Abstract
Quick-service restaurants (QSRs) face a particular challenge in creating customer relationships, given low levels of consumer brand loyalty and a standardized product that makes it difficult to developing a distinctive identity. One way that quick-service firms attempt to set themselves apart is through genuine, long-term corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts, in addition to the quality of their food, service, and overall restaurant environment. This article explores the extent to which customers’ perceptions of Chick-fil-A’s food, service, environment, and CSR affect the three dimensions of their relationship quality with that firm—namely, satisfaction, trust, and identification, based on convenience survey of 483 of the firm’s customers. With regard to the elements of a customer relationship, the analysis found that (1) awareness of CSR programs did not improve customer satisfaction but did boost identification and trust, (2) service quality supported trust and satisfaction but does not influence customers’ identification with the firm, and (3) food quality affects customer satisfaction but has no connection with trust or identification with the firm. Finally, customer satisfaction and trust were related to customer loyalty, but identification with the company was not connected with loyalty. These findings suggest that increasing customer satisfaction levels (or any short-term goal) should not be the primary objective of CSR programs in the QSR industry. Instead, it appears that CSR initiatives should involve a genuine long-term effort to build customers’ trust and identification.
Keywords
How the food tastes at a restaurant really doesn’t matter, if the people who work there are being mistreated.
By almost any measure, the U.S. quick-service restaurant (QSR) industry is prospering. The National Restaurant Association forecasted that the segment would have $188.1 billion in sales in 2013, an increase of 4.9 percent from 2012. McDonald’s alone accounted for $88.3 billion in sales in 2012. Forty-two percent of consumers visit a QSR at least once per month, and QSR generate 78 percent of the restaurant industry traffic (Garcia 2011).
Despite these impressive numbers, many QSRs struggle with consumers’ perceptions of their company and a lack of consumer loyalty. In the midst of the growth figures we just mentioned, some of the biggest and best-known brands are struggling to maintain their growth trajectory. Sales at established McDonald’s U.S. stores rose 0.7 percent in the third quarter of 2013, after gaining 1 percent in the previous quarter, and the firm projected that global comparable-store sales in 2013 would be little changed from 2012 (Patton 2013b). McDonald’s is not alone. Two of the top five QSR restaurants by sales volume had to downsize in 2011 and experienced a decrease in total store units. The top ten QSR brands by sales growth are not in the top ten for current sales volume (Oches 2012). Overall, customers have a low level of commitment to fast-food brands. Even repeated purchases appear to be more out of habit than loyalty. Almost half of fast-food customers “either choose a brand over and over again by auto-pilot or spread their fast food spending over several brands they like equally” (Robinson, Abbott, and Shoemaker 2005, 596). Furthermore, many QSR chains have become highly visible global retailers that increasingly attract the attention and scrutiny of governmental agencies and consumer lobby groups (Schroder and McEachern 2005).
The nature of the QSR concept makes it difficult for these firms to achieve the goal of customer loyalty or to build customer relationships, because the restaurants are designed to get customers in, out, and on their way in a matter of minutes. Moreover, the industry’s standardization minimizes the QSRs’ ability to capitalize on such traditional attributes as price, location, food quality, service quality, and the dining environment in building relationship quality between the customer and the company (Hyun 2010; Kim and Kim 2004). Product and service consistency is essential for the QSR concept (Noone and Coulter 2012), but an unintended consequence may be that customers are unable to differentiate one QSR from another. Consequently, QSR firms must find other channels to create a strong relationship between customers and the company.
One of those channels is corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, which demonstrate an organization’s compliance with societal values (Maignan, Ferrell, and Ferrell 2005) and can differentiate a firm from its competitors, thus shaping customer perceptions and buying behavior. In addition to humanitarian considerations, the business case for CSR depends on the ability of organizations to think strategically about how CSR efforts can be used to improve organizational relationships with key stakeholders, especially customers (Bhattacharya, Korschun, and Sen 2009).
Despite considerable interest in customer relationship management, the notion of relationship quality as a multi-dimensional construct has received limited attention in restaurant studies (Hyun 2010). In addition, we are not aware of any studies in the QSR industry that investigated CSR as a potential explanatory variable of relationship quality. This study contributes to closing these gaps in the literature as part of a larger examination of the foundations of customer loyalty, which include food quality, service quality, and environment quality. With regard to CSR in the QSR industry, we investigate the extent to which customer CSR perceptions affect three dimensions of relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction, trust, and identification), and how those three dimensions of relationship quality influence customer loyalty.
QSRs’ CSR
QSRs have become a target of consumers’ and governments’ scrutiny regarding their contributions to society and the costs they impose, notably, obesity, environmental degradation, and poor treatment of employees (Schlosser 2002). In response to these societal concerns, many QSR chains have introduced healthier menu options and committed to environmental protection and resource conservation and protection of workers’ health, safety, and rights. McDonald’s particularly has been singled out for its low worker pay levels (Patton 2013a), even though it is well known for operating Ronald McDonald Houses. In that situation and in others, it is not clear whether chains’ CSR initiatives improve the relationship between the companies and their customers.
Little academic research has examined the topic of CSR in the QSR industry. Harold Lane’s (1982) seminal article in this journal, “The Corporate Conscience and the Role of Business in Society,” was far ahead of what we now know as corporate CSR. Lane observed that the responsibilities for businesses in the hospitality industry extend beyond the legal and economic dimensions. While acknowledging the diversity of stakeholder expectations, Lane (1982, 18) argued that if businesses do not voluntarily develop initiatives that contribute to the greater good, government will impose “burdensome constraints on their freedom.”. In providing the readers with examples of social achievements of businesses, Lane (1982, 18) pointed to the achievement of a fast-food chain whose management conducted “a one-month voter-registration drive resulting in the largest number of persons (37,126) ever registered in one state by a private business in the U.S.”
Robinson, Abbott, and Shoemaker (2005) argued that creating social relationships and getting customers involved with the QSR brand are critical to improving customer satisfaction and increasing loyalty. Though the authors do not specifically refer to CSR initiatives, they provide two examples of fast-food companies that highlighted the social benefits of offering healthier menu options, Subway’s “Jared” campaign and Chick-fil-A’s “Eat Mor Chikin” campaign, as a means of increasing customer involvement and improving the relationship between the brand and the customer, albeit in a self-promoting fashion.
In a study focusing on McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken, Schroder and McEachern (2005) found young consumers in the United Kingdom were skeptical and lacked trust regarding promoted CSR activities although they held high expectations for the companies to be socially responsible. Most respondents favored involvement of global fast-food companies in CSR initiatives.
Finally, Park and Lee (2009) examined the effect of publicly traded U.S. restaurant companies’ social responsibility activities (e.g., McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Jack in the Box, and Burger King) on two financial performance measures: accounting performance (return on equity) and value performance (total shareholder return). Findings suggested that the short-term cost of CSR activities is greater initially than the financial benefits. They conclude: “However, over time the investment seems to pay off, perhaps because it takes time for customers, employees, governments, and the public to recognize and appreciate the company’s CSR activities” (Park and Lee 2009, 177).
CSR and Consumer–Company Relationship Quality
Developing strong relationships with customers has long been seen as a key to positive seller outcomes. In a recent meta-analytic study synthesizing empirical relationship marketing studies, researchers concluded firm performance is most influenced by relationship quality and least by commitment (Palmatier et al. 2006). Palmatier and colleagues (2006, 139) defined relationship quality as “the overall assessment of the strength of a relationship, conceptualized as a composite or multi-dimensional construct capturing the different but related facets of a relationship.” A number of researchers argued that satisfaction and trust are two important relationship dimensions (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Naude and Buttle 2000; Palmatier et al. 2006; Roberts, Varki, and Brodie 2003). Identification has been shown to be an important factor in stronger consumer–company relationships than those based solely on customer satisfaction or trust and is often considered the third dimension of consumer–company relationship quality (Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright 2006).
Mutually beneficial CSR initiatives are posited to provide functional, psychosocial, and value benefits to stakeholders which, in turn, leads to a strengthening of stakeholder–company relationship quality (Bhattacharya, Korschun, and Sen 2009). E. Anderson and Weitz (1989, 312) defined trust as “one party’s belief that its needs will be fulfilled in the future by actions undertaken by the other party.” Morgan and Hunt (1994) argued that trust is the cornerstone of successful relationship development, and without trust, the relationship founders. Many CSR initiatives address issues of wide social interest and are presented as fulfilling an obligation to society, which should evoke customer trust in the business. Furthermore, CSR initiatives stimulate value-based trust or trust founded on personal values, especially with consumers sensitive to ethical, social, and environmental issues (Pivato, Misani, and Tencati 2008).
E. W. Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994, 54) defined customer satisfaction as “an overall evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience with a good or service over time,” a definition echoed by Storbacka, Strandvik, and Grönwoos (1994). Researchers argue satisfaction with past performance is a prerequisite of forming a quality relationship because a relationship cannot continue in the face of customer dissatisfaction (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990; Naude and Buttle 2000). CSR initiatives that promote economic fairness or ethical behavior, such as paying employees a “fair wage,” providing scholarships to employees, or contributing to charitable causes, communicate a holistic corporate approach to the customer that extends beyond discrete economic transactions. In a study conducted by Luo and Bhattacharya (2006), the link between CSR behavior and customer satisfaction was confirmed. Moreover, their investigation of the relationship between CSR and financial performance in Fortune 500 companies found that satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between CSR and firm market value. McDonald and Rundle-Thiele (2008) suggested that in a sample of retail banking customers, CSR initiatives that have broader social impact may have a positive influence on customer satisfaction outcomes, albeit less than initiatives that provide direct functional customer benefits.
Some of the most enduring relationships between consumers and companies are based on consumers’ identification with the companies (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994, 242) defined identification as “a cognitive link between the definitions of the organization and the self.” Identification has been shown to be a more important factor in stronger consumer–company relationships than those based only on customer satisfaction or trust (Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright 2006; Bhattacharya, Korschun, and Sen 2009). Identity theory and a growing body of research suggest that CSR initiatives provide a combination of psychosocial and value benefits that allow consumers to identify with the company. A company’s CSR efforts signal that it understands the consumers’ needs and acts as they would, thus contributing significantly to the customer identification process (Bhattacharya, Sen, and Korschun 2008; Maignan, Ferrell, and Ferrell 2005; Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun 2006).
Foundations of Customer Relationships
Although our focus here rests primarily on CSR activities, we also test three other attributes that have been proposed as determining restaurant customers’ loyalty and purchase behavior: food quality, service quality, and environment quality (Hyun 2010). Thus, we test the effects of these three attributes in promoting the three dimensions of customer–company relationship quality (satisfaction, trust, and identification), as well as customers’ perceptions of company CSR initiatives (as proposed by Bhattacharya, Korschun, and Sen 2009).
Food Quality and Relationship Quality
Many studies have confirmed the positive relationship between food quality and customer satisfaction in QSRs (A. K. Y. Law, Hui, and Zhao 2004; Qin and Prybutok 2009). We therefore hypothesize the following:
In contrast, studies examining the relationship between food quality and customer trust have provided mixed results. While results from one study suggest that food quality influences consumer trust in luxury restaurants (Kim, Lee, and Yoo 2006), other research did not find any relationship between food quality and consumer trust in the chain restaurant industry. Trust is usually related to a combination of brand and product attributes, such as quality and reliability (Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman 1993; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Food quality in the QSR industry is often viewed as the ability to deliver a consistent, reliable quality product. Standardization efforts reflect a commitment on the part of the QSRs to deliver a more consistent and reliable product and may strengthen customers’ beliefs that the QSR is doing all it can to guarantee a consistent high-quality product, influencing consumers trust that their expectations will be met in the future. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Service Quality and Relationship Quality
Service quality is also seen as a predictor of customer satisfaction, as demonstrated, for instance, in the findings of a cross-cultural sample of customers of a popular fast-food restaurant chain operating in Ecuador and the United States (Brady, Cronin, and Brand 2002; Brady and Robertson 2001; Brady, Robertson, and Cronin 2001). In addition, based on data collected from customers of five globally franchised fast-food chains in four English-speaking countries, results showed customer satisfaction was predominantly related to “the customers’ interaction with the employees and the service quality” (Gilbert et al. 2004). We therefore hypothesize the following:
The manner in which an employee delivers service outcomes can provide insight into the character of the organization and, in the absence of other information, help set initial levels of trust. The courteous, caring, and responsive employee behaviors that are characteristic of service quality will inspire confidence in customers. In a study conducted in the chain restaurant industry, service quality was found to be a significant determinant of trust (Hyun 2010), and we argue that the same is true for trust in QSR patrons. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Service quality in QSRs is largely determined by the behavior of frontline employees. As representatives of the company, QSRs’ frontline service employees reveal or imply a great deal about the quality and the company’s character. Personality, dress, responsiveness, empathy, knowledge, assurance, and reliability are all indicators of an organization’s character and identity. Customers who have favorable perceptions of the employee with whom they interact will be more likely to identify with the organizations, and likewise, customers who perceive service quality more favorably are more likely to identify with the company. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Environment Quality and Relationship Quality
The effect of the physical restaurant environment on customer satisfaction is far from settled. A convenience sample of restaurant-goers in a Pennsylvania city indicated that the physical design and appearance did not have any influence on their satisfaction with restaurants (Andaleeb and Conway 2006) nor did the environment quality of luxury restaurants in Korea appear to have a significant influence on customer satisfaction and trust (Kim, Lee, and Yoo 2006). In other studies, though, the physical environment of full service and chain restaurants not only influenced expectations of patrons (Wall and Berry 2007) but also influenced customer satisfaction levels (Han and Ryu 2009; Hyun 2010; Namkung and Jang 2008). We argue that cleanliness, comfort, and other dimensions of the service environment influences customer satisfaction with QSRs, and we therefore hypothesize the following:
Customer CSR Associations (CSRA) and Relationship Quality
Given the importance of CSR efforts, as we discussed above, a key aspect of our survey was to test the effects of respondents’ perceptions of a company’s CSR. Stakeholder theory suggests that firms should not only make an effort to appeal to the consumer as an economic entity but also as a member of a family, community, and society at large (Maignan, Ferrell, and Ferrell 2005). CSR initiatives that promote economic fairness and ethical behavior, such as paying employees a “fair wage,” providing scholarships to employees, or contributing to charitable causes, communicate a more holistic approach to business that extends beyond discrete economic transactions.
The link between CSR behavior and customer satisfaction that we noted above was not confirmed in a study of publicly traded hotels and restaurants in the United States, where customer satisfaction was not found to mediate the relationship between CSR and firm value (Lee and Heo 2009). Setting value aside, however, the researchers did find that CSR activities did appear to affect customer satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesize that there is a positive relationship between the degree to which customers associate corporate efforts to promote economic fairness or ethical behavior as evidence that a company is making an effort to fulfill broader societal obligations, and the likelihood that these customers will express satisfaction with their ongoing relationship with the company. We formally hypothesize the following:
As we said above, trust is a fundamental asset in every relationship, particularly for business relationships when the one who trusts is in a vulnerable position. Trust has been generally defined as an expectation that the trustee is willing to keep promises and to fulfill obligations. Many CSR initiatives address issues of wide social interest and are perceived as fulfilling an obligation to society. Customers’ perceptions that a firm is keeping its societal obligations will in turn evoke customer trust in the business. Furthermore, CSR initiatives may be particularly effective in evoking value-based trust or trust founded on personal values, especially with consumers sensitive to ethical, social, and environmental issues (Pivato, Misani, and Tencati 2008).
Results from two empirical studies relating to the sale of organic and fair-trade items have demonstrated that a retailer’s CSR policies can influence consumers’ trust in the exchange partner, such that the consumers who perceived the retailer to be more socially responsible demonstrated more trust toward that retailer (Castaldo et al. 2009; Pivato, Misani, and Tencati 2008). Recent research in the restaurant industry also revealed that consumers’ knowledge of sustainable restaurant practices and environmental concerns were important determinants of consumers’ intentions to patronize green restaurants (Hu, Parsa, and Self 2010). We assert, therefore, that when consumers believe a company is engaged in CSR efforts, this behavior will evoke a perception of “confidence in the exchange partner’s reliability and integrity” (Morgan and Hunt 1994, 23). In short, the customer will be more likely to trust the company, as we propose in this hypothesis:
Not only do consumers patronize certain businesses because they identify with them but also company–customer identification is often a more important factor in the purchasing decision than a product’s physical attributes or functional characteristics (Belk 1988). Identity theory and a growing body of literature suggest that CSR initiatives may contribute significantly to the customer identification process (Bhattacharya, Sen, and Korschun 2008; Maignan, Ferrell, and Ferrell 2005; Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun 2006). We suggest that corporate efforts to promote economic fairness and ethical behavior are often perceived as important indicators of the “real” character of a business. Corporate CSR efforts invite customers to evaluate the firm and assess whether an overlap exists between the corporation’s identity and their own identity. While consumer–company identification was not a construct examined in the study conducted by Hu, Parsa, and Self (2010) that we just mentioned, their results did show that a combination of demographic variables, such as age, education, and income, significantly influenced consumers’ intentions to patronize a green restaurant. One may argue, using identity theory, that customers who are older, well educated, and wealthier highly value sustainability, thus increasing their identification with a green restaurant. Likewise, we argue that customers will increasingly identify with QSRs as the restaurants pursue initiatives that go beyond their economic and legal responsibilities and contribute to the well-being of members in society. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Relationship Quality and Customer Loyalty
Underpinning the marketing concept is the identification and satisfaction of customer needs, leading to improved customer retention (among other outcomes; Day 1994). While customer retention is important, researchers argue that if measured by repeat-purchase intentions alone, retention may be an indicator of inertia rather than loyalty (Bloemer and Kasper 1995). A more desirable measure of true loyalty includes commitment to the brand or store, which is often manifested in recommending the brand or store to others and other supportive actions (Bloemer and De Ruyter 1998). Sirohi, McLaughlin, and Wittink (1998) operationalized store loyalty intentions of current customers to include a willingness to make repeat purchases, a willingness to purchase more in the future, and a willingness to recommend the store to others.
It is widely accepted that the three dimensions of the quality of the relationship between customers and the company—that is, satisfaction, trust, and identification—influence customers’ behavior (Bhattacharya, Korschun, and Sen 2009; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Several studies in the restaurant industry have demonstrated that customer satisfaction and trust positively influence loyalty toward a business (Gracia, Bakker, and Grau 2011; Han and Ryu 2009; Hyun 2010; Kim, Lee, and Yoo 2006). While consumer–company identification has not received attention in the restaurant industry, the study on green restaurants by Hu, Parsa, and Self (2010) suggests that an overlap between the restaurants’ values and consumers’ values influences consumers’ intentions to patronize a restaurant and their willingness to pay a higher price. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Study Methodology
In designing our study, we heeded the advice of Godfrey and Hatch (2007, 93), which calls for future research to “stop thinking about a theoretical firm’s global CSR . . . and start modeling actual firms’ tangible CSRs,” as well as the advice of Maignan, Ferrell, and Ferrell (2005) to examine CSR at the level of the individual business unit. Consequently, we tested our hypotheses with regard to Chick-fil-A, which is arguably a well-known QSR company. At the time of our study, Chick-fil-A had 1,615 locations, nearly three-quarters of them in the southern United States, and $4.1 billion in sales in 2011, making it the second largest chicken concept and twelfth largest QSR chain in the United States (QSR, 2011). The chain had the highest average sales per store in 2010 for the QSR sector, with sales of $2.7 million per unit (surpassing the McDonald’s average of $2.4 million per unit). Each restaurant seats around 155 customers. In 2010, Chick-fil-A sold 282 million chicken sandwiches, translating roughly into 537 sandwiches a minute or nine per second. It has locations in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia. Genuinely committed to CSR, the company prominently features displays of its philanthropic and social endeavors in all locations, with posters that discuss the company’s non-profit foundation, its community service programs, and its scholarship and leadership programs, as well as career paths for employees. The company has been extensively reported on in both the business press and the mainstream media.
Sample
To empirically test the hypotheses in this study (see Exhibit 1), we administered a survey to a convenience sample of nearly 500 consumers, selected as follows. Graduate students in research classes at two universities in two of the southern U.S. states were asked to help distribute and trained to administer paper surveys to a sample of consumers who were familiar with Chick-fil-A, had visited one its restaurants within the last month, and were aware of its charitable activities or employee initiatives (based on screening questions). No incentives were provided either to the student recruiters or the respondents. To ensure anonymity, a separate consent sheet recorded the respondents’ phone numbers, which allowed the researchers to randomly call 50 respondents to guarantee the integrity of the responses. Each respondent who was called confirmed their participation, and we identified no fraudulent responses. We eliminated surveys from 5 respondents who stated they were not familiar with Chick-fil-A and 13 respondents who stated they had not eaten there within the past month. Of the final 483 respondents, fifty-eight indicated they visited Chick-fil-A more than two times a month, 156 indicated they visited the restaurants twice a month, and 269 indicated that they had visited at least once within the last month. Exhibit 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the respondents. A call to the company’s corporate headquarters confirmed that the demographic makeup of the sample was similar to that of the customer base.
Structural Model.
Sample Composition.
Measures
Food quality was measured with a five-item scale and service quality with a four-item scale (Hyun 2010; Namkung and Jang 2008). Environment quality was measured with three items adapted by J. J. Kivela (1977) and R. Law, To, and Goh (2008). CSRA were measured using a three-item scale introduced by Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun (2006), which has been shown to have good content validity and reliability (Marin, Ruiz, and Rubio 2009; Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun 2006).
To measure satisfaction and trust in the proposed model, we employed validated scales recently adapted to the restaurant industry by Hyun (2010). Satisfaction was measured through three statements, and trust was measured through five statements, both using 5-point Likert-type scales. Identification was captured using Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) five-item consumer–company identification scale.
A three-item scale developed by Sirohi, McLaughlin, and Wittink (1998) measured the intent to remain loyal to the restaurant, by recording a consumer’s willingness to purchase more of the product(s) or service(s) in the future and a consumer’s willingness to recommend the restaurant to others.
Measure Assessment
Although, the scales used in this study have been shown to be both reliable and valid, we conducted our own assessment of both the reliability and validity of the measures. Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alphas (along the diagonal), descriptive statistics, and intercorrelation for the variables used in the study are summarized in Exhibit 3. The measures appear to be reliable, as indicated by their high coefficient alphas (Nunnally 1978), and the reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity of the measures, assessed using confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 4.01, indicated an acceptable level of fit for the measurement model (χ2 = 354.89, GFI [goodness of fit index]= 0.92, NFI [normed fit index]= 0.94, RFI [relative fit index] = 0.94, IFI [incremental fit index] = 0.96, CFI [comparative fit index]= 0.96, and RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation] = 0.04). All the individual scales exceeded the recommended minimum standards proposed by Bagozzi and Yi (1988) in terms of construct reliability (composite reliabilities greater than 0.60) and percentage of variance extracted by the latent construct (average variance extracted [AVEs] greater than 0.50). In addition, the confidence interval around the correlation estimates between each pair of constructs does not include 1, which indicates a satisfactory level of discriminant validity.
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelation Matrix of Variables in the Study.
Note. CSRA = corporate social responsibility associations; C–C Ident. = customer–company identification.
Coefficient alpha.
Testing Hypotheses
We performed structural equation modeling with AMOS 4.01 to test the hypotheses. The fit statistics (GFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.90, RFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, and RMSEA = 0.06) suggest that the model provides an acceptable fit for the data. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 4 show the path estimates and the p values for each hypothesis.
Model Test Results.
Note. CSRA = corporate social responsibility associations; C–C Ident. = customer–company identification.
All hypotheses relating to customer satisfaction were supported, except the one that proposed a relationship between customers’ awareness of a company’s CSR efforts and customer satisfaction. H1a, which proposed a positive relationship between food quality and satisfaction, was supported by a positive path estimate of .435 (p < .000). H2a, which proposed a positive relationship between service quality and satisfaction, was supported by a positive estimate of .234 (p < .000). H3, which suggested that environment quality directly influences satisfaction, was supported by a positive estimate of .294 (p < .000). The hypothesis that was not supported was H4a, which suggested a positive relationship between CSRA and satisfaction.
Two of the three hypotheses that proposed relationships between the QSR’s attributes and consumers’ trust were supported. H2b, proposing a positive relationship between service quality and trust, was supported by a positive path estimate of .0.668 (p < .000). H4b, suggesting CSRA directly influences trust, was supported by a positive path estimate of 0.177 (p < .000). H1b, which proposed a positive relationship between food quality and trust, was not supported.
With regard to relationships between QSR company attributes and customers’ identification with the company, H2c, which hypothesized a positive relationship between service quality and customer–company identification, was not supported. However, H4c, proposing a positive relationship between CSRA and customer–company identification, was supported by a positive path estimate of .235 (p < .004).
Finally, two of the three hypotheses proposing relationships between the dimensions of relationship quality and customer loyalty were supported. H5a and H5b were supported with a positive path estimate of .541 (p < .000) and .335 (p < .000) confirming that satisfaction and trust are positively related to customer loyalty. H5c, hypothesizing a positive relationship between customer–company identification and loyalty, was not supported.
Conclusions and Implications
The research had two chief objectives. Although we examined the effects of food, service, and environment quality on customer relationships, our first objective was to determine whether customers’ perceptions of CSR initiatives influence the three dimensions of relationship quality that we tested, satisfaction, trust, and consumer–company identification, in the QSR industry. The second objective was to examine the relationship between the three dimensions of relationship quality and customer loyalty for QSRs. Our findings confirmed previous research findings that food quality, service quality, and environment quality directly influence customer satisfaction, but CSRA do not appear to influence customer satisfaction. This finding is in keeping with research findings which have suggested that CSR initiatives that have a broader social impact are less successful in achieving customer satisfaction outcomes than initiatives that provide direct customer benefits (McDonald and Rundle-Thiele 2008).
CSRA and customer service did appear to influence customer trust but that was not true of food quality that had no effect on customer trust in our data. The ineffectiveness of food quality in building trust in QSRs may simply reflect the industry’s success at standardization. In contrast, guests may feel they gain more insight into the character of the business based on the manner in which employees deliver service outcomes and the implementation of CSR initiatives. Superior customer service and a confirmation to customers that the firm is meeting its societal obligations were shown to influence customers’ trust in this restaurant firm.
CSRA was the only variable that we tested that influenced customer–company identification. As we mentioned above, identity theory suggests that to the extent that customers view QSRs to be socially responsible, those same customers will consider that their values overlap with those of the company. The relatively low mean of consumer–company identification in our study, however, does suggest it is difficult to get customers to identify with a quick-service brand. This should not be surprising, as the customer decision to purchase fast food is often a function of location and convenience rather than customer involvement with the product (Robinson, Abbott, and Shoemaker 2005).
Finally, our findings suggest that customer satisfaction and customer trust influence customer loyalty for QSRs, but customers’ identification with the company did not appear to influence customer loyalty.
In conclusion, nothing in our findings should discourage QSRs from engaging in CSR, but our data suggest that QSRs should not include increasing customer satisfaction levels as a primary objective of implementing CSR programs. Instead, based on other studies, we believe that customer-centric initiatives that increase food quality, service quality, and environment quality are more likely to achieve these objectives. Our analysis does suggest a positive relationship between CSRA and the two “stronger” types of customer–firm relationship quality: trust and identification. Higher levels of CSRA, for example, can enhance customer trust in the firm. Increased trust in the long term may manifest itself in company-directed behavioral expressions of confidence in the firm’s reliability and integrity, such as purchase intentions or loyalty.
Based on these findings, we suggest that QSR companies’ engagement in CSR activities should be purely altruistic or be a part of their long-term strategic mission. Social responsibility must be built into the company’s core concept, so that consistent and sincere “doing good” by QSRs should, as Park and Lee (2009, 177) suggested, “be instilled in all stakeholders’ minds and behavior as a long term goal rather than a short-term tool.” Therefore, QSR managers need to make sure that the communication strategy about CSR activities to consumers, and other stakeholders reflect the QSR’s long-term strategic commitment to CSR activities. Permanent and visible yet subtle in-store displays of the QSR’s support of causes or issues not only can make consumers aware of these efforts but also over the long term may engender consumers’ trust in and identification with the QSR. Rewarding and encouraging employees to support CSR initiatives may result in a true employee “buy in” and manifest itself in improved service quality and performance.
CSR efforts must not be perceived as promotional or as a reaction to some legislative or public pressure. Our study indicates that efforts by QSRs to use CSR as a short-term differentiation tool to outperform competitors will not be effective. Instead, a continuous effort to be “good citizens” via strategic CSR initiatives enhances long-term relationship quality that may promote long-term success. In summary, strategic CSR activity should improve a firm’s image while also increasing both employee motivation and the firm’s relationship with its customers and other key constituencies. Ultimately, stakeholder trust that the QSR can contribute to the society’s well-being may well be needed for sustainable success.
Limitations and Future Research
One limitation of this study is that we used a convenience sample, although an analysis of the respondents’ ZIP codes showed that the sample covered a radius of 350 miles in a two-state area. In addition, as we mentioned, we sought to ensure a quality sample by verifying participation of 10 percent of our respondents. We would like to see this study replicated using a national consumer sample representative of the entire consumer population in the United States, rather than a sample limited to the southern United States. In addition, we hope future studies can improve the other limitation of the study, which is that it focused on just one firm. While we heeded the advice of respected researchers by examining a single firm’s tangible, real CSR initiatives, the results of this study should be limited to Chick-fil-A. To gain a greater representation of the entire QSR industry, we suggest our study be replicated to include other QSR firms.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.