consumers’ perceptions of csr - maignan 2001

7/26/2019 Consumers Perceptions of CSR - Maignan 2001

1/16

ABSTRACT. Based on a consumer survey conducted

in France, Germany, and the U.S., the study investi-

gates consumers readiness to support socially respon-

sible organizations and examines their evaluations

of the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic

responsibilities of the firm. French and German

consumers appear more willing to actively support

responsible businesses than their U.S. counterparts.

While U.S. consumers value highly corporate eco-

nomic responsibilities, French and German consumers

are most concerned about businesses conforming with

legal and ethical standards. These findings provide

useful guidance for the efficient management of social

responsibility initiatives across borders and for fur ther

academic inquiries.

KEY WORDS: corporate benevolence, corporate

citizenship, corporate ethics, corporate social respon-

sibility, cross-cultural research, socially responsible

consumer behavior

The past ten years have witnessed the gradual

development of a research stream investigatinghow corporate social responsibility can help the

marketing of the organization and its products

to consumers. This trend started with Robin andReidenbachs (1988) conceptualization of cor-

porate social responsibility along with Varadarajanand Menons (1988) depiction of cause-related

marketing. Since then, the marketing potentialof corporate responsibility initiatives has been

investigated by a flourishing body of literaturewith a focus on issues such as corporate envi-

ronmentalism (e.g., Drumwright, 1994; Menonand Menon, 1997), corporate citizenship (e.g.,

Maignan et al., 1999), and more generally frommarketing actions with a social dimension (e.g.,

Brown and Dacin, 1997; Drumwright, 1996;Handelman and Arnold, 1999; Osterhus, 1997).

A few industry surveys (e.g., Business Wire,1997; Jones, 1997; Lorge, 1999) and formal

academic inquiries (e.g., Brown and Dacin, 1997;

Handelman and Arnold, 1999) have yielded pre-liminary evidence revealing that corporate social

responsibility may induce consumer goodwilltoward the organisation. However, past surveys

have either focused on limited aspects of corpo-rate social responsibility such as community

involvement or corporate giving (e.g., Brown andDacin, 1997) or have considered corporate social

responsibility in general without inquiring aboutconsumers understanding of this notion (e.g.,

Business Wire, 1997; Smith, 1996). As a result,past research has suggested that consumers arewilling to support socially responsible businesses,

but has not characterised the corporate behav-iours that are perceived as significant of social

responsibility by consumers. In addition, theconcept of corporate social responsibility and

most of the empirical work on the topic origi-

nate from the U.S. (for exceptions, see Maignanand Ferrell, 2000; Pinkston and Carroll, 1994).Yet, given the international scope of corporate

activities today, it is essential for businesses toknow whether corporate social responsibilities

are perceived in the same manner across borders.

Against this backdrop, the main objective ofthis study was to add to existing U.S. research

by considering the potential of corporate social

Consumers Perceptions of

Corporate Social Responsibilities:

A Cross-Cultural Comparison Isabelle Maignan

Journal of Business Ethics 30: 5772, 2001. 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Isabelle Maignan is an assistant professor of marketing atthe University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Herwork has appeared in theJournal of Business Ethics,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

Journal of Business Research, Journal of

Advertising, along with other journals and conferenceproceedings.


2/16

responsibility as a consumer marketing tool in

three countries. To that effect, the research firstevaluated the extent to which consumers in

France, Germany, and the U.S. are willing tosupport responsible organizations when shopping.

Then, the study investigated how consumers inthese three countries evaluate the economic,legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities of

businesses. Comparing consumers understandingof and reaction to corporate social responsibility

in France, Germany, and the U.S. seemedrelevant given, on the one hand, the similarity of

these three nations in terms of economic devel-opment and democratic tradition and, on the

other hand, their vastly differing nationalideologies (Lodge, 1990; Thurow, 1992) and

cultural values (Hofstede, 1980, 1983; Schwartz,1992).

Background of the study

In this section, past research findings on con-

sumers reactions to responsible corporate behav-iors is first reviewed briefly. Then, the nature of

corporate social responsibilities is discussed.

Do consumers support socially responsible businesses?

Very little research has examined the extent to

which consumers are willing to make an effort

to support socially responsible businesses andpunish irresponsible organizations. Preliminary

evidence has been provided by industry surveys.For example, a study by Walker research found

that 88 percent of U.S. consumers are more likelyto buy from a company that is socially respon-

sible (Smith, 1996). Similarly, a survey by the

Council on Foundations indicated that sixteenpercent of U.S. consumers claim to seek do-gooders when shopping while another forty

percent found corporate citizenship to be a tie-

breaking activity (Council on Foundations,1996). Even though these studies are encouraging

for socially responsible businesses, they considersocial responsibility in general and do not

examine how consumers characterize corporatesocial responsibility.

Among academic inquiries, interesting findings

were brought about by Brown and Dacin

(1997) who demonstrated in an experiment thatnegative corporate responsibility associations can

have a detr imental effect on overall product eval-

uation, whereas positive associations can enhanceproduct evaluations. Brown and Dacin (1997)used two activities to induce corporate social

responsibility associations: corporate giving andcommunity involvement. Even though these

two activities are significant of philanthropicresponsibility, they do not represent the full

spectrum of corporate social responsibility ini-tiatives. Thus, Brown and Dacin s (1997) study

merely suggests that some philanthropic actions

can affect product evaluations. In another exper-

imental study, Handelman and Arnold (1999)observed that marketing actions with a socialdimension generate consumers support for the

organization. Handelman and Arnold (1999)considered three types of corporate social actions:

commitment to the family, the community, andthe nation. Accordingly, the authors assessed con-

sumers evaluations of three specific types ofresponsibility initiatives, but could not establish

how consumers act toward an organization that

they consider as generally responsible. In fact, asdiscussed below, past research has provided very

limited insights into consumers definition ofsocially responsible corporate behaviors.

What is corporate social responsibility?

Bowen (1953) has been acknowledged as thefirst scholar to have written a manuscript on the

topic of corporate responsibilities (Carroll, 1979;Wartick and Cochran, 1985). Bowen (1953)

claimed that businesses have the obligation to

pursue those policies, to make those decisions,or to follow those lines of action which are desir-

able in terms of the objectives and values of oursociety (p. 6). This seminal contribution was

the starting point of an abundant literature onthe nature of corporate social responsibilities

(e.g., Ackerman and Bauer, 1976; Davis, 1973;Eells and Walton, 1961; Mason, 1960; McGuire,

1963).In order to characterize the exact nature of

58 Isabelle Maignan


3/16

businesses social duties, scholars have generally

adopted one of the two following paths: (1) sur-veying managers about the importance for

businesses to adopt a certain number of behav-iors (e.g., Eells and Walton, 1961; Eilbert and

Parket, 1973; McGuire, 1963; Sethi, 1979), or(2) defining corporate social responsibilities basedon normative arguments (e.g., Ackerman and

Bauer, 1976; Davis, 1973; Swanson, 1995; Wood,1991). Carroll (1979) adopted the second path

to develop a classification of corporate socialresponsibilities that has been widely adopted in

later research (e.g., Lewin et al., 1995; Swanson,1995; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991).

Carroll (1979) suggested that businesses have tofulfill four main responsibilities: economic, legal,

ethical, and philanthropic. Economic responsi-bilities designate the obligations for businesses to

be productive and profitable. Legal responsibili-

ties correspond to societys expectation to seebusinesses meet their economic duties within the

framework of legal requirements. Ethical respon-sibilities require that businesses abide by estab-

lished norms defining appropriate behavior, andphilanthropic responsibilities reflect the common

desire to see businesses get actively involved inthe betterment of society.

Interestingly, this acknowledged classification like other less established frameworks has not

been brought to the scrutiny of consumers or of

the general public. Even though the notion ofcorporate social responsibility implies that cor-

porate activities have to conform with establishedsocial norms and values (Sethi, 1979), prevailing

social norms have not been formally surveyed inpast research. Some empirical studies surveyed

managers understanding of corporate socialresponsibilities based on Carrolls (1979) classifi-

cation (e.g., Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield,

1985; Pinkston and Carroll, 1994); yet noattempt has been made to establish whether thisframework depicts appropriately consumers per-

ceptions of corporate responsibilities.

Overall, the value of corporate social respon-sibility as a consumer marketing tool remains

uncertain for three main reasons. First, there isvery limited evidence that consumers are indeed

willing to give their support for examplethrough repeat purchase or positive word-of-

mouth to socially responsible businesses.

Second, little is known about consumers defin-

ition of socially responsible corporate behaviors.Third, corporate social responsibilities have

been investigated mostly in the U.S.; hence, the

appropriateness of these corporate actions as away to market the organization to consumersacross borders remains uncertain. Against these

caveats, the study examined the extent towhich consumers in France, Germany, and the

U.S. are willing to grant their active support tosocially responsible businesses. In addition, the

research compared and contrasted consumersevaluation of corporate social responsibilities

as defined by Carroll (1979) in the three coun-

tries considered. The next section introduces

the hypotheses at the heart of the empiricalinvestigation.

Hypotheses development

This section is divided in three parts. First, con-

sumers support for corporate social responsibilityin the three countries of interest is considered.

Then, the relative importance attributed byconsumers in each country to economic, legal,

ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities respec-

tively is discussed. Finally, consumers evaluationsare compared across countries.

Lodges (1990) comparative analysis ofbusiness-government relations in the U.S. and

Europe is used as a conceptual background tosurvey cross-national differences. Lodge (1990)

suggested that the underlying ideology of acountry encourages firms in that country to

pursue a primary strategic objective; this positionreceived empirical support in a study by Katz et

al. (1998). Lodges (1990) depiction of national

ideologies is especially relevant for the presentstudy since consumers depiction of corporate

social responsibilities can be expected to reflectunderlying national ideologies. Lodge (1990)

differentiated between individualist and com-munitarian ideologies. Individualism values the

short-term betterment of the individual, whereascommunitarianism emphasizes the needs of the

community and the benefits of consensus. Lodgefurther classified the U.S. as an exemplar of the

Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities 59


4/16

individualistic ideology, while he depicted France

and Germany as mainly communitarian coun-tries. Whereas Lodge (1990) examined national

ideologies based on the structure of the interac-tions between government and businesses,

Hofstede (1980, 1983) and Schwartz (1992) con-sidered the characteristics of national culturesaccording to the values held by individuals. Yet,

the results of these two different approachesconcur since both Hofstede (1980, 1983) and

Schwartz (1992) also rated France and Germanyas more collectivist and less individualist than

the U.S.These general evaluations of national ideolo-

gies and cultures are also in agreement with morespecialized analyses that have compared the social

responsibility and ethics practices in the U.S. andEurope (e.g., Buchholz, 1998; Vogel, 1992). For

example, Vogel (1992) noted that the U.S.

approach to business ethics is more individual-istic, legalistic, and universalistic than in any other

capitalist societies (p. 30).

Support for corporate social responsibility acrossborders

Given that the French and German ideologies arecommunitarian, consumers in those two coun-

tries are likely to incorporate societys well-being

in their shopping decisions. Thus, they mayconsider corporate social responsibility as an

important purchasing criterion. They may evenbe ready to make specific efforts for example

paying a higher price or shopping at a less con-venient location to buy the products of com-

panies known to be socially responsible, whileavoiding to purchase from companies with a poor

reputation in terms of social responsibility. Such

proactive behaviors in favor of responsible orga-nizations may not be as prevalent in the U.S.where individualism may dictate consumers to

pay less attention to the social impact of corpo-

rate activities. Accordingly, the followinghypotheses (H1, H2a, H2b) are advanced:

H1: Consumers in France and Germany will

give the same level of support to sociallyresponsible businesses when shopping.

H2: Consumers in (a) France and (b)

Germany will be more supportive of

socially responsible businesses whenshopping than U.S. consumers.

Evaluation of corporate social responsibilities in eachcountry

As discussed earlier, Carroll (1979) identified

four different types of corporate responsibilities:economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. Since

this framework has been widely acknowledged inthe literature (e.g., Lewin et al., 1995; Maignan

et al., 1999; Swanson, 1995; Wartick and

Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991), its dimensions can

be expected to be meaningful to consumers.Subsequently, consumers are likely to differen-tiate between the four types of social responsi-

bilities as suggested in the following hypothesis:

H3: Consumers in France, Germany, andthe U.S. respectively will distinguish

between the four following types ofcorporate social responsibilities: (1)

economic, (2) legal, (3) ethical, and (4)philanthropic.

Carroll (1979) stated that: The first andforemost social responsibility of businesses is

economic in nature. Before anything else, thebusiness institution is the basic economic unit in

our society (p. 500). Carroll further ranked theother corporate responsibilities in the following

decreasing order of importance: (1) legal, (2)ethical, and (3) philanthropic responsibilities.

One may wonder whether the ranking proposedby Carroll on the basis of very limited norma-

tive arguments is also shared by consumers in the

three countries considered. Since the U.S. isdepicted as the best example of the individualist

ideology (Lodge, 1990), its different social actorsare likely to consider that both themselves and

other social actors strive to serve mainly theirshort term self-interests. Accordingly, U.S. con-

sumers probably expect businesses to strive toachieve high profitability levels. Thus, the

following hypotheses (H4a, H4b, H4c) areproposed:

60 Isabelle Maignan


5/16

H4: Consumers in the U.S. will allocate

more importance to corporate eco-nomic responsibilities than to corporate

(a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) philan-thropic responsibilities respectively.

Given that Germany and France are charac-terized mainly by a communitarian ideology, the

members of these two societies are unlikely toperceive the pursuit of ones self-interest as an

appropriate overriding goal for any social agent.Accordingly, French and German consumers may

not view economic achievements as the primary

social duty of businesses. Instead, these con-sumers may sense that businesses should use

their economic resources to foster the well-being

of society in general. Accordingly, corporateeconomic responsibilities may be viewed byFrench and German consumers as secondary to

other corporate social responsibilities. Thus, thefollowing hypotheses (H5a, H5b, H5c) are

advanced:


allocate less importance to corporateeconomic responsibilities than to cor-

porate (a) legal, (b) ethical, and (c) phil-anthropic responsibilities.

Hypotheses H4 and H5 compare the impor-tance attributed to economic responsibilities

relative to other social responsibilities in eachcountry. As far as the other three social respon-

sibilities are concerned, Carroll (1979) proposedthe following decreasing order of importance: (1)

legal, (2) ethical, and (3) philanthropic. The

analyses by Lodge (1990), Hofstede (1980, 1983)or Schwartz (1992) do not provide any specific

reasoning suggesting whether or not this rankingis applicable in each of the three countries con-

sidered. Consequently, Carrolls evaluation isadopted and the following hypothesis is sug-

gested:

H6: Consumers in France, Germany, and theU.S. will rank the legal, ethical, and

philanthropic corporate responsibilitiesin the following decreasing order of

importance: (1) legal, (2) ethical, and (3)discretionary.

Comparison of corporate social responsibilities acrosscountries

Lodges (1990) analysis of national ideologies

along with Hofstedes (1980, 1983) and

Schwartzs (1992) studies of national cultures donot clearly differentiate between France andGermany in terms of individualism and com-

munitarianism. Consequently, as stated in the fol-lowing hypotheses (H7a to H7d), the importance

attributed to each type of social responsibility isnot expected to differ significantly among French

and German consumers.


allocate the same level of importance to

corporate (a) economic, (b) legal, (c)ethical, and (d) philanthropic responsi-

bilities.

As discussed earlier, U.S. consumers are likelyto view economic achievements as the most

important corporate responsibilities whereasFrench and German consumers are not expected

to view economic achievements as the overriding

goal of corporations. Consequently, corporateeconomic responsibilities are likely to be granted

more importance by U.S. consumers than by

their French and German counterparts. Hence,the following hypotheses (H8a and H8b) areproposed:

H8: Consumers in the U.S. will allocate

more importance to corporate eco-

nomic responsibilities than consumers in(a) France, and (b) Germany.

Given the prevalence of the communitarian

ideology in France and Germany, consumers inboth nations can be expected to allocate much

importance to businesses conforming to thenorms and values acknowledged as essential in

their respective country. Hence, these twoconsumer groups might be especially eager to

see businesses follow the appropriate modes ofbehavior as defined in ethical principles and in

the law. Accordingly, the following hypotheses

(H9a, H9b, H10a, H10b) are proposed:

H9: Consumers in (a) France and (b)Germany will allocate more importance



6/16

to corporate legal responsibilities than

consumers in the U.S.H10: Consumers in (a) France and (b)

Germany will allocate more importanceto corporate ethical responsibilities than

consumers in the U.S.

In addition, the communitarian nature of theFrench and German ideologies is likely to make

the search for a common good an overridingobjective of all social agents, including businesses.

Consumers in these two countries may valuemore than their U.S. counterparts the initiatives

undertaken by businesses to actively foster thewell-being of society. Thus, as advanced in the

following hypotheses (H11a and H11b), U.S.consumers may attribute less importance to

philanthropic responsibilities than French and

German consumers respectively:

H11: Consumers in the U.S. will allocate lessimportance to corporate philanthropic

responsibilities than consumers in (a)France and (b) Germany.

Methodology

This section first introduces the steps that wereadopted to develop measurement instruments.

Then, the data gathering process is presented.

Instrument development

One common procedure was employed todevelop measures of (1) consumers support of

socially responsible businesses and (2) consumersevaluation of corporate social responsibilities.

First, a literature search was conducted in the

hope of finding relevant existing measurementinstruments. Two existing scales were especiallyuseful to measure consumers evaluation of cor-

porate social responsibilities. First, Aupperle,Carroll and Hatfield (1985) constructed a survey

instrument that assessed managers evaluation of

the four social responsibilities defined by Carroll(1979). A second useful reference was a scale

developed by Maignan and Ferrell (2000) tosurvey businesses commitment to corporate

citizenship on the basis of information provided

by managers. This instrument was based onCarrolls (1979) classification of social responsi-

bilities and was developed specifically to beapplicable in both the U.S. and France. The

authors discussion of cross-cultural differenceswas instrumental for the present study.

In a second step, an initial battery of items

was generated for each of the two measures.Consistent with the recommendations of

Churchill (1979), three pre-tests were employedto assess the quality, face validity, and content

validity of the items. First, the items were sub-mitted to six scholars with an expertise in the

field of business and society. These scholars hadto pinpoint any ambiguous item and had to rate

each item in terms of representativeness andconsistency. Based on the comments therebyobtained, items were modified and rephrased. In

a second pre-test, the resulting items were sub-mitted to university employees excluding pro-

fessors in each country. These informants wereasked to participate in a survey about shopping.

Respectively 53, 45, and 42 usable questionnaireswere obtained in the U.S., France, and Germany.

The items descriptive statistics, inter-item alongwith item-to-total correlations, and reliability

estimates were examined and helped furtherrefine the instrument. At this stage, potential

wording and formulation consistency issues

became apparent and were solved. Finally, theresulting items were submitted again to the six

experts in the field of business and society. Theirsuggestions led to only some minor modifications

in the wording and presentation of the items.This procedure resulted in a five-item instru-

ment to measure consumers support of respon-sible businesses. On a seven-point scale, the

informants had to rate the following statements:

(1) I would pay more to buy products from asocially responsible company; (2) I consider the

ethical reputation of businesses when I shop; (3)I avoid buying products from companies that

have engaged in immoral actions; (4) I would paymore to buy the products of a company that

shows caring for the well-being of our society;(5) If the price and quality of two products are

the same, I would buy from the firm that has asocially responsible reputation. An exploratory

62 Isabelle Maignan


7/16

factor analysis with a varimax rotation was con-

ducted and yielded one single factor in eachsample. The resulting reliability coefficients

were: 0.97, 0.92, and 0.96 for the French,German, and U.S. samples respectively. For the

measure of consumers evaluation of corporatesocial responsibilities, a total of sixteen itemswere employees four for each social responsi-

bility. Respondents had to rate each item on aseven point scale (ranging from strongly disagree

to strongly agree) based on the statement: Ibelieve that businesses must . . . (all scale items

are presented in Table I).Much attention was paid to maintaining trans-

lation equivalence (Agarwal, 1992). To thateffect, all the items employed were first translated

into French and German respectively and back-translated into English by professional translators.

The few discrepancies observed between the

original instrument and its back translated versionwere only minor and easily solved by the trans-

lators. The resulting questionnaire was entitledSurvey of Shopping Styles and included forty

items asking about shopping habits in addition tothe measures developed for the purpose of this

study. Demographic questions were also incor-porated in the survey.

Data collection

One main concern with the data collection

process was to obtain information from compa-rable samples in France, Germany, and the U.S.

Recruiting consumers within a similar workplaceenvironment seemed to provide some assurance

of sample comparability in terms of social status,education, and lifestyles. Consequently, ques-

tionnaires were distributed in different insurance

companies and banks in each of the three coun-tries. Specifically, in the U.S., informants wererecruited among one bank in a South Eastern

city, and one insurance company in a North

Eastern city. In France, questionnaires weredistributed in one insurance company and

two banks, all located in metropolitan areas. InGermany, a bank and an insurance company

located in the Western part of the country wereemployed as data gathering sites.

In each case, a contact person was asked to pass

two hundred questionnaires among colleagues at

all levels of the organizations and in as many dif-ferent departments as possible. The German

contacts managed to pass only 120 surveys. A

total of 169 French, 94 German, and 145 U.S.usable questionnaires were returned. An exami-nation of the respondents demographic profile

(see Table II) revealed that the three samples werequite comparable in terms of age, gender, edu-

cation, and position in the company.

Analysis and results

Support for corporate social responsibility across

borders

A summary of the study results is presented in

Table III. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)was used to test for hypotheses H1 through

H2b with responsible shopping behaviors as thedependent variable and age, gender, and educa-

tion as covariates. All three covariates were sig-nificant; the resulting F was also statistically

significant (F = 9.50; df = 2; p < 0.01). Apost-hoc LSD test first revealed no difference inthe average score obtained in France and in

Germany. Thus, hypothesis H1 was supported.The post hoc test also indicated that the mean

score obtained for consumers support of corpo-rate social responsibility was significantly higher

in France (mean = 4.95) and Germany (mean =5.19) respectively than in the U.S. (mean =

4.40). Hence, hypotheses H2a and H2b weresupported.

Evaluation of corporate social responsibilities in each

country

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted inde-pendently in each sample to examine hypothesis

H3. As indicated in Table I, four factors onefor each type of corporate social responsibility

were clearly apparent in the three samples.No instance of obvious cross-loading could be

observed; communality and eigenvalue indicatorsalso fell within recommended guidelines (Hair et



8/16


9/16

al., 1995). These results provided support for

hypothesis H3: French, German, and U.S. con-sumers respectively appeared to clearly regroup

corporate social responsibilities according to their

economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropicnature. As shown in Table I, reliability scores

were good for each type of corporate socialresponsibility in the three countries: cronbach

alpha ranged from 0.81 to 0.92 in the Frenchsample, from 0.91 to 0.96 in the German sample,

and from 0.86 to 0.93 in the U.S. sample.Table IV presents the correlations between

each type of corporate social responsibilities inFrance, Germany, and the U.S. respectively. This

Table also reports the correlation scores obtainedbetween each social responsibility and an overall

responsibility item included in the survey:

I believe that businesses must make effortsto behave in a socially responsible manner.

Interestingly, in all three samples, economicresponsibilities were either not significantly cor-

related or negatively correlated to the otherthree social responsibilities, except for legal

responsibilities in France. In addition, unlike thelegal, ethical, and discretionary responsibilities,

economic responsibilities were not significantlyassociated with the overall responsibility item in

France and Germany and were negatively

correlated to that item in the U.S. Yet, the meanscores allocated to economic responsibilities were

above the neutral point in each sample. Theseobservations imply that consumers do allocate

economic responsibilities to businesses, but dif-

ferentiate between corporate economic respon-sibilities on the one hand and corporate legal,

ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities on theother hand. A further examination of Table IV

indicated that philanthropic responsibilitieswere not associated significantly with the other

three responsibilities in the French sample only.However, they were positively correlated to the

overall responsibility item.Hypotheses H4a to H6 were tested through a

series of one-sample t-tests in each country (see

Table IV). In the U.S. sample, consumers ratedeconomic responsibilities as significantly more

important than ethical (t= 3.13,p < 0.01) andphilanthropic responsibilities (t = 9.37, p U.S.

GR. > U.S.

a Covariates included in the analyses: education and gender; b Covariates included in the analysis: education,

gender and age; c Covariate included in the analysis: gender; d Covariate included in the analysis: age; *p

consumers’ perceptions of csr - maignan 2001

Documents