Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
William Quezado Figueiredo Cavalcante
 + 1627 word(s) 1627 2022-03-04 02:12:28 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
 Meta information modification 1627 2022-03-28 06:28:54 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Cavalcante, W. The Influence of CSR and Ethics on Brand. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21103 (accessed on 19 April 2024).
Cavalcante W. The Influence of CSR and Ethics on Brand. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21103. Accessed April 19, 2024.
Cavalcante, William. "The Influence of CSR and Ethics on Brand" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21103 (accessed April 19, 2024).
Cavalcante, W. (2022, March 28). The Influence of CSR and Ethics on Brand. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/21103
Cavalcante, William. "The Influence of CSR and Ethics on Brand." Encyclopedia. Web. 28 March, 2022.
The Influence of CSR and Ethics on Brand
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14052962

Business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) exert an indirect positive effect on brand fidelity, with relationships mediated by brand love. In turn, brand attitude exerts an indirect effect on brand fidelity, through the mediation of brand love. 

corporate social responsibility business ethics brand fidelity brand love brand attitude

1. Stakeholder Theory

The stakeholder theory considers that companies must have a comprehensive view and go beyond actions aimed at enhancing the profitability of investors, while also focusing on the interests of other parties that exert direct or indirect influences on organizations [1][2].
Although companies are not obliged to act ethically and morally towards the population, these attitudes are still expected [3][4]. Responding positively to these concerns of interested parties can be very beneficial for companies and can enhance their wealth in general [5][6]. With society’s growing concern about ethical and social responsibility issues, the stakeholder theory represents an approach to the role of organizations in meeting social and collective concerns [7][8].
Given the complexity involved in CSR and business ethics practices, stakeholder theory can contribute by promoting a better assessment that analyzes the company’s relationship management with its stakeholders [9][10][11]. The various actors that make up the stakeholders have a fundamental role in generating wealth for companies and in their development, being the same ones who benefit from what the organization produces [12][13].

2. Corporate Social Responsibility

Sen et al. (p. 70, [14]) defined corporate social responsibility as “a firm’s or brand’s commitment to maximize long-term economic, societal, and environmental well-being through business practices, policies, and resources”. The European Commission (p. 4, [15]) defines CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns into their business activities and their interaction with stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. These CSR concepts clearly integrate social and environmental issues.
These activities attract the attention of managers, as they realize that the results of these actions bring many advantages for organizations [6]. Thus, there are some studies that have suggested the importance of these practices in organizations, as customers support companies that are socially responsible [16][17][18], and that these efforts are seen as acts of zeal and kindness that are evident to all interested parties, not just to the group destined to receive such benefits [19].
It is essential to emphasize that consumer perceptions have a significant influence on brand choice [20]. Bearing in mind that consumers are increasingly informed, it is important to emphasize that they realize the impact that SR activities can have on their lives, and they want to see organizations adhere to and defend this awareness [21].
Therefore, organizations that aspire to elevate their reputation, increase their business performance, strengthen ties with their target audience and solidify an attractive image to consumers should adopt CSR practices, as well as communicate such adhesions to their audience [22].

3. Business Ethics

Currently, people live in a society in which people have easy access to information, being fully interconnected in an increasingly transparent world. Throughout these changes, consumers have longed to see brands that integrate ethical values [23][24][25].
Lewis [26] presents in his research the different meanings that the term “ethics” can have, namely: (1) a general standard or way of life, (2) a set of rules of conduct or moral code, and (3) an investigation of ways of life and rules of conduct, understanding that a moral code is formed from the set of principles and values of the individual.
Companies that aim to have strong and solid brands must incorporate ethics as an essential point of business [27][28], as well as showing their target audience, through their constant interactions, how the brand has worked and approached ethics [28][29]. This means developing and demonstrating ethical actions at all points of contact between the consumer and the organization.
Consumers’ perceptions of a company’s ethics are an essential factor, as they exert an influence on their behavioral intentions, thus directing them to make certain decisions [30]. Business ethics has the power to positively influence consumers, as there is a good relationship between customers’ perceptions of business ethics and their preferences for the company’s products [18].
Following this, there is other research that shows that ethical consumption values play a significant role in customer evaluations regarding the brand/company [31]. More specifically, companies with ethical values can benefit from many positive consequences, as they exert a significant influence on the quality of the company’s products and services, advertising, the relationship between company and customer, society, and the environment [32].

4. Brand Love

The concept of brand love has evolved and shown its relevance in the customer–brand relationship, thus becoming present in the brand management area [33]. Brand love is about a unique emotional attitude, defined as the degree of passionate emotional attachment a person has to a specific business name [34]. As it results from the construction of marketing, this construct is a valuable instrument that helps to better understand consumer behavior, and its changes and directions in the expected post-consumption period [34].
Consumers do not bond or develop strong relationships with brands quickly. For this, a long-term relationship is needed, experienced between the consumer and the brand [35]. Thus, the relevance of a brand depends on the time the customers spend consuming products or services, as well as how much they think about it [36][37].
It is important to plan marketing strategies that go in search of a deep relationship with the customer [38]. Consequently, when marketers meet deep consumer values, they tend to influence them to experience a relationship of love for the brand [36].
In this context, CSR can strongly contribute to brand love, as several surveys have suggested that CSR is part of brand building, and that it strongly influences brand loyalty and the relationship between customer and brand [39]. There is also evidence to show that customer perceptions of CSR practices influence brand passion [40] and brand love [41][42].
Furthermore, it is important to know what the predictors of customer engagement with the brand are. In relation to this theme, Bezençon e Blili [43] contribute, in their research, to the relationship between ethics and involvement, and show that ethical products, in fact, influence customer involvement with the brand.
When consumers perceive ethical behavior on the part of the brand, they immediately link it to their own values, thus creating a strong connection and identification with the brand, as well as greater involvement and commitment [44][45][46]. Kim et al. [47] also suggest that the company’s pro-social and ethical actions generate brand love and the involvement of consumers with the brand.

5. Brand Attitude

Brand attitude refers to a global assessment of the brand, made by the consumer [48], which, in turn, stems from their beliefs and feelings regarding the characteristics and benefits of the brand [49]. Brand attitude is of fundamental importance, as its consequences impact brand evaluation [50]. Thus, it can be said that brand attitude reflects the level of sympathy of a brand, and can also be expressed through a positive view of the consumer [51].
It was demonstrated that there is a relationship between CSR and brand attitude, as well as purchase intention, perceived quality and brand image [52][53]. CSR activities are linked to consequences, such as consumer attitudes and behaviors [54][55][56].
Ethical behavior also has a significant effect on consumer attitudes and behaviors [54][55][56]. In the field of the relationship between customer and brand, it has been shown that when customers perceive that a company engages in ethical behavior, consumers tend to respond more positively to brands, given these perceptions [18][24]. Consequently, the consumer’s response is essential to understanding the relationship between the ethics perceived by consumers and their attitudes towards the brand, as well as their purchasing behavior [57]. As a consequence, there is a greater preference on the part of customers to consume products/services from pro-social companies [58].
Ferrell et al. [59] also showed, in their research, that business ethics has a greater influence on brand attitude than CSR. There is also research showing that affection becomes a dimension of consumer attitude when the consumers realize that a brand has ethical behavior [44][60].
The study by Grace et al. [61] shows that brand attitude, benefits and brand attributes establish the foundation on which the consumer–brand relationship is built. Its conceptual model demonstrates that brand attitude is an important predictor of brand love.

6. Brand Fidelity

In order to have strong relationships between the consumer and the brand, essential elements are taken into account, such as the durability, stability and exclusivity of the relationships [62][63][64]. In this sense, Grace et al. [65] propose the definition of a new construct in the field of investigation of the consumer–brand relationship—brand fidelity, a multidimensional variable developed and validated in the study by Grace et al. [61].
Brand fidelity is defined as the consumer’s devotion to a brand, demonstrated by a set of behaviors (i.e., accommodation/forgiveness—performance and price) and cognitions (i.e., derogation of alternatives and cognitive interdependence) that maintain relationship stability and durability [61][65].
Brand fidelity is a construct that is divided into two categories, namely, behavioral manifestations and cognitive manifestations, comprising four dimensions, conceptualized by Grace et al. [61]: accommodation/forgiveness (performance), which is the degree to which a consumer forgives and supports a brand in times of performance variations; accommodation/forgiveness (price), which is the extent to which a consumer forgives and supports a brand in times of price fluctuations; cognitive interdependence, which is the degree to which a consumer feels in harmony with the brand and assumes personal ownership of the brand, and derogation of alternatives, which is the extent to which a consumer focuses on the strengths of the brand and the weaknesses of its competitors.
It is known that brand fidelity is directly and positively influenced by brand love, according to previous research by Grace et al. [61], and this relationship was later confirmed in the empirical study by Joshi and Garg [66]. This leads this study to adopt the position that consumers who love a brand more will tend to be more loyal to that brand.

References

  1. Freudenreich, B.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Schaltegger, S. A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics. 2020, 166, 3–18.
  2. Fassin, Y.; de Colle, S.; Freeman, R.E. Intra-stakeholder alliances in plant-closing decisions: A stakeholder theory approach. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2017, 26, 97–111.
  3. Markovic, S.; Iglesias, O.; Singh, J.J.; Sierra, V. How does the perceived ethicality of corporate services brands influence loyalty and positive word-of-mouth? Analyzing the roles of empathy, affective commitment, and perceived quality. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 721–740.
  4. Carroll, A.B. Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2004, 18, 114–120.
  5. Jones, T.M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 404–437.
  6. Kang, J.W.; Namkung, Y. The effect of corporate social responsibility on brand equity and the moderating role of ethical consumerism: The case of starbucks. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 1130–1151.
  7. Waheed, A.; Zhang, Q.; Rashid, Y.; Zaman Khan, S. The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying tendencies from the perspective of stakeholder theory and practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1307–1315.
  8. Ayuso, S.; Rodríguez, M.A.; García-Castro, R.; Ariño, M.A. Maximizing stakeholders’ interests: An empirical analysis of the stakeholder approach to corporate governance. Bus. Soc. 2014, 53, 414–439.
  9. Rowley, T.; Berman, S. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Bus. Soc. 2000, 39, 397–418.
  10. Jamali, D.; Carroll, A. Capturing advances in CSR: Developed versus developing country perspectives. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2017, 26, 321–325.
  11. Clarkson, M.B.E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 92–117.
  12. Post, J.E.; Preston, L.E.; Sachs, S. Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2002, 45, 6–28.
  13. Cavalcante, W.Q.D.F.; Coelho, A.; Bairrada, C.M. Sustainability and tourism marketing: A bibliometric analysis of publications between 1997 and 2020 using vosviewer software. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4987.
  14. Sen, S.; Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B. Corporate social responsibility: A consumer psychology perspective. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 10, 70–75.
  15. Comissão Europeia. Comunicação da comissão ao parlamento europeu, ao conselho, ao comité económico e social europeu e ao comité das regiões; Reponsabilidade social das empresas: Uma nova estratégia da UE para o período de 2011–2014; Comissão Europeia: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  16. Barone, M.J.; Miyazaki, A.D.; Taylor, K.A. The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2000, 28, 248–262.
  17. Berger, I.E.; Kanetkar, V. Increasing environmental sensitivity via workplace experiences. J. Public Policy Mark. 1995, 14, 205–215.
  18. Creyer, E.H. The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers really care about business ethics? J. Consum. Mark. 1997, 14, 421–432.
  19. Godfrey, P.C.; Merrill, C.B.; Hansen, J.M. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 30, 425–445.
  20. Brammer, S.; Millington, A. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 61, 29–44.
  21. Ozuem, W.; Howell, K.; Lancaster, G. Corporate social responsibility: Towards a context-specific perspective in developing countries. Soc. Responsib. J. 2014, 10, 399–415.
  22. Werther, W.B., Jr.; Chandler, D. Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance. Bus. Horiz. 2005, 48, 317–324.
  23. Shaw, D.; Shiu, E. The role of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer choice. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2002, 26, 109–116.
  24. Carrigan, M.; Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 560–578.
  25. Vidgen, R.; Hindle, G.; Randolph, I. Exploring the ethical implications of business analytics with a business ethics canvas. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 281, 491–501.
  26. Lewis, P.V. Defining ‘business ethics’: Like nailing jello to a wall. J. Bus. Ethics 1985, 4, 377–383.
  27. Morsing, M. Corporate moral branding: Limits to aligning employees. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2006, 11, 97–108.
  28. Rindell, A.; Svensson, G.; Mysen, T.; Billström, A.; Wilén, K. Towards a conceptual foundation of ‘conscientious corporate brands’. J. Brand. Manag. 2011, 18, 709–719.
  29. Balmer, J.M.T. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing Seeing through the fog. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 35, 248–291.
  30. Chiu, R.K. Ethical judgment and whistleblowing intention: Examining the moderating role of locus of control. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43, 65–74.
  31. Kim, G.-S.; Lee, G.Y.; Park, K. A cross-national investigation on how ethical consumers build loyalty toward fair trade brands. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 96, 589–611.
  32. Hunt, S.D.; Wood, V.R.; Chonko, L.B. Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 79–90.
  33. Vernuccio, M.; Pagani, M.; Barbarossa, C.; Pastore, A. Antecedents of brand love in online network-based communities. A social identity perspective. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2015, 24, 706–719.
  34. Carroll, B.A.; Ahuvia, A.C. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 2006, 17, 79–89.
  35. Albert, N.; Merunka, D.; Valette-Florence, P. When consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 1062–1075.
  36. Batra, R.; Ahuvia, A.; Bagozzi, R.P. Brand love. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 1–16.
  37. Park, C.W.; Macinnis, D.J.; Priester, J.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Iacobucci, D. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 1–17.
  38. Bairrada, C.M.; Coelho, F.; Coelho, A. Antecedents and outcomes of brand love: Utilitarian and symbolic brand qualities. Eur. J. Mark. 2018, 52, 656–682.
  39. Sprinkle, G.B.; Maines, L.A. The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 445–453.
  40. Gilal, F.G.; Channa, N.A.; Gilal, N.G.; Gilal, R.G.; Gong, Z.; Zhang, N. Corporate social responsibility and brand passion among consumers: Theory and evidence. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2275–2285.
  41. Baena, V. The importance of CSR practices carried out by sport teams and its influence on brand love: The Real Madrid Foundation. Soc. Responsib. J. 2018, 14, 61–79.
  42. Rodrigues, P.; Borges, A.P.; Vieira, E.P. Corporate social responsibility image and emotions for the competitiveness of tourism destinations. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2020, 14, 134–147.
  43. Bezençon, V.; Blili, S. Ethical products and consumer involvement: What’s new? Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 1305–1321.
  44. Singh, J.J.; Iglesias, O.; Batista-Foguet, J.M. Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 111, 541–549.
  45. Pérez, R.C. Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility: The role of consumer identification with the company. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2009, 12, 177–191.
  46. Lichtenstein, D.R.; Drumwright, M.E.; Braig, B.M. The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 16–32.
  47. Kim, K.-M.; Nobi, B.; Kim, T. CSR and brand resonance: The mediating role of brand love and involvement. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4159.
  48. Colliander, J.; Marder, B. ‘Snap happy’ brands: Increasing publicity effectiveness through a snapshot aesthetic when marketing a brand on Instagram. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 78, 34–43.
  49. Keller, K.L. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 29, 595–600.
  50. Collins-Dodd, C.; Lindley, T. Store brands and retail differentiation: The influence of store image and store brand attitude on store own brand perceptions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2003, 10, 345–352.
  51. De Pelsmacker, P.; Geuens, M.; Van Den Bergh, J. Marketing Communications: A European Perspective, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2013.
  52. Ramesh, K.; Saha, R.; Goswami, S.; Sekar Dahiya, R. Consumer’s response to CSR activities: Mediating role of brand image and brand attitude. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 377–387.
  53. Rivera, J.J.; Bigne, E.; Curras-Perez, R. Effects of corporate social responsibility perception on consumer satisfaction with the brand. Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2016, 20, 104–114.
  54. Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C. Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument—Concepts, evidence and research directions. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 35, 457–484.
  55. Sureshchandar, G.S.; Rajendran, C.; Kamalanabhan, T.J. Customer perceptions of service quality: A critique. Total Qual. Manag. 2001, 12, 111–124.
  56. Sureshchandar, G.S.; Rajendran, C.; Anantharaman, R.N. The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction—A factor specific approach. J. Serv. Mark. 2002, 16, 363–379.
  57. Brunk, K.H. Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions—A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 255–262.
  58. Ross, J.K.; Patterson, L.T.; Stutts, M.A. Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1992, 20, 93–97.
  59. Ferrell, O.C.; Harrison, D.E.; Ferrell, L.; Hair, J.F. Business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 95, 491–501.
  60. Shea, L.J. Using consumer perceived ethicality as a guideline for corporate social responsibility strategy: A commentary essay. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 263–264.
  61. Grace, D.; Ross, M.; King, C. Brand fidelity: Scale development and validation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101908.
  62. Fournier, S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 343–353.
  63. Fournier, S.; Yao, J.L. Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1997, 14, 451–472.
  64. Bairrada, C.M.; Coelho, A.; Lizanets, V. The impact of brand personality on consumer behavior: The role of brand love. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2019, 23, 30–47.
  65. Grace, D.; Ross, M.; King, C. Brand fidelity: A relationship maintenance perspective. J. Brand Manag. 2018, 25, 577–590.
  66. Joshi, R.; Garg, P. Assessing brand love, brand sacredness and brand fidelity towards halal brands. J. Islam. Mark. 2020.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Management; Business; Others
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
William Cavalcante
View Times: 1.4K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Mar 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback