عادلانه بودن و عادلانه دیده شدن :اعتبار شرکت و مشارکت مسئولان اجتماعی شرکت ها
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3470||2009||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Volume 17, Issue 2, July 2009, Pages 92–98
Over the past two decades, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been a growth area in managerial practice and academic consideration, as companies pursue the strategy to advance their corporate reputation goals. A popular CSR activity for many companies has been to enter into social alliance partnerships with nonprofit organisations [Berger, I., Cunningham, P., Drumwright, M., 2004. Social alliances: company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review 47 (1), 58–90]. This has been met by a sceptical yet pragmatic public, willing to support the partnerships so long as corporates are seen to be fair and just in their dealings with the nonprofit partner. Currently, however, there is little ability for stakeholders to know whether the partnerships are fair. This paper considers conflicting conceptions of how justice may be understood in corporate-nonprofit partnerships. It offers a model for how stakeholders may judge justice in CSR partnerships and relate this to corporate reputation.
Ever since 1982, when American Express attached a donation to restore the Statue of Liberty to every transaction made with its card and called it a marketing campaign, corporate-nonprofit partnerships have been a growth area both in practice and academic consideration (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988, Austin, 2000, Andreasen and Kotler, 2003, Wymer and Samu, 2003 and Berger et al., 2004). Such highly visible, high-value partnerships include cause-related marketing initiatives – such as the American Express-Statue of Liberty example – as well as sponsoring and visible joint venture programmes (Wymer and Samu, 2003). In Australasia they include New Zealand’s long-running alliance between Mainland Cheese and the Yellow Eyed Penguin Trust, or the Australian Rugby Union and the Prostate Foundation of Australia. Corporate-nonprofit partnerships are now a well established component of many corporate organisations’ marketing strategies and integral to their broader corporate social responsibility programmes. However, despite the prevalence of corporate-nonprofit partnerships, it is surprising that so little attention has been given to the ways in which the practice actually works to enhance corporate reputation outcomes. Past scholars looking at brand alliances and sponsorship as a corporate reputation issue have suggested that brand image transfer occurs when organisations enter into partnerships (Rodrigue and Biswas, 2004 and Smith, 2004). This is essentially the argument Dacin et al. appeal to when they claim strategic alliances are formed to enhance organisational legitimacy (Dacin et al., 2007). They, like others, highlight the importance of partner selection and brand fit (Lafferty et al., 2004 and James, 2005). This paper, by contrast, centres on the issue of credibility – not of the partners, but of the principles underpinning the partnership itself in contributing to corporate reputation outcomes. This is critically important in the context of corporate-nonprofit partnerships, which are in many ways defined by the opportunity they create for corporations to be seen to be doing good and benefiting society. The paper begins by employing legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory to examine how corporate reputation is sought through CSR activities, which can include corporate-nonprofit partnerships.1 It then considers stakeholder perspectives of corporate motivations to engage in CSR and examines literature exploring consumer attitudes towards corporate-nonprofit partnerships. The perception of justice is identified as critical to the credibility of corporate-nonprofit partnerships, and thus the corporate reputation outcomes. However the paper recognises divergent views on what constitutes justice. In relation to overarching ethical theories informing CSR debate, the paper considers two broad conceptions of how justice may be understood in corporate-nonprofit partnerships. It offers a model for how stakeholders may judge justice in CSR partnerships, and calls for further research, the results of which will be important for understanding corporate-nonprofit partnerships as a means for fulfilling social responsibility and corporate reputation outcomes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Currently a gap exists between the public face of corporate-nonprofit partnerships, trumpeted as joyous, win-win situations, and the decidedly more sceptical view held by some members of society. In Fig. 2, it is posited that the judgments individual stakeholders make about the fairness of the partnerships are informed by: (a) the social context in which individuals develop their understandings of power and justice, (b) the personal positions they have developed regarding power and justice, and, (c) the signals and information received regarding justice in the partnership which is informed by their interpretation of the reputation of the corporate partner. Where the signals and information conflict with perceived behaviour, as in scenarios 2 and 3, reputation is critically and negatively affected. The role of marketing in this situation is to ensure that internal communications and external promotion are consistent and reinforce both the nature and the spirit of the partnership. Where the reciprocal value of a partnership is clear and unambiguous, communication and promotion are relatively easy. Relationships are more robust and reputations more credible. Thus developing a reputation based on strong ethical principles increases the likelihood of partnerships being understood as well-founded on principles of justice. If corporate-nonprofit partnerships are established as one of the means for enhancing corporate reputation, then it is critical this goal is not undermined by behaving in a way that could be construed as unjust or exploitative. Equally, it is important that the goodwill intended to be generated by such a partnership is not compromised at the outset by entrenched cynicism about corporate motives. Marketing has a significant role to play in this process of clarification and representation. However, it is surprising that despite justice being critical to how stakeholders perceive the credibility of corporate and nonprofit partnerships, CSR, the reputations of the partners and the reputation of the corporate sector in general, very little evidence is offered to stakeholders to help them make such judgments. Partnerships are negotiated behind closed doors, and few if any terms and conditions are disclosed. A more proactive and communication-based approach in terms of corporate reputation management might enable corporations and their stakeholders to develop more open and potentially more trusting relationships.