RESPONSES OF GLOBAL CITIZENS TO CAUSE-RELATED GREEN MARKETING

Working Paper

By

Yuliya Strizhakova, Rutgers University – Camden

Robin Coulter, University of Connecticut

Linda Price, University of Arizona

The authors acknowledge the support of University of Kentucky‟s Von Allmen Center for Green

Marketing.

RESPONSES OF GLOBAL CITIZENS TO CAUSE-RELATED GREEN MARKETING

Abstract

Corporations and consumers alike welcome cause-related green marketing in developed

markets but little is known about consumer responses to such actions in emerging markets. By

integrating research on global consumer culture and cause-related marketing, we examine

effectiveness of cause-related marketing in two developed (U.S. and England) and two emerging

(Brazil and Russia) markets. We focus on effectiveness of global and local water protection

causes in relation to both global and local companies and brands. We consider consumer global

citizenship as a moderator of consumer attitudinal responses and willingness to pay a premium

for cause-related marketing. Our research indicates positive attitudes toward cause-related

marketing across countries; however, there are no immediate effects of such efforts on a greater

willingness to pay. Global citizens are more positive and more likely to pay for global rather than

local causes, particularly in relation to global companies. Weak global citizenship predicts a

stronger support of local causes, particularly in relation to local companies and brands.

Consumers in emerging markets are more positive about global companies engaging with cause-

related marketing than consumers in developed markets, although they are willing to pay a

smaller premium for such efforts. They are also less likely to be positive and less willing to pay

for such efforts by local companies than consumers in developed markets.

RESPONSES OF GLOBAL CITIZENS TO CAUSE-RELATED GREEN MARKETING

Emergence and expansion of the global consumer culture is accelerated by global

communications, marketing, advertising, capital flows and tourism. Even though history records

global cultural exchanges in the past, never before have they reached the scale and speed of the

present time (Appadurai 1990). The global consumer culture challenges consumers‟ perceptions

of their citizenship, making them citizens of the global world in addition to of their respective

countries. In its basic form, global citizenship refers to consumer identity with and concern for

the global world, rather than one‟s own nation or locale (Russell and Russell 2010). In other

words, a global citizen is more likely to respond to and associate with the global consumer

culture than American, Brazilian, English or Russian culture. Others, however, argue that

globalization fuels and reactivates national and ethnic identities, leading to an interplay of local

and global citizenship (Cleveland and Laroche 2006; Wilk 1995).

In the complex globalizing marketplace, the challenge companies face is how to address

consumer perceptions of their citizenship effectively. Would global or local appeals work better?

In this respect, it is particularly interesting to examine effectiveness of cause-related green

marketing and corporate engagement with either local or global causes. Corporate social

responsibility (CSR) as a strategic marketing tool has become an important expectation of

consumers around the world (Holt et al. 2004). Recent marketing polls and surveys indicate that

about 95% of corporations recognize importance of CSR, see profit and market share increases

as a result of their environmental commitments and report enhanced brand reputations because of

such commitments (Russell and Russell 2010). Marketing research also speaks to the value of

CSR and cause-related marketing that lead to higher consumer-brand identification, consumer

advocacy of the brand, and higher willingness to pay for the socially committed brand (Du,

Bhattacharya, and Sen 2007; Lafferty 2007; Trudel and Cotte 2008).

In response, global and local companies are actively engaging in green marketing in the

U.S. and Western Europe, gaining competitive advantages and building up their brand equity

(Ottman 2009). Examples of brand commitment to environment, such as Ben & Jerry's fight

against global warming or Starbuck‟s commitment to eco-friendly coffee, bring attention and

valuable contributions to environmental issues; however, similar examples are rare in emerging

markets, even among global companies and brands. For example, Starbuck‟s replicates its

environmental mission on its international sites but does not build its marketing actions around

this eco-friendly orientation in emerging markets, such as Russia and Brazil.

One reason for such conflicting corporate actions is the lack of research on consumer

attitudes toward and willingness to pay for cause-related green marketing in emerging markets.

To date, the vast majority of research on effectiveness of green marketing has been conducted in

the U.S. and Western Europe. Many global firms perceive price-sensitivity of consumers in

emerging markets as a determinant factor of consumer choices in these markets. However, global

citizens in emerging markets are likely to have similar expectations of corporate environmental

commitment as do global citizens in developed markets and learn about cause-related campaigns

through global media and technologies. Environmental concerns and green stewardship are, in

their turn, an integral part of global citizenship because they relate well to the world at large and

are not restricted to a particular region.

The overarching goal of our research is to evaluate consumer attitudes and willingness to

pay for cause-related green marketing in developed and emerging markets. We focus on

countries from the Americas (the U.S. and Brazil) and Europe (England and Russia). We

examine whether consumers‟ expectations of cause-related green marketing are different for

global and local companies and brands. We also evaluate whether global or local environmental

causes matter more to consumers. Our second goal is to assess the role of global citizenship in

consumer responses to cause-related green marketing. Although recent research on global

citizenship of the U.S. consumers shows its moderating effects for a U.S.-based company

(Russell and Russell 2010), we aim to examine moderating effects of global citizenship in

consumer responses to global and local companies and their cause-related green campaigns

across countries. We focus on young adult consumers (ages 17-30) residing in countries with

varying levels of economic development but of similar age and exposure to global media. Our

findings provide insights into strategic implementation of green marketing actions in attracting

consumers, particularly global citizens, worldwide.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING AND ITS

EFFECTIVENESS IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE

Today, many local and multinational companies align themselves with worthy causes to

build up their socially responsible image and ultimately gain higher profits. According to IEG

Sponsorship Report, about $1.57 billion is expected to be spent on cause-related marketing in

2009, which is 9% of all dollars allocated to sponsorships. In 1990, this number barely touched

$120 million (http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=188). In addition, more than

80% of Fortune 500 companies address cause marketing on their websites (Sen and Bhattacharya

2001). More than two-thirds of Americans consider company‟s practices when making their

purchases, and a number of Americans who expressed preference working for a socially

responsible company almost doubled between 2001 and 2007 (Cone Cause Evolution Study,

2007). However, research that links cause-related efforts to corporate profitability is less

conclusive.

What factors impact effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns? First,

consumers‟ awareness, favorable perceptions and trust of the company‟s cause-related efforts are

prerequisites of success. If consumers do not trust the company‟s commitment to the cause, they

will not respond positively to the company‟s efforts to support the cause (Osterhus 1997).

Second, the fit between the firm and the cause is vital to cause marketing effectiveness (Bloom et

al. 2006; Lafferty 2007; Lafferty and Goldsmith 2005; Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006).

Although there are multiple definitions of the fit, Menon and Kahn (2003) suggest that it reflects

the common associations the brand shares with the cause, affinity with specific target segments

or a strong corporate image in a certain social domain. The closer the company‟s mission and

offerings are aligned with the cause, the more likely the company is to be effective in its efforts.

Third, consumer involvement with the cause and support of the cause increases effectiveness of

cause marketing efforts (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen 2007; Grau and Folse 2007; Nan and Heo

2007; Scholder, Webb and Mohr 2006). Consumers‟ support of social causes reflects their

personal values and needs. As such, causes that consumers deem vital and personally relevant

have the greatest potential to resonate emotionally with consumers.

Three major shortcomings are evident in prior research on cause-related marketing. First,

many studies rely heavily on attitudinal measures; only a include consumer willingness to pay as

an outcome measure. Specifically, Pelsmacker, Driesen and Rayp (2005) find a discrepancy

between consumer attitudes and willingness to pay, such that consumers were willing to pay

more than could have been predicted from their attitudes. In addition, Trudel and Cotte (2008)

conclude that consumers are indeed willing to pay a premium for ethically produced goods. In

their study, consumers are even more likely to punish unethical firm behavior with greater price

reductions than reward ethical behavior with premiums. Second, most cause-related consumer

research has been conducted in the U.S. and Western Europe; thus questions remain about the

applicability of findings to consumers in emerging markets. The few studies that touch upon

social responsibility in emerging markets mainly assess consumer attitudes toward social causes

and corporate social responsibility, yielding divergent results. Third, only one study focusing on

U.S. consumers and an U.S.-based firm has considered cause-related efforts in a global/local

context. Specifically, Russell and Russell (2010) find that purchase intentions and actual choices

are higher when CSR activity is performed at the local (vs. global) level but this effect is

moderated by a consumer‟s global identity.

Global Citizenship as a Moderator of Cause-Related Marketing

In the modern world, globalization processes fuel creation of the global consumer culture

in which consumers tend to value their global citizenship as much, if not more, as their national

belongingness. Specifically, Arnett (2002) argues that consumer may have multiple identities at

both local and global level. Global citizenship is defined as consumer identification with and

concern for global citizens and the world at large rather than a particular country (Russell and

Russell 2010). Global citizens associate similar meanings with certain places, people and things

regardless of their social, cultural and other differences (Alden et al. 1999). They are likely to

exhibit a stronger global identity, i.e., believe in positive effects of globalization, be more

interested in world events, and recognize similarities rather than cultural differences in people

(Zhang and Khare 2009). Cleveland and Laroche (2010) conclude that those who have

acculturated to global consumer culture tend to be cosmopolitan, speak English, interact with and

travel to foreign countries, have a high exposure to global mass media and marketing activities

by multinational corporations. They also desire to emulate global consumer culture and self-

identify with it.

For global citizens, brands are not only the product of globalization but they are the main

players in the globalization of consumer culture (Ritzer 2007). Specifically, global brands

endorse a belief in an individual‟s association with and participation in the global village.

Appadurai (1990) argues that the success of global brands may depend on whether consumers

believe global brands will enable them to “act out imagined or real participation in the more

cosmopolitan global consumer culture communicated by the media” (Alden et al. 1999, p. 76;

Appadurai 1990, p. 299). Holt et al. (2004) suggest that about 12% of consumers across 12

countries prefer global brands as a means to global citizenship. Strizhakova et al. (2008) also

demonstrate that global citizenship through global brands positively impacts identity meanings

of branded products. Hence, global citizens, as consumers, are more likely to express a stronger

global identity, value their global citizenship more and see global brands as expressions of their

global citizenship than those who perceive themselves as citizens of their nations.

Previous research suggests that local rather than global causes are more effective in

appealing to consumers, assuming that consumers identify more strongly with their region and

nation rather than a global community. Local causes are more likely to benefit consumers

directly, making them identify with these causes more and reciprocate in the form of increased

patronage and purchases (Morales 2005; Reed, Aquino and Levy 2007). Russell and Russell

(2010) explain effectiveness of local causes by consumer egoism, i.e., a consumer tendency to

exhibit self-serving behaviors. However, global citizens relate stronger to global events and

concerns and, hence, are expected to have a stronger positive response to global rather than local

causes. Indeed, Goig finds that the “global orientation” of Spanish consumers predicts purchases

of fair trade products. Russell and Russell (2010) further support the moderating effects of global

citizenship on consumer responses to global and local causes. We hypothesize:

H1: Consumers will have more positive attitudes toward companies (H1a) and brands

(H1b), and be willing to pay more for a brand (H1c) offered by a firm that does (vs.

does not) engage in cause-related green marketing.

H2: Global citizenship of consumers moderates the effectiveness of cause-related green

marketing: consumers with stronger (vs. weaker) global citizenship are likely to

express more favorable attitudes toward the company (H2a), the brand (H2b) and be

more willing to pay for products with global [local] causes (H2c).

Cross-Cultural Differences in Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing

The vast majority of studies on effectiveness of cause-related marketing have been

conducted in the U.S. and other developed markets. Global corporations that actively position

themselves around certain social causes downplay their cause commitments in emerging markets

in favor of price and product promotions. Such reluctance to promote cause-related campaigns in

emerging markets can be explained by usually higher premiums for socially-responsible products

and social support that consumers in emerging markets may be unwilling to pay.

Paucity of research about the effectiveness of cause-related marketing has been

conducted in emerging markets, and the results are conflicting. For example, Chan (1999)

demonstrated that ecological concerns of the Chinese are quite low, yet they express strong

emotional attachment to environmental issues. In contrast, Eisingerich and Rubera (2010) find

that brand social responsibility is more effective in terms of consumer commitment to the brand

in China than the U.K. In addition, Mostafa (2007) finds relatively high levels of green

consciousness among Egyptian consumers, with environmental orientation, and knowledge and

concern about the environment predicting their attitudes toward green products, which in their

turn, are strong predictors of consumer purchase intentions.

Global media and technologies make it possible for consumers in emerging markets to

learn about global firms‟ cause-related campaigns. Seeing these campaigns online but not being

a part of them can make consumers feel alienated from the global consumer culture and global

brands. If these global companies and brands extend their green campaigns to emerging markets,

where cause-related marketing is still a novelty, they are likely to receive more positive

responses than in developed markets. In other words, cause-related marketing by global

companies and brands may be perceived as an inclusion of consumers in emerging markets into

the global consumer culture. Although consumers in emerging markets may be more positive

about cause-related campaigns than consumer in developed markets, their willingness to pay

more for such efforts is likely to be lower than in developed markets because of lower disposable

incomes. We hypothesize:

H3: Young adult consumers in emerging markets will have more positive attitudes

toward global companies (H3a) and global brands (H3b) that engage in cause-related

marketing than young adult consumers in developed markets but they will be willing to

pay (H3c) less for such efforts than consumers in developed markets.

On the other hand, consumers in developed countries may be more positive and more

willing to pay for cause-related marketing initiated by local companies and local brands than

consumers in emerging markets. Local companies and brands are particularly strong on their

appeals of national associations and low prices in emerging markets; hence, support of social

causes may not be perceived as the strongest differentiating point for local companies and brands

in emerging markets. We hypothesize:

H4: Young adult consumers in developed markets will have more positive attitudes

toward local companies (H4a) and local brands (H4b) that engage in cause-related

marketing and will be more willing to pay (H4c) for cause-related marketing by local

companies and brands than young adult consumers in emerging markets.

METHOD

Our between-subjects experimental research was conducted in four countries (two

developed: U.S. and U.K.; two emerging: Russia and Brazil). To establish a common baseline

related to consumer knowledge and involvement, participants first read about a study conducted

by researchers at Cambridge University, U.K. that reported on the damage that humankind and

its actions has had on the world‟s water resources. Then, they read about a (global or local)

company offering a (global/local or local) brand of yogurt promoting a (global, local, or no)

social cause (see Appendix). We chose yogurt because: a) it is relevant to our sample, b) there

are global and local brands in the four markets in our study, and 3) it is affordable to price-

sensitive consumers. After reading the experimental manipulation, participants responded to

confound checks and dependent variables, completed an unrelated distraction task and were then

asked questions that measured their global citizenship, media use, travel, and demographics.

We used standard procedures for questionnaire design, carefully examining construct and

face validity of the items used to measure our constructs of interest and developing a

questionnaire in English. Native Portuguese and Russian speakers translated the questionnaire

into Portuguese and Russian, and then other native speakers back-translated it into English. In all

countries, participants were offered lottery participation for a chance to win monetary prices as

an incentive to participate in the study. Research assistants who were natives of Brazil and

Russia, but who received research and ethics training in the U.S., supervised data collection in

Brazil and Russia. Participants in the U.S. and England completed online surveys, whereas

participants in Brazil and Russia completed pencil-and-paper surveys. Research shows no

differences in response styles between the use of online and pencil-and-paper questionnaires in

cross-cultural settings (de Jong et al., 2008).

We recruited young adult consumers (N=1608) in four countries: the U.S. (n = 797),

Brazil (n = 185), U.K. (n = 317) and Russia (n = 309). All participants had at a minimum a high

school diploma and were either in a two- or four-year college. Because of increased global

immigration and education, we recruited participants who have resided in their corresponding

countries for seven years or more and were citizens/permanent residents of these countries.

Slightly more female than males participated (U.S.: 57%; Brazil: 66%, U.K: 60% and Russia:

55%). Age ranged from 17 to 30 (U.S.: M = 20.14, SD = 1.94, Brazil: M = 23.23, SD = 3.40;

U.K.: M = 21.35, SD = 2.63, Russia: M = 19.85, SD = 1.87).

Measures

Our dependent variables included three seven-point semantic differential items designed

to measure attitudes toward the company and attitude toward the brand (McKenzie and Lutz

1989) (see Table 1 for means, reliabilities and item loadings for multiple-item scale items).

Consumer willingness to pay for the new yogurt brand was assessed using and open-ended

question, “how much would you be willing to pay for the new yogurt?” and we derived our

dependent variable as a percentage change between the price the participant was willing to pay

relative to the price he/she typically paid for yogurt.

We assessed several potential covariates using seven-point scales. Specifically, we

included a one-item semantic differential measure of consumer attitudes toward yogurt, anchored

at healthy and unhealthy. To assess attitude toward the cause, we asked about concern (not at

all/very much) with conservation and preservation of: a) water resources and b) environment in

general. Two items were used to measure consumer trust (“completely trust/completely distrust”

and “completely believe/completely disbelieve”) of the information provided by researchers at

Cambridge University. To measure consumer trust of the company‟s concern for the cause and

consumers, we used four items (Cotte, Coulter and Moore, 2005).

To measure global citizenship, we developed a three-factor model that included

importance of global citizenship (four new items), global identity (two items from Der-

Kerabetian and Ruiz 1997) and global citizenship though global brands (Strizhakova, Coulter

and Price 2008).

Table 1. Reliabilities, Means and Factor Loadings

U.S. Brazil U.K. Russia

Global Citizenship

alpha

.89 .82 .93 .91

Mean (SD) 3.75

(1.09)

4.26

(1.11)

3.95

(1.17)

3.64

(1.35)

Factor 1 – Importance .81 .95 .96 .96

Feeling like a part of the global world is important to me. .85 .80 .85 .71

It is important to me to feel a part of the global world. .89 .92 .86 .83

Participation in the global world is important to me. .80 .88 .83 .77

I value my citizenship in the global world. .77 .61 .70 .80

Factor 2 – Identity .70 .50 .71 .93

I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they

were my family.

.88 .79 .90 .87

I feel like I am „next-door neighbors‟ with people living in

other parts of the world.

.90 .85 .94 .84

Factor 3 – Global Citizenship through Global Brands .60 .51 .75 .67

Buying global brands makes me feel like a citizen of the

world.

.90 .78 .91 .84

Purchasing global brands makes me feel part of something

bigger.

.93 .94 .95 .92

Buying global brands gives me a sense of belonging to the

global marketplace.

.88 .80 .89 .89

Attitude toward the Company alpha .95 .90 .97 .95

Mean (SD) 5.07

(1.07)

5.85

(1.07)

4.93

(1.26)

4.86

(1.35)

How would you describe your attitude toward this

multinational (local) company?

Very negative – very positive .92 .88 .95 .95

Very bad – very good .93 .89 .96 .96

Very unfavorable – very favorable .94 .84 .94 .93

Attitude toward the Brand alpha .96 .93 .95 .97

Mean (SD) 5.10

(1.10)

5.73

(1.08)

5.02

(1.25)

4.92

(1.47)

How would you describe your attitude toward this brand?

Very negative – very positive .96 .89 .88 .95

Very bad – very good .96 .91 .97 .96

Very unfavorable – very favorable .95 .90 .96 .95

Derived Willingness to Pay Mean (SD) 23.24%

(50.69)

25.78%

(77.21)

3.22%

(46.76)

1.97%

(80.33)

Concern for the Environment alpha .88 .91 .93 .91

Mean (SD) 5.74

(1.12)

6.33

(.86)

5.30

(1.42)

5.53

(1.44)

To what extent are you concerned with conservation and

preservation of:

Water resources .82 .93 .91 .94

Environment in general .96 .90 .96 .90

Trust in Presented Information alpha .87 .90 .91 .88

Mean (SD) 5.23

(1.12)

6.08

(.98)

5.04

(1.29)

4.94

(1.58)

To what extent do you trust information provided by

researchers at Cambridge University, U.K.?

.87 .93 .97 .88

To what extent do you believe that the above information

provided by researchers at Cambridge University, U.K. is

accurate?

.88 .88 .87 .89

Trust in Company’s Actions alpha .78 .73 .87 .76

Mean (SD) 4.67 (.90) 5.00

(1.07)

4.61

(1.04)

3.99

(1.17)

The company has consumers‟ best interests at heart. .70 .52 .85 .68

I have a good feeling about the company. .80 .59 .89 .69

The multinational company wants to make it easier to

consumers who care about the cause to support it.

.54 .73 .69 .61

The multinational company is giving back to improve the

environment.

.68 .85 .74 .68

Attitude toward Yogurt Mean (SD) 5.56 (.98) 5.38

(1.36)

5.21

(1.19)

4.97

(1.54)

How would you describe your opinion about yogurt?

(unhealthy – healthy)

We ran a multi-group CFA analysis to ensure cross-cultural invariance of our measures

(Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). The fit of the model was acceptable (χ2

(848) = 1978, CFI =

.96, TLI = .95, RMSEA < .03). All factor loadings were significant and above .50 and

correlations between factors were below .80, which indicated presence of configural invariance

(Steenkamp & Baumgartner 1998). Partial metric invariance was evident for our measures (χ2

–

difference (33) = 81.51, p < .001, all other indicators remained the same). Full scalar invariance

was evident for our measures (χ2

–difference (81) = 831.39, p < .001, all other indicators

remained the same).

Finally, participants reported their attitude toward globalization (1 item, Woodward et

al.2008), their level of materialism (5 items, Richins and Dawson 1992), and frequency of

engaging in following internet activities: emailing, searching information, reading world news

online, twittering, searching for goods, shopping, chatting, social networking, blogging, and

skyping. All items were measured on seven-point scales. Participants also reported how many

times they had traveled abroad in the last five years, how many hours of world news they

watched on television per week and how many hours they spent online per week.

RESULTS

Establishing Global Citizenship

We used a three-factor measure of global citizenship that included importance of global

citizenship to consumers (4 items), consumer global identity (2 items) and global citizenship

through global brands (3 items) (M = 3.83, SD = 1.17). We created a median split on global

citizenship to identify those who hold weak and strong global citizenship. A series of t-tests

indicated that global citizens were more positive about globalization, had higher exposure to

world news online and on television, were more likely to engage in the following activities

online: twittering, shopping, blogging and skyping than those who did not identify strongly as

global citizens. Participants with a strong (vs. weak) global citizenship also expressed higher

levels of materialism and concern for the environment. We found no significant differences

between the groups in relation to their travel abroad, emailing, seeking information online,

searching for goods, chatting, social networking and the total number of hours spent online (see

Table 2).

Table 2. Consumer Media Use, Travel and Materialism for Participants with Weak and Strong

Global Citizenship.

Weak Global

Citizenship

M (SD)

Strong Global

Citizenship

M (SD)

T-value

Positive attitude toward

globalization

4.39 (1.42) 5.24 (1.23) -12.71***

Concern for the environment 5.65 (1.27) 5.94 (1.10) -4.67***

Materialism 4.32 (1.27) 4.77 (1.18) -7.18***

Trips abroad in the last 5 years 1.91 (3.09) 1.65 (2.59) 1.82

Hours of world news watched on

television

.78 (.94) 1.06 (1.00) -3.37**

Total Internet hours per week 20.95 (17.46) 21.22 (22.59) -.25

Emailing 5.82 (2.25) 5.79 (2.31) .26

Seeking information 6.17 (1.82) 6.12 (1.88) .54

Reading world news online 4.27 (2.24) 4.64 (2.25) -3.20**

Twittering 1.67 (1.94) 2.10 (2.36) -3.98***

Searching for goods 3.69 (2.17) 4.16 (2.31) -1.69

Shopping online 3.02 (2.16) 3.27 (2.45) -2.12*

Chatting 4.69 (2.75) 4.92 (2.67) -1.63

Social Networking 5.20 (2.91) 5.33 (2.77) -.89

Blogging 1.81 (1.95) 2.29 (2.37) -4.31***

Skyping 2.35 (2.21) 2.86 (2.55) -4.18***

Hypotheses Testing

Our first hypothesis predicts that consumers will be have more favorable attitudes toward

companies and brands and be willing to pay more for products affiliated (vs. not affiliated) with

environmental causes. We ran a MANCOVA test with attitudes toward the company, attitudes

toward the brand and consumer willingness to pay a premium as dependent measures. In all tests

we used consumer attitudes toward yogurt, environmental concerns, consumer trust in the

presented research information and trust in the company‟s concern for the cause and consumers

as covariates. Our manipulations of causes, companies and brands were entered as independent

variables along with the country of residence of our participants.

The overall MANCOVA test was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 18.19, p < .001). Main

effects for the company (Wilks‟ Lambda = 3.82, p < .05), brand (Wilks‟ Lambda = 3.24, p <

.05), cause (Wilks‟ Lambda = 5.09, p < .001) and country (Wilks‟ Lambda = 11.40, p < .001)

were all significant. MANCOVA tests did not result in any significant interaction effects. In

addition, effects of our covariates were also significant: attitude toward yogurt (Wilks‟ Lambda =

39.44, p < .001), environmental concerns (Wilks‟ Lambda = 8.98, p < .001), trust in the

presented research information (Wilks‟ Lambda = 24.87, p < .001), and trust in the company‟s

concern for the cause and consumers (Wilks‟ Lambda = 82.26, p < .01).

We proceeded to analyze results for each of the dependent variables. In relation to

consumer attitudes toward the company, the main effect for the cause was significant (F(1,1530)

= 15.49, p < .001). Consumers were more positive about companies that engaged in cause-

related marketing (M = 5.25) than companies that did not engage in cause-related marketing (M

= 4.91). However, there were no differences in consumer attitudes toward companies that

engaged in local (M = 5.25) versus global (M = 5.25) causes. H1a was supported.

Figure1: Main Effect of the Cause on Consumer Attitudes toward the Company

In addition, the interaction effect between the cause and the country was marginally

significant (F(6, 1530) = 1.84, p < .09). Specifically, a different pattern was observed for

participants in Russia versus other countries where cause-related marketing was effective only in

relation to global (M = 5.27) but not local causes (M = 5.18 and no cause M = 5.20). In all other

countries there were no differences in effectiveness of global versus local causes.

Figure 2: Interaction Effect of the Cause and Country on Consumer Attitudes toward the

Company

In addition, we observed a significant main effect for the company (F(1,1530) = 4.49,p <

.05): participants were more positive about local (M = 5.20) companies introducing a new line of

yogurt than global companies (M = 5.15). We also observed a significant main effect for the

country (F(3,1530) = 12.85, p < .001): participants in Brazil (M = 5.46) were more positive about

a new product introduction, followed by participants in Russia (M = 5.22) and those in

developed countries (England: M. = 5.02, U.S.: M = 4.98). No other main or interaction effects

were significant. All covariates had a significant effect on consumer attitudes toward the

company.

Next, we examined consumer attitudes toward the brand. The overall ANCOVA test was

significant (F(35,1526) = 19.47, p < .001). Consistent with our H1b, the main effect for the cause

was significant (F(1,1526) = 9.14, p < .001). Participants were significantly more positive about

brands that engaged in cause-related marketing (M = 5.26) than those that did not engage (M =

4.95). There were no differences in significance of global (M = 5.24) versus local causes (M =

5.27). In addition, the main effect for the country was also significant (F(3,1526) = 8.52, p <

.001). Participants in Brazil (M = 5.36) were more positive about a new brand, followed by

participants in Russia (M = 5.23) and those in developed countries (England: M. = 5.11, U.S.: M

= 5.01). No other main or interaction effects were significant. All covariates had a significant

effect on consumer attitudes toward the brand.

In relation to consumer willingness to pay a premium, the effect of our cause

manipulation was not significant (F(1,1540) = 1.00, p > .05). H1c was not supported. The only

significant main effect was for the country (F(3,1540) = 10.14, p < .001): participants in

developed countries (U.S.: M = 22.24% and England: M = 23.60%) were significantly more

willing to pay for the new line of yogurt than participants in emerging markets (Brazil: M =

6.24% and Russia: M = 2.33%). No other main or interaction effects were significant. In

addition, consumer trust in the research information about nature conservation and consumer

trust in the company‟s concern for the cause and customers were significant covariates.

Our second hypothesis predicted moderating effects of global citizenship on consumer

responses to cause-related marketing. We ran MANCOVA tests with all variables that we used

to test hypothesis 1 but with global citizenship as an additional independent variable. The overall

MANCOVA test was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 12.47, p < .001). Although the main effect

for global citizenship was not significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = .83, p >.05), a two-way interaction

effect for the global citizenship and the cause was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 2.49, p < .05).

In addition, a three-way interaction effect for the global citizenship, cause and company was

significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 4.40, p < .01) and a three-way interaction effect for the global

citizenship, cause and brand was significant (Wilks‟ Lambda = 4.30, p < .01).

In relation to consumer attitudes toward the company and consistent with H2a, the

interaction effect of global citizenship and our cause manipulation was significant (F(2,1445) =

4.33, p < .05). Global citizens were more likely to have positive attitudes toward companies that

engaged with global causes (M = 5.27) than toward companies that engaged with local causes (M

= 5.18) or no causes (M = 5.03). Participants with weak global citizenship were more positive

about companies that engaged with local causes (M = 5.39) and global causes (M = 5.31) than no

causes (M = 4.92). The main effect for the cause and the interaction effect for the cause and

country remained significant and similar to our findings in relation to H1a.

Figure 3: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Attitudes toward the Company

A similar pattern of results was achieved for consumer attitudes toward the brands.

Consistent with H2b, the interaction effect of global citizenship and out cause manipulation was

significant (F(2,1441) = 5.17, p < .01). Global citizens were more likely to have positive

attitudes toward brands that supported global (M = 5.37) than local (M = 5.25) no (M = 5.11)

causes. Participants with weak global citizenship were more positive about brands that supported

local causes (M = 5.41) than brands that supported global causes (M = 5.18) or no causes (M =

4.85). Main effects of the cause and country remained significant and similar to our findings in

relation to H1b. No other main or interaction effects were significant.

Figure 4: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Attitudes toward the Brand

Finally, in relation to consumer willingness to pay a premium, two three-way interactions

were significant: company x cause x global citizenship (F(1,1330) = 15.61, p < .001) and brand x

cause x global citizenship (F(1,1330) = 13.18, p < .001). Specifically, in relation to global

companies and global brands, global citizens were willing to pay the highest premium for the

support of global causes (companies: M = 22.36% and brands: M = 23.23%) rather than local

causes (companies: M = 16.03% and brands: M = 9.89%) or no causes (M = 17.22%).

Participants low on global citizenship were more likely to pay for the support of local causes

(companies: M = 17.35% and brands: M = 21.43%) rather than global causes (companies: M =

14.91% and brands: M = 7.39%) or no causes (M = 3.54%).

Figure 5: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Cause-

Related Marketing by Global Companies and Global Brands

In relation to local companies and brands, those with strong (companies: M= 14.33%)

and brands: M = 21.05%) and weak (companies: M = 27.16% and brands: M = 16.88%) global

citizenship expressed willingness to pay the highest premium for the support of local causes.

Those who were low on global citizenship expressed a greater support of local causes by local

companies than those who perceived themselves as global citizens.

Figure 6: Moderating Effect of Global Citizenship on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Cause-

Related Marketing by Local Companies and Local Brands

Finally, hypotheses 3 and 4 assess cross-cultural differences in consumer attitudes and

willingness to pay for cause-related marketing by global and local companies. Consistent with

H4a, the country effect in the ANCOVA test was significant (F(3,854) = 7.90, p < .001).

Consumers in Brazil (M = 5.54) were more positive about cause-related efforts by global

companies than consumers in the U.S. (M = 5.09) and England (M = 5.05). However, there were

no significant differences in consumer attitudes toward global companies engaged in cause-

related marketing among consumers in Russia (M = 5.12) and the developed countries. There

were no significant differences in consumer attitudes toward the brand by global companies that

engaged in cause-related marketing (F(3,432) = 1.11, p > .05). H3b was not supported.

Consistent with H3c, the main effect for the country on consumer willingness to pay for global

companies engaging in cause-related marketing was significant (F(3, 857) = 4.66, p < .01).

Consumers in Brazil (M = 1.36%) were significantly less willing to pay for global companies

engaging in cause-related marketing than consumers in the U.S (M = 20.08%) and England (M =

25.57%). There were no significant differences among participants in Russia (M = 10.79%) and

developed countries in their willingness to pay for global companies engaging in cause-related

marketing.

Figure 7: Cross-Cultural Differences in Consumer Attitudes toward and Willingness to Pay for

Cause-Related Marketing by Global Companies

Hypothesis 4 predicted more positive attitudes and greater willingness to pay for cause-

related marketing by local companies and brands in developed countries than in emerging

markets. We did not support H4a and H4b because the country effect was not significant for both

the attitude toward the company and the attitude toward the brand (F(3,428) = .87, p >.05). We

did support H4c (F(3,428) = 7.72, p < .001). Consumers in Brazil (M = -.80%) and Russia (M = -

3.27%) were significantly less willing to pay for products by local companies engaging in cause-

related marketing than consumers in the U.S. (M = 29.13%) and England (M = 22.26%).

Figure 8: Cross-Cultural Differences in Consumer Attitudes toward and Willingness to Pay for

Cause-Related Marketing by Local Companies

DISCUSSION

In the modern world, global consumer culture impacts consumer responses to marketing

activities by both global and local companies. Our goal was to examine effectiveness of cause-

related green marketing in emerging and developed markets among consumers who hold a weak

and strong perception of their global citizenship. We assessed effectiveness of companies‟

associations with global and local causes in relation to consumer attitudes toward the company,

the brand and their willingness to pay for a premium for cause-related efforts. Although

effectiveness of cause-related marketing has been established in prior research in developed

markets, there is still a lack of understanding of consumer responses to cause-related efforts in

emerging markets. We focused on young adult consumers aged 17-30 who are attractive to

global corporations but who also vary in their degree of global citizenship. We recruited

participants in one developed and one emerging market of the Americas (the U.S. and Brazil)

and Europe (England and Russia).

Our research makes several important contributions to prior research on cause-related

marketing and globalization. First, we find that cause-related green marketing is effective in both

emerging and developed markets in creating more positive attitudes toward the company and the

brand that are engaged with such efforts. However, such efforts do not directly translate into

greater willingness to pay. Moreover, effectiveness of local versus global causes is moderated by

the degree of consumer global citizenship. Those who perceive themselves as global citizens are

more positive about companies and brands that are involved with global causes than local causes

or no causes, whereas those with weak global citizenship are more or equally positive about

companies and brands that are involved with local and global causes. In addition, global citizens

are more willing to pay for global companies engaged with global causes than global companies

engaged with local or no causes. Although both global citizens and those with weak global

citizenship are more willing to pay for local companies and brands engaged with local causes,

global citizens are more willing to pay for local brands engaged with global causes than non-

global citizens.

Second, consumers across countries are more positive about local companies that are

engaged with cause-related activities than global companies. This finding probably speaks to a

general protection and pride of local companies in the eyes of consumers. However, this positive

attitude toward local companies does not resonate with consumer attitudes toward brands or their

willingness to pay a greater premium for local brands and products than global brands and

products. Hence, cause-related green marketing appears to work well for both local and global

brands.

Third, we assessed cross-cultural differences in consumer responses to cause-related

marketing. Although consumers in Brazil were more positive about global companies and brands

engaged with cause-related marketing than consumers in other countries, they were willing to

pay the least amount of premium for their efforts. Cause-related marketing is almost non-existent

in emerging markets and consumers appear to be very enthusiastic about it, more so than

consumers in developed markets. They are willing to reward global companies for bringing

cause-related support to their emerging markets, but they are able to offer a smaller amount of a

reward than consumers in developed markets. This finding probably speaks to the discrepancy in

consumer disposable incomes across countries. There were no cross-cultural differences in

consumer attitudes toward local companies and local brands engaged with cause-related

marketing but consumers in developed markets were more willing to pay a premium for such

efforts than consumers in Brazil and Russia. Effects of consumer attitudes in Russia were not

statistically significant from those in the U.S. and England. However, there was another

interesting observation in Russia: consumers appeared to be more positive about companies that

were involved only with global but not local causes. We speculate two explanations for this

finding: Russian consumers distrust corporate engagement with local causes that they may

perceive as money laundering or they welcome a greater participation in the global world and

culture by showing their support to global causes above and beyond their local ones.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

In a globalizing world, where consumers relate to multiple geographic locales, including

the world at large, and where information about corporate actions can be easily accessed in many

places of the world, global companies should be careful about engaging in cause-related

activities in one country but not others. Managers seem to avoid disclosing their cause-related

efforts in emerging markets, mainly because of lower consumer incomes and higher premiums

for such efforts. Our findings demonstrate the value of cause-related green campaigns in both

developed and emerging markets. Moreover, consumers in emerging markets were much more

enthusiastic about such efforts by global companies than their counterparts in developed markets,

although they were able to pay a similar premium for such efforts than consumers in developed

markets. Cause-related campaigns are still a novelty in emerging markets and global companies

have a great opportunity to build up their reputation and image by bringing support of social

causes to these markets. Consumers in Russia were especially enthusiastic about companies that

engaged with global causes, possibly showing their desire to play a stronger part in the

globalizing world.

Even though global and local causes are effective in creating positive responses from

consumers, companies need to be cognizant of consumer groups they are targeting and the

degree of consumer association with the global world and citizenship. In our research, global

citizenship was a strong moderator of effectiveness of cause-related marketing. Similar to

Russell and Russell (2010), we find that global citizens across all four countries were more

positive about global causes and were more willing to pay a premium for global causes,

especially when they are initiated by global companies. Those who were low on their association

with global citizenship responded positively to both global and local causes but were willing to

pay more for local causes, particularly when they were supported by local companies. Hence, a

targeted and possibly multi-stage approach is necessary in securing the most effective cause-

related campaign. In the modern world, the use of both global and local causes may be most

appealing to consumers who tend to hold multiple identities and relate to multiple levels of their

citizenship. Overall, however, global companies appear to benefit the most from global causes

that become just another expression of their participation in the global consumer culture.

Finally, several important observations can be made in relation to local companies and

brands. Consumers do seem to be more positive about local companies engaging in cause-related

marketing than global companies but that does not hold true for local brands and consumer

willingness to pay. In addition, local causes appear to be most effective in increasing consumer

willingness to pay for local companies that are engaged in cause-related marketing but global

causes work equally well for global citizens. Although associating themselves with local causes

seems like a strategy to pursue, local companies may consider associations with global causes

when targeting those who associate more with the global world than their local communities. In

addition, consumer willingness to pay for local companies and brands engaged with cause-

related marketing was negative in Brazil and Russia. In other words, although positive in their

attitudes, consumers are willing to pay less than what they currently pay for cause-related

marketing by local companies. This finding speaks to the low value and perceived overpricing of

local merchandise in emerging markets. Local companies need to invest more efforts and

resources into improving quality and image of their offerings.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Our research extends a popular line of research on cause-related marketing to global

citizens and emerging markets. The study, however, has some limitations. First, we focused on

young adult consumers who are more likely to be cognizant of cause-related campaigns due to

their higher exposure to the internet and global mass communications. Different patterns of

findings may be observed in the context of older less “globalized” population segments or in

other cultures. Second, we focused on one product category and water protection as our cause

manipulation: future replication across a broader range of durable and non-durable products and

diverse causes is warranted. Finally, we considered global citizenship as a moderator of

effectiveness of cause-related marketing. Although global citizenship was a relevant and

interesting differentiating characteristic of our young adult consumer segment, other personality

variables and belief structures may impact effectiveness of socially responsible marketing and

should be considered in future research.

REFERENCES

Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising

in Asia, North America and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. Journal of

Marketing, 63(January), 75 87.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M.

Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (pp.

295 310), London, U.K.: Sage Publications.

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(October),

774 783.

Askegaard, S. (2006). Brands as a global ideoscape. In J.E. Schroeder & M. Salzer- Mörling

(Eds.), Brand Culture, (pp. 91-101). London: Routledge Press.

Bloom, P. N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K.L., & Basurto Meza, C. E. (2006). How social-cause

marketing affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 49-55.

Cayla, J., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2008). Asian brands and the shaping of a transnational imagined

community. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(August), 216 230.

Chan, R. Y. K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China: Survey

findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 25-52.

Cleveland, M. & Laroche, M. (2007). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: Scale

development and research paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 60, 249-259.

"Cone 2007 Cause Evolution Study," http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=583.

"Cone Corporate Citizenship Study," http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=330.

Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad

credibility and manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361-368.

Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L., & Feick, L. (2003). Rethinking the origins of involvement and brand

commitment: Insights from postsocialist Central Europe. Journal of Consumer Research, 30

(2), 151-169.

de Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J-B. E. M., Fox, J.-P., & Baumgartner, H. (2008). Using item theory

to measure extreme response style in marketing research: A global investigation. Journal of

Marketing Research, 45(1), 104-115.

Der-Karabetian, A., & Ruiz, Y. (1997). Affective bicultural and global-human identity scales for

Mexican-American adolescents. Psychological Reports, 80(3), 1027-1039.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social

responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 24(3), 224-241.

Eisingerich, A. & Rubera, G. (2010). Drivers of brand commitment: A cross- national

investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 64-79.

Goig, R. L. (2007). Fair trade and global cognitive orientation: A focus on Spanish fair trade

consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 468-477.

Grau, S. L., & Garretson Folse, J. A. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM). Journal of

Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.

Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard

Business Review, 82(September), 68 75.

Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate

corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447-453.

Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause-brand alliances: Does the cause help the brand

or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423-429.

McKenzie, S.B. & Lutz, R.J. (1989).An empirical examination of attitude toward the ad in an

advertising pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48-65.

Menon, S., & Kahn, B.E. (2001). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: Do they help

the sponsor? Social Marketing Quarterly, 7(3), 76-79.

Morales, A.C. (2005). Giving firm an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high-effort firms.

Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 806-812.

Mostafa, M. M. (2007). A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian

consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24(5), 445-473.

Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR)

initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of

Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.

Osterhus, T.L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they work?

Journal of Marketing, 61 (October), 16-29.

Ottman, J. (2009, July 21), “Green Marketing Has Really Gone Mainstream,” (retrieved from

http://blogs.hbr.org/leadinggreen/2009/07/green-marketing-has-come-a-lon.html).

Pelsmacker, P. D., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness

to pay for fair-trade coffee. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363-385.

Reed, A., Aquino, K., & Levy, E. (2007). Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors.

Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 178-193.

Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). Consumer value orientation for materialism and its

measurement: Measure development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,

19(December), 303-316.

Ritzer, G. (2007). The Globalization of nothing 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Russell, D.W. & Russell, C.A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social

responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21,

65-81.

Scholder, P., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer

attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Academy of Marketing Science.

Journal, 34(2), 147-157.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer

reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.

Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social

sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-

national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), 78 90.

Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport to global

citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journal of International

Marketing, 16(4), 57-85.

Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 61-

69.

Wilk, R. (1995). Learning to be local in Belize: Global systems of common difference. In D.

Miller (Ed.), Worlds apart: Modernity through the prism of the local, (pp. 110-133). London:

Routledge Press.

Woodward, I., Skrbis, Z., & Bean, C. (2008). Attitudes toward globalization and

cosmopolitanism: Cultural diversity, personal consumption and the national economy. British

Journal of Sociology, 59(2), 207-226.

Zhang, Y., & Khare, A. (2009). The impact of accessible identities on the evaluation of global

versus local products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 524-537.

APPENDIX

We present our experimental scenarios in the U.S. Prices and geographic references were

modified in other countries to reflect cross-cultural differences.

No Cause-Related Marketing

“We ask your opinion regarding a company and it new product line. Please read the paragraph

below and answer the questions. Please understand that there are no correct or wrong answers,

we are interested in your reactions.

A multinational [local] company is conducting a market survey to investigate the possibility of

offering a new line of products. Your opinion is important for the company‟s decision to choose

this product line over others. Please circle the number that best represents your response.

The multinational [local] company promotes and distributes a widely recognized brand of yogurt

in over 100 countries around the world [in New England] and is considering launching a new

line of yogurt under this brand. Typical global [local] brands in this product category are priced

between $.75 and $1.50 for an 8oz.unit of yogurt.”

Cause-manipulation – the following sentence was added to the above paragraph

“The company plans to donate proceeds from its sales of this new product line of yogurt to help

conserve and purify waters of the world’s oceans [conserve and purify waters of New England

lakes and rivers].”