企业社会责任并未发生:探索陷入悖论的消费者的实证研究

IF 1.5 Q3 BUSINESS
Klára Šimůnková, Tomáš Kincl, Daria Gunina
{"title":"企业社会责任并未发生:探索陷入悖论的消费者的实证研究","authors":"Klára Šimůnková, Tomáš Kincl, Daria Gunina","doi":"10.1057/s41299-024-00195-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How consumers perceive corporate social responsibility (CSR) has shifted significantly over the past decades. Initially, a voluntary commitment to solving urgent social problems, CSR was once a source of competitive advantage, specific positioning, and exclusivity in customers’ eyes. Today, however, CSR has become a fundamental prerequisite for a company to function in society, a source of company legitimacy, expected and demanded by many stakeholder groups. As research demonstrates, young people in particular loudly and intensely declare their interest in today’s challenges and vigorously demand that the companies they buy from or work for participate in CSR. On the contrary, in everyday practice, we as scholars and educators have learned that CSR is more of an empty word for consumers, something that is right but of which they have no precise idea. CSR finds itself in a paradoxical situation. Therefore, our study aims to identify the main paradoxes in how millennials perceive CSR. First, it addresses the term <i>paradox</i> and its contextualization within the CSR discourse. Second, the three main paradoxes (authenticity/communication, legitimacy/trust, pay-off/non-pay-off) are outlined and verified through mixed methods research. The paradoxes are identified and confirmed through the ambivalent and inconsistent responses to a questionnaire and, subsequently, multiple focus groups. Finally, implications for the CSR concept are suggested. Furthermore, this paper questions the validity of instruments traditionally used to measure consumer attitudes (not only) in the field of CSR.</p>","PeriodicalId":47317,"journal":{"name":"CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CSR Did Not Take Place: An Empirical Study Exploring Consumers Trapped in Paradoxes\",\"authors\":\"Klára Šimůnková, Tomáš Kincl, Daria Gunina\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41299-024-00195-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>How consumers perceive corporate social responsibility (CSR) has shifted significantly over the past decades. Initially, a voluntary commitment to solving urgent social problems, CSR was once a source of competitive advantage, specific positioning, and exclusivity in customers’ eyes. Today, however, CSR has become a fundamental prerequisite for a company to function in society, a source of company legitimacy, expected and demanded by many stakeholder groups. As research demonstrates, young people in particular loudly and intensely declare their interest in today’s challenges and vigorously demand that the companies they buy from or work for participate in CSR. On the contrary, in everyday practice, we as scholars and educators have learned that CSR is more of an empty word for consumers, something that is right but of which they have no precise idea. CSR finds itself in a paradoxical situation. Therefore, our study aims to identify the main paradoxes in how millennials perceive CSR. First, it addresses the term <i>paradox</i> and its contextualization within the CSR discourse. Second, the three main paradoxes (authenticity/communication, legitimacy/trust, pay-off/non-pay-off) are outlined and verified through mixed methods research. The paradoxes are identified and confirmed through the ambivalent and inconsistent responses to a questionnaire and, subsequently, multiple focus groups. Finally, implications for the CSR concept are suggested. Furthermore, this paper questions the validity of instruments traditionally used to measure consumer attitudes (not only) in the field of CSR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-024-00195-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CORPORATE REPUTATION REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-024-00195-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去几十年来,消费者对企业社会责任(CSR)的看法发生了很大变化。起初,企业社会责任只是一种解决紧迫社会问题的自愿承诺,在消费者眼中,它曾是竞争优势、特定定位和独占性的来源。但如今,企业社会责任已成为公司在社会中发挥作用的基本前提,是公司合法性的来源,受到许多利益相关群体的期待和要求。正如研究表明的那样,年轻人尤其大声强烈地表达了他们对当今挑战的兴趣,并强烈要求他们所购买或工作的公司参与企业社会责任。相反,在日常实践中,作为学者和教育者,我们了解到,企业社会责任对消费者来说更像是一个空洞的词,是正确的,但他们并没有确切的概念。企业社会责任处于一种自相矛盾的境地。因此,我们的研究旨在找出千禧一代如何看待企业社会责任的主要矛盾。首先,我们讨论了悖论一词及其在企业社会责任论述中的语境。其次,通过混合方法研究,概述并验证三大悖论(真实性/沟通、合法性/信任、回报/非回报)。通过对调查问卷的矛盾和不一致的回答以及随后的多个焦点小组讨论,确定并证实了这些悖论。最后,提出了对企业社会责任概念的影响。此外,本文还对传统上用于衡量企业社会责任领域消费者态度(不仅是)的工具的有效性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CSR Did Not Take Place: An Empirical Study Exploring Consumers Trapped in Paradoxes

How consumers perceive corporate social responsibility (CSR) has shifted significantly over the past decades. Initially, a voluntary commitment to solving urgent social problems, CSR was once a source of competitive advantage, specific positioning, and exclusivity in customers’ eyes. Today, however, CSR has become a fundamental prerequisite for a company to function in society, a source of company legitimacy, expected and demanded by many stakeholder groups. As research demonstrates, young people in particular loudly and intensely declare their interest in today’s challenges and vigorously demand that the companies they buy from or work for participate in CSR. On the contrary, in everyday practice, we as scholars and educators have learned that CSR is more of an empty word for consumers, something that is right but of which they have no precise idea. CSR finds itself in a paradoxical situation. Therefore, our study aims to identify the main paradoxes in how millennials perceive CSR. First, it addresses the term paradox and its contextualization within the CSR discourse. Second, the three main paradoxes (authenticity/communication, legitimacy/trust, pay-off/non-pay-off) are outlined and verified through mixed methods research. The paradoxes are identified and confirmed through the ambivalent and inconsistent responses to a questionnaire and, subsequently, multiple focus groups. Finally, implications for the CSR concept are suggested. Furthermore, this paper questions the validity of instruments traditionally used to measure consumer attitudes (not only) in the field of CSR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Corporate Reputation Review is the leading international journal for all scholars and academics concerned with managing and measuring corporate reputation.The Journal is reviewed by a distinguished editorial board, under the guidance of Guido Berens (Erasmus University, The Netherlands). Corporate Reputation Review provides a forum for rigorous, practically relevant academic research into reputations and reputation management, as well as related concepts such as identity and corporate communication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信