Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Walk the line: Active Moms define corporate social responsibility

Amy O’Connora,∗, Michelle Shumateb, Mark Meistera

a Department of Communication, North Dakota State University, United Statesb Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 November 2007Received in revised form 15 May 2008Accepted 17 June 2008

Keywords:Corporate social responsibilityStakeholdersLegitimacyPublic relationsFocus group

a b s t r a c t

While many have suggested that corporate social responsibility is in part a response tostakeholders, little research has been done that gives primacy to the targeted publics’ voice,interpretations, and responses to corporate social responsibility. This research examinesthe meaning and attributes that Active Moms, an often targeted stakeholder group, assignto corporate social responsibility. In nine focus groups (N = 72), participants suggested thatauthentic CSR (a) is a combination of socially responsible business practices and campaignsto engage issues which impact their lives, (b) must be marked by longevity and consis-tency, (c) makes the most sense when linked to core business practices, (d) is distinct fromphilanthropy, and (e) is evaluated using a blend of rationality and emotionality.

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A quick scan of news or business magazines will produce multiple articles discussing corporate socially (ir)responsibleactivities and the effects that these endeavors have on communities and stakeholders. The August 2006 issue of Fortuneproclaimed “Wal-Mart Saves the Planet” in reference to the retail giant’s recent efforts in environmentalism. Fiscally, cor-porate social responsibility (CSR)1 can be a windfall. Research suggests that 88% of Americans would prefer to do businesswith corporations perceived to be socially responsible (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). In addition, among customers whobelieve a corporation is a good corporate citizen, 58% are more likely to give that corporation the benefit of the doubt in thewake of negative publicity (The Council on Foundations, 2000). These trends “encourage companies to provide benefits totheir various publics beyond those resulting directly from their core productive operations” (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999,p. 455).

This exploratory study begins to answer the calls for grounded research to understand the relationships corporationshave with stakeholder groups (Cheney & Dionisopoulos, 1989; Gioia, 1999). To do so, this research reports how membersof one frequently targeted audience define CSR. Active Moms,2 more commonly referred to as soccer moms, are women25–49 with 2+ kids and are important stakeholders for many corporations. Active Moms’ power includes their role in mak-ing household financial decisions (“Moms have key role in household finances”, 2006) and their role in many elections(Gainsborough, 2005), thus influencing corporations’ regulatory and political environment. Active Moms have the ability toinfluence the corporations’ economic and political bottom-line (Bendell & Kearins, 2005). Additionally, Active Moms’ may

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Communication, North Dakota State University, Box 5075, Fargo, ND, USA. Tel.: +1 58105 5075.E-mail address: amy.oconnor@ndsu.edu (A. O’Connor).

1 Corporate responsibility is a broader term, encompassing economic, environmental and social responsibility (van Marrewijk, 2003). In this research,we focus on Active Moms’ definition of corporate social responsibility.

2 Active Moms defines the target audience of the 1999–2001 Philip Morris CSR campaign. Internal documents revealed Active Moms to be women age25–49 who have higher than average household incomes, some college education, and two or more children.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.06.005

344 A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350

become definitive stakeholders. Definitive stakeholders have a legitimate claim that an organization’s actions will affectthem (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Even if such situations never arise, the identification of such stakeholders and theirexpectations is important for corporations; “Such identification can, at minimum, help organizations avoid problems andperhaps even enhance effectiveness” (p. 859). These characteristics have made Active Moms an important target audiencefor public relation campaigns.

2. Corporate social responsibility

Generally, CSR is explained as corporate engagement in socially responsible behaviors in response to societal demands,the desires of influential stakeholders, and the ability of such activities to increase competitiveness, stock performance,and legitimacy (Carroll, 1979; Freeman, 1984; Whetten, Rands, & Godfrey, 2001). Some activities involve furthering a socialgood that is not required by law (McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006) while other endeavors are part of a legal systemthat strives to ensure a baseline of responsibility among all corporations. Socially responsible behavior is synchronized withthe economic, ethical, and moral expectations of society at a given point in time (Carroll, 1999; Whetten & Mackey, 2002).CSR communication allows corporations to demonstrate their fit in society and appeal to stakeholders for support. CSR asa form of public relations has been described as “dialogue with the surroundings . . . an unavoidable condition for action,encouraging initiatives and generating more projects” (Chavarria, 2007, p. 148).

3. Legitimacy and stakeholder theories as foundations

Inherent in the struggle to define CSR are issues of legitimacy. Broadly considered, legitimacy refers to socially acceptedvalues and behaviors. As an attribute, legitimacy is conferred upon organizations by stakeholders (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975).Suchman (1995) explains “legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable,proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574). Thisdefinition is useful in CSR research because it positions legitimacy as being socially constructed, thereby addressing therelationships between stakeholders, organizations, and communities (Wood, 1991).

Freeman (1984) argues “corporate survival depends, in part, on there being some ‘fit’ between the values of the corpora-tion and its managers, the expectations of stakeholders in the firm, and the societal issues which will determine the ability ofthe firm to sell its products” (p. 107). As such, strategic philanthropy, or instrumental stakeholder management (Donaldson& Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995), suggests that CSR should be motivated by the desire and ability of such activities to increaseshareholder value by increasing loyalty, trust, and goodwill (Fombrun, 1996; O’Connor, 2006). Stakeholders, including share-holders, are considered with a focus on the selection of CSR activities that will have a direct and measurable effect on society,and the creation of shareholder wealth. Strategic philanthropy allows for corporations to select specific social works andtarget publics that are most desirable in terms of social image, consumer purchase decisions, and the goals of the corporation.

4. The language of corporate social responsibility

Stakeholders and corporations mutually communicate their expectations and their evaluations of compliance with thoseexpectations to one another. Corporations engage stakeholders on the issue of corporate responsibilities through purposiveand planned communication. In 2005, 64% of the 250 largest multi-national corporations published CSR reports (Kolk, 2008).Other communication activities designed to promote CSR include: multi-million dollar public relations and advertising cam-paigns such as the current Buy(RED) campaign, interactive websites (e.g., Chevron, www.willyoujoinus.com), and executivespeaking tours. Stakeholders also communicate their expectations to organizations. For example, over “360 different CSR-related shareholder resolutions were filed on issues ranging from labor conditions to global warming” (Porter & Kramer,2006, p. 80).

Corporations understand the implicit and explicit value of communicating social responsibility to a wide range of stake-holders and responding to their expectations. CSR communication represents an attempt by organizations and stakeholdersto negotiate the value and legitimacy of CSR activities. Through this communication, the organization and stakeholders aresimultaneously conferring, constructing, and criticizing claims of legitimacy. Heath (1993) surmises “a rhetorical paradigmof public relations captures the meaning that shapes the social reality by which people have similar thoughts, contest pointsof view, make judgments, and regulate their behavior and that of others” (pp. 142–143). This research follows this line ofinquiry and suggests that CSR activities and the language used to describe, rationalize, and present them represent the pri-mary site of struggle over meaning and legitimacy between corporations and stakeholders. The research reported here fillsa gap in the literature by engaging one specific stakeholder group to understand how they conceptualize the oft-cited term:CSR. Thus, this study asks:

RQ1: According to Active Moms, what are the meanings of CSR?RQ2: What attributes do Active Moms perceive as important for socially responsible corporations to exhibit?

A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350 345

5. Method

This study relied on focus groups to answer the research questions posed. A total of nine focus groups were conductedin three Midwest cities between June 2003 and July 2005. The results presented in this study were obtained during thefirst phase of data collection in a larger study designed exclusively to understand how Active Moms define CSR. In phaseone, researchers did not provide participants with any organizational context. However, participants volunteered their owncompany-specific examples.

5.1. Recruitment

Participants were recruited from three mid-sized Midwest communities. Recruitment was done through direct mail solic-itation using school mailing lists obtained by the researchers. In total, 1675 flyers were distributed which asked participantsto “share their opinions on corporate social responsibility.” The response rate was 5%, including individuals who asked to beplaced on a waiting list in the event that more focus groups were conducted.

5.2. Participants

Participants were recruited and selected based on their demographic similarity to the target audience (women age 25–49with two or more children) of a contemporary CSR campaign (O’Connor, 2006). A purposive sample (N = 72) was selectedthat met the demographic criteria of this study. In exchange for their participation in a focus group, participants received a$50 honorarium.3

The mean age of participants was 41 and 92% of the participants indicated they were married. The majority of participantswere employed part-time (37%, n = 26). Participants who were employed full-time comprised 31% (n = 22) of the sample while32% (n = 23) of participants indicated they were not employed. The majority of participants (54%, n = 38) had obtained a bach-elor’s degree. In addition, 20% (n = 14) indicated they had a master’s degree. Sixty six percent of participants (n = 46) indicateda household income of $75,000 and higher. Participants who reported household incomes of $50,000–74,999 represented27% (n = 19) of the sample. Of the remaining participants, 4% (n = 3) reported household income levels of $35,000–49,999and 3% of participants (n = 2) indicated incomes of less than $35,000. All participants reported having multiple children. Themean number of children was 2.48 with 33% (n = 57) of the number of children falling into the 6–10 years of age category.The remaining children represented the following categories: 3% (n = 5) 0–1 years of age; 17% (n = 30) 2–5 years of age; 29%(n = 50) 11–17 years of age; and 18% (n = 30) <18 years of age.

5.3. Instruments

This study utilized two instruments for data collection. First, an anonymous demographic questionnaire was distributedto all participants. The demographic data provided confirmation that participants were members of the stakeholder grouprecruited for this study. Second, the moderator used an interview guide. The goal of the interview guide was to assureconsistency among focus groups and to aid the moderator during each session.

5.4. Procedures

The study consisted of nine focus groups composed of 6–10 participants, thus meeting the optimal number of partici-pants suggested by researchers (Morgan, 1993, 1997). Participants were assigned to groups by the researchers based on theparticipant’s time and date preference. Each focus group lasted approximately 90 minutes.

5.5. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation

Three forms of data were collected during each focus group session. First, audio recordings were made of each focus groupsession. The second form of data collection was the notes taken by the moderator during each session. The third set of datawas the notes taken by a research assistant during each session. The intent of using three points of data collection was toensure accurate representation of the focus group, provide triangulation to improve the data analysis and interpretation, andto increase internal validity and reliability. Data was collected until saturation was achieved.

The primary data gathered from the focus groups were the words spoken by the participants during the taped sessions.Tapes were listened to repeatedly and verbatim transcripts were developed. A total of 103 pages of single spaced text resulted.The transcript analysis was done concurrently with data collection; each subsequent group was analyzed and comparedto earlier groups (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Lunt & Livingstone, 1996; Morgan, 1997). Analysis of the interview transcripts,after verbatim transcription, occurred in two interdependent phases. In the first phase of analysis, researchers engaged in

3 The honorarium amount was determined by the cost of 2.5 h of childcare and meal cost that was likely to be incurred by participants.

346 A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350

open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) using sensitizing concepts (van den Hoonaard, 1997) from the literature. Examples ofsensitizing concepts for this study included philanthropy, community, responsibility, and commitment. During this phase,the central category emerged and was more fully developed into subcategories using axial coding. In the second phase ofanalysis, we discovered that participants talk about CSR and philanthropy differently. The data was reviewed with particularattention paid to CSR and the relationship discussed to philanthropy.

6. Results and discussion

To understand how Active Moms construct and negotiate the meaning of CSR, participants were asked to describea socially responsible company. An organizational context was not provided during this phase of data collection. Theanalysis revealed a central category, four categories, and six subcategories. These categories represent 87% of all datacoded and analyzed. Nine percent of the data was coded as definitional tensions including distinctions between CSRand philanthropy. The remaining 4% of the data represented comments that were not related to the discussion questionposed.

6.1. Corporate social responsibility defined

The first definitional distinction that emerged involved economic vs. social justification for existence. In a direct challengeto Friedman (1970), participants indicated high levels of engagement with corporations and an expectation that corporationsmust do more than provide economic justification for their existence. Participants indicated frustration at corporations thatforce them to choose economics over social and cultural values. The tension of competing values was summed up by oneparticipant as follows:

I just wonder if we would be as angry at Eli Lilly as we would some other company that wasn’t in our community. Imean its like if I lived in North Carolina I might feel totally different about tobacco companies. . .I don’t know maybesince I’ve never really had to think about why we rely on certain companies and what would happen if they wentaway and there was no one left to support stuff. I mean how would we eat? What would happen to our schools? Thethought of having to rely on a company that was socially irresponsible scares me . . . a lot.

The second definitional distinction that emerged focused on rationality vs. emotionality. Contemporary CSR literaturehas left the construct of values and emotionality underexplored, focusing instead on measurable outcomes of CSR. Partic-ipants, however, noted that CSR activities are heavily value laden. The valuation of corporations’ activities is dependentupon individual support of the values implicitly or explicitly stated in CSR campaigns. Participants discussed feeling strongerconnections with corporations that supported a cause to which they have a deep emotional connection (e.g., Ford’s supportof breast cancer research for the participant whose mother died of the disease). Emotionality emerged when participantscontextualized claims of social responsibility in terms of corporate history, job security, and local vs. national ownership.When participants shared their stories about involvement with corporations that they defined as socially irresponsible (e.g.,Philip Morris selling cigarettes to children), the emotion was palatable. The current CSR literature tends to characterize CSRas a rationally evaluated activity. For example, the CSP framework (Carroll, 1979; Marx, 1992) contends that CSR activitieswill be evaluated in the same way that financial performance is evaluated. Active Moms in this research challenge such aview in their evaluation of CSR activities.

The third definitional distinction that emerged was the differences between philanthropy and CSR. Participant commentsrevealed that they consider CSR and philanthropy to be distinct, yet complimentary. Social responsibility is constructed andunderstood by participants as being broader than philanthropic giving. For example, “Philanthropy, I think is more aboutum donating um cash or. . .property versus social responsibility which includes a lot of behaviors uh and doesn’t alwaysnecessarily have to be an expensive venture.”

Participants suggested it is possible for corporations to be (a) socially responsible and not philanthropic, (b) socially irre-sponsible and philanthropic, (c) socially responsible and philanthropic, or (d) socially irresponsible and not philanthropic.Corporations that are socially irresponsible yet philanthropic drew the most criticism from participants in this study. Par-ticipants described such corporations as “taking the easy way out,” “just writing a check,” and “insincere.” Alternatively,corporations that were socially responsible but not philanthropic were acceptable to participants. For participants in thisstudy, philanthropy was not a substitute for social responsibility. Rather, “Everyone should be socially responsible as a com-pany. Whether or not you are philanthropic as a company to me that would be the icing.” This view challenges the strategicphilanthropy paradigm that categorizes philanthropy as a type of CSR activity.

Participant comments suggest that CSR has a component of authenticity. Philanthropy alone, while socially valuable andoften significant in economic terms, lacks the authenticity of CSR participants sought. Participants suggested that authenticCSR gives primacy to the needs of stakeholders and does not allow corporations to distance themselves from community.“That we’re the community. We support them, but we are the ones who need to be looked at to see how our communityneeds to be.” Thus, CSR can be seen as not responsibility to society in general, as posed by the CSP framework (Carroll, 1979),but responsibility to stakeholders whom have influence on and are influenced by the corporation.

The three definitional distinctions indicate that CSR is not an uncontested term. Rather, stakeholders’ understanding ofCSR is negotiated in relation to a variety of factors that are simultaneously public and private. A participant illuminated how

A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350 347

the economic, social, rational, and emotional are interconnected: “That they (corporations) have a responsibility to those . . .the planet, the earth, all the customers, the community.” The interdependence between corporations and society suggeststhat there is a symbiotic relationship that exists between the two entities involving economic, social health, and everythingin between (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

6.2. Walk the line

The central category that emerged from the data is identified as walk the line. The concept of a line appeared frequently infocus groups transcripts. For example, “I think its about your personal preferences, where you draw the line”; and “It’s (CSR)a fine line to me”; participants invoked the walk the line metaphor as a way to explain how corporations and stakeholdersdefine the line of CSR, monitor individual corporation’s ability to walk the line, and enforce the agreed upon standards ofthe line drawn. The walk the line metaphor is not poetic or rhetorical (Lankoff & Johnson, 2003). Instead, it is the way thatparticipants conceive CSR.4 Participants used walk the line to describe the need for consistency between what corporationssay and what they do. One woman offered this assessment of a violation: “It makes them look two-faced.” The line iscommunicatively constructed as corporations and publics negotiate the meaning of CSR and its potential outcomes in thecommunity. Embedded within the walking the line category is participant’s description of the line. The line was describedby participants as the social values, norms, and expectations participants have regarding corporate behavior. Participantsposition themselves on the line with corporations. One woman offered the following description: “They (corporations) shouldwalk the same line I have to. You know, do what’s right. Think of others. You can step off every now and again, but they can’twander all over the place.”

Participants consider the line of social responsibility to be a mandate. In a challenge to current marketing conceptualiza-tions that indicate CSR will drive purchase decisions, participants in this study reveal that purchases are largely determinedby price, quality, and convenience. According to participants, it is socially irresponsible behavior or crossing the line that neg-atively influences purchase decisions. Crossing the line was explained as corporations willingness to harm people in pursuitof profit.

I think that if I knew a corporation was doing something very negative in terms of social responsibility, because everyso often you hear about like running shoes or athletic wear being made over in Asia and the poor little kids making itare making nothing doing this. And then these shoes are expensive. That makes me less likely to purchase that product.

The walk the line metaphor is perhaps best understood by imagining a roadside sobriety test. An individual’s ability to walk theline is measured in degrees and in relation to pre-determined acceptable social norms. Each step is monitored and recordedby the watching authority who may find herself on the line someday. In addition, others (e.g., any passengers in the vehicle,passerby’s, authority figures) are watching as the individual walks the line. Similarly, corporations that choose to walk theline of CSR do so publicly and are watched by a variety of external stakeholders. The actions of corporations walking the lineare recorded, formally and informally, and assessed based on socially acceptable norms and values.

Unlike a sobriety test, however, the CSR line continues indefinitely. Whereas, the sobriety line occurs in a finite timeframe, corporations are evaluated in relation to the line on an ongoing basis. For example, “I would have to look at the totalpicture” and “Well, if it’s a one-time slip up, I would understand.” Participants suggested that failure to walk the line can occurat anytime for a variety of reasons. Participants conceived of the line as representing both a point in time and a historicalaccount. Corporate socially (ir)responsible actions, therefore, create footprints along the line that are judged individually andcumulatively over time.

6.3. Corporate and stakeholder ethos

In support of previous research that contends CSR is based on the expectations of society, participants revealed thatorganizations and stakeholders co-construct the line. As such, the line has both corporate and community ethos. Corporateethos is understood as a value-based construct that informs corporate behavior. The attributes associated with corporateethos were identified by participants as having an organizational locus of control. Upon further analysis, three subcategoriesemerged from the data: honesty, integrity, and character.

When connected to social responsibility, honesty includes a component of sincerity that participants described as beingimportant. In this context, honesty was explained by one participant as, “They (corporations) wouldn’t produce or sell aproduct that they wouldn’t give to their own kids.” The statement illuminates the importance to participants that corporationsnot only tell the truth but that corporations are honestly trying to do the right thing. Participants expressed the desire forcorporations to be honest with the communities they serve when negative outcomes of business processes occur.

Closely linked to honesty is the subcategory of integrity. The term integrity emerged in all nine focus group sessions whenparticipants were asked to describe a socially responsible corporation. One woman offered this assessment, “I like the termintegrity because in my mind it covers all the bases . . . how they conduct their business, how they treat their employees,

4 More specifically, according to metaphor theory (Lankoff & Johnson, 2003), walk the line is an ontological metaphor composed of an event object withina container object.

348 A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350

how they manage their communities, and how they interact.” In addition, several participants described integrity as “do noharm” and “to do the right thing no matter what.”

Character was described as “an all the time, every day kind of thing,” and “not only when it is convenient” or profitable.Participants linked character to the community, more than any other category. Participants explained character as “earningtheir money the hard way,” “having a backbone,” and “with us even when it’s not easy.” Typically, character is conceived ofas a personal attribute. Focus group participants, however, assigned character to the organization as a whole.

However, participants acknowledged that corporate ethos was difficult to assess. As one participant stated, “Yeah, but wenever know what they really do. I mean who knows, you know? It’s like we think they are all these good things, but unlessyou work there do you really know? I’m just not sure what to believe sometimes.” Since participants perceived themselvesto have limited knowledge of corporate ethos, they compensated by using alternative standards to evaluate and enforce CSRexpectations.

The category of community ethos has a public locus of control, in contrast to corporate ethos that has a corporate locus ofcontrol. The contrasting, yet compatible, categories illuminated the negotiation between community and corporate beliefsand spirit. Three subcategories emerged as part of community ethos: compatibility, longevity, and accountability.

The subcategory of compatibility was described by participants as the link between what products and services a corpo-ration produces and its CSR activities. Porter and Kramer (2006) describe this type of CSR as focusing on value chain socialimpacts, or trying to remedy social issues that are affected through normal operations. Participants took this argument astep further and suggested that CSR should be a logical extension of a corporation’s core business operations. For example,participants suggested that Philip Morris should support cancer research rather than the fine arts. Similarly, environmental-ism was prevalent when participants discussed compatibility. Respondents repeatedly discussed the relationship betweenproduction and environmental impact. One woman offered this example:

The lignite coal people and what they do to re-establish farmland and anything after they’ve done strip mining. I meanthey’re very, very acutely aware of how they have to re-establish the land the way it was before. . .what it does to theenvironment and the legacy it leaves behind.

For respondents the link between social works and production processes and outcomes partially determined the merit ofany CSR claims. Participants viewed corporations that address the social and cultural implications of their business as havingbetter CSR credentials than corporations that have CSR programs unrelated to production and product concerns.

Longevity was the second subcategory that emerged from the data. Participants described longevity as a “litmus test”and the “ultimate test.” For respondents, time was a central indicator about the corporations’ sincerity to walk the line.Participants identified socially responsible companies as those that “had stood the test of time” and were not a “flash inthe pan.” Longevity challenges many of the fundamental business assumptions of today (e.g., quarterly profits, employeemobility, plant closures, and relocations). While the corporation may have institutionally moved beyond last years CSR claimsand other business actions, communities have much longer institutional memories. As one woman put it, “they want us toforget what we should be remembering.”

Accountability was the third subcategory revealed by participants. Accountability was defined as the tension betweencorporate goals and activities and the role of external communities in making sure corporations are acting within acceptablesocial and cultural norms. One woman offered this explanation: “I don’t know if they [corporations] would be responsibleif it wasn’t for the government.” Other participants concurred and suggested it is “the people’s responsibility to make surethey [corporations] are held accountable.”

The subcategory of accountability challenges current academic and business constructs that define CSR as voluntary andnon-enforceable. One woman offered the following summation:

Well, the word social implies you know not private. The opposite of private. Social meaning your community or thepeople outside your company so that’s why what they do or don’t do matters. And its not a should sort of thing. It’s amust if they want to be in our community.

Similarly, participants discussed fiscal accountability to employees, shareholders, and the community at large. In each focusgroup, recent events surfaced that highlighted the need for corporations to be accountable. Participants cited several corpora-tions (e.g., Enron, WorldCom, Northwest Airlines) as being unwilling to be accountable for social irresponsibility. Along theselines participants suggested that corporations need to have “their feet held to the fire” to ensure accountability. Participantsquestioned whether corporations would be socially responsible if the community did not demand it.

7. Limitations and directions for future research

The results of this study provide a snapshot into how Active Moms conceptualize CSR. As such, a few directions forfuture research are immediately suggested by this study. First, this study is limited to Active Moms. Further research intohow demographic attributes (i.e., age, gender, income, education, nationality) influence perceptions of CSR is needed. Alongthese lines, the role of emotion in assessing CSR claims needs further investigation to determine if this is a gendered out-come. The results of this study expand upon Charleson’s (2007) Canadian survey findings that suggests women with highereducation and income are more likely to be concerned with CSR than their male counterparts. Second, this study does

A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350 349

not offer organizational or social issue (e.g., environmental, arts, education) contextualization. Research that incorporatesindividual organizations and specific issues would further our understanding of CSR activities and how individuals makesense of the claims. Third, this study is temporally bound. Longitudinal studies would be helpful to understanding how CSRconceptualizations are influenced by current events.

8. Conclusions

Counter to both the shareholder capitalism (Friedman, 1970) and the strategic philanthropy (Donaldson & Preston, 1995;Jones, 1995) views, participants did not equate CSR with making a profit. Although participants recognized that some compa-nies engaged in strategic CSR (Fombrun, 1996; Jones, 1995; O’Connor, 2006), to enhance their profitability, to mollify publics,or to fulfill government regulation, participants suggested that authentic CSR most closely resembled the business citizen-ship model (Deetz, 2003; Waddock, 2001; Wood & Logsdon, 2002). Participants noted that corporate ethos was importantfor authentic CSR campaigns. Honesty, integrity, and character were important characteristics of a socially responsible cor-porate ethos. However, participants were aware they could not “really know” what was “going on” inside a company. Instead,they used community ethos to assess the sincerity of corporate motives. Corporations that could not maintain longevity orcompatibility were viewed as opportunistic and therefore not authentically socially responsible. Further evidence of thisconcern for corporate ethos was provided by participants’ view of corporate philanthropy. Corporate philanthropy, whennot matched with ethical business practices, was consider less than CSR, “taking the easy way out” or, worse, manipulative.Perhaps it is not surprising that participants were concerned with corporations’ CSR motivations, since CSR was viewed asinherently value-laden, connected to emotions, and a public demonstration of corporate fit within society.

Participants argued that CSR campaigns or activities exist along a continuum. Participants valued CSR initiatives basedupon the type of issue impacted (e.g., breast cancer, children’s hospitals, poverty). In previous literature, the valuation of CSRcampaigns is often given in terms of dollar amounts, publicity, employee involvement, and the difference that a companyis able to make in tangible ways. However, participants in this study placed higher value on CSR initiatives that addressedan issue that had touched their lives rather than the financial amount contributed. In support of previous literature (Baroneet al., 2000), the participants in this study define CSR as comparative in relation to what other companies are doing in thecommunity.

Second, this research provides partial support for claims that CSR activities are linked to consumers’ purchasing choice(Barone et al., 2000; Maignan et al., 1999) and influence citizenship behaviors (O’Connor, 2006). While participants in thisresearch did not indicate that they would make their purchasing decisions solely on the basis of CSR activity, they didsuggest that if prices were comparable they would be more likely to purchase from a company they evaluated as sociallyresponsible. Similarly, participants argued that corporate irresponsibility would deter them from purchasing a product.However, participants shied away from saying a good price could off-set irresponsibility.

In summary, this research demonstrates that Active Moms conceptualize CSR more broadly than previously considered.According to participants, authentic CSR (a) is a combination of socially responsible business practices and campaigns toengage issues which impact their lives, (b) must be marked by longevity and consistency, (c) makes the most sense whenlinked to core business practices, (d) is distinct from philanthropy, and (e) is evaluated using a blend of rationality andemotionality.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Mary Frances Casper and Deneen Gilmour for their assistance in collecting some of thedata. In addition, the authors thank and acknowledge John Lammers and Marshall Scott Poole for their helpful comments ona previous version of this manuscript.

References

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another?Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 248–262.

Bendell, J., & Kearins, K. (2005). The political bottom line: The emerging dimension to corporate responsibility for sustainable development. Business Strategyand the Environment, 14, 372–383.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268–295.Charleson, M. (2007, May). Social strategy: Brands that give back to get back. Strategy, 56.Chavarria, M. P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Mexico: An approximation from the point of view of communication. In S. M. May, G. Cheney, & J.

Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 135–152). New York: Oxford.Cheney, G., & Dionisopoulos, G. N. (1989). Public relations? No, relations with publics: A rhetorical-organizational approach to contemporary corporate

communications. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 135–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Deetz, S. (2003). Corporate governance, communication, and getting social values into the decisional chain. Management Communication Quarterly, 16,

606–611.Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review,

20, 65–91.Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

350 A. O’Connor et al. / Public Relations Review 34 (2008) 343–350

Friedman, M. (1970, September). The social responsibility of business is to increase profit. The New York Times Magazine, 33.Gainsborough, J. F. (2005). Voters in context. American Political Research, 33, 435–461.Gioia, D. A. (1999). Response: Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 228–232.Heath, R. L. (1993). A rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogatives. Public Relations Review, 19, 141–155.Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment,

17, 1–15.Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Lankoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communication research. Journal of Communication, 46, 79–98.Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

27, 455–469.Marx, T. G. (1992). Corporate social performance reporting. Public Relations Quarterly, 37(4), 38–44.McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1–18.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really

counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.Moms have key role in household finances (2006). Marketing to Moms, 19(1), 3.Morgan, D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Morgan, D. L. (1997). Qualitative research methods series: 16. Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.O’Connor, A. (2006). Merchant of mercy, merchant of death: How values advocacy messages influence jury deliberations. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 34, 263–284.Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business

Review, 84(12), 78–92.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.The Council on Foundations (2000). 2000 annual report. Washington, DC: Council on Foundations.van den Hoonaard, W. C. (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts: Analytical Field Research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 41. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44,

95–105.Waddock, S. (2001). Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value added. Boston: McGraw Hill.Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation.

Business and Society, 41, 393–414.Whetten, D. A., Rands, G., & Godfrey, P. (2001). What are the responsibilities of business to society. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.),

Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 373–408). London: Sage.Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.Wood, D. J., & Logsdon, J. M. (2002). Business citizenship: From individuals to organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 59–94.