«13TH INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH CONFERENCE “Ethical Issues for Public Relations Practice in a Multicultural World” Holiday Inn ...»
OPR needs to also be recognized for its stand-alone value. The research showed that OPR has a strong positive effect on the holy grail of public relations – behavioral intent. While substantial and well-justified attention has been paid to CSR, this study unveils the synergistic relationship between CSR and OPR. It also shows the importance of OPR on company evaluation and behavioral intent. This research puts a face on the maxim that organizations that do good (CSR) and make friends (OPR) will thrive.
This study is important because it built and tested an integrated model of CSR to help those in public relations understand how CSR works to improve relationship management. For those practicing public relations, the findings of this study point to the need for an organization to adopt societal needs and expectations into its daily business and maintain its CSR activities as a long-term strategy. In addition to promoting a company’s sustainable competitive edge, adoption of CSR in public relations practice contributes to enhancing the value of public relations in society.
The model offers scholars a means of comparing CSR practices and OPR between industries and among practices. For example, would CSR programs that focus on “green” initiatives perform better than CSR programs that focus primarily on community or employee needs? How would the model hold up if the organization was faced with a product recall that might shake the important OPR mediator?
585 This study also provides educators a means of explaining, as models do, the interaction of public relations activities. Why is it important to have both strong CSR programs and OPR? What variables influence behavioral intent?
In short, the value of this research is to both help us understand the interactions of these variables, but perhaps more importantly, it lays a foundation for understanding elements of public relations programs and for future research.
Limitations and Future Research Despite its important findings and implications, there are some limitations to this study that should be considered. First, sampling of participants may limit the interpretations of the findings of this study. This study used only a sample of undergraduate students recruited from communications courses at two universities. Although this study assumed that the study companies value them as consumers, the sampled students may not be representative of the population that those organizations are targeting. Another limitation pertains to the selection of companies. Even though several companies from different industries were chosen, this study used only well-known, profitable corporations in their industries. It is plausible that they may invest more money and effort in developing and implementing CSR programs than other companies do. Thus, it may be difficult to generalize the findings from this study without crossvalidating the proposed model with different companies. However, this study is meaningful in that it adds empirical evidence that bolsters the significance of CSR in relationship management.
The findings of this study also provide important insight into the role of well-developed OPRs in optimizing the effect of CSR on its intended outcomes. Future studies can attempt to replicate this study’s findings with samples from various groups and consider selecting companies with different standings in business. Data triangulation using both quantitative and qualitative approaches would provide more in-depth knowledge about the role of CSR in relationship management in public relations.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial dyads.
Marketing Science, 8, 310-323.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68-84.
Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28, 39-48.
Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale:
Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29, 309-319.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics:
Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157-170.
Bruning, S. D., & Ralston, M. (2000). The role of relationships in public relations: Examining the influence of key public member relational attitudes on behavioral intent.
Communication Research Reports, 17(4), 426-435.
Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, Burson-Marsteller, & Landor (2009, June). Corporate citizenship study. Retrieved January, 8, 2010, from http://www.bursonmarsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/ Documents/Corporate%20Citizenship%20Executive%20Summary.pdf Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 321-340.
David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291-313.
Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good.
Business Horizons, 50, 247-254.
Harlow, L. L. (2005). The essence of multivariate thinking: Basic themes and methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-264.
Hon, L, & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for Public Relations, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customercompany identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(4), 381-403.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 61-90.
Hung, C. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization-public relationships and their implications for relationship management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(4), 393-426.
Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 297-311.
Ki, E., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1-23.
Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 799-815.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181-198.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55-65.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. In Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16-32.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1-18.
Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). “I need you too!” Corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 245-260.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
Murray, K. H., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of CSR to generate good will toward the firm: Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38, 141-159.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. NY: Harper & Row.
Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Grau, S. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 125-140.
Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: A social exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
588 Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, 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.
Sotorrio, L. L., & Sanchez, J. L. F. (2008). Corporate social responsibility of the most highly reputed European and North American firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 379-390.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. NY: John Wiley.
Uhlaner, L. M., Goor-Balk, H. J., & Masurel, E. (2004). Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 186-194.
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159-172.
Werther, W. B. Jr., & Chandler, D. (2005). Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance. Business Horizons, 48, 317-324.
Wigley, S. (2008). Gauging consumers’ responses to CSR activities: Does increased awareness make cents? Public Relations Review, 34, 306-308.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91-121.
Although bloggers serve a critical role in the public relations world, research to identify potential target blogger public remains neglected. This study addresses the limitations of a traditional public segmentation model (Grunig’s situational theory) for bloggers in order to propose and verify a new blogger public segmentation model. Results from analyzing 895 online surveys submitted by Korean bloggers confirm the proposed model has good model fit indices in Structural Equation Modeling analyses, and all of the model hypotheses are supported by statistically significant coefficients. The results show the proposed model effectively typolosizes bloggers as active, constrained, latent, and routine publics.
The increasing substantial influence of social media on journalistic practices has provided a new arena for public relations to execute diverse programs bypassing the traditional media outlets.
When considering blogs as a form of social media, several journalism studies have argued that each blogger is a potential journalist and becomes part of the journalistic process (Carlson, 2007;
Domingo & Heinonen, 2008; Gillmor, 2004; Haas, 2005; Knight, 2008; Matheson, 2004; Regan, 2003). Likewise, recent public relations studies insist that blogs have had a huge impact on the reputation of organizations as well as their products and services (Edelman & Intelliseek, 2005;
Flynn, 2006; Kent, 2008; Scoble & Israel, 2006; Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007; Yang & Lim, 2009). Recognizing these bloggers’ potential roles in journalism and PR practices, organizations have tried to converse with popular bloggers to generate positive word-ofmouth in the blogosphere.