Specificity of CSR Ties That (Un)Bind Brand Attachment

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences brand personality, trust, firm attitudes, and purchase intentions. Yet, little attention has been paid to its effects on brand attachment. This study integrated message specificity, self-identity, and attachment theories to explain how socially responsible communication can be used to influence brand attachment. We show that CSR boosted brand attachment when messages contained specific (rather than generic) information that fostered positive brand elaborations, but eroded it when specific information was interpreted negatively. This effect was present only when socially responsible engagement was personally relevant to consumers, pointing to significant variations in message effectiveness. CSR was also more effective when firms announced socially responsible support for the first time and less effective when firms already had a CSR track record, pointing to a ceiling effect.

Keywords

CSR brand attachment loyalty specific messages generic messages

Introduction

The number of firms reporting corporate social responsibility (CSR) continues to grow, suggesting its strategic importance (Beckmann, 2007; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). CSR activities signal that firms are mindful of their economic, societal, and environmental impacts, which, ultimately, should project an image of a “good citizen” (Beckmann, 2007; Mohr & Webb, 2005). Research on CSR has been extensive, pointing to its positive effects on purchase behavior (Du et al., 2007; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009), product evaluations (Cho et al., 2017), brand personality (Huber, 2011), trust (Robinson & Eilert, 2018), and firm attitudes (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Xiaoli & Kwangjun, 2007). There is also evidence to suggest a positive effect on brand attachment when consumers can nominate donation causes (Kull & Heath, 2016).

Brand attachment represents how well consumers feel connected to, or emotionally bonded with, a brand (Park et al., 2010), which is a cornerstone of consumer-brand relationship that drives loyalty (Belaid & Behi, 2011). Given brand attachment’s strategic importance for firms’ longevity (Belaid & Behi, 2011), there has been an increasing interest in how socially responsible communication can be used to drive this important outcome (Kull & Heath, 2016). However, several gaps remain in our knowledge about CSR’s effects on brand attachment (Kull & Heath, 2016), including the characteristics of the message (choice of a messaging strategy), receiver (the role of individual factors), and sender (i.e., firm factors) that might impede CSR effectiveness.

First, past research suggests that an opportunity to nominate CSR donation cause fosters brand attachment via empowerment (Kull & Heath, 2016). Yet, consumers do not always get involved in CSR decisions because many firms select worthy causes themselves. When this occurs, firms communicate their socially responsible engagement through a generic or specific messaging strategy (Robinson & Eilert, 2018). Generic messages provide high-level information about firms’ involvement (Robinson & Eilert, 2018). For example, in 2014, Coca-Cola tweeted it was buying ethically (“Buying Respectability: Coca-Cola Co-Opts Corporate Social Responsibility Movement”; NewDawnBriefings [@ISCOSEU], 2014). Specific messages, however, mention supported causes (Robinson & Eilert, 2018) or how much firms spend on CSR (e.g., “#Vedanta Ltd. was the ‘most generous’ in the FY2017-18, spending nearly 10% of its average three-year net profit on #CSR, according to @BloombergQuint’s calculations”; Vedanta Aluminium & Power [@VedantaAluminum], 2018). While CSR message specificity has shown to increase firm trust (Robinson & Eilert, 2018), its influence on brand attachment is less well understood, leaving a gap in our knowledge about CSR’s effectiveness as a relationship-building tool and the types of CSR messages that can strengthen brand attachment.

Second, consumers increasingly dislike firms that brag about their CSR support and need reassurance of corporate effort (Morsing et al., 2008), which suggests that messages that mention supported causes (i.e., generic messages) may not be diagnostic of a corporate effort (Wood, 1991). This puts pressure on firms that want to leverage CSR influence and want to communicate their engagement. Literature suggests that CSR spending (type of a specific message) is used by consumers to appraise corporate authenticity (genuineness of CSR) (Alhouti et al., 2016; Elving, 2013). However, it could also be used to infer corporate effort, where greater effort may be inferred from larger CSR spending, determining the direction of brand attachment change (its strengthening or weakening). Although smaller CSR spending (1% of profit) could produce perceptions of a lesser effort compared to a larger spending (10% of profit), unintentionally weakening instead of strengthening brand attachment, this effect remains under-researched. Hence, understanding how such messages influence brand attachment should provide more detailed insights into CSR’s immediate payoffs to many firms that publicize how much they spend on worthy causes (Alhouti et al., 2016; Elving, 2013).

Third, despite firms’ good faith intentions, it is possible that CSR messages might not influence all consumers due to individual (receiver) differences in message processing. Consumers typically act on messages or change their perceptions when persuasive messages are personally relevant (Arnett et al., 2003; Marin et al., 2009). As brand attachment measures how close consumers feel toward a brand (Park et al., 2010), CSR’s ability to strengthen brand attachment should be contingent on its importance to consumers. Although this is aligned with self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), variations in brand attachment as a result of CSR importance and the type of a messaging strategy (generic vs. specific) have received little scholarly attention. Hence, examining when socially responsible communication influences some, but not all, consumers should yield important managerial insights about its effectiveness for brand management. Finally, when it comes to the sender of a message, firms are continuously encouraged to maintain their socially responsible conduct or engage in CSR if they have not done so (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Current literature remains scarce on the magnitude of payoffs of the socially responsible communication for firms that have a CSR track and the ones who do not have such a track record.

This study addressed the above-mentioned gaps and integrated attachment and self-perception theory (McEwen, 2010; Park et al., 2010) with past work on message specificity (Robinson & Eilert, 2018) to answer the call for more research on brand attachment and socially responsible communication (Kull & Heath, 2016; Muniz et al., 2019). It focuses on message specificity and CSR spending allocations as a pathway to leverage the influence of socially responsible engagement on brand attachment. It also used a sample of firms that have CSR and the ones that lack it, to ascertain potential ceiling effects to see if firms with CSR history and new-to-CSR firms benefit equally from socially responsible communication.

The next section outlines the theory that informed the development of the conceptual framework and hypotheses. The methods used are then explained, followed by the results, recommendations for practitioners, and theoretical contributions. The article concludes with a discussion of limitations and directions for future research.

Theoretical Framework

Brand attachment and CSR

The concept of attachment emerged from parent–child relationship research, but the marketing literature suggests that consumers can also develop attachments to, and have affectionate ties, with brands (Park et al., 2010). Brand attachment describes consumers’ emotional bonds with brands and how well brands reflect how consumers feel about themselves (Park et al., 2010). Brand attachment differs from evaluation-based responses, such as brand attitude, because it exerts a more powerful influence on commitment and facilitates stronger connections with brands (Thomson et al., 2005; Yim et al., 2008). It represents the main barrier to brand switching, acts as a motivator to pay a premium or act as a brand advocate (Belaid & Behi, 2011; Shimul & Phau, 2018; Thomson et al., 2005). Strong attachment also represents an important asset as it motivates consumers to protect their bond with brands, safeguarding brands from ethical misconduct fallouts (Schmalz & Orth, 2012).

The development of bonds between consumers and brands typically occurs through mental representations that involve thoughts and favorable feelings toward brands (Park et al., 2010). This happens when individuals actively process brand information, such as its image, characteristics, or its usage by other people (e.g., family members, important others, or celebrities) (Aron & Aron, 1986; Thomson et al., 2005). Such cognitive elaborations allow consumers to assess whether a brand serves as a good extension of their selves or not (Aron & Aron, 1986; Thomson et al., 2005). In addition to cognitive elaborations, individuals form bonds with brands on an affective level (Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, 2008), associating such emotions as security, love, joy, or passion with brands (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Thomson et al., 2005; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1988).

When executed correctly, CSR should prompt cognitive and emotional elaborations that are required for the development of brand attachment (Park et al., 2007). On a cognitive level, it should stimulate elaborations about firms’ virtues and dispositions, prompting consumers to think that firms act in a responsible manner and consider the effects of their operations on society and/or the environment (Mohr & Webb, 2005). It should also suggest firms act as “good citizens” and have a good corporate reputation (Hetze, 2016), which facilitates favorable image transfer from CSR engagement onto brands (Hetze, 2016; Karaosmanoglu et al., 2016). Furthermore, because brands are unique assets that have human-like personalities (Aaker et al., 2004; Balmer et al., 2007), socially responsible engagement can stimulate affective elaborations about brands, boosting their sincerity and responsibility perceptions (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Huber, 2011). Because CSR can imbue favorable characteristics onto brands (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Huber, 2011), consumers may experience stronger attachment through enhanced feelings of pride or love for patronizing the brands that pursue “good causes” (Park et al., 2007). They may also derive gratification from using the brands that act responsibly by feeling that one “helps the cause” (Vlachos, 2012).

CSR message specificity

CSR’s ability to prompt favorable cognitive and emotional brand elaborations described above is likely to depend on the content of the message. The latter has long been acknowledged as an imperative for successful persuasion and credibility (Du et al., 2010; Pomering & Johnson, 2009) and should be equally important for the development of brand attachment. Current CSR messaging strategies tend to be either generic or specific (Robinson & Eilert, 2018). Generic messages provide high-level information and mention that firms are engaged in socially responsible behavior (Robinson & Eilert, 2018), while specific messages mention the type of supported causes (Robinson & Eilert, 2018) or firms’ spending on such causes. Because brand attachment requires cues to prompt cognitive and emotional elaborations (Fournier, 1998), specific messages should provide better cues to assess brands (Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014; Darley & Smith, 1993; Robinson & Eilert, 2018) and stimulate greater depth of processing required for cognitive and emotional elaborations about brands.

To explain this effect, we use action-effort attribution, which states that individuals appraise other persons’ or organizations’ actions as more genuine if they exhibit greater willingness or effort (Weiner, 1979). Research already has shown that consumers pay attention to firms’ CSR and rate brands as more creative, attractive, and reliable when CSR performance is perceived to be greater (Huber, 2011). They also rate firms that spend more on socially responsible causes as more genuine (Alhouti et al., 2016). Hence, specific CSR messages that contain cues suggesting greater effort should be more conducive to favorable brand elaborations, putting firms’ CSR spending at the cornerstone of brand attachment. These quantifiable messages should help consumers assess firms’ commitment (Pomering & Johnson, 2009), determining the direction of brand attachment change (strengthening or weakening).

For instance, perceptually smaller CSR allocations may be erroneously judged as small numbers (Zhang & Schwarz, 2012), producing perceptions of lower spending on worthy causes. Building on Weiner’s (1979) action-effort attribution, numerically smaller spending allocations may be less diagnostic of effort, suggesting corporate greed and lack of altruism, which might tarnish brands. When such negative elaborations take place, individuals will be inclined to re-evaluate how closely they are attached to brands they patronize, distancing themselves from objects that are negatively appraised (Festinger, 1954). In contrast, specific messages that feature numerically larger CSR allocations should strengthen brand attachment, because consumers would equate larger spending with more genuine motives, greater effort, and altruism, consistent with the expected ethical conduct, which should boost brand attachment.

Compared to specific messages, generic messages may be less conducive to providing cues for in-depth brand elaborations. They lack facts and may be seen as ambiguous, negatively affecting the believability of the message (Robinson & Eilert, 2018). They may also prompt consumer skepticism due to perceived “greenwashing” (Joireman et al., 2018; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016), which may suggest that firms that use such messaging strategies are less genuine. Since non-CSR messages do not contain factual cues that can stimulate substantial cognitive and emotional elaborations, consumers exposed to this type of messages should not experience any changes in brand attachment (Figure 1). Overall, it is hypothesized:

H1: Specific messages featuring larger CSR spending allocations will strengthen brand attachment while specific messages featuring smaller spending allocations and generic messages will weaken brand attachment.

The importance of CSR to self

Although CSR communication (generic or specific) should influence brand attachment, these effects may vary depending on individual (receiver) differences. Self-perception theory suggests consumer engagement increases only when firms provide offerings or do something that truly matters to consumers (McEwen, 2010). Individuals also behave in accordance with how they see themselves and avoid behaviors or objects that contradict their self-concepts (Bem, 1967; Forehand et al., 2002). CSR and self-perception research has shown that consumers evaluate social CSR (treating employees well, being socially responsible, and supporting children) more favorably when they themselves exhibit greater social self-identity (Marin et al., 2009). Consumers also report higher purchase intentions for firms whose CSR is carried out domestically (rather than externally) when their global identity is less salient (Russell & Russell, 2010).

Most importantly, self-identity perceptions affect information processing because presented information is always assessed in terms of its relevance to the individual (Arnett et al., 2003). Information that matches one’s self-concept is more likely to have positive effects compared with information that does not (Marin et al., 2009). This suggests that when consumers are exposed to CSR communication, changes in brand attachment should be conditioned by the importance of socially responsible engagement to the receiver. Consumers who deem CSR less important should not experience any changes in their brand attachment from any of the CSR message (generic or specific) because it is less relevant to them personally. Neither smaller nor larger spending allocations featured in specific messages should affect their brand attachment.

However, consumers who deem CSR important should experience weakening in their brand attachment if they are exposed to generic messages or specific messages with smaller spending allocations. As brands act as extensions to the self (Berger & Heath, 2007), information that contradicts what is important to consumers should produce conflicting and less attractive perceptions of brands, prompting dissonance (Festinger, 1954). As a result, consumers may distance themselves from brands that do not align with their CSR values, weakening consumer–brand relationship. In contrast, messages featuring larger spending allocations should strengthen brand attachment when CSR is personally important because these messages are consistent with consumers’ values and trigger positive cognitive and emotional brand elaborations:

H2: Consumers who deem CSR important will experience weakening (vs. strengthening) in brand attachment after an exposure to specific CSR messages featuring smaller (vs. larger) CSR spending allocations.

Brand attachment and loyalty

Brand loyalty is typically impacted by the image, values, and associations that firms project to consumers (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). Prior research suggests that brand attachment unites consumers and brands and reduces brand switching improving loyalty (Belaid & Behi, 2011). This positive relationship between brand attachment and loyalty (Hatch & Schultz, 2001; Pratihari & Uzma, 2018) should also occur in the CSR context, when the strengthening (weakening) in brand attachment should stimulate similar positive (negative) changes in brand loyalty:

H3: The immediate changes in brand attachment due to CSR communication have a positive relationship with changes in brand loyalty.

CSR history

Although socially responsible communication should exert a positive effect when specific messages with larger allocations are used and CSR is important to consumers, it is unlikely that all firms will benefit equally from such communication due to sender (firm) differences. In particular, when firms have an established CSR record, another favorable CSR message might not improve brand attachment because new positive information is unlikely to change already favorable predispositions (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000). Firms engaged in CSR often have a good reputation and a favorable image (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). They have earned goodwill and trust from stakeholders (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009) and such positive perceptions may be difficult to improve further due to a ceiling effect. In contrast, firms lacking a CSR history start from a “clean slate” and may enjoy gains from effectively executed CSR communication (specific message with larger allocations) when the right receiver characteristics are present (high CSR importance). Thus, the effects suggested in H1 and H2 might not be observed for firms that have an established CSR track record, and would only apply to firms with no CSR.

Methodology

Experimental procedure

A mixed within- and between-subject experimental design was used: 4 (control vs. generic message vs. specific CSR_{(smaller CSR allocation)} vs. specific message_{(larger CSR allocation)} × 2 (CSR importance: low vs. high) × 2 (time: time 1 vs. time 2) × 2 (CSR history: present vs. absent) (Figure 1). Participants were directed to an online portal (Qualtrics) and asked to recall a beverage manufacturer whose products they had purchased in the past 6 months. For appropriate manipulation purposes in brand attachment, preference was given to real brands (Huber, 2011; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Respondents typed in the name of the firm and its brand, which was carried over to subsequent questions. They rated their pre-exposure (time 1) brand attachment (“How much do you feel you are personally connected with the brand of [firm name]?” “How much do you feel you are emotionally bonded with the brand of [firm name]?” and “The brand of [firm name] reflects who I am,” Cronbach’s α = .915; 1—“not at all” to 7—“to a great extent”) (Kull & Heath, 2016) and loyalty (“I will buy [firm name]’s brand(s) the next time I buy juice/beverage,” “I intend to keep purchasing [firm name]’s brand(s) (products),” “I am committed to [firm name]’s brand(s) (products),” and “I would be willing to pay a higher price for [firm name]’s brand(s) (products) over other brands,” Cronbach’s α = .87; 1—“strongly disagree” to 7—“strongly agree”) (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) using 3-item scales.

Then, participants were randomly allocated to one of the four experimental conditions. Respondents in the control group were told the firm they recalled had announced an expansion to New Zealand. Participants assigned to the generic CSR message were advised the firm they recalled planned to establish a number of CSR initiatives (charity and donations) next year, which was consistent with generic messages recommendations (Guthey & Morsing, 2014; Scandelius & Cohen, 2016). In the specific CSR conditions, participants were told that the firm had announced it would spend 1% (smaller allocation) or 10% (larger allocation) of its annual profits on CSR (charity and donations) next year. These percentages were consistent with current industry practices (Coca-Cola, 2018; Davis, 2010).

Participants completed a series of filler questions about the firm’s products, which was followed by CSR importance question (“Firms’ engagement in corporate social responsibility is important to me personally”; 1—“strongly disagree” to 7—“strongly agree”) and CSR history (“Does the beverage manufacturer you recalled currently performs any CSR initiatives?”; “yes,” “no”). At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to rate their post-exposure (time 2) brand attachment (Cronbach’s α = .95, Kull & Heath, 2016) and loyalty (Cronbach’s α = .89, Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) using the same 3-item scales. They also provided information about their age, education, and gender. As a manipulation check, respondents rated the intentions of the firm they recalled (“Next year, [name of a firm] plans to”: 1—“expand to another market” to 7—“engage in corporate social responsibility”). Respondents allocated to the specific CSR conditions also evaluated the magnitude of CSR allocation on scale from “1” (“small”) to “7” (“large”). Ethics approval was granted to carry out this research.

Participants

Three hundred and fifty-three consumers were recruited by an Australian consumer panel provider who applied age and gender quotas; although slight deviations from the Australian population were observed (Table 1). Respondents were split into two groups depending on firms’ CSR history, where 181 consumers recalled firms that had no CSR (N_non-CSR = 47, N_{generic CSR} = 48, N_{specific CSR(10%)} = 44, and N_{specific CSR(1%)} = 42), and 172 recalled firms that had CSR (N_non-CSR = 50, N_{generic CSR} = 50, N_{specific CSR(10%)} = 34, and N_{specific CSR(1%)} = 38). CSR importance was split on the mid-point (“4”) with scores from “1” to “4” designating “low CSR importance” and scores from “5” to “7” designating “high CSR importance” (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Conditions	Firms with no CSR				Firms with CSR
	Females^a		Males^a		Females^a		Males^a
	N = 84	%	N = 97	%	N = 71	%	N = 101	%
Non-CSR message	20	43%	27	57%	20	40%	30	60%
Generic CSR message	27	56%	21	44%	22	44%	28	56%
Specific CSR (1%)	19	45%	23	55%	12	32%	26	68%
Specific CSR (10%)	18	41%	26	59%	17	50%	17	50%
Education
High school	21	25%	31	32%	21	30%	23	23%
TAFE^b	35	42%	24	25%	20	28%	26	26%
Bachelor’s degree	18	21%	31	32%	23	32%	40	40%
Master’s degree	8	10%	7	7%	6	8%	9	9%
Doctorate degree	2	2%	4	4%	1	1%	3	3%
Age^c
18–25 years	14	17%	11	12%	8	12%	12	12%
26–34 years	28	34%	30	32%	20	29%	27	27%
35–49 years	18	22%	21	22%	18	26%	17	17%
50 years and over	23	28%	32	34%	23	33%	43	43%
CSR importance
Low	37	48%**	62	67%**	18	34%	26	31%
High	40	52%**	30	33%**	35	66%	57	69%

CSR: corporate social responsibility.

Australian population 2016 census: males = 49%, females = 51%.

TAFE denotes technical and vocational educational qualification.

Australian population 2016 census: males: 18–25 years = 15%, 26–34 years = 18%, 35–49 years = 26%, and 50 years and over = 42%; females: 18–25 years = 14%, 26–34 years = 17%, 35–49 years = 25%, and 50 years and over = 44%.

indicates significance at the p < 0.01 level.

Manipulation checks

Analysis of variance showed that the participants allocated to the three CSR conditions were more likely to report firms planned to engage in CSR while respondents allocated to the control group reported that the firms intended to expand into a different market. This was observed among those who recalled firms with no CSR history (M_non-CSR = 3.04, M_{generic CSR} = 4.87, M_{specific CSR(1%)} = 4.88 vs. M_{specific CSR(10%)} = 5.52, F(3, 177) = 21.77, p < .001), and CSR history (M_non-CSR = 3.84, M_{generic CSR} = 5.40, M_{specific CSR(1%)} = 5.58 vs. M_{specific CSR(10%)} = 5.68, F(3, 168) = 11.82, p < .001). Post hoc comparison showed differences existed only between the control and CSR conditions, but not among the three CSR conditions, confirming the manipulation worked as intended. The manipulation check on spending allocation showed that the respondents in the “specific CSR_(1%)” condition rated the allocation as small compared with the “specific CSR_(10%)” condition. This trend was observed among firms with no CSR history (M_{specific CSR(1%)} = 3.48 vs. M_{specific CSR(10%)} = 4.20, F(1, 84) = 5.215, p < .05), and those who had CSR (M_{specific CSR(1%)} = 4.24 vs. M_{specific CSR(10%)} = 5.26, F(1, 70) = 9.12, p < .05), confirming that the specific message manipulation was successful.

Data analysis

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for brand attachment and loyalty across the two time points. The scores were lower at time 2 in the “non-CSR” and “specific CSR_(1%)” conditions, but were higher or remained unchanged in the “generic CSR” and “specific CSR_(10%)” conditions. Hypotheses were tested using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS model 11 (SPSS 24). In line with past research (Muniz et al., 2019), changes in brand attachment and loyalty were calculated as a difference between the pre- and post-exposure scores.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations.

Conditions	Firms with no CSR				Firms with CSR
	Brand attachment		Brand loyalty		Brand attachment		Brand loyalty
	Time 1	Time 2	Time 1	Time 2	Time 1	Time 2	Time 1	Time 2
Non-CSR message	4.37 (1.63)	4.35 (1.70)	5.04 (1.34)	5.01 (1.41)	4.99 (1.61)	4.92 (1.75)	5.62 (1.08)	5.67 (1.12)
Generic CSR message	4.13 (1.56)	4.18 (1.74)	5.07 (1.25)	5.12 (1.30)	4.79 (1.34)	4.79 (1.38)	5.42 (1.14)	5.42 (1.19)
Specific CSR (1%)	4.06 (1.46)	3.79 (1.53)	4.84 (1.13)	4.77 (1.18)	4.93 (1.21)	5.03 (1.35)	5.41 (0.72)	5.62 (0.89)
Specific CSR (10%)	4.15 (1.54)	4.27 (1.62)	4.83 (1.42)	4.91 (1.44)	4.67 (1.56)	4.87 (1.60)	5.34 (1.31)	5.60 (1.45)

CSR: corporate social responsibility.

Standard deviations in brackets.

Results

Model 11 showed that in line with H1 and our CSR history proposition, changes in brand attachment were contingent on the interaction between message type and CSR history (X × Z_β = −0.88, SE = 0.23, t = −3.29, p < .001, confidence interval [CI]: [−1.324, −0.441]). The negative coefficient suggests attachment scores remained lower and flatter among firms with CSR track compared to firms with no CSR. As predicted, when firms had no CSR, control message did not change brand attachment (M_{time 1} = 4.48 vs. M_{time 2} = 4.45, t(46) = 0.187, p > .05, Figure 2(a)), but “specific CSR_(1%)” message weakened it (M_{time 1} = 4.12 vs. M_{time 2} = 3.80, t(1, 41) = 2.464, p < .05). Although there was an increase in brand attachment in the “specific CSR_(10%)” condition, it did not reach statistical significance (M_{time 1} = 4.26 vs. M_{time 2} = 4.40, t(1, 43) = −1.144, p > .05). Contrary to expectations, generic CSR message did not weaken brand attachment (M_{time 1} = 4.06 vs. M_{time 2} = 4.14, t(47) = −.602, p > .05). As predicted, none of the CSR messages boosted brand attachment or outperformed the non-CSR message when firms already had CSR (M_{non-CSR (time 1)} = 4.20 vs. M_{non-CSR (time 2)} = 4.10, t(49) = 0.771, p > .05; M_{generic CSR (time 1)} ₌ 4.54 vs. M_{generic CSR (time 2)} ₌ 4.52, t(50) = 0.094, p > .05; M_{specific CSR (1%, time 1)} = 4.49 vs. M_{specific CSR (1%, time 2)} = 4.59, t(49) = −1.441, p > .05; M_{specific CSR (10%, time 1)} = 4.03 vs. M_{specific CSR (10%, time 2)} = 4.15, t(42) = −1.972, p > .05, Figure 2(b)), suggesting a ceiling effect.

In line with H2 and the CSR history proposition, changes in brand attachment were also contingent on CSR importance (X × Z × W_β = 0.79, SE = 0.39, t = 2.00, p < .05, CI: [0.138, 1.434]). Respondents who deemed CSR important and purchased from firms with no CSR did not experience any changes in brand attachment after they were exposed to the “non-CSR message” (control group) (M_{time 1} = 5.09 vs. M_{time 2} = 5.13, t(17) = −0.223, p > .05), or “generic CSR message” (M_{time 1} = 4.59 vs. M_{time 2} = 4.78, t(17) = −1.610, p > .05), Figure 3(a). However, telling them that their brand had allocated 10% of profits to CSR strengthened brand attachment (M_{time 1} = 4.60 vs. M_{time 2} = 5.02, t(17) = −2.404, p < .05), whereas smaller allocation weakened it (M_{time 1} = 4.61 vs. M_{time 2} = 4.08, t(15) = 2.742, p < .05). When firms had no CSR track, brand attachment remained unchanged among those who deemed CSR unimportant in the “non-CSR message” (M_{time 1} = 3.86 vs. M_{time 2} = 3.77, t(26) = 0.538), “generic CSR” (M_{time 1} = 3.53 vs. M_{time 2} = 3.51, t(26) = 0.171, p > .05), “specific CSR_(1%)” (M_{time 1} = 3.64 vs. M_{time 2} = 3.51, t(22) = 1.000, p > .05), or “specific CSR_(10%)” conditions (M_{time 1} = 3.91 vs. M_{time 2} = 3.77, t(21) = 1.227, p < .05, Figure 3(b)).

As predicted, when firms already had CSR, brand attachment did not change among those who deemed CSR important (M_{non-CSR (time 1)} = 5.10 vs. M_{non-CSR (time 2)} = 4.94; M_{generic CSR (time 1)} = 4.77 vs. M_{generic CSR (time 2)} = 4.70; M_{specific CSR (1%, time 1)} = 5.28 vs. M_{specific CSR (1%, time 2)} = 5.38; M_{specific CSR (10%, time 1)} = 4.92 vs. M_{specific CSR (10%, time 2)} = 4.94), or less important (M_{non-CSR (time 1)} = 3.30 vs. M_{non-CSR (time 2)} = 3.27; M_{generic CSR (time 1)} = 4.31 vs. M_{generic CSR (time 2)} = 4.33; M_{specific CSR (1%, time 1)} = 3.70 vs. M_{specific CSR (1%, time 2)} = 3.80; M_{specific CSR (10%, time 1)} = 3.51 vs. M_{specific CSR (10%, time 2)} = 3.37; F(4, 128) = 0.393, p < .05).

In line with H3, changes in brand attachment (time 1 − time 2) were positively related to changes in brand loyalty (time 1 − time 2) (β = .32, SE = 0.05, t = 6.73, p < .001, CI: [0.244, 0.402], 35% variance explained). Yet, changes in loyalty via attachment (moderated mediation) occurred only among those who were exposed to specific messages and deemed CSR important (CSR_1%: 0.23, SE = 0.09, CI: [0.099, 0.390]; CSR_10%: 0.21, SE = 0.12, CI: [0.034, 0.415]). This suggested that socially responsible engagement influenced loyalty when firms had no prior CSR track, whereas the existing levels of brand attachment influenced loyalty when firms already had a CSR track.

Discussion

Summary of the key findings

Currently, firms use different messaging strategies (generic or specific) to communicate their socially responsible engagement, which is often done without a clear understanding of their effects on brand attachment. This study is the first to confirm in an experimental setting with real brands that CSR communication boosts brand attachment when messages contain specific information that fosters positive brand elaborations and erodes it when specific cues are interpreted negatively. This effect, however, exists only when CSR is personally relevant to consumers, pointing to significant variations in message effectiveness due to receiver differences. CSR message is also most effective when firms announce CSR for the first time and least effective when firms already have CSR in place due to an accumulated reputational capital.

Theoretical contributions

The study provides several contributions to theory. First, considerable research has been carried out on brand attachment, confirming its strategic importance (Schmalz & Orth, 2012), and the fact that it develops only when presented information facilitates cognitive and emotional brand elaborations (Fournier, 1998; Park et al., 2010). Despite extensive research on CSR (Cho et al., 2017; Du et al., 2007; Robinson & Eilert, 2018; Xiaoli & Kwangjun, 2007), little is known about its capability to influence brand attachment. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of how managers might stimulate brand attachment through socially responsible communication. It merged attribution (Weiner, 1979), message specificity (Robinson & Eilert, 2018), and self-perception theories (Bem, 1967) to advance our knowledge of brand attachment (Aron & Aron, 1986; Thomson et al., 2005), focusing on the characteristics of the message, the receiver, and the sender.

By focusing on message specificity (Robinson & Eilert, 2018) and attribution theory (Weiner, 1979), we demonstrate that CSR influences brand attachment only when presented information (the message) contains (a) specific (rather than generic) cues that (b) foster positive (rather negative) elaborations. As firms engage in CSR mostly through financial support of worthy causes, CSR spending was chosen as a content of specific messages. Using attribution theory (Weiner, 1979), we explained that the direction of brand attachment change depends on the quality of the message and its effort diagnosticity. We highlight that specificity does not guarantee an automatic increase in brand attachment if consumers infer less effort on brands’ behalf (e.g., less effort from smaller CSR spending), which damages brand attachment. Past research has shown that message specificity influences firm trust (Robinson & Eilert, 2018), but this study suggests that specific messages can also influence more strategic assets, such as brand attachment and loyalty. Brands are unique assets that build emotional connection with consumers through quality communication (McDivitt, 2003) and CSR spending allocations can provide a pathway to improve brand attachment.

Second, the application of self-perception theory (Bem, 1967) to CSR and brand attachment context allowed us to explain that changes in brand attachment are conditioned by the receiver differences and occur only when CSR is important to consumers. This provided a more detailed explanation of CSR effectiveness by focusing not only on the quality of the message but also characteristics of the message receiver. In line with self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), specific messages that do not imbue effort neither damage nor boost brand attachment among those who deem CSR unimportant. This application of self-perception theory (Bem, 1967) to brand attachment and CSR offers greater insights about the payoffs firms might enjoy from their socially responsible engagement. Brand attachment develops over time and reflects close ties to the self that consumers want to maintain (Schmalz & Orth, 2012) and there is a potential for CSR to foster brand attachment.

Finally, this study offers theoretical contributions to the literature by focusing on the characteristics of the message sender. We looked at the presence (vs. absence) of CSR history to explain that firms will not benefit from CSR communication if they have an established socially responsible track. Although this ceiling effect does not suggest substantial payoffs for firms already engaged in CSR, such firms can deploy any spending allocations without any damage to their brands, which suggests there is a buffer. Firms with no CSR history have more leeway to strengthen their brand attachment if their communication strategy is executed effectively (the message is specific, imbues effort, and targets those who deem CSR important). Examining how brand attachment changes or remains unchanged as a result of a messaging strategy, receiver characteristics and firm characteristics added more theoretical clarity about what firms can expect from CSR at different stages of their socially responsible engagement.

Managerial implications

Firms continuously promote their CSR engagement and need to understand how such communication should be framed to ensure positive returns (Robinson & Eilert, 2018). This study suggests brand managers can use CSR to establish bonds with consumers, but not all currently used messaging strategies will strengthen brand attachment. If brand attachment is to grow, messages need to be specific rather than generic. The latter contains minimal cues that enable emotional and cognitive elaborations and do not boost brand attachment. They may not harm brand attachment, but will only maintain the status quo.

Furthermore, this study found that specific messages featuring smaller CSR spending allocations damage brand attachment because perceptually smaller spending prompted less favorable appraisals, suggesting firms spent little on worthy causes. Despite the obvious superiority of specific messages, the specificity recommendation should caution managers that it may backfire and consumers may discard firms’ CSR when messages prompt negative appraisals. This finding is concerning because smaller spending allocations (i.e., 1%) can still translate into large sums of money. This points to a need for consumer education about typical CSR allocations (which range between 1% and 10%, but mostly cluster around 1%) (Barnea & Rubin, 2010; O’Neil et al., 2018), as well as careful choice of CSR reporting. Firms may add profit figures alongside percentage allocations to increase spending magnitude perceptions. Overall, careful selection of CSR messages is critical, as spending specificity provides a powerful cue to appraise brands and, subsequently, influence attachment and loyalty.

This study also suggests that, despite firms’ interest in CSR, its effectiveness is conditioned by the importance of these initiatives to consumers. We found specific messages featuring smaller spending allocations eroded brand attachment only among those who deemed socially responsible support important. Similarly, larger allocations strengthened brand attachment among those who deemed CSR important, but were ineffective among those who deemed it unimportant. Consumers generally state that they expect firms to engage in CSR (Demetriou et al., 2010). Yet, if the proportion of consumers who value CSR is small, larger spending allocations may exceed returns, placing unnecessary financial pressure on firms. Hence, comparative reporting relative to other companies or industry benchmarks (prevalent 1% allocation) is encouraged to highlight firms’ CSR effort. As CSR spending reporting is expected and included in corporate communication, firms are encouraged to educate consumers about its impact and importance so that firms’ socially responsible behavior is appreciated by many consumers. This is critical because some consumers lack CSR knowledge to effectively process socially responsible communication (Auger et al., 2003). As specific messages with smaller allocations eroded brand attachment after just one exposure, managers need to be mindful of the potentially negative effects of such a messaging strategy.

Finally, this study suggests firms need to be aware that CSR payoffs will vary depending on CSR history, with a ceiling effect evident for those with an established track record. However, this also points to the capacity of CSR to maintain long-term relationships if communication strategies are managed successfully. Brand attachment did not weaken after an exposure to a smaller allocation, pointing to the development of “goodwill” that guards against potentially negative elaborations. Firms lacking CSR history are in a more advantageous position, as this “clean slate” provides benefits from specific communication featuring larger allocations. However, firms should be aware that larger CSR spending allocations that reduce profits will be appreciated only by those who deem such activities important. Hence, firms need to investigate how important CSR is for consumers in the markets they operate before they craft their communication and spending allocation strategies.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations. First, we acknowledge that some participants in the control group recalled brands that were available in New Zealand, which needs to be controlled for in future studies. This study considered the presence and absence of CSR history and did not look at positive or negative CSR track records, which should be examined in future studies. Participants were exposed to experimental manipulation only once and changes in brand attachment were measured between two relatively short intervals. Hence, there would be merit in using several interventions over a longer period of time. To extend our research, it is important to examine the effects of prolonged negative, or a combination of positive and negative, messages to identify “tipping points” after which increases in brand attachment and loyalty may become irreversible. Future studies can also extend this research by examining how perceptions of CSR effort can be enhanced by longer messages, the inclusion of an impact statement or a list of beneficiaries. As CSR relevance emerged as an important driver of brand attachment, our findings need to be further extended by testing the relevance of more diverse cause types (e.g., local vs. global or societal vs. environmental) on consumers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Western Australia Business School grant (PG: 10302216).

ORCID iD

Liudmila Tarabashkina

References

Aaker

Fournier

Brasel

S. A.

(2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.

Alhouti

Johnson

C. M.

Holloway

B. B.

(2016). Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1242–1249.

Arnett

German

Hunt

(2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89–105.

Aron

(1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing.

Atkinson

Rosenthal

(2014). Signaling the green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 33–45.

Auger

Burke

Devinney

T. M.

Louviere

J. J.

(2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281–304.

Balmer

Fukukawa

Gray

(2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 7–15.

Barnea

Rubin

(2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.

Beckmann

S. C.

(2007). Consumers and corporate social responsibility: Matching the unmatchable? Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(1), 27–36.

10.

Belaid

Behi

A. T.

(2011). The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: An empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(1), 37–47.

11.

Bem

D. J.

(1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200.

12.

Bergami

Bagozzi

R. P.

(2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555–577.

13.

Berger

Heath

(2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134.

14.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.

15.

Chaudhuri

Holbrook

M. B.

(2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.

16.

Cho

Y. N.

Soster

R. L.

Burton

(2017). Enhancing environmentally conscious consumption through standardized sustainability information. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 52(2), 393–414.

17.

Coca-Cola. (2018). 2018 business & sustainability report. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2019/Coca-Cola-Business-and-Sustainability-Report.pdf

18.

Darley

W. K.

Smith

R. E.

(1993). Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 100–113.

19.

Davis

(2010). Competitive success: How branding adds value. John Wiley.

20.

Dawar

Pillutla

M. M.

(2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 215–226.

21.

Demetriou

Papasolomou

Demetris

(2010). Cause-related marketing: Building the corporate image while supporting worthwhile causes. Journal of Brand Management, 17(4), 266–278.

22.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.

23.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.

24.

Elving

W. J. L.

(2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277–292.

25.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. SAGE.

26.

Forehand

M. R.

Deshpandé

Reed

(2002). Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1086–1099.

27.

Fournier

(1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–353.

28.

Guthey

Morsing

(2014). CSR and the mediated emergence of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 555–569.

29.

Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

(2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 128–134.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. Guilford Press.

31.

Hetze

(2016). Effects on the CSR reputation: CSR reporting discussed in the light of signalling and stakeholder perception theories. Corporate Reputation Review, 19(3), 281–296.

32.

Hoeffler

Keller

K. L.

(2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78–89.

33.

Huber

(2011). Corporate social performance as antecedent of consumers brand perception. Journal of Brand Management, 19(3), 228–240.

34.

Joireman

Liu

R. L.

Kareklas

(2018). Images paired with concrete claims improve skeptical consumers’ responses to advertising promoting a firm’s good deeds. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(1), 83–102.

35.

Karaosmanoglu

Altinigne

Isiksal

D. G.

(2016). CSR motivation and customer extra-role behavior: Moderation of ethical corporate identity. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4161–4167.

36.

Kull

A. J.

Heath

T. B.

(2016). You decide, we donate: Strengthening consumer–brand relationships through digitally co-created social responsibility. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 78–92.

37.

Marin

Ruiz

Rubio

(2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65–78.

38.

McDivitt

(2003). Is there a role for branding in social marketing? Social Marketing Quarterly, 9(3), 11–17.

39.

McEwen

W. J.

(2010). Does corporate social responsibility matter? https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/125351/corporate-social-responsibility-matter.aspx

40.

Mohr

L. A.

Webb

D. J.

(2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147.

41.

Morsing

Schultz

Nielsen

K. U.

(2008). The “catch 22” of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish Study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97–111.

42.

Muniz

Guzmán

Paswan

A. K.

Crawford

H. J.

(2019). The immediate effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(7), 864–879.

43.

NewDawnBriefings [@ISCOSEU]. (2014). Buying respectability: Coca-cola co-opts corporate social responsibility movement. https://twitter.com/ISCOSEU/status/458643505057787904?s=20

44.

O’Neil

O’Leary

Olsen-Phillips

(2018, September 5). Corporate cash giving rises 5%, exclusive chronicle survey shows. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. www.philanthropy.com/article/Corporate-Cash-Giving-Rises/244391?cid=RCPACKAGE

45.

Park

C. W.

MacInnis

D. J.

Priester

Eisingerich

A. B.

Iacobucci

(2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17.

46.

Park

C. W.

MacInnis

D. J.

Priester

J. R.

(2007). Brand attachment and management of a strategic brand exemplar. In Schmitt

B. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of brand and experience management (pp. 3–17). Edward Elgar.

47.

Pomering

Dolnicar

(2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 285–301.

48.

Pomering

Johnson

L. W.

(2009). Constructing a corporate social responsibility reputation using corporate image advertising. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(2), 106–114.

49.

Pratihari

S. K.

Uzma

S. H.

(2018). CSR and corporate branding effect on brand loyalty: A study on Indian banking industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(1), 57–78.

50.

Robinson

Eilert

(2018). The role of message specificity in corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Research, 90, 260–268.

51.

Russell

D. W.

Russell

C. A.

(2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 65–81.

52.

Scandelius

Cohen

(2016). Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3487–3499.

53.

Schifferstein

H. N. J.

Zwartkruis-Pelgrim

E. P. H.

(2008). Consumer-product attachment: Measurement and design implications. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 1–14.

54.

Schmalz

Orth

U. R.

(2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotional response to unethical firm behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20570

55.

Sen

Bhattacharya

C. B.

(2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

56.

Shimul

A. S.

Phau

(2018). Consumer advocacy for luxury brands. Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(3), 264–271.

57.

Thomson

MacInnis

D. J.

Park

C. W.

(2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.

58.

Vanhamme

Grobben

(2009). Too good to be true! The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273–283.

59.

Vedanta Aluminium & Power [@VedantaAluminum]. (2018). Was the “most generous” in the FY2017-18, spending nearly 10% of its average three-year net profit on #CSR. https://twitter.com/VedantaAluminum/status/1040162306901123072?s=20

60.

Vlachos

P. A.

(2012). Corporate social performance and consumer-retailer emotional attachment: The moderating role of individual traits. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11–12), 1559–1580.

61.

Wallendorf

Arnould

E. J.

(1988). “My favorite things”: A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 531–547.

62.

Weiner

(1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25.

63.

Wood

J. D.

(1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

64.

Xiaoli

Kwangjun

(2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74.

65.

Yim

C. K.

David

K. T.

Chan

K. W.

(2008). Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and passion: Roles of customer–firm affection and customer–staff relationships in services. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 741–756.

66.

Zhang

Y. C.

Schwarz

(2012). How and why 1 year differs from 365 days: A conversational logic analysis of inferences from the granularity of quantitative expressions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 248–259.