Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619

DOI 10.1007/s11002-017-9433-6

The impact of corporate social responsibility on customer

attitudes and retention—the moderating role of brand
success indicators

Jenny van Doorn 1 & Marjolijn Onrust 2 & Peter C. Verhoef 1 & Marnix S. Bügel 3

Published online: 28 July 2017

# The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication

Abstract Although many studies report positive effects of corporate social responsi-
bility (CSR) on customer attitudes, recent literature shows that the effectiveness of CSR
initiatives critically varies among consumers, brands, and companies. Using 1375
customer responses about 93 brands in 18 industries, we examine how perceived
CSR relates to customer attitudes and actual retention 2 years later, and specifically
how this relationship may be contingent on brand characteristics. Our results indicate
that perceived CSR can indeed compensate for the absence of a strong brand or smaller
advertising budgets, but not for lack of innovativeness. Companies that simultaneously
do good and innovate are rewarded with more positive customer attitudes and higher
levels of customer retention.

Keywords Corporate social responsibility . Customer retention . Innovativeness

1 Introduction

Recent economic and financial crises have sparked vigorous debates about the societal
role of firms, with Porter and Kramer (2011) specifically declaring the need for a
stronger focus on social value creation to generate trust in firms. Corporate social
responsibility (CSR) initiatives are therefore significant elements of the corporate
strategy of many multinational corporations, whose CEOs, such as Unilever’s Paul

* Jenny van Doorn

[email protected]

1
Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Marketing, University of Groningen,
P.O. Box 800, NL-9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
2
Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, The Groningen, Netherlands
3
MIcompany, Amsterdam, Netherlands
608 Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619

Polman, assert that businesses can be a positive force for good in the world and that this
perspective is in the interests of all firms’ stakeholders (Stern 2010).
In management and marketing literature, extensive attention to CSR has yielded
the following definition: CSR is a firm’s commitment to ensuring societal and
stakeholder well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions
of corporate resources (Du et al. 2011). As a broad concept, CSR can include
business practices as diverse as cash donations to charity, equitable treatment of
workers, and an environmentally friendly production policy. Although CSR chiefly
benefits society, many firms additionally strive to Bdo better by doing good^ and
gain competitive advantages through CSR (Prout 2006; Luo and Du 2015).
While an extensive literature stream examining the effects of CSR on financial
performance has predominantly found small positive returns to CSR efforts (for an
overview over these studies, see Margolis et al. 2007; Orlitzky et al. 2003), research
on consumers’ responses to CSR efforts is more limited (Ailawadi et al. 2014). A
downside of current literature investigating consumers’ response to CSR initiatives
is its focus on consumers’ attitudes and intentions rather than behavioral measures.
A notable exception finds predominantly positive effects of perceived CSR on self-
reported consumer share-of-wallet, except for activities related to environmental
friendliness (Ailawadi et al. 2014). To the best of our knowledge, no studies so far
have investigated the impact of CSR efforts on actual customer retention, although
customer retention is a very important outcome variable for firms (e.g., Katsikeas
et al. 2016). Furthermore, while the literature cautions that the effectiveness of CSR
initiatives may differ between companies and brands (e.g., Du et al. 2011; Torelli
et al. 2012), attention is lacking with respect to when doing good leads to increased
loyalty. This neglect leads to the two central research questions that guide this
study:

(1) What is CSR’s effect on customer attitudes and retention?

(2) Does CSR’s effect on customer attitudes and retention depend on brand
characteristics?

In line with previous literature (e.g., Ailawadi et al. 2014; Lichtenstein et al. 2004),
we expect perceived CSR to affect customer attitudes, with the effect on retention being
largely mediated by customer attitudes. Building on this assumption, we mainly
elaborate on the second research question in our discussion of theory and conceptual
development.
We address our research questions through a longitudinal study of 1375 re-
sponses from customers of 93 firms in 18 industries for which we observe perceived
CSR, customer attitudes, and customer retention 2 years after the initial study. We
contribute to the existing literature on CSR in three ways. First, we investigate the
moderating role of brand-level variables on the CSR–customer loyalty relationship.
Second, we study a large number of brands in multiple industries, allowing us to
reach more generalizable conclusions. So far, studies of consumers’ response to
CSR have focused on either a single industry or market (e.g., Ailawadi et al. 2014;
Du et al. 2011) or a single brand (e.g., Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Finally, our
study is the first to investigate customer retention as an outcome variable of
perceived CSR.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619 609

2 Theoretical background

Although many studies find positive effects of CSR on customer responses such as
customer commitment and general company evaluations (Lacey and Kennett-
Hensel 2010; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001), recent literature also shows that CSR
initiatives can have a dark side. For instance, CSR initiatives may negatively affect
evaluations of luxury brands (Torelli et al. 2012) or of products in certain product
categories (e.g., Luchs et al. 2010). Literature also cautions that the effectiveness of
CSR critically depends on company characteristics and strategy. For instance, CSR
efforts may pay off more solidly for a market challenger than for a market leader
(Du et al. 2011). These countervailing effects might explain why many studies find
no significant effect of CSR on firm performance (Kang et al. 2016). As a result,
company or brand characteristics become critical differentiators between firms that
can successfully engage in CSR and those that can at best expect no effect of their
CSR efforts.
One line of reasoning posits that engaging in CSR as a strategy better suits
successful companies. Consumers may have a lay theory that company resources are
zero-sum, implying that resources that are invested in improving a company’s CSR
record are diverted from strengthening a company’s market position and improving a
company’s products and/or services (Newman et al. 2014). Therefore, consumers may
perceive that less successful companies’ engagement in CSR comes at the expense of
developing stronger corporate abilities (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006), and reason that
only successful companies possess sufficient slack resources to invest in CSR (Kang
et al. 2016). This line of reasoning is supported by literature cautioning that CSR efforts
of less innovative companies may be interpreted as focusing on the wrong priorities
(Luo and Bhattacharya 2006; Newman et al. 2014). Engaging in CSR may then
reinforce company success and improve customer attitude and retention, particularly
toward already successful companies.
A second line of reasoning emphasizes that successful companies have less to
gain by engaging in CSR. Customers of successful companies already have positive
attitudes and high retention rates, leaving less potential for CSR to further increase
attitudes and create loyalty (Du et al. 2011; Henderson and Arora 2010). This
argument suggests that engaging in CSR is a more worthwhile strategy for less
solid, well known, and successful companies to build positive attitudes and loyalty.
Such a perspective is in line with findings that the effect of CSR on performance is
smaller for market leaders (Du et al. 2011), and that the additional effect from a
cause-related marketing campaign is limited for companies that are already seen as
ethical (Strahilevitz 2003). CSR can therefore compensate for companies’ weak-
nesses and is in particular effective for increasing attitudes and loyalty toward less
successful companies.

3 Conceptual development

Prior research thus seems to suggest that the effect of CSR on performance
depends on firms’ success in the market. We investigate how various indicators
of brand success moderate the relationship between CSR and brand attitudes and
610 Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619

retention. 1 As consumers may assess brand success according to various criteria, we

consider four indicators of brand success from a marketing and consumer perspective.
These indicators range from more attitudinal measures evaluating whether a customer
likes a brand and is aware of a brand to more objective measures detailing whether a brand
has a dominant market position or is a market leader in terms of potential for innovation.
Brand strength is customers’ subjective, attitudinal assessment of the brand
(Henderson and Arora 2010). Previous literature suggests that customers identify with
strong brands (Lam et al. 2010), implying positive attitudes and loyalty. For strong
brands, therefore, a ceiling effect may limit the additional value of CSR activities.
Advertising reflects customers’ awareness of a brand. Higher levels of advertising
increase customers’ brand awareness and may stimulate customers to become further
informed about the brand, including its CSR policies. Advertising specifically related to
CSR may improve consumer awareness of a brand’s CSR, thus enhancing the impact of
CSR, although advertising featuring CSR may also backfire (Servaes and Tamayo 2013;
Yoon et al. 2006).
Market leadership is a more objective measure of a brand’s market success, as
market followers may have on the one hand more to gain from CSR (Du et al. 2011),
but on the other hand may have more pressing priorities than CSR. Finally, we include
innovativeness of the brand as an indicator of brand success. As pioneers in their field,
innovative brands may have less to gain from engaging in CSR. However, they are also
less likely to be blamed for focusing on the wrong priorities.

4 Research design

4.1 Data

We obtained the data for our study from two customer surveys and an expert survey.
Furthermore, we collected secondary advertising data from AC Nielsen and determined
market leadership on the basis of revenue data published in the firms’ annual
statements.
From September to November 2010, a large Dutch market research agency distributed
web-based surveys to a panel of Dutch customers as part of a yearly large-scale study of
customer performance. Panel members were randomly selected and received around €2
for participation. For each industry, respondents answered questions about various firms
they patronized. The questions were asked at the subsidiary—that is, brand—level,
implying that if companies held multiple brands, the customer was questioned about only
one of them. For example, one of the largest providers in the insurance market has
multiple brands and uses a multi-brand strategy, but does not actively communicate those
brands as being owned by one firm. The total sample of our first survey featured 8924
responses from 6649 participants, in reference to 95 brands in 18 industries, such as

1
The robust stream of literature examining the effects of CSR on financial performance (e.g., Margolis et al.
2007) usually takes the company as unit of analysis. However, when examining the impact of CSR on
customer attitudes and retention, one has to take into account that many companies adopt a multi-brand
strategy (Keller 2014) and may not actively communicate that these brands belong to the same company.
Given that customers form attitudes and are loyal to these brands, and not their parent companies, we adopt the
customer’s perspective and take the brand as unit of analysis.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619 611

telecommunications, travel agencies, banks, department stores, and supermarkets. This

response volume implies an average number of 1.34 brands evaluated per respondent, as
respondents could evaluate a maximum of three brands in total.
For our second survey, we contacted customers from our first survey at the end of 2012
to inquire whether they were still a customer of the brand they answered questions about in
the first survey. This approach yielded a sample of 1375 customer responses relating to 93
brands (two companies had ceased to exist) in 18 industries. Of the responses, 52.1% came
from male respondents. Age was balanced across five preset age categories, indicating a
good representation of customers of all ages. With respect to income, most respondents
earned €30,000–€60,000 annually.
The expert survey was conducted in April 2011. After a pretest, we sent e-mail
questionnaires to 1440 marketing and marketing intelligence employees selected from a
list maintained by a scientific research center. Prior to filling out the questionnaires,
managers chose industries for which they were most knowledgeable and comfortable
about answering questions. The 244 questionnaires received represented a response rate
of 16.9%. After eliminating incomplete questionnaires, we obtained a total of 158
usable surveys, which offered a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 59 responses per
industry.

4.2 Measures

We used existing scales to measure most of the variables (Table 1). Our measure of
perceived CSR, which we obtained for 34 of our 93 companies, is significantly
correlated with the ASSET4 ratings from Datastream (r = .482, p < .01 for ASSET4
environmental, r = .501, p < .01 for ASSET4 social, and r = .397, p < .05 for the
weighted overall ASSET4 rating).
We assessed innovativeness by asking the experts how often a brand introduces
innovative products, services, and ideas (Verhoef and Leeflang 2009). Data about
brands’ advertising expenditures came from ACNielsen. To ensure comparability in
the level of brand advertising across industries, we calculated advertising ratios by
dividing the advertising expenditures per brand by the total amount of advertising
expenditures per industry.
We measured firms’ market position by their revenue ranking in the corresponding
industries. We collected revenue information from firms’ annual reports (Ou et al., 2017).
For firms that were not listed on the stock market and/or had multiple brands, we used
industry reports to collect information about a brand’s market share. We then distinguished
the market leader as the brand with the highest market share in an industry.

4.3 Reliability

Cronbach’s α values exceeded the critical threshold of .7 (Peterson 1994), and a

rotated factor analysis of the items confirmed that separate factors represented
each of the customer-level constructs. Therefore, the items were summed. Because
we obtained substantial information from the first customer survey, we performed
a common method bias test. In addition to the measures in Table 1, we included a
measure of consumer confidence in the survey, which we used as a marker
variable in a common method bias test (Lindell and Whitney 2001). This test
 612

Table 1 Measures and scales

Variables Measurement Scale Mean (SD) Source Cronbach’s α

Dependent variables
Customer attitude 1. My choice for [xxx] 1 = totally disagree to 4.73 (1.34) Ailawadi et al. (2014) .77
(1st customer survey) turned out better than expected. 7 = totally agree 4.70 (1.37)
2. I feel at home with [xxx]. 1 = not at all 6.59 (2.13)
3. I am willing to recommend [xxx] to others. 10 = to a very large extent
Customer retention Are you still a customer of [xxx]? Yes = 1/no = 0 0.73 (0.44)
(2nd customer survey)
Independent variables
Customer survey
CSR 1. [Xxx] provides an evident social contribution. 1 = totally disagree, 3.95 (1.33) Du et al. (2007) .90
2. [Xxx] emphasizes the importance of its social 7 = totally agree 3.99 (1.29)
responsibilities.
Brand strength 1. [Xxx] is a strong brand. 1 = totally disagree, 5.21 (1.26) Aaker (1996) .74
2. [Xxx] is an innovative brand. 7 = totally agree 4.49 (1.15)
Expert survey
Brand innovativeness How often does [xxx] come up with innovative 1 = very seldom to 3.45 (0.67) Verhoef and Leeflang 2009
products, services and ideas? 7 = very often
Secondary data
Market leader Market leader vs. market follower per brand, 1 = market leader, 0.22 (0.41)
based on their relative market share per industry. 0 = market follower
Adv j
Advertising Advertising expenditures in million Euros. AdvRatio j ¼ n 0.20 (0.16) Luo and Bhattacharya (2009)
∑ Adv j
Advertising ratio is calculated as the advertising j¼1

expenditures per brand divided by those of the

entire industry.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619 613

showed no problematic results. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of the

variables, appendix A, the correlations. We standardized and mean-centered our
variables prior to any further analysis.

4.4 Model development

We specify a multilevel regression model to test our hypotheses because the data set
comprises three levels, such that customers are nested in brands and brands are nested
in industries (Snijders and Bosker 2012). We use a random intercept model, specified
mathematically as follows:
attitudeijk ¼ β 0jk þ β 1 CSRijk þ β 2 brandstrengthijk þ β 3 advertising jk þ
 

β 4 leaderjk þ β 5 innovativejk þ β6 CSRijk  brandstrengthijk þ β 7 CSRijk  advertising


ð1Þ
þβ 8 CSRijk  leaderjk þ β9 CSRijk  innovativejk þ
β 10 Genderijk þ β 11 Ageijk þ β 12 Incomeijk þ eijk

with β0jk = β00k + u0jk

β 00k ¼ β000 þ u00k

retentionijk
¼ πijk ∼Binomial

logit πijk ¼ γ 0jk þ γ 1 CSRijk þ γ 2 brandstrengthijk þ γ 3 advertising jk þ
   
γ 4 leaderjk þ γ 5 innovativejk þ γ 6 CSRijk  brandstrengthijk þ γ 7 CSRijk  advertising jk þ



γ 8 CSRijk  leaderjk þ γ 9 CSRijk  innovativejk þ
γ 10 attitude þ þγ 11 Genderijk þ γ 12 Ageijk þ γ 13 Incomeijk þ vijk
ð2Þ

with γ0jk = γ00k + ϑ0jk

γ 00k ¼ γ 000 þ ϑ00k

where
attitudeijk Attitude of customer i toward brand j in industry k;
CSRijk Perceived CSR by customer i of brand j in industry k;
brandstrengthijk Strength of brand j in industry k according to customer i;
advertisingjk Advertising ratio of brand j in industry k;
leaderjk Dummy variable (1 = brand j in industry k is market leader);
innovativejk Innovativeness of brand j in industry k;
Genderijk Gender of customer i (1 = male);
Ageijk Age of customer i;
Incomeijk Income of customer i;
retentionijk Dummy variable (1 = customer i of brand j in industry k stayed loyal).
We estimate the attitude and retention models separately (Ailawadi et al. 2014).
Likelihood ratio tests reveal (p < .01) that our model outperforms the intercept-only
model and that our multilevel model outperforms an OLS/logistic regression model.
614 Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619

5 Impact of perceived CSR on customer attitudes and retention

We present our results in Table 2 and give a visual overview of our framework and
results in Fig. 1. As expected, perceived CSR relates positively and significantly to
customer attitude (b = .333, p < .01). Brand strength positively affects attitude
(b = .482, p < .01), while innovativeness, advertising, and market leadership do not
affect customer attitudes.
As expected, customer attitude has a strong positive impact on actual reten-
tion (b = .434, p < .01), while perceived CSR does not (b = −.098, p > .1)
(Table 3). Mediation tests for dichotomous outcomes (Kenny 2013) using a
bootstrapping approach (5000 re-samples) with retention as the dependent
variable, CSR as the independent variable, and attitude as the mediator show
a positive mean indirect effect with the 95% confidence intervals not including
zero (a × b = .113, 95% CI = .046 to .180). These results suggest that
customer attitude mediates the effect of perceived CSR on customer retention
(Ailawadi et al. 2014).
With regard to the moderating effects, we find significant interactions of
CSR with brand strength (b = −.060; p < .01), advertising (b = −.049, p < .05),
and innovativeness (b = .045. p < .05). The positive interaction effect between

Table 2 Impact of perceived CSR on attitude and retention

DV: attitude DV: retention

coefficient SE coefficient SE

Perceived CSR .333*** .025 −.098 .096

Brand strength .482*** .023 .169* .096
Advertising .017 .026 .037 .117
Market leader .060 .058 .112 .265
Innovativeness −.030 .027 .266** .125
Perceived CSR × brand strength −.060*** .015 −.041 .054
Perceived CSR × advertising −.049** .022 .020 .080
Perceived CSR × market leader −.052 .053 .048 .204
Perceived CSR × innovativeness .045** .021 .137* .083
Attitude .434*** .098
Control variables
Age .001 .019 .016 .070
Income .004 .019 .025 .070
Gender (1 = male) −.083* .038 .087 .140
Constant .070 .046 1.147*** .173
Number of customers 1375
Number of companies 93
Number of industries 18
Log likelihood −1441.884 −733.087

*
p < .1 (two-sided tests), ** p < .05, *** p < .01
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619 615

Brand characteristics Brand characteristics

Brand strength (-) Brand strength (n.s.)
Advertising (-) Advertising (n.s.)
Market leader (n.s.) Market leader (n.s.)
Innovativeness (+) Innovativeness (+)

Customer Loyalty
Perceived CSR
Attitude (Retention)

Fig. 1 Conceptual model and overview of results ((+) positive effect, (−) negative effect, (n.s.) not significant
at p > .10. Tested in a longitudinal study of 1375 responses of customers of 93 firms in 18 different industries)

innovativeness and CSR contrasts with our theoretical expectations. No support

is provided for a moderating effect of market leadership (b = −.05; p > .10).
We also assessed interactions between CSR and the moderators in the retention
model. Only the effect of perceived CSR on retention appears to be stronger for
more innovative companies (b = .137, p < .1), although only at the 10%
significance level.
We performed several additional analyses to confirm the robustness of the
results in Table 2. First, we checked for industry-specific differences in our
specified relationships via random coefficients models. The results remained
similar. Only the relationship between perceived CSR and customer attitude shows
industry-specific differences (p(LR-test) <.05); all other relationships do not
(p(LR-test) >.1). We therefore prefer the more parsimonious random intercept
model. Second, we added interactions between perceived CSR and the demo-
graphic control variables to investigate whether the impact of perceived CSR on
attitudes and retention differed between demographic profiles and found that the
attitude of older people was influenced more by perceived CSR (b = .056, p < .01)
while all other results remained stable. Third, the highest VIF score is 2.04,
indicating that multicollinearity was unlikely to be a problem (Hair et al. 2009).

6 Discussion

The main objective of this research was to investigate the effect of perceived CSR
on customer attitude, in particular to what extent it is shaped by indicators of
brand success, and its effect on retention. To the best of our knowledge, our study
is the first to relate perceived CSR to customer attitudes and actual retention for
such a large number of brands in multiple industries. As an important initial
finding, we can reaffirm that CSR has a positive effect on customer attitude,
which in turn predicts actual customer retention 2 years later. However, 2 years
after our initial survey, we find no strong link between actual retention and
perceived CSR and its interactions with brand characteristics, with the notable
exception of innovative companies. This result relates to observations in the
literature that CSR matters less for actual purchase behavior than quality consid-
erations and price (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004).
616 Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619

As a second important contribution, we advance recent empirical findings that

caution that CSR might not be a good strategy for all brands (Du et al. 2011; Luo
and Bhattacharya 2009). We find that brands that do well on more attitudinal
measures of brand success may benefit less from doing good. This result may
be due to ceiling effects, implying that attitudes toward brands that are already
positively evaluated and have high levels of brand awareness are less likely to
improve through CSR. In particular, we find that perceived CSR makes a more
notable difference for attitudes toward weaker brands. We therefore generalize to a
between-firm level the assertion from prior work that a social cause attached to a
product or service benefits an unknown brand more than a well-known brand
(Arora and Henderson 2007).
Furthermore, we find that perceived CSR matters more for the attitude toward
brands with lower advertising ratios. Intense advertising creates awareness of and
familiarity with a brand, implying that brands that advertise less have more to
gain from engaging in CSR. Interestingly, these results contrast with the earlier
finding that good corporate social performance decreases firm-idiosyncratic risk
to a greater extent for brands with higher advertising (Luo and Bhattacharya
2009). We can only speculate about the reasons for this divergence, the most
obvious one being that Luo and Bhattacharya (2009) investigate firm-level
effects using secondary data sources whereas we look at customer-level out-
comes (e.g., Katsikeas et al. 2016).
Interestingly, we find the opposite result when we turn to measures that more
strongly reflect a brand’s position in the market, in particular a brand’s pro-
pensity to introduce innovative products and/or services. Perceived CSR does
not compensate for lower innovativeness. Rather, innovativeness and CSR
reinforce each other. Notably, innovativeness is the only moderator we examine
that affects the impact of perceived CSR on both attitude and retention.
Innovative companies can clearly benefit from engaging in CSR. This result
is in line with literature cautioning that CSR efforts of less innovative compa-
nies may focus on the wrong priorities (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006; Newman
et al. 2014).
Figure 2 depicts the joint effect of brand strength and innovativeness for the
effectiveness of CSR. Figure 2a, reveals that weak brands enjoy the strongest
increase in customer attitudes when they engage in CSR, whereas innovativeness
makes less of a difference. However, regarding customer retention, brands that are
not innovative do not benefit from engaging in CSR, regardless of their brand
strength (Fig. 2b,).
We find no evidence that perceived CSR matters more for a market follower
than for a market leader, a result that contrasts with findings in a two-brand
setting (Du et al. 2011). An explanation for a significant negative interaction
effect of brand strength and advertising, but not market leadership, with per-
ceived CSR on attitude may be that the first two measures are more closely
connected to how the firm is reflected in customers’ minds, whereas market
leadership concerns a brand’s actual position in the market, which does not
necessarily mean that people like the brand (Katsikeas et al. 2016). For example,
Wal-Mart might have a high market share, but customers might feel less con-
nection with that brand.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619 617

Fig. 2 Moderating effect of perceived CSR on attitude and retention (To obtain Fig. 2a, we varied the levels
of brand strength, innovativeness, and perceived CSR (Bhigh^ one SD above the mean, Blow^ one SD below
the mean), leaving the other variables at their mean)

7 Limitations and further research

We note several limitations associated with this research. First, we gathered data
only from the Netherlands, which makes generalizing the findings to other coun-
tries or cultural settings difficult. Second, the industries included are primarily
service-oriented, such as telecommunications, banks, and insurance firms, or only
partly service-oriented, such as department stores and supermarkets. Third, we
used customer attitude and retention as our focal variables, but performance
metrics such as total sales and profits might also be valuable to study. Fourth,
we did not study actual CSR efforts and their relationships with CSR perceptions.
Finally, we note that this study mainly presents initial findings on the moderating
role of brand success indicators on the CSR brand attitude and retention
relationship.
Further research could build upon our findings and develop and test theory.
Specifically, research could focus on uncovering the underlying mechanisms for
the occurrence of these moderating effects. For brand strength, we discussed the
role of ceiling effects, whereas for innovative brands, the perceived focus on the
right priorities may be an explanation. While empirical evidence is thus present for
three of the studied brand success indicators, research should theorize and test
why these moderating effects occur.
618 Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619

Appendix

Table 3 Correlation matrix

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) Customer attitude 1

(2) Retention .18** 1
(3) Perceived CSR .58** .09** 1
**
(4) Brand strength .65 .16** .54** 1
(5) Advertising ratio .08** .09** .02 .08** 1
** ** * **
(6) Market leader .11 .07 .07 .14 .43** 1
** ** * **
(7) Brand innovativeness .12 .15 .07 .23 .48** .40** 1

*
p < .05, ** p < .01

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review,
38, 102–120.
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., Luan, Y. J., & Taylor, G. A. (2014). Does retailer CSR enhance behavioral
loyalty? A case for benefit segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31, 156–167.
Arora, N., & Henderson, T. (2007). Embedded premium promotion: why it works and how to make it more
effective. Marketing Science, 26, 514–531.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: when, why and how customers respond to
corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 9–24.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility:
The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage:
overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57, 1528–1545.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henderson, T., & Arora, N. (2010). Promoting brands across categories with a social cause: implementing
effective embedded premium programs. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 41–60.
Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. (2016). Washing your sins? Corporate social responsibility, corporate
social irresponsibility and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 59–79.
Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, T. M. (2016). Assessing performance outcomes in
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 1–20.
Keller, K. L. (2014). Designing and implementing brand architecture strategies. Journal of Brand
Management, 21(9), 702–715.
Kenny, D. A. (2013). Mediation with Dichotomous Outcomes. Retrieved January 19th 2015 from website:
http://davidakenny.net/doc/dichmed.pdf.
Lacey, R., & Kennett-Hensel, P. A. (2010). Longitudinal effects of corporate social responsibility on customer
relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 581–597.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:607–619 619

Lam, S., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new
brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74, 128–146.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braing, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility
on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research
designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: potential
negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74, 18–31.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market
value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1–18.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: corporate social performance, strategic
marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73, 198–213.
Luo, X., & Du, S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm
innovation. Marketing Letters, 26, 703–714.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and
redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.
Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: how firm intentions shape the
evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 823–839.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-
analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.
Ou, Y. C., Verhoef, P. C., & Wiesel, T. (2017). The effects of customer equity drivers on loyalty across services
industries and firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, forthcoming.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21,
381–391.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a
wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62–77.
Prout, J. (2006). Corporate responsibility in the global economy: a business case. Society and Business Review,
1, 184–191.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Customer reactions to
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225–244.
Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: the role of
customer awareness. Management Science, 59, 1045–1061.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. (2012). Multilevel analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Stern, S. (2010). The Outsider in a Hurry to Shake Up His Company. Financial Times, http://www.ft.
com/intl/cms/s/0/942c64a6-404a-11df-8d2300144feabdc0.html#axzz3n2awspSB.
Strahilevitz, M. (2003). The effects of prior impressions of a firm’s ethics on the success of a cause-related
marketing campaign: do the good look better while the bad look worse? Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing, 11(1), 77–92.
Torelli, C. J., Basu-Monga, S., & Kaikati, A. (2012). Doing poorly by doing good: corporate social
responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 948–963.
Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2009). Understanding the marketing department’s influence within the
firm. Journal of Marketing, 73, 14–37.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.