Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does CSR Matter for Nonprofit Organizations? Testing the Link Between CSR Performance and Trustworthiness in the Nonprofit Versus For-Profit Domain

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on attribution theory and expectancy violations theory, this paper examines the relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the nonprofit domain. For this task, an analysis of the effects of positive and negative CSR performance on perceived trustworthiness was conducted for nonprofit and for for-profit organizations. The findings of a survey-based experiment indicate that in the nonprofit domain, positive CSR performance does not significantly affect trustworthiness, whereas negative CSR performance significantly destroys trustworthiness. Since negative CSR performance is the result of irresponsible behavior, the study’s findings suggest that CSR in the nonprofit domain should be centered on “avoiding bad.”

Résumé

S’appuyant sur la théorie de l’attribution et la théorie de la violation des attentes, cet article examine la pertinence de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE) dans le secteur à but non lucratif. Pour cette tâche, une analyse des effets de la performance RSE positive ou négative concernant la fiabilité perçue a été menée pour des organisations à but lucratif et des organisations sans but lucratif. Les conclusions d’une expérience reposant sur une enquête indiquent que, dans le secteur à but non lucratif, la performance RSE positive n’affecte pas la fiabilité de manière significative tandis que la performance RSE négative anéantit considérablement la fiabilité. Une performance RSE négative résultant d’un comportement irresponsable, les conclusions de l’étude suggèrent que la RSE dans le secteur à but non lucratif doit se concentrer à « éviter les mauvais comportements » .

Zusammenfassung

Basierend auf der Attributionstheorie und der Expectancy-Violations-Theorie untersucht dieser Beitrag die Relevanz von Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) im gemeinnützigen Sektor. Hierfür wurden die Auswirkungen von positiver und negativer CSR-Leistung auf die wahrgenommene Vertrauenswürdigkeit von gemeinnützigen und gewinnorientierten Organisationen untersucht. Die Ergebnisse einer experimentellen Studie zeigen, dass sich eine positive CSR-Leistung im gemeinnützigen Sektor nicht signifikant auf die Vertrauenswürdigkeit auswirkt, während eine negative CSR-Leistung die Vertrauenswürdigkeit signifikant beschädigt. Da eine negative CSR-Leistung das Resultat von unverantwortlichem Verhalten ist, legen die Studienergebnisse nahe, dass CSR im gemeinnützigen Sektor auf die Vermeidung von unverantwortlichen Verhaltensweisen ausgerichtet werden sollte.

Resumen

Recurriendo a la teoría de la atribución y a la teoría de la violación de las expectativas, el presente documento examina la relevancia de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa (RSC/CSR) en el campo de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Para esta tarea, se realizó un análisis de los efectos del rendimiento en RSC/CSR sobre la confianza percibida, para las organizaciones con ánimo de lucro y sin ánimo de lucro. Los hallazgos de un experimento basado en una encuesta indican que en el campo de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro, el rendimiento positivo en RSC/CSR no afecta a la confianza de manera significativa, mientras que un rendimiento negativo en RSC/CSR destruye la confianza de manera significativa. Dado que el rendimiento negativo en RSC/CSR es el resultado de un comportamiento irresponsable, los hallazgos del estudio sugieren que la RSC/CSR en el campo de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro debe centrarse en “evitar el mal”.

摘要

基于归因理论和期望违反理论,本文考察了非盈利领域中企业的社会责任感(CSR)的重要性。为此,本文分析了非盈利组织和盈利组织的积极和消极的企业社会责任感对于其信誉的影响。一项基于调查的实验结果显示,在非盈利领域中,企业社会责任感的积极表现不会显著影响其信誉,而企业社会责任感的消极表现则会明显破坏其信誉。既然企业社会责任感的消极表现是不负责任行为的结果,本研究的结果表明非盈利领域的企业社会责任感应以“避恶”为中心。

ملخص

بالإعتماد على نظرية الإسناد ونظرية الإنتهاكات المتوقعة ، هذا البحث يدرس أهمية المسؤولية الإجتماعية للشركات (CSR) في المجال الغير ربحي. لهذه المهمة، تم إجراء تحليل للآثار الإيجابية والسلبية لأداء المسؤولية الإجتماعية للشركات(CSR)على الثقة المتصورة للمنظمات الغير ربحية والمنظمات التي تسعى للربح. نتائج تجربة قائمة على إستطلاع الرأي تشير إلى أن في المجال الغير ربحي، الأداء الإيجابي للمسؤولية الإجتماعية للشركات (CSR) لايؤثر تأثيرا˝ كبيرا˝ على الثقة، في حين أن أداء المسؤولية الاجتماعية للشركات (CSR) السلبي يدمر بشكل ملحوظ الثقة. حيث أن الأداء السلبي للمسؤولية الإجتماعية للشركات (CSR) هو نتيجة لسلوك غير مسؤول، نتائج الدراسة تقترح أن المسؤولية الإجتماعية للشركات (CSR) في المجال الغير ربحي يجب أن يكون عنصره الأساسي “تجنب السيئ.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acar, W., Aupperle, K. E., & Lowy, R. M. (2001). An empirical exploration of measures of social responsibility across the spectrum of organizational types. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(1), 26–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2000). The impact of violations on uncertainty and the consequences for attractiveness. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi, K. M., & Adi, B. (2007). Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., & Signori, S. (2012). The customer satisfaction in a nonprofit context: The role of social responsibility and its communication. Papers of the 37th Annual Macromarketing Conference, Berlin, Germany, pp. 193–197. Retrieved February 16, 2014, from http://macromarketing.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Macromarketing2012Proceedings.pdf.

  • Ang, S. H., & Wight, A. M. (2009). Building intangible resources: The stickiness of reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(1), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. American Economic Review, 53(5), 941–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, A. A., & Bonifield, C. M. (2010). Broken (promotional) promises: The impact of firm reputation and blame. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(5), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardsley, N. (2000). Control without deception: Individual behaviour in free-riding experiments revisited. Experimental Economics, 3(3), 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., & Eichenlaub, A. (2010). What makes for trusting relationships in online communication? Journal of Communication Management, 14(4), 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. M., & Main, K. J. (2011). Deonance and distrust: Motivated third party information seeking following disclosure of an agent’s unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S2), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blodgett, M. S., & Melconian, L. (2012). Health-care nonprofits: Enhancing governance and public trust. Business and Society Review, 117(2), 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boris, E. T., & Odenhahl, T. J. (1990). Ethical issues in fund raising and philanthropy. In J. Van Til and Associates (Eds.), Critical issues in American philanthropy: Strengthening theory and practice (pp. 188–203). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Boucher, T., & Hudspeth, S. (2008). Ethics and the nonprofit. Commonfund Institute, December 2008. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from https://www.commonfund.org/investorresources/publications/white%20papers/ethics%20and%20the%20nonprofit.pdf.

  • Bouckaert, L., & Vandenhove, J. (1998). Business ethics and the management of non-profit institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 1073–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, S. T., Whitely, E., Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Mulheran, P. A., & Peters, T. J. (2004). Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: Risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(3), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, H. H., & Shrader, C. B. (2000). Moral reasoning and ethical climate: Not-for-profit vs. for-profit boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., Trafimow, D., & Gregory, W. L. (2005). The generality of negative hierarchically restrictive behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, C. (2014). German car club president resigns. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/286751c4-925b-11e3-8018-00144feab7de.html#axzz34Fcn1NtR.

  • Bryce, H. J. (2007). The public’s trust in nonprofit organizations: The role of relationship marketing and management. California Management Review, 49(4), 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunger, A. C. (2013). Administrative coordination in nonprofit human service delivery networks: The role of competition and trust. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1155–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & LePoire, B. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, C., & Hansen, M. H. (2010). Trustworthiness, governance, and wealth creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheshire, C., Antin, J., Cook, K. S., & Churchill, E. (2010). General and familiar trust in websites. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 23(3–4), 311–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. R., & Lee, D. R. (2011). Markets and morality. Cato Journal, 31(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural Sciences. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordery, C. J., & Baskerville, R. F. (2011). Charity transgressions, trust and accountability. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 197–213.

  • Costa, E., Ramus, T., & Andreaus, M. (2011). Accountability as a managerial tool in non-profit organizations: Evidence from Italian CSVs. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 470–493.

  • Costa e Silva, S., Bradley, F., & Sousa, C. M. (2012). Empirical test of the trust-performance link in an international alliances context. International Business Review, 21(2), 293–306.

  • Dabholkar, P. A., & Spaid, B. I. (2012). Service failure and recovery in using technology-based self-service: Effects on user attributions and satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal, 32(9), 1415–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Kooijmans-van Lankveld, H. (2013). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.12063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drevs, F., Tscheulin, D. K., & Lindenmeier, J. (2014). Do patient perceptions vary with ownership status? A study of nonprofit, for-profit, and public hospital patients. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 164–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman. (2013). Edelman trust barometer 2013. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/trust-2013/.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elangovan, A. R., Auer-Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2007). Why don’t I trust you now? An attributional approach to erosion of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(1), 4–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford, England: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2009). Inconsistencies in activists’ behaviours and the ethics of NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 503–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behaviour Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: Mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ response: The missing linkage. Baltic Journal of Management, 4(3), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gegenfurtner, A. (2013). Dimensions of motivation to transfer: A longitudinal analysis of their influence on retention, transfer, and attitude change. Vocations and Learning, 6(2), 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geigenmüller, A., & Greschuchna, L. (2011). How to establish trustworthiness in initial service encounters. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(4), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.

  • Greenwood, M., & Van Buren III, H. J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation–stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 425–438.

  • Hamilton, J. B., & Slatten, L. A. D. (2013). A nonprofit’s practical guide to resolving ethical questions. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, F., Seto, S., Wakaruk, A., Mersey, B., Mejia, A., & Copeland, L. (2010). The discerning consumer: Is nonprofit status a factor? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 866–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O., & Holmström, B. (1987). The theory of contracts. In T. F. Bewley (Ed.), Advances in economic theory—Fifth world congress (pp. 71–155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Books.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. A., Eckerd, S., Wilson, D., & Greer, B. (2009). The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer–supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, E. (2008). Does ‘corporate’ responsibility apply to not-for-profit organizations? In S. O. Idowu, & W. L. Filho (Eds.), Professionals’ perspectives on corporate social responsibility (pp. 271–288). Berlin: Springer.

  • Homburg, C., Stierl, M., & Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in business-to-business markets: How organizational customers account for supplier corporate social responsibility engagement. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 54–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment. doi:10.1177/1086026614535786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A., & Hodge, C. N. (1993). Stereotype effects of attributions, predictions, and evaluations: No two social judgments are quite alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jap, S. D., Robertson, D. C., Rindfleisch, A., & Hamilton, R. (2013). Low-stakes opportunism. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 216–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeavons, T. H. (1992). When the management is the message: Relating values to management practice in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(4), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegers, M. (2009). “Corporate” Governance in nonprofit organizations: A nontechnical review of the economic literature. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. (1976). Correspondent inference and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 389–420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsikeas, C. S., Skarmeas, D., & Bello, D. C. (2009). Developing successful trust-based international exchange relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1), 132–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, K. P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketola, T. (2008). A holistic corporate responsibility model: Integrating values, discourses and actions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. (2014). The role of prior expectancies and relational satisfaction in crisis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(1), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, D. L., & Gill, H. (2011). Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21(4), 657–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulich, C., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Where is the romance for women leaders? The effects of gender on leadership attributions and performance-based pay. Applied Psychology, 56(4), 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, M., Klein, S., Freisthler, B., & Weiss, R. E. (2013). Child center closures: Does nonprofit status provide a comparative advantage? Children and Youth Services Review, 35(3), 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T., Johnson, E., & Prakash, A. (2012). Media independence and trust in NGOs: The case of postcommunist countries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 8–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonidou, L. C., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, C. N., & Chari, S. (2013). Business unethicality as an impediment to consumer trust: The moderating role of demographic and cultural characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 397–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lii, Y. S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C., & Pricl, D. (2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1364–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2012). Managing the social acceptance of business. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1928–1936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing, and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. (2011). Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 981–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minor, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as reputation insurance: Primum non nocere. California Management Review, 53(3), 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for–profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overbeck, J. R., Tiedens, L. Z., & Brion, S. (2006). The powerful want to, the powerless have to: Perceived constraint moderates causal attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter-Morland, M. (2006). Triple bottom-line reporting as social grammar: Integrating corporate social responsibility and corporate codes of conduct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 352–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., Castaldo, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2010). The impact of corporate social responsibility associations on trust in organic products marketed by mainstream retailers: A study of Italian consumers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), 512–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovits, C., Shakespeare, C., & Shih, A. (2011). The causes and consequences of internal control problems in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Sims, J., & Wigley, S. (2008). The influence of corporate social responsibility campaigns on public opinion. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(2), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22(4), 1087–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puentes, R., Mozas, A., Bernal, E., & Chavez, R. (2012). E–corporate social responsibility in small non–profit organisations: The case of Spanish ‘non government organisations’. Service Industries Journal, 32(15), 2379–2398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyszczynski, T. A., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instigation of attributional processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, G. D., Henderson, D. J., & Sullivan, J. J. (1982). From dispositions to behaviors: The flip side of attribution. Journal of Research in Personality, 16(3), 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, T., & Tormala, Z. L. (2013). When contradictions foster persuasion: An attributional perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, J., & Milofsky, C. (2006). The centrality of values, passions, and ethics in the nonprofit sector. Special issue introduction. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2), 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F. (1993). Studied trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy. Human Relations, 46(9), 1133–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., & Schloderer, M. P. (2010). Developing a measurement approach for reputation of non-profit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(3), 276–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, M., Mitchell, S., & Gray, B. H. (2004). Public expectations of nonprofit and for–profit ownership in American medicine: Clarifications and implications. Health Affairs, 23(6), 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, K. J., Hopkins, C. D., & Carlson, L. (2010). The unintended consequences of using “posers” in nonprofit public service announcements and proposed self-regulatory disclosure solutions. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(2), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Vitaliano, D. F. (2007). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 773–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C., & Richmond, K. A. (2007). Call for greater accountability within the U.S. nonprofit sector. Academy of Accounting & Financial Studies Journal, 11(2), 75–87.

  • Sohn, Y. J., & Weaver Lariscy, R. W. (2012). A “buffer” or “boomerang?”—The role of corporate reputation in bad times. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650212466891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speckbacher, G. (2013). The use of incentives in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 1006–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanaland, A. J., Lwin, M. O., & Murphy, P. E. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, B. N., Haunschild, P., & Page, K. (2007). Organizations non gratae? The impact of unethical corporate acts on interorganizational networks. Organization Science, 18(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaen, V., & Chumpitaz, R. C. (2008). Impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 23(4), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R. W. (2011). When student samples make sense in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(3), 287–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2013). Proactive CSR: An empirical analysis of the role of its economic, social and environmental dimensions on the association between capabilities and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschirhart, M., & Bielefeld, W. (2012). Managing nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Um, N.-H. (2013). Celebrity scandal fallout: How attribution style can protect the sponsor. Psychology & Marketing, 30(6), 529–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Global Compact, & Accenture. (2013). The UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO study on sustainability 2013: Architects of a better world. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-UN-Global-Compact-Acn-CEO-Study-Sustainability-2013.PDF.

  • Van Herpen, E., Pennings, J., & Meulenberg, M. (2003). Consumers’ evaluations of socially responsible activities in retailing. Working paper, Wageningen University Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

  • Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1207–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A. (2014). Good governance: A radical and normative approach to nonprofit management. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 797–817.

  • Wahlsten, D. (1991). Sample size to detect a planned contrast and a one degree-of-freedom interaction effect. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 587–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, H. A., & Willer, D. (2007). Experiments and the science of sociology. In M. Webster & J. Sell (Eds.), Laboratory experiments in the social sciences (pp. 25–55). Amsterdam, Boston: Academic Press/Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2013). Inter-firm opportunism: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and effect on performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(2), 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. E., & Mort, G. S. (2010). Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 346–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. P., & Taylor, J. A. (2013). Resolving accountability ambiguity in nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 559–580.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirl, F. (2014). Dynamic corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies in oligopoly. OR Spectrum, 36(1), 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witesman, E. M., & Fernandez, S. (2012). Government contracts with private organizations: Are there differences between nonprofits and for-profits? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 689–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7), 572–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, H. L., Zeng, R. C., Zeng, S. X., & Shi, J. J. (2014). How do environmental violation events harm corporate reputation? Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1849.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mannheim Schloss, 68131, Mannheim, Germany

    Nick Lin-Hi & Igor Blumberg

  2. Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jacob Hörisch

Authors
  1. Nick Lin-Hi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob Hörisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Igor Blumberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Lin-Hi.

Appendix

Appendix

Description of Scenarios (Translated to English)

Scenario 1

Below, you will find a description of Academicus, an organization operating canteens, and several questions about Academicus. Please read the description of Academicus carefully before you answer the questions based on this description.

The for-profit organization Academicus has been operating canteens for more than 20 years at several university locations in Germany. Regular surveys among students show that, overall, they are quite satisfied with Academicus’ meal offers. In particular, students praise the offer of the “Student Menu of the Day” which includes a small salad, a main dish, a dessert, and a small drink for a total of €3.90. Last year, three of Academicus’ canteens were elected by students to be among the Top 10 canteens in Germany.

Scenario 2

Below, you will find a description of Academicus, an organization operating canteens, and several questions about Academicus. Please read the description of Academicus carefully before you answer the questions based on this description.

The nonprofit organization Academicus has been operating canteens for more than 20 years at several university locations in Germany. Regular surveys among students show that, overall, they are quite satisfied with Academicus’ meal offers. In particular, students praise the offer of the “Student Menu of the Day” which includes a small salad, a main dish, a dessert, and a small drink for a total of €3.90. Last year, three of Academicus’ canteens were elected by students to be among the Top 10 canteens in Germany.

Scenario 3

Below, you will find a description of Academicus, an organization operating canteens, and several questions about Academicus. Please read the description of Academicus carefully before you answer the questions based on this description.

The for-profit organization Academicus has been operating canteens for more than 20 years at several university locations in Germany. Regular surveys among students show that, overall, they are quite satisfied with Academicus’ meal offers. In particular, students praise the offer of the “Student Menu of the Day” which includes a small salad, a main dish, a dessert, and a small drink for a total of €3.90. Last year, three of Academicus’ canteens were elected by students to be among the Top 10 canteens in Germany.

In its current issue, a prestigious university magazine reports very positively about the for-profit organization Academicus. Among other things, Academicus is praised for its respectful treatment of employees and its high environmental standards (e.g., environmentally friendly waste disposal). Additionally, the report includes a statement from one of Academicus’ suppliers who describes the business relationship with the organization as follows: Academicus is a pleasant business partner whose word can always be relied upon.

Scenario 4

Below, you will find a description of Academicus, an organization operating canteens, and several questions about Academicus. Please read the description of Academicus carefully before you answer the questions based on this description.

The nonprofit organization Academicus has been operating canteens for more than 20 years at several university locations in Germany. Regular surveys among students show that, overall, they are quite satisfied with Academicus’ meal offers. In particular, students praise the offer of the “Student Menu of the Day” which includes a small salad, a main dish, a dessert, and a small drink for a total of €3.90. Last year, three of Academicus’ canteens were elected by students to be among the Top 10 canteens in Germany.

In its current issue, a prestigious university magazine reports very positively about the nonprofit organization Academicus. Among other things, Academicus is praised for its respectful treatment of employees and its high environmental standards (e.g., environmentally friendly waste disposal). Additionally, the report includes a statement from one of Academicus’ suppliers who describes the business relationship with the organization as follows: Academicus is a pleasant business partner whose word can always be relied upon.

Scenario 5

Below, you will find a description of Academicus, an organization operating canteens, and several questions about Academicus. Please read the description of Academicus carefully before you answer the questions based on this description.

The for-profit organization Academicus has been operating canteens for more than 20 years at several university locations in Germany. Regular surveys among students show that, overall, they are quite satisfied with Academicus’ meal offers. In particular, students praise the offer of the “Student Menu of the Day” which includes a small salad, a main dish, a dessert, and a small drink for a total of €3.90. Last year, three of Academicus’ canteens were elected by students to be among the Top 10 canteens in Germany.

In its current issue, a prestigious university magazine reports very negatively about the for-profit organization Academicus. Among other things, Academicus is criticized for its disrespectful treatment of employees and its low environmental standards (e.g., environmentally harmful waste disposal). Additionally, the report includes a statement from one of Academicus’ suppliers who describes the business relationship with the organization as follows: Academicus is an unpleasant business partner whose word can never be relied upon.

Scenario 6

Below, you will find a description of Academicus, an organization operating canteens, and several questions about Academicus. Please read the description of Academicus carefully before you answer the questions based on this description.

The nonprofit organization Academicus has been operating canteens for more than 20 years at several university locations in Germany. Regular surveys among students show that, overall, they are quite satisfied with Academicus’ meal offers. In particular, students praise the offer of the “Student Menu of the Day” which includes a small salad, a main dish, a dessert, and a small drink for a total of €3.90. Last year, three of Academicus’ canteens were elected by students to be among the Top 10 canteens in Germany.

In its current issue, a prestigious university magazine reports very negatively about the nonprofit organization Academicus. Among other things, Academicus is criticized for its disrespectful treatment of employees and its low environmental standards (e.g., environmentally harmful waste disposal). Additionally, the report includes a statement from one of Academicus’ suppliers who describes the business relationship with the organization as follows: Academicus is an unpleasant business partner whose word can never be relied upon.

Measures of trust (translated to English)

  • I find it easy to trust Academicus.

    I can trust Academicus completely.

    Academicus is a trustworthy organization.

    I trust the management of Academicus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin-Hi, N., Hörisch, J. & Blumberg, I. Does CSR Matter for Nonprofit Organizations? Testing the Link Between CSR Performance and Trustworthiness in the Nonprofit Versus For-Profit Domain. Voluntas 26, 1944–1974 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9506-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9506-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation