KURUMSAL SOSYAL SORUMLULUK İLETİŞİM STRATEJİLERİNİN TÜKETİCİ SATIN ALMA DAVRANIŞLARI ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE VE HOLLANDA ARASINDA BİR KARŞILAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2017, Sayı: 18, 221 - 236, 01.01.2017

Melih Astarlioğlu

Öz

Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk aktivitelerinin şirketler bakımından önemi gün geçtikçe daha fazla anlaşılmakta ve bu projeler özellikle büyük ölçekli ve çok uluslu firmalar tarafından son dönemde daha fazla kullanılmaktadır. Söz konusu aktivitelerle ilgili şirketlerin izledikleri zamanlama ve iletişim stratejileri ise literatürde ilgi çeken bir konu olarak ön plana çıkmaktadır. Buna göre tüketiciler, proaktif ve reaktif kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk aktivitelerine yönelik olarak farklı tepkiler verebilmektedir. Bu konuda literatürde bulunan sonuçlar ise birbirleri ile tutarlılık sergilememektedir. Ayrıca, kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk aktivitelerinin farklı kültürler tarafından farklı şekillerde algılandığı ve farklı şekillerde takdir gördüğü de literatürde ortaya konmuş bir bulgudur. Çalışmamızda kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk aktivitelerinin, tüketicilerin satın alma davranışları üzerine olan etkisi ile birlikte, kültürel farklılıkların bu ilişki üzerine bir etkisinin olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Hollanda ve Türkiye gibi kültür endeksleri bakımından farklılaşan iki ülke arasındaki farklılığın test edildiği çalışmamızda, vignette tekniği kullanılmış olup, çalışma neticesinde kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk aktivitelerinin zamanlamasının tüketicilerin satın alma davranışları üzerine olan etkisi istatistiki olarak kanıtlanmıştır. Ayrıca iki ayrı kültür arasındaki farklılıkların da araştırma konusu bakımından istatistiki öneme sahip sonuçlar ortaya çıkardığı bulunmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçların literatür ve yöneticiler bakımından önemiyle ilgili tartışmaya çalışmanın sonunda yer verilmiştir.

Kaynakça

• Akkah, I. P. (1990). Attitudes of Marketing Professionals Toward Ethics in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(1), 45-53.
• Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., ve Hill, R. P. (2006). The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., ve Sen, S. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., ve Sen, S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., ve Korschum, D. (2006). The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158-166.
• Bridoux, F., Stofberg, N., ve den Hartog, D. (2016). Stakeholders’ Responses to CSR Tradeoffs: When Other Orientation and Trust Trump Material Self Interest. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-18.
• Crane, A., ve Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dabholkar, P.A., ve Bagozzi, R.P. (2002). An Attitudinal Model of Technology Based Self Service: Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Situational Factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 184-201.
• Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 15(1), 1-13.
• Dennis, B., Neck, C. P., ve Goldsby, M. (1998). Body Shop International: An Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility. Management Decision, 36(10), 649-653.
• DeTienne, K. B., ve Lewis, L. W. (2005). The Pragmatic and Ethical Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: The Nike Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(4), 359-376.
• Golob, U., ve Bartlett, J. L. (2007). Communications About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Study of CSR Reporting of Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 1-9.
• Groza, M. D., Pronschinske, M. R., ve Walker, M. (2011). Perceived Organizational Motives and Consumer Responses to Proactive and Reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 639-652.
• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., ve Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Rev. 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Hughes, R. (1998). Considering the Vignette Technique and its Application to a Study of Drug Injecting and HIV Risk and Safer Behavior. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(3), 381-400.
• Jahdi, K. S., ve Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility: Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding?. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 103-113.
• Katz, J. P., Swanson, D. L., Nelson, L. K. (2001). Culture Based Expectations of Corporate Citizenship: A Propositional Framework and Comparison of Four Cultures. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 149-171.
• Kernisky, D. (1997). Proactive Crises Management and Ethical Disclosure: Dow Chemical Issues Management Bulletins 1970-1990. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 843-854.
• Kim, Y., ve Kim, S. (2010). The Influence of Cultural Values on Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of Hofstede`s Dimensions to Korean Public Relations Practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 485-500.
• Lam, K., ve Shi, G. (2007). Factors Affecting Ethical Attitudes in Mainland China and Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 463-479.
• Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross Cultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30. 57-72.
• McWilliams, A., ve Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
• Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., ve Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR Reporting Practices and the Quality of Disclosure: An Empirical Analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59-78.
• Morsing, M., Schultz, M., ve Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The “Catch 22” of Communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish Study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111.
• Peng, Y., Dashdeleg, A., ve Chih, H. L. (2012). Does National Culture Influence Firm’s CSR Engagement” A Cross Country Study. International Preceedings of Economics Development and Research, 58, 40-44.
• Rook, G., Raub, W., Selten, R., ve Tazelaar, F. (1999). How Inter-Firm Cooperation Depends on Social Embeddedness: A Vignette Study. Utrecht: Department of Sociology/ICS.
• Şahin, K., Başfırıncı Şahin, C., Özsalih, A. (2011). The Impact of Board Composition on Corporate Financial and Social Responsibility Performance: Evidence from Public Listed Companies in Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 5(7), 2959-2978.
• Schuler, D. A., ve Cording, M. (2006). A Corporate Social Performance – Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31, 540-558.
• Thanetsunthorn, N. (2015). The Impact of National Culture on Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Cross-Regional Comparison. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 35-56.
• Vallentin, S.. (2003). Pensionsinvesteringer, etik og Offentlighed – en Systemteoretisk Analyse af Offentlik Meningsdannelse, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
• van der Bergh, Behrer, M. (2011). How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Branding to Generation Y. Kogan Page.
• Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., ve Barnes, J. H. (1993). The Effects of Culture om Ethical Decision Making: An Application of Hofstede’s Typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753-760.
• Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., ve Avramidis, P. (2009). CSR: Attributions, Loyalty and the Mediating Role of Trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 170-180.
• Waddock, S. A., ve Graves, S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance – Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
• Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., ve Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate Hypocrisy: Overcoming the Threat of Inconsistent Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 71(6), 73-91.
• Wason, K. D., Polonsky, M. J., ve Hyman, M. R. (2002). Designing Vignette Studies in Marketing. Australiasian Marketing Journal, 3, 41-58.
• White, K., MacDonnell, R., ve Ellard, J. (2012). Belief in a Just World: Consumer Intentions and Behaviors Toward Ethical Products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103-118.