SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Business and Economics Research Journal / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4

The Effects of Social Responsibility Activities on Stakeholders’ Purchase Intention

Cagla P. BOZOKLU
Pages
889–900
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Inthe air transportation market social and economic obligations are perceived assignificant by stakeholders whereas in the communication market social and ethicalobligations are perceived as significant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Following the anti-globalization movement, an ideology, which reflects aclimate of defiance toward businesses, has spread out to the societies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thereby,corporates have begun to engage in socially responsible behaviors not only to meetstakeholder expectations, but also to achieve their goal-oriented considerations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Inthe air transportation market social and economic obligations are perceived assignificant by stakeholders whereas in the communication market social and ethicalobligations are perceived as significant.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Following the anti-globalization movement, an ideology, which reflects aclimate of defiance toward businesses, has spread out to the societies. Thereby,corporates have begun to engage in socially responsible behaviors not only to meetstakeholder expectations, but also to achieve their goal-oriented considerations. Thisresearch aims to analyze effects of corporates’ social and environmental responsibilityactivities on the purchase intentions of stakeholders by integrating the perspectives ofobligations. Corporate Reputation Scale was conducted to most important stakeholdergroups (customers, employees, rival corporates’ employees and public) by usingpurposive and random sampling methods. For the reliability measurement, a pre-testwas conducted on 112 participants and during the research 680 questionnaires weregathered. Results reveal that the reflections of CSR image can differ according to themarket. In the banking market, both making efforts for creating new jobs (economicobligation), taking responsibility on environmental issues (social obligation) andreducing its profits to ensure a clean environment (ethical obligation) are valuable. Inthe air transportation market social and economic obligations are perceived assignificant by stakeholders whereas in the communication market social and ethicalobligations are perceived as significant.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZOKLU, C. P. (2018). The Effects of Social Responsibility Activities on Stakeholders’ Purchase Intention. Business and Economics Research Journal, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4, 889–900. https://ajindex.com/articles/352150

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ackerman, R. W. (1975). The social challenge to business. MA: Harvard University Press,
  2. Cambridge. Andrews M., Luo X., Fang Z., & Aspara J. (2014). Cause marketing effectiveness and the moderating role of price discounts. Journal of Marketing, 78, 120-142.
  3. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research Marketing, 25, 183-191.
  4. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717-736.
  5. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
  6. Carrington, M. J., Neville B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention– behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2759-2767.
  7. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance? Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
  8. Chen, F. Y., Chang, Y. H., & Lin, Y. H. (2012). Customer perceptions of airline social responsibility and its effect on loyalty. Journal of Air Transport Management, 20, 49-51.
  9. Chernev, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1412-1425.
  10. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance? Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
  11. Coupland, C. (2006). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in web-based reports: Currency in the banking sector? Critical perspectives on Accounting, 17(7), 865-881.
  12. Demirgüneş, B. K. (2015). Sosyal sorumluluk projelerine yönelik tutumun, satın alma davranışı ve satın alma niyeti üzerindeki etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(3). Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications? Academy of Management Review, 29 (January), 65-91.1. Drumwright, M. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying: Environmental concern as a non-economic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 1-19.
  13. Du, S., Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2008). Exploring the social and business returns of a corporate oral health initiative aimed at disadvantaged hispanic families. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 483-494.
  14. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., &