-
Corporate and consumersocial responsibility in the
food supply chainLouise Manning
Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK
AbstractPurpose The purpose is to analyse the interaction
between corporate social responsibility (CSR)strategies and
consumer social responsibility (CNSR) and then contribute to
theory-building bydeveloping an interaction model.
Design/methodology/approach The research included a literature
review and the developmentof a CSR/CNSR interaction model for the
food supply chain.
Findings CSR is an organo-centric response to a series of supply
chain drivers, which in acompetitive market promotes
corporate/product differentiation and more effective use of
resources.CSR is however of limited value to the organisation if
there is a lack of, or a change in, consumerengagement. Recent
economic drivers have influenced CNSR behaviour with the
consumerismcomponent rather than the caring component of CNSR
playing a lead role. However, this is not the casewith all food
products and CNSR can be a solo, product-centric purchasing
decision within theshopping basket. Organisations need to recognise
that their CSR activities must remain congruentwith CNSR in order
that they maintain or improve market share and customer
loyalty.
Originality/value This research is of academic value and of
value to policy makers andpractitioners in the food supply chain.
The results show that organisations need to consider theinfluence
of the nature of consumer social responsibility associated with
their products and services inthe development and refinement of CSR
strategies.
Keywords Corporate, Social, Responsibility, Corporate social
responsibility, Social responsibility,Consumers, Food industry
Paper type General review
1. Corporate social responsibilityCorporate social
responsibility (CSR) can be considered as a concept defining
howcompanies integrate social and environmental concerns in their
business operationsand how they interact with stakeholders on a
voluntary basis (EC, 2010). Spence andBourlakis (2009) argued that
the UK Government discourse on CSR focused onvoluntary practices
rather than government intervention namely that
corporateresponsibility (CR) is the voluntary actions that an
organisation can take, over andabove compliance with minimum legal
requirements, to address both its owncompetitive interests and the
interests of the wider society. Whilst the concept of CSRmay be
deemed as voluntary action at an organisational level many of the
facets ofCSR in the food supply chain address minimal legislative
compliance, for example,food safety, animal welfare, environmental
protection and employment law andemployee health and safety
(Lindgreen and Hingley, 2009; Lindgreen et al., 2009).Therefore,
legislative compliance as the foundation for CSR is not in itself a
voluntaryaction it is those additional actions and activities over
and above this complianceelement that provide additional value and
benefit to stakeholders. Any group orindividual who can affect, or
is affected by, the achievements of the organisations
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
9
British Food JournalVol. 115 No. 1, 2013
pp. 9-29q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070701311289858
-
objectives can be described as a stakeholder (Neville et al.,
2005 citing Freeman, 1984).Stakeholders can be primary
(internalised within the supply chain) or secondaryi.e. external to
the supply chain ( Jones, 2005). Neville et al. (2005) determined
thestakeholders that need to be considered by an organisation as
being shareholders (andowners), consumers, employees, business
partners, governments, non-governmentalorganisations including
media, local communities (individuals and groups), and thenatural
environment. It is also important to consider other external
stakeholders suchas investors, credit rating agencies and financial
institutions. Bhattacharyya (2010)suggested that as CSR activities,
unlike many other organisational activities, influenceboth internal
as well as external stakeholders this brings a strategic
perspective toCSR.
Manning and Baines (2004a) asserted that the interest in CSR
benchmarking forsocial and environmental performance has led to an
increase in guidelines and codes ofpractice and also to social
accountability being a pre-requisite for the food supply chainand
more specifically, supply chain assurance standards. These private
standardshave been developed to create competitive advantage for
their owners as they seek todifferentiate their brands in a global
marketplace. Porter and Kramer (2006 cited byHolme, 2010) also
connected competitive advantage to CSR. They proposed that whilston
the one hand CSR can be seen as being a cost, a constraint or a
charitable deed onthe other hand it can be viewed as a source of
opportunity, innovation and competitiveadvantage. CSR can become an
instrument of change in an organisations values,behaviours, and
performance (Holme, 2010). Indeed, the author determined that
withincommercial organisations CSR activities which support and
develop the competitiveuniqueness of a business or product offer
considerable opportunities to secure a placein the market and
argued that organisations are still developing their CSR
relatedvalues during a period of global recession.
2. Corporate social performanceCSR standards can contain both
tangible and intangible benefits for stakeholders.Manning et al.
(2006) argued that in order for CSR policy to deliver
quantifiablebenefits, key performance indicators (KPI) need to be
developed. Furthermore, theydetermined that an organisation should
review its ethical performance, identifypotential areas for
improvement and then communicate this back to their shareholdersand
other stakeholders. Wood (2010) described this concept as corporate
socialperformance (CSP) i.e. that there were a set of descriptive
categorisations of businessactivity, which focused on the impacts
and outcomes for society, stakeholders and theorganisation itself.
Furthermore, Wood (2010) asserted that relevant CSR outcomeswere
determined by the organisations structural linkages, both general
and specificwhich connect it to information, issues and relevant
stakeholders, and ultimatelydemonstrated the level of corporate
social responsiveness. The key elements of CSPhave been defined in
terms of principles, processes and outcomes and finally theimpacts
of social performance (Figure 1).
This approach requires that both CSP aspects and impacts are
measured in order todetermine an organisations actual performance.
Wood (2010) further outlined therelationship between corporate
social performance (CSP) and financial planning (FP) interms of the
CSP-FP interaction. Jones (2005) proposed that stakeholder
theorychallenged the concept that organisations exist purely to
serve the needs of
BFJ115,1
10
-
shareholders. Wood and Jones (1995) determined that stakeholders
were involved infour areas of the CSP-FP interaction:
(1) Stakeholders are the source of expectations about what
constitutes desirableand undesirable business performance. Internal
and external stakeholders willinfluence directly the mission
statement of the organisation and then theinter-relating aims and
objectives that are developed.
(2) Stakeholders, especially internal stakeholders, experience
the effect of corporatebehaviour i.e. they are the recipients of
corporate strategy, actions and output.
(3) Stakeholders evaluate how well the organisation has met
their expectationsand/or how organisational strategy has affected
the groups and organisationsin the external business environment.
These evaluations can be quantitative(i.e. measureable) qualitative
(relate to perceptions and beliefs) or a combinationof both.
(4) Stakeholders act upon their particular interests,
expectations, experiencesand/or evaluations (Wood, 2010). This is
especially true of consumers in thefood supply chain.
Determining the level of acceptable risk with regard to food
safety provides anexample of CSP-FP cost-benefit analysis. Each
stakeholder will be willing to acceptdifferent levels, and be
prepared to demand or pay for differing degrees, of riskmitigation.
Nestle (2003) determined that food safety can be assessed by either
ascience based or a value based approach (Manning and Baines,
2004b). Nestle (2003)argued that decisions about acceptability
involve perceptions, opinions, and values, aswell as science.
Whilst, quantitative science-based risk analysis balances risk
against
Figure 1.CSP Model
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
11
-
benefit and cost; qualitative value-based risk balances risk
against dread and outrage.Neither method of risk assessment is
mutually exclusive; however the approach usedeither individually,
or collectively by stakeholders will act as a driver in
determininghow effectively an organisation implements specific food
safety strategies.Stakeholders will, depending on their specific
expectations, sit at different points onthe
quantitative/semi-quantitative/qualitative risk assessment spectrum
with theconsumer usually at the most qualitative point whilst other
stakeholders take a morequantitative approach. It is therefore
crucial for organisations to consider the corporateled CSR strategy
and how it interacts with consumer initiated social
responsibility(CNSR) The aim of this paper is to examine the
CSR/CNSR interaction and to determinehow this interaction has been
addressed within existing CSR models and could beincluded in an
alternative model.
3. The influence of CSR/CNSR on brand valueThe degree to which
the organisation meets individual and collective
stakeholderexpectations will impact ultimately on the CSP-FP
interaction and influence brandvalue and equity. Stakeholder
expectations vary according to the nature of thestakeholder (Figure
2). Shareholder expectations surround the performance of theshare
price and the dividends received as well as the robustness of the
organisationscredit rating. Consumers and supply chain customers
will have expectationsconcerning legislative compliance, supply
relationships and price (Manning, 2007).Brand value therefore is
created through the interface between the brand owner andmultiple
stakeholders and minimising the impact of negative relationships
whilstpromoting the value of positive relationships ( Jones,
2005).
Macrae and Uncles (1997) defined a brand as a valuable yet
intangible asset that ismainly used as a differentiation device,
whilst to brand users a brand may create anemotional bond (Fan,
2005). Brands cannot only represent the products and services
anorganisation provides, but also the culture of the organisation
itself (Manning, 2007).Strong brands can also create organisational
focus and need to be led rather thanbeing managed (Macrae and
Uncles, 1997). Fan (2005) argued that the brand value isoften
defined in terms of economic rather than ethical measures of
performance, but theinherent brand identity is created through the
development of added value components( Johnson and Peppas, 2003).
These components can have both tangible(product/service quality,
price, KPI) and intangible elements. Successful brandingrequires
the customer (consumer) to engage with the intangible assets as
well as thetangible ones (Manning, 2007). Bhattacharyya (2010)
concurred arguing that strategicCSR activities create both tangible
and intangible strategic resources, increasevisibility and extends
organisational reputation to a wider range of
constituencies.Therefore, effective CSR strategies, and activities
are those directed at improving bothstakeholder relations and
social welfare (Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010; Vallaster et
al.,2012).
Product differentiation and organisational reputation are key
elements of branding(Goldsmith et al., 2003). Indeed, it has been
argued that in a market environment whereproduct differentiation
becomes more difficult, many organisations are using theircorporate
character to build a brand identity ( Jones, 2005) with the
resultant brandvalue becoming closely related to overall
organisational behaviour, performance and tothe influence not just
of customers and consumers, but all stakeholders. The
intangible
BFJ115,1
12
-
value of the brand has been included in profit and loss
statements of some Europeanorganisations since 2001 (Jones, 2005).
The Farm Foundation (2004) proposed thatEuropean retailers have
used private label brands to indicate quality and provideservice
differentiation. This has lead to their considerable control over
themanufacturing and processing sectors of the supply chain. In
contrast, they arguedthat the United States (US) retail sector has
lagged in leveraging the private brand as amarket tool.
Global governance and the interrelationship between foreign
direct investment(FDI), trade, credit rating and sustainable
development are key dynamics to CSR policyand the demands of both
internal stakeholder and those of external stakeholders formore
sustainable investments, compliance with internationally accepted
standards andagreed instruments (Manning and Baines, 2004b). Aabo
(2004) identified this conflict incorporate governance between
meeting shareholder requirements and the need tosatisfy the varied
demands of a range of stakeholders. George (2003) determined
thatthe pressure on corporate executives to increase their stock
prices and shareholder
Figure 2.Identifying key
stakeholder expectations
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
13
-
value in the short-term has caused them to lose sight of how
lasting shareholder valueis actually created. He argued that an
organisation needed to be managed to meet theneeds of all
stakeholders rather than making decisions based solely on
short-termconsiderations of shareholder value. He suggested that
corporate governance is aboutmediating varied interests and
concluded that organisations that focus on theircustomers and
empower their employees to meet customer needs will
inevitablyprovide greater growth in shareholder value. CSR strategy
should therefore define theorganisations visions, governance,
organisational structure and management systemsand propose
measureable organisational objectives and targets. Early (2002)
suggestedthat the moral and ethical standing of an industry is a
reflection of the moral andethical values of the executives who
lead the organisations that constitute the industry.Authentic
organisations are seen as real, genuine, reliable and trustworthy
(Van denBosch et al., 2005). The authors proposed that the more
transparent an organisationappears to be the more likely its
stakeholders will rely on its disclosures. This includesthe
communication of corporate vision and leadership, financial
performance, socialresponsibility, workplace environment and the
benefits of the products and servicesthe organisation provided
(Manning, 2007). The degree of influence of stakeholders
isvariable, but the evolution of economic globalisation and
information technology hasled to a change in society (Leicht,
1998). The author asserted that the resultant socialcapital,
whereby individuals co-operate for a common purpose, is an
essentialcompetitive advantage within society, but it could also be
argued that this is true atboth organisational and supply chain
levels.
Carroll and Shabana (2010) also addressed this social element
and determined thatCSR is not a new idea, but has evolved from the
1950s, developing to a concept whichcan be said to have four
dimensions namely economic, legal, ethical
anddiscretionary/philanthropic (citing Carroll, 1979, 1991). Jones
et al. (2005) stated thatCSR is focused on organisations being an
integral part of society and as such they havethe potential to make
a positive contribution to social goals and aspirations. Amaeshiet
al. (2007) concluded that CSR can be at odds with a capitalist
approach, asmulti-national corporations are challenged by the
global interaction of their supplychains and being able to assure
the practices of all the individuals and organisationsinvolved.
They further argued that the potential for irresponsible supplier
practicesputs pressure on these organisations to protect their
brands by adopting responsibilityfor assessing and controlling the
practices of their suppliers. Stigliz (2006) stated
thatcorporations have becoming adept at image manipulation, and
have learned to speak infavour of social responsibility even while
they continue to evade it. He concluded thatself-regulated CSR is
not a strong enough mechanism on its own to drive businessethics
and that such strategies must operate within regulatory boundaries.
Du et al.(2010) concurred arguing that CSR efforts are driven not
just by ideological thinkingthat corporations can be a powerful and
positive force for social change, but more bythe multi-faceted
business returns that corporations can potentially reap from
theirCSR endeavours. They suggested that CSR communication needed
not only to addressgeneral stakeholder awareness, but more
specifically consumer awareness whilstminimising stakeholder
scepticism. This scepticism is based on the stakeholdersperception
of an organisations motives and whether they are seen to be
extrinsic i.e. anapproach to increase profitability or intrinsic a
motive which is based on a coreorganisational value (Du et al.,
2010). A further term, corporate philanthropy, has been
BFJ115,1
14
-
described as the action when a corporation voluntarily donates a
portion of itsresources to a societal cause (Ricks and Williams,
2005). Ricks and Williams arguedthat the primary goal of
philanthropy is the meeting of strategic corporate objectivesrather
than altruism. Brnn and Vrioni (2001) proposed that cause related
marketing(CRM) will increase loyalty and build corporate reputation
by attracting consumers tomake a difference in society through
their purchasing choices. However theydetermined that the impact on
organisational image of CRM campaigns depends on thedegree of
consumer scepticism and how consumers perceive the net benefit to
theorganisation and the reasons for an organisations engagement in
cause-relatedprogrammes. Research by van den Brink et al. (2006)
suggested that consumers doperceive a significantly enhanced level
of brand loyalty as a result of strategic CRM.However, they
identified a caveat because consumers must perceive
long-termorganisational commitment and CRM is more effective with a
low involvementproduct. Conversely the authors concluded that
tactical CRM campaigns do not have asignificant impact on brand
loyalty due to consumer scepticism. This recognises theimpact of
CNSR, which has both positive and negative effects on supply
chaindynamics. Therefore, in order for such CRM activity to have a
direct impact oncorporate and brand loyalty such behaviour must be
embedded in a long term,authentic, organisational strategy.
4. Social capitalStigliz (2006) proposed that in an
unconstrained market economy private incentives arenot always
aligned with social costs and benefits and if this occurs then the
pursuit ofself-interest itself will not deliver social benefits. He
argued that efficient economies aredriven by organisations that
address the impact of their actions on their employees,
theenvironment and the communities in which they operate. The
global food supply chaincan be seen as an interconnected system
with a large variety of complex relationships,reflected in the
market place by the formation of Food Supply Chain Networks
(FSCNs)via alliances, horizontal and vertical cooperation, forward
and backward integration inthe supply chain, information flow and
continuous innovation (Van der Vorst, 2006citing Beulens et al.,
2004). Each supply chain partner has access to, or owns,
specificcapital assets which are utilised at stages in the food
supply chain as part of aninput-output relationship to deliver the
ultimate products and services. Organisationalor indeed whole
supply chain assets can be subdivided into natural, physical,
financial,human and social capital. Natural, or environmental
capital, is the level of naturalresources and environmental assets
(Penn, 2010). Natural capital is finite and includesresource assets
such as fresh water, soil, minerals, air, flora, fauna and other
naturalraw material resources. Many natural resources can be
recycled, but ultimately theyare mutually exclusive, can only be
used by one person or organisation at a time andavailability can
limit organisational development or even viability. In this
context,natural resources can be seen to be the finite foundation
of the food supply chain.Financial capital and physical capital is
sourced by the supply chain partners withhuman capital being
created by empowering people through the increasing skills
andcapabilities (Leicht, 1998).
Leicht determined that social capital is created when networks
are developedbetween individuals or groups thereby facilitating the
achievement of common goals.Social capital is the resources, based
on trust, that multiply in social networks leading
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
15
-
to co-operation among individuals, and collaboration between
institutions andcommunity organisations (Muthuri et al., 2006).
Social capital is related to the capacityof supply chain actors to
collaborate and interrelate and has three main constituentstrust,
norms and networks. Social capital is fluid rather than fixed and
provides theopportunity to differentiate those organisations that
seek to mitigate the negativeimpact of their operational activities
and can as a result reduce corporate risk andultimately add value
to the corporate or product brand. Effective management of socialor
environmental risk assists an organisation to minimise economic
burden bylowering the cost of accessing capital, reducing delay in
project completion, andensuring resource availability in order to
maximise operational performance(Bhattacharyya, 2010; Hingley,
2010; Sodano et al., 2008).
As global and local markets and consumer expectations continue
to evolve so toowill the CSR organisational models employed.
Strategy is the art of creating value(Normann and Ramirez, 2008).
Indeed, they proposed that strategy provided thenecessary
intellectual frameworks, conceptual models, and governing ideas
that allowan organisation to identify opportunities for bringing
value to its customers at a profit.Historically, value has been
created in terms of defined product attributes or
specifiedservices, but the authors argued that an interactive
strategy will involve a range ofstakeholders who will co-produce
value. For an organisation to add value throughsocial capital there
must be motivation, opportunity and the ability to take advantageof
the opportunities afforded. Stigliz (2006) argued that whilst
exploitation of naturalresources is a key part of the global model,
this has lead to failures in resource richdeveloping nations.
Further, he suggested that TNC need better incentives in order
tominimise the impact of their activities on the environment i.e.
for their activities to besustainable and/or be forced to pay the
true cost of their environmental impact.
5. Sustainability and CSR modelsSustainability has been defined
in many ways, but can be described as offering thepotential for
reducing long-term risks associated with resource depletion,
fluctuationsin energy costs, product liabilities, and pollution and
waste management (Shrivastava,1995). Helms (2004) described three
elements of sustainable development: economy,society and ecology.
Carter and Rogers (2008) proposed that organisations that
aredependent upon key external resources can improve their economic
sustainabilitythrough vertical coordination in supply chains. The
development of a sustainableagriculture and food system must be an
essential part of long term economic andenvironmental planning with
a view to delivering global food security (Francis andVan Wart,
2009). Rana et al. (2009) introduced the notion of corporate
responsibility(CR) with CSR as a sub-element (Figure 3).
Furthermore, the authors argued that CR incorporated the social,
economic andenvironmental strands of sustainable development and
provided a holistic approachfor organisations to understand the
issues involved. This approach focused ondeveloping corporate
strategy with the effective use of capital assets and
profitabilityat its core. Although corporate financial
responsibility (CFR) has not been discussed inthis paper it is an
inherent part of overall CR with CSR and corporate
environmentalresponsibility (CER) as supporting elements. CR is
driven by corporate riskmanagement and effective risk mitigation
wherever possible. Maloni and Brown (2006)developed a framework for
CSR applications in the food chain with eight categories:
BFJ115,1
16
-
animal welfare, biotechnology, community, environment,
fairtrade, health and safety,labour, and procurement. This model
combines the elements described by Rana et al.(2009) as CSR and CER
into the totality of CSR. Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen
(2009)concluded that practising CSR in supply chains required the
embedding of CSR in theorganisation, including subsidiaries abroad
and offshore suppliers and that it shouldaddress employee training
and sharing of experience, positive incentives for suppliersthrough
long-term contracts and orders, and regular auditing of
suppliersperformance. Further reviews have been undertaken of CSR
models (Macon et al.,2008, 2009, 2010). Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen
(2009) sub-divided supply chain CSRinto four key elements:
knowledge enhancing mechanisms, knowledge controllingmechanisms,
firm-specific assets and corporate history. Bhattacharyya (2010)
outlinedthe benefits of strategic CSR activities (Figure 4) and
determined that once theconstructs are operationalised, they could
be used as a guiding framework bypracticing CSR managers to better
comprehend strategic CSR initiatives and designnew initiatives.
Spence and Bourlakis (2009) argued that CSR was an inadequate
concept forcapturing the necessary level of social responsibility
for the whole supply chain.Indeed, they suggested a new approach,
supply chain responsibility (SCR), whichconsidered the supply chain
as a whole and its response to issues beyond economic,technical and
legal requirements in order to be able to address social
andenvironmental benefits. They proposed an intervening stage of
corporate socialwatchdog (CSW) with the retailer in this central
role determining both policy andcontext of responsibility. However,
they did not include CNSR as a driver of socialresponsibility.
Spence and Bourlakis (2009) proposed that SCR encompassed:
achain-wide commitment to achieving social (and environmental)
benefits; thelegitimacy and possibility of all links in the chain
to have a voice; a genuinepartnership approach; and an
acknowledgement of different approaches to ethics bydifferent
organisational forms within the supply chain. In order for SCR to
beembedded in the supply chain this approach required all actors in
the food supplychain to be committed to the realisation of
economic, social and environmentalmilestones through the supply
chain as an entity rather than by the strategic goals ofindividual
organisations. However, ultimately it is the role of consumer
ethics that
Figure 3.Five notions of sustainable
development incorporations
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
17
-
dominates the chain. If the consumer, as a supply chain
stakeholder, is unprepared topay for the cost of environmental
protection or animal welfare standards then theproduct will not be
accepted. The models discussed are summarised (Table I) and
havebeen developed primarily, but not exclusively, to identify,
manage and where possiblemitigate food supply chain risks for
individual organisations, TNCs and supply chainclusters rather than
to focus specifically on CNSR. Bhattacharyya (2010) included
aproduct and business differentiation element to their model, in
addition to economicelements, and Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen
(2009) included a requirement forknowledge management but the
interface with consumers is not formally addressed.
Emerging challenges such as increasing global population,
economic pressures,limits on fresh water and fossil fuel supplies
and rising food prices will lead to anincreased corporate focus on
the role of CSR in delivering supply chain stability andreducing
the risk of supply chain failure. Strugatch (2011) concluded that
theemergence of sustainability as a kind of CSR, and reputation
management and brandbuilding strategies have underpinned the role
of CSR. Lacey et al. (2010) in theirresearch on the views of
corporate leaders stated that of:
. Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) 96 per cent believed that
sustainability issuesshould be fully integrated into the strategy
and operations of a company (upfrom 72 per cent in 2007);
. CEOs 93 per cent believed that sustainability issues will be
critical to the futuresuccess of their business;
. CEOs 91 per cent reported that their company will employ new
technologies(e.g. renewable energy, energy efficiency, information
and communicationtechnologies) to address sustainability issues
over the next five years;
Figure 4.Strategic CSR Activities
BFJ115,1
18
-
Car
roll
and
Sh
aban
a(2
010)
An
der
sen
and
Sk
joet
t-L
arse
n(2
009)
Ran
aetal.(
2009
)M
alon
ian
dB
row
n(2
006)
Bh
atta
char
yy
a(2
010)
Fou
rd
imen
sion
sF
our
dim
ensi
ons
Fou
rd
imen
sion
sE
igh
td
imen
sion
sM
ult
i-d
imen
sion
alE
con
omic
Fir
m-s
pec
ific
asse
tsT
rip
leb
otto
mli
ne;
Fiv
eca
pit
als
and
nat
ura
lca
pit
alC
ost
lead
ersh
ip;
Su
stai
nab
leco
mp
etit
ive
adv
anta
ge;
Pro
du
ctd
iffe
ren
tiat
ion
;P
rese
nt
bu
sin
ess;
Str
ateg
icre
sou
rce;
Gen
erat
ion
ofb
enefi
ts;
New
bu
sin
ess
opp
ortu
nit
y/
ben
efit;
New
bu
sin
ess;
New
pro
du
ct/p
roce
ss;
New
pro
du
ct/m
ark
etop
por
tun
ity
Eth
ical
;D
iscr
etio
nar
y/
ph
ilan
thro
pic
;L
egal
Cor
por
ate
his
tory
Cor
por
ate
resp
onsi
bil
ity
(CF
R,
CS
R,
CE
R);
Cor
por
ate
citi
zen
ship
An
imal
wel
fare
;B
iote
chn
olog
y;
Com
mu
nit
y;
En
vir
onm
ent;
Fai
rtra
de;
Hea
lth
and
safe
ty;
Lab
our
and
Hu
man
rig
hts
;an
dP
rocu
rem
ent
En
han
ced
env
iron
men
tal
sen
siti
vit
y;
Soc
io-e
con
omic
incl
usi
ven
ess
Kn
owle
dg
een
han
cin
gm
ech
anis
ms;
Kn
owle
dg
eco
ntr
olli
ng
mec
han
ism
s
Inn
ovat
ion
Table I.Key elements of CSR andsustainable development
models
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
19
-
. CEOs 72 per cent cited brand, trust and reputation as one of
the top threefactors driving them to take action on sustainability
issues. Revenue growth andcost reduction was second with 44 per
cent; and
. CEOs 58 per cent identified consumers as the most important
stakeholder groupthat will impact on the way they manage societal
expectations. Employees weresecond with 45 per cent.
This research highlighted the need for management behaviour
within organisations,indeed whole supply chains, to be underpinned
by an understanding of the dynamicsof CNSR. So, how does CNSR drive
the supply chain?
6. Consumer social responsibilityThe use of CSR initiatives to
influence consumers and differentiate product offeringshas become
quite common (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). They utilise CSR as a
pushmechanism in the supply chain from the organisation to the
consumer, however thereis also a pull mechanism at play. The second
CSR is CNSR. Consumers, through theirpurchases and consumption of
products, are the final judges of corporations behaviour(Russell
and Russell, 2010). Indeed, they argued that consumer purchases
oftentranscended product value and reflected how consumers
perceived the value to thecommunity of the company producing the
product. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001)suggested that there are both
company-specific and consumer specific factors involvedin the CNSR
dynamic and a major factor is consumer perception of the degree
ofcongruence between themselves and the organisation. Yates (2009)
stated that 58 percent of consumers thought that companies
pretended to be green just to charge higherprices and that to gain
customer confidence green claims required clarity, credibilityand
comparability elements. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) identified that
the magnitude ofthe positive associations stemming from a social
initiative depended on the consumersperception of the organisation,
rather than simply the act itself i.e. consumersdifferentiate
between an organisation doing ethical things and an organisation
actingethically. They proposed that consumer engagement with CSR is
influenced byperceived fit (congruence of corporate mission and
social initiative), perceivedcorporate motive (social centred
versus profit centred) and the timing of thecommunication (reactive
vs proactive) with fit being considered as the perceived
linkbetween a cause and the firms product line, brand image,
position, and/or targetmarket (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006 citing
Varadarajan and Menon, 1988).Therefore,low-fit would generate a
negative dynamic and conversely high-fit a positiveinteraction
underpinning where an organisation sits in their marketplace
andultimately will impact on brand equity. The perceived corporate
motive i.e. whethertheir CSR strategy is primarily motivated
through driving profit or is socially basedwill influence the
corporate: consumer inter-relationship. Studies of consumer
attitudeto corporate support of causes in the 1990s (Table II)
showed that consumers are likelyto switch to brands that claim to
help a cause. The positive fit attitudes were however,less in the
UK compared to the US. Research by Becker-Olsen et al. (2006)
concludedthat greater than 80 per cent of respondents believed
organisations should engage insocial initiatives and 76 per cent
felt those initiatives would benefit organisations.Furthermore in
the same research 52 per cent of respondents stated that they
would
BFJ115,1
20
-
boycott organisations that had acted irresponsibly if reasonable
alternatives wereavailable.
The term CNSR has been defined as the conscious and deliberate
choice to makecertain consumption choices based on personal and
moral beliefs (Devinney et al.,2011). The authors argued that there
are two basic elements firstly an ethicalcomponent relating to the
perception of an organisations CSP and productperformance and
secondly a consumerism component that is expressed in terms
ofpurchasing behaviour. They concluded that CNSR is a factor that
is often overlooked incurrent corporate CSR initiatives. The CNSR
dynamic is complex. CNSR is often issuespecific, e.g. organic, or
fair-trade criteria so one CSR parameter may be of interest toonly
a sub-set of the consumer market. Information regarding this
individual issue willalso influence the CNSR dynamic. The
information could be provided by theorganisation, food supply chain
or by other stakeholders, such as the media, causerelated groups or
the social circles in which consumers interact. A further influence
isthe cost of caring about the specific issue. However, consumers
will not sacrificefunctional product features for lesser, but more
socially acceptable ones. Furthermore,there must be a real
perceived incentive to change. Consumer engagement is alsoembedded
in cultural rationales (Devinney et al., 2011). The IGD (2007)
argued thatincreased disposable income has meant that shoppers are
used to greater foodaffordability, and as a result food has begun
to provide an emotional as well asfunctional role in consumers
lives i.e. moving from a basic need to having a role
inself-actualisation.
In 2001, Which? undertook a survey in the UK to determine the
key considerationsof those purchasing food (Which?, 2005).
Consumers stated that taste, quality, safetyand price i.e.
functional features were the most important factors. The Food
StandardsAgency (FSA) also surveyed consumer attitudes to a range
of food issues (Which?,2005). The results indicated that concern on
issues such as the conditions in whichlivestock were raised,
antibiotic levels in meat and the feed given to livestock
wasidentified by between 39 per cent and 41 per cent of
respondents. Duffy et al. (2005)undertook consumer research in
July/August 2003 which suggested that whilst manyconsumers were
interested in food production issues, the fragmented
communicationmessages that they received was not giving them a
clear reason to consider theimplications of their purchases for the
British farming industry, animal welfare and theenvironment. The
level of consumer interest shown in the Duffy study was muchhigher
with regard to livestock production issues than in the FSA study
but alsoidentified a distinct group of consumers (between 13.3 per
cent and 27.3 per cent) whohad no interest in how the social
context of how their food was produced. The IGD
USA(%)
UK(%)
Awareness of companies supporting causes 79 68Likely to switch
to brands that claim to help a cause 76 86Likely to pay more for a
brand that supports a cause 54 45More likely to buy a product that
supports a cause 78 N/A
Source: Adapted from Brnn and Vrioni, 2001
Table II.Consumer attitudes to
corporate support ofcauses
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
21
-
(2007) in their research on consumer attitudes stated that only
10 per cent of consumersin their study identified themselves as
high welfare purchasers with 36 per cent statingthey did not buy
any high welfare foods. A study in 2011 (Defra, 2011) concluded
that26 per cent of consumers where unconcerned about animal welfare
issues with afurther 26 per cent being aware of animal welfare
issues, but not actively doinganything about the issue when
purchasing food. This could indicate a consumerismtrend between
2001 and 2011 in the studies examined. An example of CNSR in action
isorganic food sales in the UK, which have increased year on year
between the years1995 and 2007 with most rapid growth between 2004
and 2006 (Figure 5).
The IGD (2007) proposed that the growth in sales of organic,
free range and higherwelfare food was partly a response to this
decline in confidence as shoppers perceivegreater traceability in
organic rather than in their conventional counterparts.
Ofhouseholds 9 per cent buy organic products more than once a
fortnight whilst 23 percent of households buy organic products more
than once a month (Soil Association(SA), 2010). Purchases are
grouped in specific areas namely dairy products (33 per centof
total purchases), produce (26 per cent) and meat (5 per cent) by
volume of the organicmarket. Figure 5 highlights the impact of the
CNSR ethical driver on the market,followed by the influence of CNSR
consumerism with the drop in sales 2008/2009. Defra(2011) state
that there is no one clear reason why people eat organic food but
importantfactors are nutrition value, health reasons, environmental
concerns and animal welfare.However, sales of organic baby food
increased by 21 per cent in 2009; in the UKexceeding 100 million
for the first time (Soil Association (SA), 2010) showing that
forsome consumers the ethical component outweighed the consumerism
component oftheir purchasing. This interaction of ethical versus
consumerism drivers was notconsistent across all organic food
types. The breakdown of the sales variance between2008 and 2009 is
detailed (Table III) and clearly shows that the purchase choice was
notconsistent across the range of food products. One element could
be that the pricedifferential between certain categories of organic
and conventional products is smallerso relatively it costs less
care. This differential has been determined (Table IV). Itcost
comparatively more to care for produce and bakery products and this
has been
Figure 5.UK sales of organicproducts 1995-2009 in million
BFJ115,1
22
-
reflected in the sales performance between 2008 and 2009.
However, the pricedifferential was only 6 per cent for baby food
for the items examined.
The Defra report Attitudes and Behaviours around Sustainable
Food Purchasing(Defra, 2011) identified that when purchasing food
the major issues that influenced thedecision where what they need
to stock up on (83 per cent), any special offers that week(82 per
cent), ingredients for special meals (63 per cent), particular
household foodneeds (60 per cent), with buying the best quality
food at (43 per cent).
The model developed as a result of this research (Figure 6)
seeks to demonstrate theinteraction between CSR and CNSR with
specific emphasis on the information flow andwho is influenced by
the flow. As previously described consumers are influenced
byinformation from a variety of resources, but within the family
unit there may be anumber of influencers who impact on the
purchasing decision. Bourlakis andWeightman (2004) considered these
as being the:
. Initiator (person who suggests the idea of buying the
food);
. Influencer (person whose views influence the decision);
. Decider (person who decides on the whole or part of the buying
decision);
. Buyer (person who makes the purchase);
Segment Product share (%) Sales performance 2009 vs 2008 (%)
Dairy produce 33 26Produce 26 215Home cooking ingredients 6
1Fresh meat 5 223Confectionery 4 29Hot beverages 4 22Breakfast
cereals 4 29Chilled convenience foods 4 221Biscuits 3 219Bread and
bakery 3 240Alcohol 2 230Fresh poultry and game 2 228Savoury snacks
2 21Canned food 2 214
Source: Soil Association (2010)
Table III.Product share of the UK
organic market in 2009
Item Organic price () Conventional price ()
Differential as apercentage of
organic price (%)
Jar of baby food (vegetable based) 4.85 4.56 6Milk
(semi-skimmed) two pints 1.10 0.89 19Chicken breast fillets (Kg)
14.48 11.66 19Blueberries (Kg) 16.60 11.25 32White thick sliced
bread 1.40 0.80 43
Source: Tesco Direct (2011)
Table IV.Price differential betweenorganic and conventional
food items
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
23
-
. User (person who consumes it); and
. Gatekeeper (person who regulates exposure to information and
productsintended for family).
This demonstrates the complexity of CNSR and this makes it
difficult for organisationsimplementing CSR to understand consumer
perceptions and ultimately their choices.
Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009) in their CSR model identified
the benefits ofknowledge enhancing and knowledge controlling
mechanisms. The development ofretailer loyalty cards, and the
technology which is driving the growth of e-shoppingfood sales,
demonstrates how these tools can influence both supply chain
andconsumer behaviour. Mowatt and Cox (2003) argued that this has
allowed retailers togather information to drive them and the wider
supply chain. They concluded that it isthe ability to gather and
analyse consumer buying patterns and trends through datacollection,
loyalty card information, internet order histories and subsequent
datamining which has enabled the shift to just-in-time ordering,
the sophistication of stockcontrol systems and the ability of
retailers to target smaller target markets moreaccurately. As the
model demonstrates the ability to identify, and act upon,
complexconsumer buying choices where the balance between ethical
and consumerismconsiderations is both personal and inconsistent for
each individual item in theshopping basket is crucial to retail
success. The ability of an organisation tounderstand, influence and
predict the fine balance between the financial,environmental and
social factors, which drive both CNSR and CSR will
ultimatelyinfluence corporate brand value.
7. ConclusionCSR is an organo-centric voluntary corporate
response over and above legislativecompliance. The organisation may
exert influence over the supply chain, but CSR is
Figure 6.CSR and CNSR interaction the push pullmechanism
BFJ115,1
24
-
essentially an organisational response to meet primarily
shareholder and secondlymulti-stakeholder requirements. CSR
promotes benefits in a competitive marketthrough corporate and
product differentiation as well as driving efficient use of
capitalassets. Whilst shareholders have specific expectations in
terms of return and shareprice, a range of stakeholders including
consumers also make demands on thecorporate body. These demands are
varied and sometimes conflicting in nature.
Cause related marketing (CRM) has developed as a communication
tool for creatingenhanced brand equity often in terms of intangible
assets, but the success of CRMlargely depends on whether it is
perceived as being a strategic inherent part of CR or atactical
process which can engender scepticism in consumers. The
inter-relationshipbetween CSR and CNSR has been explored in this
paper and a model developed whichalso demonstrates the importance
of information flow. Information flow from thesupply chain can
drive added value and product engagement whilst, developments
inloyalty card technology at retail level has aided the flow of
CNSR information toretailers and indeed back through the supply
chain. This has afforded retailstakeholders the opportunity to
dominate the communication of CNSR backwards inthe supply chain
ultimately to the primary producer. Indeed, CSR requirements in
thesupply chain may be driven as equally by retailer brand
protection as by CNSR. CSR ishowever of limited value to the
organisation if there is a lack of, or a change in,consumer
engagement. Economic drivers influence CNSR behaviour with
theconsumerism component rather than the caring component of CNSR
recently playingmore of a lead role. However, this interaction
between ethical and consumerismelements is not consistent across
all consumers and their interaction with all foodproducts. Indeed,
CNSR can be a solo, product-centric purchasing decision within
theshopping basket. Organisations need to recognise that their CSR
activities must remaincongruent with CNSR in order for them to
maintain or improve market share andcustomer loyalty. As CNSR can
be reactive such as in the event of a food safety incidentthe
interaction needs to be more fully understood. Future research will
now beundertaken to determine how the CSR/CNSR model developed can
be used to identifyspecific CNSR drivers by product and in the mix
of the retail shopping basket.
References
Aabo, T. (2004), Stakeholder versus shareholder satisfaction in
corporate risk management,EFMA 2004 Basel Meetings Paper, September
28, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract487602 (accessed 20
December 2010).
Amaeshi, K., Osuji, O.K. and Nnodim, P. (2007), Corporate
control and accountability in supplychains of multinational
corporations: clarifications and managerial implications,No.
46-2007, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility,
NottinghamUniversity Business School, Nottingham, available at:
www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/research.php?actiondownload&id34
(accessed 20 December 2010).
Andersen, M. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009), Corporate social
responsibility in global supplychains, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-86.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), The
impact of perceived corporate socialresponsibility on consumer
behaviour, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 46-53.
Beulens, A.J.M., Coppens, L.W.C.A. and Trienekens, J.H. (2004),
Traceability requirements infood supply chain networks, working
paper, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
25
-
Bhattacharyya, S.S. (2010), Exploring the concept of strategic
corporate social responsibility foran integrated perspective,
European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 82-101.
Bourlakis, M. and Weightman, P. (2004), Food Supply Chain
Management, Blackwell Publishing,Oxford.
Brnn, P.S. and Vrioni, A.B. (2001), Corporate social
responsibility and cause-related marketing:an overview,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20, pp. 207-22.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of
corporate social performance,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4,
pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: toward the moralmanagement of organizational
stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-48.
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010), The business case for
corporate social responsibility:a review of concepts, research and
practice, International Journal of ManagementReviews, Vol. 12 No.
1, pp. 85-105.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), Sustainable supply chain
management: toward new theoryin logistics management, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 360-87.
Defra (2011), Attitudes and behaviours around sustainable food
purchasing, Report (SERP1011/10), Defra, London.
Devinney, T.M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. and Birtchnell, T.
(2011), The other CSR: consumersocial responsibility, available at:
http://zip.agsm.edu.au/agsm/web.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/CCC_2006_TheOtherCSR/$FILE/TheOtherCSR.pdf
(accessed 29 January 2011).
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), Maximizing
business returns to corporate socialresponsibility: the role of
corporate social responsibility communication, InternationalJournal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19.
Duffy, R., Fearne, A. and Healing, V. (2005), Reconnection in
the UK food chain: bridging thecommunication gap between food
producers and consumers, British Food Journal,Vol. 107 No. 1, pp.
17-33.
Early, R. (2002), Food ethics: a decision-making tool for the
food industry?, InternationalJournal of Food Science and
Technology, Vol. 37 No. 4, p. 339.
EC (2010), Corporate social responsibility, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/index_en.htm
(accessed 20 December2010).
Fan, Y. (2005), Ethical branding and corporate reputation,
Corporate Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 341-50.
Farm Foundation (2004), Food traceability and assurance in the
global food system, FarmFoundations Traceability and Assurance
Panel Report, July, available at: www.farmfoundation.org.
Francis, C. and Van Wart, J. (2009) in Baldwin, C.J. (Ed.),
Sustainability in the Food Industry,Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, IA.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
George, B. (2003), Managing stakeholders vs responding to
shareholders, Journal of Strategy& Leadership, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 36-40.
Goldsmith, P., Turan, N. and Gow, H. (2003), Food safety in the
meat industry: a regulatoryquagmire, International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 1.
Helms, M. (2004), Food sustainability, food security and the
environment, British Food Journal,Vol. 106 No. 5, pp. 380-7.
BFJ115,1
26
-
Hingley, M. (2010), Networks in socially embedded local food
supply: the case of retailerco-operatives, Journal of Business
Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 111-28.
Holme, C. (2010), Corporate social responsibility: a strategic
issue or a wasteful distraction?,Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 179-85.
IGD (2007), Consumer attitudes to animal welfare, A Report for
Freedom Food by IGD, March.
Johnson, V. and Peppas, S.C. (2003), Crisis management in
Belgium: the case of Coca-Cola,Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 18-22.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D. and Eastwood, I. (2005),
Corporate social responsibility: a casestudy of the UKs leading
food retailers, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 6, pp.
423-35.
Jones, R. (2005), Finding sources of brand value: developing a
stakeholder model of brandequity, Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 10-32.
Lacey, P., Cooper, T., Hayward, R. and Neuberger, L. (2010), A
new era of sustainability:UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO study
2010, United Nationals Global Compact.
Leicht, M. (1998), Facing globalization: more social capital and
the ability to act as a globalplayer as a response from the EU,
Swiss Political Science Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 197-214,available
at:
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/spsa/spsr/1998/00000004/00000004/art00009
(accessed 20 December 2010).
Lindgreen, A. and Hingley, M.K. (Eds) (2009), The New Cultures
of Food: Opportunities fromEthnic, Religious, and Cultural
Diversities, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.
Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Corporate social
responsibility, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M.K. and Vanhamme, J. (Eds) (2009), The
Crisis of Food Brands:Sustaining Safe, Innovative, and Competitive
Food Supply, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2008), Thinking of the
organization as a system: the roleof managerial perceptions in
developing a CSR strategic agenda, Systems Research andBehavioural
Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 413-26.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2009), Designing and
implementing corporate socialresponsibility: an integrative
framework grounded in theory and practice, Journal ofBusiness
Ethics, Vol. 87, S1, pp. 71-89.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Organizational
stages and cultural phases:a critical review and a consolidative
model of corporate social responsibility development,International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Macrae, C. and Uncles, M.D. (1997), Rethinking brand management:
the role of brandchartering, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Maloni, M.J. and Brown, M.E. (2006), Corporate social
responsibility in the supply chain:an application in the food
industry, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68, pp. 35-52.
Manning, L. (2007), Brand equity and food safety, British Food
Journal, Vol. 109 No. 7,pp. 496-510.
Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004a), Globalisation: a study of
the poultry meat supply chain,British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos
10/11, pp. 819-36.
Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004b), Effective management of
food safety and quality, BritishFood Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp.
598-606.
Manning, L., Baines, R.N. and Chadd, S.A. (2006), Ethical
modelling of the food supply chain,British Food Journal, Vol. 108
No. 5, pp. 358-70.
Mowatt, S. and Cox, H. (2003), Innovation networks and the
development of consumer-drivenICT-based management systems, ISSN
1176-1997.
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
27
-
Muthuri, J., Moon, J. and Matten, D. (2006), Employee
volunteering and the creation of socialcapital, Research Paper
Series No. 34, International Centre for Corporate
SocialResponsibility, Nottingham University, Nottingham, available
at:
www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/research.php?actiondownload&id46
(accessed 20 December 2010).
Nestle, M. (2003), Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology and
Bioterrorism, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.
Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2005), Corporate
reputation, stakeholders and the socialperformance-financial
performance relationship, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39Nos
9/10, pp. 1184-98.
Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (2008), From value chain to value
constellation: designinginteractive strategy, Harvard Business
Review, available at:
http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/search/normann%2520ramirez?NtkHEMainSearch&N0
(accessed 20 December2010).
Penn (2010), Glossary of terms, available at:
http://450.aers.psu.edu/glossary_search.cfm?lettern (accessed 20
December 2010).
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), Strategy & society:
the link between competitiveadvantage and corporate social
responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12,pp.
56-68.
Rana, P., Platts, J. and Gregory, M. (2009), Exploration of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) inmultinational companies
within the food industry, Queens Discussion Paper Series
onCorporate Responsibility Research No. 2/2009, Queens University
Management School,Belfast, available at:
www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/sustainability/downloads/022009ranaplattsgregory.pdf
(accessed 20 December 2010).
Ricks, J.M. and Williams, J.A. (2005), Strategic corporate
philanthropy: addressing frontlinetalent needs through an
educational giving program, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 60No.
2, pp. 147-57.
Russell, D.W. and Russell, C.A. (2010), Here or there? Consumer
reactions to corporate socialresponsibility initiatives: egocentric
tendencies and their moderators, Marketing Letters,Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 65-81.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good always
lead to doing better? Consumerreactions to corporate social
responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38,pp.
225-43.
Shrivastava (1995), The role of corporations in achieving
ecological sustainability, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 20 No.
4, pp. 936-60.
Sodano, V., Hingley, M.K. and Lindgreen, A. (2008), The
usefulness of social capital in assessingthe welfare effects of
private and third-party certification food safety policy
standards:trust and networks, British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Nos
4/5, pp. 493-513.
Soil Association (SA) (2010), Soil Association: Organic Market
Report 2010, Soil Association UK,Bristol.
Spence, L. and Bourlakis, M. (2009), The evolution from
corporate social responsibility to supplychain responsibility: the
case of Waitrose, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 291-302.
Stigliz, J.E. (2006), Making Globalization Work, Allen Lane,
London.
Strugatch, W. (2011), Turning values into valuation. Can
corporate social responsibility survivehard times and emerge
intact?, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp.
44-8.
Tesco Direct (2011), available at: www.tesco.com (accessed 10
August 2011).
BFJ115,1
28
-
Vallaster, C., Lindgreen, A. and Maon, F. (2012), Strategically
leveraging corporate socialresponsibility to the benefit of company
and society: a corporate branding perspective,California Management
Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 34-60.
Van den Bosch, A.L.M., de Jong, M.D.T. and Elving, W.J.L.
(2005), How corporate visual identitysupports reputation, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp.
108-16.
van den Brink, D., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Pauwels, P.
(2006), The effect of strategic andtactical cause-related marketing
on consumers brand loyalty, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. (2006), Performance measurement in
agri-food supply-chain networks,Quantifying the Agri-Food Supply
Chain, Proceedings of the Frontis Workshop onQuantifying the
Agri-Food Supply Chain, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 22-24
October2004, Springer Netherlands, available at:
http://library.wur.nl/frontis/quantifying_supply_chain/02_van_der_vorst.pdf
(accessed 20 December 2012).
Varadarajan, P.R. and Menon, A. (1988), Cause related marketing:
a co-alignment of marketingstrategy and corporate philanthropy,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 58-74.
Which? (2005), Which Choice Food Policy Report, Which?, London
citing Consumer attitudes tofood standards 2004, Food Standards
Agency, February.
Wood, D. (2010), Measuring corporate social performance: a
review, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 50-84.
Wood, D.J. and Jones, R.E. (1995), Stakeholder mismatching: a
theoretical problem in empiricalresearch on corporate social
performance, The International Journal of OrganisationalAnalysis,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 229-67.
Yates, L. (2009), Green expectations consumers understanding of
green claims inadvertising, Customer Focus, June.
Further reading
Jacobson, D. and McDonough, T. (1997), Irish Industry,
International Trade and EuropeanIntegration, Dublin City University
Business School, Dublin.
Corresponding authorLouise Manning can be contacted at:
[email protected]
CSR and CNSRin the food
supply chain
29
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] visit our web site for further
details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints