View Thread

Though I think Andy is trying to push away from an unwelcome "tone" that I'm at least partially responsible for setting J , I'll chime in anyway.  I too have no data, only theory, but in my theory, I refer to other papers that might be of interest.  In my paper on CSR published in the July issue of AMR, in the buildup to Proposition 2, I talk about greenwashing, and note studies such as Webb & Mohr (1998) that show that a sizeable portion of the market is willing to accept claims of social responsibility at face value.  However I go on to argue that a firm increases its risk by engaging in greenwashing, such that if it is ever caught in the lie, it will be thrashed (and so may need to engage in some of those face-saving measures that Lionel mentions).  Interestingly, I cite Jon Entine's work on The Body Shop (twice!) to support my position.  You'll find the prettier version of this paper through the Academy's proprietary website or in the journal itself, but if you can't get the article through these means, here's a link to the accepted but unedited version of it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=853086

More tranquilly yours (after 3 straight nights of 3-hour class sessions),

Mike

I'll follow Andrew's lead and recommend a nice article on this topic, which partly addresses that fundamental question. Is it because the marketing is related to a cause or is it knowledge of the cause itself that encourages consumers to purchase products such as those from the Body Shop. I quite liked Lafferty and Goldsmith (2005) "Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause". J. Business Research, 58, 4.
 
On a side note, the body shop were one of the first to show us that a brand based on more 'responsible' products could be profitable and attract consumers. We can at least acknowledge the shift in attitudes toward CSR that they generated regardless of where they are now. And they still sell nice lip gloss.
 
Dayna

Dayna Simpson
Department of Marketing
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Monash</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>
P: +61 413 313 393
E: daynasimpson@hotmail.com, Dayna.Simpson@buseco.monash.edu.au

> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:37:47 -0400
> From: Andrew.A.King@TUCK.DARTMOUTH.EDU
> Subject: Re: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>
> Perhaps I may change the tone and redirect us to a related topic.
>
> Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders for
> reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be greenwash.
>
> Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous on
> environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do firms
> respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> such behavior?
>
> AK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Rudell, Fredrica
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:22 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
>
> Yoiks! It's bad enough when my students cut and paste from who knows
> where...
>
> The item at the end of Entine's original e-mail (pasted below) which
> purported to support his argument against Roddick (the "sneaky wee
> capitalist") was actually on a blog by a self-described anarchist and
> messiah who calls him/herself "bastard" [sic], not a "green business"
> site. Why lie about the source...?
>
> And why do we take the bait? :)
>
> You can read the entire entry here: http://bastard.livejournal.com/
>
> Fredrica
>
> ************************************************************************
> **********
>
>
> I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:
> >
> > Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.
> >
> > The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky
> wee
> > capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
> > Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
> > idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them
> free
> > advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining
> a
> > public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade
> style
> > system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
> > materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to
> miss
> > any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
> > like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
> > aggressively, like every other evil corporation.
> >
> > No, we do not like the Body Shop.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > Jon Entine

Gear up for Halo® 3 and get a $25 Best Buy gift card. It's our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™. Get it now!

Dr. Sergio Molina (University of Minnesota) recently completed his dissertation research in this area, where it won the ONE best dissertation award this year. 

While not addressing a "cause" per se, he presents some very interesting findings around the complexity of these types of messages (particularly with regard to environmental performance), their credibility, and how they might influence persuasion.  Based on this work, it appears quite possible that many customer stakeholders assign greater credibility, and reward the brand through improved brand/firm attitudes and increased purchase intentions, when more information and more complex information is communicated.   This is particularly interesting, in that these relationships tend to hold even when the message (in this case an advertisement) is not viewed positively or, potentially more importantly, when the message is not processed/understood to the point where its merits (i.e. what it is actually saying) directly influence persuasiveness.

I should think he would have a working paper, if interested.

-Tim

I'll follow Andrew's lead and recommend a nice article on this topic, which partly addresses that fundamental question. Is it because the marketing is related to a cause or is it knowledge of the cause itself that encourages consumers to purchase products such as those from the Body Shop. I quite liked Lafferty and Goldsmith (2005) "Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause". J. Business Research, 58, 4.
 
On a side note, the body shop were one of the first to show us that a brand based on more 'responsible' products could be profitable and attract consumers. We can at least acknowledge the shift in attitudes toward CSR that they generated regardless of where they are now. And they still sell nice lip gloss.
 
Dayna

Dayna Simpson
Department of Marketing
Monash University
P: +61 413 313 393
E: daynasimpson@hotmail.com, Dayna.Simpson@buseco.monash.edu.au

> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:37:47 -0400
> From: Andrew.A.King@TUCK.DARTMOUTH.EDU
> Subject: Re: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>
> Perhaps I may change the tone and redirect us to a related topic.
>
> Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders for
> reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be greenwash.
>
> Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous on
> environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do firms
> respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> such behavior?
>
> AK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Rudell, Fredrica
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:22 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
>
> Yoiks! It's bad enough when my students cut and paste from who knows
> where...
>
> The item at the end of Entine's original e-mail (pasted below) which
> purported to support his argument against Roddick (the "sneaky wee
> capitalist") was actually on a blog by a self-described anarchist and
> messiah who calls him/herself "bastard" [sic], not a "green business"
> site. Why lie about the source...?
>
> And why do we take the bait? :)
>
> You can read the entire entry here: http://bastard.livejournal.com/
>
> Fredrica
>
> ************************************************************************
> **********
>
>
> I found the posting below on a "green business" site today:
> >
> > Body Shop founder Anita Roddick dead.
> >
> > The Body Shop was little short of a case study in how to be a sneaky
> wee
> > capitalist. Anita Roddick took poor quality generic cosmetics of
> > Non-sustainable origin (petrochemicals) and marketed them as social
> > idealism, tacking the Body Shop onto any cause that would give them
> free
> > advertising. They used ingredients tested on animals while maintaining
> a
> > public anti-animal testing stance and operated a small fair-trade
> style
> > system for the benefit of PR while sourcing the vast bulk of their
> > materials as cheaply and exploitatively as possible. not wanting to
> miss
> > any tricks, they've also put out products contaminated with goodness
> > like formaldehyde and pursue anyone asking the wrong questions very
> > aggressively, like every other evil corporation.
> >
> > No, we do not like the Body Shop.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > Jon Entine

Gear up for Halo® 3 and get a $25 Best Buy gift card. It's our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™. Get it now!