Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Brand Social Responsibility: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Outcomes

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social responsibility is typically examined at the firm level, yet there are instances in which consumers’ social responsibility perceptions of the firm’s product brands differ from social responsibility perceptions with regard to the firm [i.e., corporate social responsibility (CSR)]. This article conceptualizes brand social responsibility (BSR) and delineates it from CSR. Following the development of a BSR scale (Study 1), this research demonstrates variations in consumers’ social responsibility perceptions across product brands even if they are owned by the same corporation and compete in the same product category (Study 2). BSR is distinct from CSR (Studies 3a–3c), and better predicts consumers’ responses to product brands compared to corporate level measures (Study 4). Consistent with the conceptual distinction, this research demonstrates the unique contribution of BSR and CSR in predicting product brand and corporate outcomes, respectively (Study 5). From a theoretical viewpoint, this research is one of the few to examine differences between product brand and CSR. From a managerial viewpoint, the consideration of social responsibility at the product brand level facilitates the assessment of social responsibility perceptions across brands in brand portfolios managed under a mixed-branding or house-of-brands strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Models with a low number of degrees of freedom are associated with inflated RMSEA values. Some authors, therefore, discourage reporting of RMSEA values for low-degree-of- freedom models (Kenny et al. 2011). The high RMSEA value, which is consistent across studies reported here, is explained by the low number of degrees of freedom arising from the simple structure of the measurement model (Kenny 2012). We present RMSEA values with the caveat that their contribution to model fit assessment herein is limited.

  2. We also established discriminant validity between BSR and other measures before we proceeded with the analyses. A replication of the analysis with bootstrapping yielded similar model estimates not reported here for the sake of brevity.

  3. As H3 and H4 did not include predictions regarding PSR (Brown and Dacin 1997), we do not discuss PSR in Study 5. Note that PSR did not significantly explain any additional variance in brand level outcomes in hierarchical regression results in Study 4. However, for comprehensiveness, we measured PSR and conducted additional analyses including PSR as a predictor. Consistent with Study 4 results, PSR did not relate significantly to product brand or corporate outcomes. The pattern of results involving indirect effects of BSR and perceptions of CSR was similar when PSR was included as a control variable. When the sequential mediation analysis reported in the additional analyses section of Study 4 was replicated, the pattern of results was similar and supported the mediating role of BSR.

References

  • Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, NJ: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., & Devinney, T. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(December), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., Devinney, T., Louviere, J., & Burke, P. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(September), 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(June), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equations models and hypothesis testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 386–422). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(Spring), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(Spring), 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer responses to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83(December), 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(January), 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand. Journal of Marketing, 69(July), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(December), 555–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B. (2010). Introduction to the special section on stakeholder marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(Spring), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biehal, G. J., & Sheinin, D. A. (2007). The influence of corporate messages on the product portfolio. Journal of Marketing, 71(April), 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The role of consumers’ intuitions in inference making. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(January), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions—a consumer perspective on corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunk, K. H. (2012). Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: Conceptualising and operationalising consumer meanings. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunk, K. H., & Blümelhuber, C. (2011). One strike and you’re out: Qualitative insights into the formation of consumers’ ethical company or brand perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 64, 134–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(October), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, A., Chakravarti, D., & Biehal, G. (1990). Memory-based inferences during choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(September), 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M., & Stockburger-Sauer, N. (2013). Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 24(September), 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(Spring), 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euromonitor. (2012). Packaged foods: Euromonitor Country Report. Accessed August 17, 2012, from http://www.euromonitor.com.

  • Fan, Y. (2005). Ethical branding and corporate communication. Corporate Communications, 10(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, G. T., & Smith, R. A. (1987). Inferential beliefs in consumer evaluations: An assessment of alternative processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(February), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U., Lah, M., & Jančič, Z. (2008). Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(April), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R., & Sen, S. (2013). The effect of evolving resource synergy beliefs on the intentions discrepancy in ethical consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(January), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Batra, R. (2004). When corporate image affects product evaluations: The moderating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(May), 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Accessed August 2, 2012, from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

  • Henderson, T., & Arora, N. (2010). Promoting brands across categories with a social cause: Implementing effective embedded premium programs. Journal of Marketing, 74(November), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(February), 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, D. R., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. B. (2006). Brand concept maps: A methodology for identifying brand association networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(November/December), 740–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (2012). Measuring model fit. Accessed August 2, 2012, from http://www.davidakenny.net.

  • Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, R. B., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Unpublished Paper, University of Connecticut.

  • Knox, S., & Maklan, S. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: Moving beyond investment towards measuring outcomes. European Management Journal, 22(October), 508–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. C., & Chang, C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(September), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M. G., Walker-Naylor, R., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(September), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, consumer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madrigal, R., & Boush, D. M. (2008). Social responsibility as a unique dimension of brand personality and consumers’ willingness to reward. Psychology & Marketing, 25(June), 538–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(March), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(Winter), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(July), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(June), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effect of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(Summer), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1839–1851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Marketing, 37(Feburary), 775–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wright (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego: Academic Press.

  • Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), Constructs in Psycholgical and Educational Measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(February), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(January), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pracejus, J. W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57(June), 635–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(Winter), 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmones, M., García de los, M., Crespo, A. H., & Rodrígues del Bosque, I. (2005). Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(November), 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, O., Sattler, H., & Zenker, S. (2012). Advanced brand concept maps: A new approach for evaluating the favorability of brand association networks. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(2), 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(May), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(Spring), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, L. J. (2010). Using consumer perceived ethicality as a guideline for corporate social responsibility strategy: A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 63, 263–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheinin, D. A., & Biehal, G. J. (1999). Corporate advertising pass-through onto the brand: Some experimental evidence. Marketing Letters, 10(February), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect, and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 541–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Rallapalli, K. C., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(November), 1131–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(Summer), 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., de Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 199–214.

  • Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2011). Doing poorly by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(February), 948–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twitchell, J. B. (2002). An English teacher looks at branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 484–489.

  • Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(November), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(Spring), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(October), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author and CMBBR resources in data collection are gratefully acknowledged. We are grateful for the comments and help of Pierre Chandon, Darlene Walsh, Simla Barki, and Kimberly Duval on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. MB 13.305, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Bianca Grohmann

  2. John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W. MB 13.317, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    H. Onur Bodur

Authors
  1. Bianca Grohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Onur Bodur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Onur Bodur.

Additional information

B. Grohmann and H. O. Bodur contributed equally to this research and authorship order is reverse alphabetical.

Appendix 1: Constructs and Measures Used in This Research

Appendix 1: Constructs and Measures Used in This Research

Brand social responsibility

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = very descriptive fair, compassionate, humane, caring

PSR (Brown and Dacin 1997)—Studies 3a, 4, and 5

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

  • This is a socially responsible product.

  • This product is more beneficial to society’s welfare than other products.

  • This product contributes something to society.

Perceived CSR (Lichtenstein et al. 2004)—Studies 3a, 4, and 5

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

  • [X] is committed to using a portion of its profits to help non-profits.

  • [X] gives back to the communities in which it does business.

  • Local non-profits benefit from [X]’s contributions.

  • [X] integrates charitable donations into its business activities.

  • [X] is involved in corporate giving.

Company evaluation–CSR dimension (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001)—Studies 3a, 4, and 5

  • 1 = very unfavorable, 7 = very favorable

  • Corporate giving

  • Community involvement

  • Position on women’s issues

  • Position on ethnic minority issues

  • Position on gay and lesbian issues

  • Position on disabled minority issues

CSR (Salmones et al. 2005)—Study 3a, 4, and 5

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

  • Economic dimension

  • I believe [X] …

  • Tries to obtain maximum profit from its activity.

  • Tries to obtain maximum long-term success.

  • Always tries to improve its economic performance.

  • Ethical-legal dimension

  • I believe [X] …

  • Always respects the norms defined in the law when carrying out its activities.

  • Is concerned to fulfill its obligations vis-à-vis its shareholders, suppliers, distributors and other agents with whom it deals.

  • Behaves ethically/honestly with its customers.

  • Respecting ethical principles in its relationship has priority over achieving superior economic performance.

  • Philanthropic dimension

  • I believe [X] …

  • Is concerned with respecting and protecting the natural environment.

  • Actively sponsors or finances social events (sports, music …)

  • Directs part of its budget to donations and social works favoring the disadvantaged.

  • Is concerned with improving the general well-being of society.

CSR associations (Sen et al. 2006)—Studies 2 and 3b

  • 1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly

  • [X] treats employees well.

  • [X] is a socially responsible company.

  • [X] supports children in need.

CSR beliefs (Wagner et al. 2009)—Studies 3b, 4, and 5

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

  • [X] is a responsible company.

  • [X] is concerned to improve the well-being of society.

  • [X] follows high ethical standards.

Social responsibility as brand personality trait (Madrigal and Boush 2008)—Study 3b

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive of brand [X] social responsibility

  • Corporate giving

  • Environmentally friendly

  • Cares about doing the right thing

  • Is accountable for its actions

Sincerity (Aaker 1997)—Study 3c

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive

  • Down-to-earth, family-oriented, small-town, honest, sincere, real, wholesome, original, cheerful, sentimental, friendly

Sophistication (Aaker 1997)—Study 3c

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive

  • Upper class, glamorous, good looking, charming, feminine, smooth

Ruggedness (Aaker 1997)—Study 3c

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive

  • Outdoorsy, masculine, Western, tough, rugged

Competence (Aaker 1997)—Study 3c

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive

  • Reliable, hardworking, secure, intelligent, technical, corporate, successful, leader, confident

Excitement (Aaker 1997)—Study 3c

  • 1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive

  • Daring, trendy, exciting, spirited, cool, young, imaginative, unique, up-to-date, independent, contemporary

Brand attitude—Studies 4 and 5

  • On seven-point scales

  • Bad/good, unfavorable/favorable, unpleasant/pleasant, negative/positive

Purchase intentions—Studies 4 and 5

  • On seven-point scales

  • Unlikely/likely, not probable/probable, impossible/possible, no chance/certainly

Brand equity (Yoo et al. 2000)—Study 4

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

  • It makes sense to buy [X] instead of any other brand, even if they are the same.

  • Even if another brand has the same features as [X], I would prefer to buy [X].

  • If there is another brand as good as [X], I prefer to buy [X].

Brand-self connection (Escalas and Bettman 2003)—Study 5

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

  • I (can) use [X] to communicate who I am to other people.

  • [X] reflects who I am.

  • I think [X] (could) help(s) me become the type of person I want to be.

  • [X] suits me well.

  • I can identify with [X].

  • I consider [X] to be “me” (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present myself to others.

  • I feel a personal connection to [X].

Employment intent (adapted from Sen et al. 2006)—Study 5

  • 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

  • I would very much like to work for this company [X].

  • 1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely

  • How likely are you to seek employment with the company [X] within the next two years?

  • How likely are you to seek information about jobs at the company [X] in the future?

  • In the future, how likely are you to talk up the company [X] to your friends as a good organization to work for?

Investment intent (adapted from Sen et al. 2006)—Study 5

  • 1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely

  • If you had money to invest, how likely would you be to invest in the company [X]?

  • In the future, how likely are you to recommend your friends to invest in the company [X]?

C–C Identification (Bergami and Bagozzi 2000; Lichtenstein et al. 2004)—Study 5

  • Organizational identification identity overlap scale, in which participants choose one of seven representations of circles representing the overlap between “my identity” and “company X identity”: far apart, close together but separate, small overlap, moderate overlap, large overlap, very large overlap, complete

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grohmann, B., Bodur, H.O. Brand Social Responsibility: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Outcomes. J Bus Ethics 131, 375–399 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2279-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2279-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation