The marketing literature suggests that company-cause fit is of key importance to developing a successful socially responsible initiative. However, controversy exists regarding the level of this fit. While some studies report that high fit between a company and a cause has beneficial effects on consumer responses to such efforts, other research identifies negative impacts. This paper aims to obtain a deeper insight into this issue by examining the moderating role of company involvement in a cause. A meta-analysis of 51 experimental studies, yielding a total sample size of 11,335 subjects, shows that company-cause fit influences consumer responses to CSR initiatives most positively when a company with a positive reputation is highly involved in a cause, that is, when the company donates at least products. If such a company provides its beneficiary with only monetary contributions (i.e., low involvement), the effects of fit are significantly less influential.

Purpose: Literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) posits that organisational motives underlying corporate social initiatives play a key role in stakeholder responses to these activities. However, individuals do not always make attributions. This study aims to examine when CSR attributions shape consumer reactions to CSR initiatives.Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on attribution theory and relevant literature on consumer trust, this study proposes a framework for explaining when attributions shape reactions to CSR initiatives. To test this framework, the study uses data from a random sample of 512 Polish consumers.Findings: The results show that consumer responses to corporate social initiatives are largely independent of perceived corporate motivation when a consumer has a high trust in the firm. However, a low level of initial trust triggers causal thinking and its effects. Specifically, if a firm lacks credibility, self-serving attributions negatively influence consumer outcomes of social initiatives, but they remain neutral when trust is high. Accordingly, when trust is low, other-serving attributions have greater effects on the initiative outcomes than when trust is high.Originality/value: The paper provides important insights into CSR literature by showing that initial trust in the company is a salient variable that moderates the link between CSR attributions and consumer responses to these actions. This role of trust has been largely unexplored as past studies considered trust in the firm to be a key outcome of corporate social performance.

Product boycotts represent an important form of sustainable consumption, as withholding purchasing can restrain firms from damaging the natural environment or breaking social rules. However, our understanding of consumer participation in these protests is limited. Most previous studies have focused on the psychological and economic determinants of product boycotting. Drawing on social capital literature, this study builds a framework that explains how individual- and contextual-level social capital affects consumer participation in boycotts of products. A multilevel logistic regression analysis of 29 country representative samples derived from the European Social Survey (N = 54221) shows that at the individual level product boycotting is associated with a person’s social ties, whereas at the country level, generalized trust and social networks positively affect consumer decisions to take part in these protests. These results suggest that to better understand differences among countries in consumer activism, it is necessary to consider the role of social capital as an important predictor of product boycotting.

Purpose: This paper has a twofold objective: (1) to examine how trust and distrust mediate the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and irresponsibility (CSI) perceptions and word of mouth recommendations; and (2) to show that moral norms moderate this mediating relationship.Design/methodology/approach: Two experimental studies test the proposed model. Study 1 performs a single-factor experiment with three levels of corporate social responsibility (positive, neutral, negative) to test the mediation hypothesis (N = 180, 66% females, mean age = 22.3). Study 2 validates the mediation findings and examines the role of moral norms as moderators (N = 240, 50% females, mean age = 39.5).Findings: Study 1 reveals that trust in the company partially mediates the effects of CSR on word of mouth (WOM) recommendations. Study 2 shows that consumers who adhere to higher moral standards follow distinct paths to negative WOM. Specifically, these consumers tend to spread negative comments when they expect the firm to behave irresponsibly. When unsure about future corporate behaviour, they are less likely to spread negative WOM.Originality/value: This is the first study, to the authors' knowledge, to demonstrate how moral norms shape the effects of distrust in the corporate culprit on word of mouth recommendations. Accordingly, this research proves that conceptualising trust and distrust as separate constructs is useful in explaining consumer reactions to corporate social irresponsibility.

Purpose: This study examines how potentially irresponsible banking operations affect organisational reputation. A moderated mediation model is applied to explain how major aspects of social irresponsibility affect the relationship between consumer awareness of allegedly irresponsible operations, blame and bank reputation. The empirical context is the Swiss franc mortgage crisis that affected the banking industry in most Central and Eastern European countries. Design/methodology/approach: The research study uses data collected from a large survey (N = 1,000) conducted among Polish bank consumers, including those with mortgage loans in Swiss francs. To test the proposed model, the authors use Hayes' process macro. Findings: The findings show that blame fully mediates the effects of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) awareness on organisational reputation. Three facets of social irresponsibility moderate this relationship. Specifically, the perceived harm and intentionality of corporate culprits cause people to be more likely to blame a bank for the difficulties posed by indebted consumers. At the same time, the perceived complicity of consumers in misselling a mortgage reduces the level of blame and its subsequent adverse effects on bank reputation. Originality/value: Although a strong reputation is crucial in the financial industry, few studies have attempted to address reputational risk from a consumer perspective. This study helps to understand how potentially irresponsible selling of a financial product can adversely affect a bank's reputation.