USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The effect of doing good

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effect of doing good an experimental analysis of the influence of corporate social responsibility initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Gonzalez, Cristina Marta
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Corporate social responsibility
Theory of reasoned action
Starbucks
Dissertations, Academic -- Mass Communications -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to further current theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of CSR initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Specifically, CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005) were tested using Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975, 2005) theory of reasoned action to determine their influences on individual's belief, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward an organization and its products. This area of inquiry is particularly relevant for public relations scholars and practitioners since creating awareness of CSR practices among key stakeholders requires accurate and timely communication.A controlled experiment utilizing a 1x6 factorial was conducted using stimulus materials based on the Starbucks Coffee Company. The stimulus materials consisted of four Starbucks CSR messages that coincided with four CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005), and one Starbucks message unrelated to CSR to control for CSR initiative type. The sixth condition contained no Starbucks message as an overall control condition. All six conditions contained the same self-administered instrument used to measure the variables of interest.The results of the controlled experiment found that salient beliefs predict attitudes and that attitudes predict behavioral intentions. Thus, indicating that the predictions of the theory of reasoned action are supported. The findings indicate overall that CSR initiatives do influence individuals' beliefs about organizations and their products, particularly beliefs about their contributions to the community and their trustworthiness. Specific finding of this study suggest that cause-related marketing may be the most beneficial to corporations in terms of its influence on consumers' beliefs about the corporation, which in turn may have positive financial implications. However, this study found that CSR initiatives did not influence attitudes or behavioral intentions.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cristina Marta Gonzalez.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 66 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001917286
oclc - 181590563
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002022
usfldc handle - e14.2022
System ID:
SFS0026340:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Effect of Doing Good: An Experimental Analysis of the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives on Beliefs Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions by Cristina Marta Gonzalez A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Mass Communications College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Kelly Page Werder, Ph.D. Derina Holtzhausen, Ph.D. Kelli Burns, Ph.D. Date of Approval April 12, 2007 Keywords: corporate social responsibility, theory of reasoned action, starbucks Copyright 2007, Cristina Marta Gonzalez

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opport unity to thank those who have assisted me in the thesis development process. First, I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Kelly Page Werder for guiding and assisting me thr oughout this entire process. She has shown great patience coaching and assisting a working professiona l seeking a Masters degree. With her professional insights, this study was able to develop and flourish. In addition, I would like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Derina Holtzhausen and Dr. Kelli Burns. They have taken the time out of their busy sche dules to read this manuscript, and to guide and advise me. Their advice has been extrem ely helpful in the final outcome of this paper. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family who have supported, encouraged, and motivated me throughout the entire process.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ii List of Tables iii Abstract iv Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review 5 Chapter 3: Methodology 27 Chapter 4: Results 38 Chapter 5: Discussion 47 Chapter 6: Conclusion 50 References 52 Appendix A: Articles 56 Appendix B : Questionnaire 62 i

PAGE 4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Fishbein and Ajzens Theory of Reasoned Action 24 ii

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments 30 Table 2: Manipulation Check for Corporat e Social Responsibility Treatments 37 Table 3: Regression Model for Salient Belie fs Predicting Attitudes 39 Table 4: Regression Model for Attitude Predicting Behavioral Inte ntions 40 Table 5: One-Way Analysis of Variance for Salient Belief, Attitude, and Behavioral Intention Meas ures Across Corporate Social Res ponsibility Initiative Type 41 Table 6: Post Hoc Comparisons for I be lieve that Starbucks positively contributes to the community Across Corpor ate Social Respons ibility Initiative Type 42 Table 7: Post Hoc Comparisons for I consider message from Starbucks to be trustworthy Across Corporate Social Responsib ility Initiative Type 43 iii

PAGE 6

The Effect of Doing Good: An Experimental Analysis of the Influences of Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives on Beliefs Attitudes, and Behavioral Intention Cristina Marta Gonzalez ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to further current theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of corpor ate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Specifically, CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005) were tested using Fi shbein and Ajzens (1975, 2005) theory of reasoned action to determine their influen ces on individuals belie f, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward an organization and its products. This area of inquiry is particularly relevant for public relations scholars and practiti oners since creating awareness of CSR practices among key stakeholders requires accurate and timely communication. A controlled experiment utilizing a 1x6 factorial was conducted using stimulus materials based on the Starbucks Coffee Comp any. The stimulus materials consisted of four Starbucks CSR messages that coincided with four CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005), and one Starbucks messa ge unrelated to CSR to control for CSR initiative type. The sixth c ondition contained no Starbucks message as an overall control condition. All six conditions contained the same self-administered instrument to measure the variables of interest. The results of the controlled experiment f ound that salient belief s predict attitudes and that attitudes predict beha vioral intentions. Thus, the predictions of the theory of reasoned action are supported. The findings indi cate that CSR initiatives do influence iv

PAGE 7

individuals beliefs about orga nizations and their products, part icularly beliefs about their contributions to the community and their trustw orthiness. Specific fi ndings of this study suggest that cause-related marketing may be th e most beneficial to corporations in terms of its influence on consumers beliefs about the corporation, which in turn may have positive financial implications. However, th is study found that CSR initiatives did not influence attitudes or behavioral intentions. v

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION For many years, community development goals were philanthropic activities that were seen as separate from busin ess objectives, not f undamental to them; doing well and doing good were seen as separ ate pursuits. But I think that is changing. What many of the organizations that are represented here today are learning is that cutting-edge innova tion and competitive advantage can result from weaving social and en vironmental considerations into business strategy from the beginning. And in that proce ss, we can help develop the next generation of ideas and markets and employees. Carly Fiorina, Hewlett-Packar d, at the Business for Social Responsibility Annual Conference, November 12, 2003 (in Kotler & Lee, 2005, p.1) In todays competitive marketplace, organizations require ways of differentiating themselves from their competitors. In an attempt to gain competitive advantage, organizations are increasingly using corporate social respons ibility (CSR) initiatives as business strategy. Specifically, business trends during the past decade indicate increased corporate giving, increased corporate reporting on social responsibil ity initiatives, the establishment of a corporate social norm to do good, and an apparent transition from giving as an obligation to giving as a strategy (Kotle r & Lee, 2005, p. 4). A number of scholarly and industry studi es report unprecedented growth in CSR initiatives (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). According to Giving USA (2005), corporations gave $12 billion in philanthropi c support in 2004 and provided additional social support in the form of community relations program s, cause-related marketing, 1

PAGE 9

sponsorships, and corporate volunteer program s. In addition, Esrock and Leichty (1998) reported that the Web sites of more than 80% of Fortune -500 companies address CSR issues of one form or another. Despite the growth of CSR initiatives and the increasing emphasis on social responsibility in business, su rprisingly little is known about the effects of CSR on consumers (David, Kline, & Dai, 2005). Recent research suggests that a positive relationship exists between a companys CSR activities and consumers attitudes toward the company and its products (Brown & Dacin, 1997); however, i t is not known when, how, and for whom specific CSR initiatives work (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001, p. 225). This indicates the need for more research aimed at understandi ng the value of CSR initiatives and what the effect of being s een as a corporate good guy may be (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p.68). This area of inquiry is particularly relevant for pu blic relations scholars and practitioners since creating aw areness of CSR practices among key stakeholders requires accurate and timely communication. Accord ing to Golob and Bartlett (2007), communicating with stakeholders about an or ganizations CSR activities forms a central charter for public relations in creating mu tual understanding, managing conflict, and creating legitimacy (p. 1). As such, more research is needed that examines the relationship between CSR initiatives, corpor ate communication about these initiatives, and the effect this communi cation has on consumers. According to Dozier and Ehling (1992), the effects achieved by public relations programs include awareness, knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and behaviors of those affected by the program. However, there is cu rrently no discipline-specific theory that 2

PAGE 10

explains these effects. Fortunately, the inter-d isciplinary nature of public relations fosters the use of theoretical constructs from other areas of social science. An interdisciplinary approach is used in this study to gain a be tter understanding of the effect communication about CSR initiatives has on individuals beli efs, attitudes and beha vioral intentions. Literature from social psychology suggests that Fishbein and Ajzens theory of reasoned action (1975, 2005) provides a useful framework for examining the effect of CSR communication on beliefs, attitudes, and be havioral intention. The theory states that the single best predicto r of behavior is an individuals intention regarding the behavior. Behavioral intention is a function of two other factors: 1) the individu als attitude toward the behavior, and 2) the indivi duals subjective norm with resp ect to the behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996, p. 200). According to Rossi and Armstrong (1999), the theory of reasoned action is one of the most influent ial contributions to the field of attitude measurement and behavior prediction. Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw (1988) concluded that the model predicts behavior al intention and behavior quite well and provides a basis for identifying where and how to target strategies for changing behavior. The purpose of this study is to further cu rrent theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of CS R initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Specifically, CSR in itiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005) were tested using Fishbein and Ajzens (1975, 2005) theory of reasoned action to determine their influence on indi viduals beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward an organization and its products. To achieve the objectives of this study, a controlled 1x6 factorial experiment was conducted. 3

PAGE 11

The next chapter contains a review of lite rature relevant to this study. This is followed by the methodology, which describes the methods and procedures used to conduct this research. Next, the results chapte r provides a review of the data analysis procedures used in the study. Finally, the discussion chapter provides a summary of the findings of this study, as well as its signifi cance, limitations, and areas for future study. 4

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides a review of literatu re relevant to this study. Specifically CSR is defined and CSR linitiatives are ex amines. Next, the relationship between CSR and Public Relations is explored. Finally, an over view of literature rela ted to the theory of reasoned action is provided. The chapter conclu des with the purpose of this study and the hypotheses that were tested. Corporate Social Responsibility The concept of corporate social responsi bility has a long a nd varied history; however, formal theorizing and research on the concept since the 1950s has most informed todays practice. Although a variet y of definitions and theoretic frameworks have been proposed by management, marke ting, and communication scholars (Carroll, 1999), the scope of CSR activities remains fairly consistent. Kotler and Lee (2005) define corporate so cial responsibility as a commitment to improve community well-being through di scretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources (p. 3). An important element that distinguishes this CSR definition from others is the term discretionary We are not referring here to business activ ities that are mandated by law or that are moral or ethical in nature and perh aps therefore expected. Rather, we are referring to a voluntary commitment a business makes in choosing and implementing these practices and making th ese contributions. Such a commitment must be demonstrated in order for a company to be described as socially responsible and will be fulfilled through the adoption of new business practices and/or contributions, either m onetary or non-monetary. (p. 3) This business practice is achieved by estab lishing a social responsibility program within the organization. To ensure that the social res ponsibility program is successful, four essential communication approaches s hould be included: 1) To inform by a high 5

PAGE 13

degree of local knowledge; 2) To improve probl ems for which the corporation is directly responsible for; 3) To inform stakeholders that agree about means and ends; and 4) To establish socially responsible programs that will lead to enhanced financial performance (Pava & Krausz, 1997). Corporate social responsibility is a driver of customer satis faction that in turn leads to positive financial returns (Luo & Bhattacharya 2006). CSR leads to financial returns since organizations depend on societys acc eptance of their roles and activities (Daugherty, 2001). With societys acceptanc e, an organization will build positive attitudes for its bra nds and services. Consequently, consumers will reward comp anies with positive CSR associations. For example, if an organization undertakes an initiative to support the cure for breast cancer, it will produce a positive CSR associatio n. According to the Cone/Roper (2000) executive study, 78% of adults said they would be more likely to buy a product associated with a cause they cared about. Thus, if fighting breast cancer is important to an individual, then that indivi dual will more than likely suppor t an organization that is taking the initiative to help fight breast cancer. An example of an organization that s upports various causes, and is socially responsible as well as profitable, is Th e Body Shop. Anita Roddick (2005), founder of The Body Shop, believes that organizations have a responsibility to make their company profitable, but not at the expense of human ri ghts abuses, spoiling the environment, or at the expense of preventing em ployees from having a sense of pride in what they do. Furthermore, Roddick believes that not a sing le product should enter any country if it is tarnished from sweatshop or child labor. By taking a strong stance on these issues and 6

PAGE 14

still making a substantial profit, Roddick dem onstrated that it is possible to run a big business, reward shareholders, and do social good at the same time. Buy one of our products, the Body Shop tells its customers, and youll improve the lives of women in developing countries, promote animal rights, protect the environment, and otherwise increase the supply of social re sponsibility (Martin, 2003, p. 88). The stance The Body Shop takes regarding CSR initiatives is a growing stance among consumers, investors, and business l eaders. Martin (2003) elaborates, Many consumers and investors, as well as a growing number of business leaders, have added their voices to those urging corporations to remember their obligations to their employees, their community, and the environm ent, even as they pursue profits for shareholders (pp. 84-85). These obligations assist in sustaining a profit for the shareholders by keeping a business on the right side of the law. According to Martin (2003), Company compliance with worker safety regulations and sexual harassment statutes serves shareholders interests by keeping a company free from legal sanctions and by safeguarding its reputati on (p. 88). These are the firs t steps toward extending an organization beyond the financial measures to include standards that measure broader success in the community such as customer and employee satisfacti on and the reduction or elimination of social pr oblems (Wilson, 2001, p. 525). Another prime example of an organizati on that is led with values and makes a sustainable profit is Ben and Jerrys Ice Cream. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield started making ice cream in 1978 based on the premise that they wanted to have fun, earn a living, and give something back to the community (Cohen & Greenfield, 1997). Since then, Ben and Jerrys Ice Cream has been considered a leading values-led business 7

PAGE 15

devoted to corporate social responsibility. Th ey believe that business has a responsibility to the people and the society that makes its existence possible (p. 30). Ben and Jerry believe that being socially responsible is the most signi ficant marketing they do. They realized that if youve got values that ar e aligned with the values of your potential customers, you dont have to create a phony im age (p. 132). Instead, you just have to show consumers who you are. Cohen and Greenfield (1997) give an example on how they incorporate CSR in to their business pr actice and still turn a profit for themselves and their shareholders: Lets say, for example, that were looking at three possible new ice cream flavors. Being values-led means choosing the flavor that gives us the best opportunity to intergrate our commitment to social change with the need to return profits to our shareholders. Assuming all three flavors are profitable, if we fi nd out that we can make one of them using nuts from the rain forest (in order to increase economic demand for the living rain forest) and we can put the ice cream in a rain-forest deforestation, we would c hoose that flavor. (p. 30) The success of Ben and Jerrys Ice Cream, The Body Shop, and other CSR led companies has proved that there are plenty of customers who, when given a choice between product of equal quality, prefer to spend their money with companies whose values they share. In contrast, firms at the bottom of the CSR heap, such as Toys R Us and Mitsubishi Motors, seem to be perceived as irresponsibly by dint of mistreating workers and/or concealing product defect informa tion (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006, p. 16). By becoming socially irresponsible, organizations put themselves in the forefront to receive scrutiny-intensive coverage by the media. This usually results in ne gative perception by the community, which could effect the organization financially. According to Lye (2005) if a company is deemed morally liable, the companys reputation and brand image are th e first casualties. Morally liabl e issues that can taint an 8

PAGE 16

organizations reputation or brand image in clude environmental, social, human health, and obesity impacts of products during their us e phase. For example, Food and beverage companies are suddenly finding themselves in th e legal firing line for the obesity impacts of their products consumption (Lye, 2005, p. 23). In such instances, consumers do punish companies for not being morally liable. A 1999 survey of 25,000 consumers in 23 countries found that 40 percent had at least thought about punishing a specific company they viewed as not behaving respons ibly in the past year (Smith, 2005, p. 63). In contrast, when an organization fulfills its responsibility to its employees, their community, and the environment, it is viewed as socially responsible. According to Kotler and Lee (2005), c orporate social initiatives are major activities undertaken by a corporation to support social causes and to fulfill commitments to corporate social responsibility (p. 3). They identify six initiatives under which most social responsibilityrelated activities fall: 1) cause promotions, 2) cause-relate d marketing, 3) corporate social marketing, 4) corporate philanthropy, 5) community volunteering, and 6) socially responsible business practices. An overview of each of these initiatives is provided below. Cause Promotion. Cause promotions provide fun ds, in-kind contributions, or other corporate resources to increase awarene ss and concern about a social cause or to support fundraising, participati on, or volunteer recruitment fo r a cause (Kotler & Lee, 2005, p. 23). A corporation may initiate and mana ge the promotion independently, it may be a major sponsoring partner, or it may be one of several spons ors. Typical cause promotions build awareness and concern by presenting statistics and facts about a 9

PAGE 17

particular issue. The goal is to persuade people to find out more about the cause, donate their time, donate money, donate non-monetary resources, and participate in events. It is beneficial for an organization to engage in cause promotions because they provide publicity through printed materials, special events, and Web sites featuring the companys logo and key corporate messages al ong with those representing the cause (Kotler & Lee, 2005). This publicity builds cu stomer loyalty, create s brand preference with target markets, provides customers conve nient ways to contribute and participate in causes, provides opportunities for employees to get involved in something they care about, and strengthens corporate image. Cause-Related Marketing. Corporations engaging in cause-related marketing make a contribution or donate a percentage of revenues to a specific cause based on product sales (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Most often, these init iatives are for a specific time period, product, and charity. Typically, a co mpany partners with a nonprofit organization, creating a mutually beneficial relationship intended to increase sales for a particular product and generate financia l support for the charity. According to Kotler and Lee, cause-related marketing initiatives can support efforts to attract new customers, reach niche markets, increase product sales, and build positive brand identity (2005, p. 84). This occurs when the charity has a large potential following, the product is a good fit for the cause, and the incentive is straightforward and easy to understand. The most successful cause-r elated marketing initiatives use products that enjoy a large market or mass market appeal, have well-established and wide distribution channels, and w ould benefit from a product differentiation that offers consumers an opportunity to contribu te to a favorite charity (p. 111). 10

PAGE 18

A potential problem with this CSR initiativ e is that consumers may assume that donations will be small and that the corporation is using its association with a charity for pure profit gain. Nonetheless, this has not effected corporate spending on cause-related marketing initiatives. According to Porter and Kramer, U.S. corporate spending on cause-related marketing jumped from $125 million in 1990 to an estimated $828 million in 2002 (2003, p. 29). This growth is projected to increase since cause-related marketing is the fastest growing type of marketing (Smith, 2003). Corporate Social Marketing. Corporate social marketing employs the development and/or implementation of a behavior change campaign intended to improve public health, safety, the environment, or community well-being (Kotler & Lee, 2005, p. 23). The key feature of this CS R initiative is its goal of behavior change which distinguishes it from cause promotions that focus on supporting awareness, fundraising, and volunteer recruitment for a cause. Although campaign objectives may include awareness building and education or efforts to alter current beliefs and attitudes, the campaign is designed primarily to support and influence a particular public behavior or action (p. 115). Social market ing campaigns are generally implemented by federal, state, and local public sector agencies, such as utilities, departments of health, transportation, and ecology, and in nonprofit organizations. However, consumer-based organizations are increasingly initiating social marketing campaigns because positive perceptions can result for a brand by connecting it with a worthy cause. Social marketing initiatives are difficult to carry out because, to be effective, they require increased staff time; more integrat ion into media and di stribution channels; greater attention to monitoring and tracking results; and vigilance in keeping informed on 11

PAGE 19

trends and events relative to the social issu e and related behaviors (Kotler & Lee, 2005). In addition, clinical and techni cal expertise is often require d and behavior change is a long-term process, so corporations must caref ully select issues th at relate to business objectives and embrace cons tant resource allocation. Corporate Philanthropy. Corporate philanthropy is perh aps the most traditional form of CSR. Philanthropy is defined by Kotle r and Lee (2005) as a direct contribution by a corporation to a charity or cause, most often in the form of cash grants, donations, and/or in-kind services (p. 144). In-kind contributions typically consist of donating products and services, providing technical expertise, and al lowing the use of corporate facilities, distribution channels and equipment. Major streng ths for this initiative are building corporate reputation and goodwill; attracting and retaining a motivated workforce; having an impact on social issues, especially in local communities; and leveraging current corporate social initiatives (p. 174). Corporate philanthropy is increasingly be ing used as a strategy to promote a companys image; however, it is essential th at philanthropic choices be based on business goals and objectives. Porter and Kramer st ate that, the more a social improvement relates to a companys business, the more it leads to economic benef its as well (2003, p. 32). In addition, research suggests that, if the public is made aware of a companys philanthropic programs, it will be more loya l and less likely to switch to a competitor (Hall, 2006). Community Volunteering. Volunteerism exists when a corporation supports and encourages employees, retail partners, and/or franchise members to volunteer their time to support local community organizations a nd causes (Kotler & L ee, 2005, p. 24). While 12

PAGE 20

volunteer activities may be or ganized by the corporation, they are often chosen by employees, who receive support from the compa ny by getting paid time off. According to Kotler and Lee, volunteering in the communit y, and corporate support to do this, is viewed by many as one of the most genuine and satisfying of all forms of CSR. Kotler and Lee (2005) state that volunteer programs help build strong and enduring relationships with local communities, attract and retain satisfied and motivated employees, augment and leverage current involvement and investments in social initiatives, contribute to business goals, enhance corporate image, and provide opportunities to showcase products and servic es (p. 205). In addition, a good time to consider employee volunteerism is when current social initiatives would benefit from a volunteer component, when a group of employees express an inte rest in a specific cause, when a community need emerges, when techno logical advances make it easier to match employees to volunteer opportunities, when a strong community organization approaches a business, and when a volunteer effort might open new markets or provide opportunities (p. 202). Socially responsible business practices. This form of CSR initiative occurs when a corporation adopts and conducts discretionary business practices and investments that support social causes to improve community well-being and protect the environment (Kotler & Lee, 2005, p. 24). According to Kotle r and Lee, most initiatives related to socially responsible practices involve altering intern al procedures and policies, like those related to product offerings, facility de sign, manufacturing, assembly, and employee support. An initiative can also be reflected in external reporting of consumer and investor information and demonstrated by making provisions for customer access and privacy. 13

PAGE 21

Typical socially responsible activities include the following: 1) d esigning facilities to meet or exceed environmental and safety recommendations; 2) d eveloping process improvements; 3) d iscontinuing product offerings that are considered harmful but not illegal; 4) s electing suppliers based on their willingness to ad opt or maintain sustainable environmental practices; 5) c hoosing manufacturing and packaging materials that are the most environmentally friendly; 6) p roviding full disclosure of product materials and their origins and potential hazards; 7) d eveloping programs to support employee well-being ; 8) m easuring, tracking, and reporting of accountable goals and actions; 9) e stablishing guidelines for marketing to children ; 10) p roviding increased access for disabled populations ; 11) p rotecting privacy of consumer information ; and 12) m aking decisions regarding plant, outsourcing, and retail locations and recognizing the economic impact of these decisions on communities. CSR initiatives provide benefits to or ganizations and much-needed support to worthy causes (Porter & Kramer, 2003). Incorp orating CSR initiatives with financial, marketing, and communication objectives can increases a companys visibility, enhance customer satisfaction, and lead to positive financial returns (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). Rochlin, Witter, Monagahn, and Murray (2005) state that by building a business strategy that aligns social, environm ental, and economic performance with long-term business value, corporate responsibility becomes part of core business and is tied to long-term value creation for both business and society (p. 8). As Smith (2003) states, Competing on pri ce and corporate citizenship is smarter than competing on price alone (p. 168). In order to achieve the price and corporate citizenship balance, companies need to ensure their governance and performance 14

PAGE 22

systems to support a strategically aligne d approach with a process for managing dilemmas when trade offs have to be made between core strategy, social, environmental and economic performance (Rochlin, Witter, Monagahn, & Murray, 2005, p. 8). Thus, in todays business environment, it appears that companies are concerning themselves more and more with CSR practices and ini tiatives. Furthermore, when organizations begin to delve into CSR practices, they begin to form public relations strategies in order to communicate their new CSR practices. T hus, the following section examines the relationship between CSR a nd public relations. Corporate Social Responsibi lity and Public Relations The public relations function, as well as corporate social resp onsibility initiatives seek to enhance an organizations image. Th is study delves into current theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of CSR initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Therefore, this sec tion discusses the relationship between CSR and public relations. Grunig and Hunt (1984) compared CSR and public relations by stating, Public, or social responsibility has become a major reason for an organization to have a public relatio ns function, and two-way symmetrical communication is the best means by which to evaluate social res ponsibility (p. 48). CSR and public relations are linke d through corporate communication. David, Kline, and Dai (2005) state that, consum ers knowledge of CSR practices of an organization is a function of corporate comm unication activities, which is typically a public relations function (p. 298). However, it appears that ma ny companies are not communicating their CSR initiativ es to the public even though the public is interested in issues concerning social re sponsibility. Dawkins (2004) el aborates on the lack of 15

PAGE 23

communication about CSR initiatives, Com munication on corporate responsibility issues is not getting through to the major ity of consumers although the indications are that consumers are interested in the issue, that it has th e potential to influence their purchasing decisions, and most are pre-disposed to trust company information on this topic (p. 116). Furthermore, Hall (2006) states awaren ess and communication of CSR initiatives strengthens the publics relationship with the company by enhancing their perception of the company. According to Dawkins (2004), CSR co mmunication has not reached consumers because the general public has rarely been a primary targ et audience for specialized communication about CSR. However, there has been public interest in receiving information regarding companies social responsibilities. Ther efore, organizations should consider communicating CSR initiatives to the public. Organizations should communicate CSR principles since the public is not actively seeking information regarding CSR (Dawkins, 2004). Incorporat ing CSR messages in more mainstream communications with a clear explanation of the relevance of the issue should be communicated to a target public. Some ex amples of mainstream communication are annual reports, one-to-one meetings with investors, and dial ogue sessions with community groups. Another form of mainstream communicati on is advertising. Philip Morris is an example of how a large cor poration developed an advertising campaign to communicate its CSR activities. Philip Morris advert ising campaign provided familiarity and awareness in the collective consciousness of consumers and publics as well as providing a significant effect on purchase intentions (David, Kline, & Dali, 2005, p. 296-297). 16

PAGE 24

A campaign such as Philip Morris anti-smoking campaign can have a positive effect on perceptions of corporate image, including purchase intention and on purchase behavior (David, Kline, & Dali, 2005). An organization seeking to use its CSR agenda for a public relations campaign is aiming to improve its image and reputation within the community. This strategy will help it build more trust between itself and the immediate community (Clark, 2000, p. 375). In addition, this strategy can also become helpful in a time of crisis since an unfavorable relations hip history or reputation might intensify the negatives generated by the crisis and lead stakeholders to disc ount the organizations interpretation of the crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2001, p. 324). Thus, creating a favorable relationship by communicating CSR initiatives can reduce the negative impacts a crisis might entail. Wipperfurth (2005) states that by giving the overall impression that an organization respects its community, mishap s are more easily forgiven and forgotten (p. 59). The success of a public relations campaign focused on CSR issues rests heavily on a corporations ability to create in the public conscious ness linkages between the CSR activities of an organization and its corpor ate image (David, Kline, & Dai, 2005, p. 296). Customizing CSR messages to diverse viewpoi nts can provide these linkages. This will prove effective because information directed toward preferred channels of different stakeholders is crucial to effective communi cation. It is crucial c onsidering different stakeholder audiences have diffe rent expectations of companies, different informational needs, and they respond differently to the various communication ch annels available (Dawkins, 2004, p. 109). 17

PAGE 25

Corporations should begin tailoring their CSR messages to the various interests of consumers and stakeholders because, according to Dawkins (2004), many companies are not getting full credit for their responsibl e corporate behavior. Communication managers already recognize the need to analyze multiple stakeholders to develop a sense of the needs and wants of those who are either criti cal to the corporations existence or capable of expressing a significant c oncern (Clark, 2000, p. 374). Now it might be effective to do the same concerning CSR issues. Heath ( 1997) suggests, that an effective way to communicate CSR initiatives are activities to enhance ethical performance such as monitoring stakeholder opinion to appraise changing standards of social expectations, integrating issues management into strategi c planning, updating codes of ethical conduct, and informing stakeholders about the achievement of standards. Not only should an organization communi cate its CSR initiatives to consumers and stakeholders, but to its employees as well. This is supported by Hax and Majuf (1996), who found that corporate identity a nd image influence not only customers and stakeholders, but also organizational members through increased organizational commitment and identification. Employees should be informed about their companys CSR practices because corporate responsibility has the potential to increase employee motivation and enhance their opinion of their employer (D awkins, 2004, p. 118). This is noteworthy because employees communicate to various stakeholders and consumers when at work and when not at work. As supported by David, Kline, and Dai (2005), Corporate identity is grounded in employees interactions as well as top managements strategic presentation of cor porate identity to external audiences, expressed through communication and behavior (p. 292). In addition, employees are a key potential 18

PAGE 26

communication channel for companies corporat e responsibility, since they have a wide reach among other stakeholder groups and ar e considered as particularly credible information sources (Dawkins, 2004, p. 118). Communicating CSR activities to poten tial employees is also considered essential. This is so because some compan ies say that pages on co rporate responsibility are now among the top areas of their we bsites to be accessed by graduates when researching prospective careers (Dawkins, 2004, p. 118). It appears that explaining an organizations CSR initiatives on the compa nys website could have an affect on the quality of candidates applying for a job at the organization. Overall the literature on CSR suggests that communicating an organizations CSR agenda and accomplishments to its stakeholde rs can elevate its image in the community. This study posits that indivi duals will have more favorable benefits, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward organizations that communicate their corporate social responsibility initiatives. Thus, a review of literature related to beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions is warranted Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intention The purpose of this study is to further current theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of CS R initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions, thus a review of literature related to beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions is relevant. The follo wing section provides a general overview of the concepts of beliefs, attitudes, and beha vioral intention through an examination of Fishbein and Ajzens theory of reasoned action. 19

PAGE 27

The term attitude is derived from the Latin word aptus, which is also the root of the word aptitude, and indicat es a state of preparedness or adaptation (Erwin, 2001 p. 3). Attitudes have and serve several purposes. First, attitudes help us interpret our surroundings, guide our behavior in social situations, and or ganize our experiences into a personally meaningful whole (Erwin, 2001). Second, attitudes usually have value and utility for the person who holds them, and they ar e often tied to a persons ego or sense of identity (Severin & Tankard, 2001, p. 152). Finall y, attitudes simply refer to whether or not we like something (Severin & Tankard, 2001, p. 151). A persons attitude is established and changed through various means. There are many theories of how attitudes are established. Some might argue that attitudes are learned and others might argue that attitudes are biologically inherite d, but experience is the ultimate determinant of a ttitudes (Erwin, 2001, p.5). In regards to changing attitudes Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) explain: An attitude toward an object is determin ed by a persons salient beliefs that the objects posseses certain attributes and by hi s/her evaluations of those attributes. Thus, attitudes can be changed by changi ng one or more of the existing salient beliefs, by introducing new salient be liefs, or by changing the persons evaluations of the at tributes (p. 396). For example, if a person believes that a cor poration is unethical, that belief must be replaced with a belief that th e corporation is benefiting the community in order to change a persons attitude about the corporation. Th rough delivered messages, attitudes can be changed if the message receiver is paying attention, understands the message, and accepts the message (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This is relevant when attempting to understand and change peoples attitudes toward a consumer product since actions and behaviors are proceeded by attitudes 20

PAGE 28

(Severin & Tankard, 2001). For example, a ma n who has a favorable attitude toward a candidate is likely to vote for the candidate, a woman who opposes abortion is not likely to get an abortion, and a music fan who likes U2 will probably buy the groups records (Severin & Tankard, 2001, p. 151). The concept of beliefs, attitude, and behavioral intenti on are the underlining foundation for Fishbein and Ajzens theory of reasoned action. Ajzens and Fishbeins Theory of Reasoned Action Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein have t ogether and independently researched and written about attitudes and behaviors sin ce the early 70s (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, 1980, 2005). In 1975, Fishbein and Ajzen published Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research laying the theory of reasoned action as a framework for understanding behavior (Fis hbein & Ajzen, 1975). Then in 1980, they published Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior which further developed and demonstrated the efficacy of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980). The theory of reasoned action provides a model for measuring peoples beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward a behavior in order to pr edict their actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, 2005; Ajzen & Fishbei n, 1980). The theory specifies that: (1) behavior is determined by intention to engage in behavior, (2) inte ntion is determined by attitude toward the behavior and subjective nor m, (3) attitude is determined by behavioral beliefs and evaluations of the salient outcome s, and (4) subjective norm is determined by normative beliefs and motivation to comply w ith the salient referents (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, 2005). The theory assumes that attitude and behavior are re lated because humans 21

PAGE 29

are rational beings who systematically proces s the information available to them in a reasonable way to arrive at a behavioral decision (Fishbe in, 1980). In most cases, people act consistently with their stated attit ude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). According to the theory, the immediate de terminant of a persons overt behavior is the persons intention to perform the behavi or. The theory holds that the best predictor of volitional behavior is intention, and that intention is driven by two factors: attitude toward the behavior and the subjective norm (Booth-Butterfield & Reger, 2004, p. 583). Behavioral intention is a function of an indi viduals attitude toward the behavior and an individuals subjective norm with respect to the behavior (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). Attitude toward behavior is simply an individuals positive or negative evaluation of performing the behavior. It refers to the pe rsons summary judgment that performing the behavior is favorable or unfavorable (Fishbein & Ajze n, 1975, 2005; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). A persons attitude about a behavior is a function of his or her salient beliefs about performing the behavior, including the likel y consequences of the behavior and the evaluation of those consequen ces (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). Subjective norm refers to an individual s perceptions of the social pressures related to the performa nce of a behavior. Specifically, s ubjective norm is a function of an individuals perception that pa rticular referents think the be havior should or should not be performed and the persons motivation to comply with these referents (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Generally, people will perform behavior s they find favorable and popular with others and will refrain from behaviors they regard as unfavorable and unpopular with others (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). 22

PAGE 30

Studies testing the theory of reasoned ac tion have provided support for its ability to account for intentions and behavior in di verse areas, from birt h control (Crawfold & Boyer, 1985) to use of natural resources (Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996). In reviews of the substantial research on the theory, Fishbein and Ajzen found that intentions to engage in volitional acts were usually well predicted by the combination of attitude toward the behavior and subject ive norm. Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 87 estimates of the predictability of intention and behavior. They reported a mean R of .66 for the prediction of intention from attitude and subjective norm. For the relation between inte ntion and behavior, they reported a mean r of .53. Similarly, Van den Puttes (1991) meta -analysis of 113 studies indicated a mean R of .68 for predicting intention from atti tude and subjective norm and a mean r of .62 for predicting behavior from inte ntion. Van den Putte also reported mean correlations of .53 for the relation between attitudes and behavior al beliefs and .53 for the relation between subjective norms and normative beliefs. In a ddition, findings indicate d that the relation between intention and attitude was stronge r than the relation between intention and subjective norm. Proponents of the theory of reasoned action claim it provides a complete theory of voluntary behavior in the sense that no other variables infl uence behavior, except through their impact on beliefs (Erwin, 2001). Thus, no separate measures are needed for external variables. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1 975), traditional measures such as attitudes toward targets (people and/or institutions ) affect behavior on ly through the more proximal determinants of behavior specified by the model. A model of the theory of reasoned action is prov ided in Figure 1. 23

PAGE 31

FIGURE 1 Fishbein and Ajzens Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005, p. 194) Personality Values Education Religion Knowledge Behavioral: Mood; Emotion Experience Normative: Age, Gender Race Control: Media Intelligence Stereotypes Income Culture Intervention Background Factors Behavioral Beliefs Normative Beliefs Control Beliefs Attitude toward the b ehavio r Subjective Norm Perceived behavioral control Actual behavioral control Intention Behavior 24

PAGE 32

Despite the efficiency of the theo ry of reasoned action, there are many circumstances that prevent behavioral intention from leading to actual behavior. An important limitation of the theory of reasone d action is that it does not apply to other, more spontaneous behaviors such as emoti onal outbursts, well-learned automatic skills, habitual behaviors, and the like (Erwi n, 2001, p. 119). In terms of the relationships between behavior and behavioral intentions, two factors seem to be extremely important: the time gap between the expression of the be havioral intention, the actual behavior, and the specificity with which the behavioral in tention and actual beha vior are expressed (Erwin, 2001, p. 113). For that reason, the soon er a behavioral inte ntion is acted on, the more likely it is to be predictive of actual behavior (Erwin, 2001, p. 113). Although there might be limitations inherent in Ajzen and Fis hbiens theory of reasoned action, their approach does cover deliberate, rationally chosen behaviors (Erwin, 2001). As a consequence, it can be utilized to alter ones attitude towards a product, which might in turn alter an indivi duals behavior. As Erwi n (2001) stated, We can potentially change someones attitude through changing the strength of their belief or through its associated evaluation or both of these components (p. 116). This could be through changing their beliefs about an act, or by changing how they evaluate these beliefs. The researchers noted, however, that a number of conditions will affect the predictive power of the reasoned action model. Most importantly, the level of specificity between behavior and intention must be correl ated as closely as po ssible in action, target, context, and time. In application, the measures regarding beliefs, attitudes, and intentions must be similarly worded in terms of these f actors. In addition, it is important to note that 25

PAGE 33

the complete model does not have to be us ed for its individual predictions to be supported. Purpose and Hypotheses The purpose of this study is to further cu rrent theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of cor porate social responsibility initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intenti on. Specifically, CSR in itiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005) were tested using Fi shbein and Ajzens (1975, 2005) theory of reasoned action to determine their influence on individuals beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intention toward a cons umer organization and its products. The theory of reasoned action posits that atti tude is predicted by salient beliefs. In addition, the theory states that attitude pr edicts behavioral intention. To examine the predictions of the theory of reasoned ac tion, the following hypotheses were tested: H1: Salient beliefs predict attitudes. H2: Attitudes predict behavioral intention. This study posits that CSR initiatives in fluence beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions of individuals toward an orga nization and its products. To examine these predictions, the following hypotheses were tested: H3: CSR initiatives influence salient beliefs. H4: CSR initiatives influence attitudes. H5: CSR initiatives influence behavioral intention. 26

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY To test these hypotheses, a controlled experiment was conducted using stimulus material based on a real or ganization engaging in corpor ate social responsibility initiatives. Specifically, Starbucks Coffee Co mpany was used as the target organization in this experiment because it has built a st rong CSR campaign utilizing a variety of CSR initiatives, and the researcher sought to rep licate reality as closely as possible in this study. According to Starbucks Web site, Contributing positively to our communities and environment is so important to Starbuc ks that its a guid ing principle of our We jointly fulfill this commitment with pa rtners (employees), at all levels of the company, by getting involved together to help build stronger communities and conserve natural resources ( mission statement http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/csr.asp ). As a result of its CSR initiatives, Starbuck is viewed as a gl obal CSR leader (Benioff & Southwick, 2004). Since 2001, it has produced an annual CSR report in addition to its a nnual fiscal report. The manipulations used in this experiment were based on actual messages contained in Starbucks 2005 CSR report; however the text was slightly ad apted to fit the needs of this study. Research Participants Research participants were recruited fr om a population of undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory mass communicati on class at a large southeastern university. Students were asked to volunt arily participate in the experiment. The responses of 309 participants were included in data analysis. Of these par ticipants, 114 (36.9%) were male and 195 (63.1%) were female. The av erage age of participants was 20. 27

PAGE 35

Procedures The research session was held in a larg e classroom on campus. After arriving at the classroom, each participant was randomly assigned to one of six different conditions resulting from a 1x6 factorial. Variation in conditions was achieved through the use of booklets containing instructions, stimulus ma terials, and an instrument designed to measure the variables of interest. Stimulus Material To achieve a 1x6 factorial, five treatme nt conditions and one control condition were created. Participants in the five treatm ents were exposed to one of five different messages from Starbucks. Four Starbucks CSR messages were adapted from Starbucks 2005 CSR report to reflect four CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005). The CSR initiatives examined in this study included cause promotion, cause-related marketing, corporate philanthropy, and commun ity volunteerism. The researchers chose to omit corporate social marketing from analys is due to its close association with causerelated marketing. In addition, the CSR initi ative of socially responsible business practices was not included in this study due to its focus on internal policies and procedures. A fifth Starbucks message unrelated to CSR was created to control for CSR initiative type. Each of the five treatment c onditions was printed in black-and-white on an 8.5x11 page, featured an identical Starbucks log o, an equally sized story-related picture, and an equally sized pull quote. Each of the fi ve treatments contained 24-29 lines of text. 28

PAGE 36

The instructions asked participants to spend approximately 90 seconds reading the message text. A sixth condition that contained no Star bucks CSR message was created as an overall control condition. This condition wa s created to control for any pre-existing beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions that exist toward Starbucks. All six conditions contained the same self-administered instrument used to measure the variables of interest. Measures CSR initiative type was manipulated by cr eating five messages from Starbucks. The text of each manipulation is contained in Table 1 and the exact articles are shown in Appendix A. After viewing the CSR initiative messages, participants were asked to complete an instrument containing 21 items that measured their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intention toward Starbucks. Specifically, scal es were created to measure the following variables: 1) salient beliefs (about Starbuc ks and its products); 2) attitudes (toward Starbucks and Starbucks products); and 3) behavioral intention (to buy products from Starbucks). The instrument is shown in Appendix B. Separate measures were created to m easure beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility and beliefs about Starbucks s ource credibility. To measure beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility, a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) was used to measure the following six items: 1) I believe Starbucks engages in ethical business prac tices; 2) I believe that Star bucks is a good organization to work for; 3) I believe that St arbucks is not a socially res ponsible organization (reversed); 4) I believe that Starbucks positively contributes to the community; 5) I believe that 29

PAGE 37

Table 1 Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments CSR Initiative Type Headline Message Text Pull Quote Cause Promotion Starbucks Supports the Earth Day Network (EDN) in Encouraging Environmental Citizenship Year-Round For the past four years Starbucks has supported and worked together with the Earth Day Network (EDN), an organization that was founded by the organizers of Earth Day to encourage environmental citizenship year-round. In 2005, Starbucks collaboratio n included featuring environmental messages on Starbucks cup sleeves during the month of April. The messages encourage environmental protection and suggest simple choices we can make create a more sustainable world. The Starbucks Foundation also provided financial support to EDN. Starbucks promotes Earth Day activities with instore messages and volunteer opportunities to educate partners (employees) and customers about the impacts their actions have on the environment. This steers environmenta l awareness around the world. Through EDN, activists connect, interact, and impact their communities, and create positive change in local, national, and global policies. Additionally, in recognition of Earth Day 2005, Starbucks provided financial support to 42 environmental organizations across North American. Approximately 12,000 partners and customers, including nearly 900 partners in Japan, got involved in Earth-Day volunteer projects. Visit Earth Day Network, www.earthday.net, to find out how you can volunteer on Earth Day. Then, for more information about how Starbucks contributes and promotes Earth Day Network, go to www.starbucks.com/csr Starbucks collaboration included featuring environmental messages on Starbucks cup sleeves. 30

PAGE 38

Table 1 (cont.) Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments CSR Initiative Type Headline Message Text Pull Quote CauseRelated Marketing Starbucks Hear Music Donates Proceeds to Assist in Hurricane Katrina Recovery Efforts Founded in 1990, and acquired by Starbucks in 1999, Hear Music is the Sound of Starbucks. Starbucks is dedicated to creating a new and convenient way for consumers to discover, experience and acquire all genres of great music through its unique curatorial voice, CD compilations, music programming for Starbucks retail stores worldwide and its innovative collaborations with artists and music labels to produce, market and dist ribute great music. Starbucks has a history of coll aborating with artists and the music industry to give back to communities through causerelated marketing efforts. For example, in response to the tremendous devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, Starbucks and two record labels, Work Song and Rhino Records, who earlier teamed up to release the I Believe to My Soul CD, for recovery efforts. The album was not initially conceived as a benefit, but after Hurricane Katrina a decision was made to donate proceeds from CD sales to victims of the storm, including those in New Orleans, the home of Irma Thomas and Allen Toussaint. Starbucks committed to donate to the Red Cross $10 of the purchase price of every I Believe to My Soul CD sold in Starbucks company-operated stor es in the U.S. and Canada. In other retail channels, $3 of the purchase price of every CD sold will be donated to these efforts. This donation will continue for the lifetime of the CD. For more information about how Starbucks responded to Hurricane Katrina, go to www.starbucks.com/csr Starbucks has a history of collaborating with artists and the music industry to give back to communities. 31

PAGE 39

Table 1 (cont.) Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments CSR Initiative Type Headline Message Text Pull Quote Corporate Philanthropy Starbucks Lends a Helping Hand After Hurricane Stan Takes Its Toll on Central American Coffee Farms Over the years, Starbucks has created and maintained a deep connection with the people and families who care for and nurture the coffee plants that, year after year, yield the precious coffee beans we buy, roas t, serve and sell in our stores. Last October, when we learned of the devastating effects of Hurricane Stan in southwest Mexico and northwest Guatemala, our concerns escalated rapidly. As we have journeyed long and far with many coffee farmers and their families in these regions, our decision to act came with no hesitation. A dedicated group of partners from Starbucks Support Center (SSC) in Seattle, Starbucks Coffee Agronomy Company (the Farmer Support Center) in Co sta Rica and Starbucks Coffee Trading Company (SCTC) in Switzerland traveled to Chiapas, Mexico, and regions throughout Guatemala and El Salvador to meet with our business partners in these countries to understand, firsthand, the devastation and how Starbucks might help with recovery and restoration. After our visits, our teams came together in Guatemala City to put to gether our findings and report them to Starbucks Board of Directors and CEO Jim Donald. The response was fast and appropriate, given the seriousness of the situation: $1 million dollars was allocated to alleviate the most urgent needs of reconstruction in Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador. Reconstruction efforts are currently underway in the communities affected by the hurricane, and the coffee producers are once more showing the strong core and resilience that has helped them to overcome this kind of hardship in the past and will keep them strong well into the future For more information about how Starbucks responded to Hurricane Stan go to www.starbucks.com/csr $1 million dollars was allocated to alleviate the most urgent needs of reconstruction in Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador. 32

PAGE 40

Table 1 (cont.) Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments CSR Initiative Type Headline Message Text Pull Quote Volunteerism Starbucks Partners Give back Building Community: Starbucks is proud that so many partners at all levels of the company actively support neighborhood organizations that are important to them through volunteering or charitable giving. Whether its schools, parks and churches, or being involved in Earth Day clean-ups and walk-a-thons, Starbucks partners are making a difference in their communities. Make Your Mark: Starbucks believes volunteerism is vital to a healthy community. With that in mind, we created Make Your Mark, a program that matches our partners and customers volunteer hours with cash contributions to designated nonprofits$10 for every hour, up to $1,000. Caring Unities Partners Fund: The spirit of helping others can be seen every day at Starbucks through the Caring Unities Partners (CUP) Fund, a program dedicated to supporting fellow partners in need. Funded by partners through voluntary payroll deductions and fundraisers, the CUP Fund provides financial relief to partners facing emergency situations. Executive Community Leader ship Program: Starbucks believes our senior executives can set great examples for other partners while lending their management expertise to non-profit organizations by becoming board members. Our Executive Community Leadership Program facilitates and su pports Starbucks executives service on non-Profit boards such as Atlantas Children's Theater, American SCORES, Conservation International, JumpStart and The Seattle Parks Foundation. Choose to Give: We believe charitable giving is a personal decision. Respecting this, Starbucks designed Choose to Give, a flexible workplace giving program that matches each partners charitable contributions, up to $1000 annually. For more information on Starbucks volunteer programs, visit www.starbucks.com/csr Starbucks believes volunteerism is vital to a healthy community. 33

PAGE 41

Table 1 (cont.) Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments CSR Initiative Type Headline Message Text Pull Quote Treatment Control Line Extensions for Highly Successful Bottled Frappuccino and Starbucks DoubleShot Starbucks Coffee Company (Nasdaq; SBUX) today announced the launch of its new ready-to-drink coffee drink, Starbucks Ic ed Coffee, in the U.S. through the North American Coffee Partnership, a joint venture with Pepsi-Cola Company. With the introduction of Starbucks Iced Coffee, the North American Coffee Partnership is creating a new coffee refreshments segmen t within the more than $800 million overall ready-to-drink coffee category in the U.S. Starbucks Iced Coffee is a refreshing, cold coffee drink made with Starbucks Italian Roast coffee and just a touch of milk sweet ness, offering the great tasting high-quality coffee customers expect from Starbucks. This new beverage is a will appeal to Starbucks coffee lovers. Starbucks Iced Coffee will be available in Starbucks coffee lovers. Starbucks Iced Coffee will be available in Starbucks Companyoperated retail stores in the U.S. beginning late March 2006. Additionally, grocery and convenience stores nationally in the U.S. will carry regular and light varieties of Starbucks Iced Coffee beginning May 2006. Coffee Partnerships looked to trends and customer preferences within the overall coffee category. According to the National Coffee Drinking Trends report, published by the National Coffee Association of the U.S.A., the major ity of customers want a Coffee beverage with a simple, high-quality, full coffee flavor and light da iry and sweetness, which until now has been largely unavailable in the U.S. The launch of Starbucks Iced Coffee creates a new coffee refreshment segment of the ready-to-drink coffee category and features the same high-quality coffee available in Starbucks retail stores and coffeerelated products globally. Opportunities for Starbucks to introduce innovative and exciting ready-to-drink products to our customers allow us to extend the Starbucks Experience to them an y place and anytime they choose, said Gerry Lopez, president, Starbucks Global Consumer Products. This new beverage will appeal to Starbucks coffee lovers. 34

PAGE 42

Starbucks is a bad corporate citizen (reversed ); and 6) I believe that communities are negatively impacted by St arbucks (reversed). Five items were used to measure beli efs about Starbucks source credibility. A Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) was used to measure the following two items: 1) I believe that messages from Starbucks are credible; 2) I do not trust messages from Starbucks (reversed). In addition, a scale was included using three 7-point semantic di fferential-type items. The statement, I consider messages from Starbucks to be, was rated on scales anchored by balanced/unbalanced credible/not credible and trustworthy/not trustworthy Separate measures were created to measur e attitude toward St arbucks and attitude toward Starbucks products. First, four item s were included to measure attitudes towards Starbucks. A scale was created using three 7point semantic differential-type items. The statement, My attitude toward the Starbuc ks organization is, was rated on scales anchored by positive/negative good/bad, and favorable/unfavorable In addition, a Likert-type item ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) was included that read, I like Starbucks. Next, three items were created to measure attitude towards Starbucks products. A scale was included using three 7-point semantic differential-type items. The statement, My attitude toward Starbucks products is, was rated on scales anchored by positive/negative good/bad, and favorable/unfavorable Behavioral intention was meas ured by combining the scores from two intent items and a magnitude item. The statement, I inte nd to purchase a bevera ge or other product from Starbucks during the next month, was ra ted on a 7-point semantic differential-type scale anchored by likely/unlikely In addition, the statement, I plan to drink Starbucks 35

PAGE 43

coffee during the next month, was rated on a 7-point semantic diffe rential-type scale anchored by never/frequently. Participants also rated the extent to which they intended to purchase products from Starbucks during the next month on a 5-point magnitude measure ranging from never to 10 or more times. In addition to the variables outlined above participants were asked to provide demographic information. Variables of inte rest included gender, age, and area of academic study. Problems with this Methodology Prior to hypothesis testing, a manipula tion check was conducted to assess the degree to which the CSR treatments agreed with the definitions pr esented by Kotler and Lees (2005). An instrument was developed and administered to 58 students in an introductory mass communications class. Partic ipants received a questionnaire designed to test the comprehensibility of the CSR messages and the degree of agreement between the CSR initiative type and its corre sponding definition. The manipulation check employed a simplistic design in which responde nts were asked to read the CSR message and select the definition of th e CSR initiative it reflected. Th e results of the manipulation check are shown in Table 2. The manipulation check indicated mixe d support for the manipulation of CSR initiative type. Overall, the manipulations for cause promotion and corporate volunteering were the most successful, showing high pe rcentages of agreement between the CSR treatment and CSR definition. The findings fo r the cause-related marketing and corporate philanthropy treatments were not as encour aging. These findings may have been the result of the timing of the administration of the manipulation ch eck. The questionnaires 36

PAGE 44

were passed out during the end of class when students were in a hurry to complete the questionnaire and leave. Therefore, participan ts may not have allocated sufficient time to read the articles and make an accurate asse ssment of agreement be tween the article and the definition. Despite the mixed findings for the manipulation check, the decision was made to continue the experiment in order to gain a greater understand ing of the effects of CSR initiatives for future research. Table 2 Manipulation Check for Corporate Social Responsibility Treatments CSR Treatment Cause Promotion Cause-related Marketing Corporate Philanthropy Corporate Volunteering Cause Promotion 33 4 CSR Definition 10 10 Cause-related Marketing 12 24 19 3 Corporate Philanthropy 10 21 23 8 Corporate Volunteering 3 9 6 36 37

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Data were analyzed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows. An alpha level of .05 was required for significance in all statistical analys is. Statistical procedur es used to test the hypotheses included linear regr ession analysis and ANOVA. Data Analysis Prior to hypothesis testing, the internal consistency of the multiple-item scales used to measure the variables of interest was assessed using Cronbachs alpha. According to Carmines and Zeller (1979), reliability al phas should not fall below .80 for widelyused scales. Berman (2002) stated that al pha values between .80 and 1.00 indicate high reliability. The six-item scale used to measure sa lient beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility yielded a coefficient alpha of .85. The five-item scale used to measure salient beliefs about Starbucks source credibility produced a coefficient alpha of .92. The dimensionality of the separate measures created to measure attitudes toward Starbucks and attitudes toward Starbuck products was analyzed using maximum likelihood factor analysis. Only a single component was extr acted. Thus, the four-item attitudes toward Starbucks scale and the three-item attitude s toward Starbucks products scale were combined to produce a single attitude measure. This seven-item attitude measure yielded a coefficient alpha of .95. The standardized scor es for the three-item behavioral intention scale yielded a coefficient alpha of .89. These re sults indicate that the scales used to test the variables of interest ha d strong internal consistency. 38

PAGE 46

Tests of Hypotheses To test H1, linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well salient beliefs predict attitudes toward Starbucks. The collapsed attitude m easure, the dependent variable, was regressed on the measures of salient beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility and salient beliefs about Star bucks source credibility. The results are shown in Table 3. The analysis produced a model containing both belief measures. These two measures accounted for 61% of the va riance in attitudes toward Starbucks, R 2 =.61, Adj. R 2 =.61, F (2,294)=233.208, p=.000. Specifically, salient be liefs about Starbucks source credibility produced the strongest unique item variance, =.567, t (295)=8.577, p=.000; however, salient beliefs a bout Starbucks social respon sibility also functioned as a significant predictor of at titudes toward Starbucks, =.245, t (295)=3.706, p=.000. These results support H1 and indicate that salient beliefs abou t Starbucks source credibility were a slightly better predictor of attitudes toward St arbucks than salient beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility. Table 3 Regression Model for Salient Beliefs Predicting Attitudes Variable B SE B Source Credibility Beliefs .643 .075 .567 Social Responsibility Beliefs .315 .085 .245 To test H2, linear regressi on analysis was conducted to evaluate how well attitude toward Starbucks predicts behavioral inte ntion toward Starbucks. The behavioral intention measure, the dependent variable, was regressed on the measure of attitudes 39

PAGE 47

toward Starbucks. The results are shown in Ta ble 4. Findings indicate that the attitude toward Starbucks measure accounted for 35% of the variance in behavioral intention toward Starbucks, R 2 =.36, Adj. R 2 =.35, F (1,300)=169.151, p=.000. The attitude toward Starbucks measure was a positive predictor of behavioral intention toward Starbucks, =.600, t (299)=13.006, p=.000. These results support H2. Table 4 Regression Model for Attitude Pr edicting Behavioral Intentions Variable B SE B Attitude toward Starbucks .408 .031 .600 Prior to testing H3, H4, and H5, a series of one-way ANOVAs were performed to determine if difference in means existed for a ny of the 21 belief, attitude, and behavioral intention items across the six CSR manipula tions. Only two of the 21 items produced significant results. One item measuring beliefs about Starbucks soci al responsibility was significant, F (5,300)=4.909, p=.000, partial 2 =.076, and one item measuring beliefs about Starbucks source cr edibility was significant, F (5,301)=2.320, p=.043, partial 2 =.037. Results of these one-way ANOVAs are shown in Table 5. A Levenes test for homogeneity of variance was not significant for either belief item, so the LSD post hoc procedure was used to examine specific di fference between CSR manipulations. The post hoc analysis produced significant differences in treatment pairs. The results of these tests are shown in Table 6 and Table 7. 40

PAGE 48

Table 5 One-Way Analysis of Variance for Salient Be lief, Attitude, and Behavioral Intention Measures Across Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Type Variable Treatment M SD df F p 2 I believe that Starbucks Cause Promotion 4.78 1.11 5, 300 4.90 .000 .08 positively contributes to CauseRelated Marketing 5.25 1.33 the community. Corporate Philanthropy 4.70 1.55 Corporate Volunteering 4.54 1.45 CSR Treatment Control 4.00 1.46 Overall Control 4.33 1.49 I consider messages Cause Promotion 5.08 1.18 5, 301 2.32 .043 .04 from Starbucks to Cause-Related Marketing 5.30 1.24 be trustworthy. Corporate Philanthropy 5.16 1.37 Corporate Volunteering 4.91 1.62 CSR Treatment Control 4.86 1.44 Overall Control 4.30 1.44 Post hoc comparisons for the item measur ing salient beliefs toward Starbucks social responsibility indicate that the mean for the cause-related marketing treatment was significantly different from a ll of the other treatments, except cause promotion. In addition, the treatment control mean was signi ficantly different from all of the CSR treatment. Post hoc comparisons for the item measuring salient beliefs toward Starbucks source credibility indicated that the mean for the overall control was significantly different from the means for cause promo tion, cause-related marketing, and corporate philanthropy. 41

PAGE 49

Table 6 Post Hoc Comparisons for I believe that Starbucks positively contributes to the community Across Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Type (I) CSR Initiative Type (J) CSR Initiative Type Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. Cause Promotion Cause-related Marketing -.47 .065 Corporate Philanthropy .08 .772 Corporate Volunteering .24 .349 Treatment Control .78(*) .004 Overall Control .45 .169 Cause-related Marketing Cause Promotion .47 .065 Corporate Philanthropy .55(*) .037 Corporate Volunteering .72(*) .006 Treatment Control 1.25(*) .000 Overall Control .92(*) .005 Corporate Philanthropy Cause Promotion -.08 .772 Cause-related Marketing -.55(*) .037 Corporate Volunteering .17 .528 Treatment Control .70(*) .010 Overall Control .37 .260 Corporate Volunteering Cause Promotion -.24 .349 Cause-related Marketing -.72(*) .006 Corporate Philanthropy -.17 .528 Treatment Control .54(*) .048 Overall Control .20 .536 Treatment Control Cause Promotion -.78(*) .004 Cause-related Marketing -1.25(*) .000 Corporate Philanthropy -.70(*) .010 Corporate Volunteering -.54(*) .048 Overall Control -.33 .316 Overall Control Cause Promotion -.45 .169 Cause-related Marketing -.92(*) .005 Corporate Philanthropy -.37 .260 Corporate Volunteering -.20 .536 Treatment Control .33 .316 Based on observed means. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 42

PAGE 50

Table 7 Post Hoc Comparisons for I consider messa ge from Starbucks to be trustworthy Across Corporate Social Re sponsibility Initiative Type (I) CSR Initiative Type (J) CSR Initiative Type Mean Difference (IJ) Sig. Overall Control Cause Promotion -.788(*) .014 Cause-related Marketing -1.004 (*) .002 Corporate Philanthropy -.867(*) .008 Corporate Volunteering -.613 .060 Treatment Control -.566 .086 Based on observed means. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. To test H3, two univariate ANOVAs were conducted to determine if CSR initiatives influence salient beliefs toward Starbucks. In the first ANOVA, the dependent variable was the collapsed measure of salient beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility and the independe nt variable was CSR treatment type with six levels. The strength of relationship betw een the CSR treatments and sali ent beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility was weak, but significan t, with treatment type accounting for about 4% of the variance in beliefs a bout Starbucks social responsibility, F (5,298)=2.283, p=.046, partial 2 =.037. Results indicate that the cause-related marketing treatment ( M =5.2599, SD =1.00443) produced the highest mean among the six treatment types. This was followed by the corporate philanthropy ( M =5.1358, SD =1.02437) and cause promotion ( M =5.1045, SD =0.88889) treatments. The corporate vol unteering treatm ent produced the lowest mean among the CSR treatments ( M =4.9228, SD =1.17705). The CSR treatment 43

PAGE 51

control ( M =4.7908, SD =0.94507) and the overall control ( M =4.6173, SD =1.20080) produced the lowest means among the six treatment types. In the second ANOVA testing H3, the dependent variable was the collapsed measure of salient beliefs about Starbucks source credibility and the independent variable was CSR treatment type with si x levels. The relationship between the CSR treatments and salient beliefs about Starbucks social responsibility was not significant, F (5,299)=1.669, p=.142, partial 2 =.027. Results indicate that the cause-related marketing treatment ( M =5.1700, SD =1.11740) produced the highest mean among the six treatment types. This was followed by the corporate philanthropy ( M =5.1000, SD =1.15497) and cause promotion ( M =5.0000, SD =0.98191) treatments. The corporate vol unteering treatm ent produced the lowest mean among the CSR treatments ( M =4.8655, SD =1.38139), and this mean was also slightly lower that the CSR treatment control ( M =4.8880, SD =1.19670). The overall control ( M =4.4444, SD =1.34088) produced the lowest means among the six treatment types. These results provide mixed support for H3. Specifically, the CSR initiative types appear to have a signific ant influence on beliefs rela ted to Starbucks social responsibility; however, they do not seem to have an infl uence in beliefs related to Starbucks source credibility. To test H4, a univariate ANOVA were conducted to dete rmine if CSR initiatives influence attitudes toward Starbucks. The de pendent variable was the collapsed measure of attitude toward and the independent variab le was CSR treatment type with six levels. The strength of relationship between the CSR treatments and attitudes toward Starbucks 44

PAGE 52

was not significant, F (5,296)=1.753, p=.122, partial 2 =.029. Results indicate that the corporate philanthropy treatment ( M =5.6857, SD =1.26120) produced the highest mean among the six treatment types. This was followed by the cause-related marketing ( M =5.5833, SD =1.29824) and cause promotion ( M =5.5612, SD =1.21336) treatments. The corporate volunteering treatment produced the lowest mean among the CSR treatments (M =5.2727, SD =1.40140). The CSR treatment control ( M =5.2245, SD =1.26404) and the overall control ( M =4.9524, SD =1.71245) produced the lowest means among the six treatment types. Th e results of the univariate ANOVA do not support H4; therefore, it is rejected. To test H5, a univariate ANOVA was conducted to determine if CSR initiatives influence behavioral inten tion toward Starbucks. The de pendent variable was the standardized measure of beha vioral intention and the i ndependent variable was CSR treatment type with six levels. The strengt h of relationship between the CSR treatments and behavioral intention toward Starbucks was not significant, F (5,303)=.649, p=.662, partial 2 =.011. Results indicate that the corporate philanthropy treatment (standardized M =0.1689, SD =0.93036) produced the highest mean am ong the six treatment types. This was followed by the cause promotion (standardized M =0.0563, SD =0.89792) treatment. Interestingly, the overall control treatment had the third highest mean among the treatments (standardized M =-.0205, SD =0.89667) treatments. The forth highest mean was produced by the cause-related marketing treatment (standardized M =-0.0533, SD =0.85225). The treatment control produced the second lowest mean (standardized M =-0.0630, SD =0.93600), and the corporate volunteeri ng treatment produced the lowest 45

PAGE 53

mean (standardized M =-0.0998, SD =0.95660). The results of the univariate ANOVA do not support H5; therefor e, it is rejected. 46

PAGE 54

CHPATER 5: DISCUSSION This study attempted to further theory-d riven research in public relations by examining the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in itiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral inten tion. Five hypotheses were tested. Two hypotheses tested the predictions of the theory of reasoned action. H1 posited that salient beliefs predict attitudes. H2 posited that attitudes predict behavioral intention. The results of this study support H1 and H2, indicating that the predictions of the theory of reasoned action ar e supported. This finding adds validity to the other results of this study. In addition, this finding contributes to the breadth of scope of the theory of reasoned action and its applic ation to the study of communication and public relations. Three hypotheses tested the influence of CSR initiatives on beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions. H3 posited that CSR initiatives influence salient beliefs. The results of this study support this hypothes is. The findings indicat e that overall, CSR initiatives do influence individuals belie fs about organizations and their products, particularly beliefs about their contributions to the community and their trustworthiness. Specific findings of this study suggest that cause-related marketing may be the most beneficial to corporations in terms of its influence on consumers beliefs about the corporation, which in turn may have positiv e financial implications. Cause-related marketing might produce positive financial implication because when a consumer notices that by buying a product some of the profits will help a cause they ca re about they might consider a product over a competitors produc t. In addition, since a cause-related marketing campaign is usually advertised in store or on the product itself, consumers are more likely to take notice of a CSR campaign as they are making their purchasing 47

PAGE 55

decisions which may influence their beliefs of the organization. This suggests that when organizations are making strategic choices a bout which CSR initiativ es to adopt, causerelated marketing may be a more advantageous choice for the organization. In contrast, CSR initiatives in the form of corporate volunteerism do not appear to have as great a benef it to organizations in terms of their influence on beliefs about the organizations social responsibility and s ource credibility. This finding may be quite different for a similar experiment using empl oyees as participants. If employees where participants they might have related more to the corporate volunteerism article. They might feel that an organiza tion that encourages and allo ws employees to partake in assisting causes they care about is a good corporate citizen. Cause promotion and corporate philanthropy initiatives appear to have similar positive effects in terms of their influen ce on beliefs about an organization and its products; however, the cause promotion treatment performed slightly better. These findings suggest that organizations should stra tegically align themselves with causes that are related to their core bus iness objectives and engage in activities to support these causes. Cause promotion activities may have a greater long-term effect than out-right giving in the form of corporate philanthropy, wh ich the literature suggests may be viewed with skepticism by todays consumer. However, if this study was conducted in a time of national crisis, for example directly after Hurricane Stan, the results might have skewed toward corporate philanthropy. Participants beliefs may have changed more so because an organization contributed to such a cause as assisting vi ctims of Stan rather than a cause-related marketing campaign if the crisis was fres h in their minds. Although, since corporate 48

PAGE 56

philanthropy efforts were not prevalent in the media at the time of this study, causerelated marketing appeared to be more of a proponent choice when changing beliefs about an organization. H4 posited that CRS initiatives influen ce attitudes, and H5 posited that CSR initiative influence behavioral intenti ons. While neither of these hypotheses was supported by this study, further research shoul d be conducted to determine the path to attitude formation among consumers, and ul timately what variables have the greatest impact on behavioral inten tion and actual behavior. Event though in this study CSR initia tives did not influence attitudes or behavioral intention, it is important to men tion that this study di d prove that beliefs influence attitudes and that at titudes influence behavioral in tentions. Therefore, if the start of a CSR campaign will influence beliefs, then the continuation of the campaign might eventually influence attitudes as well as behavioral intentions. As Erwin (2001) stated, We can potentially change someones attitude through changing the strength of their belief or through its associated evalua tion or both of these components (p. 116). In conclusion, the next chapter will de lve into the implication this study has on the study of Public Relations, its limitati ons, and avenues for future studies. 49

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION Despite whether or not cause-related ma rketing is the best CSR practice or whether or not duration of a CSR campaign might influence attitudes and behavioral intentions, this study show ed the importance of CSR and the importance of communicating CSR initiatives. If an organi zation communicates its CSR initiatives it will change the beliefs of stakeholders a nd other individuals. Communicating with stakeholders about an organizations CSR prac tices activities forms a central charter for public relations in creating mutual unde rstanding, managing c onflict, and creating legitimacy (Golob and Bartlett, 2007, p.1). In addition, it has the possibility of enhancing an organizations image and bringing it to the forefront. This will establish an emotional connection to th e public and community. This study makes a significant cont ribution to our understanding of CSR initiatives and their influence on the beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions of consumers. However, despite its contribut ion, this study has several limitations. One important limitation of this study is the manipulation check used to test the CSR initiatives. Future research must seek to develop more rigorous methods for assessing these treatments. In addition, as with all experimental resear ch, the findings of this study cannot be generalized beyond the respondents who participated. Another limitation in the experiment is that the booklets used to measure the variables of interest were not randomly mixed. As a result, the cause promotion articles were at the top of the pile, and the overall control manipulation was on the bot tom of the pile. As a result only a few participants received the overall control manipulation resulting in an unbalanced design. This could have skewed the results. The final limitation of this study was that the 50

PAGE 58

stimulus treatments where attached at the end of the questionnai re as opposed to the beginning. The instructions did mention to read the article first, but since the article was attached to the end of the que stionnaire participants began an swering the questions before reading the material. When this was noti ced an announcement was made to read the article first. However, this might have skewed the results. Despite these limitations, the results of this study constitute a preliminary step in developing a greater understandi ng of corporate social respon sibility initiatives and the impact of CSR on consumers and society in general. This study makes a small contribution to our understanding of the e ffect of doing good in corporate America. Opportunities for future research would be to develop an experiment where participants are exposed to a CSR campaign over a period of time to determine a CSR campaign does have the ability to influence at titudes and behavioral intentions. Another opportunity would be to conduct the study after a nati onal crisis where organizations are contributing to assist victims and the rebuilding of a community. By conducting this study, it will determine if corporate philant hropy has a significant impact on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral inten tions or if cause-related marketing is still the most effective method when communicating CSR initiatives to the public. A similar study could also be conducted utilizing corporate em ployees as participant to obs erve if the volunteerism CSR initiative will have a larger impact when influencing beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. 51

PAGE 59

REFERENCES Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes an d Predicting Social Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Baron, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D., & Taylor, K.A. (2000). The Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 248-262 Berman, E. M. (2002). Essential Statistics for Pub lic Manager and Policy Analysts Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84. Booth-Butterfield, S. & Reger, B. (2004). Th e Message Changes Belief and the Rest is Theory: The % or Less Milk Campaign and Reasoned Action. Preventive Medicine, 39. pp. 581-588. Carmines, E.G., & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social re sponsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society, 38, 3, 268-295. Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences Between P ublic Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), pp. 363-380. Cohen, B., & Greenfield, J. (1997). Ben & Jerrys Double-Dip Lead with Your Values And Make Money, Too. New York: Simon & Schuster. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An Extended Examination of the Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic Approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 321-340. Cone Inc., 2000 Cone/Roper Executive Study; Cause Initiatives from the Corporate Perspective, http://www.coneinc.com/Pages/research.html (accessed December 17, 2005). Daugherty, E. L. (2001). Public Re lations and Social Responsibil ity. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 389-401. 52

PAGE 60

David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Co rporate Social Responsibility Practices, Corporate Identity, and Purchase Intention: A Dual-Process Model Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291-313. Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate Respons ibility: The Communication Challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 108-119. Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). Evalua tion of Public Relati ons Programs: What the Literature Tells us About their Effects. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Erwin, P. (2001). Attitudes and Persuasion Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc. Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and Corporate Web Pages: Self-Presentation or Agenda-Setting? Public Relations Review, 24 3, 305-319. Fishbein, M. (1980). A Theory of Reasoned Acti on: Some Applications and Implications. In H. E. Howe, Jr. & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979, 27, 65-116. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Fishbein M., & Ajzen (1975). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behav iors: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fishbein M., & Ajzen (2005). The Influen ce of Attitudes on Behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 173-222. Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife Valu e Orientations: A Conceptual and Measurement Approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(2), 2447. Giving USA (2005). Indianapolis, IN: Giving USA Foundation. Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. (2007). Communicatin g About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review, 33 1-9. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations: Measuring Relationship-Building Results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1-21. 53

PAGE 61

Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1996). The Strategy Concept and Practice (2 nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Luo, X. & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). Corpor ate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1-18. Lye, G. (2005). Time for Corporate Responsibility to Move from Passive to Active Mode. In P. Raynard (Ed.), Accountability Forum: Corporate Responsibility and Core Business. London: Greenleaf Publishing. 21-28. Martin, R. L. (2003). The Virtue Matrix : Calculating the Return on Corporate In, Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 83-104. Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. K. (1997). Cr iteria for Evaluating the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, pp. 337-347. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2003). The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy. In, Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 27-64. Rochlin, S., Witter, K., Monaghan, P. & Murray, V. (2005). Putting the Corporate into Corporate Responsibility. In P. Raynard (Ed.), Accountability Forum: Corporate Responsibility and Core Business. London: Greenleaf Publishing. 5-13. Roddick, A. (2005). Radical Roddick. Business Strategy Review, 16(2), 80-83. Rossi, A. N., & Armstrong, J. B. (1999). Theory of Reasoned Actions vs. Theory of Planned Behavior: Testing the Suitability and Sufficiency of a Popular Behavior Model Using Hunting Intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4, 40-56. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumber Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243. 54

PAGE 62

Severin, W., & Tankard, N. (2001). Communication Theories Origins, Methods and Uses in Mass Media. New York: Longman. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Re search with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 325-343. Smith, C. N. (2005). Responsibility Inc. Business Strategy Review, 16(2), 62-65 Smith, C. (2003). The New Corporate Philanthropy. In, Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 157-188. Wilson, L. J. (2001). Relationships Within Communities. In R. L. Heath (Ed), Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 521-526. Van den Putte, B. (1991). 20 years of the Theory of Reas oned Action of Fishbein and Ajzen: A Meta-Analysis Unpublished Manuscript, Univer sity of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 55

PAGE 63

Appendix A Articles 56

PAGE 64

CAUSE PROMOTION www.starbucks.com For the past four years Starbucks has supported and worked together with the Earth Day Network (EDN), an organization that was founded by the organizers of Earth Day to encourage environmental citizenship year-round. In 2005, Starbucks collaboration included featuring environmental messages on Starbucks cup sleeves during the month of April. The messages encourage environmental protection and suggest simple choices we can make create a more sustainable world. The Starbucks Foundation also provided financial support to EDN. Starbucks promotes Earth Day activities with in-store messages and volunteer opportunities to educate partners (employees) and customers about the impacts their actions have on the environment. This steers environmental awareness around the world. Through EDN, activists connect, interact, and impact their communities, and create positive change in local, national, and global policies. Additionally, in recognition of Earth Day 2005, Starbucks provided financial support to 42 environmental organizations across North American. Approximately 12,000 partners and customers, including nearly 900 partners in Japan, got involved in Earth-Day volunteer projects. Visit Earth Day Network, www.earthday.net, to find out how you can volunteer on Earth Day. Then, for more information about how Starbucks contributes and promotes Earth Day Network go to www.starbucks.com/csr. Starbucks Supports the Earth Day Network (EDN) in Encouraging Environmental Citizenship Year-Round Starbucks collaboration included featuring environmental messages on Starbucks cup sleeves 57

PAGE 65

CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING www.starbucks.com Founded in 1990, and acquired by Starbucks in 1999, Hear Music is the Sound of Starbucks. Starbucks is dedicated to creating a new and convenient way for consumers to discover, experience and acquire all genres of great music through its unique curatorial voice, CD compilations, music programming for Starbucks retail stores worldwide and its innovative collaborations with artists and music labels to produce, market and distribute great music. Starbucks has a history of collaborating with artists and the music industry to give back to communities through cause-related marketing efforts. For example, in response to the tremendous devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, Starbucks and two record labels, Work Song and Rhino Records, who earlier teamed up to release the I Believe to My Soul CD, for recovery efforts. The album was not initially conceived as a benefit, but after Hurricane Katrina a decision was made to donate proceeds from CD sales to victims of the storm, including those in New Orleans, the home of Irma Thomas and Allen Toussaint. Starbucks committed to donate to the Red Cross $10 of the purchase price of every I Believe to My Soul CD sold in Starbucks companyoperated stores in the U.S. and Canada. In other retail channels, $3 of the purchase price of every CD sold will be donated to these efforts. This donation will continue for the lifetime of the CD. For more information about how Starbucks responded to Hurricane Katrina go to www.starbucks.com/csr. Starbucks Hear Music Donates Proceeds to Assist in Hurricane Katrina Recovery Starbucks has a history of collaborating with artists and the music industry to give back to communities 58

PAGE 66

CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY www.starbucks.com Over the years Starbucks has created and maintained a deep connection with the people and families who care for and nurture the coffee plants, that, year after year, yield the precious coffee beans we buy, roast, serve and sell in our stores. Last October, when we learned of the devastating effects of Hurricane Stan in southwest Mexico and northwest Guatemala, our concerns escalated rapidly. As we have journeyed long and far with many coffee farmers and their families in these regions, our decision to act came with no hesitation. A dedicated group of partners from Starbucks Support Center (SSC) in Seattle, Starbucks Coffee Agronomy Company (the Farmer Support Center) in Costa Rica and Starbucks Coffee Trading Company (SCTC) in Switzerland traveled to Chiapas, Mexico, and regions throughout Guatemala and El Salvador to meet with our business partners in these countries to understand, firsthand, the devastation and how Starbucks might help with recovery and restoration. After our visits, our teams came together in Guatemala City to put together our findings and report them to Starbucks Board of Directors and CEO Jim Donald. The response was fast and appropriate, given the seriousness of the situation: $1 million dollars was allocated to alleviate the most urgent needs of reconstruction in Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador. Reconstruction efforts are currently underway in the communities affected by the hurricane, and the coffee producers are once more showing the strong core and resilience that has helped them to overcome this kind of hardship in the past and will keep them strong well into the future For more information about how Starbucks responded to Hurricane Stan go to www.starbucks.com/csr. Starbucks Lends a Helping Hand After Hurricane Stan Takes Its Toll on Central American Coffee Farms $1 million dollars was allocated to alleviate the most urgent needs of reconstruction in Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador 59

PAGE 67

VOLUNTEERISM www.starbucks.com Starbucks Partners Give back Starbucks believes volunteerism is vital to a healthy community. Executive Community Leadership Program: Starbucks believes our senior executives can set great examples for other partners while lending their management expertise to non-profit organi zations by becoming board members. Our Executive Community Leadership Program facilitates and supports Starbucks executives service on non-Prof it boards such as Atlantas Children's Theater, American SCORES, Conservation International, Jump Start and The Seattle Parks Foundation. Choose to Give: We believe charitable giving is a personal decision. Respecting this, Starbucks designed C hoose to Give, a flexible work place giving program that matches each pa rtners charitable contributions, up to $1000 annually. For more information on Starbu cks volunteer programs visit www.starbucks.com/csr. Caring Unities Partners Fund: The spirit of helping others can be seen every day at Starbucks through the Caring Unities Partners (CUP) Fund, a program dedicated to supporting fellow partners in need. Funded by partners through volunta ry payroll deductions and fundraisers, the CUP Fund provides financial relief to part ners facing emergency situations. Building Community: Starbucks is proud that so many partners at all levels of the company actively s upport neighborhood orga nizations that are important to them through volunt eering or charitable giving. Whether its schools, parks and churches, or being involved in Earth Day cleanups and walk-a-thons, Starbucks partne rs are making a difference in their communities Make Your Mark: Starbucks believes volunteerism is vital to a healthy community. With that in mind, we created Make Your Mark, a program that matches our partners and cu stomers volunteer hours with cash contributions to designated nonprofits$10 for every hour, up to $1,000. 60

PAGE 68

TREATMENT CONTROL www.starbucks.com Starbucks Coffee Company (Nasdaq; SBUX) today announced the launch of its new ready-to-drink coffee drink, Starbucks Iced Coffee, in the U.S. through the North American Coffee Partnership, a joint venture with Pepsi-Cola Company. With the introduction of Starbucks Iced Coffee, the North American Coffee Partnership is creating a new coffee refreshments segment within the more than $800 million overall ready-to-drink coffee category in the U.S. Starbucks Iced Coffee is a refreshing, cold coffee drink made with Starbucks Italian Roast coffee and just a touch of milk sweetness, offering the great tasting high-quality coffee customers expect from Starbucks. This new beverage is a will appeal to Starbucks coffee lovers. Starbucks Iced Coffee will be available in Starbucks coffee lovers. Starbucks Iced Coffee will be available in Starbucks Company-operated retail stores in the U.S. beginning late March 2006. Additionally, grocery and convenience stores nationally in the U.S. will carry regular and light varieties of Starbucks Iced Coffee beginning May 2006. Coffee Partnerships looked to trends and customer preferences within the overall coffee category. According to the National Coffee Drinking Trends report, published by the National Coffee Association of the U.S.A., the majority of customers want a Coffee beverage with a simple, high-quality, full coffee flavor and light dairy and sweetness, which until now has been largely unavailable in the U.S. The launch of Starbucks Iced Coffee creates a new coffee refreshment segment of the ready-to-drink coffee category and features the same high-quality coffee available in Starbucks retail stores and coffee-related products globally. Opportunities for Starbucks to introduce innovative and exciting ready-todrink products to our customers allow us to extend the Starbucks Experience to them any place and anytime they choose, said Gerry Lopez, president, Starbucks Global Consumer Products. In addition to the launch of Starbucks Iced Coffee, the North American Coffee Partnership is introducing two line extensions within its Starbucks DoubleShot and bottled Starbucks Frappucciono brands. Line Extensions for Highly Successful Bottled Frappuccino and Starbucks DoubleShot This new beverage is a will appeal to Starbucks coffee lovers 61

PAGE 69

Appendix B Questionnaire 62

PAGE 70

This questionnaire seeks to determine consum er attitudes. Please spend 90 seconds reviewing the attached article. After reviewing the article, answer the following questions to the best of your ability. Responses will remain anonymous. Thank you in advance for your time and effort. 63

PAGE 71

Please use the scale below to rate your level of agreement with the following statements about Starbucks Coffee. Place an X in th e appropriate section of the scale. I believe Starbucks is a successful organization. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I approve of Starbucks shops in my community. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I believe Starbucks engages in ethical business practices. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I prefer to purchase products from orga nizations that are socially responsible. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree During the next month, I will purchase products from Starbucks: Check one: ______ Never ______ 1-2 times ______ 4-5 times ______ 8-9 times ______ 10 or more times I believe that Starbucks is a good organization to work for. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I like Starbucks. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree 64

PAGE 72

I believe that messages from Starbucks are credible. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree My attitude towards St arbucks products is: Positive _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____Negative Good _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ Bad Favorable _____:__ ___:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____Unfavorable I believe that Starbucks is not a socially responsible organization. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I intend to purchase a beverage or other pr oduct from Starbucks during the next month. Likely _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ Unlikely I do not trust messages from Starbucks. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I believe that Starbucks positively contributes to the community. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree My attitude toward the Starbucks organization is: Positive _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____Negative Good _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ Bad Favorable _____:__ ___:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____Unfavorable I believe that Starbucks is a bad corporate citizen. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree 65

PAGE 73

I plan to drink Starbucks Coffee during the next month. Never _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ Frequently I believe that communities are negatively impacted by Starbucks. Strongly Disagree _____:_____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____ Strongly Agree I consider messages from Starbucks to be Balanced _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____Unbalanced Credible _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ Not Credible Trustworthy _____:_____: _____:_____:_____:_____:_____ Not Trustworthy Please check or fill in the appropriate answers. Sex _____ Male _____ Female Age ________ Major ____________________ Year _____ Freshmen _____ Sophore mo _____ Senior _____ Junior 66


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001917286
003 fts
005 20071119125013.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071119s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002022
035
(OCoLC)181590563
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
P90 (ONLINE)
1 100
Gonzalez, Cristina Marta.
4 245
The effect of doing good :
b an experimental analysis of the influence of corporate social responsibility initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions
h [electronic resource] /
by Cristina Marta Gonzalez.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2007.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to further current theory-driven research in public relations by examining the influence of CSR initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Specifically, CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005) were tested using Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975, 2005) theory of reasoned action to determine their influences on individual's belief, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward an organization and its products. This area of inquiry is particularly relevant for public relations scholars and practitioners since creating awareness of CSR practices among key stakeholders requires accurate and timely communication.A controlled experiment utilizing a 1x6 factorial was conducted using stimulus materials based on the Starbucks Coffee Company. The stimulus materials consisted of four Starbucks CSR messages that coincided with four CSR initiatives identified by Kotler and Lee (2005), and one Starbucks message unrelated to CSR to control for CSR initiative type. The sixth condition contained no Starbucks message as an overall control condition. All six conditions contained the same self-administered instrument used to measure the variables of interest.The results of the controlled experiment found that salient beliefs predict attitudes and that attitudes predict behavioral intentions. Thus, indicating that the predictions of the theory of reasoned action are supported. The findings indicate overall that CSR initiatives do influence individuals' beliefs about organizations and their products, particularly beliefs about their contributions to the community and their trustworthiness. Specific finding of this study suggest that cause-related marketing may be the most beneficial to corporations in terms of its influence on consumers' beliefs about the corporation, which in turn may have positive financial implications. However, this study found that CSR initiatives did not influence attitudes or behavioral intentions.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 66 pages.
590
Advisor: Kelly Page Werder, Ph.D.
599
1917286
653
Corporate social responsibility.
Theory of reasoned action.
Starbucks.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Mass Communications
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2022