Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived Fit Between Companies and Non-Profit Organizations

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

Abstract

Company–cause fit has been one of the major issues in the domain of corporate social responsibility. This study tries to expand the perspective from company–cause to company–non-profit organization (NPO) fit, and it gives implications to firms looking for long-term collaboration with an NPO. Specifically, it suggests three types of fit, i.e., familiarity, business, and activity fit and investigates the potential effects of these fits in social alliances between companies and the partnering NPOs on consumer attributions of the firms’ motives for the alliances. An experiment that used scenarios revealed that consumers perceive high-fitted alliances on the dimensions of the familiarity and activity fit as being more public-serving than low-matched ones. However, the consumers’ attribution of the motive is not different between the high and low business fit. The implications of the research results are discussed from an academic and practical standpoint.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcañiz, E. B., Cáceres, R. C., & Pérez, R. C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social cause: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169–186.

    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(2), 248–262.

    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, 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(June), 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, S., & Barker, A. (2007). Evaluations of branding alliances between non-profit and commercial brand partners: The transfer of affect. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douma, M. U., Bilderbeek, J., Idenburg, P. J., & Looise, J. K. (2000). Strategic alliances: Managing the dynamics of fit. Long Range Planning, 33(4), 579–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate association: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189–211). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourville, J. T., & Rangan, V. K. (2004). Valuing the cause marketing relationship. California Management Review, 47(1), 38–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwinner, K. P. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johar, G. V., & Simmons, C. J. (2000). The use of concurrent disclosures to correct invalid inferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(March), 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. New Jersey, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60, 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, B. A. (2009). Selecting the right cause partners for the right reasons: The role of importance and fit in cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 26(4), 359–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause-brand alliances: Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliance. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 509–531.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility initiative. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J.-W., & Kim, K.-H. (2001). Role of Consumer relationships with a brand in brand extensions: Some exploratory findings. Advances in Consumer Research, 28(1), 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M. T., & Johar, G. V. (2001). Market prominent biases in sponsor identification: Processes and consequentiality. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A. (1997). Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: A cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(4), 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, T. (1997). The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 443–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reaction to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 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(2), 158–166.

    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 

  • Till, B. D., & Nowak, L. I. (2000). Toward effective use of cause-related marketing alliances. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 472–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimble, C. S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. International Journal of Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(February), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). Spontaneous causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97(January), 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, J., & She, Q. (2010). Developing a trichotomy model to measure socially responsible behavior in China. International Journal of Market Research, 53(2), 253–274.

    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(4), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kyonggi University, Suwon, Korea

    Namin Kim

  2. Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

    Youri Sung & Moonkyu Lee

Authors
  1. Namin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youri Sung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moonkyu Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Namin Kim.

Appendix

Appendix

Scenarios for the experiment

XX Construction makes social alliance with “YY NPO”

ZZ daily, May 28, 2008

XX Construction entered into a partnership with YY NPO yesterday. These two organizations decided to ( )*. Also, a volunteer club for employees will soon be created, and the company promised to set up a paid volunteering program.

The company said that this partnership would not be one time; in fact, they would like to create a long-term relationship. For this purpose, these two organizations agreed to build a collaborative network for planning, executing, and evaluating the CSR programs.

* Different types of fit are addressed in the parentheses. Details are listed below. Four types of familiarity fit are manipulated by using different companies and NPOs.

High Business fit–High Activity Fit

(NPO: Habitat for Humanity and Magpie Nest, Firm: D Construction and U Construction)

run a joint campaign of “building love, building house.” Through the alliance, they will build houses and schools in the southern rural area of Korea. XX Construction will provide construction materials as well as a cash donation.

High Business Fit–Low Activity Fit

(NPO: Habitat for Humanity and Magpie Nest, Firm: D Construction and U Construction)

run a joint campaign of “Volunteers from College.” Through the alliance, they expect to inspire college students’ community involvement. Together, they will recruit volunteers and help disabled individuals and orphans during different time periods.

Low Business Fit–High activity fit

(NPO: Red Cross, Firm: D Construction and U Construction)

run a joint campaign of “building love, building house.” Through the alliance, they will build houses and schools in areas destroyed by storms and tornados. XX Construction will provide construction materials as well as a cash donation.

Low Business Fit–Low Activity Fit

(NPO: Red Cross, Firm: D Construction and U Construction)

run a joint campaign of helping the disabled and orphans by donating medicine and cash.

Low Business Fit–High Activity Fit

(NPO: Society for the Cerebral Palsy, Firm: D Construction and U Construction)

run a joint campaign of “building love, building house.” Through the alliance, they will build houses and schools for Cerebral Palsy. XX Construction will provide construction materials as well as a cash donation.

Low Business Fit–Low Activity Fit

(NPO: Society for the Cerebral Palsy, Firm: D Construction and U Construction)

help the cerebral palsy by providing medicine and donating cash.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, N., Sung, Y. & Lee, M. Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived Fit Between Companies and Non-Profit Organizations. J Bus Ethics 109, 163–174 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1115-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1115-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation