Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 37 51

Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: an investigation of

French businesses
Isabelle Maignana,*, O.C. Ferrellb,1
a
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management and Organization, The University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
b
Department of Marketing, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1278, USA
Received 9 December 1998; accepted 10 December 1998

Abstract

The authors first propose a conceptualization and operationalization of corporate citizenship. Then, they present an empirical study
conducted among French businesses aimed at: (1) understanding whether an organization's culture affects its likelihood of engaging in
corporate citizenship and (2) whether corporate citizenship is associated with specific business benefits. The results suggest that a market-
oriented culture is conducive of corporate citizenship, which in turn is associated with greater employee commitment and business
performance. The results point to corporate citizenship as a potentially fruitful practice not only for society as a whole but also for businesses
themselves. D 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Corporate citizenship; French businesses; Employee commitment; Business performance

The business community is increasing its commitment to associations can improve product evaluations (Brown and
integrate corporate citizenship into its strategic planning. Dacin, 1997, cf. p. 80). Management scholars have also
Initiatives such as work family programs, no lay-off poli- shown a renewed interest for the investigation of the
cies, corporate volunteerism, green marketing, or ethics relationship between corporate social performance and busi-
programs are indicators of this trend toward greater corpo- ness performance (e.g., Preston and O'Bannon, 1997; Wad-
rate citizenship. A growing interest for corporate citizenship dock and Graves, 1997; Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998).
is also apparent in a recent stream of research that investi- These works represent evidence of a rigorous under-
gates how organizations incorporate social demands into standing of the role and benefits of corporate citizenship.
their operations. However, they have yielded ambiguous results mainly
For example, marketing scholars have proposed citizen- because of the variety of indicators of corporate citizenship
ship issues as an area of developing business strategies: they relied upon (Carroll, 1991; Griffin and Mahon, 1997;
Drumwright (1994) documented the importance of envir- Waddock and Graves, 1997). In addition, most of past
onmentalism in corporate buying decisions, while Menon research has focused on limited aspects of corporate citizen-
and Menon (1997) investigated the notion of enviropreneur- ship such as the protection of the environment (e.g., Drum-
ial marketing. Brown and Dacin (1997) considered the value wright, 1994; Menon and Menon, 1997), the establishment
of responsible corporate behaviors from the viewpoint of of ethical standards (e.g., Vershoor, 1997), or legal respon-
consumers. They demonstrated empirically that negative sibilities (e.g., Davidson and Worrell, 1990; Baucus and
corporate social responsibility associations have detrimental Baucus, 1997). There is a need for research that adopts a
effects on the overall product evaluations, while positive more holistic and systematic perspective on corporate citi-
zenship by defining the many activities it encompasses.
Furthermore, past empirical works have been conducted
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-31-50-363-7342; fax: +1-31-50-363- almost exclusively in the US. Consequently, managers of
2174.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (I. Maignan),
international organizations know very little about the appro-
[email protected] (O.C. Ferrell). priateness and desirability of corporate citizenship in diffe-
1
Tel.: +1-970-491-4398; fax: +1-970-491-5956. rent countries.

0148-2963/01/$ see front matter D 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 2 - 9
38 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

The present research addresses these gaps in past litera- tion are considered as potential antecedents of corporate
ture by: (1) proposing an integrative conceptualization and citizenship, while employee commitment, customer loyalty,
operationalization of corporate citizenship, (2) examining and business performance are proposed as potential benefits
why some businesses are better corporate citizens than of corporate citizenship.
others based on their organizational culture, (3) assessing
whether corporate citizenship is conducive of specific busi- 1.1. Nature of corporate citizenship
ness benefits, and (4) surveying corporate citizenship prac-
tices in France. Given the increasing cooperation between Even though the notion of corporate citizenship is
the US and the European Union on the establishment of commonly employed by business practitioners, it has not
common guidelines to reduce corporate crime and unethical been formally conceptualized by academicians. With a few
behaviors (Izraeli and Schwontz, 1998), it was deemed exceptions (e.g., Robin and Reidenbach, 1987), much of the
relevant to survey corporate citizenship in a European conceptual work in this area has stemmed out of the
country where standards for corporate social involvement management literature and has been scattered over four
are only emerging. In addition, Europe remains the main different research streams focusing on corporate social
trading partner of the US. France was selected as the responsibility (e.g., Bowen, 1953; Eilbirt and Parket,
European country of interest because: (1) it is the second 1973; Carroll, 1979; Sethi, 1979), corporate social respon-
European economic power and (2) its socio-economic siveness (e.g., Ackerman and Bauer, 1976; Frederick,
structure is representative of that prevalent in most Eur- 1978), corporate social performance (e.g., Carroll, 1979;
opean countries. Contrary to the US where economic Wood, 1991; Lewin et al., 1995), and stakeholder manage-
success has been viewed as the main guarantor of social ment (e.g., Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995;
wealth and harmony, the welfare of the French society has Jones, 1995). A review of the research in these related areas
traditionally been left entirely in the hands of the govern- suggests that corporate citizenship can be defined as the
ment. As a result, while corporate social involvement has extent to which businesses assume the economic, legal,
traditionally been part of corporate strategy in the US, it has ethical, and discretionary responsibilities imposed on them
been viewed mainly with suspicion in France (Perret and by their stakeholders.
Roustang, 1993). It is only recently that French and Eur- Based on the literature on corporate social responsive-
opean leaders have started encouraging corporate citizen- ness, and especially on the works by Carroll (1979) and
ship (Lemaitre and Leparmentier, 1995). In this context, it is Clarkson (1991, 1995), corporate citizenship is expected to
important to survey how French organizations are starting to range along a continuum ranging from proactivity to re-
integrate corporate citizenship in their activities. activity. A reactive business rejects the responsibilities
assigned by its stakeholder groups. A proactive business is
aware of, meets, and anticipates, the responsibilities im-
1. Conceptual framework posed by its stakeholders. A firm assumes its responsibilities
by engaging in such activities as compliance, information
This section introduces the constructs and relationships seeking, scanning, communicating, and modification of
considered in this research. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. organizational processes.
1, three dimensions of organizational culture market Carroll's (1979) acknowledged classification of corpo-
orientation, humanistic orientation, and competitive orienta- rate social states that businesses are faced with four types

Fig. 1. Antecedents and consequences of corporate citizenship.

 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 39

of social responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical, and Based on this definition, one may expect that an organiza-
discretionary. Economic responsibilities include the obliga- tion's culture influences how decision makers manage the
tions to be productive, to be profitable, and to meet relationships between the business and its stakeholders.
consumption needs (cf. Aupperle, 1982, p. 55). Legal Reynolds (1986) emphasized the multi-dimensionality of
responsibilities require that businesses fulfill their econom- organizational culture by identifying 14 different facets of
ic mission within the framework of legal requirements. the construct. In order to keep the scope of the research
Ethical responsibilities concern society's expectation that manageable, only three components of organizational cul-
businesses follow established moral standards. Discretion- ture were considered in the study: market orientation,
ary responsibilities reflect the desire to see businesses humanistic orientation, and competitive orientation. Market
involved in the betterment of society beyond economic, orientation was selected because of its central role in the
legal, ethical, and ethical responsibilities (Carroll, 1979). current marketing literature (Day, 1994a), and because of
Businesses meet their discretionary responsibilities by Narver and Slater's (1990) suggestion that it may be linked
engaging in activities such as the provision of a day-care to corporate social responsibility. The inclusion of huma-
center for working mothers, philanthropic contributions, or nistic orientation and competitive orientation in the study
the creation of pleasant work aesthetics. was motivated by the fact that these two dimensions are
As emphasized by the stakeholder management frame- widely acknowledged in the management literature and that
work, businesses are not directly responsible toward society they have been shown to greatly impact managerial prac-
in general, but only toward their stakeholders (Clarkson, tices (Kilman and Saxton, 1983; Cooke and Hartmann,
1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Jones, 1997). Stake- 1989; Cooke and Rousseau, 1988; Xenikou and Furnham,
holders are the ``persons or groups that have, or claim, 1996). In addition, these three dimensions seem, at face
ownership, rights, or interests in a corporation and its value, to be likely to affect the organization's commitment
activities, past, present, or future'' (Clarkson, 1995, p. to the demands of its stakeholders.
106). Past research has distinguished between primary and
secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders include share- 1.2.1. Market orientation and corporate citizenship
holders or investors, employees, customers, suppliers, and Market orientation represents the extent to which an
``the public stakeholder group: the governments and com- organization adopts the marketing concept and puts the
munities that provide infrastructures and markets, whose customer at the center of its strategy and operations (Desh-
laws and regulations must be obeyed, and to whom taxes pande and Webster, 1989). Narver and Slater (1990) identi-
and other obligations may be due'' (Clarkson 1995, p. 106). fied three interrelated components of market orientation: (a)
Secondary stakeholders, like primary stakeholders, influ- a customer orientation ensuring that the business under-
ence or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the corpora- stands customers' presents and future needs, (b) a compe-
tion, but are not engaged in transactions with the titor orientation which enables the company to constantly
corporation and are not essential to its survival (cf. Clark- monitor competitor's capabilities, and (c) an interfunctional
son, 1995, p. 107). The media and special interest groups orientation that facilitates the dissemination of market
are examples of secondary stakeholders. intelligence throughout the organization. Market orientation
is an acknowledged component of an organization's culture.
1.2. Cultural antecedents of corporate citizenship For instance, Narver and Slater (1990, p. 21) viewed market
orientation as ``the organizational culture . . . that most
Past research on corporate social performance has paid effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors
scant attention to the factors that may explain why some for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus,
businesses are better corporate citizens than others. One continuous superior performance for the business.'' Simi-
exception is a study by Thomas and Simerly (1995) who larly, Day (1994a, p. 43) stated that ``a market-driven culture
examined the relationship between the background of top supports the value of thorough market intelligence and the
managers evaluated in terms of internal vs. external necessity of functionally coordinated actions directed at
orientation and corporate citizenship. The assumption un- gaining competitive advantage.''
derlying this research is that managers who have followed Narver and Slater (1990, p. 34) argued: ``the implication
various paths throughout their professional career hold of a given magnitude of market orientation is that a
differentiated values, and thus do not attribute the same business is, to some extent, sensitive and responsive to
importance to corporate citizenship. Our study expands on any stakeholder or issue that may affect its long-term
Thomas and Simerly's (1995) work, and evaluates whether performance.'' Narver and Slater (1990, p. 34) then sug-
three specific dimensions of organizational culture affect gested that future research examine ``the relationship
corporate citizenship. between the degree of a business' market orientation and
Organizational culture is defined ``the pattern of basic the extent of its `social responsibility' behavior.'' Follow-
assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or ing Narver and Slater's (1990) discussion, it may be
developed in learning to cope with its problems of external expected that a market-oriented organization keeps abreast
adaptation and internal integration . . .'' (Schein, 1984, p. 3). of all environmental forces, regardless of whether they are
40 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

triggered by market agents or by other social actors. 1.2.3. Competitive orientation and corporate citizenship
Hence, market-oriented businesses are likely to make every While a humanistic orientation fosters the maintenance
attempt to integrate economic, legal, ethical, and discre- of harmonious relationships within the organization, com-
tionary demands into their activities. Therefore, petitive cultures value winning, and reward their members
for outperforming one another (cf. Cooke and Hartmann,
H1: The greater the market orientation in an organization, 1989, p. 41). Given the priority given to personal success in
the more proactive the corporate citizenship. competitive cultures, organizational members are unlikely to
pay attention to the well-being of their stakeholders. Ac-
Since high levels of market orientation are significant cordingly, such organizations may not consider the satisfac-
of businesses that are generally outward looking, there tion of their economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary
is no indication to suggest that market orientation responsibilities as essential to their success. Hence:
affects the four dimensions of corporate citizenship
differently. Hence, H3: The greater the competitive orientation in an orga-
nization, the less proactive the corporate citizenship.
H1a: The greater the market orientation in an organiza-
H3a: The greater the competitive orientation in an organi-
tion, the more proactive the economic citizenship.
zation, the less proactive the economic citizenship.
H1b: The greater the market orientation in an organiza-
H3b: The greater the competitive orientation in an
tion, the more proactive the legal citizenship.
organization, the less proactive the legal citizenship.
H1c: The greater the market orientation in an organiza-
H3c: The greater the competitive orientation in an organi-
tion, the more proactive the ethical citizenship.
zation, the less proactive the ethical citizenship.
H1d: The greater the market orientation in an organization,
H3d: The greater the competitive orientation in an organi-
the more proactive the discretionary citizenship.
zation, the less proactive the discretionary citizenship.

1.2.2. Humanistic orientation and corporate citizenship 1.3. Outcomes of corporate citizenship
Humanistic orientation refers to the dimension of an Past research on corporate social performance and its
organization's culture that is concerned with the importance components has been aimed mainly at determining whether
attributed to support and harmony among workers. Cooke corporate social involvement is associated with positive or
and Hartmann (1989, p. 25) explained that, in humanistic negative levels of financial performance (e.g., Cochran and
cultures, ``employees are expected to be supportive, helpful, Wood, 1984; Aupperle et al., 1985; Griffin and Mahon,
and interested in the suggestions and ideas of others.'' In 1997; Waddock and Graves, 1997). Even though the present
such organizations, members show concern for the needs of research also incorporates business performance, it investi-
others, give rewards to others, and involve others in the gates two additional outcomes employee commitment and
decisions affecting them (cf. Cooke and Hartmann, 1989, p. customer loyalty that represent the response of two pri-
25). One may expect that in humanistic cultures, values and mary stakeholder groups to corporate citizenship.
policies promoting caring and harmony are not extended
solely to employees, but also to other stakeholder groups. In 1.3.1. Corporate citizenship and employee commitment
other words, one may expect that humanistic values en- Employee commitment designates ``the extent to which a
courage organizational members to systematically enhance business unit's employees are fond of the organization, see
the relationships between the business and all its stakeholder their future tied to that of the organization, and are willing to
groups with respect to economic, legal, ethical, and discre- make personal sacrifices for the business unit'' (Jaworski and
tionary issues. Consequently: Kohli, 1993, p. 60). Proactive corporate citizenship may
encourage employee commitment in several fashions: (a) by
H2: The greater the humanistic orientation in an organi- meeting employees' demands in the workplace, (b) by ad-
zation, the more proactive the corporate citizenship. dressing issues such as the protection of the environment or
the integration of minorities that are of concern to society in
H2a: The greater the humanistic orientation in an organi-
general, and thus also to employees, and (c) by displaying
zation, the more proactive the economic citizenship.
exemplary behaviors employees can be proud of. Efforts
H2b: The greater the humanistic orientation in an organi- undertaken by businesses to display proactive citizenship,
zation, the more proactive the legal citizenship. regardless of whether they are exercised in the economic,
legal, ethical, and discretionary areas, are likely to engender a
H2c: The greater the humanistic orientation in an organi-
sense of pride and belonging in employees. Subsequently,
zation, the more proactive the ethical citizenship.
H2d: The greater the humanistic orientation in an organiza- H4: The more proactive the corporate citizenship, the
tion, the more proactive the discretionary citizenship. greater the employee commitment to the organization.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 41

H4a: The more proactive the economic citizenship, the Waddock and Graves, 1997), while others do not identify
greater the employee commitment to the organization. any significant relationship (e.g., Aupperle et al., 1985;
McGuire et al., 1988; Davidson and Worrell, 1990). The
H4b: The more proactive the legal citizenship, the greater
variety of the research findings is largely due to inconsis-
the employee commitment to the organization.
tent, and sometimes questionable, measures of corporate
H4c: The more proactive the ethical citizenship, the greater social performance (Ullman, 1985; Wokutch and McKinney,
the employee commitment to the organization. 1991; Waddock and Graves, 1997).
In addition, much of past research has failed to provide
H4d: The more proactive the discretionary citizen-
theoretical arguments supporting the existence of a relation-
ship, the greater the employee commitment to
ship between corporate citizenship and business perfor-
the organization.
mance. An exception is Clarkson (1995) who relied on the
stakeholder management theory to propose the existence of
1.3.2. Corporate citizenship and customer loyalty a positive relationship between corporate citizenship and
Customer loyalty refers to the non-random tendency
performance: by meeting the demands of different stake-
displayed by a large number of customers to keep buying
holders, businesses generate their support, which in turn
from the same firm over time, and to associate positive
leads to greater performance levels.
images with its firm's products (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973;
Another explanation for the suggested positive relation-
Keller, 1993). Following the same reasoning as that used for
ship between corporate citizenship and performance can be
employee commitment, it may be argued that corporate
drawn from the literature on competitive advantage (Barney,
citizenship creates customer value by: (a) showing concern 1991; Day, 1994a,b; Day and Wensley, 1988). Three char-
for customers' demands such as product quality and safety, acteristics of corporate citizenship may qualify it as a source
(b) addressing social issues that are of interest to society in
of competitive advantage. First, corporate citizenship pro-
general, and thus also to customers, and (c) displaying
vides superior value to customers: proactive corporate citi-
exemplary behaviors that are encouraged by customers.
zens make every attempt to treat their customers fairly and
Thus, customers are likely to deliberately support the
engage in social activities such as philanthropic donations
activities of proactive corporate citizens by purchasing and
or volunteer programs that that are desired by consumers.
recommending their products and services. In fact, a survey
Second, corporate citizenship is difficult to imitate since it
by Walker Research found that 88% of consumers contend addresses the differentiated demands of the organization's
to be more likely to buy from a company that is socially specific stakeholders. Third, corporate citizenship can have
responsible and a good corporate citizen if quality, service,
multiple applications. For example, it may be used as a core
and price are commensurate to those of competitors' (Smith,
argument in internal promotions aimed at stimulating em-
1996). Similarly, a Cone/Roper survey reported that 76% of
ployees' motivation, in external advertising intended to
consumers will switch to brands or stores that seem con-
improve customers' image of the company, and in negotia-
cerned about the community (Jones, 1997). Therefore, the
tions with community leaders. Accordingly, as a potential
following hypotheses are proposed:
source of competitive advantage, corporate citizenship may
be associated with higher performance levels. Hence,
H5: The more proactive the corporate citizenship in an
organization, the greater the customer loyalty.
H6: The more proactive the corporate citizenship in an
H5a: The more proactive the economic citizenship in an organization, the greater the business performance.
organization, the greater the customer loyalty.
H6a: The more proactive the economic citizenship in an
H5b: The more proactive the legal citizenship in an organization, the greater the business performance.
organization, the greater the customer loyalty.
H6b: The more proactive the legal citizenship in an
H5c: The more proactive the ethical citizenship in an organization, the greater the business performance.
organization, the greater the customer loyalty.
H6c: The more proactive the ethical citizenship in an
H5d: The more proactive the discretionary citizenship in organization, the greater the business performance.
an organization, the greater the customer loyalty.
H6d: The more proactive the discretionary citizenship in an
organization, the greater the business performance.
1.3.3. Corporate citizenship and business performance
Past research on the relationship between corporate
social performance and financial performance has yielded 2. Methodology
contradictory or ambiguous results: some analyses report a
negative relationship between the two constructs (e.g., Given the broad scope of the corporate citizenship con-
Vance, 1975), some report a positive relationship (e.g., struct, it was deemed necessary to limit our analysis in terms
Spencer and Taylor, 1987; Graves and Waddock, 1994; of the stakeholder groups considered. Primary stakeholders
42 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

were favored since they can directly affect, and be affected by, by a second professional translator. The few discrepan-
corporate operations. Among them, only customers, employ- cies observed between the original questionnaire and its
ees, and public stakeholders were kept in the study. This back-translated version were only minor and easily
selection was motivated in part by the fact that past literature solved by the bilingual author and another translator.
has researched these three groups the most. In addition, the Informants were mailed a questionnaire and a cover letter
general demands of suppliers are highly contingent on the that offered a summary of the results in exchange for
type of activity considered, while investors have differen- completed surveys. One week later, a reminder card was
tiated demands depending on their exact ownership status. sent to all potential informants. Respondents were asked to
focus their answers solely on the Strategic Business Unit
2.1. Data collection (SBU) in which they were employed at the time of the
survey. Using a chi-square difference test, it was determined
Since informants had to provide both marketing and that for a subset of variables (number of employees, sales
general information about their organization, only top mar- volume, and profit growth) there were no systematic differ-
keting executives with titles such as Director of Market- ences between early and late respondents (Armstrong and
ing, Marketing Vice-President, Marketing Research Overton, 1977). Out of the 1000 mailed questionnaires, 39
Manager, Director of Quality, or Regional Sales Man- were returned undelivered, and 133 were completed, which
ager were selected. In addition, every attempt was made corresponds to a response rate of 13.84%. This response rate
to include business organizations that faced similar pres- compares well to the rates ranging from 6% to 10% obtained
sures to engage in corporate citizenship and that have the by Schlegelmich and Robertson (1995) in a mail survey of
resources sufficient to be aware of, and to address, social European senior managers. Thirteen of the completed sur-
demands. Non-for-profit organizations, public administra- veys had to be discarded because the business unit con-
tions, and educational institutions were excluded from the sidered was not French. Respondents came from a variety of
sample since the nature and demands of their stakeholders industries: 27 for consumer packaged goods, 11 for con-
may differ substantially from those most common in for- sumer durables, 20 for industrial goods, 55 for services, and
profit organizations. In addition, businesses employing less 7 for others. The participating businesses employed between
than fifty employees were not included in the sample in 50 and 70,000 persons, with an average of 3511 employees.
order to focus on organizations that have the means to
consider corporate citizenship in their daily activities. A 2.2. Instrument development and refinement
single informant per company was included in the initial
sample. Huber and Power (1985) showed that when several The English version of the measurement instrument is
informants vary in their knowledge of issues, a simple included in Appendix A, while a correlation matrix of the
average of responses is less accurate than the answer scales employed is displayed in Appendix B. The study
provided by a single informant. A multi-industry sample used existing scales for market orientation, humanistic
was considered appropriate to enhance the external validity orientation, competitive orientation, and employee commit-
of findings. In order to get a depiction of corporate citizen- ment. Scales measuring customer loyalty and corporate
ship in France and to facilitate cross-cultural comparisons, citizenship based on information provided by managers
only French-owned businesses operating in France were were not available in the literature. Thus, new measures
included in the sample. were developed for these two constructs. In order to
The 1996 directory of members of the ``Association operationalize our definition of corporate citizenship, it
Nationale pour la Recherche sur le Developpement des was deemed necessary to first identify corporate activities
Marches'' (National Association for Research on the Devel- typifying economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary citizen-
opment of Markets) was used to select French informants. ship toward the three stakeholder groups of interest
However, only 500 out of the 1000 ADETEM members met employees, customers, and public stakeholders.
the criteria for inclusion in the study; the rest regrouped An extensive search of the academic and French business
educators, middle- or lower-managers, and multiple man- literature was first conducted to pinpoint activities com-
agers employed in the same firm. The 500 remaining monly considered as representative of corporate citizenship.
marketing managers were randomly selected from the Dun Then, in a series of open-ended surveys, 10 French execu-
& Bradstreet Worldbase database. The resulting sample tives were asked to describe the practices adopted by their
frame included 1000 managers. organization to display good corporate citizenship toward
All the scales employed in the survey instrument were employees, customers, and the public in general. These
first developed in English. Accordingly, it was necessary to managers also had to suggest specific activities that their
first have the survey materials translated into French before organizations could select to become better corporate citi-
providing them to the informants. In order to maintain zens. Finally, in an attempt to delineate the expectations of
translation equivalence, the questionnaire was translated customers and of public stakeholders, 28 French graduate
into French by one bilingual author and by a French students with a business major answered an open-ended
professional translator, and back-translated into English survey that asked them to describe activities representative
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 43

of: (a) proactive corporate citizenship toward customers and items were kept to assess customer loyalty. Some items
public stakeholders and (b) reactive corporate citizenship included in the existing measures one item of the
toward customers and public stakeholders. Based on the market orientation scale, one item of the humanistic
information thereby gathered, a grid of corporate behaviors orientation scale, and three items of the competitive
representative of corporate citizenship was built according orientation measure were deleted because of their low
to each type of responsibility and to each stakeholder group consistency with the overall measure. Appendix A presents
considered. This grid was then employed to generate a the English version of initial and resulting measures, their
battery of 32 items. source, and their associated coefficient alpha. The refined
Two pre-tests were conducted to assess the quality, face scales generally displayed good to high reliability coeffi-
validity, and content validity of the items generated. In the cients that exceeded the levels recommended by Nunnally
first pre-test, a questionnaire presenting the items according (1978).
to each of the dimensions of corporate citizenship was Business performance was measured as the informant's
administered to six scholars with an interest in the field of assessment of the SBU's return on investment, return on
business and society. They were asked to mark any ambig- assets, and profit growth relative to those of its competitors
uous item and to rate all of them in terms of representative- over the past three years. Previous research reported a strong
ness and consistency. In the second pre-test, the remaining correlation between subjective assessments of performance
29 items were submitted to 48 French executives who and objective measures (e.g., Dess and Robinson, 1984;
identified any item that was difficult to answer or unclear. Pearce et al., 1987). Two indicators number of employees
This process resulted in 29 items: seven items for economic, and sales volume were employed to assess the size of the
legal, and ethical citizenship, respectively, and eight items business unit considered.
for discretionary citizenship.
A similar procedure was employed to develop a measure 2.3. Data analysis
of customer loyalty. A set of items were generated by the
authors on the basis of existing instruments that rely on The first 30 hypotheses (H1 6d) were examined with
information provided directly by consumers (e.g., Jacoby and multiple regression analyses. Specifically, five regression
Kyner, 1973; Keller, 1993; Dick and Basu, 1994). The items models were employed to evaluate the main effects of
were then submitted to three marketing scholars, and there- market orientation, humanistic orientation, and competitive
after to 48 French executives. This resulted in the selection of orientation, respectively, on corporate citizenship and on
six items to measure customer loyalty (see Appendix A). each of its components economic citizenship, legal citi-
After the data were collected, the internal consistency zenship, ethical, and discretionary citizenship, respectively
and validity of each measure were evaluated with confirma- (H1 3d). The number of employees and sales volume were
tory factor analysis (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). With entered as control variables in the models because of their
respect to the corporate citizenship measure, confirmatory suspected influence on corporate citizenship (Eilbirt and
factor analysis was first used to select the best measurement Parket, 1973; Abbott and Monsen, 1979; Spicer, 1980).
model from a number of competing models. Empirical data Twelve regression models were used to assess first the effect
provided support for our conceptualization of corporate of corporate citizenship, then the effects of each of its four
citizenship dictating a measurement model composed of components on customer loyalty, employee commitment,
the four distinct but correlated dimensions of economic, ROI, ROA, profit growth, and sales growth, respectively
legal, ethical, and discretionary citizenship. Then, the over- (H4 6d). The two indicators of business size were included
all fit and component structure of the preferred model were in the equations to account for their potential effect on
evaluated. For existing instruments and for the measure of performance. For every model, all the correlations between
customer loyalty, only the overall model and its component independent variables were examined and variance inflation
structure were examined. This purification process resulted factors estimated to assess multi-collinearity levels. The
in keeping 18 items to evaluate corporate citizenship. Our results were found to be below harmful levels (Mason and
conceptualization of corporate citizenship suggests that its Perreault, 1991).
four components are equally important; hence equal weights
were applied to each of them. Accordingly, an SBU's
corporate citizenship level was computed as the simple 3. Results
average of the sums of the scores of the responses on the
four components. The mean score for corporate citizenship 3.1. Antecedents of corporate citizenship
scale was 3.41 with a standard deviation of 0.59.
A confirmatory factor analysis was also employed to Overall, the results suggested that not all dimensions of
examine the internal consistency and validity of the organizational culture are helpful to explain discrepancies in
customer loyalty measure. The purification process led to corporate citizenship across businesses (Table 1). As pre-
the selection of five items. The mean source for customer dicted in H1 1d, market orientation was found to be
loyalty was 3.20 with a standard deviation of 0.47. Five positively associated with corporate citizenship (b = 0.45,
44 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

Table 1
Antecedents of corporate citizenship standardized regression coefficients (N = 120)
Dependent variables
Independent variables Corporate citizenship Economic citizenship Legal citizenship Ethical citizenship Discretionary
Market orientation 0.45*** 0.26** 0.40*** 0.36** 0.31**
Humanistic orientation ns 0.20* ns ns ns
Competitive orientation ns ns 0.19* ns ns
Number of employees ns ns ns ns ns
Sales volume ns ns ns ns ns
R2 0.29 0.19 0.20 0.12 0.18

* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.

p < 0.001) and each of its components: b = 0.26 ( p < 0.01) mitment was accounted for entirely by the positive effect of
for economic citizenship, b = 0.40 ( p < 0.001) for legal discretionary citizenship on employee commitment.
citizenship, b = 0.36 ( p < 0.01) for ethical citizenship, and b Table 2 indicates no support for H5: no significant
= 0.31 ( p < 0.01) for discretionary citizenship (Table 1). relationship was found between corporate citizenship and
The results on the impact of humanistic and competitive customer loyalty. In addition, no significant association
cultures on the propensity to engage in corporate citizenship was observed between each of the components of
were much more ambiguous. No support was found for H2: corporate citizenship and customer loyalty: H5a 5d were
values which foster harmony in the workplace do not induce not supported. Hence, customers did not appear to
organizational decision-makers to adopt activities aimed at respond to corporate citizenship initiatives with increased
displaying citizenship toward customers, employees, and levels of patronage.
public stakeholders. Even though a humanistic orientation Table 2 reveals that corporate citizenship was posi-
does not foster greater overall citizenship, it is conducive of tively associated with relative ROI (b = 0.31, p < 0.01),
greater economic citizenship (b = 0.20, p < 0.05). H2a was ROA (b = 0.27, p < 0.01), profit growth (b = 0.23, p < 0.01).
supported: the greater the humanistic orientation, the greater H6 was supported: proactive corporate citizenship was
the economic citizenship. No significant relationship was associated with greater performance levels. However, as
observed between a humanistic orientation and the other shown in Table 3, only economic citizenship appeared
three dimensions of corporate citizenship legal, ethical, to have a positive effect on all performance measures
and discretionary citizenship. No support was found for (b = 0.22, p < 0.01 for ROI; b = 0.28, p < 0.05 for ROA; and
H2b, 2c, and 2d. b = 0.36, p < 0.001 for profit growth). No significant
The impact of a competitive culture on the likelihood to association was found between each of the other three
engage in corporate citizenship was also differentiated. As dimensions of corporate citizenship and the four indicators
shown in Table 1, a competitive orientation was not asso- of performance. H6a was supported, while H6b, 6c, and 6d
ciated with a reactive corporate citizenship: H3 was not were not. Accordingly, the positive association between
supported. Furthermore, no significant association was corporate citizenship and the three indicators of perfor-
found between a competitive orientation and economic, mance was driven fully by the positive effect of economic
ethical, and discretionary citizenship, respectively. None- citizenship on business performance.
theless, support was found for H3b: the greater the compe-
titive orientation in an organization, the more reactive the
legal citizenship (b = 0.19, p < 0.05).

3.2. Outcomes of corporate citizenship Table 2

Benefits of corporate citizenship: Overall assessment standardized
As revealed in Table 2, H4 was supported: the more regression coefficients (N = 120)
proactive the corporate citizenship, the greater the employee Dependent variables
commitment (b = 0.37, p < 0.001). However, as shown in Employee Customer Profit
Table 3, employee commitment was significantly associated Independent variables commitment loyalty ROI ROA growth
only with discretionary citizenship (b = 0.31, p < 0.01). Corporate citizenship 0.37*** ns 0.31** 0.27** 0.23**
Thus, H4d was supported, while H4a, 4b, and 4c were not: Number of employees ns ns ns ns ns
no significant association was found between economic, Sales volume ns ns ns ns ns
legal, and ethical citizenship, respectively, and employee R2 0.12 0.02 0.31 0.29 0.07
commitment. Hence, the positive relationship observed ** p < 0.01.
between overall corporate citizenship and employee com- *** p < 0.001.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 45

Table 3 Overall, a humanistic culture was not found to be con-

Benefits of corporate citizenship: Assessment by component standar-
ducive of greater corporate citizenship levels. Therefore,
dized regression coefficients (N = 120)
the values that foster harmony and cooperation among
Dependent variables co-workers do not appear to encourage organizational
Independent Employee Customer Profit decision-makers to be highly attentive to the demands of
variables commitment loyalty ROI ROA growth business stakeholders. Even though a humanistic orienta-
Economic citizenship ns ns 0.22** 0.28* 0.36*** tion was not associated with greater levels of overall
Legal citizenship ns ns ns ns ns corporate citizenship, it was conducive of greater economic
Ethical citizenship ns ns ns ns ns
Discretionary citizenship 0.31** ns ns ns ns
citizenship. The findings mainly suggest that harmonious
Number of employees ns ns ns ns ns and supportive relationships in the workplace are essential
Sales volume ns ns ns ns ns to maintaining a competitive position in France. This
R2 0.17 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.09 observation confirms past research findings which demon-
strated the existence of a relationship between a humanistic
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01. orientation and reduced employee turnover, greater job
*** p < 0.001. satisfaction (Pritchard and Karasick, 1973; Victor and
Cullen, 1987, 1988), and increased motivation and team-
4. Discussion work (Cooke and Burack, 1989).
The empirical investigation did not support the idea that
The empirical investigation in a French business environ- competitive values in the workplace are barriers to the
ment provided support for the conceptualization of corporate achievement of greater levels of overall corporate citizen-
citizenship as a construct consisting of the four distinct but ship. Specifically, no significant association was observed
correlated behavioral components of economic, legal, ethi- between competitive orientation and corporate citizenship.
cal, and discretionary citizenship. Accordingly, corporate However, our findings showed a significant and negative
citizenship is not the result of episodic and unrelated relationship between a competitive orientation and legal
activities aimed at displaying the goodwill of the business citizenship. Accordingly, French organizations that encou-
toward its stakeholders. Instead, proactive corporate citizen- rage competitiveness in the workplace induce organiza-
ship emerges when the organization systematically monitors tional members to pay scant attention to their legal
and addresses the demands of each stakeholder group, responsibilities toward employees, customers, or public
regardless of whether these demands are exercised in the stakeholders. Yet, a competitive orientation does not hinder
economic, legal, ethical, or discretionary area. the three other components of corporate citizenship
Our conceptualization of corporate citizenship and its economic, ethical, and discretionary citizenship.
associated measure indicate linkages between activities that Taken altogether, the results imply that proactive cor-
may already be performed independently throughout their porate citizenship is not engaged in de facto by every
organizations, but that are rarely integrated altogether. For business in France. Instead, it is most likely to be
example, a company's public relations department may be in practiced by organizations that foster certain values. Ac-
charge of monitoring philanthropic donations, while its legal cordingly, managers cannot be assured that the introduc-
affairs department implements ethics compliance, and its tion of episodic citizenship programs for example,
human resources department coordinates work family pro- ethics training or corporate volunteerism will systema-
grams. Even though these activities are spread throughout tically be synonymous of proactive corporate citizenship.
the organization, they all represent attempts at being a In fact, such activities are likely to have limited effects
proactive corporate citizen. The organization is in the best unless they are backed by a set of values spread through-
position to build the image of a proactive corporate citizen out the organization. Once organizational members sense
when it coordinates these various efforts and monitors them that keeping abreast of market forces is at the core of the
as a whole. organization's success, they are more likely to grasp the
Our results suggest that corporate values are likely to importance of stakeholders' demands and to cater to them.
affect the organization's likelihood to get involved in corpo- In addition, organizational values encouraging collabora-
rate citizenship. First, the findings revealed the existence of a tive work relations appear to induce French employees to
strong association between a market-oriented culture and perform at their best and to help the economic citizenship
proactive corporate citizenship. In fact, this association held of the firm.
for each of the four components of citizenship. Thus, in Past research on the potential benefits of corporate
accordance with Narver and Slater's (1990) prediction, citizenship has yielded ambiguous results mainly because
businesses that are responsive to market forces as re- of the various measures of corporate citizenship adopted.
flected in high levels of market orientation are also likely Our study displayed consistent results: proactive corporate
to be proactive in addressing non-market forces. citizenship was found to be systematically associated with
Our results showed that the effects of a humanistic greater levels of business performance evaluated with
orientation on corporate citizenship are more ambiguous. three indicators ROA, ROI, and profits growth. How-
46 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

ever, our findings suggested that improved levels of ments. Accordingly, discretionary citizenship emerges as a
performance are not systematically associated with all valuable tool for internal marketing in France. By contrast,
facets of corporate citizenship. Instead, only economic economic, legal, and ethical citizenship do not appear to
citizenship is positively associated with business perfor- be conducive of tighter bonds between the French orga-
mance. This finding may result mainly from the fact that nization and its members.
economic citizenship is required to achieve high levels of With these findings, organizations operating in France
performance. In order to remain competitive, businesses may choose to promote discretionary citizenship to their
must engage in processes such as the monitoring of employees in order to generate their active support. Our
customer satisfaction, the control of employee productivi- results further suggest that corporate citizenship is impor-
ty, the maximization of profits, or the establishment of tant in France since it is already practiced, and since it
long-term strategies all activities significant of proactive does not appear to hurt businesses' performance. Accord-
corporate citizenship. Thus, economic citizenship is natu- ingly, our investigation should comfort international man-
rally associated with greater performance levels since it agers as they attempt to establish global corporate
incorporates the basic business activities that a company citizenship standards. Our study provides preliminary
must engage in to assure its prosperity. Even though legal, evidence to suggest that corporate citizenship practices
ethical, and discretionary citizenship were not found to be as established in the US may be well received within the
positively associated with business performance, they did European Union.
not appear to affect it negatively either. Thus, investments
in these three areas of citizenship should not be viewed as 5. Limitations and directions for future research
detrimental expenses.
Our empirical investigation in France did not support Despite the authors' efforts to provide a meaningful
the idea that corporate citizenship is conducive of custo- conceptualization and measure of corporate citizenship,
mer loyalty. This finding may suggest that French con- the research is not without limitations. First, the study
sumers are not supportive of corporate citizenship. The relied solely on the information provided by marketing
traditional lack of involvement of French businesses in executives in a survey. Thus, the data gathered is reflec-
society's welfare, and the resulting suspicion toward tive of managerial evaluations of organizational culture,
corporate social involvement (Perret and Roustang, corporate citizenship, and business outcomes. The inves-
1993) could explain this finding. However, our results tigation did not assess the extent to which these percep-
also need to be interpreted with caution. Indeed, the tions are linked to the actual organizational culture,
assessment of customer loyalty was not provided by corporate citizenship, and business performance. It was
consumers themselves but by company informants. assumed that the executives surveyed were sufficiently
Furthermore, the study did not take into account the knowledgeable and were willing to provide an accurate
extent to which businesses do or do not communicate depiction of their company. Since no effort was under-
their corporate citizenship to customers. Even if French taken to ensure that this assumption was met, the analysis
customers were supportive of corporate citizenship, they reports mainly managerial evaluations, not actual corpo-
could not support proactive corporate citizens unless their rate behaviors. Similarly, managers were asked to evaluate
knew of these companies' efforts to meet their stake- the loyalty of their firm's customers. This approach is
holders' demands. insufficient to tackle both the attitudinal and behavioral
By contrast, our results showed a significant associa- components of customer loyalty defined in past literature
tion between corporate citizenship and employee commit- (Dick and Basu, 1994).
ment. Past research established that employee commitment Future research could address these caveats by relying
is likely to engender greater job satisfaction and motiva- on multi-informants research designs. Surveys of consu-
tion (Mowday et al., 1979), lower levels of absenteeism mers, employees, and public stakeholders could be com-
and turnover, along with extra-role behaviors (O'Reiley bined in order to obtain a better assessment of corporate
and Chatman, 1986). These desirable outcomes of em- citizenship and a deeper understanding of its benefits.
ployee commitment may in turn improve the overall Non-intrusive measures of employee and customer beha-
competitive position of the business, and may at least viors could also be employed to compare managerial
partially explain the positive association observed between evaluations with facts. For example, philanthropic dona-
corporate citizenship and business performance. However, tions, layoffs practices, or customer complaints could be
an investigation of the effects of each dimension of considered as indicators of corporate citizenship, while the
corporate citizenship on employee commitment revealed turnover rate and the percentage of sales made of repeat
that only discretionary citizenship is conducive of emplo- purchases could be used to assess employee commitment
yee commitment. This finding implies that employees are and customer loyalty, respectively.
especially responsive to the efforts undertaken by their A second limitation of the study is to include French
organization to meet their social responsibilities beyond informants only. Consequently, the results reported above
those imposed by economic, legal, and ethical require- are representative solely of French business practices.
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 47

However, this research constitutes a benchmark for a dedication to corporate citizenship displayed by organiza-
more comprehensive assessment of corporate citizenship tional leaders.
across countries. It calls for future inquiries that examine Finally, the study did not analyze the impact of
cross-cultural variations in corporate citizenship practices, varying proportions of the components within a given
antecedents, and benefits. Specifically, additional research magnitude of corporate citizenship. Such inquiries could
is needed to investigate whether the findings observed in establish whether inequalities in the levels of the four
the present study can be replicated in other nations of the components of corporate citizenship lead to different
European Union. The identification of a common set of outcome levels. For example, two businesses could dis-
practices characterizing corporate citizenship across Europe play similar levels of overall corporate citizenship and yet
would be helpful for managers to define pan-European benefit from differentiated levels of employee commit-
citizenship strategies and for policy-makers to establish ment because one focuses equally on the economic, legal,
uniform standards throughout the European Union. Future ethical, and discretionary citizenship, while the other
research could also extend the scope of our study beyond focuses on the legal and economic citizenship at the
Europe to other developed nations in North America or expense of the discretionary and ethical citizenship. Fu-
Asia. This type of research is definitely needed in order to ture analyses could establish the relative importance of
help international managers determine whether corporate the four dimensions of corporate citizenship in generating
citizenship should be adapted to each individual culture, or positive business outcomes.
whether global practices are feasible. Overall, our research constitutes a preliminary attempt
A third limitation of the analysis is to provide an at gaining a holistic understanding of corporate citizenship
overall assessment of the relationships considered regard- from a marketing perspective. Our conceptualization and
less of industry types and business size. There is some operationalization of corporate citizenship suggest that
indication in past research that the involvement of corpo- meeting social demands does not come at the expense of
rate citizenship and the fruits to be expected from it may performance levels. Instead, it is by blending their eco-
vary across industries. For instance, Clarkson (1988) nomic and non-economic objectives that organizations may
reports that banks are more proactive than manufacturers. best be able to address the various responsibilities assigned
Consequently, scholars interested in examining the ante- to them by their stakeholders. Our preliminary findings
cedents and outcomes of corporate citizenship may want to highlight the marketing value of corporate citizenship and
include the industry type as a moderator. Likewise, busi- should encourage further efforts investigating how corpo-
ness size was not included as a moderator of the relation- rate citizenship can be developed and can be fruitful for
ships surveyed. Yet, one could assume that larger both businesses and society.
organizations have more resources to monitor social de-
mands, address them, and to communicate their efforts to
be proactive citizens. Furthermore, the study did not Acknowledgments
incorporate small businesses (less than 50 employees).
Hence, future research could examine whether the relation- The authors acknowledge the partial financial support of
ships investigated show the same patterns across organiza- the Wang Center for International Business-Memphis
tions of various sizes. CIBER at the University of Memphis.
A fourth limitation refers to the nature of the stake-
holders considered. Only three groups of primary stake-
holders were included: customers, employees, and public References
stakeholders. These groups are not the only ones who can
impose responsibilities on businesses and who can directly Abbott WF, Monsen JR. On the measurement of corporate social respon-
sibility. Acad Manage J 1979;22(3):501 15.
influence their welfare. Channel members and investors
Ackerman RW, Bauer RA. Corporate Social Responsiveness. Reston: Re-
are two powerful primary stakeholders that were not ston Publishing, 1976.
included in this research. The incorporation of their Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Some methods for respecifying measurement
demands in the measure of corporate citizenship would models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. J Mark Res
improve its scope and would yield a more accurate (November) 1988;19:453 60.
Armstrong JS, Overton TS. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. J
evaluation of its benefits.
Mark Res (August) 1977;14:396 402.
Similarly, the research included only three dimensions Aupperle KE. An empirical inquiry into the social responsibilities as
of organizational culture as potential antecedents of defined by corporations: An examination of various models and
corporate citizenship. This focus entails a limited depic- relationships. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Geor-
tion of the role of organizational culture. Future research gia, 1982.
Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hatfield JD. An empirical examination of the
could incorporate more comprehensive measures of cor-
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability.
porate culture such as Reynolds' (1986) scale that in- Acad Manage J 1985;28(2):46 463.
corporates 16 dimensions of organizational culture. In Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage
addition, other antecedents could include the level of 1991;17(1):99 120.
48 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

Baucus MS, Baucus DA. Paying the piper: a empirical examination of Jacoby J, Kyner DB. Brand loyalty versus repeat purchase behavior. J Mark
longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Acad Res (February) 1973;10:1 9.
Manage J 1997;40(1):129 51. Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences.
Bowen HR. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper J Mark (July) 1993;57:53 70.
& Row, 1953. Jones TM. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and eco-
Brown TJ, Dacin PA. The company and the product: corporate associations nomic. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(2):404 37.
and consumer product responses. J Mark (January) 1997;61:68 84. Jones T. Food works, good business. USA Today 1997 (April 25):1B.
Carroll AB. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate perfor- Keller KL. Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based
mance. Acad Manage Rev 1979;4(4):497 505. brand equity. J Mark 1993;57(1):1 22.
Carroll AB. Corporate social performance measurement: a comment on Kilman RH, Saxton MJ. The Kilman Saxton Culture-Gap Survey Pitts-
methods for evaluating an elusive construct. Post LE, editor. Res Corp burgh: Organizational Design Consultants, 1983.
Soc Perform Policy 1991;12:385 401. Lemaitre F, Leparmentier A. Les Appels de M. Chirac a l'Entreprise Ci-
Clarkson MBE. Corporate social performance in Canada, 1976 1986. Res toyenne. Le Monde July 10, Entreprise.
Corp Soc Perform Policy 1988;10:241 65. Lewin AY, Sakano T, Stevens CU, Victor B. Corporate citizenship in Japan:
Clarkson MBE. Defining, evaluating and managing corporate social per- survey from Japanese firms. J Bus Ethics 1995;14(2):83 101.
formance: The stakeholder management model. Res Corp Soc Perform Mason CH, Perreault Jr WD. Collinearity, power and interpretation of
Policy 1991;12:331 58. multiple regression. J Mark Res (August) 1991;28:268 80.
Clarkson MBE. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T. Corporate social respon-
corporate social performance. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):92 117. sibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manage J
Cochran PL, Wood RA. Corporate social responsibility and financial per- 1988;31(4):854 72.
formance. Acad Manage J 1984;27:42 56. Menon A, Menon A. Environmental marketing strategy: the emergence of
Cooke RA, Burack EH. Organizational culture and human resource man- corporate environmentalism as market strategy. J Mark (January)
agement. Organizational Culture Inventory Leader's Guide Plymouth: 1997;61:51 67.
Human Synergistics, 1989. Appendix 3.1 3.36. Mowday R, Porter L, Steers S. The measurement of organizational commit-
Cooke RA, Hartmann JL. Interpreting the cultural styles measured by the ment. J Vocational Behav 1979;14:224 47.
OCI. Organizational Culture Inventory Leader's Guide. Plymouth: Hu- Narver JC, Slater SF. The effect of market orientation on business profit-
man Synergistics, 1989. pp. 23 48. ability. J Mark (October) 1990;20 35.
Cooke RA, Rousseau DM. Behavioral norms and expectations: a quantita- Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory (2nd edn.). New York:
tive approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group Organ McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Stud 1988;13(3):245 73. O'Reilly III C , Chatman J. Organizational commitment and psychological
Davidson WN, Worrell DL. A comparison and test of the use of accounting attachment: the effects of compliance, identification and internalization
and stock market data in relating corporate social responsibility and on prosocial behavior. J Appl Psychol 1986;71(3):492 9.
financial performance. Akron Bus Econ Rev 1990;21:7 19. Pearce JA, Robbins DK, Robinson RB. The impact of grand strategy and
Day GS. The capabilities of market-driven organization. J Mark (October) planning formality on financial performance. Strategic Manage J
1994;58:37 52. (March April) 1987;8:125 34.
Day GS. Continuous learning about markets. Calif Manage Rev (Summer) Perret B, Roustang G. L'Economie Contre la Societe Affronter la Crise
1994;36:9 31. de l'Integration Sociale et Culturelle Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1993.
Day GS, Wensley R. Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing Preston LE, O'Bannon DP. The corporate social financial performance
competitive superiority. J Mark (April) 1988;52:1 20. relationship. Bus Soc 1997;36(4):419 29.
Deshpande R, Webster Jr FE. Organizational culture and marketing: defin- Pritchard RD, Karasick BW. The effects of organizational climate on man-
ing the research agenda. J Mark (January) 1989;53:3 15. agerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organ Behav Hum Per-
Dess GS, Robinson Jr RB. Measuring organizational performance in the form 1973;9:126 46.
absence of objective measures. Strategic Manage J 1984;5(3):265 73. Reynolds PD. Organizational culture as related to industry, position and
Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual performance: A preliminary report. J Manage Stud 1986;23(3):333 45.
framework. J Acad Mark Sci 1994;22(2):99 113. Robin DP, Reidenbach RE. Social responsibility, ethics and marketing
Donaldson T, Preston LE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: strategy: Closing the gap between concept and application. J Mark
Concepts, evidence and implications. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1): (January) 1987;51:44 58.
65 91. Schein EH. Coming to a new awareness of organization culture. Sloan
Drumwright ME. Socially responsible organizational buying: environmen- Manage Rev (Winter) 1984;3 16.
tal concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. J Mark (July) 1994;58: Schlegelmich BB, Robertson DC. The influence of country and industry on
1 19. ethical perceptions of senior executives in the US and Europe. J Int Bus
Eilbirt H, Parket IR. The practice of business the current status of cor- Stud 1995;4:879 81.
porate social responsibility. Bus Horizons (August) 1973;5 14. Sethi SP. A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social
Frederick WC. From CSR1 to CSR2 the maturing of the busi- issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Acad Manage
ness-and-society thought. Working Paper 279. Pittsburg: Graduate Rev 1979;4(1):63 74.
School of Business, University of Pittsburg. Reproduced in Bus Smith C. Corporate citizens and their critics. NY Times (September 8)
Soc 1978;33:150 64. 1996;11.
Graves SB, Waddock SA. Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Per- Spencer BA, Taylor GS. A within and between analysis of the relationship
formance. Acad Manage J 1994;37(5):1034 46. between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Ak-
Griffin JJ, Mahon JF. The corporate social performance and corporate ron Bus Econ Rev 1987;18:7 18.
financial performance debate. Bus Soc 1997;36(1):5 31. Spicer BH. Market risk, accounting data and companies' pollution control
Huber GP, Power DJ. Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: records. J Bus, Finance Account 1980;5:67 83.
guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Manage J (April Stanwick PA, Stanwick SD. The relationship between corporate social
June) 1985;6:171 80. performance and organization size, financial performance and environ-
Izraeli D, Schwontz M. What we can learn from the federal senten- mental performance: An empirical examination. J Bus Ethics
cing guidelines for organizational ethics. J Bus Ethics (July) 1998; 1998;17:195 204.
1045 55. Thomas AS, Simerly RL. In: Moore, Dorothy, editor. Academy of Manage-
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 49

ment Best Papers, 55th Annual Meeting Vancouver, British Columbia. Victor B, Cullen JB. A theory and measurement of ethical climate in orga-
Madison, WI: Omnipress, 1995. pp. 411 15. nizations. In: Greenberg BA, Bellenger DN, editors. Res Corp Soc
Ullman AA. Data in search of theory: a critical examination of the Perform Policy. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1987. pp.
relationships among social performance, social disclosure and eco- 477 81.
nomic performance of US firms. Acad Manage Rev 1985;10 Waddock SE, Graves SB. The corporate social performance financial per-
(3):540 57. formance link. Strategic Manage J 1997;18(4):303 19.
Vance SC. Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks? Wokutch RE, McKinney EW. Behavioral and perceptual measures of corpo-
Manage Rev 1975;64(8):19 24. rate social performance. Res Corp Soc Perform Policy 1991;12:309 30.
Vershoor CC. Principles build profits; link between corporate social perfor- Wood D. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manage Rev
mance and financial and nonfinancial performance. Manage Account 1991;16(4):691 718.
1997;160. Xenikou A, Furnham A. A correlational and factor analytic study of four
Victor B, Cullen JB. The organizational bases of work climates. Adm Sci Q questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Hum Relat 1996;49
(March) 1988;101 25. (3):349 71.

Appendix A. Survey instruments, source of instruments, and reliabilities

Scale and source Scale items Alpha

Market orientationa Competitor orientation 0.87
(Narver and Slater, 1990) (1) We rapidly respond to competitive actions that threaten us.
(2) Our salespeople regularly share information within our organization regarding our competitors' actions.
(3) Top management regularly discusses competitors' strengths and strategies.
(4) We target customers where we have an opportunity for competitive advantage.
(5) We can usually anticipate how our competitors will respond to our competitive moves.b
(6) We systematically analyze the products offered by our competitors.b

Customer orientation 0.91

(1) We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serving customers' needs.
(2) Our business objectives are driven primarily by customer satisfaction.
(3) Our strategy for competitive advantage is based on our understanding of customer needs.
(4) Our business strategies are driven by our beliefs about how we can create greater value for customers.
(5) We give close attention to after-sales service.
(6) We measure customer satisfaction systematically and frequently.b

Interfunctional coordination 0.89

(1) All of our business functions (e.g., marketing/sales, manufacturing, RD, etc.) are integrated in serving
the needs of our target markets.
(2) All of our business functions and departments are responsive to each other's needs and requests.
(3) Our top managers from every function regularly visit our current and prospective customers.
(4) We freely communicate information about our successful or unsuccessful customer experiences across
all business functions.
(5) Our managers understand how everyone in our business can contribute to creating customer value.

Competitive orientationa Extent to which people are expected to: 0.84

(Cooke and Rousseau, 1988) (1) Out-perform their peers.
(2) Maintain an image of superiority.
(3) Be seen and noticed.
(4) Compete rather than cooperate.
(5) Be the center of attention.
(6) Never appear to lose.
(7) Always try to be right.
(8) Be a winner.b
(9) Win against others.b
(10) Turn the job into a contest.b

Humanistic orientationa Extent to which people are expected to: 0.94

(Cooke and Rousseau, 1988) (1) Show concern for the needs of others.
(2) Involve others in decisions affecting them.
(3) Be supportive of others.
(4) Help others to grow and develop.
(5) Give positive rewards to others.
(6) Resolve conflicts constructively.
(7) Encourage others.
(8) Help others to think for themselves.
(9) Be a good listener.
(10) Take time with people.b
50 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751

Corporate citizenshipa Economic citizenship 0.87

(new scale) (1) Our business has a procedure in place to respond to every customer complaint.b
(2) We continually improve the quality of our products.b
(3) We use customer satisfaction as an indicator of our business performance.b
(4) We have been successful at maximizing our profits.
(5) We strive to lower our operating costs.
(6) We closely monitor employees' productivity.
(7) Top management establishes long-term strategies for our business.

Legal citizenship 0.86

(1) Managers are informed about relevant environmental laws.b
(2) All our products meet legal standards.b
(3) Our contractual obligations are always honored.b
(4) The managers of this organization try to comply with the law.
(5) Our company seeks to comply with all laws regulating hiring and employee benefits.
(6) We have programs that encourage the diversity of our workforce (in terms of age, gender, or race).
(7) Internal policies prevent discrimination in employees' compensation and promotion.

Ethical citizenship 0.88

(1) Our business has a comprehensive code of conduct.
(2) Members of our organization follow professional standards.b
(3) Top managers monitor the potential negative impacts of our activities on our community.b
(4) We are recognized as a trustworthy company.
(5) Fairness toward co-workers and business partners is an integral part of our employee
evaluation process.
(6) A confidential procedure is in place for employees to report any misconduct at work (such as
stealing or sexual harassment).
(7) Our salespersons and employees are required to provide full and accurate information to
all customers.

Discretionary citizenship 0.90

(1) The salaries offered by our company are higher than industry averages.b
(2) Our business supports employees who acquire additional education.
(3) Our business encourages employees to join civic organizations that support our community.b
(4) Flexible company policies enable employees to better coordinate work and personal life.
(5) Our business gives adequate contributions to charities.
(6) A program is in place to reduce the amount of energy and materials wasted in our business.
(7) We encourage partnerships with local businesses and schools.
(8) Our business supports local sports and cultural activities.b

Customer loyaltya (1) Many of our customers would not buy the products offered by our competitors.b 0.85
(new scale) (2) The large majority of our sales are made up of repeat purchases.
(3) We have trouble keeping our existing customers.
(4) Customers often switch from our products to our competitors' products
(5) Most of our customers have used our products more than once.
(6) Customer loyalty is a major strength of our business.

Organizational commitmenta (1) Employees feel as though their future is intimately linked to that of this organization. 0.88
(Jaworski and Kohli, 1993) (2) The bonds between this organization and its employees are very strong.
(3) Employees would be happy to make personal sacrifices if such sacrifices were important for
(4) The business' well-being.
(5) In general, employees are proud to work for this organization.
(6) Employees often go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure the company's well-being.
(7) Our people are very committed to this firm.
(8) It is clear that employees are fond of the firm.

Business performancec Relative to our competitors, over the past 3 years: N/A
(1) Our return on investment has been ___.
(2) Our return on assets has been ___.
(3) Our sales growth has been ___.
(4) Our profit growth has been ___.

a
Scale ranging from 1 to 5 (from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree).
b
These items were eliminated based on the refinement procedure described in the text.
c
Scale ranging from 1 to 5 (from Much Worse to Much Better).
 I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell / Journal of Business Research 51 (2001) 3751 51

Appendix B. Correlations among research measures

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13

Market orientation 1.00
Humanistic orientation 0.32 1.00
Competitive orientation 0.14 0.33 1.00
Economic citizenship 0.30 0.20 0.01 1.00
Legal citizenship 0.37 0.10 0.19 0.23 1.00
Ethical citizenship 0.37 0.09 0.08 0.41 0.50 1.00
Discretionary citizenship 0.34 0.26 0.12 0.32 0.44 0.28 1.00
Corporate citizenship 0.49 0.24 0.14 0.67 0.70 0.73 0.75 1.00
Commitment 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.27 0.16 0.19 0.32 0.33 1.00
Loyalty 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.09 1.00
ROI 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.28 0.24 0.07 1.00
ROA 0.25 0.12 0.07 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.10 0.01 0.49 1.00
Profit growth 0.21 0.08 0.17 0.32 0.09 0.12 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.10 0.77 0.49 1.00