Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 49–50

Short communication

Corporate social responsibility attribute rankings

Amy O’Connor ∗, Mark MeisterNorth Dakota State University, 321 Minard Hall, Fargo, ND 58105-5075, United States

Received 23 October 2007; received in revised form 15 November 2007; accepted 28 November 2007

Abstract

This research presents the findings of a rank order evaluation of corporate social responsibility attributes by a target public (N = 72)of a contemporary corporate social responsibility campaign. The results indicate that publics value corporate honesty above othercorporate social responsibility behaviors.Published by Elsevier Inc.

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility; Stakeholders; Focus groups; Philanthropy; Ethos

1. Corporate social responsibility

Generally, CSR is explained as corporate engagement in socially responsible behaviors in response to societaldemands, the desires of influential publics, and the ability of such activities to increase competitiveness and stockperformance. Socially responsible behavior is synchronized with the economic, ethical, and moral expectations ofsociety at a given point in time. CSR is largely voluntary and is considered closely linked to an organization’s abilityto maintain legitimacy.

This study presents data on CSR attribute ranking obtained as part of a larger study on how members of a targetpublic conceptualize and respond to CSR messages. As such, the research asks: What CSR attributes do participantsperceive as most important for organizations to engage in?

2. Methods

2.1. Recruitment

Participants were recruited from three mid-sized Midwest communities. Recruitment was done through direct mailsolicitation. In total 1675 flyers were distributed. The response rate was 5%, including individuals who asked to beplaced on a waiting list in the event that more focus groups were conducted.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 231 8585; fax: +1 701 231 7784.E-mail address: amy.oconnor@ndsu.edu (A. O’Connor).

0363-8111/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.11.004

50 A. O’Connor, M. Meister / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 49–50

2.2. Participants

Participants were recruited and selected based on their demographic similarity to the target audience (women age25–49 with two or more children) of a contemporary CSR campaign. A purposive sample (N = 72) was selected thatmet the demographic criteria of this study. In exchange for their participation in a focus group, participants received asmall honorarium.

The median age of participants was 41 and 92% of the participants indicated they were married. The majorityof participants were employed part-time (37%, n = 26). Participants who were employed full-time comprised 31%(n = 22) of the sample while 32% (n = 23) of participants indicated they were not employed. The majority of participants(54%, n = 38) had obtained a bachelor’s degree. In addition, 20% (n = 14) indicated they had a master’s degree. Sixtysix percent of participants (n = 46) indicated a household income of $75,000 and higher. Participants who reportedhousehold incomes of $50,000–74,999 represented 27% (n = 19) of the sample. Of the remaining participants, 4%(n = 3) reported household income levels of $35,000–49,999 and 3% of participants (n = 2) indicated incomes of lessthan $35,000.

All participants reported having multiple children. The median number of children was 2.48 with 33% (n = 57) ofthe number of children falling into the 6–10 years of age category. The remaining children represented the followingcategories: 3% (n = 5) 0–1 years of age; 17% (n = 30) 2–5 years of age; 29% (n = 50) 11–17 years of age; and 18%(n = 30) 18+ years of age.

2.3. Instruments

The results of this study are based on participant responses to an instrument that asked them to rank, in order ofimportance, six measures commonly found in CSR communication. In addition, an anonymous demographic question-naire was distributed to all participants. The demographic data provided confirmation that participants were membersof the target public recruited for this study.

3. Results

Prior to any group discussion, participants were asked to complete a brief rank-order statement form. Participantsranked the statements in the order they deemed most important (one being most important and six being least important).The statement “I think a corporation should be honest” was selected as the most important attribute a corporation canhave (M = 5.45). After being honest, participants selected “produces quality products and services” as the secondmost important attribute (M = 5.2). Participants ranked “treat employees fairly” (M = 4.3) as third. “Give back to thecommunity through philanthropic activities (M = 3.8) and “conduct business in an environmentally friendly manner”(M = 3.4) scored similarly and near the neutral point on the scale. The CSR construct “make a profit” received thelowest score (M = 2.0).

4. Discussion

This research provides insight into how a particular target public differentiates between various CSR attributes. Indoing so, it offers preliminary evidence that CSR activities are not equally valued by publics. The results suggest thatorganizations should consult publics prior to engaging in CSR to assess public expectations and desires. Two of themost commonly communicated forms of CSR, environment and philanthropy, received neutral rankings by participants.These results suggest that publics are savvy to organizations attempts at greenwashing or purchasing CSR credit throughdonations. This was surprising, since current academic and business CSR constructs that define CSR as voluntary wouldpreference environmental and philanthropic behaviors over honesty and producing quality products and services whichare largely considered involuntary or at least regulated. Further, the results of this study challenge the notion that busi-nesses primary responsibility is to make a profit. Participants did not equate economic prowess with social responsibility.Thus, organizational claims about job generation, tax contributions, and shareholder return will not suffice publics look-ing for evidence of CSR. This study indicates that everyday business practices such as honesty, producing quality goodsand services, and treating employees fairly are likely to result organizations earning higher CSR marks from publics.