IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v44y2017i4p853-876..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Profit or Not to Profit? The Role of Greed Perceptions in Consumer Support for Social Ventures

Author

Listed:
  • Saerom Lee
  • Lisa E Bolton
  • Karen Page Winterich
  • Vicki MorwitzEditor
  • Lauren BlockAssociate Editor

Abstract

An increasing number of social ventures are for-profit companies (i.e., for-profit social ventures) that seek to advance a social cause while making a profit. In a series of seven studies, this research investigates consumer support for organizations as a function of their social mission and profit orientation. The impact of profit orientation on consumer support depends on the prominence of the organization’s social mission. For organizations with a prominent social mission, profits are interpreted as a signal of greed; absent a prominent social mission, a for-profit orientation can instead imply greater competence. As a result, consumer support of for-profit social ventures suffers in comparison to both nonprofits and traditional for-profits—a downside to the organizational benefits of for-profit social ventures identified in prior research. In addition, this research investigates organizational factors—including excessive organizational spending, profit perceptions, and operational efficiency cues—that alter greed perceptions and consequently support for for-profit social ventures. Together, this research sheds light on consumer reaction to organizations that support social causes, with implications for the social venture marketplace, including the nonprofit versus for-profit quandary faced by social entrepreneurs.

Suggested Citation

  • Saerom Lee & Lisa E Bolton & Karen Page Winterich & Vicki MorwitzEditor & Lauren BlockAssociate Editor, 2017. "To Profit or Not to Profit? The Role of Greed Perceptions in Consumer Support for Social Ventures," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 853-876.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:853-876.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucx071
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Chernev, 2007. "Jack of All Trades or Master of One? Product Differentiation and Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 430-444, January.
    2. Bolton, Lisa E. & Mattila, Anna S., 2015. "How Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Consumer Response to Service Failure in Buyer–Seller Relationships?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 140-153.
    3. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    4. Crossley, Craig D., 2009. "Emotional and behavioral reactions to social undermining: A closer look at perceived offender motives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 14-24, January.
    5. Karen Page Winterich & Vikas Mittal & William T. Ross Jr., 2009. "Donation Behavior toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 199-214.
    6. Jennifer Aaker & Kathleen D. Vohs & Cassie Mogilner, 2010. "Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 224-237, August.
    7. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    8. A. Peter McGraw & Janet A. Schwartz & Philip E. Tetlock, 2012. "From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 157-173.
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, September.
    10. G. Lumpkin & Todd Moss & David Gras & Shoko Kato & Alejandro Amezcua, 2013. "Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: how are they different, if at all?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 761-783, April.
    11. Paolo Antonetti & Stan Maklan, 2016. "An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 429-444, May.
    12. Saerom Lee & Karen Page Winterich & William T. Ross Jr., 2014. "I'm Moral, but I Won't Help You: The Distinct Roles of Empathy and Justice in Donations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 678-696.
    13. James Austin & Howard Stevenson & Jane Wei–Skillern, 2006. "Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(1), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Aaker, Jennifer & Vohs, Kathleen D. & Mogilner, Cassie, 2010. "Non-profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter," Research Papers 2047, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    15. Lin-Healy, Fern & Small, Deborah A., 2012. "Cheapened altruism: Discounting personally affected prosocial actors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 269-274.
    16. Alexander Chernev & Sean Blair, 2015. "Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(6), pages 1412-1425.
    17. George E. Newman & Margarita Gorlin & Ravi Dhar, 2014. "When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(3), pages 823-839.
    18. Robert W. Smith & David Faro & Katherine A. Burson, 2013. "More for the Many: The Influence of Entitativity on Charitable Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(5), pages 961-976.
    19. Carlos J. Torelli & Alokparna Basu Monga & Andrew M. Kaikati, 2012. "Doing Poorly by Doing Good: Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Concepts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(5), pages 948-963.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wallach, Karen Anne & Popovich, Deidre, 2023. "When Big Is Less than Small: Why dominant brands lack authenticity in their sustainability initiatives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Claire Heeryung Kim & Joonkyung Kim, 2021. "The Role of Cause Involvement and Assortment Size on Decision Difficulty via Communal Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Joon-Bum Yi & Se-Hak Chun, 2022. "The Effect of Cash Incentive Projects on the Social Value Performances of Social Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis of SK’s Social Progress Credit in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Turpin Aaron & Shier Micheal L. & Handy Femida, 2021. "Factors Shaping Public Perceptions of Market-based Activities Undertaken by Canadian Nonprofits," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 505-533, December.
    5. Silver, Ike & Silverman, Jackie, 2022. "Doing good for (maybe) nothing: How reward uncertainty shapes observer responses to prosocial behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Giana M. Eckhardt & Susan Dobscha, 2019. "The Consumer Experience of Responsibilization: The Case of Panera Cares," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 651-663, October.
    7. Lucas, David S. & Park, U. David, 2023. "The nature and origins of social venture mission: An exploratory study of political ideology and moral foundations," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(2).
    8. Gabriel E. Gonzales & Lisa E. Bolton & Margaret G. Meloy, 2020. "Why do consumers think it is fair to pay more when buying from producers versus retailers?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 31-35, March.
    9. Hsiao-Yen Mao, 2023. "Learning goal orientation and abusive supervision," E&M Economics and Management, Technical University of Liberec, Faculty of Economics, vol. 26(3), pages 33-50, September.
    10. Dan King & Sumitra Auschaitrakul & Chia-Wei Joy Lin, 2022. "Search modality effects: merely changing product search modality alters purchase intentions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 1236-1256, November.
    11. Xu, Chengxin & Li, Huafang, 2021. "Resource Publicness Matters in Organizational Perceptions," OSF Preprints 7q3v8, Center for Open Science.
    12. El Hedhli, Kamel & Zourrig, Haithem & Al Khateeb, Amr & Alnawas, Ibrahim, 2023. "Stereotyping human-like virtual influencers in retailing: Does warmth prevail over competence?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Vadakkepatt, Gautham G. & Winterich, Karen Page & Mittal, Vikas & Zinn, Walter & Beitelspacher, Lauren & Aloysius, John & Ginger, Jessica & Reilman, Julie, 2021. "Sustainable Retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 62-80.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wallach, Karen Anne & Popovich, Deidre, 2023. "When Big Is Less than Small: Why dominant brands lack authenticity in their sustainability initiatives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Janssen, Catherine & Swaen, Valérie & Du, Shuili, 2022. "Is a specific claim always better? The double-edged effects of claim specificity in green advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 435-447.
    3. Robinson, Stefanie & Wood, Stacy, 2018. "A “good” new brand — What happens when new brands try to stand out through corporate social responsibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 231-241.
    4. Paolo Antonetti & Ilaria Baghi, 2023. "Projecting lower competence to boost apology effectiveness: Underlying mechanism and boundary conditions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 695-715, May.
    5. Jean-Pierre Thomassen & Marijke C. Leliveld & Kees Ahaus & Steven Walle, 2020. "Prosocial Compensation Following a Service Failure: Fulfilling an Organization’s Ethical and Philanthropic Responsibilities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 123-147, February.
    6. Wang, Xia & Tong, Luqiong, 2015. "Hide the light or let it shine? Examining the factors influencing the effect of publicizing donations on donors’ happiness," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 418-424.
    7. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    8. Jiyoung Hwang, 2019. "Managing the innovation legitimacy of the sharing economy," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Silver, Ike & Silverman, Jackie, 2022. "Doing good for (maybe) nothing: How reward uncertainty shapes observer responses to prosocial behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    10. Zhu, Linlin & He, Yi & Chen, Qimei & Hu, Miao, 2017. "It's the thought that counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation proximity on consumer response to donation framing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 44-51.
    11. Huang, Ran & Ha, Sejin, 2020. "The effects of warmth-oriented and competence-oriented service recovery messages on observers on online platforms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 616-627.
    12. Dongmin Lee & Junghoon Moon & Young Chan Choe & Jaeseok Jeong, 2016. "Impacts of Socially Responsible Corporate Activities on Korean Consumers’ Corporate Evaluations in the Agrifood Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Sohyun Bae, 2021. "Holding an entity mind-set deters consumption of recycled content products: the role of perceived product quality," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(4), pages 553-571, December.
    14. Alhouti, Sarah & Wright, Scott A. & Baker, Thomas L., 2021. "Customers need to relate: The conditional warm glow effect of CSR on negative customer experiences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 240-253.
    15. Lepthien, Anke & Papies, Dominik & Clement, Michel & Melnyk, Valentyna, 2017. "The ugly side of customer management – Consumer reactions to firm-initiated contract terminations," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 829-850.
    16. Mukherjee, Ashesh & Lee, Seung Yun & Burnham, Thomas, 2020. "The effect of others’ participation on charitable behavior: Moderating role of recipient resource scarcity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 213-228.
    17. Liu, Stephanie Q. & Bogicevic, Vanja & Mattila, Anna S., 2018. "Circular vs. angular servicescape: “Shaping” customer response to a fast service encounter pace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 47-56.
    18. Christina Schamp & Mark Heitmann & Robin Katzenstein, 2019. "Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 328-348, March.
    19. Zhijie Xie & Fangfang Wen & Xiao Tan & Jin Wei & Bin Zuo, 2020. "The preference for potential in competence, not in morality: Asymmetric biases regarding a group's potential for moral improvement and decline," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Bram Roosens & Nathalie Dens, 2019. "When do social alliances pay off? How the effect on corporate image depends on consumers’ prosocial attitudes," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(2), pages 195-208, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:853-876.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.