1 Introduction
In line with the increasing relevance of corporate social responsibility (CSR), numerous profit organizations (PO) cooperate with NPO in cause-related marketing (CrM) projects or campaigns. CrM is a marketing and fundraising tool that combines the purchase of products with a “good cause”. It is typical for such collaborations that companies (the PO) make a (time-limited) commitment to their customers to donate a certain amount of money (i.e., usually a contractually agreed portion of the proceeds from the sale of specific products) to a charitable organization (the NPO). The amount of the donation is thus linked to sales: typically, either a fixed amount per unit or a percentage of revenue flows to NPO in order to support their mission (i.e., the “good cause”) (Andreasen,
1996; Berglind & Nakata,
2005; Bhatti et al.,
2023; Helmig & Boenigk,
2020; Stumpf & Teufl,
2014; Varadarajan & Menon,
1988). Thus, CrM is a (usually transactional) variant of intersectoral cooperation, characterized by mutual resource exchange (Andreasen,
1996) and is typically defined in line with the seminal paper by Varadarajan and Menon (
1988): “Cause-related marketing is the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives” (p. 60).
CrM has long been an established practice in many countries (Berglind & Nakata,
2005; Meffert & Holzberg,
2009; Thomas et al.,
2020) and can be regarded as an expression of social responsibility and as a practice for demonstrating CSR (Stumpf & Teufl,
2014). Bowen (
1953) coined the term CSR in the mid-20th century and stated that corporate responsibility also implies an orientation towards the expectations and values of society (Kuttner & Feldbauer-Durstmüller,
2018; Carroll,
1999). Today, a wide variety of conceptualizations can be found in literature and practice (for an overview see Carroll (
1999) or Dahlsrud (
2008)). CSR concepts often refer to the three pillars of sustainability as CSR dimensions and thus areas of responsibility for companies (Stumpf & Teufl,
2014). Against this background, the fundamental question arises what motives or goals are at the center of CrM. For PO sales growth is often stated as the primary goal of CrM (Berglind & Nakata,
2005; Stumpf & Teufl,
2014). Financial aspects are also occasionally mentioned by NPO representatives as the main motive (Andeßner et al.,
2022), although there have been few studies exploring CrM from the nonprofits’ perspective (cf. Helmig & Boenigk,
2020; Thomas et al.,
2020; NPO-related studies are, e.g., Boenigk & Schuchardt,
2015; Liston-Heyes & Liu,
2013; Andeßner et al.,
2022). It is not clear, though, how important social and/or environmental concerns or value-based beliefs are in CrM projects, whether they are actually “lived” in practice and how they are balanced with (financial) performance objectives. On the one hand, more clarity about CrM motives is essential for the partners involved and their congruence of goals in order to promote the professionalism and success of joint CrM campaigns. On the other hand, it is also a vital aspect regarding ethical concerns and the credibility of such initiatives (and especially the company’s commitment).
There is already an extensive body of literature on CrM, but many studies focus on specific aspects and/or on a singular perspective of one of the three main actors involved in such initiatives (i.e. charitable organizations as NPO, companies as PO, and their customers as consumers). Our SLR bundles the knowledge on CrM from 1988 up to (including) the year 2020 based on an analysis of 60 articles with regard to the (both financial and non-financial) motives of all three actors (NPO, PO, and consumers). Moreover, we take into account the results of other SLR that were published before, but also after our review was conducted (i.e. after the search phase), like the comprehensive systematic reviews by Thomas et al. (
2020), Vrontis et al. (
2020a), Zhang et al. (
2020a), Bhatti et al. (
2023) and Patil and Rahman (
2023), to compare our findings with theirs. However, these reviews hardly deal with the motives of the partners involved. More systematic reviews are still needed (Bhatti et al.,
2023), especially on fundamental questions like the objectives the actors involved follow. Therefore, this article – based on a systematic literature review (SLR) in line with the approach of Tranfield et al. (
2003) – aims at integrating available knowledge into an overall picture of cooperation motives of the partners engaged in CSR. Thus, it deals with the question of why PO conduct CrM campaigns with NPO and what goals they pursue. The review examines this hitherto underexplored issue with a special focus on the importance of value-based reasons (as non-financial motives) for entering CrM partnerships. In particular, it examines inhowfar non-financial aspects play a role in such cooperations and to what extent such motives have been addressed in the scientific literature so far. Based on this analysis, our SLR identifies shortcomings in the literature and highlights several promising research avenues that are still underdeveloped in CrM research.
This paper is structured as follows: the next section outlines the materials and methods, followed by Chap. 3 which presents the review results in a compact manner. The final Chap. 4 discusses central findings and derives implications for further research.
2 Review methods
Systematic literature reviews allow to identify and analyze the state-of-the-art of a research field in a comprehensive, structured and transparent manner (usually based on a specific research question). By synthesizing the existing body of knowledge, such studies provide an overview of the field and enable the identification of research gaps and/or further research desiderata (Snyder,
2019; Tranfield et al.,
2003). The SLR of this paper follows the approach of Tranfield et al. (
2003) with the phases of planning, conducting, and reporting and dissemination of the review. Accordingly, we developed a review protocol and a corresponding search strategy. As Table
1 illustrates, this includes the identification and definition of databases, keywords as search terms and of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 1
Overview of databases, search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria
Databases | Scopus, EBSCOhost, Springer Link, Science Direct, Sage Journals Online, Emerald Insight, Google Scholar |
Keywords | cause* related* marketing, cause* marketing, affinity* marketing, mission* marketing, corporate*social* marketinga |
Inclusion criteria | scientific journal articles (incl. practitioner-oriented journals); English-language articles; no time restrictions (the review period includes all years up to 2020); empirical & theoretical-conceptual work, literature reviews; content relates to CrM |
Exclusion criteria | books, anthologies, working papers, conference papers, newspaper articles; any non-English language articles; publications after 2020; no restrictions regarding the research design; content on marketing, fundraising & CSR aspects without focus on CrM |
We identified the literature sample in the selected databases by using the mentioned keywords (partly linked with the Boolean operators “and/or”, if possible; otherwise, we did single queries). The systematic keyword search analyzed the titles, keywords and abstracts of scientific journal articles. Moreover, we also searched in Google Scholar. Then, we initially screened and narrowed the results. With regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria, we deliberately decided to focus on English-language scientific journal articles and not to make any restrictions regarding the content, research design, paper type or publication period in order to not exclude “classics” on the topic per se
1 and to picture the characteristics of the previous literature as broadly as possible. Thus, all English content-related articles up to the original review period (5–12 December 2020) were included. This adds up to 48 articles. In order to update and complete the year 2020, we conducted an additional search in June 2021. This follow-up search identified 12 other relevant papers. Finally, this results in 60 articles for our analysis, which we carried out manually (i.e. without software support other than Microsoft Excel).
4 Discussion and conclusions
Based on 60 research papers, this SLR maps the CrM research field with a focus on the motives of the three main actors involved (PO, NPO and consumers). There is already an extensive body of literature dealing with CrM in general, particularly promoted by the marketing community. Many scholars have investigated CrM, especially in the last decade, and since 2019 the number of publications has increased sharply. With regard to research designs and countries, we identified a strong focus on quantitative (and mainly experimental) studies, primarily conducted in North America and Europe, and increasingly also in Asian countries. Due to this US- and Eurocentrism there is a lack of knowledge about CrM in other regions of the world (such as South America, Australia and Oceania as well as Africa in particular). Hence, there is still a need for research in order to open this black box.
With regard to the perspectives addressed in previous CrM studies, we also identified an “imbalance” in their research foci (with a clear prevalence of consumer-related aspects). Most papers focus on questions relating to consumers (also with regard to their support motives and purchase intentions). So far, comparatively few papers explore the perspective of NPO or PO as CrM partners. For us it came as a surprise that there are also only a few papers shedding light on the motives for initiating CrM programs. About 28% of the papers in this review do not address cooperation motives at all. Thus, one can draw the conclusion that many of these papers are based on implicit assumptions regarding the motives of the actors. Very few articles deal with CrM motives of NPO (overall, the NPO perspective is only dealt with to a very limited extent in the CrM literature; cf. Patil & Rahman,
2023), which also pursue various (both financial and non-financial) goals with CrM and generally differ in various characteristics.
Even though CrM is often portrayed as a “win-win-win” situation for PO, NPO and the consumers or society (Bhatti et al.,
2023, p. 30; Patil & Rahman,
2023, p. 492), we found some criticism in the literature. Critics refer to possible negative effects and/or ethical issues consisting of (potential) conflicting goals and value(s) (systems) of the partners, e.g., to strategically motivated donation activities of PO (“strategic giving”). Moreover, research points out negative CrM effects for NPO or society in general, like “crowding out” effects in terms of shifting/displacing support or identity issues (“mission drift”). CrM is also framed as a divisionary tactic of PO (Berglind & Nakata,
2005; Boenigk & Schuchardt,
2015; Polonsky & Wood,
2001; Varadarajan & Menon,
1988). In this respect and in view of the increasing awareness and skepticism of some consumers towards CrM (Thomas & Kureshi,
2020), several issues seem crucial: “Is the CRM program a diversionary tactic, hiding a product problem through a public relations spin? (…) is the CRM campaign a clever manipulation to enrich a corporationʼs coffers (generating a buck), or is it a sincere way of assisting a charity (creating a bang or social impact)?” (Berglind & Nakata,
2005, p. 444). Accordingly, these questions are linked to the CrM-motives and goals of PO. Is the CrM campaign credible? Does the CrM campaign root in the goodwill and in non-selfish organizational and managerial behavior? Does the PO really pursue the signaled values in its everyday business live? Vice versa, does the CrM campaign and thus the support of the NPO only serves as “window dressing” or image enhancement? Do altruistic and philanthropic motives or values predominate, or does the CrM campaign rather have an instrumental, self-interested alignment?
Based on our SLR, we cannot definitely conclude, which perspective is predominant in practice; nor can we make any clear statement as to whether (and which) PO prioritize one or the other perspective under what circumstances. In sum, we do not really know. The content analysis of the PO motives reveals that a bundle of CrM motives as well as corporate and marketing goals (can) characterize CrM campaigns. Many papers emphasize financial motives (and thus self-interest), but also value-based aspects. Due to the fact that only the qualitative study of Miranda et al. (
2020) explores PO motivations in Portugal, many questions remain open. Even though, Miranda et al. (
2020) also point out that CrM is based on a bundle of motives; they particularly highlight competitive advantages and image as CrM motives. This suggests a predominance of self-interested motives. Overall, there is still a need for research regarding the cooperation motives of PO (and NPO). Interestingly, more than 30 years ago, Varadarajan and Menon (
1988) already formulated motive-/goal-related questions: “What are some of the major corporate and marketing objectives firms strive to realize by participating in CRMPs? (…) Who within the organization participates in decisions pertaining to the major aspects of CRMPs such as program objectives, cause(s) (…)? How do firms evaluate and select from among alternative causes (…)?” (p. 71). These questions thus represent the roots or origins of the CrM research field and we advocate that scholars should place more emphasize on such fundamental questions.
Decades later, Gupta and Pirsch (
2006a) also raised questions about CrM motives and how financial and value-based motives could be integrated: „(…) If stakeholders perceive that their (sponsoring) company is launching a cause-related initiative
only to increase sales, improve brand image, or appear more ʿpolitically correctʾ, the net result to the company could far outweigh any positives gained from cause sponsorship. (…) But how do companies most effectively convey their sincerity of motivation to their publics, and balance their capitalistic motivations with their altruistic ones? This area remains ripe for study, and presents interesting ethical dilemmas for marketing managers on the company and cause side alike” (p. 39).
Hence, we would like to emphasize that these fundamental research desiderata have not yet been sufficiently considered and addressed. Qualitative as well as quantitative (but less experimental) research designs seem to be promising for this endeavor. It is important to explore the motives but also potential influencing factors on the motives of PO-managers. Relevant contingency factors could be, for example, the size of the PO, sector/field of activity as well as individual characteristics of managers or decision-makers (e.g., cultural background, religious or other value-based attitudes), and also whether the PO is a family business or not.
11 Besides, it would be interesting to explore the role of various internal and external stakeholders (and how they influence CrM) as well as to analyze the influence of legal, cultural and other conditions or circumstances. Under which conditions do PO pursue which CrM goals? How do they prioritize them and why? How can partners ensure that their value systems are compatible and that they pursue common, complementary goals in order to protect their identity or the goodwill of their key stakeholders? Moreover, how can stakeholders determine, whether a company is “really” and “sincerely” committed to CrM or only does “green washing” or CSR “window dressing”?
Finally, we would like to refer to the limitations associated with this SLR. Our review gives an informative and insightful overview, but it cannot draw a complete picture of the entire current state of knowledge on CrM (and CrM motives). The selection of databases, keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria and the literature sample as well as the content analysis are influenced by the authors’ subjective assessments (and by their literature access possibilities). Publications in other (unconsidered) publication media (such as monographs or conference papers) or published in other languages could provide further valuable insights. Moreover, the use of other databases can lead to different and possibly richer results. Overall, the other SLR (which we identified during this project and afterwards
12) make it clear that numerous CrM papers are not considered in our review; therefore, a next step could be to conduct a broader review by synthesizing all their references. However, many of our findings are consistent with the results of these other (more comprehensive) SLR, which deal with interesting facets of CrM research and map the field (in form of overviews and/or bibliographic/bibliometric analyses), but they do not (or only rudimentarily) address cooperation motives or objectives. Our review paper thus makes a valuable contribution to further illuminating this important aspect of CrM research. Overall, it seems essential that future research examines in detail the CrM motives of PO and the (so far largely neglected) perspective of NPO. In particular, more empirical-qualitative and quantitative studies should identify relevant conditions or influencing factors on CrM motives and investigate their importance and implications.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.