S

Sm

Ga

b

a

ARRA

KCFEA

1

iCtoi

t&aw

&p(i

d

0h

Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 627– 629

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

hort Communication

ector-dependent framing effects of corporate social responsibilityessages: An experiment with non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks

ert-Jan Steltenpoola, Piet Verhoevenb,∗

Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsAmsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 23 April 2012eceived in revised form 19 June 2012ccepted 19 June 2012

eywords:orporate social responsibilityramingxperimentlcohol

a b s t r a c t

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communications can be paradoxical in their effecton consumers attitudes and skepticism toward an organization, buying intentions and theorganization’s reputation. In this research, we investigated the effects of sector depen-dence and the framing of CSR messages. A 2 × 3 between-subjects experiment was usedwith six advertisements for two fictional organizations: one in the alcohol industry (a so-called socially stigmatized industry) and one in a non-alcohol industry. The experimentincluded 188 participants. The results show that the framing effects of CSR messages aresector specific: in the non-alcohol sector, CSR messages and frames had a positive effect onconsumers, whereas in the alcohol sector, they had a negative effect on consumers.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Although there is little consensus between academics about the definitions and the effects of corporate social responsibil-ty (CSR) activities and communications (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006), organizations seem convinced of the positive effects ofSR on their business reputation (Podnar & Golob, 2007) and legitimacy (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The increasing attentiono CSR communications by organizations resonates with consumers’ changing attitudes toward the social responsibility ofrganizations. In 2004, only 16 percent of Dutch consumers thought it important for organizations to be socially responsible;n 2008, this number had increased to 77 percent (DDB/Intomart Gfk, 2008).

CSR communications can be paradoxical in their effect on stakeholders because instead of their intended positive effects,hey may be perceived as insincere (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) and may increase skepticism toward the organization (Podnar

Golob, 2007). Brammer and Pavelin (2006) found that the reputational effect of social performance on stakeholders variescross sectors because of the different pressures and expectations of stakeholders in different sectors. Thus, the sector inhich the organization operates may weaken or strengthen the effects of CSR activities and company communications.

The effects of CSR initiatives and communication are complex, especially in so-called socially stigmatized industries (Kim Lee, 2012). Several studies have indicated that adding a CSR message to a commercial or advertisement leads to a stronger

ositive attitude toward the organization (e.g., Brønn & Vrioni, 2001) and a positive effect on consumers’ buying intentione.g., Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). In this research, we further explore this complexity by examining CSR messagesn different sectors through the following research question:

∗ Corresponding author at: Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amster-am, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 20 525 3130; fax: +31 20 525 3681.

E-mail address: P.Verhoeven@uva.nl (P. Verhoeven).

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.06.008

628 G.-J. Steltenpool, P. Verhoeven / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 627– 629

RQ: What is the effect of a CSR message from a socially stigmatized organization and a non-socially stigmatized organi-zation on consumers’ attitudes toward the organization, the reputation of the organization, consumers’ buying intention forthe organization’s products and consumers’ skepticism toward the organization?

We use framing theory as the theoretical lens for an exploratory study on the effects of CSR messages in different sectors.

2. Methodology

A 2 × 3 between-group experimental design was used for this study. Two fictitious advertisements for two non-existentorganizations were developed, DrinkJuice (a non-alcoholic drink) and WildLion (an alcoholic drink). We chose these productsbecause it is plausible that organizations in these industries would address CSR communications directly to their consumers.DrinkJuice represents a non-socially stigmatized sector, and WildLion represents a socially stigmatized sector. Six stimuliwere created through three print advertisements for each company: (1) no CSR message, (2) an implicitly framed CSRmessage and (3) an explicitly framed CSR message. The stimuli were in the Dutch language.

The first condition was the control condition. The control condition featured an image of the product with only a descrip-tion of the product’s availability. In the non-alcoholic DrinkJuice condition, the sentence “DrinkJuice, now in all supermarkets”was added to an image of a soft drink glass with a substance that looked like orange juice. In the alcoholic WildLion condition,the sentence “WildLion, now in all liquor stores” was added to an image of a vermouth glass with a substance that lookedlike an alcoholic drink (e.g., an Italian martini or French vermouth).

In the second and third conditions, the advertisement contained implicit and explicit CSR messages, respectively, inaddition to a sentence about the availability of the product and the image. The CSR message was text about a donationto a fictitious charity. We chose a donation to research on liver and kidney diseases to operationalize so-called situationalskepticisms about the situation. Webb and Mohr (1998) showed that situational skepticism is an important factor in con-sumer reactions. The difference between the implicit and explicit conditions was the use of keywords in the message toindicate the actual behavior of the producer. The implicit CSR frame (the second condition) for the non-alcoholic drink read;“Responsible entrepreneurship counts for DrinkJuice. With every sale; a small amount of money goes indirectly to kidneyand liver research,” and for the alcoholic drink; the text read; “Responsible entrepreneurship counts for WildLion. Withevery sale; a small amount of money goes indirectly to kidney and liver research.” The explicit frame (the third condition)in the non-alcoholic condition read; “Corporate social responsibility is the basic principle of DrinkJuice. With every sale; wedonate a substantial amount of money directly to the Foundation for Kidney and Liver Research.” The alcoholic conditionread; “Corporate social responsibility is the basic principle of WildLion. With every sale; we donate a substantial amount ofmoney directly to the Foundation for Kidney and Liver Research.” A manipulation check showed that participants thoughtthat the messages were significantly different (Mcsr implicit = 2.83; SD = .84; Mcsr explicit = 3.89; SD = .60; (t(19) = −3.21; p < .01).The population for this study consisted of general consumers between 18 and 65 years old. To recruit respondents in this agegroup and to ensure that no persons under the age of 16 (because of the conditions about alcoholic drinks) would be exposedto the experiment; we cooperated with a Dutch multinational mail company to recruit respondents; and 316 employees ofthe company were asked to participate in the experiment by means of lists. Participants were randomly assigned to one of thesix experimental conditions. The number of respondents was equally distributed over the six advertisements (DrinkJuice;control condition n = 31; implicit frame n = 30; explicit frame n = 34; WildLion; control condition n = 32; implicit frame n = 31;explicit frame n = 30). After the participants saw one of the advertisements; they were asked to complete a questionnaire.The participants were told that the purpose of the study was to obtain feedback on an advertising concept.

Four dependent variables were measured: reputation of the organization, attitude toward the organization, buying inten-tion for the product and situational skepticism. To measure reputation, four items on a bi-polar 1-to-6 scale based on Newelland Goldsmith (2001) was used ( ̨ = .91). Attitude toward the organization was measured by seven items on a bi-polar 1-to-6scale based on Bruner and Hensel (1996); this scale was reliable ( ̨ = .95). The buying intention of consumers was measuredusing three items on a 1- to 6-point Likert scale ( ̨ = .88) based on Bruner and Hensel (1996). Finally, situational skepticismwas measured by nine items on a 1- to 6-point Likert scale ( ̨ = .94) based on Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). To analyzethe framing effects of CSR messages, several ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc tests were conducted to determine significantdifferences between the conditions.

3. Findings

Overall, 188 respondents participated in the research, for a response rate of 59%. The age of the participants was between18 and 68 years old, with an average age of 37.7. Male participants constituted 54.8% of the sample. Most participants had acollege education or higher (11.7% low, 26.1% mid, 62.2% high).

The results show that the advertisement for the non-alcoholic drink that included the CSR message leads to a morefavorable attitude toward the organization than the ad without the CSR message. This effect increases when the CSR message

is explicitly framed (Mno csr = 3.15, SD = .67; Mcsr implicit = 3.79, SD = .65; Mcsr explicit = 4.35, SD = .68; F(2, 91) = 24.28, p < .01). Incontrast, the CSR message in the advertisement for the alcoholic drink does not have a positive effect on attitude. In fact, itproduces the opposite effect: the ad without a CSR message leads to a more favorable attitude (Mno csr = 3.67, SD = .51; Mcsr

implicit = 2.78, SD = .86; Mcsr explicit = 2.71, SD = .97; F(2, 95) = 15.50, p < .01) than the ad with a CSR message.

aMbc

tetS

cFc

4

teefIitrte

ets

R

B

BBBC

DKM

NO

PW

G.-J. Steltenpool, P. Verhoeven / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 627– 629 629

There is a marginally significant effect of the CSR message on the buying intention of consumers (p = .07) in the non-lcoholic condition, especially when the CSR message is explicitly framed (Mno csr = 2.64, SD = .89; Mcsr implicit = 2.82, SD = .96;csr explicit = 3.21, SD = 1.03; F(2, 91) = 2.73, p < .10). In the condition of the alcoholic drink, the analysis shows a decreasing

uying intention when the explicit CSR message is included in the ad compared to the ad without a CSR message (Mno

sr = 2.69, SD = 1.05; Mcsr implicit = 2.17, SD = .94; Mcsr explicit = 1.94, SD = .75; F(2, 95) = 5.72, p < .05).The explicitly framed CSR message in the non-alcoholic condition leads to a better reputation of the organization compared

o the implicitly framed CSR message or the ad without a CSR message (Mno csr = 3.13, SD = .77; Mcsr implicit = 3.30, SD = .73; Mcsr

xplicit = 3.78, SD = .67; F(2, 91) = 6.55, p < .05). In contrast, the explicitly framed CSR message in the alcoholic condition leadso a significantly lower reputation of the organization (Mno csr = 3.56, SD = .59; Mcsr implicit = 2.58, SD = .79; Mcsr explicit = 2.54,D = .96; F(2, 95) = 18.54, p < .001).

Finally, the analysis shows that the implicitly framed CSR messages in the non-alcoholic condition lead to greater skepti-ism among consumers, although the effect is marginally significant (Mcsr implicit = 4.16, SD = .85; Mcsr explicit = 3.67, SD = .84;(2, 91) = 2.73, p < .10). In the alcoholic condition, both CSR messages in the advertisement lead to greater skepticism amongonsumers (Mno csr = 3.46, SD = 1.06; Mcsr implicit = 4.58, SD = .67; Mcsr explicit = 4.45, SD = .96; F(2, 95) = 14.88, p < .001).

. Conclusion

This study indicates that the framing effects of CSR messages are sector specific. This result is in line with the observationhat consumers expectations of CSR activities differ across sectors (Podnar & Golob, 2007). Similar CSR activities have differentffects on consumers attitudes, reputations and skepticism toward the organization (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006). In thisxperiment, the effects of CSR frames from an organization in a socially stigmatized sector (the alcoholic condition) differrom the effects of CSR frames from an organization in a sector that is not socially stigmatized (the non-alcoholic condition).n the non-alcoholic condition, CSR frames lead to a more favorable attitude toward the organization, increased buyingntention of consumers, a more favorable reputation and less skepticism. In the alcoholic condition, CSR frames lead tohe opposite consumer responses: a negative attitude toward the organization, weaker buying intention, a less favorableeputation and more skepticism toward the product and the organization. In the non-alcoholic condition, the results showhat the positive effects increase when a CSR message is framed explicitly. In the non-alcoholic condition, the implicit andxplicit frames both have negative effects.

Although this is a small and exploratory study, it underlines the idea that CSR communication may be paradoxical in itsffects: it may be perceived as insincere and may lead to greater skepticism toward an organization. This study also showshat the effects of CSR communication are sector dependent. CSR messages from organizations that operate in a sociallytigmatized industry have a negative effect on consumers, independent of the implicit or explicit framing of the message.

eferences

ecker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of BusinessResearch, 59(1), 46–53.

rammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 1–21.rønn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207–222.runer, G. C., & Hensel, P. J. (1996). Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures. Chicago: American Marketing Association.arroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal

of Management Review, 1(1), 85–105.DB/Intomart Gfk. (2008). Dossier duurzaam [Sustainability File]. Hilversum: Intomart Gfk.im, S., & Lee, Y. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public Relations Review, 38, 168–170.orsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business

Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338.ewell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52, 235–247.

bermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7,

159–186.odnar, K., & Golob, U. (2007). CSR expectations: The focus of corporate marketing. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12, 326–340.ebb, 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.