- 1. CSR across the globe: Dutch and Indian consumers response to
CSR CSR Communication ConferenceAmsterdam, the Netherlands 28
October 2011 Brigitte Planken(Radboud University, the Netherlands)
Catherine Nickerson(Zayed University, United Arab Emirates) Subrat
Sahu(Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India)
2. Starting points
- strategic CSR (communication)positive stakeholder
outcomes?
- debate on localized v. universal approach in international
marketing communication
- cross-cultural differences in CSR policy
- achieving fit between CSR policy and (local) stakeholders CSR
attitudes, concerns and expectations
- CSR in emerging (versus developed) regions
3.
- Carrolls CSR Pyramid (1991)
Economic responsibility Legal responsibility Ethical
responsibility Philanthropic responsibility *Be a goodCorporate
Citizen *Be Ethical *Obey the Law *Be Profitable 4.
- Vissers CSR Pyramid (2007)
Ethical responsibility Legal responsibility Philanthropic
responsibility Economic responsibility Adopt voluntary codes of
governance & ethics Ensure good relations with govt. officials
Set aside funds for corporate social/community projects Provide
investments, create jobs & pay taxes 5. Indian business:
philanthropic policy stance
- Tata Indias Council for Community Initiatives & Literacy
Programmes
-
- http :// www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXUW6cTV3VA
- Sterlite Industries Indias Community Outreach programmes
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y06NbT3K7tY&feature=related
- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.s adoption of ca. 50 rural
villages
6. Why this study?
- not much research on CSR (communication) in emerging
economies
- few cross-cultural studies of stakeholders CSR attitudes,
particularly involving emerging economies, like India
- a philanthropic CSR policy focus in India makes sense
historically and socio-economically; does it match what (local)
stakeholders regard as important?
- differences between stakeholders in emerging vs. developed
countries?
7. Aim
- to investigate Dutch and Indian consumers attitudes to social
responsibility (=CSR platforms), CSR initiatives and CSR-based
marketing strategies
-
- Indians attach greater importance to
philanthropicresponsibility(vs. legal and ethical); the importance
assigned to different social responsibilities by Dutch and Indian
consumers differs
-
- Indians attach greater importance toCSR initiativesreflecting
philanthropic (rather than legal & ethical) CSR domains; the
importance attached to CSR initiatives by Dutch and Indian
consumers differs
-
- CSR-based marketing strategies (with a philanthropic
orientation) influence Indian stakeholder outcomes (attitude to
company & intent to support company) differently than Dutch
stakeholder outcomes
8. Survey
- 1. importance social responsibilities:
-
- statements & 7-point scales (very important not at all
important)
- 2. importance CSR initiatives:
-
- descriptions: respondents asked to rank relative importance of
each
- 3. response to CSR-based marketing strategies (Kotler &
Lee, 2005):
-
- scenario/ descriptions & 7-point scales to gauge:
-
-
- attitude to company (positive - negative)
-
-
- purchasing intent (likely - unlikely)
- examples of statements/ descriptions:
-
- Companies should pay their debt to society by contributing to
social, community projects
-
- The company implements policy to promote ethical business
practices, for example by signing Fair Business contracts or
implementing a Code of Ethics
-
- The company informs consumers that it will donate 5% of the
proceeds from every product it sells to a research foundation that
studies the effects of global warming
9. Results: importance social responsibilities
- legal>ethical**;ethical>philanthropic***; legal &
ethical>economic***
-
- legal>ethical>[philanthropic]>economic
responsibility
- legal & ethical>philanthropic & economic***
-
- legal & ethical>philanthropic & economic
responsibility
10. Results: importance CSR initiatives (most to least
important)
- Dutch (%important/ unimportant)
- Ethical code/ responsible business
- Social/community projects
- Indians (%important/ unimportant)
- Social/community projects
- Ethical code/responsible business
11. Results: response to CSR-based strategies (company image)
Mean attitude to the company (sd) Strategy type Dutch (n = 95)
Indians (n = 95) 1.Cause promotion 4.06 (1.51) 4.85 (1.31)
2.Cause-related marketing 5.47 (1.06) 5.51 (1.09) 3.Corporate
social marketing 5.33 (1.16) 5.48 (1.12) 4.Corporate philanthropy
5.25 (1.30) 5.18 (1.38) 5.Volunteerism 5.18 (1.34) 5.49 (1.32)
6.Socially responsible business 5.67 (0.97) 6.06 (0.94) Within
nationality: 1 < 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6*** 1 < 2, 5 & 6* 6
> 1, 3, 4 & 5* 6 > 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5***;3 > 4*
Between nationalities: Cause promotion (1):Indians> Dutch***
Socially responsible business (6): Indians > Dutch** 12.
Results: response to CSR-based strategies (intent to buy) Mean
intent to buy from company (sd) Strategy type Dutch (n = 95)
Indians (n = 95) 1.Cause promotion 3.58 (1.56) 4.21 (1.38)
2.Cause-related marketing 5.02 (1.41) 4.85 (1.45) 3.Corporate
social marketing 4.68 (1.35) 4.71 (1.39) 4.Corporate philanthropy
4.69 (1.49) 4.24 (1.52) 5.Volunteerism 4.37 (1.53) 4.42 (1.56)
6.Socially responsible business 4.96 (1.25) 5.35 (1.34) Within
nationality : 1 < 2 & 6*** 6 > 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5* 2
& 6 > 5* 2 & 3 > 4* Between nationalities : Cause
promotion (1): Indians > Dutch** Socially responsible business
(6): Indians > Dutch* 13. Discussion
- social responsibilities/ CSR platforms:
-
- importance assigned to the four responsibilities similar across
the two nationalities
-
- the Indians in this study did not regard philanthropic
responsibility as more important than legal and ethical
responsibilities
-
- both the Dutch and Indians in this study assigned greater
importance to ethical and legal responsibilities than to
philanthropic and economic responsibilities
-
- importance assigned to different CSR initiatives similar across
the two nationalities
-
- the Indians in this study did not rank philanthropic
initiatives as relatively more important than initiatives
reflecting legal and ethical responsibilities
-
- both the Dutch and Indians in this study assigned CSR
initiatives reflecting ethical (planet & people) concerns
relatively greatest importance, while philanthropic CSR initiatives
were assigned less importance
14. Discussion
- response to the CSR-based marketing strategies:
-
- two (of the six) strategies Cause promotion and Socially
responsible business- affected stakeholder outcomes across the two
nationalities to a different extent
-
- the Indians response to these two strategies was more positive
than the Dutch response, with respect to both evaluation of the
company and intent to support the company
15. Food for thought
- stakeholders in the two countries may be more similar with
regard to the importance they attach to differentsocial
responsibilitiesandCSR initiativesthan might be assumed on the
basis of the literature on CSR in emergent versus developed
countries
- the CSR platform prominently pursued by Indian business
(=philanthropic focus) may not match some local stakeholders
societal concerns and what they regard as important
- (some) CSR-based marketing strategies seem to influence
stakeholder outcomes differentlywithinandacrossthe nationalities
studied
- the findings underline the importance of monitoring (local)
stakeholder concerns with different CSR issues; such information
can be used to create fit between CSR-based communications and what
stakeholders regard as relevant in terms of CSR issues
- future research emergent economies:
-
- insight into opportunities & limitations of CSR
(communication)
-
- insight into effects of different CSRcontent , s tances,message
framing , etc. in CSR-based communication campaigns on stakeholder
outcomes
-
- local or universal CSR communication approach?
16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
- Brigitte Planken (Radboud University, the Netherlands)
- Catherine Nickerson (Zayed University, United Arab
Emirates)
- Subrat Sahu (Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India)
17. Background literature
- Arli, D. and Losmono, H. (2010), Consumers perception of
corporate social responsibility in a developing
country,International Journal of Consumer Studies , Vol. 34 , pp.
4651.
- Arora, B. and Puranik, R. (2005), A review of corporate social
responsibility in India,Development , Vol. 47 No. (3), pp.
93100.
- Carroll, A. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational
stakeholders,Business Horizons , Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48.
- Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), Corporate social
responsibility in Asia: a seven-country study of CSR web site
reporting,Business and Society , Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-441.
- Chaudri, V. and Wang, J. (2007), Communicating corporate social
responsibility on the Internet: a case study of the top 100
information technology companies in India,Management Communication
Quarterly , Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 232-247.
- Christie, P., Kwon, I., Stoeberl, P. and Baumhart, R. (2003), A
cross-cultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business
managers: India, Korea and the United States.,Journal of Business
Ethics , Vol. 46, pp. 263-287.
- Dahl, F. and Persson, S. (2008), Communication of CSR. How
Swedish consumers perceptions and behaviour are influenced by
promoted CSR activities Unpublished MA thesis, University of
Jnkping, Sweden.
18. Background literature
- Esrock, S. and Leichty, G. (1998), Social responsibility &
corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda setting?,Public
Relations ReviewVol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-319.
- Gupta, A. (2007), Social responsibility in India towards a
global compact approach,International Journal of Social Economics ,
Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 637-663.
- Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007), Corporate social
responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country
context,Journal of Business Ethics , Vol 72, pp. 243262.
- Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2005),Corporate social responsibility:
Doing the most good for your company and your cause , Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
- Maignan, I. (2001), Consumers perceptions of corporate social
responsibilities: a cross-cultural Comparison,Journal of Business
Ethics , Vol. 30 No.1, pp. 57-72.
- Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. (2002), Corporate social
responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses
self-presentations,Journal of International Business Studies , Vol
33, pp. 497-514.
- Muruganantham, G. (2010), Case study on Corporate Social
Responsibility in MNCs in India, paper presented at the
International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC),
8-10 November 2010, London, United Kingdom.
- Planken, B., Sahu, S. and Nickerson, C. (2010), Corporate
social responsibility communication in the Indian context,Journal
of Indian Business Research , Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 10-22.
19. Background literature
- Planken, B., Waller, R. and Nickerson, C. (2007), Reading
stories and signs on the internet: analyzing CSR discourse on the
BP website, in Garzone, G., Poncini, G. and Catenaccio, P.
(Eds),Multimodality in corporate communication. Web genres and
discursive identity , Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 93-110.
- Podnar, K. and Golob, U. (2007), CSR expectations: the focus of
corporate marketing,CorporateCommunications: An International
Journal , Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 326-340.
- Ra machandran, J. and Patvardhan, S. (2007),Fabindia: Crafting
Success , Indian Institute ofManagementBangalore Case, Indian
Institute of Management, Bangalore, India.
- Rettab, B., Brik, A. and Mellahi, K. (2009), A study of
management perceptions of the impact of corporate social
responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies:
the case of Dubai,Journalof Business Ethics , Vol. 89, pp.
371390.
- Sagar, P. and Singla, A. (2004), Trust and corporate social
responsibility: Lessons from India,Journal of Communication
Management , Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 282290.
- Visser, W. (2007), Corporate social responsibility in
developing countries, in Crane, A. and Matten, D. (Eds.),Corporate
social responsibility: Three volume set , Sage, London, pp.
473-499.
20. CSR-based marketing strategies (Kotler & Lee, 2005)
Strategy Description Aim(s) 1.Cause promotion corporation promotes
awareness of a societal cause as part of its CSR policy in an
advertising campaign raise awareness of the cause; influence
consumer attitudes/behaviour by combining corporate/ product
promotion with cause promotion2.Cause-related marketing corporation
is seen to be actively involved with a particular societal cause as
part of its combined CSR and marketing policies; specific
product(s) explicitly associated with the cause raise awareness of
the cause; actively involve consumer in supporting cause by
purchasing companys product (i.e. % of purchasing price is donated
to cause) 3.Corporate social marketing corporation combines
product/ service advertising with awareness-raising specifically
targeted at changing consumer behaviour in a sustainable way
persuade consumer to purchase; bring about structural change in
stakeholder behavior beyond purchase 4.Corporate philanthropy
corporation refers to its corporate giving policy as a marketing
communication strategy which may be unrelated to specific product
promotion raise awareness about CSR policy with regard to corporate
giving; promote corporate reputation5.Community volunteering
corporation refers to its community volunteering policy as a
marketing communication strategy which may be unrelated to specific
product promotion raise awareness about CSR policy/activities with
regard to community volunteering; promote corporate reputation
6.Socially responsible business practice corporation emphasizes its
behaviour as a good corporate citizen in general and its overall
commitment to sustainable business as a blanket marketing strategy
(essentially subsuming 1 to 5) promote corporate reputation as a
responsible citizen 21. Method 1
-
- importance assigned to social responsibilities/ CSR
platforms
-
- (economic, legal, ethical & philanthropic)
-
- importance assigned to different CSR initiatives
-
- (reflecting legal, ethical & philanthropic domains)
-
- response to six CSR-based marketing strategies: in terms of
respondents evaluations ofcorporate imageandpurchasing intent
-
- [CSR communication preferences]
-
- Dutch: n 95 (male: 38.9%, female:61.6%)
-
- Indian: n 95 (male: 52.6%, female: 47.4%)
-
- Highly educated (higher vocational training to University)
-
- Age range: 18-65, biggest cluster 25-35 (both samples)