Abstract
In our globalized and interconnected world, companies are increasingly donating substantial amounts to good causes around the globe. Many companies choose to donate “at home” while others give to causes in faraway places where recipients are in dire need of support. Interestingly, past research on corporate donations has neglected the question of whether consumers differentially reward companies for geographically varying allocations of donation budgets. Through a mixed methods approach, this paper remedies this gap by developing and empirically testing a conceptual framework of consumers’ preferences for geographically varying allocations of corporate donation budgets. In a first step, two preliminary field studies (N 1 = 76; N 2 = 80) involving real donations explored customers’ preferences for donation allocations varying in geographical focus. A qualitative focus group study then investigated underlying rationales to inform the research and led to the development of hypotheses. Subsequently a large-scale between-subjects scenario experiment (N = 5770) tested the predictions. Overall, results indicate that, in contrast with current managerial practice, customers prefer companies that split donations equally between domestic and foreign recipients or even donate only abroad.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Walmart Global Responsibility Report 2014, p. 65, Walmart Annual Report, p. 36.
One similar study by Russell and Russel (2010) explores consumer perceptions of firms’ CSR activities with a varying geographical focus in the domain of environmental activities.
Additional analyses devoted to potential gender-related differences in the effects are provided in the results section.
References
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Bizumic, B., Duckitt, J., Popadic, D., Dru, V., & Krauss, S. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 871–899.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, and materialism: An eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116–146.
Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1996). The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 173–185.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause related marketing: How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6/7), 310–320.
Dagger, R. (1985). Rights, boundaries, and the bonds of community: A qualified defense of moral parochialism. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 436–447.
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(3), 224–241.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, & cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables & measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979–1981, 1987–1989. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 445–471.
Goodin, R. E. (1988). What is so special about our fellow countrymen? Ethics, 98(4), 663–686.
Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33.
Guthrie, D. (2003). Survey on corporate-community relations. New York: Social Sciences Research Council.
Hou, J., Du, L., & Li, J. (2008). Cause’s attributes influencing consumer’s purchasing intention: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(4), 363–380.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kanter, R. (1997). World class: Thriving local in the global economy. New York: Touchstone Books.
Kim, J. Y., Natter, M., & Spann, M. (2009). Pay-what-you-want—A new participative pricing mechanism. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 44–58.
Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility & consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.
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(4), 16–32.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W, Jr. (2000). The measurement & dimensionality of brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–370.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, Gerald F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.
McElroy, K. M., & Siegfried, J. J. (1986). The community influence on corporate contributions. Public Finance Quarterly, 14, 394–414.
Muller, A., & Whiteman, G. (2009). Exploring the geography of corporate philanthropic disaster response: A study of fortune global 500 companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 589–603.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Robinson, S. R., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of cause in cause-related marketing. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 126–139.
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(1), 93–97.
Ross, J. K., III, Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. T. (1990–1991) Tactical considerations for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58–65.
Russel, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21, 65–81.
Schons, L. M., Rese, M., Wiseke, J., Rasmussen, W., Weber, D., & Strotmann, W. C. (2013). There is nothing permanent except change—analyzing individual price dynamics in “pay-what-you-want” situations. Marketing Letters, 25(1), 25–36.
Shue, H. (1980). Mediating duties. Ethics, 98, 687–704.
Takagishi, H., Kameshima, S., Schug, J., Koizumi, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2010). Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1–2), 130–137.
Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Reast, J., & van Popering, N. (2012). To do well by doing good: Improving corporate image through cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 247–259.
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, & the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170–180.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions & behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76, 103–118.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schons, L.M., Cadogan, J. & Tsakona, R. Should Charity Begin at Home? An Empirical Investigation of Consumers’ Responses to Companies’ Varying Geographic Allocations of Donation Budgets. J Bus Ethics 144, 559–576 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2832-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2832-9