Corporate and consumersocial responsibility in the

food supply chainLouise Manning

Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK

AbstractPurpose The purpose is to analyse the interaction between corporate social responsibility (CSR)strategies and consumer social responsibility (CNSR) and then contribute to theory-building bydeveloping an interaction model.

Design/methodology/approach The research included a literature review and the developmentof a CSR/CNSR interaction model for the food supply chain.

Findings CSR is an organo-centric response to a series of supply chain drivers, which in acompetitive market promotes corporate/product differentiation and more effective use of resources.CSR is however of limited value to the organisation if there is a lack of, or a change in, consumerengagement. Recent economic drivers have influenced CNSR behaviour with the consumerismcomponent rather than the caring component of CNSR playing a lead role. However, this is not the casewith all food products and CNSR can be a solo, product-centric purchasing decision within theshopping basket. Organisations need to recognise that their CSR activities must remain congruentwith CNSR in order that they maintain or improve market share and customer loyalty.

Originality/value This research is of academic value and of value to policy makers andpractitioners in the food supply chain. The results show that organisations need to consider theinfluence of the nature of consumer social responsibility associated with their products and services inthe development and refinement of CSR strategies.

Keywords Corporate, Social, Responsibility, Corporate social responsibility, Social responsibility,Consumers, Food industry

Paper type General review

1. Corporate social responsibilityCorporate social responsibility (CSR) can be considered as a concept defining howcompanies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operationsand how they interact with stakeholders on a voluntary basis (EC, 2010). Spence andBourlakis (2009) argued that the UK Government discourse on CSR focused onvoluntary practices rather than government intervention namely that corporateresponsibility (CR) is the voluntary actions that an organisation can take, over andabove compliance with minimum legal requirements, to address both its owncompetitive interests and the interests of the wider society. Whilst the concept of CSRmay be deemed as voluntary action at an organisational level many of the facets ofCSR in the food supply chain address minimal legislative compliance, for example,food safety, animal welfare, environmental protection and employment law andemployee health and safety (Lindgreen and Hingley, 2009; Lindgreen et al., 2009).Therefore, legislative compliance as the foundation for CSR is not in itself a voluntaryaction it is those additional actions and activities over and above this complianceelement that provide additional value and benefit to stakeholders. Any group orindividual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievements of the organisations

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

9

British Food JournalVol. 115 No. 1, 2013

pp. 9-29q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070701311289858

objectives can be described as a stakeholder (Neville et al., 2005 citing Freeman, 1984).Stakeholders can be primary (internalised within the supply chain) or secondaryi.e. external to the supply chain ( Jones, 2005). Neville et al. (2005) determined thestakeholders that need to be considered by an organisation as being shareholders (andowners), consumers, employees, business partners, governments, non-governmentalorganisations including media, local communities (individuals and groups), and thenatural environment. It is also important to consider other external stakeholders suchas investors, credit rating agencies and financial institutions. Bhattacharyya (2010)suggested that as CSR activities, unlike many other organisational activities, influenceboth internal as well as external stakeholders this brings a strategic perspective toCSR.

Manning and Baines (2004a) asserted that the interest in CSR benchmarking forsocial and environmental performance has led to an increase in guidelines and codes ofpractice and also to social accountability being a pre-requisite for the food supply chainand more specifically, supply chain assurance standards. These private standardshave been developed to create competitive advantage for their owners as they seek todifferentiate their brands in a global marketplace. Porter and Kramer (2006 cited byHolme, 2010) also connected competitive advantage to CSR. They proposed that whilston the one hand CSR can be seen as being a cost, a constraint or a charitable deed onthe other hand it can be viewed as a source of opportunity, innovation and competitiveadvantage. CSR can become an instrument of change in an organisations values,behaviours, and performance (Holme, 2010). Indeed, the author determined that withincommercial organisations CSR activities which support and develop the competitiveuniqueness of a business or product offer considerable opportunities to secure a placein the market and argued that organisations are still developing their CSR relatedvalues during a period of global recession.

2. Corporate social performanceCSR standards can contain both tangible and intangible benefits for stakeholders.Manning et al. (2006) argued that in order for CSR policy to deliver quantifiablebenefits, key performance indicators (KPI) need to be developed. Furthermore, theydetermined that an organisation should review its ethical performance, identifypotential areas for improvement and then communicate this back to their shareholdersand other stakeholders. Wood (2010) described this concept as corporate socialperformance (CSP) i.e. that there were a set of descriptive categorisations of businessactivity, which focused on the impacts and outcomes for society, stakeholders and theorganisation itself. Furthermore, Wood (2010) asserted that relevant CSR outcomeswere determined by the organisations structural linkages, both general and specificwhich connect it to information, issues and relevant stakeholders, and ultimatelydemonstrated the level of corporate social responsiveness. The key elements of CSPhave been defined in terms of principles, processes and outcomes and finally theimpacts of social performance (Figure 1).

This approach requires that both CSP aspects and impacts are measured in order todetermine an organisations actual performance. Wood (2010) further outlined therelationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and financial planning (FP) interms of the CSP-FP interaction. Jones (2005) proposed that stakeholder theorychallenged the concept that organisations exist purely to serve the needs of

BFJ115,1

10

shareholders. Wood and Jones (1995) determined that stakeholders were involved infour areas of the CSP-FP interaction:

(1) Stakeholders are the source of expectations about what constitutes desirableand undesirable business performance. Internal and external stakeholders willinfluence directly the mission statement of the organisation and then theinter-relating aims and objectives that are developed.

(2) Stakeholders, especially internal stakeholders, experience the effect of corporatebehaviour i.e. they are the recipients of corporate strategy, actions and output.

(3) Stakeholders evaluate how well the organisation has met their expectationsand/or how organisational strategy has affected the groups and organisationsin the external business environment. These evaluations can be quantitative(i.e. measureable) qualitative (relate to perceptions and beliefs) or a combinationof both.

(4) Stakeholders act upon their particular interests, expectations, experiencesand/or evaluations (Wood, 2010). This is especially true of consumers in thefood supply chain.

Determining the level of acceptable risk with regard to food safety provides anexample of CSP-FP cost-benefit analysis. Each stakeholder will be willing to acceptdifferent levels, and be prepared to demand or pay for differing degrees, of riskmitigation. Nestle (2003) determined that food safety can be assessed by either ascience based or a value based approach (Manning and Baines, 2004b). Nestle (2003)argued that decisions about acceptability involve perceptions, opinions, and values, aswell as science. Whilst, quantitative science-based risk analysis balances risk against

Figure 1.CSP Model

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

11

benefit and cost; qualitative value-based risk balances risk against dread and outrage.Neither method of risk assessment is mutually exclusive; however the approach usedeither individually, or collectively by stakeholders will act as a driver in determininghow effectively an organisation implements specific food safety strategies.Stakeholders will, depending on their specific expectations, sit at different points onthe quantitative/semi-quantitative/qualitative risk assessment spectrum with theconsumer usually at the most qualitative point whilst other stakeholders take a morequantitative approach. It is therefore crucial for organisations to consider the corporateled CSR strategy and how it interacts with consumer initiated social responsibility(CNSR) The aim of this paper is to examine the CSR/CNSR interaction and to determinehow this interaction has been addressed within existing CSR models and could beincluded in an alternative model.

3. The influence of CSR/CNSR on brand valueThe degree to which the organisation meets individual and collective stakeholderexpectations will impact ultimately on the CSP-FP interaction and influence brandvalue and equity. Stakeholder expectations vary according to the nature of thestakeholder (Figure 2). Shareholder expectations surround the performance of theshare price and the dividends received as well as the robustness of the organisationscredit rating. Consumers and supply chain customers will have expectationsconcerning legislative compliance, supply relationships and price (Manning, 2007).Brand value therefore is created through the interface between the brand owner andmultiple stakeholders and minimising the impact of negative relationships whilstpromoting the value of positive relationships ( Jones, 2005).

Macrae and Uncles (1997) defined a brand as a valuable yet intangible asset that ismainly used as a differentiation device, whilst to brand users a brand may create anemotional bond (Fan, 2005). Brands cannot only represent the products and services anorganisation provides, but also the culture of the organisation itself (Manning, 2007).Strong brands can also create organisational focus and need to be led rather thanbeing managed (Macrae and Uncles, 1997). Fan (2005) argued that the brand value isoften defined in terms of economic rather than ethical measures of performance, but theinherent brand identity is created through the development of added value components( Johnson and Peppas, 2003). These components can have both tangible(product/service quality, price, KPI) and intangible elements. Successful brandingrequires the customer (consumer) to engage with the intangible assets as well as thetangible ones (Manning, 2007). Bhattacharyya (2010) concurred arguing that strategicCSR activities create both tangible and intangible strategic resources, increasevisibility and extends organisational reputation to a wider range of constituencies.Therefore, effective CSR strategies, and activities are those directed at improving bothstakeholder relations and social welfare (Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010; Vallaster et al.,2012).

Product differentiation and organisational reputation are key elements of branding(Goldsmith et al., 2003). Indeed, it has been argued that in a market environment whereproduct differentiation becomes more difficult, many organisations are using theircorporate character to build a brand identity ( Jones, 2005) with the resultant brandvalue becoming closely related to overall organisational behaviour, performance and tothe influence not just of customers and consumers, but all stakeholders. The intangible

BFJ115,1

12

value of the brand has been included in profit and loss statements of some Europeanorganisations since 2001 (Jones, 2005). The Farm Foundation (2004) proposed thatEuropean retailers have used private label brands to indicate quality and provideservice differentiation. This has lead to their considerable control over themanufacturing and processing sectors of the supply chain. In contrast, they arguedthat the United States (US) retail sector has lagged in leveraging the private brand as amarket tool.

Global governance and the interrelationship between foreign direct investment(FDI), trade, credit rating and sustainable development are key dynamics to CSR policyand the demands of both internal stakeholder and those of external stakeholders formore sustainable investments, compliance with internationally accepted standards andagreed instruments (Manning and Baines, 2004b). Aabo (2004) identified this conflict incorporate governance between meeting shareholder requirements and the need tosatisfy the varied demands of a range of stakeholders. George (2003) determined thatthe pressure on corporate executives to increase their stock prices and shareholder

Figure 2.Identifying key

stakeholder expectations

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

13

value in the short-term has caused them to lose sight of how lasting shareholder valueis actually created. He argued that an organisation needed to be managed to meet theneeds of all stakeholders rather than making decisions based solely on short-termconsiderations of shareholder value. He suggested that corporate governance is aboutmediating varied interests and concluded that organisations that focus on theircustomers and empower their employees to meet customer needs will inevitablyprovide greater growth in shareholder value. CSR strategy should therefore define theorganisations visions, governance, organisational structure and management systemsand propose measureable organisational objectives and targets. Early (2002) suggestedthat the moral and ethical standing of an industry is a reflection of the moral andethical values of the executives who lead the organisations that constitute the industry.Authentic organisations are seen as real, genuine, reliable and trustworthy (Van denBosch et al., 2005). The authors proposed that the more transparent an organisationappears to be the more likely its stakeholders will rely on its disclosures. This includesthe communication of corporate vision and leadership, financial performance, socialresponsibility, workplace environment and the benefits of the products and servicesthe organisation provided (Manning, 2007). The degree of influence of stakeholders isvariable, but the evolution of economic globalisation and information technology hasled to a change in society (Leicht, 1998). The author asserted that the resultant socialcapital, whereby individuals co-operate for a common purpose, is an essentialcompetitive advantage within society, but it could also be argued that this is true atboth organisational and supply chain levels.

Carroll and Shabana (2010) also addressed this social element and determined thatCSR is not a new idea, but has evolved from the 1950s, developing to a concept whichcan be said to have four dimensions namely economic, legal, ethical anddiscretionary/philanthropic (citing Carroll, 1979, 1991). Jones et al. (2005) stated thatCSR is focused on organisations being an integral part of society and as such they havethe potential to make a positive contribution to social goals and aspirations. Amaeshiet al. (2007) concluded that CSR can be at odds with a capitalist approach, asmulti-national corporations are challenged by the global interaction of their supplychains and being able to assure the practices of all the individuals and organisationsinvolved. They further argued that the potential for irresponsible supplier practicesputs pressure on these organisations to protect their brands by adopting responsibilityfor assessing and controlling the practices of their suppliers. Stigliz (2006) stated thatcorporations have becoming adept at image manipulation, and have learned to speak infavour of social responsibility even while they continue to evade it. He concluded thatself-regulated CSR is not a strong enough mechanism on its own to drive businessethics and that such strategies must operate within regulatory boundaries. Du et al.(2010) concurred arguing that CSR efforts are driven not just by ideological thinkingthat corporations can be a powerful and positive force for social change, but more bythe multi-faceted business returns that corporations can potentially reap from theirCSR endeavours. They suggested that CSR communication needed not only to addressgeneral stakeholder awareness, but more specifically consumer awareness whilstminimising stakeholder scepticism. This scepticism is based on the stakeholdersperception of an organisations motives and whether they are seen to be extrinsic i.e. anapproach to increase profitability or intrinsic a motive which is based on a coreorganisational value (Du et al., 2010). A further term, corporate philanthropy, has been

BFJ115,1

14

described as the action when a corporation voluntarily donates a portion of itsresources to a societal cause (Ricks and Williams, 2005). Ricks and Williams arguedthat the primary goal of philanthropy is the meeting of strategic corporate objectivesrather than altruism. Brnn and Vrioni (2001) proposed that cause related marketing(CRM) will increase loyalty and build corporate reputation by attracting consumers tomake a difference in society through their purchasing choices. However theydetermined that the impact on organisational image of CRM campaigns depends on thedegree of consumer scepticism and how consumers perceive the net benefit to theorganisation and the reasons for an organisations engagement in cause-relatedprogrammes. Research by van den Brink et al. (2006) suggested that consumers doperceive a significantly enhanced level of brand loyalty as a result of strategic CRM.However, they identified a caveat because consumers must perceive long-termorganisational commitment and CRM is more effective with a low involvementproduct. Conversely the authors concluded that tactical CRM campaigns do not have asignificant impact on brand loyalty due to consumer scepticism. This recognises theimpact of CNSR, which has both positive and negative effects on supply chaindynamics. Therefore, in order for such CRM activity to have a direct impact oncorporate and brand loyalty such behaviour must be embedded in a long term,authentic, organisational strategy.

4. Social capitalStigliz (2006) proposed that in an unconstrained market economy private incentives arenot always aligned with social costs and benefits and if this occurs then the pursuit ofself-interest itself will not deliver social benefits. He argued that efficient economies aredriven by organisations that address the impact of their actions on their employees, theenvironment and the communities in which they operate. The global food supply chaincan be seen as an interconnected system with a large variety of complex relationships,reflected in the market place by the formation of Food Supply Chain Networks (FSCNs)via alliances, horizontal and vertical cooperation, forward and backward integration inthe supply chain, information flow and continuous innovation (Van der Vorst, 2006citing Beulens et al., 2004). Each supply chain partner has access to, or owns, specificcapital assets which are utilised at stages in the food supply chain as part of aninput-output relationship to deliver the ultimate products and services. Organisationalor indeed whole supply chain assets can be subdivided into natural, physical, financial,human and social capital. Natural, or environmental capital, is the level of naturalresources and environmental assets (Penn, 2010). Natural capital is finite and includesresource assets such as fresh water, soil, minerals, air, flora, fauna and other naturalraw material resources. Many natural resources can be recycled, but ultimately theyare mutually exclusive, can only be used by one person or organisation at a time andavailability can limit organisational development or even viability. In this context,natural resources can be seen to be the finite foundation of the food supply chain.Financial capital and physical capital is sourced by the supply chain partners withhuman capital being created by empowering people through the increasing skills andcapabilities (Leicht, 1998).

Leicht determined that social capital is created when networks are developedbetween individuals or groups thereby facilitating the achievement of common goals.Social capital is the resources, based on trust, that multiply in social networks leading

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

15

to co-operation among individuals, and collaboration between institutions andcommunity organisations (Muthuri et al., 2006). Social capital is related to the capacityof supply chain actors to collaborate and interrelate and has three main constituentstrust, norms and networks. Social capital is fluid rather than fixed and provides theopportunity to differentiate those organisations that seek to mitigate the negativeimpact of their operational activities and can as a result reduce corporate risk andultimately add value to the corporate or product brand. Effective management of socialor environmental risk assists an organisation to minimise economic burden bylowering the cost of accessing capital, reducing delay in project completion, andensuring resource availability in order to maximise operational performance(Bhattacharyya, 2010; Hingley, 2010; Sodano et al., 2008).

As global and local markets and consumer expectations continue to evolve so toowill the CSR organisational models employed. Strategy is the art of creating value(Normann and Ramirez, 2008). Indeed, they proposed that strategy provided thenecessary intellectual frameworks, conceptual models, and governing ideas that allowan organisation to identify opportunities for bringing value to its customers at a profit.Historically, value has been created in terms of defined product attributes or specifiedservices, but the authors argued that an interactive strategy will involve a range ofstakeholders who will co-produce value. For an organisation to add value throughsocial capital there must be motivation, opportunity and the ability to take advantageof the opportunities afforded. Stigliz (2006) argued that whilst exploitation of naturalresources is a key part of the global model, this has lead to failures in resource richdeveloping nations. Further, he suggested that TNC need better incentives in order tominimise the impact of their activities on the environment i.e. for their activities to besustainable and/or be forced to pay the true cost of their environmental impact.

5. Sustainability and CSR modelsSustainability has been defined in many ways, but can be described as offering thepotential for reducing long-term risks associated with resource depletion, fluctuationsin energy costs, product liabilities, and pollution and waste management (Shrivastava,1995). Helms (2004) described three elements of sustainable development: economy,society and ecology. Carter and Rogers (2008) proposed that organisations that aredependent upon key external resources can improve their economic sustainabilitythrough vertical coordination in supply chains. The development of a sustainableagriculture and food system must be an essential part of long term economic andenvironmental planning with a view to delivering global food security (Francis andVan Wart, 2009). Rana et al. (2009) introduced the notion of corporate responsibility(CR) with CSR as a sub-element (Figure 3).

Furthermore, the authors argued that CR incorporated the social, economic andenvironmental strands of sustainable development and provided a holistic approachfor organisations to understand the issues involved. This approach focused ondeveloping corporate strategy with the effective use of capital assets and profitabilityat its core. Although corporate financial responsibility (CFR) has not been discussed inthis paper it is an inherent part of overall CR with CSR and corporate environmentalresponsibility (CER) as supporting elements. CR is driven by corporate riskmanagement and effective risk mitigation wherever possible. Maloni and Brown (2006)developed a framework for CSR applications in the food chain with eight categories:

BFJ115,1

16

animal welfare, biotechnology, community, environment, fairtrade, health and safety,labour, and procurement. This model combines the elements described by Rana et al.(2009) as CSR and CER into the totality of CSR. Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009)concluded that practising CSR in supply chains required the embedding of CSR in theorganisation, including subsidiaries abroad and offshore suppliers and that it shouldaddress employee training and sharing of experience, positive incentives for suppliersthrough long-term contracts and orders, and regular auditing of suppliersperformance. Further reviews have been undertaken of CSR models (Macon et al.,2008, 2009, 2010). Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009) sub-divided supply chain CSRinto four key elements: knowledge enhancing mechanisms, knowledge controllingmechanisms, firm-specific assets and corporate history. Bhattacharyya (2010) outlinedthe benefits of strategic CSR activities (Figure 4) and determined that once theconstructs are operationalised, they could be used as a guiding framework bypracticing CSR managers to better comprehend strategic CSR initiatives and designnew initiatives.

Spence and Bourlakis (2009) argued that CSR was an inadequate concept forcapturing the necessary level of social responsibility for the whole supply chain.Indeed, they suggested a new approach, supply chain responsibility (SCR), whichconsidered the supply chain as a whole and its response to issues beyond economic,technical and legal requirements in order to be able to address social andenvironmental benefits. They proposed an intervening stage of corporate socialwatchdog (CSW) with the retailer in this central role determining both policy andcontext of responsibility. However, they did not include CNSR as a driver of socialresponsibility. Spence and Bourlakis (2009) proposed that SCR encompassed: achain-wide commitment to achieving social (and environmental) benefits; thelegitimacy and possibility of all links in the chain to have a voice; a genuinepartnership approach; and an acknowledgement of different approaches to ethics bydifferent organisational forms within the supply chain. In order for SCR to beembedded in the supply chain this approach required all actors in the food supplychain to be committed to the realisation of economic, social and environmentalmilestones through the supply chain as an entity rather than by the strategic goals ofindividual organisations. However, ultimately it is the role of consumer ethics that

Figure 3.Five notions of sustainable

development incorporations

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

17

dominates the chain. If the consumer, as a supply chain stakeholder, is unprepared topay for the cost of environmental protection or animal welfare standards then theproduct will not be accepted. The models discussed are summarised (Table I) and havebeen developed primarily, but not exclusively, to identify, manage and where possiblemitigate food supply chain risks for individual organisations, TNCs and supply chainclusters rather than to focus specifically on CNSR. Bhattacharyya (2010) included aproduct and business differentiation element to their model, in addition to economicelements, and Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009) included a requirement forknowledge management but the interface with consumers is not formally addressed.

Emerging challenges such as increasing global population, economic pressures,limits on fresh water and fossil fuel supplies and rising food prices will lead to anincreased corporate focus on the role of CSR in delivering supply chain stability andreducing the risk of supply chain failure. Strugatch (2011) concluded that theemergence of sustainability as a kind of CSR, and reputation management and brandbuilding strategies have underpinned the role of CSR. Lacey et al. (2010) in theirresearch on the views of corporate leaders stated that of:

. Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) 96 per cent believed that sustainability issuesshould be fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company (upfrom 72 per cent in 2007);

. CEOs 93 per cent believed that sustainability issues will be critical to the futuresuccess of their business;

. CEOs 91 per cent reported that their company will employ new technologies(e.g. renewable energy, energy efficiency, information and communicationtechnologies) to address sustainability issues over the next five years;

Figure 4.Strategic CSR Activities

BFJ115,1

18

Car

roll

and

Sh

aban

a(2

010)

An

der

sen

and

Sk

joet

t-L

arse

n(2

009)

Ran

aetal.(

2009

)M

alon

ian

dB

row

n(2

006)

Bh

atta

char

yy

a(2

010)

Fou

rd

imen

sion

sF

our

dim

ensi

ons

Fou

rd

imen

sion

sE

igh

td

imen

sion

sM

ult

i-d

imen

sion

alE

con

omic

Fir

m-s

pec

ific

asse

tsT

rip

leb

otto

mli

ne;

Fiv

eca

pit

als

and

nat

ura

lca

pit

alC

ost

lead

ersh

ip;

Su

stai

nab

leco

mp

etit

ive

adv

anta

ge;

Pro

du

ctd

iffe

ren

tiat

ion

;P

rese

nt

bu

sin

ess;

Str

ateg

icre

sou

rce;

Gen

erat

ion

ofb

enefi

ts;

New

bu

sin

ess

opp

ortu

nit

y/

ben

efit;

New

bu

sin

ess;

New

pro

du

ct/p

roce

ss;

New

pro

du

ct/m

ark

etop

por

tun

ity

Eth

ical

;D

iscr

etio

nar

y/

ph

ilan

thro

pic

;L

egal

Cor

por

ate

his

tory

Cor

por

ate

resp

onsi

bil

ity

(CF

R,

CS

R,

CE

R);

Cor

por

ate

citi

zen

ship

An

imal

wel

fare

;B

iote

chn

olog

y;

Com

mu

nit

y;

En

vir

onm

ent;

Fai

rtra

de;

Hea

lth

and

safe

ty;

Lab

our

and

Hu

man

rig

hts

;an

dP

rocu

rem

ent

En

han

ced

env

iron

men

tal

sen

siti

vit

y;

Soc

io-e

con

omic

incl

usi

ven

ess

Kn

owle

dg

een

han

cin

gm

ech

anis

ms;

Kn

owle

dg

eco

ntr

olli

ng

mec

han

ism

s

Inn

ovat

ion

Table I.Key elements of CSR andsustainable development

models

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

19

. CEOs 72 per cent cited brand, trust and reputation as one of the top threefactors driving them to take action on sustainability issues. Revenue growth andcost reduction was second with 44 per cent; and

. CEOs 58 per cent identified consumers as the most important stakeholder groupthat will impact on the way they manage societal expectations. Employees weresecond with 45 per cent.

This research highlighted the need for management behaviour within organisations,indeed whole supply chains, to be underpinned by an understanding of the dynamicsof CNSR. So, how does CNSR drive the supply chain?

6. Consumer social responsibilityThe use of CSR initiatives to influence consumers and differentiate product offeringshas become quite common (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). They utilise CSR as a pushmechanism in the supply chain from the organisation to the consumer, however thereis also a pull mechanism at play. The second CSR is CNSR. Consumers, through theirpurchases and consumption of products, are the final judges of corporations behaviour(Russell and Russell, 2010). Indeed, they argued that consumer purchases oftentranscended product value and reflected how consumers perceived the value to thecommunity of the company producing the product. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001)suggested that there are both company-specific and consumer specific factors involvedin the CNSR dynamic and a major factor is consumer perception of the degree ofcongruence between themselves and the organisation. Yates (2009) stated that 58 percent of consumers thought that companies pretended to be green just to charge higherprices and that to gain customer confidence green claims required clarity, credibilityand comparability elements. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) identified that the magnitude ofthe positive associations stemming from a social initiative depended on the consumersperception of the organisation, rather than simply the act itself i.e. consumersdifferentiate between an organisation doing ethical things and an organisation actingethically. They proposed that consumer engagement with CSR is influenced byperceived fit (congruence of corporate mission and social initiative), perceivedcorporate motive (social centred versus profit centred) and the timing of thecommunication (reactive vs proactive) with fit being considered as the perceived linkbetween a cause and the firms product line, brand image, position, and/or targetmarket (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006 citing Varadarajan and Menon, 1988).Therefore,low-fit would generate a negative dynamic and conversely high-fit a positiveinteraction underpinning where an organisation sits in their marketplace andultimately will impact on brand equity. The perceived corporate motive i.e. whethertheir CSR strategy is primarily motivated through driving profit or is socially basedwill influence the corporate: consumer inter-relationship. Studies of consumer attitudeto corporate support of causes in the 1990s (Table II) showed that consumers are likelyto switch to brands that claim to help a cause. The positive fit attitudes were however,less in the UK compared to the US. Research by Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) concludedthat greater than 80 per cent of respondents believed organisations should engage insocial initiatives and 76 per cent felt those initiatives would benefit organisations.Furthermore in the same research 52 per cent of respondents stated that they would

BFJ115,1

20

boycott organisations that had acted irresponsibly if reasonable alternatives wereavailable.

The term CNSR has been defined as the conscious and deliberate choice to makecertain consumption choices based on personal and moral beliefs (Devinney et al.,2011). The authors argued that there are two basic elements firstly an ethicalcomponent relating to the perception of an organisations CSP and productperformance and secondly a consumerism component that is expressed in terms ofpurchasing behaviour. They concluded that CNSR is a factor that is often overlooked incurrent corporate CSR initiatives. The CNSR dynamic is complex. CNSR is often issuespecific, e.g. organic, or fair-trade criteria so one CSR parameter may be of interest toonly a sub-set of the consumer market. Information regarding this individual issue willalso influence the CNSR dynamic. The information could be provided by theorganisation, food supply chain or by other stakeholders, such as the media, causerelated groups or the social circles in which consumers interact. A further influence isthe cost of caring about the specific issue. However, consumers will not sacrificefunctional product features for lesser, but more socially acceptable ones. Furthermore,there must be a real perceived incentive to change. Consumer engagement is alsoembedded in cultural rationales (Devinney et al., 2011). The IGD (2007) argued thatincreased disposable income has meant that shoppers are used to greater foodaffordability, and as a result food has begun to provide an emotional as well asfunctional role in consumers lives i.e. moving from a basic need to having a role inself-actualisation.

In 2001, Which? undertook a survey in the UK to determine the key considerationsof those purchasing food (Which?, 2005). Consumers stated that taste, quality, safetyand price i.e. functional features were the most important factors. The Food StandardsAgency (FSA) also surveyed consumer attitudes to a range of food issues (Which?,2005). The results indicated that concern on issues such as the conditions in whichlivestock were raised, antibiotic levels in meat and the feed given to livestock wasidentified by between 39 per cent and 41 per cent of respondents. Duffy et al. (2005)undertook consumer research in July/August 2003 which suggested that whilst manyconsumers were interested in food production issues, the fragmented communicationmessages that they received was not giving them a clear reason to consider theimplications of their purchases for the British farming industry, animal welfare and theenvironment. The level of consumer interest shown in the Duffy study was muchhigher with regard to livestock production issues than in the FSA study but alsoidentified a distinct group of consumers (between 13.3 per cent and 27.3 per cent) whohad no interest in how the social context of how their food was produced. The IGD

USA(%)

UK(%)

Awareness of companies supporting causes 79 68Likely to switch to brands that claim to help a cause 76 86Likely to pay more for a brand that supports a cause 54 45More likely to buy a product that supports a cause 78 N/A

Source: Adapted from Brnn and Vrioni, 2001

Table II.Consumer attitudes to

corporate support ofcauses

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

21

(2007) in their research on consumer attitudes stated that only 10 per cent of consumersin their study identified themselves as high welfare purchasers with 36 per cent statingthey did not buy any high welfare foods. A study in 2011 (Defra, 2011) concluded that26 per cent of consumers where unconcerned about animal welfare issues with afurther 26 per cent being aware of animal welfare issues, but not actively doinganything about the issue when purchasing food. This could indicate a consumerismtrend between 2001 and 2011 in the studies examined. An example of CNSR in action isorganic food sales in the UK, which have increased year on year between the years1995 and 2007 with most rapid growth between 2004 and 2006 (Figure 5).

The IGD (2007) proposed that the growth in sales of organic, free range and higherwelfare food was partly a response to this decline in confidence as shoppers perceivegreater traceability in organic rather than in their conventional counterparts. Ofhouseholds 9 per cent buy organic products more than once a fortnight whilst 23 percent of households buy organic products more than once a month (Soil Association(SA), 2010). Purchases are grouped in specific areas namely dairy products (33 per centof total purchases), produce (26 per cent) and meat (5 per cent) by volume of the organicmarket. Figure 5 highlights the impact of the CNSR ethical driver on the market,followed by the influence of CNSR consumerism with the drop in sales 2008/2009. Defra(2011) state that there is no one clear reason why people eat organic food but importantfactors are nutrition value, health reasons, environmental concerns and animal welfare.However, sales of organic baby food increased by 21 per cent in 2009; in the UKexceeding 100 million for the first time (Soil Association (SA), 2010) showing that forsome consumers the ethical component outweighed the consumerism component oftheir purchasing. This interaction of ethical versus consumerism drivers was notconsistent across all organic food types. The breakdown of the sales variance between2008 and 2009 is detailed (Table III) and clearly shows that the purchase choice was notconsistent across the range of food products. One element could be that the pricedifferential between certain categories of organic and conventional products is smallerso relatively it costs less care. This differential has been determined (Table IV). Itcost comparatively more to care for produce and bakery products and this has been

Figure 5.UK sales of organicproducts 1995-2009 in million

BFJ115,1

22

reflected in the sales performance between 2008 and 2009. However, the pricedifferential was only 6 per cent for baby food for the items examined.

The Defra report Attitudes and Behaviours around Sustainable Food Purchasing(Defra, 2011) identified that when purchasing food the major issues that influenced thedecision where what they need to stock up on (83 per cent), any special offers that week(82 per cent), ingredients for special meals (63 per cent), particular household foodneeds (60 per cent), with buying the best quality food at (43 per cent).

The model developed as a result of this research (Figure 6) seeks to demonstrate theinteraction between CSR and CNSR with specific emphasis on the information flow andwho is influenced by the flow. As previously described consumers are influenced byinformation from a variety of resources, but within the family unit there may be anumber of influencers who impact on the purchasing decision. Bourlakis andWeightman (2004) considered these as being the:

. Initiator (person who suggests the idea of buying the food);

. Influencer (person whose views influence the decision);

. Decider (person who decides on the whole or part of the buying decision);

. Buyer (person who makes the purchase);

Segment Product share (%) Sales performance 2009 vs 2008 (%)

Dairy produce 33 26Produce 26 215Home cooking ingredients 6 1Fresh meat 5 223Confectionery 4 29Hot beverages 4 22Breakfast cereals 4 29Chilled convenience foods 4 221Biscuits 3 219Bread and bakery 3 240Alcohol 2 230Fresh poultry and game 2 228Savoury snacks 2 21Canned food 2 214

Source: Soil Association (2010)

Table III.Product share of the UK

organic market in 2009

Item Organic price () Conventional price ()

Differential as apercentage of

organic price (%)

Jar of baby food (vegetable based) 4.85 4.56 6Milk (semi-skimmed) two pints 1.10 0.89 19Chicken breast fillets (Kg) 14.48 11.66 19Blueberries (Kg) 16.60 11.25 32White thick sliced bread 1.40 0.80 43

Source: Tesco Direct (2011)

Table IV.Price differential betweenorganic and conventional

food items

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

23

. User (person who consumes it); and

. Gatekeeper (person who regulates exposure to information and productsintended for family).

This demonstrates the complexity of CNSR and this makes it difficult for organisationsimplementing CSR to understand consumer perceptions and ultimately their choices.

Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen (2009) in their CSR model identified the benefits ofknowledge enhancing and knowledge controlling mechanisms. The development ofretailer loyalty cards, and the technology which is driving the growth of e-shoppingfood sales, demonstrates how these tools can influence both supply chain andconsumer behaviour. Mowatt and Cox (2003) argued that this has allowed retailers togather information to drive them and the wider supply chain. They concluded that it isthe ability to gather and analyse consumer buying patterns and trends through datacollection, loyalty card information, internet order histories and subsequent datamining which has enabled the shift to just-in-time ordering, the sophistication of stockcontrol systems and the ability of retailers to target smaller target markets moreaccurately. As the model demonstrates the ability to identify, and act upon, complexconsumer buying choices where the balance between ethical and consumerismconsiderations is both personal and inconsistent for each individual item in theshopping basket is crucial to retail success. The ability of an organisation tounderstand, influence and predict the fine balance between the financial,environmental and social factors, which drive both CNSR and CSR will ultimatelyinfluence corporate brand value.

7. ConclusionCSR is an organo-centric voluntary corporate response over and above legislativecompliance. The organisation may exert influence over the supply chain, but CSR is

Figure 6.CSR and CNSR interaction the push pullmechanism

BFJ115,1

24

essentially an organisational response to meet primarily shareholder and secondlymulti-stakeholder requirements. CSR promotes benefits in a competitive marketthrough corporate and product differentiation as well as driving efficient use of capitalassets. Whilst shareholders have specific expectations in terms of return and shareprice, a range of stakeholders including consumers also make demands on thecorporate body. These demands are varied and sometimes conflicting in nature.

Cause related marketing (CRM) has developed as a communication tool for creatingenhanced brand equity often in terms of intangible assets, but the success of CRMlargely depends on whether it is perceived as being a strategic inherent part of CR or atactical process which can engender scepticism in consumers. The inter-relationshipbetween CSR and CNSR has been explored in this paper and a model developed whichalso demonstrates the importance of information flow. Information flow from thesupply chain can drive added value and product engagement whilst, developments inloyalty card technology at retail level has aided the flow of CNSR information toretailers and indeed back through the supply chain. This has afforded retailstakeholders the opportunity to dominate the communication of CNSR backwards inthe supply chain ultimately to the primary producer. Indeed, CSR requirements in thesupply chain may be driven as equally by retailer brand protection as by CNSR. CSR ishowever of limited value to the organisation if there is a lack of, or a change in,consumer engagement. Economic drivers influence CNSR behaviour with theconsumerism component rather than the caring component of CNSR recently playingmore of a lead role. However, this interaction between ethical and consumerismelements is not consistent across all consumers and their interaction with all foodproducts. Indeed, CNSR can be a solo, product-centric purchasing decision within theshopping basket. Organisations need to recognise that their CSR activities must remaincongruent with CNSR in order for them to maintain or improve market share andcustomer loyalty. As CNSR can be reactive such as in the event of a food safety incidentthe interaction needs to be more fully understood. Future research will now beundertaken to determine how the CSR/CNSR model developed can be used to identifyspecific CNSR drivers by product and in the mix of the retail shopping basket.

References

Aabo, T. (2004), Stakeholder versus shareholder satisfaction in corporate risk management,EFMA 2004 Basel Meetings Paper, September 28, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract487602 (accessed 20 December 2010).

Amaeshi, K., Osuji, O.K. and Nnodim, P. (2007), Corporate control and accountability in supplychains of multinational corporations: clarifications and managerial implications,No. 46-2007, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, NottinghamUniversity Business School, Nottingham, available at: www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/research.php?actiondownload&id34 (accessed 20 December 2010).

Andersen, M. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009), Corporate social responsibility in global supplychains, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-86.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), The impact of perceived corporate socialresponsibility on consumer behaviour, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 46-53.

Beulens, A.J.M., Coppens, L.W.C.A. and Trienekens, J.H. (2004), Traceability requirements infood supply chain networks, working paper, Wageningen University, Wageningen.

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

25

Bhattacharyya, S.S. (2010), Exploring the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility foran integrated perspective, European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 82-101.

Bourlakis, M. and Weightman, P. (2004), Food Supply Chain Management, Blackwell Publishing,Oxford.

Brnn, P.S. and Vrioni, A.B. (2001), Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing:an overview, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20, pp. 207-22.

Carroll, A.B. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 497-505.

Carroll, A.B. (1991), The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moralmanagement of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-48.

Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010), The business case for corporate social responsibility:a review of concepts, research and practice, International Journal of ManagementReviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-105.

Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), Sustainable supply chain management: toward new theoryin logistics management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87.

Defra (2011), Attitudes and behaviours around sustainable food purchasing, Report (SERP1011/10), Defra, London.

Devinney, T.M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. and Birtchnell, T. (2011), The other CSR: consumersocial responsibility, available at: http://zip.agsm.edu.au/agsm/web.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/CCC_2006_TheOtherCSR/$FILE/TheOtherCSR.pdf (accessed 29 January 2011).

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), Maximizing business returns to corporate socialresponsibility: the role of corporate social responsibility communication, InternationalJournal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19.

Duffy, R., Fearne, A. and Healing, V. (2005), Reconnection in the UK food chain: bridging thecommunication gap between food producers and consumers, British Food Journal,Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 17-33.

Early, R. (2002), Food ethics: a decision-making tool for the food industry?, InternationalJournal of Food Science and Technology, Vol. 37 No. 4, p. 339.

EC (2010), Corporate social responsibility, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/index_en.htm (accessed 20 December2010).

Fan, Y. (2005), Ethical branding and corporate reputation, Corporate Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 341-50.

Farm Foundation (2004), Food traceability and assurance in the global food system, FarmFoundations Traceability and Assurance Panel Report, July, available at: www.farmfoundation.org.

Francis, C. and Van Wart, J. (2009) in Baldwin, C.J. (Ed.), Sustainability in the Food Industry,Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, IA.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

George, B. (2003), Managing stakeholders vs responding to shareholders, Journal of Strategy& Leadership, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 36-40.

Goldsmith, P., Turan, N. and Gow, H. (2003), Food safety in the meat industry: a regulatoryquagmire, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 1.

Helms, M. (2004), Food sustainability, food security and the environment, British Food Journal,Vol. 106 No. 5, pp. 380-7.

BFJ115,1

26

Hingley, M. (2010), Networks in socially embedded local food supply: the case of retailerco-operatives, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 111-28.

Holme, C. (2010), Corporate social responsibility: a strategic issue or a wasteful distraction?,Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 179-85.

IGD (2007), Consumer attitudes to animal welfare, A Report for Freedom Food by IGD, March.

Johnson, V. and Peppas, S.C. (2003), Crisis management in Belgium: the case of Coca-Cola,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 18-22.

Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D. and Eastwood, I. (2005), Corporate social responsibility: a casestudy of the UKs leading food retailers, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 6, pp. 423-35.

Jones, R. (2005), Finding sources of brand value: developing a stakeholder model of brandequity, Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10-32.

Lacey, P., Cooper, T., Hayward, R. and Neuberger, L. (2010), A new era of sustainability:UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO study 2010, United Nationals Global Compact.

Leicht, M. (1998), Facing globalization: more social capital and the ability to act as a globalplayer as a response from the EU, Swiss Political Science Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 197-214,available at: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/spsa/spsr/1998/00000004/00000004/art00009 (accessed 20 December 2010).

Lindgreen, A. and Hingley, M.K. (Eds) (2009), The New Cultures of Food: Opportunities fromEthnic, Religious, and Cultural Diversities, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.

Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Corporate social responsibility, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-7.

Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M.K. and Vanhamme, J. (Eds) (2009), The Crisis of Food Brands:Sustaining Safe, Innovative, and Competitive Food Supply, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2008), Thinking of the organization as a system: the roleof managerial perceptions in developing a CSR strategic agenda, Systems Research andBehavioural Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 413-26.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2009), Designing and implementing corporate socialresponsibility: an integrative framework grounded in theory and practice, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 87, S1, pp. 71-89.

Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), Organizational stages and cultural phases:a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-38.

Macrae, C. and Uncles, M.D. (1997), Rethinking brand management: the role of brandchartering, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-77.

Maloni, M.J. and Brown, M.E. (2006), Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain:an application in the food industry, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 68, pp. 35-52.

Manning, L. (2007), Brand equity and food safety, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 7,pp. 496-510.

Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004a), Globalisation: a study of the poultry meat supply chain,British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos 10/11, pp. 819-36.

Manning, L. and Baines, R.N. (2004b), Effective management of food safety and quality, BritishFood Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 598-606.

Manning, L., Baines, R.N. and Chadd, S.A. (2006), Ethical modelling of the food supply chain,British Food Journal, Vol. 108 No. 5, pp. 358-70.

Mowatt, S. and Cox, H. (2003), Innovation networks and the development of consumer-drivenICT-based management systems, ISSN 1176-1997.

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

27

Muthuri, J., Moon, J. and Matten, D. (2006), Employee volunteering and the creation of socialcapital, Research Paper Series No. 34, International Centre for Corporate SocialResponsibility, Nottingham University, Nottingham, available at: www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/research.php?actiondownload&id46 (accessed 20 December 2010).

Nestle, M. (2003), Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology and Bioterrorism, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA.

Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2005), Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the socialperformance-financial performance relationship, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39Nos 9/10, pp. 1184-98.

Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (2008), From value chain to value constellation: designinginteractive strategy, Harvard Business Review, available at: http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/search/normann%2520ramirez?NtkHEMainSearch&N0 (accessed 20 December2010).

Penn (2010), Glossary of terms, available at: http://450.aers.psu.edu/glossary_search.cfm?lettern (accessed 20 December 2010).

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), Strategy & society: the link between competitiveadvantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12,pp. 56-68.

Rana, P., Platts, J. and Gregory, M. (2009), Exploration of corporate social responsibility (CSR) inmultinational companies within the food industry, Queens Discussion Paper Series onCorporate Responsibility Research No. 2/2009, Queens University Management School,Belfast, available at: www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/sustainability/downloads/022009ranaplattsgregory.pdf (accessed 20 December 2010).

Ricks, J.M. and Williams, J.A. (2005), Strategic corporate philanthropy: addressing frontlinetalent needs through an educational giving program, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 60No. 2, pp. 147-57.

Russell, D.W. and Russell, C.A. (2010), Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate socialresponsibility initiatives: egocentric tendencies and their moderators, Marketing Letters,Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 65-81.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumerreactions to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38,pp. 225-43.

Shrivastava (1995), The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 936-60.

Sodano, V., Hingley, M.K. and Lindgreen, A. (2008), The usefulness of social capital in assessingthe welfare effects of private and third-party certification food safety policy standards:trust and networks, British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Nos 4/5, pp. 493-513.

Soil Association (SA) (2010), Soil Association: Organic Market Report 2010, Soil Association UK,Bristol.

Spence, L. and Bourlakis, M. (2009), The evolution from corporate social responsibility to supplychain responsibility: the case of Waitrose, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 291-302.

Stigliz, J.E. (2006), Making Globalization Work, Allen Lane, London.

Strugatch, W. (2011), Turning values into valuation. Can corporate social responsibility survivehard times and emerge intact?, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 44-8.

Tesco Direct (2011), available at: www.tesco.com (accessed 10 August 2011).

BFJ115,1

28

Vallaster, C., Lindgreen, A. and Maon, F. (2012), Strategically leveraging corporate socialresponsibility to the benefit of company and society: a corporate branding perspective,California Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 34-60.

Van den Bosch, A.L.M., de Jong, M.D.T. and Elving, W.J.L. (2005), How corporate visual identitysupports reputation, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 108-16.

van den Brink, D., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Pauwels, P. (2006), The effect of strategic andtactical cause-related marketing on consumers brand loyalty, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 15-25.

Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. (2006), Performance measurement in agri-food supply-chain networks,Quantifying the Agri-Food Supply Chain, Proceedings of the Frontis Workshop onQuantifying the Agri-Food Supply Chain, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 22-24 October2004, Springer Netherlands, available at: http://library.wur.nl/frontis/quantifying_supply_chain/02_van_der_vorst.pdf (accessed 20 December 2012).

Varadarajan, P.R. and Menon, A. (1988), Cause related marketing: a co-alignment of marketingstrategy and corporate philanthropy, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 58-74.

Which? (2005), Which Choice Food Policy Report, Which?, London citing Consumer attitudes tofood standards 2004, Food Standards Agency, February.

Wood, D. (2010), Measuring corporate social performance: a review, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 50-84.

Wood, D.J. and Jones, R.E. (1995), Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empiricalresearch on corporate social performance, The International Journal of OrganisationalAnalysis, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 229-67.

Yates, L. (2009), Green expectations consumers understanding of green claims inadvertising, Customer Focus, June.

Further reading

Jacobson, D. and McDonough, T. (1997), Irish Industry, International Trade and EuropeanIntegration, Dublin City University Business School, Dublin.

Corresponding authorLouise Manning can be contacted at: louise.manning@rac.ac.uk

CSR and CNSRin the food

supply chain

29

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints