This study unpacks the complex relationship between corporate–nonprofit partnerships, corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication, and stakeholder evaluations of fit. We move beyond the fundamental question of whether partner fit matters to questions about what types of messages matter, under what conditions, and to whom. We conducted an online experiment (N = 966) to test created fit messages’ ability to influence stakeholder perceptions of corporate–nonprofit partnership fit. Grounded in the symbiotic sustainability model, we find that created fit messaging results in stakeholders having more favorable evaluations of corporate–nonprofit partnership fit. However, we also identify differences in the effectiveness of created fit messaging across potential partnerships. In addition, we find, beyond message type and level of partner congruity, the degree of CSR activism influences stakeholders’ responses to created fit messaging in counterintuitive ways.
BartlettJ. (2014). Public relations and corporate social responsibility. In IhlenO.BartlettJ. L.MayS. (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 67–86). John Wiley.
2.
Becker-OlsenK. L.HillR. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity: The case of nonprofit service providers. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73–83.
3.
Becker-OlsenK. L.SimmonsC. J. (2002). When do social sponsorships enhance or dilute equity? Fit, message source, and the persistence of effects. In BroniarczykS. M.NakamotoK. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 29, pp. 287–289). Association for Consumer Research.
4.
Bigné-AlcañizE.Currás-PérezR.Ruiz-MaféC.Sanz-BlasS. (2012). Cause-related marketing influence on consumer responses: The moderating effect of cause–brand fit. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18, 265–283.
5.
BoenigkS.SchuchardtV. (2015). Nonprofit collaboration with luxury brands: Positive and negative effects for cause-related marketing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 708–733.
6.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsJ. C. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
7.
BriscoeF.ChinM. K.HambrickD. C. (2014). CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1786–1809.
CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (2011). Managing corporate social responsibility: A communication approach. John Wiley.
10.
CoombsW. T.HolladayS. J. (2015). CSR as crisis risk: Expanding how we conceptualize the relationship. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20, 144–162.
11.
CoppettiC.WentzelD.TomczakT.HenkelS. (2009). Improving incongruent sponsorships through articulation of the sponsorship and audience participation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15, 17–34.
12.
CornwellT. B.HumphreysM. S.MaguireA. M.WeeksC. S.TellegenC. L. (2006). Sponsorship-linked marketing: The role of articulation in memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 312–321.
13.
DawkinsJ. (2005). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 108–119.
14.
de JongM. D.van der MeerM. (2017). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 71–83.
15.
den HondF.de BakkerF. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901–924.
16.
DoumaM. U.BilderbeekJ.IdenburgP. J.LooiseJ. K. (2000). Strategic alliances: Managing the dynamics of fit. Long Range Planning, 33, 579–598.
17.
DuS.BhattacharyaC. B.SenS. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19.
18.
ElvingW. J. (2013). Skepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19, 277–292.
19.
GourvilleJ. T.RanganV. K. (2004). Valuing the cause marketing relationship. California Management Review, 47(1), 38–57.
20.
GwinnerK. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145–158.
21.
HellerN.ReitsemaK. (2010). The use of brand alliances to change perceptions of nonprofit and private organizations. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 11(4), 128–140.
22.
HendryJ. R. (2006). Taking aim at business: What factors lead environmental non-governmental organizations to target particular firms?Business & Society, 45, 47–86.
23.
HovlandC.SherifM. (1980). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Greenwood.
24.
JoharG.PhamM. T. (1999). Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 299–313.
25.
KellyC.BreinlingerS. (1995). Identity and injustice: Exploring women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5, 41–57.
26.
KimN.SungY.LeeM. (2012). Consumer evaluations of social alliances: The effects of perceived fit between companies and non-profit organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 163–174.
27.
KingB.McDonnellM. H. (2012). Good firms, good targets: The relationship between corporate social responsibility, reputation, and activist targeting. In TsutsuiK.LimA. (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in a globalizing world (pp. 430–450). Cambridge University Press.
28.
KraatzM. S.BlockE. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). Sage.
29.
LaffertyB. A. (2009). Selecting the right cause partners for the right reasons: The role of importance and fit in cause–brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 359–382.
30.
LaffertyB. A.GoldsmithR. E.HultG. T. M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause–brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 509–531.
31.
LauK. C.PhauI. (2010). Impact of gender on perceptual fit evaluation for prestige brands. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 354–367.
32.
MadsenH.UlhøiJ. P. (2001). Integrating environmental and stakeholder management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(2), 77–88.
33.
MarchandR. (1998). Creating the corporate soul: The rise of public relations and public imagery in American big business. University of California Press.
34.
McDonnellM. H.KingB. G.SouleS. A. (2015). A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review, 80, 654–678.
35.
McIntoshM. (2007). Progressing from corporate social responsibility to brand integrity. In MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 45–56). Oxford University Press.
MeschD.Ottoni-WilhelmM.OsiliU.HanX.PactorA.AckermanJ.TolleyK. (2016). Women give 2016: Giving in young adulthood: Gender differences and changing patterns across generations. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/11446
38.
MilesS. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 437–459.
39.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
40.
NanX.HeoK. (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.
41.
NathL.Holder-WebbL.CohenJ. (2013). Will women lead the way? Differences in demand for corporate social responsibility information for investment decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 85–102.
42.
O’ConnorA. (2006). Merchant of mercy; merchant of death: How values advocacy messages influence jury deliberations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 263–284.
43.
OlsonE. L.ThjømøeH. M. (2011). Explaining and articulating the fit construct in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 57–70.
44.
OmotoA. M.SnyderM.HackettJ. D. (2010). Personality and motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement. Journal of Personality, 78, 1703–1734.
45.
PólosL.HannanM. T.CarrollG. R. (2002). Foundations of a theory of social forms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 85–115.
46.
PorterM. E.KramerM. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
47.
PracejusJ. W.OlsenG. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57, 635–640.
48.
RademacherL.RemusN. (2017). Integrated CSR communication of NGOs: The dilemma to communicate and cooperate in CSR project partnerships. In DiehlS.KarmasinM.MuellerB.TerlutterR.WederF. (Eds.), Handbook of integrated CSR communication (pp. 393–412). Springer.
49.
RauppJ. (2014). The concept of stakeholders and its relevance for corporate social responsibility communication. In IhlenO.BartlettJ. L.MayS. (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 276–294). John Wiley.
50.
ReidE. M.ToffelM. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157–1178.
51.
RoyD. P.CornwellT. B. (2003). Brand equity’s influence on responses to event sponsorship. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12, 377–393.
52.
SchmeltzL. (2017). Getting CSR communication fit: A study of strategically fitting cause, consumers and company in corporate CSR communication. Public Relations Inquiry, 6(1), 47–72.
53.
SeitanidiM. M.CraneA. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design, and institutionalization of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 413–429.
54.
Seok SohnY.HanJ. K.LeeS. H. (2012). Communication strategies for enhancing perceived fit in the CSR sponsorship context. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 133–146.
55.
ShumateM.O’ConnorA. (2010a). Corporate reporting of cross-sector alliances: The portfolio of NGO partners communicated on corporate websites. Communication Monographs, 77, 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751003758201
56.
ShumateM.O’ConnorA. (2010b). The symbiotic sustainability model: Concep-tualizing NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60, 577–609.
57.
SilversteinM. J.SayreK. (2009). The female economy. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 46–53.
58.
SimmonsC. J.Becker-OlsenK. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154–169.
59.
StrangD.SouleS. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.
60.
StrykerS.BurkeP. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.
61.
TrimbleC. S.RifonN. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 29–47.
62.
van der HeydenC.van der RijtG. (2004). Societal marketing and philanthropy in Dutch companies. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 12(1), 23–36.
63.
YoonY.Gürhan-CanliZ.BozokB. (2006). Drawing inferences about others on the basis of corporate associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 167–173.
