Micro-Level Interactions in Business–Nonprofit Partnerships

Abstract

While most research on business–nonprofit partnerships has focused on macro and meso perspectives, this article pays attention to the micro level. Drawing on various theoretical perspectives from both marketing and management, this study conceptually relates the outcomes of active employee participation in such partnerships to consumer self-interest. This article also explores empirically whether and when self-interest affects consumers’ responses toward firms in relation to business–nonprofit partnerships. The study reveals that self-interest can directly influence consumers’ behavioral responses toward firms (i.e., switching and buying intentions, and word of mouth), whereas the impact on evaluative responses in terms of attitude and trust is only weak. The fit between the firm and the nonprofit partner (company–cause fit) turns out to moderate this effect, with consumer self-interest only playing a role if fit is high. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

partnerships corporate social responsibility consumer self-interest company–cause fit employees

In the past decade, academic researchers and practitioners have paid considerable attention to the emergence of new forms of cooperation between firms and nonprofit actors to address societal challenges that are considered great and too complex to be solved by one actor alone (Austin, 2000; Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Lucea, 2010). Such business–nonprofit collaborations, known as partnerships in the management literature and social alliances in the marketing field, represent a strategic approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR; Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2006; Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007; Selsky & Parker, 2005). Berger et al. (p. 129) described them as “close, mutually beneficial, long-term” partnerships that involve more than philanthropy, sponsorship, or cause-related marketing. Different from such tactical (or transactional) types of CSR, which are mainly associated with marketing goals and resources, partnerships denote “the synergistic use of organizational core competencies and resources to address key stakeholders’ interests and to achieve both organizational and social benefits” (McAlister & Ferrell, 2002, p. 690).

As such, partnerships go beyond financial contributions, demanding resource commitments in terms of time, knowledge, and efforts from both partner organizations (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009; Waddock, 1988). For instance, the firm may provide managerial advice, technological support, or a volunteer work force to the nongovernmental organization (NGO) with which it partners (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2004). Such partnerships are hence highly integrative and frequently include active employee involvement by potentially all organizational members (Austin, 2000; McAlister & Ferrell, 2002). They therefore require concerted efforts by various organizational departments. While tactical CSR approaches usually target relatively short-term, product- or brand-related outcomes, partnerships represent a long-term investment and seek to affect and benefit various stakeholder groups simultaneously. Partnerships hence address both economic and noneconomic objectives (McAlister & Ferrell, 2002).

So far, academic researchers have studied partnerships mainly from either a macro or a meso cross-sector perspective, that is, at societal and (inter)organizational levels. This study, however, pays attention to the micro perspective, which focuses on effects or interactions among individuals (i.e., consumers and employees). Existing research has underexposed organizational benefits derived from partnerships, such as employee learning or nonfinancial resource exchanges. Similarly, past studies have paid little attention to the potential implications of such benefits, particularly with regard to consumers and the firm (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009; Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). Although researchers increasingly recognize that not only the focal firm may have an interest in CSR initiatives (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004), few studies have addressed the question whether consumers could derive personal benefits from partnerships as well, let alone the potential interrelatedness of benefits for different stakeholder groups or their implications for the firm. To implement partnerships effectively, however, it is important to understand stakeholders’ needs and how benefits for different stakeholder groups can be integrated into an organizational strategy (McAlister & Ferrell, 2002). Bhattacharya, Korschun, and Sen (2009) referred to this gap when asserting that CSR initiatives first need to bring about benefits for individual stakeholders in order to be beneficial for firms.

This study aims to contribute both empirically and theoretically. Drawing on organization and marketing studies this article theorizes how partnerships, and active employee participation in particular, may affect employees and how those effects may spill over to consumers. This study argues that employee participation in partnerships may affect consumers either favorably or unfavorably, depending on whether or not consumers perceive that employees’ involvement with the cause during work hours distracts them from serving customer needs well, which refers to high versus low “consumer-perceived self-interest” in this study. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in the conceptualization of a link between employees and customers. Surprisingly, previous CSR studies have neglected this link, although several studies identified employees as important advocates who may create awareness of and engagement with social causes among external constituents (Berger et al., 2004; Drumwright, 1996). Furthermore, this study empirically investigates how consumers respond to perceptions of high versus low self-interest. In particular, drawing on attribution research and consistency theories, it tests hypotheses that consumers will not always favor high self-interest. Rather, this study suggests that their responses toward the firm will depend on the level of company–cause fit. By doing so, this study aims to contribute to the self-interest literature in the context of CSR by investigating boundary conditions to the generally emphasized importance of self-interest.

This article refers to the question of this special issue regarding why and how corporations seek to pursue CSR in light of potentially conflicting interests among consumers and employees. By relating consumers’ perceptions of trade-offs and company–cause fit to whether they reward or punish a firm for its partnership-related employee volunteering program, this study seeks to identify under which conditions partnerships may be beneficial for firms. Related to the business case of CSR, this study also seeks to provide managerial advice regarding potential pitfalls of implementing and communicating partnerships.

This article is structured as follows: First, the study conceptualizes the impact of active employee participation in partnerships on employees’ perceptions and work-related behaviors and how those perceptions and behaviors in turn may spill over to customers. Second, this article reviews the literature on self-interest, which is subsequently used to develop hypotheses related to the level of self-interest and the moderating effect of company–cause fit. This section is followed by an explanation of the methodology and a presentation of the results. The article ends with a discussion of the findings and conclusions.

Conceptual Framework

Partnerships: Linking Employees and Consumers

While past research has focused on how partnerships, or CSR more generally, can influence employees or consumers, there are neither conceptual nor empirical studies on how consumers can be affected via employees, thus involving both stakeholder groups. Drawing on the literature on CSR, particularly partnerships, the service–profit chain, and related psychological mechanisms, this article argues that in a partnership context the effects of employees’ active partnership participation may spill over to consumers. It suggests that such spillover effects may influence consumers’ responses toward the firm either favorably or unfavorably, depending on whether or not they believe that employees’ involvement with the cause affects their personal self-interests either positively or negatively.

As stated earlier, partnerships represent an integrative form of CSR, often requiring an active commitment of time and efforts not only from managers but also from employees of the partnering organizations (Waddock, 1988). For instance, employees of the firm may volunteer for the partnering NGO or use their professional skills to help NGO staff during business hours (Smith, 1994). Due to this integrative approach employees may gain emotional rewards or acquire career-enhancing skills by conducting tasks outside their daily work environments. Similarly, partnership initiatives may help employees to integrate their private and work lives, for instance, if such initiatives are linked to employees’ own social communities (Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2008). Such benefits have shown to trigger employee identification with firms (Berger et al., 2006; Bhattacharya et al., 2008), which in turn can result in favorable work-related perceptions and behaviors, including job satisfaction, pride, commitment, and loyalty to the firm (Bhattacharya et al., 2008).

Building on the service–profit chain concept, Homburg, Wieseke, and Hoyer demonstrated that the effects of identification are not only limited to employees’ work-related perceptions and behaviors but that they spill over to customers as well. The authors demonstrated empirically that employee–company identification can influence customers’ identification with an organization either directly (i.e., via emotional contagion) or indirectly (i.e., due to employees’ customer orientation or productivity). Customer identification, in turn, triggers customer loyalty and willingness to pay, and hence, firms’ financial performance (Homburg et al., 2009). As previous studies identified CSR as a major driver of employee and customer identification, the processes outlined above seem relevant in a partnership context as well (Berger et al., 2006; Bhattacharya et al., 2009). Kolk, Van Dolen, and Vock (2010) suggested similar psychological mechanisms that might cause spillover effects of partnerships from employees to customers. For instance, an employee who is enthusiastic about the partnership and talks about it during interactions with a customer might trigger favorable partnership thoughts on the part of the customer as well.

According to the service–profit chain concept, satisfied (service) employees influence customers favorably through increased levels of productivity, affecting customer satisfaction and in turn firm profitability (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1994). Previous studies have associated employee volunteering, which constitutes an important element of partnership initiatives, with improved work motivation, customer orientation, and productivity, which may in turn benefit consumers, thereby strengthening their personal self-interest in the partnership (see Basil, Runte, Easwaramoorthy, & Barr, 2009). For instance, employees might experience an improved work–life balance due to their engagement with the cause and may hence appear more friendly in customer contact situations due to increased job satisfaction, signaling more responsiveness to customers (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Overview of the study’s main constructs and connections.

The Role of Self-Interest in Relation to CSR

Most theories of human motivation and behavior assume that individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest (see Holmes, Miller, & Lerner, 2002; Miller, 1999; Miller & Ratner, 1998). Especially in individualistic cultures self-interested motives are considered as normal or rational (Miller, 1999). Meglino and Korsgaard (p. 946) define rational self-interest as “thinking and acting in a manner that is expected to lead to an optimal or maximum result for a person.” Although more recent research has criticized and challenged the widely held view of self-interest as “the cardinal human motive” (Holmes et al., 2002, p. 144), there is evidence that self-interested motives guide individuals even in their responses to social initiatives (Holmes et al., 2002; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; Miller & Ratner, 1998; Simpson, Irwin, & Lawrence, 2006).

According to social exchange theory, which builds on the concept of reciprocity, expected returns from others stimulate individuals’ voluntary deeds (Blau, 1964). Such returns or benefits could accrue in the form of gratitude, trust, or economic returns (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995). Similarly, the marketing literature describes consumer choice processes in terms of economic utility maximization (e.g., Arora & Henderson, 2007). As suggested by the common practice of offering people products in return for their donations to charities, Holmes et al. (2002) demonstrated empirically that individuals are more willing to donate to charitable organizations when the act of giving is presented as an economic transaction rather than as charity. Building on Holmes et al.’s study, Simpson et al. (2006) obtained similar results, although their theoretical approach differed. While Holmes et al. argued that donors try to avoid inner conflicts by creating the “fiction” of an economic exchange, providing them with a self-interested justification for their good deeds, Simpson et al. criticized this approach. They asserted that responding to one’s personal and others’ interests does not necessarily imply a discrepancy. Rather, individuals behave in a way that is consistent with their self-perception of being moral (i.e., donating to a cause) and rational (i.e., receiving something in return). Consistency theory implies that not accepting an economic exchange in return for a philanthropic donation would create dissonance that individuals tend to avoid.

Arora and Henderson (2007) explicitly created tensions between concern for “self” and “other” in three experimental studies. In the context of transaction-based CSR activities (i.e., cause-related marketing) they asked respondents to trade off price discounts (i.e., “self” component) against donations of equal monetary value for varying social causes (i.e., “other” component). Their findings suggest that promotions with a “self” component seem to be more effective than promotions with a social cause component. However, this finding is only true if the monetary value of promotions is sufficiently high. Similarly, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found that consumers punish firms in terms of unfavorable evaluations if they perceive a trade-off between the firm’s CSR initiatives and its corporate abilities, such as producing high-quality products.

Apart from such economic exchanges, Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) identified consumer well-being and behavior modification as CSR effects beneficial for consumers. Those authors stated that even though these outcomes do not directly influence business, firms should acknowledge such benefits as they may contribute to the bottom line in the long term. In addition, Bhattacharya et al. (2009) theorized that various benefits could arise to consumers depending on their perceptions of firms’ CSR initiatives. They developed a conceptual model describing in what ways individual stakeholders can derive potential benefits from a firm’s CSR activities. Those authors drew on the concept of means–end chain according to which consumers’ purchase decisions are based on functional, psychological, and value-based benefits. Although they did not investigate the model empirically, the authors theorized that the degree to which stakeholders derive such personal benefits from firms’ CSR initiatives (e.g., employee harmony, work–life integration, consumer well-being) will influence their responses toward the firm.

While consumers may derive such benefits from CSR directly, partnerships can also create consumer-perceived self-interest indirectly through consumers’ interactions with employees, as described above. The next section of this article discusses implications of such indirect effects, with Table 1 containing some examples of direct and indirect partnerships effects as illustration.

Table 1.

Examples of Hypothesized Direct/Indirect Partnership Effects in Relation to High/Low Consumer-Perceived Self-Interest.

	Direct partnership effects	Indirect partnership effects
High consumer self-interest	Perceived economic advantage: perception that greater customer orientation (i.e., consumer self-interest) is not accompanied by price increases.	Employees’ active participation in the partnership can increase work satisfaction and customer orientation, which positively influences consumer self-interest. Customers do not feel that employees are distracted by their partnership engagement.
Low consumer self-interest	Economic implications such as perceived price increases for consumers, which are ascribed to the company’s engagement with the cause.	Although employees’ active participation in the partnership may increase their work satisfaction and commitment to their job, their engagement with the cause is not perceived positively because consumers feel their interests are neglected at the expense of the company’s partnership engagement.

Hypotheses Development

As discussed earlier, employee participation in partnership activities may increase work motivation, customer orientation, and productivity, which may trigger a high level of consumer self-interest (see Basil et al., 2009). In line with the literature on self-interest this study expects that consumers will respond favorably toward a firm if they perceive that the firm’s partnership initiative is beneficial for them personally.

Despite these potential positive effects of partnerships on employees, and hence customers, there is some evidence that partnership initiatives may not always result in high consumer self-interest. More specifically, this study argues that the extent to which consumers perceive such initiatives to distract employees from their core job tasks will influence consumers’ responses to the partnership. This reasoning is in line with Sen and Bhattacharya’s (2001) advice for CSR-active firms to inform customers that the initiative is not to be carried out at the expense of the firm’s core abilities.

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that CSR may distract firms from their core business activities (Grayson & Hodges, 2004; Motorola, 2008). In particular, employee volunteering programs supported by firms may create a conflict of interest between business-related obligations and participation in the partnership program (Pancer, Baetz, & Rog, 2002), for instance, if a planned volunteer activity coincides with an important business meeting. As many volunteer activities take place during work hours, Basil et al. (2009) mentioned the blurring of boundaries between work and recreational time. Based on interviews with partnership participants, Berger et al. (2006, p. 133) found that employees even characterized partnership participation as “hard work” if it took place on a day-to-day basis. For instance, Randstad, a temporary employment company, offered to provide its NGO partner with advice regarding its human resource system free of charge, as human resource solutions belong to the firm’s core activities (Insead, 2004).

Therefore, this article argues that employees’ distraction from their daily business tasks due to their participation in partnership activities may cause inconveniences for customers, such as longer waiting time in call centers, resulting in a low level of consumer self-interest. Following the logic of self-interest as “the cardinal human motive,” consumers will punish the firm if they perceive that (service) employees neglect their interests due to their commitment to the nonprofit partner in terms of time and effort. In addition to these indirect effects on consumer self-interest via employees, this study expects consumers to reward the firm if they perceive that the partnership activity benefits them directly (e.g., by contributing to their personal well-being, as suggested by Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Similarly, consumers will punish the firm if they believe that partnerships negatively affect their economic self-interests directly, such as price increases that consumers attribute to the firm’s financial commitment to its NGO partner. Arora and Henderson (2007), who described economic utility maximization as an important aspect in consumer choice processes, support this reasoning.

To operationalize consumer reward and consumer punishment of the firm, the marketing literature often distinguishes between evaluative responses of consumers, particularly trust and attitude, and their behavioral responses, which includes buying and switching behavior, and word of mouth. Studies have not only shown that CSR influences these types of responses but also that the impact may depend on other factors (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Brønn & Vrioni, 2001).

This study suggests that the level of consumer-perceived self-interest will influence consumers’ evaluative and behavioral responses toward the firm in a way that they will respond more favorably if they feel that the partnership benefits them personally (i.e., high self-interest), compared to if they believe that their personal interests are neglected (i.e., low self-interest). First, attitudes, which describe consumers’ assessment of firms more generally (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006), aid the realization of personal goals and the avoidance of personal costs. As individuals are usually opposed to situations involving potential losses, their attitudes are favorable if they perceive a benefit for themselves (Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995). Although the effects of self-interest on attitudes are often considered as weak, such effects have shown to be stronger when self-interest is temporarily primed (Boninger et al.,1995). Second, trust, which Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23) defined as “confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity,” relates to the belief that a (business) partner’s actions will result in favorable outcomes for oneself. In line with this reasoning, Bhattacharya et al. (2009) theorized that stakeholder benefits derived from CSR will improve trust as the firm demonstrates its caring behavior toward stakeholders. In the context of the current study it is therefore expected that increased perceptions of consumer self-interest will favorably influence consumer trust in the company.

On one hand, consumers’ behavioral intentions are outcomes of attitude and trust (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Behavioral intentions include word of mouth, which refers to consumers’ willingness to recommend the firm to others (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004); buying intentions, which refers to consumers’ likelihood of purchasing the firm’s products or services (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001); and switching intentions, which refers to the likelihood of changing from one supplier to another (Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, & Murthy, 2004). For instance, Bhattacharya et al. theorized that consumer-related benefits derived from CSR influence firm-directed behaviors, such as purchase intentions, through relationship-building factors (e.g., trust, satisfaction). Moreover, extant CSR research has confirmed the relationship between consumers’ evaluative (i.e., attitudes and trust) and behavioral responses measures (i.e., word of mouth and switching intentions; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2009).

On the other hand, this study expects also a direct effect of self-interest on the behavioral response measures as self-interest predicts behavior rather than evaluations. Different from stating one’s opinion, the expectancy of behavioral engagement prompts consumers to consider actual costs, which makes acting on one’s perceived self-interest more likely (Miller & Ratner, 1998). Furthermore, Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that customers whose relationships with firms result in superior benefits will be more committed, which directly affects switching or buying intentions (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004).

This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: A high level of consumer interest derived from a partnership activity causes more favorable consumer responses in terms of (a) attitudes, (b) trust, (c) word of mouth, (d) switching intentions, and (e) buying intentions compared to a low level of interest.

The relative importance of self-interest: Fit as a moderator

Although the literature on self-interest suggests the importance of this concept in explaining consumer responses, even in the context of CSR, other literature proposes that individuals are not only guided by self-interest but also by motivations concerning others; both motivations can be present simultaneously, even if they are conflicting (Bendapudi, Singh, & Bendapudi, 1996; Bowles, 2008). Proponents of this view assert that rational self-interest cannot fully explain individuals’ attitudes and behaviors and that the impact of self-interest is often overestimated, as supported in several empirical studies (e.g., Miller & Ratner, 1998; Van Lange, 2000). Some CSR research suggests that consumers reflect on the reasons for firms’ engagement in social initiatives, considering the firm’s sincerity or honesty of its engagement with the NGO as important (e.g., Bigné Alcañiz, Chumpitaz Cáceres, & Currás Pérez, 2010; Bigné-Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez, & Sánchez-García, 2009; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006). Conveying these insights to a partnership context, consumer self-interest derived from a partnership may not always elicit favorable consumer responses toward firms. Whether consumers reward firms for accruing self-interest may depend on the perceived sincerity of the firm’s engagement with the NGO. The level of fit or congruence between the firm and the cause (often called company–cause fit) has shown to inform consumers about the firm’s motivations and sincerity in this regard (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009).

This study derives insights on company–cause fit from the more generic literature on cause–brand fit in cause-related marketing activities or sponsorship that included some empirical studies. Building on that debate, this article describes company–cause fit as the perceived “degree of similarity or compatibility” (Lafferty, 2007, p. 448) between two partnering organizations. In the context of partnerships, Berger et al. identified various dimensions of fit, such as congruence among the collaborating organizations’ missions, their leaders, employees, or resources. Several benefits can arise to partners with a high fit, such as that the implementation of the partnership will be easier in case both organizations share a similar culture or values. Similarly, if employees share an affinity for the cause (i.e., work force fit), they will more easily identify with their work organization, which can in turn result in favorable job-related behaviors (Berger et al., 2004). Although some of the more generic empirical research has found no or only weak support for the importance of high fit, particularly conceptual and some other empirical fit studies have stressed that high fit is essential to evoke favorable consumer responses (e.g., Lafferty, 2007). These studies have often used congruence theory, stating that relatedness or similarity will influence storage in memory and retrieval of information (Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005; Lafferty, 2007). As people prefer to establish and maintain harmony among their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, they strive for uniformity among cognitive elements (Jagre, Watson, & Watson, 2001; Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004). In line with this theory, Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) argue that experienced cognitive consistency, such as in the case of high fit, leads to favorable consumer responses, while low fit evokes perceptions of inconsistency and consequently causes negative responses.

Following this argumentation, Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen (2010) conceptualize that fit, among other CSR communication elements, can influence consumers’ evaluative (i.e., attitudes, trust) and behavioral (i.e., word of mouth, purchase intentions) responses toward firms. Empirical research has demonstrated that high product/brand–cause fit favorably influences consumers’ attitudes and corporate credibility, and hence trust, relative to low fit (Basil & Herr, 2006; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Furthermore, past research suggests a positive link between high-fit and favorable word-of-mouth intentions, which some studies explained by consumers’ attributions regarding the firm’s motives to engage in a partnership or by consumers’ willingness to trust the firm (Ellen et al., 2006; Rifon et al., 2004; Vlachos et al., 2009). Moreover, high fit has shown to increase buying intentions (Ellen et al., 2006) and is also expected to influence switching intentions, which are said to be predicted by evaluative responses as trust and price perceptions (Bansal, Taylor, & James, 2005).

Regarding consumers’ perceptions of the firms’ motivations to engage in CSR, past research has shown that high fit triggers mainly altruistic attributions, which may be accompanied by strategic (i.e., firm-serving) attributions as well (Ellen et al., 2006; Rifon et al., 2004). As altruistic and firm-serving motives are regarded as two extremes on a continuum and it is the predominant attribution that influences how consumers evaluate firms, consumers’ altruistic beliefs are prevalent in the case of high-fit alliances (Bigné Alcañiz et al., 2010). Consumers use these attributions to judge the firm’s sincere intentions toward the partnering NGO, and thus its credibility (Bigné Alcañiz et al., 2010; Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009), which in turn influences consumers’ trust, attitudes, and purchase intent. Low fit, on the other hand, causes more egoistic attributions (i.e., purely firm-centered), such as taking advantage of the NGO, which consequently elicits less favorable consumer behavior. Consumers appear to perceive such firm-centered motives as less honest toward the NGO, which may explain their negative responses toward firms.

As it is unclear how consumers will respond to self-interest in light of high versus low company–cause fit, arguments can be made for four descriptive scenarios, depending on whether high/low self-interest is coupled with a high-fit or low-fit partnership initiative. Table 2 illustrates the four scenarios in a 2 × 2 matrix. As this study focuses on the outcomes of consumers’ impressions based on their integration of information about fit and self-interest, rather than on the relationship between these two constructs, this study does not assume causality between fit and self-interest. Nevertheless, for illustrative purposes, Table 2 represents examples for each of the four scenario’s, suggesting that consumers might derive perceptions about self-interest from the level of company–cause fit. The next section of this article provides examples for high- and low-fit partnerships, with a hypothesis for each.

Table 2.

Descriptive Scenarios Self-Interest and Fit Manipulations.

	High company–cause fit	Low company–cause fit
High consumer self-interest	Scenario 1	Scenario 4
High consumer self-interest	Volunteering for the NGO can easily be integrated into employees’ daily job routines. As employees can largely rely on his or her existing skills, activities for the NGO cause no distraction from daily job tasks, allowing the employee to help the cause while serving customers well.	As there is no direct link between employees’ core activities and the efforts required for helping the cause, this facilitates a clear separation between the two types of activities. This might help employees to stay more focused on their commercial job tasks, avoiding potential distraction by cause-related activities.
Low consumer self-interest	Scenario 2	Scenario 3
Low consumer self-interest	The blurring of core job and cause-related activities may distract employees. And as consumers can infer from a high-fit initiative that it is implemented strategically, they may feel that resulting trade-offs faced by employees may have negative implications for them, by being less well serviced; for example, a customer cannot get hold of a contact person who is working on an urgent project for the NGO.	Employees may need to acquire additional skills to serve the NGO well and/or leave their daily working environment as their partnership commitments cannot be integrated into their daily job routines due to a lack of fit (e.g., accountants helping to build or paint houses). Their absence in the office may cause inconveniences for customers of the firm, who, analogous to Scenario 2, may feel that their interests are neglected, causing customer dissatisfaction, and hence, low perceived self-interest.

An example of a high-fit partnership activity is a commercial employment agency using its network and offices to recruit volunteers for an NGO that places professional volunteers in developing countries in an attempt to fight poverty. In this case, the partnership activity would be integrated into employees’ daily job tasks, which could result in either high or low self-interest for consumers. An example of a low-fit partnership activity is an accountancy firm helping an NGO that requires less specialized skills, such as accountants helping to build or paint houses, activities that are completely unrelated to their daily job tasks. Although the strategic focus of partnerships seems to imply at least some congruity between the firm and the cause, such a fit may not always be visible or obvious for consumers. Moreover, many firms manage a diverse portfolio of partnerships, including causes with various levels of logical fit (Austin, 2003). For instance, Timberland, a footwear and apparel manufacturer and retailer, partners with such diverse causes as the American Red Cross, GreenNet, or Skills USA (Timberland, 2010). While some may consider partnership activities that are not well integrated into a firms’ strategy a distraction from the business purpose, indicating low consumer self-interest, an alternative scenario is possible (Grayson & Hodges, 2004). The present study aims to disentangle the consequences with regard to these descriptive accounts shown in Table 2 by manipulating the level of consumer self-interest and of fit.

High Fit

According to consistency theories, perceived dissonance among consumers’ thoughts and expectations is regarded as unpleasant and hence avoided (Simpson et al., 2006). While inconsistent information about the firm prompts attitude changes in an attempt to resolve perceived imbalances, consistent information can enhance consumers’ attitudes toward firms as they evaluate corporate behavior as appropriate (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Cornwell et al., 2005). Applying this concept to this study, the notion of high fit will be consistent with high self-interest in consumers’ minds, as both indicate favorable information about the firm and will thus be perceived as consistent, prompting favorable consumer responses (Scenario 1). The notion of low consumer self-interest, however, will be perceived as unpleasant, and hence, as inconsistent with information regarding high fit. As consumers strive to establish harmony among their beliefs about the firm, perceptions of low self-interest will undermine the positive impact of high fit, causing overall negative responses (Scenario 2). Drawing on the effects of self-interest and fit on consumers’ evaluative and behavioral responses toward firms discussed earlier this study hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 2: When company–cause fit is high, consumer responses toward the firm in terms of (a) attitudes, (b) trust, (c) word of mouth, (d) switching intentions, and (e) buying intentions will be more favorable in cases of high self-interest compared to low self-interest.

Low Fit

According to Becker-Olsen et al., perceptions of low company–cause fit are inconsistent with individuals’ prior expectations, complicating the integration of new information into existing memory structures. This process results in less favorable thoughts and attitudes toward the firm, which are more focused on the firm’s motives to engage in social initiatives. Past research considered these motives as mainly firm-centered in the case of low fit and associated them with negative consumer responses, including a perception of less sincerity of firms’ intentions (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009; Ellen et al., 2006). Such unfavorable beliefs are incongruent with the notion of high consumer self-interest, which prompts overall positive firm beliefs. In line with consistency theory, such inconsistent beliefs will trigger an attitude change as consumers may not believe that the partnership results in high self-interest for them, causing overall unfavorable responses toward the firm (Scenario 4). Similarly, it is expected that low fit in combination with low self-interest will prompt unfavorable consumer responses (Scenario 3). Although consistency theory suggests that two negative beliefs are in balance and should hence prompt favorable attitudes toward the firm (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006), Basil and Herr (2006) argue that consistency is not sufficient to cause favorable responses but that positive or well-liked organizational attitudes need to be present as well. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: When company–cause fit is low, consumer responses toward the firm in terms of (a) attitudes, (b) trust, (c) word of mouth, (d) switching intentions, and (e) buying intentions will not differ between cases of high and low self-interest.

Data and Method

Sample and Procedure

The researchers recruited participants at public places (airport or train station) in the Netherlands to assure a large variety of people with different demographic backgrounds. A total of 308 participants completed the questionnaire. Framing the data collection method as a field experiment, we assigned respondents randomly to one of four conditions (high fit, high self-interest/high fit, low self-interest/low fit, high self-interest/low fit, low self-interest). The advantages of field experiments, which involve data collection in a realistic rather than a laboratory setting while manipulating the variables of interest, are the precision of measurement, due to the possibility to control the independent variables, and the realism of context (see Scandura & Williams, 2000). Respondents were selected based on two criteria: (a) being at least 18 years old, which is considered a reasonable age to buy the focal firm’s products and services, and (b) being a Dutch-speaking resident of the Netherlands. Participants first read a (fictitious) press release informing them about the firm’s engagement in a partnership. Fit was manipulated in these press releases, which was framed as a retrospect on the 2-year partnership between the focal firm and an NGO. Respondents were informed that several employees of the firm volunteered for the NGO, which was supported by the firm through the provision of working hours. Subsequently, we asked respondents to read (fictitious) consumer responses to these press releases. Self-interest was manipulated in these responses. In a final step, all respondents completed the questionnaire.

The authors excluded 12 questionnaires from the data set, leaving 296 respondents for the data analysis. Of these 296 respondents 52.5% were female and 47.5% were male. One person did not answer this question. With regard to participants’ age, about 44% of the respondents were aged between 18 and 25 years, 29% between 26 and 35 years, 11% between 46 and 55 years, and 10% between 36 and 45 years. Participants aged between 56 and 65 and above accounted for about 6%. Respondents were distributed almost equally across the four conditions: 72 respondents in the high-fit, high-self-interest condition; 74 respondents in the high-fit, low-self-interest condition; 81 respondents in the low-fit, high-self-interest condition; and 69 respondents in the low-fit, low-self-interest condition.

Measures

Independent variables

This study used a 2 (high/low self-interest) × 2 (high/low fit) factorial design.

Consumer self-interest was manipulated by varying fictitious consumer responses to the online press release described earlier (see Wiener, LaForge, & Goolsby, 1990, for self-interest manipulation). In the high-self-interest condition the researchers primed that consumers benefited from the partnership indirectly due to improved customer service quality. Fictitious consumers shared their experiences they had with employees during the past 2 years. They concluded that employees were much more motivated, open minded, and customer oriented since the launch of the partnership and that customer service employees had told them that sickness leave among employees had decreased as a positive side-effect of the partnership. With reference to the partnership, one consumer mentioned that the firm had won a customer satisfaction award and that the partnership with the NGO had not caused price increases. In the low-self-interest condition, on the other hand, we primed that since the initiation of the partnership customer service quality had deteriorated as call center employees devoted too much time and efforts to the partnership. Fictitious consumers complained, for instance, about longer waiting time on the phone or employees asking them to contribute to a fundraising activity for the cause, distracting employees from their core business activity. In addition, one consumer feared that prices had increased since the launch of the partnership.

While employee performance might as well be influenced by various other factors, such as training, or interactions with commercial and other, noncommercial clients, this study focuses on the effect of a partnership on consumer perceptions. By providing consumers with information about the firm’s partnership and its employee volunteering program and by linking this information to the quality of employees’ customer orientation/service, this study explores consumers’ responses toward firms. While consumers might not be aware of employee training opportunities, partnership activities are often communicated to consumers and may hence be integrated into consumers’ overall perceptions of the organization, which also includes their experiences regarding customer service quality or employees’ customer orientation. While consumers may attribute poor customer service to a variety of reasons, the aim of this study is to investigate the potential benefit or damage arising to a firm if consumer perceptions about customer service are linked to the potential consequences of employees’ active participation in a partnership.

Moreover, while consumers may have little insight into the actual internal processes and effects of partnerships, they form impressions based on their perceptions, interpretations, and the integration of preexisting and new information (see Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005). Therefore, new information about employees’ active engagement in corporate volunteering programs may be integrated with (negative or positive) past experiences with customer service employees, thereby attributing the quality of employee–customer interactions to the partnership. As consumers increasingly share their opinions about companies online, the question how such a scenario would affect companies is a relevant and interesting one to explore.

Company–cause fit was manipulated by varying two existing nonprofit organizations in the press articles described above, informing respondents about the long-term partnership with the focal firm, a telecommunications service provider. In a pretest, two coders evaluated the actual level of fit for both NGOs based on nine dimensions of fit identified by Berger et al. (2004). The researchers identified the partnership between the firm and a telephone and internet helpline for children as high fit as it scored high on several of these dimensions. For example, both organizations share the central idea of inclusion of society, which indicates a fit among the organizations’ missions. However, we found almost no corresponding matches for an organization caring for the conservation of nature, which consequently served as the low-fit partner (e.g., the NGO’s mission with a focus on nature did not match with the firm’s social mission). We stressed the differences between both partnerships in the fictitious press articles to ensure that the manipulation would be successful.

Dependent variables

Although evaluative outcomes in consumers’ responses to CSR (e.g., attitude, trust) are usually greater and also more easily assessable than behavioral outcomes (e.g., word of mouth, buying intentions), in this study we investigate to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the role of consumer self-interest and fit in partnerships (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Despite a trend observed with field experiments to use dependent variables at the organizational level, measuring dependent variables at individual levels is a common approach in management studies (see Scandura & Williams, 2000).

Evaluative responses

This study used attitude (four items, Cronbach’s alpha = .74) and trust (four items, Cronbach’s alpha = .91) to measure evaluative consumer responses and averaged all items measuring the same construct into a single measure. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency of items. CSR initiatives can build trust and evoke positive attitudes toward firms among consumers (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Vaaland, Heide, & Grønhaug, 2008). Moreover, these attitudes were found to be even greater if consumers perceive a high fit between the firm and the cause (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). We phrased attitude items as “My attitude toward [the firm] is. . .” and trust items as “I can count on [the firm].”

Behavioral intentions

We used word of mouth (four items, Cronbach’s alpha = .84), switching intentions (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .62), and buying intentions (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .71) to measure consumers’ behavioral responses and averaged all items measuring the same construct into a single measure. According to Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) word of mouth can be seen as one of the key behavioral outcomes of CSR. This behavior can be explained by consumers’ identification with a firm engaging in CSR activities. Similarly, CSR was found to influence buying and switching intentions, which is particularly relevant in the context of the service firm used in this study (Brønn & Vrioni, 2001; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). We phrased word-of-mouth items as “I will encourage others to purchase the products and services of [the firm]” and items for buying intentions as “I am planning to buy the products and services of [the firm]” and items for switching intentions as “If I had to choose a (new) internet provider, [the firm] would be my first choice.” We measured all items in the questionnaire on a 7-point scale, anchored by “totally agree” and “totally disagree” except for one item of attitude, which was anchored by “extremely positive” and “extremely negative.”

Manipulation Checks

To assess the self-interest manipulation the researchers asked participants to evaluate the perceived level of consumer self-interest (three items averaged into a single measure, Cronbach’s alpha = .80). We phrased self-interest items as “The partnership between [the firm] and [NGO] explicitly entails benefits for the customer.” One-way ANOVA results showed that the manipulation worked, as consumers rated perceived self-interest higher in the high-self-interest condition (M = 4.56) compared to the low-self-interest condition (M = 2.91, F = 137.82, p < .001).

Similarly, we asked participants to evaluate the fit between the two allied organizations presented to them (three items averaged into a single measure, Cronbach’s alpha = .65). We worded fit items as “The link between the core business of [the firm] and [NGO] is clear to me.” Results of one-way ANOVA again showed that the manipulation was successful, as the firm’s cooperation with the well-fitting nonprofit was evaluated more favorably than the partnership with the low-fit NGO (Mhigh fit = 4.78, Mlow fit = 3.78, F = 62.16, p < .001).

Results

To test Hypothesis 1, stating that high consumer self-interest derived from a partnership activity will lead to more favorable consumer responses than low self-interest, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs for the five dependent variables used in this study. We found significant differences between high and low consumer self-interest for attitude, word of mouth, switching intentions, and buying intentions (see Table 3). Although the results for trust point in the same direction, the analyses did not reveal any significant difference.

Table 3.

One-Way ANOVA Effect Test Comparison of Means.

	Level of consumer self-interest
	M (SD)
	High	Low	F value	p
Attitude	4.08 (1.07)	3.78 (1.04)	5.90	.02
Trust	3.95 (1.06)	3.78 (1.12)	1.83	.18
Word/mouth	3.66 (1.06)	3.31 (1.31)	6.41	.01
Switching	4.16 (1.10)	3.87 (1.14)	5.04	.03
Buying	3.77 (1.07)	3.48 (1.35)	4.16	.04

Therefore, the findings do support Hypothesis 1 with regard to the behavioral response measures used in this study and for attitude. These findings are in line with Miller and Ratner (1998), who stated that self-interest predicts behavior rather than attitudes, which are closely related to trust conceptually (see Selnes, 1998). If primed, however, self-interested reasoning can temporarily cause stronger impacts on attitudes (Boninger et al., 1995).

To test Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3, we conducted a series of two-way ANOVAs in a first step. These hypotheses propose interaction effects between consumer self-interest and company–cause fit. Subsequent one-way ANOVAs focusing first on the high-fit condition and then on the low-fit condition were conducted to adopt or reject Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3. Two-way ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects between self-interest and fit for word of mouth, switching and buying intentions, while the interaction effects for attitude and trust were nonsignificant (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Two-Way ANOVA Effect Test Comparison of Means.

Interaction test consumer self-interest and company–cause fit
		M (SD)
Dependent variable	Consumer self-interest	High fit	Low fit	F value	p
Attitude	High	4.60 (0.55)	4.20 (1.21)	2.71	.10
	Low	4.10 (0.95)	4.07 (0.94)
Trust	High	4.15 (0.68)	3.78 (1.29)	1.43	.23
	Low	3.81 (1.16)	3.75 (1.09)
Word/mouth	High	4,04 (0.58)	3.33 (1.26)	5.01	.03
	Low	3.36 (1.39)	3.26 (1.23)
Switching	High	4.44 (0.82)	3.92 (1.26)	9.35	.00
	Low	3.74 (1.17)	4.01 (1.09)
Buying	High	4.05 (0.81)	3.53 (1.21)	5.51	.02
	Low	3.42 (1.44)	3.56 (1.25)

The insignificant findings for attitude and trust are not surprising in view of the results obtained when testing Hypothesis 1. Again, the generally weak power of self-interest on evaluative responses, compared to behavioral responses, might explain why no significant interaction effects were detected. This reasoning is supported by Figures 2 to 6, which show that the graphs for attitude and trust point into the same direction as the graphs for behavioral intentions, for which we did find a significant interaction effect.

Figure 2.

Two-way ANOVA for attitude.

Figure 3.

Two-way ANOVA for trust.

Figure 4.

Two-way ANOVA for word of mouth.

Figure 5.

Two-way ANOVA for switching intentions.

Figure 6.

Two-way ANOVA for buying intentions.

To test Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs, using consumer self-interest as independent variable. For the high-fit condition, the analyses revealed significant differences between high and low consumer self-interest for attitude, trust, word of mouth, switching intentions, and buying intentions, lending full support for Hypothesis 2 (see Table 5).

Table 5.

One-Way ANOVA Effect Test Comparison of Means.

High-fit condition only
	Level of consumer self-interest
Dependent variables	High, M (SD)	Low, M (SD)	F value	p
Attitude	4.60 (0.55)	4.10 (0.95)	14.52	.00
Trust	4.15 (0.68)	3.81 (1.16)	4.50	.04
Word/mouth	4.04 (0.58)	3.36 (1.39)	14.54	.00
Switching	4.44 (0.82)	3.74 (1.17)	17.15	.00
Buying	4.05 (0.81)	3.42 (1.44)	10.57	.00

For the low-fit condition, the analyses showed no significant differences between high and low consumer self-interest for attitude, trust, word of mouth, switching intentions, and buying intentions, lending full support for Hypothesis 3 (see Table 6). In accordance with our hypotheses, these results indicate that consumer responses toward the firm are only affected by perceived consumer self-interest in a high-fit condition, whereas self-interest does not seem to matter if company–cause fit is low.

Table 6.

One-Way ANOVA Effect Test Comparison of Means.

Low-fit condition only
	Level of consumer self-interest
Dependent variables	High, M (SD)	Low, M (SD)	F value	p
Attitude	4.20 (1.21)	4.07 (0.94)	0.51	.48
Trust	3.78 (1.29)	3.75 (1.09)	0.03	.87
Word/mouth	3.33 (1.26)	3.26 (1.23)	0.12	.73
Switching	3.92 (1.26)	4.01 (1.09)	0.21	.65
Buying	3.53 (1.21)	3.56 (1.21)	0.02	.89

Discussion and Conclusions

This study focused on the micro perspective of cross-sector partnerships between firms and NGOs, to which past studies have paid little attention as they investigated partnerships mainly at the macro and meso levels. To conceptualize how partnerships affect employees and how these effects may spill over to consumers, this study drew on insights from various theoretical perspectives, from marketing, management, and organization studies. In this way, this study responds to calls for more research on the relationship between partnership initiatives and firm success using such cross-disciplinary approaches (Harrison & Freeman, 1999; McAlister & Ferrell, 2002). Particularly the strategic and long-term nature of partnerships seems to require cross-disciplinary studies in order to comprehend and seize the full potential of this promising form of business–nonprofit collaboration. Tactical CSR programs, such as sponsorship or cause-related marketing, predominantly aim at short-term marketing benefits and are hence often limited to marketing departments’ budgets and sphere of influence (McAlister & Ferrell, 2002). Partnerships, however, tie a firm’s core competencies and overall resources to a social cause, demanding resource commitments and contributions from various organizational departments and employees across the whole organization. Such an approach calls for coordinated and cross-departmental action and the combined assessment of impacts on various stakeholder groups. In particular, the successful implementation of partnerships requires an understanding of how benefits for different stakeholders can be integrated into an organizational strategy (McAlister & Ferrell, 2002). This study contributes to this lack of understanding by providing theoretical and empirical insights.

First, by drawing on past insights on the effects of CSR on employees and customers, as well as on the service–profit chain concept and related psychological mechanisms, this study conceptualized potential spillover effects of employee outcomes of active partnership participation on consumers. In particular, the article illustrated how employees’ engagement in such partnerships (e.g., providing professional knowledge or volunteer services to the NGO) may affect consumer-perceived self-interest, for instance, due to perceptions of increased/decreased customer orientation. By bridging insights from the organizational and marketing literature, this article advances extant partnership studies, and research on CSR more generally, by contributing a conceptual framework that may inspire and spur future empirical investigations in this field.

Second, as an initial empirical exploration of the combined effects of partnerships on several stakeholder groups, this article investigated how consumers respond to high versus low self-interest arising from employees’ active partnership engagement and whether the level of company–cause fit may influence these responses. While past research has paid much attention to the business case of CSR, revealing potential benefits of CSR for the firm, Bhattacharya et al. (2009) state that researchers and practitioners first of all need to understand how CSR may benefit individual stakeholders to comprehend fully impacts on the firm. The current empirical investigation hence contributes novel insights to past CSR research by exploring whether the level of company–cause fit influences consumers’ responses to perceived self-interest derived from partnerships.

The findings of our research suggest that overall, consumer self-interest primarily matters with regard to consumers’ behavioral intentions toward firms, while consumers’ evaluations of firms in terms of trust remain largely unaffected. More specifically, consumers’ word-of-mouth, switching, and buying intentions toward the firm were more favorable if they perceived self-serving benefits derived from the partnership initiative, such as an increased level of customer satisfaction since the launch of the partnership. These findings are in line with Boninger et al. (1995, p. 61), who stated that “the prospect of behavioral involvement (unlike the request for an opinion) forces people to consider cost, and hence prompts self-interest reflection,” which might also explain the weak result for trust.

In line with our expectations, the data analysis revealed boundary conditions to the favorable impact of consumer self-interest. Taking company–cause fit into account, our results indicate that high consumer self-interest does not always trigger favorable consumer responses toward the firm. More specifically, while consumers rewarded the focal firm for accruing self-interest if fit was high, a low level of fit turned the priming of consumer self-interest ineffective. Apparently, despite consumers’ general appreciation of personal benefits, specific partnership characteristics (i.e., the similarity between the firm and the cause) have to be met in order to ensure the effectiveness of priming consumer self-interest. Our observation that the two-way interaction effect between fit and self-interest was not significant for the evaluative response measures was not altogether surprising after having detected weak effects for trust on testing Hypothesis 1. However, the graphs displaying the proposed interaction effects (Figures 2 -4) show similar patterns for the evaluative and behavioral response measures, supporting our reasoning, and are in line with insights from attribution and consistency theory explained in the theoretical part of the article. Obviously, further investigation is needed, also among broader sets of respondents and covering firms from different sectors, particularly while using multi-informant research designs or different methods of data collection, which can be other extensions to the present study.

Future research may also include other countries to investigate whether the findings of this study hold in other contexts as well. On the one hand, Maignan and Ferrell (2003) demonstrated that overall U.S. consumers’ perceptions differ from those of Western European consumers (i.e., Germany and France) with regard to the assigned importance of different stakeholder responsibilities. On the other hand, their study also indicates that U.S. and European consumers equally consider customers’ fair and satisfactory treatment as a firm’s primary responsibility. Although the central importance of consumers’ personal interest identified by Maignan and Ferrell suggests that our results with regard to self-interest in a Dutch context might hold for consumers in the United States as well, it would be interesting to explore whether outcomes differ for consumers of countries that are typically considered less individualistic compared to the Netherlands (such as many Asian countries).

Caution should be exercised concerning the generalizability of our finding across sectors. As personal contact between employees and consumers is inherent to the theoretical framework established in this study, the authors framed the experimental scenarios in the context of customer service employees of a telecommunications service provider. Results may differ for more traditional consumer product firms with regard to switching or buying intentions, as choosing a new telephone or internet provider involves much more complex choices compared to switching, for instance, to a new soap brand. And while the conceptual model of this study will most likely be tied to service-intensive firms, the empirical findings might as well be relevant for more production-oriented firms as long as there are comparable clear customer contacts.

The theoretical framework of this study intended to exemplify how consumer self-interest may be created in the context of business–NGO partnerships. However, self-interest may be generated or hurt in different ways, such as a firm that uses inferior materials for production while dedicating resources to an NGO–business partnership. Moreover, there are several ways to implement partnerships as well as various possibilities to involve employees. Our study focuses primarily on volunteering by firms’ employees, as commitment of employee time and knowledge has been identified as an important aspect of business–NGO collaboration (Austin, 2000). A recent study showed that more than half of the surveyed firms “attempts to accommodate employee volunteering during regular working hours” or already actively supports it (Basil et al., 2009, p. 391). Since partnerships can be more multifaceted than the ones we presented in this study, future research could explore other partnership activities to increase generalizability. In this way, different sources of consumer self-interest may be identified to see whether they may influence consumer responses differently, also in relation to the level of company–cause fit. Furthermore, consideration of time scales could inform researchers which sources of self-interest may require a long-term rather than a short-term perspective, potentially emphasizing the need for long-term partnerships in contrast to more tactical CSR programs, which are usually short term.

While the data collection among real consumers—in contrast to student samples that are rather common in experimental studies—increases the generalizability of our findings, the use of fictitious scenarios represents a limitation of this study, as it jeopardizes the degree of external validity. In particular, our scenario descriptions insinuate that customers understand how effects of partnerships internal to the firm may translate into consumer self-interest. While this scenario might not be representative of consumers’ actual understanding of partnership processes, it builds on the assumption that consumers integrate various pieces of information about the firm to draw this conclusion. Despite some evidence that consumers indeed do perceive trade-offs between a firm’s CSR efforts and its corporate abilities, further empirical research is needed to investigate the employee–customer relationships conceptualized in our model (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). In particular, future research designs would benefit from including employee respondents as well in the empirical investigations, which was not done in the current research.

Despite these caveats, some practical implications can already be indicated. First, this study suggests that partnerships can benefit the firm and stakeholders in multiple ways. More specifically, managers should bear in mind that such initiatives may not only be beneficial for the social cause and the firm itself but also for individual employees and customers of the firm. The findings support Bhattacharya et al.’s (2009) notion that a broadened stakeholder perspective is needed to more fully assess the “return on investment” of partnerships. Concerted efforts by various departments, including personnel and marketing, seem needed to exploit the full potential of this promising form of CSR. By recognizing the role of employees as advocates of firms’ partnership initiatives (see Drumwright, 1996), this research highlights the importance of considering not only the desired corporate outcomes but also how such initiatives can benefit employees and consumers in the first place.

Second, this study showed that while priming consumers’ self-interest seems to have a direct impact on a firm’s bottom line (through buying or switching intentions), long-term strategic effects for the corporate image (via positive attitudes or trust) are less likely. In addition, firms that wish to improve their bottom line by communicating consumer-centered benefits to their target groups need to consider (the communication of) good company–cause fit as a necessary premise. More generally, it seems advisable to engage in partnerships with a high fit and avoid those with a low fit. While this implication clearly stresses the business case of CSR, it should be noted that the choice to collaborate with a high-fit cause to further strategic business interests may mean that pressing problems that simply do not fit well with the firm’s objectives are neglected. Academic research has raised criticism that many firms assign more weight to the business case than to the importance and urgency of community issues (e.g., Seitanidi, 2010).

The conceptual and empirical insights provided by our study suggest that stakeholder demands do not necessarily need to compete. To the contrary, partnerships may provide platforms that are actually capable of consolidating stakeholder needs that might have been conflicting otherwise. A better understanding of the potential interrelatedness of the effects of such partnerships on different stakeholder groups provides managers with tools to balance competing stakeholder needs effectively. However, further research is necessary to validate the findings of our exploratory study.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sabine Feirabend for her valuable contribution to the implementation of this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Marlene Vock is assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam Business School in the Netherlands. Her areas of research and teaching are in marketing, consumer behavior, and corporate social responsibility. Her research in the field of business–nonprofit social alliances has been presented at international marketing and management conferences and accepted for publication in Business & Society and Journal of Business Ethics. She has recently finished her PhD on business–nonprofit social alliances and online social networks at the University of Amsterdam Business School.

Willemijn van Dolen (PhD, Maastricht University) is full professor of marketing at the University of Amsterdam Business School in the Netherlands. Her areas of research and teaching are in marketing and consumer behavior. Her research in the field of CSR and online marketing has been published in such academic journals as Business & Society, Business Strategy and the Environment, Information & Management, International Journal of Manpower, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of Retailing, and Psychology & Marketing.

Ans Kolk is full professor at the University of Amsterdam Business School in the Netherlands. Her areas of research and teaching are in corporate social responsibility and sustainability, especially in relation to international business firms and their interaction with stakeholders. She has published numerous articles in international journals (e.g., California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, International Business Review, International Marketing Review, Journal of Business Research, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of World Business, Management International Review, and Organization). In 2009, she received the Aspen Institute Faculty Pioneer European Award (Lifetime Achievement Award).

References

Arora

Henderson

(2007). Embedded premium promotion: Why it works and how to make it more effective. Marketing Science, 26, 514-531.

Austin

J. E.

(2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 69-97.

Austin

(2003). Strategic alliances: Managing the collaboration portfolio. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2003SU_feature_austin.pdf

Bansal

H. S.

Irving

P. G.

Taylor

S. F.

(2004). A three-component model of customer commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 234-250.

Bansal

H. S.

Taylor

S. F.

James

St. (2005). “Migrating” to new service providers: Towards a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 96-115.

Basil

D. Z.

Herr

P. M.

(2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-related marketing: An empirical application of balance theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 391-403.

Basil

D. Z.

Runte

M. S.

Easwaramoorthy

Barr

(2009). Company support for employee volunteering: A national survey of companies in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 387-398.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

Cudmore

B. A.

Hill

R. P.

(2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53.

Bendapudi

Singh

S. N.

Bendapudi

(1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60, 33-49.

10.

Berger

I. E.

Cunningham

P. H.

Drumwright

M. E.

(2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58-90.

11.

Berger

I. E.

Cunningham

P. H.

Drumwright

M. E.

(2006). Identity, identification, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 128-137.

12.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Korschun

Sen

(2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 257-272.

13.

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.

14.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

Korschun

(2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 36-44.

15.

Bigné Alcañiz

Chumpitaz Cáceres

Currás Pérez

(2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 169-186.

16.

Bigné-Alcañiz

Currás-Pérez

Sánchez-García

(2009). Brand credibility in cause-related marketing: The moderating role of consumer values. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18, 437-447.

17.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

18.

Boninger

D. S.

Krosnick

J. A.

Berent

M. K.

(1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61-80.

19.

Bowles

(2008). Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “The Moral Sentiments”: Evidence from economic experiments. Science, 320, 1605-1609.

20.

Brønn

P. S.

Vrioni

A. B.

(2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222.

21.

Cornwell

T. B.

Weeks

C. S.

Roy

D. P.

(2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21-42.

22.

Drumwright

M. E.

(1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60, 71-87.

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.

Ellen

P. S.

Webb

D. J.

Mohr

L. A.

(2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147-157.

25.

Grayson

Hodges

(2004). Corporate social opportunity! 7 steps to make corporate social responsibility work for your business. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

26.

Harrison

J. S.

Freeman

R. E.

(1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 479-485.

27.

Heskett

J. L.

Jones

T. O.

Loveman

G. W.

Sasser

W. E.

Schlesinger

L. A.

(1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 118-129.

28.

Holmes

J. G.

Miller

D. T.

Lerner

M. J.

(2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 144-151.

29.

Homburg

Wieseke

Hoyer

W. D.

(2009). Social identity and the service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73, 38-54.

30.

Huxham

Vangen

(2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1159-1175.

31.

Insead (2004). Strategic Philanthropy NGO Corporate Partnerships (A): Choosing a Cause at Randstad. Retrieved from http://www.zib-wiso.uni-koeln.de/uploads/media/Imagine_A_Strategic_Philanthropy_-_Chosing_a_Partner_-_Prof._Hockerts.pdf

32.

Jagre

Watson

J. J.

Watson

J. G.

(2001). Sponsorship and congruity theory: A theoretical framework for explaining consumer attitude and recall of event sponsorship. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 439-445.

33.

Kolk

Van Dolen

Vock

(2010). Trickle effects of cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(Suppl. 1), 123-137.

34.

Lafferty

B. A.

(2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand partnership when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60, 447-453.

35.

Lafferty

B. A.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(2005). Cause-brand alliances: Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58, 423-429.

36.

Lafferty

B. A.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Hult

G. T. M.

(2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 509-531.

37.

Lam

S. Y.

Shankar

Erramilli

M. K.

Murthy

(2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 293-311.

38.

Lucea

(2010). How we see them versus how they see themselves. A cognitive perspective of firm-NGO relationships. Business & Society, 49(1), 116-139.

39.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

(2003). Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56, 55-67.

40.

McAlister

D. T.

Ferrell

(2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 689-705.

41.

Meglino

B. M.

Korsgaard

M. A.

(2004). Considering rational self-interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 946-959.

42.

Miller

D. T.

(1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060.

43.

Miller

D. T.

Ratner

R. K.

(1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 53-62.

44.

Morgan

R. M.

Hunt

S. D.

(1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.

45.

Motorola. (2008). 2008 Motorola Corporate Responsibility Summary Report: How does innovation promote responsibility? Retrieved from http://www.motorola.com.

46.

Pancer

S. M.

Baetz

M. C.

Rog

E. J.

(2002). Developing an effective corporate volunteer program: Lessons from the Ford Motor Company of Canada experience. Retrieved from http://volunteer.ca

47.

Rifon

N. J.

Choi

S. M.

Trimble

C. S.

(2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.

48.

Scandura

T. A.

Williams

E. A.

(2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248-1264.

49.

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2010). The politics of partnerships: A critical examination of nonprofit-business partnerships. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

50.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Crane

(2009). Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 413-429.

51.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Ryan

(2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 247-266.

52.

Selnes

(1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 305-322.

53.

Selsky

J. W.

Parker

(2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.

54.

Sen

Bhattacharya

C. B.

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

55.

Sheth

J. N.

Parvatiyar

(1995). Relationship marketing in consumer markets: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 255-271.

56.

Simmons

C. J.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

(2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70, 154-169.

57.

Simpson

Irwin

Lawrence

(2006). Does a “norm of self-interest” discourage prosocial behavior? Rationality and quid pro quo in charitable giving. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 296-306.

58.

Smith

(1994). The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 105-116.

59.

Timberland (2010). Retrieved from http://www.timberland.com/corp/index.jsp?page=csr_civic_partners.

60.

Vaaland

T. I.

Heide

Grønhaug

(2008). Corporate social responsibility: Investigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 927-953.

61.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2000). Beyond self-interest: A set of propositions relevant to interpersonal orientations. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 297-331

62.

Vlachos

P. A.

Tsamakos

Vrechopoulos

A. P.

Avramidis

P. K.

(2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170-180.

63.

Waddock

S. A.

(1988). Building successful partnerships. Sloan Management Review, 29, 17-23.

64.

Wiener

J. L.

LaForge

R. W.

Goolsby

J. R.

(1990). Personal communication in marketing: An examination of self-interest contingency relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 227-231.