Search

Research Questions As consumer expectations for brands to "do good" increase, companies are engaging in more corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Brand Activism (BA). However, these efforts sometimes backfire as consumers question companies' motives. The current research hypothesized that the extent to which a company's efforts are perceived as being extrinsically motivated (i.e., "virtue signaling") or intrinsically motivated (i.e., genuinely prosocial) was a function of (1) how committed they seem to the cause, and (2) the transparency with which they share information regarding these efforts. It was proposed that trust in the company was the mediating process underlying the proposed effects, where a "committed" company should foster more trust regardless of transparency; a less committed company should elicit less trust unless engaging in more transparent communication of its efforts. The specific research questions were as follows. First, when a company is communicating about their social responsibility position, what drives trust or skepticism Second, does level of commitment impact perceived company motivation Next, can transparency be compensatory for commitment if perceived commitment is low Fourth, does trust mediate the relationship between commitment and perceived motivation. Finally, do these outcomes differ when communicated in a traditional CSR versus a Brand Activist manner. Method and Data To test the hypotheses, three experiments executed via online surveys investigated the impact of commitment and transparency in the context of CSR and Brand Activism on consumer trust and assumed company motivation. In Experiment 1 (n=248), a content analysis revealed that participants trusted companies that put forward tangible actions and were skeptical of firms that only seemed to be making claims that were void of proof. The results of Experiment 2 (CSR, n = 252) found that perceived commitment had a slight positive direct effect on trust (ß=.14, LLCI: 0.012, ULCI: 0.268, 90%). For this experiment in addition to and Experiment 3 (discussed below), when transparency was tested as a moderator, its impact was found to be insignificant. The results of Experiment 3 (Brand Activism, n = 245) replicated those of the previous experiment but with much stronger effects. When trust was included as a mediator, the relationship between commitment and motivation was shown to be significantly mediated by trust for intrinsic (LLCI: 0.113, ULCI: 0.424, 95%) and extrinsic motivation (LLCI: -0.132, ULCI: -0.027, 95%). Interestingly, relative to control, low perceived commitment led to significantly lower trust and extrinsic motivation while high commitment maintained trust and perceived motivation. Summary of Findings The results of the three experiments suggest that companies engaging in CSR and Brand Activism efforts do so with some risk: perceptions of low commitment to a cause can impair trust toward the company and, in turn, lead consumers to view these efforts as self-serving. Furthermore, the results suggest that high perceived commitment does not enhance trust and motivation but, instead, maintains the default expectations consumers have of firms engaging in CSR and Brand Activism efforts, as evidenced by the comparison to control conditions. Together, results suggest that firms have little to gain and much to lose if they mismanage their CSR and Brand Activism commitment. Transparency, thought to be a moderator of the relationship between commitment and trust and motivation, was not. The current research suggests a new business-consumer environment with CSR and Brand Activism operating differently and CSR generating fewer inferences. One reasonable rationale could be that greater CSR visibility resulting from the communication of efforts has lesser influence than Brand Activism, which is new and action oriented. Statement of Key Contributions The current work extends the relevant literature by exploring traditional CSR communication and Brand Activist communication, and specifically, the extent to which perceived commitment influences perceptions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is a function of trust and transparency. To date, much Brand Activism research has been qualitative and theoretical. However, the growing number of companies and brands taking an active stance calls for a better academic understanding. By comparing CSR and Brand activism quantitatively, this research illuminated whether effects move in a similar manner. Given the differences found between the otherwise identical Experiments 2 and 3, future researchers should consider treating CSR and Brand Activism differently, as the latter's potentially more controversial approach may heighten the effects elicited by relatively tamer CSR. From a practical standpoint, the data in this research suggests that firms could suffer when engaging in Brand Activism if they come across as uncommitted, a deficit that transparency alone may not be able to prevent prevent. The implication for managers and decision makers is that especially when taking on a prosocial stance, they should be prepared to show proof and action lest they risk trustworthiness, and subsequently perceived intent and future engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the 2019 American Marketing Association (AMA) Summer Academic Conference titled "Marketing on Fire: Burning Questions, Hot New Methods and Practical Ideas Worth Spreading" to be held at the Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile, Illinois on August 9–11, 2019.