European Journal of MarketingEmerald Article: Corporate social responsibility: a corporate marketing perspectiveDiogo Hildebrand, Sankar Sen, C.B. Bhattacharya

Article information:

To cite this document: Diogo Hildebrand, Sankar Sen, C.B. Bhattacharya, (2011),"Corporate social responsibility: a corporate marketing perspective", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Iss: 9 pp. 1353 - 1364

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111151790

Downloaded on: 12-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 63 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Shaun M. Powell, (2011),"The nexus between ethical corporate marketing, ethical corporate identity and corporate social responsibility: An internal organisational perspective", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Iss: 9 pp. 1365 - 1379http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111151808

Sana-ur-Rehman Sheikh, Rian Beise-Zee, (2011),"Corporate social responsibility or cause-related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 Iss: 1 pp. 27 - 39http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101921

John M.T. Balmer, (2011),"Corporate marketing myopia and the inexorable rise of a corporate marketing logic: Perspectives from identity-based views of the firm", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Iss: 9 pp. 1329 - 1352http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111151781

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

COMMENTARY

Corporate social responsibility:a corporate marketing

perspectiveDiogo Hildebrand and Sankar Sen

Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York,New York, New York, USA, and

C.B. BhattacharyaEuropean School of Management and Technology, Berlin, Germany

Abstract

Purpose – The main goal of this paper is to provide an integrative understanding of corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) from a corporate marketing perspective, highlighting the critical role of CSR ineffective corporate marketing strategies.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper is conceptual and draws on the social identification,organisational identity and corporate marketing literatures from the European and US schools ofthought.

Findings – The paper integrates and builds on extant thinking in corporate marketing and CSR toprovide an identity-based conceptualization of CSR. Based on this, it positions CSR as an optimalmanagerial tool for promoting alignment between multiple corporate identities (e.g. internal, external),which ultimately leads to key benefits for the company.

Originality/value – The paper is the first to highlight the unique role of CSR in being able to alignmultiple corporate identities. Furthermore, the paper threads together diverse perspectives oncorporate identity and marketing to highlight the potential role of CSR in effective corporatemarketing.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Corporate marketing, Corporate identity, Europe,Consumer-company identification, Identity alignment, Marketing strategy, United States of America

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn recent years, few notions have so totally captured the global corporateconsciousness as the twin ideas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) andsustainability. While both ideas have followed somewhat parallel evolutionary paths,they have converged to convey a unified sense that a company’s long term success, andsometimes even existence (Vaaland et al., 2008), is inextricably tied to its stewardshipof not just its own well-being but also that of the natural and social environment inwhich it operates. This has led more and more forward-thinking companies to take astrategic approach to CSR, devoting unprecedented efforts and resources to creating

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Sankar Sen is very grateful to the Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration ofChulalongkorn University, where he was a visiting scholar during the time this paper wascompleted.

Corporate socialresponsibility

1353

European Journal of MarketingVol. 45 No. 9/10, 2011

pp. 1353-1364q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561111151790

and maximizing what Porter and Kramer (2011) in their Harvard Business Reviewarticle have called “shared value” (i.e. value for the company and for society). Somenotable efforts aside (e.g. Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Balmer et al., 2007; Fukukawaet al., 2007; Simmons, 2009; Maignan and Ferrell, 2004), conceptual questions persistabout the relationships between a company, its stakeholders and its CSR, and, inparticular, how these three entities come together to create that often elusive sharedvalue (Balmer et al., 2007). In this commentary, we take a corporate marketingperspective on CSR to disentangle these aforementioned links, presenting a model ofstakeholder reactions to CSR that furthers our extant thinking on the role and place ofCSR in the modern corporation.

At the heart of the strategic approach to CSR is the central and ascendant role of thestakeholder (Fukukawa et al., 2007; Galbreath, 2008; Vaaland et al., 2008; Polonsky andJevons, 2009). Specifically, companies are increasingly interpreting CSR in terms of theinterests of a specific but large and diverse set of stakeholder groups (e.g. consumers,employees, investors, communities, government, environment, etc.) and their effortsare shaped by the strong belief that its endeavours in the CSR domain can elicitcompany-favouring responses from these stakeholder groups (Sen and Bhattacharya,2001; Balmer et al., 2007). For instance, a McKinsey survey (2007) of the companies thathave signed on to the UN Global compact reveals that of the many differentstakeholder groups, the participant CEO’s expect a firm’s customers, employees andgovernments to have the greatest influence on the way in which companies managesocietal expectations during the next five years. Yet, the pulse of the marketplace (see,e.g. Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship, 2009) reveals that manycompanies are still struggling to understand and buy into the demand to be sociallyresponsible, let alone reconciling it with the realities of today’s global,hyper-competitive marketplace.

How then to do well and do good simultaneously? In this commentary, we view thisas essentially a corporate marketing question. As made amply clear in the recentspecial issue of the European Journal of Marketing (for a comprehensive review seeBalmer, 2009) understanding and responding to stakeholders is at the heart ofcorporate marketing. Specifically, in this commentary we try, in line with the theme ofthis Special Edition, to integrate the European and American perspectives on corporatemarketing to provide an identity-based conceptualization of CSR, relating it to themulti-pronged identities of a company. In doing so, we highlight CSR’s unique abilityto unify the disparate identities of a company (Balmer et al., 2009), positioning it as apivotal instrument of corporate marketing. In particular, we suggest that by taking theCSR perspective delineated in this commentary, managers will be able to build a morecongruent, coherent corporate identity and, consequently, more enduring andsignificant relationships with its stakeholders.

Corporate marketingAt the forefront of current thinking on corporate marketing (CM) is the work of Balmer,who views it as a natural outcome of the evolving marketing orientation of the firmfrom production and manufacturing to relationship marketing (Wilkinson and Balmer,1996; Balmer, 1998, 2009; Balmer and Greyser, 2002, 2006; He and Balmer, 2007, Powellet al., 2007a, b; Balmer et al., 2009). In formulating what he coined the CorporateMarketing Mix, Balmer (1998, 2001) proffered CM as a strategic perspective guiding a

EJM45,9/10

1354

company’s thoughts and actions that centres on the fundamental question: “Can we asan institution have meaningful, positive and profitable bilateral on-going [long-term]relationships with customers, and other stakeholder groups and communities?”.Balmer argues that the end-focus of corporate marketing is value creation (Balmer,1998, 2001, 2009; Balmer and Greyser, 2006). In other words, it is not just profitmaximization but also, more broadly and perhaps critically, business survival and thesatisfaction of societal needs. An inherent part of this focus is the need to balancecurrent stakeholder and societal needs with those of the future. Given thisconceptualization of corporate marketing, it is easy to see how it dovetails very nicelywith the motivations and objectives of CSR, providing an almost ideal conceptual lensthrough which to view and understand its location in the firm-stakeholder landscape.

In deconstructing the notion of corporate marketing, Balmer articulates the six C’s,which comprise the elements of its guiding philosophy. These are articulated from thecompany’s perspective, as Character (“What we indubitably are”), Culture (“What wefeel we are”), Conceptualizations (“What we are seen as”), Covenant (“What is promisedand expected”), Constituencies (“Whom we seek to serve”), and Communication (“Whatwe say we are”) (Balmer and Greyser, 2006). While the disciplinary foundations ofthese elements are often distinct, we can see that they all have to do with theinteractions between the company’s views of itself and its stakeholders. In that, theseC’s pertain to the various identities of the company, including those inferred by thevarious internal and external stakeholders. In other words, central to a corporatemarketing perspective are the two notions of identity and stakeholder, somethingwhich has been fleshed out in illuminating but sometimes conflicting ways by a varietyof scholars (e.g. Balmer, 1998, 2008, 2009; Brown et al., 2006) in both Europe and NorthAmerica.

Thus, a corporate marketing perspective on CSR raises two fundamental questions:

(1) How can we better understand CSR in terms of the various identities of thecompany? And, perhaps more importantly, in light of this understanding:

(2) What does CSR do for the stakeholders, and how do the latter react to theformer?

We address these two conceptual questions in the remainder of the commentary.

How is CSR connected to the identities of a company?An exploration of CSR and its links to company identity is complicated by the fact thatthinking in this domain has yielded a variety of identities. In his articulation of identitybased views of the corporation (see Figure 5 in Balmer (2008) for an edifying taxonomyof identity types), for instance, Balmer has argued for a distinction between the actual,objective identity of a company and that perceived by its stakeholders (Balmer et al.,2009; Powell et al., 2009; Balmer, 2008; He and Balmer, 2007; Powell, 2007; Balmer andGreyser, 2006). While the former is labelled Corporate Identity (i.e. Character in the6C’s), the latter are captured jointly by Organisational Identity (i.e. Culture in the 6C’s),which is how the internal stakeholders view the organisation and Corporate Reputation(i.e. Conceptualizations in the 6C’s), which is how external stakeholders view theorganisation.

Implicit to the (alternate but clearly related) perspective of Brown et al. (2006) is thenotion that what ultimately matters are the necessarily subjective associations of a

Corporate socialresponsibility

1355

company’s stakeholders. Thus, they bypass the actual identity of the corporation (i.e.Balmer’s corporate identity/actual identity) to designate the internal stakeholders’ viewof the company (i.e. Balmer’s organisational identity) as the only identity of thecompany. Related to, and no doubt guided by, the desired and ideal identities as well asBalmer’s (2008) communicated identity (i.e. “What traits are reflected in theidentification emitted from the corporation?”) is Brown et al.’s (2006) notion of intendedimage, which are the mental associations about the company that organisationalleaders want important stakeholder groups to hold. This is largely achieved throughone of the 6C’s, Communication (i.e. corporate communication), which is what thecompany says it is to its external stakeholders. This is distinguished from the mentalassociations that the company actually believes external stakeholders hold about theorganisation, which Brown et al. (2006) label construed image. Importantly, bothBalmer (Balmer et al., 2009; Balmer and Greyser, 2006) and Brown et al. (2006) conveythat corporate communications ultimately affect corporate reputation, which is the setof mental associations about the company that are actually held by the externalstakeholders. If anything, then, Brown et al.’s (2006) notion of reputation is an outcome,at least in part, of corporate communications, and reflects both the actual identity of thecompany as conceived by Balmer (i.e. corporate identity) and its communicatedidentity.

Clearly, disentangling these different perspectives – a heady task – is not thecentral aim of this commentary. However, it does seem that an integrativeunderstanding of the different identities discussed previously is essential to theappropriate location of CSR in this landscape. With that objective, we adhere toBalmer’s definition of corporate identity as the actual traits of the company. However,we use the more descriptive label from Balmer’s earlier work (i.e. Balmer and Greyser,2002): actual identity. We distinguish this from organisational identity, which weconceive as the subjective perceptions of a company’s identity by its internalstakeholders, and call, quite simply, the perceived identity. This, in turn, is differentfrom what we label the intended identity, which for the sake of simplicity, includesboth how the company wants to perceive itself (e.g. ideal identity, desired identity) andhow it wants others to perceive it (intended image). Finally, we align with Brown et al.(2006) and Balmer and Greyser (2006) in rooting the notion of corporate reputation inthe minds of the external stakeholders; implicit to this delineation is the notion thatthose external to the company are not typically privy to its identity per se. In sum, thethree identities all reside within the company (and its internal stakeholders), whereasreputation lies outside the company, in the minds of the external stakeholders.

Turning finally to the question guiding this parsing of ideas about the company:where does CSR fit in? Research in the fields of organisational behaviour, managementand marketing (e.g. Curras-Perez et al., 2009; Balmer et al., 2007; Worcester, 2009;Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Maignan et al., 2005) all convey fairly clearly the sense thatCSR both emanates from, and in turn determines, the interactions between the actualidentity, the perceived identity, and the intended identity. For instance, Wilkinson andBalmer (1996) observed in an early case study on corporate identity that the ethicalstandards applied by a bank stemmed, using the terminology previously presented,from its actual identity and influenced strongly both the intended and perceivedidentities of the organisation. This suggests that what the company is (e.g. a maker ofconsumer packaged goods), what its internal stakeholders believe it is (e.g. the

EJM45,9/10

1356

employees’ beliefs about the central, enduring and distinctive traits of the company)and what they want it to be (e.g. values that the company aspires to; key strategicobjectives) all inform the specific CSR actions the company engages in. In turn, the CSRactions determine not only the perceived and intended identity of the company, butalso its actual identity (e.g. a company that invests in renewable sources of energy),conceptualized more specifically and cogently as the ethical identity (Balmer et al.,2007).

Implicit to this reciprocal determinism between CSR and the three identitydimensions is the notion that the ultimate voice in taking CSR action lies with thecompany and its internal stakeholders. However, this is clearly an incomplete story;what of the external stakeholders? While the boundary between internal and externalstakeholders is becoming increasingly blurred, at least for certain groups and types ofexternal stakeholders (e.g. consumers that are strongly embedded in the network of thecompany through, for instance, co-creation activities (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003)),most external stakeholders today are not the enactors per se of CSR. Instead, they learnabout a company’s CSR through both corporate communications, which conveys acompany’s intended identity, and, critically, other, often countervailing viewpointsexpressed by the media and stakeholders both internal and external (see Sen et al.(2009) and Du et al. (2007) for a more detailed treatment). These pieces of information,both CSR and non-CSR related, together are interpreted by external stakeholders tocomprise the reputation of the company (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Brown andDacin, 1997). As in the case of perceived identity, the link between CSR and reputationis contingent on the stakeholder’s awareness of the company’s actions, which ourresearch suggests can often be fairly low, as well as a set of beliefs about why thecompany is doing what it is doing (i.e. causal attributions about a company’s CSRactions), and how well it is doing so (Ellen et al., 2006). These attributions in turn aretied to the sincerity or perceived authenticity of the company’s CSR actions (e.g.greenwashing). Dissonances between rhetoric and practice can tear a company identityapart (Bernstein, 2007; Greyser, 1999; Tsai, 2009), and such dissonances are in factoften determined to a major extent by stakeholder perceptions of the how and to whatextent a company actively communicates its CSR actions to external audiences.

In sum, a company’s CSR actions are both an outcome of the negotiated interactionsbetween the three related but distinct identities of a company as well as a keydeterminant of these identities. In particular, these actions, taken by internalstakeholders, are reflective of both the aspirations and the realities of the company anddetermine the values and traits of its ethical identity (Balmer et al., 2007). Theseactions, in turn, impact external stakeholders, sometimes directly (e.g. in the case of thestakeholder groups that are the target of specific CSR actions) but are mostly mediatedthrough the three identities, which they learn about through both corporate and othercommunication channels. What the external stakeholders come to think, believe andfeel about the company as a result of these intimations comprises the reputation of thecompany. This perspective suggests that the several identities of a corporation and itsCSR initiatives are not discrete entities, but they are formed from and influenced by therelationship between parties within the community (Balmer et al., 2007).

Next, given our understanding of the relationship of CSR to the identities andreputation of a company, we focus on how and why these CSR actions influencestakeholders’ reactions towards the company.

Corporate socialresponsibility

1357

How and why do a company’s CSR actions affect its stakeholders?Much research, both academic and otherwise, has contributed, over the last fewdecades, to the growing consensus that a company’s stakeholders react to its CSRactions in a myriad of positive, though contingent, ways (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001;Worcester, 2009). For instance, consumers are likely to buy more or pay a higher pricefor products from a socially responsible company (Trudel and Cotte, 2009). Similarly,recent research in the USA suggests that CSR actions can give a company aninimitable upper hand in the war for talent (see also Bhattacharya et al., 2008, 2009).However, until recently, much less was known about precisely when and how acompany’s CSR actions produced such favourable reactions from its stakeholders.

In our approach to these key questions, we have taken an identity-based perspective(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), inspired by the long andrich tradition of organisational identity thought (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Ashforthand Mael, 1989). We contend that a company’s CSR actions are likely to mean the mostto stakeholders, both internal and external, and are most likely to elicit in them a set ofpro-company reactions, when such actions lead them to identify with the company. Inother words, we have argued that under a specific but identifiable set of circumstances,a company’s CSR programs are able to fulfil stakeholders’ higher-order self-definitionalneeds, and hence enable the stakeholder to identify with the company. This is based onresearch on social identity (Tajfel et al., 1971) and, more specifically, organisationalidentification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000), which suggestthat individuals often identify with organisations they belong to (e.g. employees withemployer organisations), incorporating favourable aspects of the organisationalidentity into their own identity to satisfy certain basic, higher-order self-related needs(Dutton et al., 1994). These include the needs to know oneself (i.e. self-definition), to feelgood about oneself (i.e. self-enhancement) and to feel special (i.e. self-distinctiveness).

Although this notion of identification has traditionally been restricted to formalmembership contexts that are more germane to internal stakeholders, we and others(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Simmons, 2009; Polonsky and Jevons, 2009; Berrone et al.,2007; Scott and Lane, 2000) have argued that in today’s marketplace, as many externalstakeholders (e.g. consumers) learn more about and develop relationships with not justproducts but also the organisation or people behind the products (McAlexander et al.,2002), they are drawn, like their internal counterparts, to identify, volitionally, with aselect few of such organisations (i.e. the companies) even though they are not formalmembers.

The basis for such identification, or stakeholders’ perceived sense of overlapbetween their own identity and that of the company, are the company-relatedassociations that make up its perceived identity (in the case of internal stakeholders), orreputation (in the case of external stakeholders). It is worth noting that thesecompany-specific knowledge structures typically comprise of stakeholders’ knowledgeabout two basic aspects of the company: its expertise in producing and delivering itsproducts/services (i.e. CA associations), and its activities with regard to importantsocietal issues (i.e. CSR associations; Brown and Dacin, 1997).

Importantly, we argue that stakeholders’ identification with a company is actuallymore likely to be based on the ethical identity shaped by its CSR rather than on CAassociations because CSR associations provide consumers with insight into its “valuesystem”, “soul”, or “character” (Balmer et al., 2007; Balmer and Greyser, 2006; Brown

EJM45,9/10

1358

and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). In other words, a company’s characteras revealed by its CSR actions is not only fundamental and relatively enduring but alsooften more distinctive by virtue of its idiosyncratic bases (e.g. sponsorship of socialcause, environmentalism) than other CA-based aspects of a company’s schema held byboth internal and external stakeholders. Therefore, a company’s CSR activities arelikely to constitute the core, defining or the central, distinctive and evolving (Balmer,2001) characteristics of its corporate identity, triggering identification. Interestingly,these notions (see Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 for the full model, particularly for theconsequences of identification in the consumer domain) have received significantempirical support in recent years (Curras-Perez, 2009; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Podnarand Golob, 2007; Peloza and Papania, 2008; Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Marin et al.,2009; Curras-Perez et al., 2009).

In sum, our identity perspective on CSR suggests that it can elicit favourablereactions from a company’s stakeholders by causing them to identify with it. Morespecifically, based on some recent work, we suggest that this is particularly likelywhen both the company and the stakeholder have collectivistic identity orientations asopposed to individualistic or even relational ones (Brickson, 2007). Organisationalidentity orientation, grounded in individual identity theory (Brewer and Gardner,1996), refers to the “assumed nature of association” between an organisation and itsstakeholders, as perceived by its internal stakeholders or members. Importantly,Brickson (2007) suggests that this orientation not only influences the nature of acompany’s CSR engagement but also its stakeholders’ perceptions of why it isengaging in CSR. While companies of all orientations can create CSR value, albeit ofdifferent kinds (see Brickson (2007) for a detailed treatment), a company with acollectivistic identity orientation is most likely to elicit CSR-based identification fromboth its collectivistic internal and external stakeholders based on not only their greaterinnate propensity to identify, rather than maintain atomistic, instrumental connectionswith social others, but also their greater likelihood of trusting the motives of thecompany as altruistic and collective welfare enhancing. In that sense, companies withcollectivistic identity orientations are, at the limit, perceived to have ethical identities orreputations (Balmer et al., 2007), making stakeholders most likely, based on ourprevious discussion, to identify with them. As well, the perceived identity andreputation of such companies are likely to be seen as most authentic (Leigh et al., 2006;Gilmore and Pine, 2007; Thompson et al., 2006) by their internal and externalstakeholders respectively, increasing, again, the likelihood of identification.

Conclusion: CSR and corporate marketingOur identity perspective on CSR provides marketers with a new objective for their CSRstrategies: the construction of perceived identities and reputations that areidentification-worthy. Indeed, CSR appears to be a near-perfect vehicle for thecorporate marketing efforts of most companies, done right, it can cause importantstakeholders of all stripes to form strong and long-lasting identification-based bondswith the company. A key thrust of corporate marketing, then, needs to be thethoughtful and meaningful formulation, implementation and assessment of CSRstrategies that are not as much imposed on the various stakeholder groups but are,instead, co-created. Next we present briefly the theoretical and practical implications ofthis corporate marketing perspective on CSR.

Corporate socialresponsibility

1359

Theoretical implicationsThe present paper proposes a corporate marketing perspective to understand thestrategic role of CSR inside and outside the corporation. In particular, we draw on thecomplementary perspectives of American and European thought in this domain toarticulate the relationships between the related ideas of actual identity, perceivedidentity, intended identity, and reputation, locating CSR within the resulting network.In other words, we provide an integrative conceptualization that positions CSR at thecentre of the network of concepts embraced by corporate marketing thinkers in boththe Americas and Europe. Furthermore, we suggest that CSR has both direct andindirect effects on corporate reputation and organisational identity. Specifically, theeffect of CSR initiatives on the different corporate identities is moderated byorganisational social value and mediated by corporate communications and identityauthenticity. Even though some scholars have already observed the role of thesevariables on a company’s strategy (e.g. Brickson, 2007; Morsing and Schultz, 2006;Wicki and Kaaij, 2007), a more detailed analysis of the moderation and mediationprocesses from a corporate marketing perspective could contribute significantly to ourunderstanding of CSR initiatives as a strategic lever. Further, we suggest that CSR is aquasi-perfect strategic lever for corporate marketing as it can help align a company’sdifferent identities. However, an empirical test of this proposition is still required. Inorder to accomplish this important task, scholars need to analyze through a corporatemarketing lens the formulation, implementation and evaluation of a comprehensiveCSR program, i.e. a program that takes into consideration the guidelines listed in thePractical implications section which follows (for a detailed methodology to measure thealignment of corporate identities see Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Balmer and Greyser,2002; and Balmer et al., 2009).

Practical implicationsThis commentary builds on the growing body of research on the identity-definingnature of a company’s CSR actions (Zollo et al., 2009; Balmer et al., 2007; Berrone et al.,2007; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010; Tsai, 2009) to argue that by engaging in CSRactivities, companies will be able to communicate to relevant external stakeholdersvaluable characteristics of their identity, thereby building an attractive corporatereputation. More importantly, by communicating it internally and engaging employeesin CSR activities, managers will successfully promote congruence between thecorporate identity as perceived by external stakeholders (i.e. corporate reputation) andinternal stakeholders (i.e. perceived identity). This suggests that CSR activities shouldnot be managed by or restricted to a specific area of the company (e.g. the CorporateCommunications or even CSR department). Instead, it should be integrated into theentire fabric of the company, aligning all areas of the organisation, from HumanResources to Public Relations to Marketing. We attest that only this interdisciplinaryapproach will allow the company to excel in what Balmer et al. (2009, p. 6) called “oneof the most critical tasks to be undertaken by senior executives”, and consequentlyrender powerful benefits for the company (Simmons, 2009). That is the challenge facingcompanies today: a CSR strategy that requires thought, effort and dedication butwhich, done right, can not only reap bountiful societal and environmental returns butalso earn the enduring devotion, respect and loyalty of its stakeholders.

EJM45,9/10

1360

References

Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M.(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays andCritical Reviews, Volume 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT and London, pp. 263-95.

Ashforth, B. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-96.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing – seeingthrough the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), “Identity-based views of the corporation: insights from corporate identity,organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity andcorporate image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 879-906.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2009), “Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany”, ManagementDecision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 544-72.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002), “Managing the multiple identities of the corporation”,California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-86.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding,corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 730-41.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), “The acid test of corporate identity management”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 Nos 1-3, pp. 69-92.

Balmer, J.M.T., Fukukawa, K. and Gray, E. (2007), “The nature and management of ethicalcorporate identity: a commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility andethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 7-15.

Balmer, J.M.T., Powell, S.M. and Elving, W.J.L. (2009), “Editorial: Explicating corporate identity”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 365-8.

Balmer, J.M.T., Stuart, H. and Greyser, S.A. (2009), “Aligning identity and strategy: corporatebranding at British Airways in the late twentieth century”, California ManagementReview, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 6-23.

Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R. (2000), “Self-categorization, affective commitment and groupself-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization”, British Journal ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-77.

Bernstein, D. (2007), “Rhetoric and reputation: some thoughts on corporate dissonance”,Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 603-15.

Berrone, P., Surroca, J. and Tribo, J. (2007), “Corporate ethical identity as a determinant of firmperformance: a test of the mediating role of stakeholder satisfaction”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 35-53.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework forunderstanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67No. 2, pp. 76-88.

Bhattacharya, C., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2009), “Strengthening stakeholder-companyrelationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, pp. 257-72.

Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S. and Korschun, D. (2008), “Using corporate social responsibility to winthe war for talent”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 37-44.

Boston College Centre for Corporate Citizenship (2009), The State of Corporate Citizenship 2009:Weathering the Storm, available at: www.bcccc.net (accessed 1 March 2010).

Corporate socialresponsibility

1361

Brewer, M. and Gardner, W. (1996), “Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and selfrepresentations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 83-93.

Brickson, S.L. (2007), “Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the firm anddistinct forms of social value”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 864-88.

Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), “The company and the product: corporate associations andconsumer product responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D.A. (2006), “Identity, intended image,construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggestedterminology”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106.

Curras-Perez, R. (2009), “Effects of perceived identity based on corporate social responsibility:the role of consumer identification with the company”, Corporate Reputation Review,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 177-91.

Curras-Perez, R., Bigne-Alcaniz, E.B. and Alvarado-Herrera, A. (2009), “The role ofself-definitional principles in consumer identification with a socially responsiblecompany”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 547-64.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2007), “Reaping relational rewards from corporate socialresponsibility: the role of competitive positioning”, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 224-41.

Dutton, J., Dukerich, J. and Harquail, C. (1994), “Organizational images and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-63.

Ellen, P., Webb, D. and Mohr, L. (2006), “Building corporate associations: consumer attributionsfor corporate socially responsible programs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-57.

Fukukawa, K., Balmer, J. and Gray, E. (2007), “Mapping the interface between corporate identity,ethics and corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 1-5.

Galbreath, J. (2008), “Building corporate social responsibility into strategy”, European BusinessReview, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 109-27.

Gilmore, J.H. II and Pine, B.J. (2007), Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want, HarvardBusiness Press, Boston, MA.

Greyser, S.A. (1999), “Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation”, CorporateCommunications, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 177-81.

He, H.W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Identity studies: multiple perspectives and implications forcorporate-level marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 765-85.

Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer quest for authenticity:the multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-93.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effect of corporate socialresponsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported non-profits”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 16-32.

McAlexander, J., Schouten, J. and Koenig, H. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

McKinsey (2007), Shaping the New Rules of Competition: UN Global Compact Participant Mirror,available at: www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/McKinsey.pdf (accessed5 March 2010).

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrativeframework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-19.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005), “A stakeholder model for implementing socialresponsibility in marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 956-77.

EJM45,9/10

1362

Marin, L., Ruiz, S. and Rubio, A. (2009), “The role of identity salience in the effects of corporatesocial responsibility on consumer behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 1,pp. 65-78.

Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholderinformation, response and involvement strategies”, Business Ethics: A European Review,Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 323-38.

Peloza, J. and Papania, L. (2008), “The missing link between corporate social responsibility andfinancial performance: stakeholder salience and identification”, Corporate ReputationReview, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 169-81.

Podnar, K. and Golob, U. (2007), “CSR expectations: the focus of corporate marketing”, CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 326-40.

Polonsky, M. and Jevons, C. (2009), “Global branding and strategic CSR: an overview of threetypes of complexity”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 327-47.

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89Nos 1/2, pp. 62-77.

Powell, S. (2007), “Organisational marketing, identity and the creative brand”, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-56.

Powell, S., Balmer, M.T. and Melewar, T.C. (2007a), “Corporate marketing and the branding ofthe organisation”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-3.

Powell, S., Balmer, M.T. and Melewar, T.C. (2007b), “Corporate and organisational marketing”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 321-5.

Powell, S., Elving, W.J.L., Dodd, C. and Sloan, J. (2009), “Explicating ethical corporate identity inthe financial sector”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 440-55.

Schultz, F. and Wehmeier, S. (2010), “Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility withincorporate communications: combining institutional, sensemaking and communicationperspectives”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 9-29.

Scott, S. and Lane, V. (2000), “A stakeholder approach to organizational identity”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-62.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumerreactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,pp. 225-43.

Sen, S., Du, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2009), “Building brand relationships through corporatesocial responsibility”, in MacInnis, D.J., Park, C. and Priester, J.R. (Eds), Handbook ofBrand Relationships, ME Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 195-211.

Simmons, J.A. (2009), “‘Both sides now’: aligning external and internal branding for a sociallyresponsible era”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 681-97.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P. and Flament, C. (1971), “Social categorization and intergroupbehaviour”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 149-78.

Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A. and Arsel, Z. (2006), “Emotional branding and the strategic valueof the doppelganger brand image”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 50-64.

Trudel, R. and Cotte, J. (2009), “Does it pay to be good?”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 50No. 2, pp. 61-8.

Tsai, S. (2009), “Corporate marketing management and corporate-identity building”, MarketingIntelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 621-33.

Vaaland, T.I., Heide, M. and Grønhaug, K. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: investigatingtheory and research in the marketing context”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42No. 9, pp. 927-53.

Corporate socialresponsibility

1363

Wicki, S. and Kaaij, J.V.D. (2007), “Is it true love between the octopus and the frog? How to avoidthe authenticity gap”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 312-18.

Wilkinson, A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1996), “Corporate and generic identities: lessons from theCo-operative Bank”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 22-35.

Worcester, R. (2009), “Reflections on corporate reputations”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 4,pp. 573-89.

Zollo, M., Minoja, M., Casanova, L., Hockerts, K., Neergaard, P., Schneider, S. and Tencati, A.(2009), “Towards an internal change management perspective of CSR: evidence fromproject RESPONSE on the sources of cognitive alignment between managers and theirstakeholders, and their implications for social performance”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9No. 4, pp. 355-72.

About the authorsDiogo Hildebrand is a Doctoral Candidate at the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, CityUniversity of New York, USA. His research interests are in the area of consumer behaviorincluding consumer identity and consumer-company relationships.

Sankar Sen is Professor of Marketing at the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, asenior college of the City University of New York. He received his doctorate in BusinessAdministration in 1993 from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Prior toBaruch, he was Associate Professor at the School of Management, Boston University andAssociate Professor and Washburn Research Fellow at the Fox School of Business, TempleUniversity. His research interests lie at the intersection of consumer decision making, corporatesocial responsibility and marketing strategy. His work has appeared in the Journal of MarketingResearch, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Economic Theory, MITSloan Management Review, California Management Review, and other such publications.

C.B. Bhattacharya is the E.ON Chair Professor in Corporate Responsibility and AssociateDean of International Relations at the European School of Management and Technology inBerlin, Germany. He received his MBA from the Indian Institute of Management in 1984 and hisPhD in Marketing from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in 1993. His expertise isin developing business strategies that combine “doing well” (i.e. financial performance) with“doing good” (i.e. social and environmental performance). He has published many books andarticles in leading academic journals. He has twice been on Business Week’s outstanding facultylist, was a finalist for Aspen Institute’s Faculty Pioneer Awards and was recently Professor ofthe Week in Financial Times. He consults for a variety of companies such as AT&T, GeneralMills, Procter & Gamble and Prudential Bank and is often interviewed and referenced inpublications such as Business Week, Forbes, Financial Times, Newsweek, The New York Times,The Wall Street Journal and The Economist.

EJM45,9/10

1364

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints