Consumers Perceptions of

Corporate Social Responsibilities:

A Cross-Cultural Comparison

ABSTRACT. Based on a consumer survey conducted

in France, Germany, and the U.S., the study investigates consumers readiness to support socially responsible organizations and examines their evaluations
of the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities of the firm. French and German
consumers appear more willing to actively support
responsible businesses than their U.S. counterparts.
While U.S. consumers value highly corporate economic responsibilities, French and German consumers
are most concerned about businesses conforming with
legal and ethical standards. These findings provide
useful guidance for the efficient management of social
responsibility initiatives across borders and for further
academic inquiries.
KEY WORDS: corporate benevolence, corporate
citizenship, corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, cross-cultural research, socially responsible
consumer behavior

The past ten years have witnessed the gradual

development of a research stream investigating
how corporate social responsibility can help the
marketing of the organization and its products
to consumers. This trend started with Robin and
Reidenbachs (1988) conceptualization of corporate social responsibility along with Varadarajan
and Menons (1988) depiction of cause-related
marketing. Since then, the marketing potential
of corporate responsibility initiatives has been
Isabelle Maignan is an assistant professor of marketing at
the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Her
work has appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Advertising, along with other journals and conference
proceedings.

Isabelle Maignan

investigated by a flourishing body of literature

with a focus on issues such as corporate environmentalism (e.g., Drumwright, 1994; Menon
and Menon, 1997), corporate citizenship (e.g.,
Maignan et al., 1999), and more generally from
marketing actions with a social dimension (e.g.,
Brown and Dacin, 1997; Drumwright, 1996;
Handelman and Arnold, 1999; Osterhus, 1997).
A few industry surveys (e.g., Business Wire,
1997; Jones, 1997; Lorge, 1999) and formal
academic inquiries (e.g., Brown and Dacin, 1997;
Handelman and Arnold, 1999) have yielded preliminary evidence revealing that corporate social
responsibility may induce consumer goodwill
toward the organisation. However, past surveys
have either focused on limited aspects of corporate social responsibility such as community
involvement or corporate giving (e.g., Brown and
Dacin, 1997) or have considered corporate social
responsibility in general without inquiring about
consumers understanding of this notion (e.g.,
Business Wire, 1997; Smith, 1996). As a result,
past research has suggested that consumers are
willing to support socially responsible businesses,
but has not characterised the corporate behaviours that are perceived as significant of social
responsibility by consumers. In addition, the
concept of corporate social responsibility and
most of the empirical work on the topic originate from the U.S. (for exceptions, see Maignan
and Ferrell, 2000; Pinkston and Carroll, 1994).
Yet, given the international scope of corporate
activities today, it is essential for businesses to
know whether corporate social responsibilities
are perceived in the same manner across borders.
Against this backdrop, the main objective of
this study was to add to existing U.S. research
by considering the potential of corporate social

Journal of Business Ethics 30: 5772, 2001.

2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

58

Isabelle Maignan

responsibility as a consumer marketing tool in

three countries. To that effect, the research first
evaluated the extent to which consumers in
France, Germany, and the U.S. are willing to
support responsible organizations when shopping.
Then, the study investigated how consumers in
these three countries evaluate the economic,
legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities of
businesses. Comparing consumers understanding
of and reaction to corporate social responsibility
in France, Germany, and the U.S. seemed
relevant given, on the one hand, the similarity of
these three nations in terms of economic development and democratic tradition and, on the
other hand, their vastly differing national
ideologies (Lodge, 1990; Thurow, 1992) and
cultural values (Hofstede, 1980, 1983; Schwartz,
1992).

Background of the study

In this section, past research findings on consumers reactions to responsible corporate behaviors is first reviewed briefly. Then, the nature of
corporate social responsibilities is discussed.

Do consumers support socially responsible businesses?

Very little research has examined the extent to
which consumers are willing to make an effort
to support socially responsible businesses and
punish irresponsible organizations. Preliminary
evidence has been provided by industry surveys.
For example, a study by Walker research found
that 88 percent of U.S. consumers are more likely
to buy from a company that is socially responsible (Smith, 1996). Similarly, a survey by the
Council on Foundations indicated that sixteen
percent of U.S. consumers claim to seek dogooders when shopping while another forty
percent found corporate citizenship to be a tiebreaking activity (Council on Foundations,
1996). Even though these studies are encouraging
for socially responsible businesses, they consider
social responsibility in general and do not
examine how consumers characterize corporate
social responsibility.

Among academic inquiries, interesting findings

were brought about by Brown and Dacin
(1997) who demonstrated in an experiment that
negative corporate responsibility associations can
have a detrimental effect on overall product evaluation, whereas positive associations can enhance
product evaluations. Brown and Dacin (1997)
used two activities to induce corporate social
responsibility associations: corporate giving and
community involvement. Even though these
two activities are significant of philanthropic
responsibility, they do not represent the full
spectrum of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Thus, Brown and Dacin s (1997) study
merely suggests that some philanthropic actions
can affect product evaluations. In another experimental study, Handelman and Arnold (1999)
observed that marketing actions with a social
dimension generate consumers support for the
organization. Handelman and Arnold (1999)
considered three types of corporate social actions:
commitment to the family, the community, and
the nation. Accordingly, the authors assessed consumers evaluations of three specific types of
responsibility initiatives, but could not establish
how consumers act toward an organization that
they consider as generally responsible. In fact, as
discussed below, past research has provided very
limited insights into consumers definition of
socially responsible corporate behaviors.

What is corporate social responsibility?

Bowen (1953) has been acknowledged as the
first scholar to have written a manuscript on the
topic of corporate responsibilities (Carroll, 1979;
Wartick and Cochran, 1985). Bowen (1953)
claimed that businesses have the obligation to
pursue those policies, to make those decisions,
or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our
society (p. 6). This seminal contribution was
the starting point of an abundant literature on
the nature of corporate social responsibilities
(e.g., Ackerman and Bauer, 1976; Davis, 1973;
Eells and Walton, 1961; Mason, 1960; McGuire,
1963).
In order to characterize the exact nature of

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

businesses social duties, scholars have generally
adopted one of the two following paths: (1) surveying managers about the importance for
businesses to adopt a certain number of behaviors (e.g., Eells and Walton, 1961; Eilbert and
Parket, 1973; McGuire, 1963; Sethi, 1979), or
(2) defining corporate social responsibilities based
on normative arguments (e.g., Ackerman and
Bauer, 1976; Davis, 1973; Swanson, 1995; Wood,
1991). Carroll (1979) adopted the second path
to develop a classification of corporate social
responsibilities that has been widely adopted in
later research (e.g., Lewin et al., 1995; Swanson,
1995; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991).
Carroll (1979) suggested that businesses have to
fulfill four main responsibilities: economic, legal,
ethical, and philanthropic. Economic responsibilities designate the obligations for businesses to
be productive and profitable. Legal responsibilities correspond to societys expectation to see
businesses meet their economic duties within the
framework of legal requirements. Ethical responsibilities require that businesses abide by established norms defining appropriate behavior, and
philanthropic responsibilities reflect the common
desire to see businesses get actively involved in
the betterment of society.
Interestingly, this acknowledged classification
like other less established frameworks has not
been brought to the scrutiny of consumers or of
the general public. Even though the notion of
corporate social responsibility implies that corporate activities have to conform with established
social norms and values (Sethi, 1979), prevailing
social norms have not been formally surveyed in
past research. Some empirical studies surveyed
managers understanding of corporate social
responsibilities based on Carrolls (1979) classification (e.g., Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield,
1985; Pinkston and Carroll, 1994); yet no
attempt has been made to establish whether this
framework depicts appropriately consumers perceptions of corporate responsibilities.
Overall, the value of corporate social responsibility as a consumer marketing tool remains
uncertain for three main reasons. First, there is
very limited evidence that consumers are indeed
willing to give their support for example
through repeat purchase or positive word-of-

59

mouth to socially responsible businesses.

Second, little is known about consumers definition of socially responsible corporate behaviors.
Third, corporate social responsibilities have
been investigated mostly in the U.S.; hence, the
appropriateness of these corporate actions as a
way to market the organization to consumers
across borders remains uncertain. Against these
caveats, the study examined the extent to
which consumers in France, Germany, and the
U.S. are willing to grant their active support to
socially responsible businesses. In addition, the
research compared and contrasted consumers
evaluation of corporate social responsibilities
as defined by Carroll (1979) in the three countries considered. The next section introduces
the hypotheses at the heart of the empirical
investigation.

Hypotheses development
This section is divided in three parts. First, consumers support for corporate social responsibility
in the three countries of interest is considered.
Then, the relative importance attributed by
consumers in each country to economic, legal,
ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities respectively is discussed. Finally, consumers evaluations
are compared across countries.
Lodges (1990) comparative analysis of
business-government relations in the U.S. and
Europe is used as a conceptual background to
survey cross-national differences. Lodge (1990)
suggested that the underlying ideology of a
country encourages firms in that country to
pursue a primary strategic objective; this position
received empirical support in a study by Katz et
al. (1998). Lodges (1990) depiction of national
ideologies is especially relevant for the present
study since consumers depiction of corporate
social responsibilities can be expected to reflect
underlying national ideologies. Lodge (1990)
differentiated between individualist and communitarian ideologies. Individualism values the
short-term betterment of the individual, whereas
communitarianism emphasizes the needs of the
community and the benefits of consensus. Lodge
further classified the U.S. as an exemplar of the

60

Isabelle Maignan

individualistic ideology, while he depicted France

and Germany as mainly communitarian countries. Whereas Lodge (1990) examined national
ideologies based on the structure of the interactions between government and businesses,
Hofstede (1980, 1983) and Schwartz (1992) considered the characteristics of national cultures
according to the values held by individuals. Yet,
the results of these two different approaches
concur since both Hofstede (1980, 1983) and
Schwartz (1992) also rated France and Germany
as more collectivist and less individualist than
the U.S.
These general evaluations of national ideologies and cultures are also in agreement with more
specialized analyses that have compared the social
responsibility and ethics practices in the U.S. and
Europe (e.g., Buchholz, 1998; Vogel, 1992). For
example, Vogel (1992) noted that the U.S.
approach to business ethics is more individualistic, legalistic, and universalistic than in any other
capitalist societies (p. 30).

Support for corporate social responsibility across

borders
Given that the French and German ideologies are
communitarian, consumers in those two countries are likely to incorporate societys well-being
in their shopping decisions. Thus, they may
consider corporate social responsibility as an
important purchasing criterion. They may even
be ready to make specific efforts for example
paying a higher price or shopping at a less convenient location to buy the products of companies known to be socially responsible, while
avoiding to purchase from companies with a poor
reputation in terms of social responsibility. Such
proactive behaviors in favor of responsible organizations may not be as prevalent in the U.S.
where individualism may dictate consumers to
pay less attention to the social impact of corporate activities. Accordingly, the following
hypotheses (H1, H2a, H2b) are advanced:
H1:

Consumers in France and Germany will

give the same level of support to socially
responsible businesses when shopping.

H2:

Consumers in (a) France and (b)

Germany will be more supportive of
socially responsible businesses when
shopping than U.S. consumers.

Evaluation of corporate social responsibilities in each

country
As discussed earlier, Carroll (1979) identified
four different types of corporate responsibilities:
economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. Since
this framework has been widely acknowledged in
the literature (e.g., Lewin et al., 1995; Maignan
et al., 1999; Swanson, 1995; Wartick and
Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991), its dimensions can
be expected to be meaningful to consumers.
Subsequently, consumers are likely to differentiate between the four types of social responsibilities as suggested in the following hypothesis:
H3:

Consumers in France, Germany, and

the U.S. respectively will distinguish
between the four following types of
corporate social responsibilities: (1)
economic, (2) legal, (3) ethical, and (4)
philanthropic.

Carroll (1979) stated that: The first and

foremost social responsibility of businesses is
economic in nature. Before anything else, the
business institution is the basic economic unit in
our society (p. 500). Carroll further ranked the
other corporate responsibilities in the following
decreasing order of importance: (1) legal, (2)
ethical, and (3) philanthropic responsibilities.
One may wonder whether the ranking proposed
by Carroll on the basis of very limited normative arguments is also shared by consumers in the
three countries considered. Since the U.S. is
depicted as the best example of the individualist
ideology (Lodge, 1990), its different social actors
are likely to consider that both themselves and
other social actors strive to serve mainly their
short term self-interests. Accordingly, U.S. consumers probably expect businesses to strive to
achieve high profitability levels. Thus, the
following hypotheses (H4a, H4b, H4c) are
proposed:

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

H4:

Consumers in the U.S. will allocate

more importance to corporate economic responsibilities than to corporate
(a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) philanthropic responsibilities respectively.

Given that Germany and France are characterized mainly by a communitarian ideology, the
members of these two societies are unlikely to
perceive the pursuit of ones self-interest as an
appropriate overriding goal for any social agent.
Accordingly, French and German consumers may
not view economic achievements as the primary
social duty of businesses. Instead, these consumers may sense that businesses should use
their economic resources to foster the well-being
of society in general. Accordingly, corporate
economic responsibilities may be viewed by
French and German consumers as secondary to
other corporate social responsibilities. Thus, the
following hypotheses (H5a, H5b, H5c) are
advanced:
H5:

Consumers in France and Germany will

allocate less importance to corporate
economic responsibilities than to corporate (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) philanthropic responsibilities.

Hypotheses H4 and H5 compare the importance attributed to economic responsibilities

relative to other social responsibilities in each
country. As far as the other three social responsibilities are concerned, Carroll (1979) proposed
the following decreasing order of importance: (1)
legal, (2) ethical, and (3) philanthropic. The
analyses by Lodge (1990), Hofstede (1980, 1983)
or Schwartz (1992) do not provide any specific
reasoning suggesting whether or not this ranking
is applicable in each of the three countries considered. Consequently, Carrolls evaluation is
adopted and the following hypothesis is suggested:
H6:

Consumers in France, Germany, and the

U.S. will rank the legal, ethical, and
philanthropic corporate responsibilities
in the following decreasing order of
importance: (1) legal, (2) ethical, and (3)
discretionary.

61

Comparison of corporate social responsibilities across

countries
Lodges (1990) analysis of national ideologies
along with Hofstedes (1980, 1983) and
Schwartzs (1992) studies of national cultures do
not clearly differentiate between France and
Germany in terms of individualism and communitarianism. Consequently, as stated in the following hypotheses (H7a to H7d), the importance
attributed to each type of social responsibility is
not expected to differ significantly among French
and German consumers.
H7:

Consumers in France and Germany will

allocate the same level of importance to
corporate (a) economic, (b) legal, (c)
ethical, and (d) philanthropic responsibilities.

As discussed earlier, U.S. consumers are likely

to view economic achievements as the most
important corporate responsibilities whereas
French and German consumers are not expected
to view economic achievements as the overriding
goal of corporations. Consequently, corporate
economic responsibilities are likely to be granted
more importance by U.S. consumers than by
their French and German counterparts. Hence,
the following hypotheses (H8a and H8b) are
proposed:
H8:

Consumers in the U.S. will allocate

more importance to corporate economic responsibilities than consumers in
(a) France, and (b) Germany.

Given the prevalence of the communitarian

ideology in France and Germany, consumers in
both nations can be expected to allocate much
importance to businesses conforming to the
norms and values acknowledged as essential in
their respective country. Hence, these two
consumer groups might be especially eager to
see businesses follow the appropriate modes of
behavior as defined in ethical principles and in
the law. Accordingly, the following hypotheses
(H9a, H9b, H10a, H10b) are proposed:
H9:

Consumers in (a) France and (b)

Germany will allocate more importance

62

Isabelle Maignan
to corporate legal responsibilities than
consumers in the U.S.
H10: Consumers in (a) France and (b)
Germany will allocate more importance
to corporate ethical responsibilities than
consumers in the U.S.

In addition, the communitarian nature of the

French and German ideologies is likely to make
the search for a common good an overriding
objective of all social agents, including businesses.
Consumers in these two countries may value
more than their U.S. counterparts the initiatives
undertaken by businesses to actively foster the
well-being of society. Thus, as advanced in the
following hypotheses (H11a and H11b), U.S.
consumers may attribute less importance to
philanthropic responsibilities than French and
German consumers respectively:
H11: Consumers in the U.S. will allocate less
importance to corporate philanthropic
responsibilities than consumers in (a)
France and (b) Germany.

Methodology
This section first introduces the steps that were
adopted to develop measurement instruments.
Then, the data gathering process is presented.

Instrument development
One common procedure was employed to
develop measures of (1) consumers support of
socially responsible businesses and (2) consumers
evaluation of corporate social responsibilities.
First, a literature search was conducted in the
hope of finding relevant existing measurement
instruments. Two existing scales were especially
useful to measure consumers evaluation of corporate social responsibilities. First, Aupperle,
Carroll and Hatfield (1985) constructed a survey
instrument that assessed managers evaluation of
the four social responsibilities defined by Carroll
(1979). A second useful reference was a scale
developed by Maignan and Ferrell (2000) to
survey businesses commitment to corporate

citizenship on the basis of information provided

by managers. This instrument was based on
Carrolls (1979) classification of social responsibilities and was developed specifically to be
applicable in both the U.S. and France. The
authors discussion of cross-cultural differences
was instrumental for the present study.
In a second step, an initial battery of items
was generated for each of the two measures.
Consistent with the recommendations of
Churchill (1979), three pre-tests were employed
to assess the quality, face validity, and content
validity of the items. First, the items were submitted to six scholars with an expertise in the
field of business and society. These scholars had
to pinpoint any ambiguous item and had to rate
each item in terms of representativeness and
consistency. Based on the comments thereby
obtained, items were modified and rephrased. In
a second pre-test, the resulting items were submitted to university employees excluding professors in each country. These informants were
asked to participate in a survey about shopping.
Respectively 53, 45, and 42 usable questionnaires
were obtained in the U.S., France, and Germany.
The items descriptive statistics, inter-item along
with item-to-total correlations, and reliability
estimates were examined and helped further
refine the instrument. At this stage, potential
wording and formulation consistency issues
became apparent and were solved. Finally, the
resulting items were submitted again to the six
experts in the field of business and society. Their
suggestions led to only some minor modifications
in the wording and presentation of the items.
This procedure resulted in a five-item instrument to measure consumers support of responsible businesses. On a seven-point scale, the
informants had to rate the following statements:
(1) I would pay more to buy products from a
socially responsible company; (2) I consider the
ethical reputation of businesses when I shop; (3)
I avoid buying products from companies that
have engaged in immoral actions; (4) I would pay
more to buy the products of a company that
shows caring for the well-being of our society;
(5) If the price and quality of two products are
the same, I would buy from the firm that has a
socially responsible reputation. An exploratory

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

factor analysis with a varimax rotation was conducted and yielded one single factor in each
sample. The resulting reliability coefficients
were: 0.97, 0.92, and 0.96 for the French,
German, and U.S. samples respectively. For the
measure of consumers evaluation of corporate
social responsibilities, a total of sixteen items
were employees four for each social responsibility. Respondents had to rate each item on a
seven point scale (ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree) based on the statement: I
believe that businesses must . . . (all scale items
are presented in Table I).
Much attention was paid to maintaining translation equivalence (Agarwal, 1992). To that
effect, all the items employed were first translated
into French and German respectively and backtranslated into English by professional translators.
The few discrepancies observed between the
original instrument and its back translated version
were only minor and easily solved by the translators. The resulting questionnaire was entitled
Survey of Shopping Styles and included forty
items asking about shopping habits in addition to
the measures developed for the purpose of this
study. Demographic questions were also incorporated in the survey.

Data collection
One main concern with the data collection
process was to obtain information from comparable samples in France, Germany, and the U.S.
Recruiting consumers within a similar workplace
environment seemed to provide some assurance
of sample comparability in terms of social status,
education, and lifestyles. Consequently, questionnaires were distributed in different insurance
companies and banks in each of the three countries. Specifically, in the U.S., informants were
recruited among one bank in a South Eastern
city, and one insurance company in a North
Eastern city. In France, questionnaires were
distributed in one insurance company and
two banks, all located in metropolitan areas. In
Germany, a bank and an insurance company
located in the Western part of the country were
employed as data gathering sites.

63

In each case, a contact person was asked to pass

two hundred questionnaires among colleagues at
all levels of the organizations and in as many different departments as possible. The German
contacts managed to pass only 120 surveys. A
total of 169 French, 94 German, and 145 U.S.
usable questionnaires were returned. An examination of the respondents demographic profile
(see Table II) revealed that the three samples were
quite comparable in terms of age, gender, education, and position in the company.

Analysis and results

Support for corporate social responsibility across
borders
A summary of the study results is presented in
Table III. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
was used to test for hypotheses H1 through
H2b with responsible shopping behaviors as the
dependent variable and age, gender, and education as covariates. All three covariates were significant; the resulting F was also statistically
significant (F = 9.50; df = 2; p < 0.01). A
post-hoc LSD test first revealed no difference in
the average score obtained in France and in
Germany. Thus, hypothesis H1 was supported.
The post hoc test also indicated that the mean
score obtained for consumers support of corporate social responsibility was significantly higher
in France (mean = 4.95) and Germany (mean =
5.19) respectively than in the U.S. (mean =
4.40). Hence, hypotheses H2a and H2b were
supported.

Evaluation of corporate social responsibilities in each

country
Exploratory factor analyses were conducted independently in each sample to examine hypothesis
H3. As indicated in Table I, four factors one
for each type of corporate social responsibility
were clearly apparent in the three samples.
No instance of obvious cross-loading could be
observed; communality and eigenvalue indicators
also fell within recommended guidelines (Hair et

64

TABLE Ia
Scale items and exploratory factor analysis of corporate social responsibilities
Factor loadingsb

I believe that businesses must:

France

Germany

United States

ECO LEG ETH

PHI

Ctyc

ECO LEG ETH

PHI

Cty

ECO LEG ETH

PHI

Cty

Maximize profits.
Control their production costs strictly.
Plan for their long term success.
Always improve economic performance.
Ensure that their employees act within
the standards defined by the law.
Refrain from putting aside their
contractual obligations.
Refrain from bending the law even
it this helps improve performance.
Always submit to the principles defined
by the regulatory system.
Permit ethical concerns to negatively
affect economic performance.
Ensure that the respect of ethical
principles has priority over
economic performance.
Be committed to well-defined
ethics principles.
Avoid compromising ethical standards
in order to achieve corporate goals.
Help solve social problems.
Participate in the management of
public affairs.
Allocate some of their resources to
philanthropic activities.
Play a role in our society that goes
beyond the mere generation of profits.

0.83
0.76
0.70
0.85

0.13
0.08
0.02
0.00

0.72
0.64
0.56
0.72

0.85
0.85
0.82
0.83

0.13
0.07
0.05
0.03

0.76
0.74
0.73
0.72

0.90
0.92
0.95
0.90

0.07
0.02
0.07
0.03

0.91
0.86
0.93
0.87

Eigenvalue
Cronbach alpha

2.65 3.30 3.23 2.70

0.81 0.92 0.91 0.82

0.04
0.09
0.28
0.03

0.14
0.09
0.23
0.00

0.00
0.07
0.07
0.18

0.14
0.06
0.05
0.12

0.27
0.02
0.14
0.19

0.17 0.85 0.19 0.02 0.78 0.10 0.83 0.29 0.14 0.80 0.00 0.85 0.08 0.32 0.83
0.15 0.84 0.25 0.02 0.80 0.03 0.78 0.33 0.11 0.74 0.23 0.81 0.29 0.03 0.79
0.03 0.87 0.29 0.00 0.84 0.05 0.90 0.14 0.05 0.84 0.12 0.84 0.37 0.05 0.87
0.09 0.88 0.24 0.10 0.86 0.07 0.84 0.18 0.11 0.75 0.06 0.87 0.26 0.12 0.84
0.12 0.17 0.88 0.08 0.83 0.14 0.10 0.81 0.32 0.79 0.18 0.20 0.90 0.11 0.90
0.05 0.24 0.85 0.07 0.78 0.11 0.36 0.81 0.25 0.87 0.20 0.30 0.84 0.10 0.84
0.09 0.29 0.81 0.16 0.77 0.07 0.30 0.80 0.25 0.80 0.12 0.23 0.90 0.21 0.92
0.06 0.29 0.84 0.05 0.79 0.06 0.38 0.83 0.12 0.85 0.15 0.27 0.89 0.09 0.89
0.21 0.01 0.02 0.84 0.75 0.00 0.05 0.27 0.87 0.83 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.92 0.88
0.16 0.05 0.17 0.76 0.63 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.88 0.82 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.94 0.88
0.05 0.04 0.06 0.81 0.67 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.89 0.85 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.93 0.90
0.10 0.16 0.08 0.83 0.73 0.43 0.17 0.19 0.90 0.87 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.89 0.88
3.08 3.36 3.09 3.45
0.95 0.91 0.96 0.95

3.57 3.20 3.62 3.59

0.86 0.90 0.92 0.93

ECO = economic responsibilities, LEG = legal responsibilities, ETH = ethical responsibilities, PHI = philanthropic responsibilities;
rotation was employed; c cty = communality estimates; represent the squared multiple correlations for predicting the estimated factors.

a varimax

Isabelle Maignan

0.07
0.23
0.03
0.02

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

65

TABLE II
Profile of respondents
France

Germany

United States

Age:

Mean
Minimum
Maximum

39%
18%
64%

36%
21%
61%

36%
18%
63%

Gender:

Male
Female

56%
42%

54%
46%

57%
43%

Degree:

High School and under

Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
Doctorate

34%
36%
20%
07%
02%

29%
37%
25%
07%
02%

19%
46%
27%
03%
04%

Position:

Non-supervisory staff
First level manager
Middle manager
Upper manager

40%
30%
23%
06%

40%
33%
19%
08%

36%
33%
24%
06%

al., 1995). These results provided support for

hypothesis H3: French, German, and U.S. consumers respectively appeared to clearly regroup
corporate social responsibilities according to their
economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
nature. As shown in Table I, reliability scores
were good for each type of corporate social
responsibility in the three countries: cronbach
alpha ranged from 0.81 to 0.92 in the French
sample, from 0.91 to 0.96 in the German sample,
and from 0.86 to 0.93 in the U.S. sample.
Table IV presents the correlations between
each type of corporate social responsibilities in
France, Germany, and the U.S. respectively. This
Table also reports the correlation scores obtained
between each social responsibility and an overall
responsibility item included in the survey:
I believe that businesses must make efforts
to behave in a socially responsible manner.
Interestingly, in all three samples, economic
responsibilities were either not significantly correlated or negatively correlated to the other
three social responsibilities, except for legal
responsibilities in France. In addition, unlike the
legal, ethical, and discretionary responsibilities,
economic responsibilities were not significantly
associated with the overall responsibility item in

France and Germany and were negatively

correlated to that item in the U.S. Yet, the mean
scores allocated to economic responsibilities were
above the neutral point in each sample. These
observations imply that consumers do allocate
economic responsibilities to businesses, but differentiate between corporate economic responsibilities on the one hand and corporate legal,
ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities on the
other hand. A further examination of Table IV
indicated that philanthropic responsibilities
were not associated significantly with the other
three responsibilities in the French sample only.
However, they were positively correlated to the
overall responsibility item.
Hypotheses H4a to H6 were tested through a
series of one-sample t-tests in each country (see
Table IV). In the U.S. sample, consumers rated
economic responsibilities as significantly more
important than ethical (t = 3.13, p < 0.01) and
philanthropic responsibilities (t = 9.37, p <
0.01). However, no significant difference was
observed in the degree of importance allocated
to economic and legal responsibilities in the U.S.
Hence, evidence was gathered in support of
hypotheses H4b and H4c, but not in support of
H4a. As suggested in hypotheses H5a, H5b, and

66

Isabelle Maignan
TABLE III
Summary of study findings

Hypothesis

Result

H1

Failed to be rejected

H2a

Failed to be rejected

H2b

Failed to be rejected

H3

Failed to be rejected

H4a
H4b

Rejected
`
Failed to be rejected

H4c

Failed to be rejected

H5a

Failed to be rejected

H5b

Failed to be rejected

H5c

Failed to be rejected

H6

H7

Failed to be rejected
(only partial support
in Germany)
Failed to be rejected

H8

Failed to be rejected

H9a

Rejected

H9b

Rejected

H10a

Rejected

H10b

Rejected

H11a

Failed to be rejected

H11b

Failed to be rejected

Short Interpretation
Consumers in France and Germany give the same level of support to
socially responsible businesses.
Consumers in France are more supportive of socially responsible
businesses than U.S. consumers.
Consumers in Germany are more supportive of socially responsible
businesses than U.S. consumers.
French, German, and U.S. consumers distinguish between the four types
of responsibilities.
U.S. consumers do not allocate more importance to economic than to
legal responsibilities
U.S. consumers allocate more importance to economic than to ethical
responsibilities.
U.S. consumers allocate more importance to economic than to
philanthropic responsibilities.
French and German consumers allocate less importance to economic
than to corporate legal responsibilities.
French and German consumers allocate less importance to economic
than to corporate ethical responsibilities.
French and German consumers allocate less importance to economic
than to corporate philanthropic responsibilities.
French, German, and U.S. consumers rank responsibilities in the
following decreasing order of importance: (1) legal, (2) ethical, and
(3) discretionary.
Consumers in France and Germany allocate the same level of
importance to each of the four responsibilities.
U.S. consumers allocate more importance to economic responsibilities
than French and German consumers.
French consumers do not allocate more importance to corporate legal
responsibilities than U.S. consumers.
German consumers do not allocate more importance to corporate legal
responsibilities than U.S. consumers.
French consumers do not allocate more importance to corporate
ethical responsibilities than U.S. consumers.
German consumers do not allocate more importance to corporate
ethical responsibilities than U.S. consumers.
U.S. consumers allocate less importance to philanthropic responsibilities
than French consumers.
U.S. consumers allocate less importance to philanthropic responsibilities
than German consumers.

H5c, French and German consumers allocated

the least importance to the economic responsibilities of the firm: economic responsibilities
were found to be less important than legal (t =
10.67, p < 0.01 in France; t = 6.61, p < 0.01 in
Germany), ethical (t = 9.29, p < 0.01 in France;
t = 5.33, p < 0.01 in Germany) and philan-

thropic (t = 2.90, p < 0.01 in France; t = 4.00,

p < 0.01 in Germany) responsibilities respectively.
French consumers ranked the different social
responsibilities in the following decreasing order
of importance: (1) legal, (2) ethical, (3) philanthropic, and (4) economic responsibilities. Thus,
hypothesis H6 was supported in the French

United States

France

Germany

ECO

LEG

ETH

PHI

ECO

LEG

ETH

PHI

ECO

LEG

ETH

PHI

ECO
LEG
ETH
PHI

1
1.18
3.13**
9.37

00.09
01
04.14**
10.31**

0.10
00.57**
01
6.47**

0.01
0.28**
0.48**
1

01
10.67**
09.29**
02.90**

00.20**
01
2.70**
7.89**

00.07
00.53**
01
5.51**

0.05
00.03
0.01
01

1
6.61**
5.33**
4.00**

0.27**
01
0.40
2.38*

0.36**
00.56**
01
1.95*

0.10
00.29**
00.29**
01

RES

0.34**

00.72**

00.71**

0.46**

00.01

00.35**

00.32**

00.31**

0.04

00.46**

00.45**

00.58**

MEAN

5.42

05.52

05.12

4.43

04.56

05.58

05.35

04.86

4.43

05.32

05.55

04.86

Above the diagonal, Pearson correlations; below the diagonal, t-values in italics; ECO = economic responsibilities; LEG = legal responsibilities;
ETH = ethical responsibilities; PHI = philanthropic responsibilities; RES = overall social responsibility item I believe that businesses must make
efforts to behave in a socially responsible manner; ** p < 0.01.

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

TABLE IV
Social responsibilities: Correlations, differences (t-tests), and meansa

67

68

Isabelle Maignan

sample. German consumers provided the following ranking: (1) legal and ethical responsibilities, (2) philanthropic responsibilities, and (3)
economic responsibilities. Hypothesis H6 was
only partially supported in the German sample
since no difference in importance level was
established for legal and ethical responsibilities.
Hypothesis H6 was supported in the U.S. sample:
the importance of social responsibilities was
ranked in the following decreasing order of
importance: (1) economic and legal responsibilities, (2) ethical responsibilities, and (3) philanthropic responsibilities.

Comparison of corporate social responsibilities across

countries
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was first employed to test hypotheses H7a
through H11b. The four social responsibilities
were considered as dependant variables, and three
covariates gender, education, and age were
included in the analysis. Since the resulting Wilks
statistic was significant (Wilks = 9.15; df = 2,
193; p < 0.01), subsequent ANCOVAs were conducted for each individual social responsibility.
As indicated in Table V, the ANCOVAs were run
for the study results using only the significant
demographic variables. Then, LSD post-hoc tests
were conducted to locate the differences.
The findings provided support for hypothesis

H7: no significant difference was found between

the French and German samples in the importance allocated to each of the four social responsibilities. Evidence was also gathered in support
of hypotheses H8a and H8b: U.S. consumers
allocated more importance to economic responsibilities than French and German consumers
respectively (F = 32.40; df = 2; p < 0.01). No
support was gathered for hypotheses H9a and
H9b: consumers in France and Germany did not
allocate more importance to corporate legal
responsibilities than consumers in the U.S.
Similarly, hypotheses H10a and H10b were not
supported: the importance allocated to corporate
ethical responsibilities was not significantly
greater in France and Germany respectively than
in the U.S. Hypotheses H11a and H11b were
supported: U.S. consumers allocated significantly
less importance to philanthropic responsibilities
than French and German consumers respectively
(F = 6.16, df = 2, p < 0.01).

Discussion and conclusion

This section begins with a discussion of the study
findings along with their managerial implications.
Then, the main limitations of the analysis are
highlighted while directions for future research
are proposed.
First of all, the study findings emphasize the
potential fruitfulness of positioning the corpora-

TABLE V
Importance attributed to corporate social responsibilities: Comparison across France, Germany and the U.S.
Dependent
measures

Univariate
F

Mean

Post-Hoc

FR.

GR.

U.S.

LSD Test
FR. < U.S.
GR. < U.S.
0000
0000
FR. > U.S.
GR. > U.S.

ECOa

32.40**

4.56

4.43

5.42

LEGb
ETHc
PHId

00.82**
01.09**
06.16**

5.58
5.35
4.86

5.32
5.26
4.99

5.52
5.12
4.43

Covariates included in the analyses: education and gender; b Covariates included in the analysis: education,
gender and age; c Covariate included in the analysis: gender; d Covariate included in the analysis: age; * p <
0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

tion as a responsible one, especially in the French
and German markets. In these two nations,
informants were significantly more likely than
in the U.S. to support responsible organizations
in their shopping activities. Nevertheless, on
average, consumers in all three countries were
willing to make specific efforts to buy products
from responsible organizations. These findings
confirm the appropriateness of corporate social
responsibility as an instrument to market the
organization to consumers. The research also
underlines the need to better understand how
consumers in diverse countries define socially
responsible corporate activities.

Nature of corporate social responsibilities

As indicated in the results of the factor analysis,
the study showed that French, German, and U.S.
consumers can distinguish between the four corporate social responsibilities economic, legal,
ethical, and philanthropic defined by Carroll
(1979). The analysis revealed that each type of
social responsibility as perceived by consumers
stands on its own and is not just a dimension of
an underlying, encompassing construct. Of particular interest was the pattern of correlations
linking economic responsibilities to other social
responsibilities and to the overall responsibility
item. With the exception of a positive association with legal responsibilities in the French
sample, these correlations were either non-significant or negative in the three samples. This
observation suggests that consumers establish a
differentiation between the economic duties of
businesses on the one hand and other corporate
social responsibilities on the other hand. In
addition, philanthropic responsibilities were not
significantly associated to other social responsibilities in the French sample.
Altogether, these findings challenge the conceptualization adopted by Maignan et al. (1999)
who treated economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities as correlated dimensions
of one underlying construct named corporate
citizenship. Maignan et al.s (1999) approach
was supported empirically in a survey of
managers; yet, it does not appear to reflect con-

69

sumers perceptions of corporate responsibilities.

Accordingly, managers and consumers may have
a differentiated definition of corporate responsibilities. The present study also questions the
exact nature of the relationship between
corporate economic responsibilities and the
other corporate social responsibilities as perceived
by consumers. Overall, the investigation disputes
the applicability of Carrolls (1979) categorization of corporate social responsibilities to consumers.
Consumers evaluation of corporate social
responsibilities
The examination of consumers evaluation
of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities questions Carrolls (1979) claim
that economic duties are the most important
responsibility of the firm. Indeed, both French
and German consumers rated economic responsibilities as the least important corporate responsibility. Yet, Carrolls (1979) assertion appears to
better depict the opinion of U.S. consumers who
positioned economic and legal responsibilities as
the two top corporate responsibilities. The difference between French and German consumers
evaluations on the one hand and U.S. consumers
rankings on the other hand is further emphasized
when comparing the average score allocated to
economic responsibilities in each country: French
and German consumers allocated significantly less
importance to corporate economic responsibilities than their U.S. counterparts. Consequently,
whereas U.S. consumers perceive economic performance as a leading responsibility of businesses,
French and German consumers view economic
achievements as only secondary.
In the French sample, legal responsibilities
were positioned as the most important corporate social responsibilities followed by ethical
responsibilities in the second position. German
consumers considered both legal and ethical
responsibilities as the most important corporate
duties. These assessments suggest that French and
German consumers are mostly concerned about
businesses conforming to social norms, not about
businesses achieving high levels of economic
performance. This finding illustrates the com-

70

Isabelle Maignan

munitarian dimension of the French and German

national ideologies as depicted by Lodge (1990).
In contrast, the individualistic nature of the U.S.
ideology comes out clearly in the study results
since economic responsibilities along with legal
responsibilities were rated as most important in
the U.S. The primary role attributed to legal
responsibilities by U.S. consumers may be significant of the heavily legalist nature of the U.S.
(Galen, Cuneo and Greising, 1992) and of the
common recourse to consumer litigation in that
country (Morrison, 1991). Ethical and philanthropic responsibilities were assigned the second
and third level of importance respectively by U.S.
consumers. Even though the mean score allocated to legal and ethical responsibilities did not
differ significantly across France, Germany, and
the U.S., philanthropic responsibilities were
awarded significantly less importance in the U.S.
than in the two European countries. This finding
further emphasizes the lesser importance allocated to corporate responsibilities toward society
in general by U.S. consumers.
For businesses, the results point to the difficulties that may be encountered when trying to
build the image of a responsible organization
especially in the French and German markets.
In those two nations, the achievement of high
levels of economic performance can actually be
perceived negatively by the public opinion and
therefore by consumers. Consider the example of
the French tire manufacturer Michelin which
recently announced both record profitability
levels and the need for lay offs. The French press,
union leaders, and even government representatives all unanimously denounced Michelins
strategy as inhumane and highly inappropriate;
they further called for Michelins employees to
engage in an organized movement of protestation (Loutaty, 1999). This story echoes the
problems encountered by Renault in France
(Toscer, 1999) or by Siemens in Germany where
the manufacturing giant has been accused of
putting profits before employees welfare.
Accordingly, businesses that want to position
themselves as socially responsible in France and
in Germany may have to downplay their
economic achievements and emphasize first their
preparedness to serving their legal and ethical

responsibilities, along with their commitment to

philanthropic duties.
In contrast, in the U.S., claiming to be a
socially responsible organization when economic
achievements are not the greatest can be dangerous. This idea is illustrated by the experience
of the ice-cream manufacturer Ben and Jerrys
Inc. which has been accused repeatedly of
neglecting economic performance because of its
many philanthropic activities (e.g., Taylor, 1997).
Some observers use the same arguments to
explain in part the poor achievements of Levi
Strauss & Co. recently (Wall Street Journal, 1999).
Altogether, the comparison of the differences in
consumers expectations of the firm in France,
Germany, and the U.S. points to difficulty of
implementing uniform communication programs
about social responsibility across borders.

Limitations and directions for future research

The fact that existing conceptualizations of
corporate social responsibilities were imposed
on consumers probably represents the first and
foremost limitation of the study. Informants had
to rate the importance of different responsibilities that had been defined and classified beforehand. Thus, the findings report consumers
evaluations of certain pre-defined corporate
responsibilities, and do not describe consumers
own definition of these responsibilities. When
questioned about corporate responsibilities in an
unaided manner, consumers may or may not
mention each of the different types of responsibilities considered in this study. In addition, the
different behaviors defining each type of responsibility were also imposed onto consumers. These
caveats call for qualitative inquiries examining
how consumers define (1) corporate social
responsibilities in general, and (2) corporate
behaviors significant of each type of corporate
responsibility.
Future research could further examine the
extent to which Carrolls (1979) acknowledged
classification of corporate social responsibilities is
or is not appropriate to describe consumers perceptions of businesses responsibilities. In particular, more inquiries are needed to clarify whether

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities

consumers include economic responsibilities
as part of corporate social responsibilities.
Future inquiries could also attempt to better
assess consumer behavior with respect to responsible businesses. The present research focused
on consumers overall intention to actively
support responsible businesses, but did not
establish any link between intent and behavior.
Furthermore, consumers were assumed to know
about the social responsibility achievements of
product manufacturers when they might actually
have little awareness of such achievements.
Accordingly, future research could first determine
to which extent consumers are cognizant of
the social responsibility records of a set of corporations.
The present research suffered from small
sample sizes and a sample selection that could
not claim to be representative of the larger
populations of French, German, and U.S. consumers. Hence, surveys of larger and more
representative samples are definitely called for. In
addition, future research could attempt to
systematically investigate whether the crosscultural variations observed can be linked to
differences in national ideologies as suggested by
Lodge (1990) or to discrepancies in cultural
values. Despite its many caveats, this study constitutes one attempt at obtaining the perspective
of consumers on corporate social responsibilities.
This project calls for future inquiries that
investigate more thoroughly consumers definition of corporate responsibilities in order for
organizations to adopt rewarding responsibility
initiatives across borders.
References
Ackerman, R. W. and R. A. Bauer: 1976, Corporate
Social Responsiveness (Reston Publishing, Reston,
VA).
Agarwal, S.: 1992, Influence of Formalization on
Role Stress, Organizational Commitment, and
Work Alienation of Salespersons: A Cross-National
Comparative Study, Journal of International Business
Studies (Fourth Quarter), 715739.
Aupperle, K. E., A. B. Carroll and J. Hatfield: 1985,
An Empirical Examination of the Relationship
Between Corporate Social Responsibility and

71

Profitability, Academy of management Journal 28(2),

446463.
Bowen, H. R.: 1953, Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman (Harper & Row, New York).
Brown, T. J. and P. A. Dacin: 1997, The Company
and the Product: Corporate Associations and
Consumer Product Responses, Journal of Marketing
61 ( January), 6884.
Buchholz, Rogene A.: 1998, The Ethics of
Consumption Activities: A Future Paradigm?,
Journal of Business Ethics 17 ( June), 871883.
Business Wire: 1997, New Report Shows Good Citizenship is Good for Companies Too, January 2.
Carroll, A. B.: 1979, A Three-Dimensional
Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance,
Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497505.
Churchill, G. A.: 1979, A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal
of Marketing Research 16 (February), 6473.
Council on Foundations: 1996, Measuring the Value
of Corporate Citizenship (Council on Foundations,
Inc., Washington, DC).
Davis, K.: 1973, The Case For and Against Business
Assumptions of Social Responsibilities, Academy of
Management Journal 16(2), 312322.
Drumwright, M. D.: 1994, Socially Responsible
Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern as
a Noneconomic Buying Criterion, Journal of
Marketing 58 ( July), 119.
Drumwright, M. D.: 1996, Company Advertising
With a Social Dimension: The Role of
Noneconomic Criteria, Journal of Marketing 60
(October), 7187.
Eells, R. and C. Walton: 1961, Conceptual Foundations
of Business (Richard Irwin, Homewood, IL).
Eilbert, H. and I. R. Parket: 1973, The Practice
of Business The Current Status of Corporate
Social Responsibility, Business Horizons (August),
514.
Galen, M., A. Cuneo and D. Greising: 1992, Guilty,
Business Week (April 13), 6065.
Hair, J. F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W.
C. Black: 1995, Multivariate Data Analysis With
Readings, Third Edition (MacMillan Publishing,
New York).
Handelman, J. M. and S. J. Arnold: 1999, The Role
of Marketing Actions With a Social Dimension:
Appeals to the Institutional Environment, Journal
of Marketing 63 ( July), 3348.
Hofstede, G.: 1980, Motivation, Leadership, and
Organization: Do American Theories Apply
Abroad?, Organizational Dynamics 9 (Summer),
4263.

72

Isabelle Maignan

Hofstede, G.: 1983, National Cultures in Fours

Dimensions A Research-Based Theory of
Cultural Differences Among Nations, International
Studies of Management and Organization 13(12),
4674.
Jones, D.: 1997, Good Works, Good Business,
U.S.A. Today (April 25), 1B.
Katz, J. P., S. Werner and L. Brouthers: 1998, Does
Winning Mean the Same Thing Around the
World? National Ideology and the Performance of
Global Competitors, Journal of Business Research 44,
117126.
Lewin, A. Y., T. Sakano, C. U. Stevens and B. Victor:
1995, Corporate Citizenship in Japan: Survey from
Japanese Firms, Journal of Business Ethics 14(2),
83101.
Lodge, G. C.: 1990, Comparative Business-Government
Relations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Lorge, S.: 1999, Consumers Care About Causes.
Cornering the Market, Sales & Marketing
Management 151(6), 47.
Loutaty, S.: 1999, Nouveau Capitalisme vs.
Nouveau Communisme, Le Petit Bouquet, 538
(13 September), www.le-petit-bouquet.com/.
Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2000, Measuring
Corporate Citizenship in Two Countries: The
Case of the United States and France, Journal of
Business Ethics 23, 283297.
Maignan, I. and G. T. M. Hult: 1999, Corporate
Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business
Benefits, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
27(4), 455469.
Mason, E. S.: 1960, The Corporation in Modern Society
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
McGuire, J. B.: 1963, Business and Society (McGrawHill, New York).
Menon, A. and A. Menon.: 1997, Enviropreneurial
Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate
Environmentalism as Marketing Strategy, Journal
of Marketing 61 ( January), 5167.
Morrison, A.: 1991, The Role of Litigation in
Consumer Protection, Journal of Consumer Affairs
25(2) (Winter), 209.
Osterhus, T. L.: 1997, Pro-Social Consumer
Influence Strategies: When and How Do They
Work? Journal of Marketing 61 (October), 1629.
Pinkston, T. S. and A. B. Carroll: 1994, Corporate
Citizenship Perspectives and Foreign Direct
Investment in the U.S., Journal of Business Ethics
13, 157169.
Robin, D. P. and R. E. Reidenbach: 1987,
Social Responsibilities, Ethics, and Marketing

Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and

Application, Journal of Marketing 51 ( January),
4458.
Schwartz, S. H.: 1992, Universals in the Content and
Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and
Empirical Tests in 20 Countries, in M. P. Zanna
(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(Academic Press, San Diego), 165.
Sethi, S. P.: 1979, A Conceptual Framework
for Environmental Analysis of Social Issues and
Evaluation of Business Response Patterns, Academy
of Management Review 4(1), 6374.
Smith, N. Craig: 1996, Corporate Citizens and Their
Critics, The New York Times (September 8), 11.
Swanson, D. L.: 1995, Addressing a Theoretical
Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social
Performance Model, Academy of Management
Review 20(1), 4364.
Taylor, A. III: 1997, Yo, Ben! Yo, Jerry! Its Just Ice
Cream!; The Celebrated Vermont Do-Gooders
Seek Global Soluations in Every Spoonful of their
Luscious Products. Meanwhile, Their Business
Suffers and Their Shareholders Starve, Fortune
(April 28), 374.
Thurow, L.: 1992, Head to Head (William Morrow
and Co., New York, NY).
Toscer, Olivier: 1999, Les Marchs Aiment-Ils la
Casse Sociale?, Le Nouvel Observateur (September
1622), 8082.
Varadarajan, P. R. and A. Menon: 1988, CauseRelated Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing
Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy, Journal of
Marketing 52 ( July), 5874.
Vogel, David: 1992, The Globalization of Business
Ethics: Why America Remains Distinctive,
California Management Review (Fall), 3049.
Wall Street Journal: 1999, Sales Declined by 13% in
98 As Jeans Demand Slackened, 233(32), A6.
Wartick, S. L. and P. L. Cochran: 1985, The
Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance
Model, Business and Society 31(1), 3342.
Wood, D. J.: 1991, Corporate Social Performance
Revisited, Academy of Management Review 16(4),
691718.

Faculty of Management and Organization,

University of Groningen,
P.O. Box 800,
9700 AV Groningen,
The Netherlands
E-mail: I.S.J.Maignan@bdk.rug.nl