765–790.

Barnes, J. G.: 2003, �Establishing Meaningful Customer

Relationships: Why Some Companies and Brands

Mean More to Their Customer�, Managing Service

Quality 13(3), 178–186.

Beckmann, S. C., A. S. Christensen and A. G.

Christensen: 2001, �Myths of Nature and Environ-

mentally Responsible Behaviours: An Exploratory

Study�, Proceedings of the 30th European Marketing

Academy Conference, Bergen.

Belk, R. W.: 1988, �Possession and the Extended Self �,Journal of Consumer Research 15, 139–168.

Berens, G., C. B. M. van Riel and G. H. van

Bruggen : 2005, �Corporate Associations and Con-

sumer Product Responses: The Moderating Role of

Corporate Brand Dominance�, Journal of Marketing

69(3), 35–48.

Bergami, M. and R. P. Bagozzi: 2000, �Self-Categoriza-

tion, Affective Commitment and Group Self- Esteem

as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the Organiza-

tion�, The British Journal of Social Psychology 39, 555–577.

Berscheid, E. and E. H. Walster: 1969, Interpersonal

Attraction (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.).

Berscheid, E., M. Snyder and A. M. Omoto: 1989, �The

Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the

Closeness of Interpersonal Relationships�, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 57, 792–807.

Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen: 2003, �Consumer–

Company Identification: A Framework for Under-

standing Consumers� Relationships with Companies�,Journal of Marketing 67(2), 76–88.

Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen: 2004, �Doing Better at

Doing Good: When, Why and How Consumers

Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives�, California

Management Review 47(1), 9–24.

Bhattacharya, C. B., H. Rao and M. A. Glynn: 1995,

�Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Inves-

tigation of Its Correlates Art Museum Members�,Journal of Marketing 59(4), 46–57.

Bigne, E., R. Chumpitaz, L. Andreu and V. Swaen:

2005, �Percepcion de la responsabilidad social cor-

porativa : Un analisis cross-cultural�, Universia Business

Review 5, 14–27.

Boulding, W. and A. Kirmani: 1993, �A Consumer-Side

Experimental Examination of Signaling Theory: Do

Consumers Perceive Warranties as Signals of Quality?�,Journal of Consumer Research 20(1), 111–123.

Boulstridge, E. and M. Carrigan: 2000, �Do Consumers

Really Care About Corporate Responsibility? High-

lighting the Attitude-Behaviour Gap�, Journal of Com-

munication Management 4(4), 355–368.

Bretz, R. D., R. A. Ash and G. F. Dreher: 1989, �Do

People Make the Place?: An examination of the

Attraction-Selection-Attrition Hypothesis�, Personnel

Psychology 42, 561–581.

Brewer, M. B.: 1991, �The Social Self: On Being the

Same and Different at the Same Time�, Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin 17(5), 475–495.

Brown, T. J. and P. A. Dacin: 1997, �The Company and

the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer

Product Responses�, Journal of Marketing 61(1), 68–84.

Byrne, D.: 1971, The Attraction Paradigm (Academic Press,

New York).


Chatman, J. A.: 1991, �Matching People and Organiza-

tions: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting

Firms�, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 459–484.

Cialdini, R. B., R. J. Borden, A. Thorne, M. R. Walker,

S. Freeman and L. R. Sloan: 1976, �Basking in Re-

flected Glory: Three (football) Field Studies�, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 34, 366–375.

Colgate, M. and N. Alexander: 1998, �Banks, Retailers

and Their Customers: A Relationship Marketing

Perspective�, The International Journal of Bank Marketing

16(4), 144–168.

Creyer, E. H. and W. T. Ross, Jr.: 1997, �The Influence

of Firm Behavior on Purchase Intention: Do

Consumers Really Care About Business Ethics?�,Journal of Consumer Marketing 14(6), 421–432.

Czellar, S. and G. Palazzo: 2004, �The Impact of Per-

ceived Corporate Brand Values on Brand Preference:

An Exploratory Empirical Study�, Institut Universitaire

de Management International, 1–19.

Czepiel, J. A.: 1990, �Service Encounters and Service

Relationships: Implications for Research�, Journal of

Business Research 20(1), 13–21.

Davies, G., R. Chun and R. V. da Silva: 2001, �The

Personification Metaphor as a Measurement Approach

for Corporate Reputation�, Corporate Reputation Review

4(2), 113–127.

De Wulf, K., G. O. Schroder and D. Lacobucci: 2001,

�Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-

Country and Cross-Industry Exploration�, Journal of

Marketing 65(4), 33–50.

Decker, O. S.: 2004, �Corporate Social Responsibility

and Structural Change in Financial Services�, Manage-

rial Auditing Journal 19(6), 712–728.

Drumwright, M.: 1994, �Socially Responsible Organiza-

tional Buying: Environmental Concern as a Non-

economic Buying Criterion�, Journal of Marketing 58(3),

1–19.

Drumwright, M.: 1996, �Company Advertising with a

Social Dimension: The Role of Non-economic Cri-

teria�, Journal of Marketing 60(4), 71–87.

Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail: 1994,

�Organizational Images and Member Identification�,Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2), 239–263.

Ellen, P. S., D. J. Webb and L. A. Mohr: 2006, �Building

Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for

Corporate Socially Responsible Programs�, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science 34(2), 147–157.

Erez, M. and P. C. Earley: 1993, Culture, Self-identity and

Work (Oxford University Press, Nueva York).

Escalas, J. E. and J. R. Bettman: 2005, �Self-Construal,

Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning�, Journal of

Consumer Research 32(3), 378–391.

Fombrun, C. and M. Shanley: 1990, �What�s in a Name?

Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy�, Academy

of Management Journal 33(2), 233–258.

Forehand, M. R. and S. Grier: 2003, �When Is Honesty

the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent

on Consumer Skepticism�, Journal of Consumer Psy-

chology 13(3), 349–356.

Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker: 1981, �Evaluating Struc-

tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables

and Measurement Error�, Journal of Marketing Research

18(1), 39–50.

Fournier, S.: 1998, �Consumer and Their Brands:

Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Re-

search�, Journal of Consumer Research 24, 343–373.

Giacalone, R., K. Paul and C. Jurkiewicz: 2005, �Pre-

liminary Investigation into the Role of Positive

Psychology in Consumer Sensitivity to Corporate

Social Performance�, Journal of Business Ethics 58(4),

295–317.

Handelman, J. and S. Arnold: 1999, �The Role of Mar-

keting Actions With a Social Dimension: Appeals to

the Institutional Environment�, Journal of Marketing

63(3), 33–48.

Hogg, M. A. and D. Abrams: 1990, �Social Motivation,

Self Esteem and Social Identity�, in D. Abrams and

M. A. y Hogg (eds.), Social identity Theory: Constructive

and Critical Advances (Harvester/Wheatsheaf, London).

Jarvinen, R. and U. Lehtinen: 2003, �Options of Strategic

Decision Making in Services: Tech, Touch And

Customisation In Financial Services�, European Journal

of Marketing 37(5/6), 774–795.

Johnson, D. and K. Grayson: 2005, �Cognitive and

Affective Trust in Service Relationships�, Journal of

Business Research 58(4), 500–507.

Joreskog, K. and D. Sorbom: 2001, LISREL 8: User�sReference Guide (Lincolnwood, IL, Scientific Soft-

ware International).

Joyner, B. E. and D. Payne: 2002, �Evolution and

Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics

and Corporate Social Responsibility�, Journal of Business

Ethics 41, 297–311.

Judge, T. A. and R. D. Bretz: 1992, �Effect of Work

Values on Job Choice Decisions�, Journal of Applied

Psychology 77(3), 261–271.

Keltner, B.: 1995, �Relationship Banking and Competi-

tive Advantage: Evidence from US and Germany�,California Management Review 37, 45–71.

Kim, C. K., D. Han and S. B. Park: 2001, �The Effect

of Brand Personality and Brand Identification on

Brand Loyalty: Applying the Theory of Social

Identification�, Japanese Psychological Research 43(4),

195–206.


Klein, J. and H. Dawar: 2004, �Corporate Social

Responsibility and Consumers� Attributions and Brand

Evaluations in a Product-Harm Crisis�, International

Journal of Research in Marketing 21, 203–217.

Kramer, R.: 1993, �Cooperation and Organizational

Identification�, in J. K. Murnighan. (ed.), Social Psy-

chology in Organizations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ), pp. 244–269.

Kristof, A. L.: 1996, �Person–Organization Fit: An Inte-

grative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measure-

ment, and Implications�, Personnel Psychology 49(1),

1–49.

Kunda, Z.: 1999, Social Cognititon: Making Sense of People

(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

Levy, R.: 1999, Give and Take (Harvard Business School,

Press, Cambridge, MA).

Lichtenstein, D. R., M. E. Drumwright and B. M. Braig:

2004, �The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility

on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported

Nonprofits�, Journal of Marketing 68, 16–32.

Lund, M.: 1985, �The Development of Investment and

Commitment Scales for Predicting Continuity of

Personal relationships�, Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships 2, 3–23.

Mael, F. and B. E. Ashforth: 1992, �Alumni and Their

Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated

Model of Organizational Identification�, Journal of

Organizational Behavior 13(2), 103–123.

Maignan, I.: 2001, �Consumers� Perceptions of Corporate

Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Compari-

son�, Journal of Business Ethics 30(1), 57–72.

Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2004, �Corporate Social

Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Frame-

work�, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(1),

3–19.

McCracken, G.: 1986, �Culture and Consumption: A

Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement

of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods�, Journal

of Consumer Research 13, 71–84.

Mele, D., P. Debeljuh and M. C. Arruda: 2006, �Cor-

porate Ethical Policies in Large Corporations in

Argentina, Brazil and Spain�, Journal of Business Ethics

63(1), 21–38.

Menon, S. and B. E. Kahn: 2003, �Corporate Sponsor-

ships of Philanthropic Activities: When Do They

Impact Perception of Sponsor Brand?�, Journal of

Consumer Psychology 13(3), 316–327.

Mohr, L. A. and D. J. y Webb: 2005, �The Effects of

Corporate Social Responsibility and Price on Con-

sumer Responses�, The Journal of Consumer Affairs

39(1), 121–147.

Ogrizek, M.: 2002, �Forum Paper: The Effect of Cor-

porate Social Responsibility on the Branding of

Financial Services�, Journal of Financial Services Marketing

6(3), 215–228.

O�Reilly, C. A., III and J. Chatman: 1986, �Organiza-

tional Commitment and Psychological Attachment:

the Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Inter-

nalization on Prosocial Behavior�, Journal of Applied


Pratt, M. G.: 1998, �To Be or Not To Be: Central

Questions in Organizational Identification�, in D. A.

Whetten, and P. C. Godfrey (eds.), Identity in Orga-

nizations (Sage Publications), pp. 171–207.

Reichheld, F.: 1993, �Loyalty-Based Management�, Har-

vard Business Review 71(2), 64–73.

Roman, S. and S. Ruiz: 2005, �Relationship Outcomes of

Perceived Ethical Sales Behavior: The Customer�sPerspective�, Journal of Business Research 58(4), 439–445.

Rusbult, C. E.: 1983, �A Longitudinal Test of the

Investment Model: The Development (and Deterio-

ration) of Satisfaction and Commitment in Hetero-

sexual Involvements�, Journal of Personality and Social


Schneider, B.: 1987, �The People Make the Place�, Per-

sonnel Psychology 40(3), 437–453.

Schwalbe, M. L. and D. Mason-Schrock: 1996, �Identity

Work as Group Process�, in B. Markovsky, M. Lovaglia

and R. Simon (eds.), Advances in Group Processes

(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), vol. 13, pp. 115–149.

Scott, S. G. and V. R. Lane: 2000, �A Stakeholder Ap-

proach to Organizational Identity�, The Academy of

Management Rewiew 25(1), 43–62.

Sen, S. and C. B. Bhattacharya: 2001, �Does Doing Good

Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to

Corporate Social Responsibility�, Journal of Marketing

Research 38(2), 225–243.

Sheth, J. N. and A. Parvatiyar: 1995, �Relationship

Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and

Consequences�, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science 23(4), 255–271.

Smith, D. C. and C. W. Park: 1992, �The Effect of Brand

Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency�,Journal of Marketing Research 29(August), 296–313.

Smith, E. R. and D. M. Mackie: 2000, Social Psychology

(Courier, N.Y).

Srull, T. K. and R. S. Wyer, Jr.: 1989, �Person Memory

and Judgement�, Psychological Review 96(1), 58–83.

Stephens, D. L., R. P. Hill and K. Bergman: 1996,

�Enhancing The Consumer–Product Relationship:

Lessons From the QVC Home Shopping Channel�,Journal of Business Research 37(3), 193–202.

Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner: 1979, �An Intergrative

Theory of Intergroup Conflict�, in W. G. Austin and

S. Worchel (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup

Relations (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA).


Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner: 1986, �The Social Identity

Theory of Intergroup Behaviour�, in S. G. Worchel

and W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations

2nd edition (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), pp. 7–24.

Tajfel, H.: 1988, Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior

(University Press, Cambridge).

Tesser, A., M. Millar and J. Moore: 1988, �Some Affec-

tive Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflec-

tion Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close�,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(1), 49–64.

Tsoutsoura, M.: 2004, ,Corporate Social Responsibility

and Financial Performance�, Center for Responsible

Business. Working Paper Series. Paper 7. University

of California. http://www.repositories.cdlib.org/crb/

wps/7.

Turban, D. B. and D. W. Greening: 1997, �Corporate

Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness

to Prospective Employees�, Academy of Management

Journal 40(3), 658–672.

Turban, D. B. and T. L. Keon: 1993, �Organizational

Attractiveness: An Interactionist Perspective�, Journal of

Applied Psychology 78(2), 184–194.

Turner, J. C.: 1985, �Social Categorization and The Self-

Concept: A Social Cognitive Theory of Group

Behavior�, in E. J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in Group

Processes: Theory and Research, vol. 2, pp. 77–121.

Vallentin, S.: 2002, Corporate Social Responsibility and

Public Opinion. 6th International Conference on Cor-

porate Reputation, (Boston, MA).

Vitell, S. J. and J. Muncy: 1992, �Consumer Ethics: An

Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical

Judgments of the Final Consumer�, Journal of Business

Ethics 11, 585–597.

Vitell, S. J.: 2003, �Consumer Ethics Research: Review,

Synthesis and Suggestions for the Future�, Journal of

Business Ethics 43(1/2), 33–47.

Waddock, S. and N. Smith: 2000, �Corporate Social

Responsibility Audits: Doing Well by Doing Good�,Sloan Management Review 41(2), 75–83.

Webster, F. E., Jr.: 1975, �Determining the Characteristics

of the Socially Conscious Consumer�, Journal of Con-

sumer Research 3(2), 188–205.

Whetten, D. A. and P. C. Godfrey: 1998, Identity in

Organizations (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks).

Whitehouse, L.: 2006, �Corporate Social Responsibility:

Views from the Frontline�, Journal of Business Ethics

63(3), 279–296.

Winters, L. C.: 1988, �Does it Pay to Advertise to Hostile

Audiences with Corporate Advertising?�, Journal of

Advertising Research 28(3), 11–18.

Wright, P., S. Ferris, J. Hiller and M. Kroll: 1995,

�Competitiveness Through Management of Diversity:

Effects on Stock Price Valuation�, Academy of Man-

agement Journal 38, 272–287.

Longinos Marin and Salvador Ruiz

University of Murcia,

Murcia, 30100,

Spain

E-mail: [email protected]


i need you too_csr

Documents

corporate social responsibility

model specication supports

corporate social performance

corporate social responsibilities

perceived societal obligations

nancial services providers

csr associations reect

social identity theory