How much firms “give” to CSR vs how much they “gain” from it: inequity perceptions and their implications for CSR authenticity

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to answer the call for additional detailed research on factors that influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) authenticity by examining how the former is affected by the commonly reported CSR spending allocations expressed as percentages of annual profits. It integrates equity and attribution theories to propose a new construct of inequity perceptions to explain how CSR spending allocations influence CSR authenticity. Inequity perceptions form from smaller allocations that are perceived disproportionate compared to the potential reputational gains from the executed CSR communication, which, in turn, prompts lower authenticity inferences. Design/methodology/approach Three experiments were performed. Study 1 examines how different CSR spending allocations influence inequity perceptions and how the latter relate to CSR authenticity. Study 2 examines how inequity perceptions are affected by firm size. Study 3 examines whether psychological distance (being a customer or non-customer) affects information processing by predisposing customers to forming higher inequity perceptions. Findings Study 1 shows that lesser allocations produce higher inequity perceptions. Study 2 demonstrates that inequity perceptions are enhanced when numerically small allocations are reported by a large as opposed to a small firm. Study 3 shows that both customers and non-customers form similar inequity perceptions from smaller percentage allocations without support for the psychological distance effect. Research limitations/implications This study shows that the percentage of profits allocated to CSR, as well as firm size, can affect authenticity inferences via inequity perceptions. These findings point to different implications of CSR communication that features percentage allocations that multiple firms may not be aware of. Practical implications Marketers can benefit from the reported findings by understanding when and how CSR communication that features percentage allocations may be counter-productive by generating lesser CSR authenticity. Originality/value This study provides a novel perspective on how consumers evaluate CSR authenticity in a marketplace where awareness of firms’ vested interests is increasing.

Role of corporate social responsibility authenticity in developing perceived brand loyalty: a consumer perceptions paradigm

“…Therefore, it is critical to investigate the role of authentic CSR activities to maximize their effectiveness (Joo et al , 2019). Many researchers advocated that research on CSR authenticity is scant (Afzali and Kim, 2021; Fatma and Khan, 2022; Tarabashkina et al , 2020; Taylor, 2021), except for a few contributions. For example, Alhouti et al (2016) discovered a negative association between CSR authenticity and boycott response and recognized a positive association between CSR authenticity and purchase intention.…”

The CSR Imperative: How CSR Influences Word-of-Mouth Considering the Roles of Authenticity and Alternative Attractiveness

“…This is because when a plethora of brands offer the same or similar services, customers largely consider other factors when making purchase decisions; sincerity, heritage, and the commitment to quality (i.e., dimensions of BA) being among those most important (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). To form their perceptions of a brand’s authenticity, customers rely on multiple cues among which CSR endeavors are a key cue (Tarabashkina et al, 2020). However, although there is an emerging research stream studying the authenticity of CSR endeavors (Alhouti et al, 2016; Joo et al, 2019; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015), there remains scant research examining how CSR endeavors influence the brand’s authenticity.…”

Deconstructing corporate activism: a consumer approach

“…Some studies have identified perceptual differences between 'large firms' and 'small firms,' and, at the same time, determine that the 'large firm' concept is sufficiently descriptive, with a meaning that is common and homogeneous among individuals (Green & Peloza, 2014). Tarabashkina, Quester, and Tarabashkina (2020) defend a similar approach that analyzes how a firm's size can bias consumer's inferences of inequity in CSR giving and its implications for CSR authenticity. In their work, they compare large firms and small firms and conclude that perceptions of inequity increase, and, therefore, that there are lower inferences of authenticity, when a large firm makes small contributions.…”