Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
While the customer-oriented literature on company
relationships has been growing (de Wulf et al., 2001;
Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995), the consumers view of
these relationships remains unexplored (Barnes,
1997). The effective management of customer relationships requires a previous consideration of why
customers enter into relationships with firms. While
from the firms perspective it is fairly clear that
engaging in a positive relationship with its customers
would enhance their loyalty and retention, leading
to greater company profitability (Reichheld, 1993;
Stephens et al., 1996), customers motivation to
engage in a relationship with companies is not
Longinos Marin
Salvador Ruiz
always apparent. Companies, as organizations, constitute a social group (Dutton et al., 1994) and recent
literature has found that one component of customers motivation to engage in relationships with
companies is to help companies provide to consumers in order to satisfy one or more key selfdefinitional needs through identification (Ahearne
et al., 2005; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).
Originally developed in the areas of social psychology and organizational behavior, the concept of
identification satisfies the need for social identity and
self-definition, and in turn, has been demonstrated
to positively impact member loyalty (Mael and
Ashforth, 1992) as well as employees citizenship
behaviors (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). Through
organizational identification, organizations contribute to individuals social identity (Brewer, 1991;
Dutton et al., 1994), i.e., the internalization of a
group category as part of the self-concept and the
acceptance of the values and behavioral norms of the
collectivity.
Researchers and theorists have shown that the
extent to which people identify with an organization
is dependent on the attractiveness of the organizational identity (Dutton et al., 1994). Identity
attractiveness (IA) in the consumercompany context is likely to be a necessary condition for identification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Nonetheless,
despite the relevance of consumercompany identification in the marketplace, little is known about
the antecedents of company IA for consumers.
Furthermore, researchers (Maignan and Ferrell,
2004; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001) have suggested
that organizational identification theory may provide
a solid basis for understanding how positive corporate social responsibility (CSR) generates the active
246
247
CORPORATE
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILIY
H3
H2
CSR
SUPPORT
H6
COMPANYCONSUMER
CONGRUENCE
H1
IDENTITY
ATTRACTIVENESS
H5
H4
CORPORATE
ABILITY
R1
COMPANY
EVALUATION
248
Consumercompany congruence
Research on social cognition and memory has
established that people actively organize their perceptions of other persons in their memories, using
abstract personality trait categories such as honest or intelligent (Srull and Wyer, 1989). Such
abstract categories may also be used to classify corporate associations. Similar to perceptions of persons,
these categories may correspond to different personality traits (Davies et al., 2001).
In the context of organization attraction,
Schneiders (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition
model posits that applicants will be attracted to
organizations where they perceive similarity between their attributes and those of the organization.
Job seekers prefer organizations with whom they
perceive congruence between their and the organizations primary values (Chatman, 1991). Finally, in
the job search process, individuals tend to be more
attracted to organizations with which they perceive a
match (Judge and Bretz, 1992).
For consumers, consumercompany congruence
is the overlap they perceive between the companys
character and their own (Sen and Bhattacharya,
2001). Scholars have demonstrated that people
identify with organizations when they perceive an
overlap between organizational attributes and their
individual attributes (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;
Dutton et al., 1994; Tajfel and Turner, 1986).
Both classical identity consumption theory (e.g.,
Belk, 1988) as well as the more recent consumer
company identification model (Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2003) emphasizes the importance of identity
similarity and attractiveness in shaping consumer
attitudes, preferences, and choices. These two contributions are rooted in the similarity-attraction
paradigm, which suggests that individuals are attracted to other individuals and groups that are
similar to them (Berscheid and Walster, 1969).
People are attracted to, prefer, and support relationships with similar others in order to reinforce
their self-esteem and maintain balance of congruity
in self-identity (Byrne, 1971; Tesser et al., 1988).
Therefore, when there is a match between corporate and consumer identity (CC congruence),
the relationship with the company should enable
consumers to define more clearly and completely
who they are or where they belong. Consumers will
The stronger the consumercompany congruence perception, the greater the companys
identity attractiveness for the consumer.
CSR associations
Over the last decade, a number of academic studies
have begun to look at the degree to which consumers are influenced by the associations they have
regarding a companys CA, on the one hand, and its
CSR, on the other (Berens et al., 2005; Brown and
Dacin, 1997). CSR associations reflect the organizations status and activities related to its perceived
societal obligations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). The
companys character revealed by its CSR actions is
not only fundamental and relatively enduring, but
also often more distinctive by virtue of its disparate
and idiosyncratic bases than other CA-based facets of
the company schema (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).
Consumers feel closer to some companies and
brands than to others (Fournier, 1998). When a
corporation behaves in a manner that is perceived as
socially responsible, consumers are likely to infer that
it has certain desirable traits that resonate with their
sense of self (Giacalone et al., 2005; Lichtenstein
et al., 2004; Maignan, 2001). Scott and Lane (2000)
point out that some organizations portray themselves
as exemplars of categories at higher levels of
abstraction (e.g., the Body Shop and animal rights
activism or Saturn and teamwork), inviting consumers to cooperate (co-produce) with them in a
specific social movement. These organizations seek
to reinforce their legitimacy and to embody qualities
they believe are particularly valued by stakeholders.
If CC congruence (CCC) is the overlap that consumers perceive between the companys character,
and their own, this CCC will be higher when a
company undertakes CSR initiatives, to the extent
that those initiatives signal to consumers that the
company has traits that overlap with their self-concept (i.e., civic minded, compassionate, and activist).
In other words, it is easier to find a major congruity
One stream of extant research investigates organizational characteristics and their effects on attraction to the organization. Structural attributes, such as
decentralized decision-making (Turban and Keon,
1993) and reward systems (Bretz et al., 1989), are
shown to influence perceptions of attractiveness
(Backhaus et al., 2002). Organizations with positive
affirmative action programs are more successful in
attracting high-quality applicants (Wright et al.,
1995). For example, Turban and Greenings (1997)
study has found a positive relationship between
published ratings of firms CSR and participants
ratings of firms attractiveness. Since they found a
correlation between CSR and attractiveness, the
study concluded that organizational attractiveness
perceptions may be influenced by CSR. Similarly,
Albinger and Freeman (2000) have also showed that
CSR influences attractiveness ratings, but only for
those job seekers with high levels of job choice.
From a marketing perspective, the firms economic benefits from CSR have been documented in
the link to consumers positive product and brand
evaluations, brand choice, and brand recommendations (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Vitell, 2003). In addition, CSR
activities can affect consumers general sense of wellbeing, without such well-being necessarily translating to company-specific benefits (Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2004, p. 13). That well-being may be associated
to the corporate IA as identification with an organization engaged in do-good CSR actions can
contribute to consumers self-esteem (Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001), as a result of a collaboration
(association) with an organization that is socially
responsible. In other words, even though the consumer may not perceived his/her character as
overlapping with that of the company, he/she may
aspire to participate in relationships with the com-
249
Company evaluation
Company evaluation refers to the degree of positiveness or negativeness of the subjects global
judgment of the company. This global judgment is
based on the companys central, distinctive, and
enduring characteristics, which are key components
leading to the prestige of the organizations identity
(Bhattacharya et al., 1995). It means that the organization is respected and admired by meaningful
referents (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton et al.,
1994).
By maintaining relationships with a company, the
consumer satisfies his/her needs of self-esteem and
security (Brewer, 1991; Kunda, 1999), one of the
three basic self-definitional needs, through the increase of his/her social prestige (Mael and Ashforth,
1992), access to particular social opportunities
(Smith and Mackie, 2000), or simply the perception
of him/herself as basking in reflected glory
(Cialdini et al., 1976). The more prestigious an
organization is, therefore, the better the opportunity
for a consumer to enhance self-esteem through
identification with the organization (Mael and
Ashforth, 1992). Taking into account that evaluation
leads to prestige (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) and that
identity prestige has been related to customers
identification with the company (Ahearne et al.,
2005; Albert and Whetten, 1985), a positive evaluation of the company will lead to high levels of that
companys IA. This leads us to formulate the following hypothesis:
250
H4:
CSR support
The social side of the consumer leads him/her to
avoid buying products from companies that harm
society, and actively seek out products from companies that help society (Creyer and Ross, 1997).
According to Webster (1975), the socially conscious consumer takes into account the public consequences of his or her private consumption or who
attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring
about social change (Webster, 1975, p. 188). When
buying, consumers take into account perceptions of
ethical or unethical activities carried out by businesses (Creyer and Ross, 1997). Consumers expect
businesses to behave ethically and are prepared to
punish those businesses when they see them falling
below the standards expected (Joyner and Payne,
2002; Vitell, 2003; Vitell and Muncy, 1992). The
effect of this social side of the consumer can be included in our model through consumers personal
support of the CSR domain (CSR support).
When the support of the companys CSR domain
is high, consumers will perceive greater congruence
between themselves and the company, either in
terms of common attributes or a shared prototype,
than will those whose support of that domain is low
(Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Consumers with high
Methodology
Sample
The model is tested in the context of financial services relationships, defined as existing when there is
an ongoing series of interactions between parties
who know each other (Czepiel, 1990). The
respondents were customers of a large financial services provider. All respondents were responsible for
financial matters in their families and were clients of
the bank at the time of the interview. Compared to
other industries, financial services providers do have
relationship marketing advantages because many
consumers are willing to establish relationships. This
fact is evidenced by a growing literature on relationships between financial services providers and
customers (Colgate and Alexander, 1998; Jarvinen
and Lehtinen, 2003; Roman and Ruiz, 2005),
relationship marketing efforts being implemented by
financial services providers in markets around the
world (Johnson and Greyson, 2005; Keltner, 1995),
and by the high effort developed concerning CSR in
this sector (Decker, 2004; Harvey, 1995; Ogrizek,
2002). The banking industry in Spain has undertaken many CSR actions in the last years, spending
in these activities a total of 1300 million euros in
2005 (http://www.ceca.es).
Data was collected from personal interviews.
Twelve branches of a major retail bank in the region
were chosen at random. The interviews were carried
out in situ, at the main door of the branches, at
251
Measures
Preliminary versions of the questionnaire were
administered to a convenience sample of 18 consumers, and pretest results were used to improve
measures and design an appropriate structure for the
questionnaire. The final measures and reliabilities are
provided in Table I.
Measures consisted of 11-point scales ranging
from 0 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree)1, except
for the CCC that was drawn from personorganization-fit research (Kristof, 1996) and measured as
the Euclidean distance between subjects perceived
personality profile of the company and of themselves. Personality profiles consisted of subjects ratings of the extent to which they believed each of a
set of personality trait adjectives described both them
and the company (0 = not at all, 10 = very
much). The 19 adjectives (one was deleted after a
pretest, as it was not well understood) were previously used in a consumption context by Sen and
Bhattacharya (2001).
We measured corporate associations using a fiveitem scale from Brown and Dacin (1997). CE was
measured using a six-item scale from Boulding and
Kirmani (1993). IA was measured using a four-item
scale adapted from Kim et al. (2001), following the
recommendations of Bhattacharya and Sen (2003).
Finally, we measured CSR support using a scale
from Mohr and Webb (2005).
Results
The models (CFA and SEM) described below were
run using LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001).
252
ksc
t-value
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.78
0.73
10.9
10.69
10.36
11.39
10.52
Reliability
qe = 0.91, AVE = 0.66
Alfa = 0,9078
0.8
0.84
0.78
0.73
0.74
11.98
12.81
11.44
10.47
10.75
qe = 0.91, AVE = 0.71
Alfa = 0.9030
0.79
0.92
0.87
0.8
11.91
15.07
13.76
12.10
0.87
0.75
0.88
0.72
0.86
0.77
13.94
10.88
14.03
10.52
13.51
11.40
0.9
0.82
0.88
0.85
14.49
12.62
14.26
13.34
253
average variance extracted by the underlying construct is larger than the shared variance (i.e., the U2
value) with other latent constructs. This condition
was satisfied for all the cases (Table III).
In summary, internal consistency and discriminant
validity results enabled us to proceed to estimation of
the structural model.
Structural equations modeling (Joreskog and
Sorbom, 2001) was used to test the theoretical
model depicted in Table IV. Results show that
the model in Table IV fits the data well as evidenced
by the goodness-of-fit measures: v2 = 431.78
(p = 0.00), df = 266, RMSEA = 0.061, NNFI =
0.98, and CFI = 0.98).
All three determinants, CCC (H1; b = 0.23,
t = 3.51), CSR associations (H3; b = 0.36,
t = 4.78); and CE (H4; b = 0.38, t = 5.12), have
direct and positive effects on IA.
The relevance of CSR activities in the model is
highlighted both by its direct effect and by its indirect effect on company IA. Both consumercompany congruence and CE contribute to this indirect
effect mediating the relationship between CRS
associations and IA.
TABLE II
U-Matrix of latent constructs for full sample
SUP
CSR
CA
CE
IA
0.28
0.37
0.44
0.37
(0.08)
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.07)
CSR
CA
CE
IA
1
0.70 (0.05)
0.64 (0.05)
0.71 (0.05)
1
0.75 (0.04)
0.73 (0.04)
1
0.74 (0.04)
SUP
CSR
CA
CE
IA
SUP
CSR
1
0.0784
0.1369
0.1936
0.1369
1
0.4901
0.4096
0.5041
CA
1
0.5625
0.5329
AVE
CE
1
0.5476
IA
0.7187
0.6035
0.6618
0.7472
0.7602
254
TABLE IV
Structural equation model results for hypothesis testing
Paths
Hip.
Std. Coefficient
(t-value)
CCC (+)-IA
H1
0.23 (3.51)***
0.43 (5.93)***
CSR (+)-CCC
H2
0.36 (4.78)***
CSR (+)-IA
H3
0.38 (5.12)***
CE (+)-IA
H4
0.26 (4.23)***
CCC (+)-CE
H5
SUP (+)-CCC
H6
0.33 (4.61)***
0.62 (8.40)***
CA (+)-CE
R1
v2 (266) = 431.78 (p = 0.002), v2/266 = 1.62,
AGFI = 0.78, GFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.98,
RMSEA = 0.061, NNFI = 0.98, PNFI = 0.85,
PGFI = 0.67
***p < 0.01.
TABLE V
Direct, indirect, and total effects
Direct
effect
CSR-IA
CA-IA
CSR-CE
CA-CE
0.36
0.62
Indirect
effect
Total
effect
CSR/CCC/IA: 0.099
CSR/CCC/CE/IA: 0.043
CA/CE/IA: 0.24
CSR/CCC/CE: 0.11
0.51
0.24
0.11
0.62
255
256
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Domenech Mele, Carmen Valor, and two anonymous reviewers for many
helpful comments and suggestions. They also thank
Fundacion Cajamurcia for its generous support. This research was funded by a grant SEJ2005-09358/ECON
from the Spanish Ministry of Science & Technology
and FEDER.
257
258
Chatman, J. A.: 1991, Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting
Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 459484.
Cialdini, R. B., R. J. Borden, A. Thorne, M. R. Walker,
S. Freeman and L. R. Sloan: 1976, Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (football) Field Studies, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 34, 366375.
Colgate, M. and N. Alexander: 1998, Banks, Retailers
and Their Customers: A Relationship Marketing
Perspective, The International Journal of Bank Marketing
16(4), 144168.
Creyer, E. H. and W. T. Ross, Jr.: 1997, The Influence
of Firm Behavior on Purchase Intention: Do
Consumers Really Care About Business Ethics?,
Journal of Consumer Marketing 14(6), 421432.
Czellar, S. and G. Palazzo: 2004, The Impact of Perceived Corporate Brand Values on Brand Preference:
An Exploratory Empirical Study, Institut Universitaire
de Management International, 119.
Czepiel, J. A.: 1990, Service Encounters and Service
Relationships: Implications for Research, Journal of
Business Research 20(1), 1321.
Davies, G., R. Chun and R. V. da Silva: 2001, The
Personification Metaphor as a Measurement Approach
for Corporate Reputation, Corporate Reputation Review
4(2), 113127.
De Wulf, K., G. O. Schroder and D. Lacobucci: 2001,
Investments in Consumer Relationships: A CrossCountry and Cross-Industry Exploration, Journal of
Marketing 65(4), 3350.
Decker, O. S.: 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Structural Change in Financial Services, Managerial Auditing Journal 19(6), 712728.
Drumwright, M.: 1994, Socially Responsible Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion, Journal of Marketing 58(3),
119.
Drumwright, M.: 1996, Company Advertising with a
Social Dimension: The Role of Non-economic Criteria, Journal of Marketing 60(4), 7187.
Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail: 1994,
Organizational Images and Member Identification,
Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2), 239263.
Ellen, P. S., D. J. Webb and L. A. Mohr: 2006, Building
Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for
Corporate Socially Responsible Programs, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 34(2), 147157.
Erez, M. and P. C. Earley: 1993, Culture, Self-identity and
Work (Oxford University Press, Nueva York).
Escalas, J. E. and J. R. Bettman: 2005, Self-Construal,
Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning, Journal of
Consumer Research 32(3), 378391.
259
260