本站提供专业的[留学生论文]定制业务，如需服务请，联系电话：13671516250.
be used as an ideal case study. It was thus decided that in order to study consumer attitudes towards corporate philanthropy the two corporations to be used would be The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo. Both these firms have numerous global brands and both lend their names to the cola substitutes; Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola respectively
Methodology
Both The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo partake in extensive CSR initiatives in the UK and maintain websites dedicated to announcing them;“We may be best known for the shape of our bottle, but we are also passionate about shaping the world – one community at a time.”作为一种理想的案例研究因此会议决定为了研究消费者态度对企业慈善两间公司的问题，将可口可乐公司和百事可乐公司zuowe。这两个公司有众多的全球知名品牌，可口可乐和百事可乐分别都是他人公司的名字作为企业名称，以可乐的作业替代品牌名。无论是可口可乐公司还是百事可乐公司参加在英国都有广泛的企业社会责任倡议和维护，在致力于宣布他们的网站。“我们可能是最知道我们的瓶子的形状，但我们也热衷于塑造世界 - 一个成的同一个时间“。
- The Coca-Cola Company“We believe that our business should be known not just for the financial results it generates, but for the imprint it leaves on society as a whole.”- PepsiCo.As seen by the above website excerpts, both corporations create the perception of being ‘socially responsible’ to a similar extent, and so both are ideal for study.
Once the objectives had been established it was possible to create a survey questionnaire. The questionnaire (see appendix) consisted of 15 questions. It was necessary to provide a brief paragraph on the intentions of the study along with a definition of CSR.
Two screening questions were asked to ensure that the respondents were aged between 18 and 35 and also that they were living in the UK; this was the target demographic. For efficiency purposes the questionnaire was uploaded onto the internet and the questionnaire was piloted on a group of 25 respondents to ensure clarity and understanding of the questions. The questions featured were mostly ‘yes or no’ or 5 point Likert Scale questions due to the efficiency of processing and ease of use.被问了两个筛选问题，以确保受访者年龄介乎18至35，而且他们生活在英国以这些为目标人群。为了提高效率的目的，调查表上载互联网和调查问卷进行了试点对一组25人，以确保清晰的问题和理解。
Once the questionnaire was perfected it was distributed to 1,000 people using the social networking website ‘facebook.com’. Given that only a small proportion of recipients actually respond to online surveys it was decided that snowball sampling would be the most efficient way to ensure a maximum response rate. The respondents were asked to forward the survey to their friends upon completion, thus the amount of respondents ‘snowballed’. A sample of 240 responses was then collected and their results entered into SPSS program.
The relevant tests were then conducted (these can be found in the appendix). To summarise; a sample of 240 UK respondents aged between 18 and 35 was collected using ‘snowball sampling’.
The use of secondary data combined with CSR information found on the respective company websites made it possible to create seven main hypotheses stemming from the broad primary hypothesis. The previously established objectives were incorporated into the hypotheses, essentially allowing the study to fulfil the objectives.
The hypotheses were used in analysis, which ultimately helped determine the extent to which the broad hypothesis could be accepted or rejected.Broad Primary hypotheses;
H0 = There is no correlation between consumer choice and corporate philanthropy.
H1 = There is a correlation between consumer choice and corporate philanthropy.
The Seven Main Hypotheses
1. Consumers loyal to either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo will switch to the alternative provided it offers more in terms of CSR.
2. Consumers base purchasing decisions on evidence of Strategic Philanthropy.
3. Consumers do not place price of a product above socially responsible actions of the firm when deciding whether to purchase or not.
4. Income has an impact on a consumer’s decision to purchase a product from a firm with a bad reputation for CSR.
5. The People that drink Coca-Cola/Pepsi more than 6 times a week are more likely to avoid purchasing either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola if their manufacture involved negative CSR initiatives.
6. The odds that female will feel more strongly than males about causes that demonstrate Health Awareness, are significantly higher.
7. People that pay attention to CSR initiatives are more willing to pay extra for CSR initiatives than others
Two hundred and forty subjects answered the questionnaire on Consumer Attitudes towards Corporate Social Responsibility (see appendix Figure 1). In this study there were more males (144) than females (96) (60.0% are males and 40.0% are females) and the vast majority of participants (70.0%) are in the age category of 18 to 23 years old (Figure 2).
The distribution of income among participants appears to be heavily skewed (Figure 3) where 82.9% of the participants lie within the income bracket of less than £20,000 and the rest have higher income (i.e. the sample reflects subjects with low socio-economic status ). However, the levels of education (Figure 4) seem to be normally distributed with the majority of participants (65.8%) having a University degree.
The characteristics of the participants indicate that the chosen subjects in this study are coming from a low income background which suggests some selection bias when collecting the sample. However, such disparity in the income level of participants may be due to the young age of respondents; hence it should not influence the results of the analysis.
b. Analysis: Attitudes towards Corporate Social Responsibility
The tests that were run in total were; Cross-tabulation3, Binomial test4, Chi-Square5 and Frequency Distribution6. The output of these tests can be found in the appendix.
Hypothesis 1
Consumers loyal to either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo will switch to the alternative provided it offers more in terms of CSR. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 1: Hypothesis 1
The Binomial test found that 54% of consumers loyal to either Coca-Cola or Pepsi would switch to the alternative provided it offered more in terms of CSR. This is not statistically significant because P=0.220 (Figure 5) and since P<0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that consumers loyal to either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo will remain loyal regardless of comparatively inferior CSR contributions.
However, when adjusted for educational level we see that consumers loyal to either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo will indeed switch to the alternative provided it offers more in terms of CSR. The results of dependence between 1 and 2 using the chi-square test are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Thus, it can inferred that consumers loyal to either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo will switch to the alternative provided it offers more in terms of CSR after adjusting for their educational level. In particular, 66.7% of postgraduate participants are willing to switch while more than 71% among A-level participants are not willing to switch (see Figure 6 for more details).
Hypothesis 2
Consumers base purchasing decisions on evidence of Strategic Philanthropy. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 2: Hypothesis 2
To examine this hypothesis a binomial test can be conducted, as seen in Figure 9. The results of the binomial test indicate that about 80% of consumers (see Figure 8) have reported ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ in paying close attention to CSR initiatives when deciding on whether to purchase Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola. This proportion is statistically significant
(p<0.001 see Figure 9).
From this study, see above hypothesis, it is shown that consumers base purchasing decisions on evidence of Strategic Philanthropy. Also, the attitude of consumers indicates that some consumers feel strongly about Environmental sustainability (e.g. Greenpeace) [26.3%, Figure 10], Community investment (e.g. Football team sponsorship) [30.0%, Figure 11], and Health awareness (e.g. Breast Cancer awareness) [56.7%, Figure 12]. The former low percentages provoke an examination of whether consumers place price of a product above socially responsible actions of the firm when deciding whether to purchase or not. Furthermore, the validity of this question could be questioned as whilst answering the questionnaire the respondent may have been ‘led’ by the examples given.
Hypothesis 3
Consumers do not place price of a product above socially responsible actions of the firm when deciding whether to purchase or not. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 3: Hypothesis 3
Figure 13 indicates that consumers are willing to pay extra for either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola given that they contribute to a cause that they feel strongly about.
To examine this hypothesis a binomial test was conducted, as seen in Figure 14. The results of the binomial test indicate that about 63% are willing to pay more than 0% extra for either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola given that they contribute to a cause that they feel strongly about.
This proportion is statistically significant (p<0.001, see Figure 14
Hypothesis 4
Income has an impact on a consumer’s decision to purchase a product from a firm with a bad reputation for CSR. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 4: Hypothesis 4
To examine this hypothesis a chi-square test of independence was conducted, as shown in Figure 15. The results of this test indicate that a consumer’s decision to purchase a product from a firm with a bad reputation for CSR depends significantly on consumer’s income level.Figure 16 indicate that a higher percentage of high income consumers (62.5% of those earning £40,000+) strongly agree or agree to avoid purchasing either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola if their manufacture involved negative CSR initiatives.
The results of the chi-square test (see Figure 15) indicate that a consumer’s decision to purchase a product from a firm with a bad reputation for CSR depends significantly on their income (p=0.023<0.05).
Hypothesis 5
The People that drink Coca-Cola/Pepsi more than 6 times a week are more likely to avoid purchasing either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola if their manufacture involved negative CSR initiatives. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 5: Hypothesis 5
The results of the chi-square test (Figure 17) indicate that, indeed, people who drink Coca-Cola/Pepsi more than 6 times a week are more likely to avoid purchasing either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola if their manufacture involved negative CSR initiatives (one chi-square=3.165,p=0.075). For instance people who drink Coca-Cola/Pepsi more than 6 times a week are 2.54 times (Figure 18) more likely to avoid purchasing either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola if their manufacture involved negative CSR initiatives than those who drink 6 or less drinks.
Hypothesis 6
The odds that females will feel more strongly than males about causes that demonstrate Health Awareness are significantly higher. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 6: Hypothesis
The results of the chi-square test does not indicate a significant dependence between gender and being sensitive to ‘Health Awareness’ CSR initiatives (chi-square=2.217, p=0.136).
Therefore the conjecture: ‘female are less likely to be sensitive to Health Awareness CSR initiatives’ cannot be statistically established at this point. However, the direction of the hypothesis seems to be correct as males are 1.83 times more likely than females to be sensitive to Health Awareness CSR initiatives (p=0.176, Figure 20).
Hypothesis 7
People that pay attention to CSR initiatives are more willing to pay extra for CSR initiatives than others. This hypothesis could be formulated as:
Table 7: Hypothesis 7
The results of the chi-square test (Figure 21) indicate that people that pay attention to CSR initiatives are less willing to pay extra for CSR initiatives (chi-square=13.365, p<0.001). In fact people who don’t pay attention to CSR initiatives are about 12 times more likely to be willing to pay extra for CSR initiatives
如需定做,英语论文请联系我们专家定制团队，QQ337068431，热线咨询电话：021-62170626
相关文章：
