The Gender Effect on Millennials’ Perception of Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Consumer Behavior Marianne Marar Yacobian, Menlo College Frances Turner, Wilkes University Sidhu School of Business Janis K. Zaima, Menlo College

The Gender Effect on Millennials’ Perception of Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Consumer Behavior

Marianne Marar Yacobian Menlo College

Frances Turner Wilkes University Sidhu School of Business

Janis K. Zaima Menlo College

Abstract

While Millennials agree that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is important and object to

corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR), they are reluctant to give up the electronic devices they

purchased from a leading brand. Our study finds there is a gendered difference in Millennial

consumers’ reactions to incidences of CSiR. Females are more dissatisfied with a company

involved in CSiR and are likely to try another brand the next time they are in the market for a

new device, while males are neutral about the firm’s CSiR. Females strongly disagree with the

statement, “I am happy with corporate profits made by using the cheapest labor,” while males

somewhat disagree. Finally, Millennials show loyalty to the brand’s firm despite that company’s

CSiR behavior.

Keywords: Corporate social irresponsibility, consumer behavior, gender effect

Introduction

Consumers believe companies should do more for the greater good vis-à-vis corporate

social responsibility (CSR). For example, Ipsos (2013) reports 73% of consumers held this

opinion. Cone Communications (2017) finds 87% of consumers buy a firm’s offerings when it

champions their causes, while 76% refrain from doing so where a company backs issues

antithetical to their convictions. Due directly to increasing “consumer expectations and demand”

that companies “become more purpose-driven and sustainable,” Forbes (2018) notes firms are

raising standards for their suppliers. When corporations engage in CSR, they are informing the

market that they allocate resources into supporting fair treatment of people (e.g., equitable

wages), goods and services (e.g., fair trade), and the environment (e.g., pollution). CSR enables

companies to signal they are going beyond legal and compliance mandates, acknowledging the

importance of the greater good (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).

On the other hand, corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) refers to actions that

negatively impact some stakeholder interests (Strike, Gao, & Bansal, 2006). CSiR occurs when

firms engage in actions, behaviors, and/or practices that are harmful to people, the environment,

and/or the greater good.

Our study focuses on the CSiR regarding a U.S. company and a news article describing

irresponsible behavior by a manufacturer that assembles electronic devices for the company.

Our objective is to explore Millennials’ perceptions of CSiR and their views about the subject

firm. First, we examined study participants’ consumption behavior towards a product made by a

generic U.S. company. Next, we pose the same questions for the actual company featured in the

article, Apple, Inc.

Our study adds to the literature by focusing on Millennials as a consumer group,

examining their reactions to CSiR behavior and linking those reactions to this group’s product

purchase behavior mediated by sex (female/male). Studies have examined CSR and/or CSiR and

their effects on perception and buying intentions, but have not extended this connection based on

gender for a specific product and firm. We augment the literature by making this extension,

exploring female and male Millennials’ decisions to continue using a specific product and the

relationship to brand loyalty, ease of brand substitution, and perception of the firm and its

product.

In marketing an offering, many firms segment and target specific audiences based upon

observable factors such as age, sex, socioeconomic class, and others. However, individual

reactions to various CSR initiatives are not easily noticeable, making it difficult to determine

whether potential customers are offended or unaffected by a specific negative initiative and how

it impacts their purchasing behaviors. For example, Kölbel, Busch, and Jancso (2017) found

firms involved in negative news may be hurt by purchase decisions linked to CSiR for a specific

group of customers. Hence, determining whether females or males react significantly different

in making buying decisions based on a firm’s CSiR is an important marketing issue to consider.

Further, insight about consumers’ perceptions of a specific CSiR action can help a firm better

understand how to address or navigate the challenges of CSR.

Our study findings show gendered reactions matter. Females disagree with the statement,

“I am happy with corporate profits made by using the cheapest labor,” while males somewhat

disagree. Also, in contrast to males, females are more likely to purchase another brand the next

time they are in the market to buy the same type of device, and their impression of a generic U.S.

company is very unsatisfactory. However, when Apple, Inc., is revealed as the firm, both

genders are less critical of it than of the generic U.S. company. In fact, after being informed of

Apple’s CSiR behavior, the overall impression of Apple by study participants’ is neutral to

satisfactory, whereas perception of the generic U.S. company is very unsatisfactory to

unsatisfactory. Brand loyalty appears to create a halo effect (Thorndike, 1920) for Apple. With

iPhone users comprising 88% of our sample, we test whether current owners of Apple products

are more likely to stay with those offerings in the context of CSiR.

Possessing CSR beliefs and disapproving of a firm that engages in CSiR seems easy, but

having to give up a product frequently used while knowing of a firm’s CSiR activities is more

difficult. The tradeoff decision is the point where we can implicitly conclude Millennials’

conviction towards CSR, or objections of CSiR, outweighs their demand for a firm’s product.

While we find Millennials recognize Apple’s CSiR conduct as unacceptable, these consumers

would not surrender their devices due to the company’s behavior. Our results show Millennial

respondents’ intentions to buy from Apple are either neutral or somewhat likely, overriding their

CSR beliefs.

The remainder of our paper is organized as follows: We review the relevant literature

regarding CSR, CSiR, gender and Millennials, then pose our hypotheses. We proceed to

describe the study’s methodology, followed by presentation of results. Next, we discuss our

findings, offering contributions to theory, and implications for practice. The paper concludes

with recommendations for future study.

Literature Review

Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Irresponsibility

Although the meanings of CSR and CSiR appear to be opposing sides of the same

concept, they are not two sides of the same coin, but rather two different paradigms that can

sometimes work in tandem (Jones, Bowd, & Tench, 2009; Lin-Hi & Müller, 2013; Kölbel et al.,

2017). While CSR might be a company’s focus or intention (genuine or otherwise), CSiR is

usually a byproduct of a lack of investment in and focus on the greater good. A firm can engage

in CSR and CSiR simultaneously, thereby muddying the good/bad dichotomy of a corporation

and its reputation. This seemingly paradoxical milieu can and does operate in a firm inasmuch

as that firm might be exhibiting CSR in one arena (e.g., environmental relief), but not in another

(e.g., ethical transnational practices).

Ormiston and Wong (2013) emphasize the rising pressures put on the firm through

demands from its stakeholders - shareholders, consumers, and employees - to heed their interests.

In this sense, CSiR could potentially lend itself to a more heightened need for CSR. For

example, if a corporation engages in unfair labor practices that are not necessarily illegal but are

viewed as immoral, then external or internal pressure might prompt that company’s recalibration

of its priorities, thereby shifting energy and resources to CSR.

Studies examine CSR and its relationship to financial performance, addressing whether or

not CSR adds value to the firm. If CSR uses scarce resources of the firm, some marketing and

finance scholarship imply CSR initiatives must be a source of company value. Yet, extant

studies find mixed results regarding CSR and its impact on firm performance. Some scholars

affirm CSR is positively associated with a firm’s financials (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky,

Schmidt, & Rhynes, 2003, Lee, Lau, & Cheng, 2013). Others indicate weak or no relationship.

Pava and Krausz (1996) examined 21studies finding 12 presented a positive relationship between

CSR and financial performance, one observed a negative relationship, and 8 discovered no

relationship. Through closer analysis of these and other work, Stanwick and Stanwick (1998)

discovered, at best, a weak positive correlation between CSR and firm financial performance.

Some research on the importance of CSR as seen from the ‘eyes of the beholder’ focus on

the effects of CSR and its perception by stakeholder groups, including customers and employees

(Brown & Dacin, 1997; Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, & Murphy, 2013). These studies argue that

how an individual views CSR initiative affects how that person views the firm, and ultimately

impacts that individual’s evaluation of the company’s products. For example, Brown and Dacin

(1997) find “negative CSR associations can have a detrimental effect on overall product

evaluations, whereas positive CSR associations can enhance product evaluations” (p.237).

Also, they show negative and positive CSR affects firms differently. While positive CSR

leads to consumers’ purchases, Brown and Dacin (1997) do not explore the consumer-company

relationship and its impact on CSR. On the other hand, Öberseder et al. (2013) examine the link

between “corporate practice and consumers' perceptions of CSR” considering “differences in

perception regarding the importance of stakeholder domains” for both the individual and firm.

Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) present their framework to capture consumers’ reactions to

organizations and products relative to their reactions to CSR. They find company-specific

factors (i.e., CSR issues adopted by the firm), quality of the company’s products, and individual-

specific factors (i.e., an individual’s perception of and general beliefs about CSR) are key

determinants of how consumers respond to CSR. Additionally, a consumer’s strong support for

the firm’s CSR increases the relative relationship, or bond, between the consumer and the

company, establishing a “C-C” congruence (2001). This congruence may increase a consumer’s

purchase intention. Interestingly, Sen and Bhattacharya also find some CSR initiatives can

decrease a consumer’s intention to buy a company’s products. Under certain CSR domains such

as labor relations and employee working conditions, consumers with certain CSR beliefs can be

more linked to the firm’s products. In fact, these consumers may be so tied to these products that

they believe CSR initiatives are realized at the expense of the company: perceiving the firm is

trading off product quality for CSR, buyers may refrain from purchasing the company’s

offerings.

Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) show there are multiple layers of CSR’s effect on consumer

behavior. Their work provides an important framework that allows a better understanding of

how individuals’ level of support for a specific CSR activity can impact their behaviors.

However, a priori we cannot tell how a consumer will react to various CSR initiatives engaged

by the firm. Our study extends the literature by examining whether certain identifiable groups,

specifically different genders and generational cohorts, have similar reactions to a specific CSR

initiative.

Gender, Millennials, CSR and CSiR

Arlow (1991) studied 138 college students measuring business ethics, as well as

evaluations of CSR to determine personal characteristics and views of undergraduate students.

He found non-business majors were more cynical about and questioned the intentions of CSR.

His results suggest non-business students saw CSR as a marketing ploy used by companies to

generate more profit. Notably, Arlow found females were more ethical than their male

counterparts and more socially responsible. Females scored significantly lower on

Machiavellianism, Darwinism, and Ethical Relativism indicating that women place less emphasis

on expediency and selfish interests.

Also, female participants saw a greater need to balance the needs of society with those of

shareholders. Although there were minimal differences between business and non-business

college students related to their evaluations of ethical values, non-business students were found

to be wearier of CSR efforts than their counterparts, business majors. Arlow confirmed females

appear to exhibit a greater desire and expectation that corporations expend more resources

directed at solving societal woes.

In a more recent study, Klimkiewicz and Oltra (2017) sought to determine the importance

of CSR for Millennial job seekers. Their findings confirm individuals with stronger perceptions

of CSR are more likely to reject employment offers from employers who failed to meet CSR

requirements. Even though Millennials were not particularly focused on CSR during their job

search, they were likelier to reject job offers from CSR non-compliant employers.

Hypotheses

Though past research exists on CSiR and Millennials, as well as CSR and female

undergraduate students, we have yet to find studies combining gender, Millennials, and their

perceptions of CSiR. Our examination attempts to understand whether or not Millennial female

and male undergraduates are more or less likely to be deterred by a company’s CSiR. We seek

to uncover whether or not there is a gendered difference in student responses and the importance

the sexes place on CSiR.

In fusing undergraduate Millennials across a range of courses and class sections taught by

three different instructors, we focus our attention on how Millennials (de)prioritize CSiR and

whether or not the results differ based on gender. By identifying Millennials through a gendered

lens, we can understand their perceptions of CSiR and its impact on purchase intentions.

Therefore, based on the review of the literature, we propose the following:

H1: Males and females react differently to specific CSiR actions related to a U.S.

company.

H2: Males’ and females’ decisions to buy from a U.S. company that engages in

corporate socially irresponsible behavior will differ.

H3: Males and females react differently to specific CSiR actions related to Apple, Inc.

H4: Males’ and females’ decisions to buy from Apple, Inc., known to have been

involved in corporate socially irresponsible behavior, will differ.

Methodology

Sample

Academic and practitioner sources vary in the years they designate as the Millennial

generation (or Generation Y), spanning from as early as 1978 to as late as 2004 (Tyler, 2007;

Howe & Strauss, 1991). The Pew Research Center (2015; 2018) defines Millennials as those

born between 1981 and 1996. Kurz, Li & Vine (2019) use 1981 to 1997 as the cutoff for their

study in the Handbook of U.S. Consumer Economics, noting “a lack of overall consensus” (p. 4)

about the specific time span. They depart slightly from but acknowledge Pew’s 2015 and 2018

designations while also citing the U.S. Census utilization of the year 2000 as the endpoint for this

generation. Credited with coining the term “Millennials” due to most of the generation coming

of age in the new millennium, Howe and Strauss (1991) delineate the cohort as consisting of

individuals born between 1982 and 2004. Keeping these definitions of Millennials in mind, 96%

of our sample is comprised of respondents born between 1982-2000, with 54% born 1982-1996,

and 42% born 1997-2000. 83% of our sample is comprised of respondents with birth years

spanning 1994 to 1998, i.e., 20- to 24-year-olds at the time we fielded our study in spring 2018.

Undergraduates at a small U.S. college in ten class sections of accounting, global studies,

marketing, and management capstone courses participated in the study, which involved reading

two versions of a real-world scenario about employee working conditions and pay, and

answering survey questions regarding their perceptions of the companies cited in each scenario,

CSiR and other factors of interest. In total, 168 students participated in the study, but not all

completed it in its entirety, reducing the useable sample size to 160 (see Table 1).

As demonstrated by our hypotheses, the study examines whether gender impacts

consumer perceptions of a firm based upon news coverage of a CSiR situation concerning the

company. In our analysis, we divide the sample by gender and test the mean difference in scores

between them using t-tests for our four hypotheses, H1-H4. The statistical null hypothesis states

that there is no difference between the subgroups, while the alternative hypothesis implies that

there is a difference at the 1% and 5% significance levels. As displayed in Table 1, gender in our

sample is split between males and females at 43% and 55%, respectively. Four students’

responses were eliminated because they responded “other” to the gender question.

Study Design and Questionnaire

Participants read an edited excerpt of a news article (see Appendix B) about an

unidentified, generic U.S. company whose foreign manufacturing partner is reported as creating

poor working conditions and unsafe environments for its employees. Immediately after

completing the reading, students responded to several questions about the article and the generic

company. Next, participants were instructed to consider again the same news article about the

unidentified U.S. firm. After doing so, respondents answered the same questions posed earlier

with Apple replacing references to the previously unidentified U.S. company.

Presenting these two scenarios allowed us to test for the brand effect of Apple products:

88% of the study sample use iPhones, providing support for examining these consumers’ loyalty

to the Apple brand versus their convictions regarding CSiR. Survey questions posed include

selected items adapted from the Muncy-Vitell Consumer Ethics Scale (2005), as well as queries

about students’ backgrounds and their knowledge/usage of technology. Respondents answered

questions based on a Likert scale of 1 to 7, with “1” corresponding to response choices such as

“not so familiar/strongly disagree/extremely unlikely/extremely unsatisfactory” and “7” relating

to response choices “very familiar/strongly agree/extremely likely/extremely satisfactory”.

Results/Findings

After examining Millennials’ perceptions on human rights and CSR issues, then asking

participants to read the article on negative corporate social actions, we found females are much

more conscious about human rights issues. Of the 51 responses indicating a score of 7

(“definitely true of me”), 31% are male and 69% are female (see Figure 1). Similar results

persist in responses regarding advocacy for CSR (see Figure 2). Again, Millennials’ awareness

of and advocacy for CSR is high. Of the 47 subjects who responded with a score of 7

(“definitely true of me”), 38% are male and 62% are female. The gender differences are not as

dramatic for those who scored their perceptions of CSR as a 6 or 5, but females’ score for CSR

advocacy is still higher. These results are consistent with Arlow (1991), who concludes that

females appear to be more ethical and exhibit greater desire to have corporations expend more

resources directed at addressing societal issues. Overall, both sexes are concerned about social

issues and advocate for human rights and CSR indicating Millennials are generally aware and

sympathetic to these matters.

Scenario 1: A Generic U.S. Company

We proceed to examine questions testing study respondents’ reactions to CSR related to a

generic U.S. company. Table 2 displays the average score for males and females for select

questions labeled US_1 through US_7. Initially, we asked questions regarding survey

participants’ reactions to situations that may be viewed as CSiR, such as exposing employees to

an unsafe work environment or poor working conditions. As noted in Table 2, question US_1

about safe surroundings shows no notable difference between genders. The mean score is 6.15

for males and 6.38 for females. While the average score is higher for females, the difference is

not statistically significant. Similar results exist for US_2 regarding working conditions for

employees. At mean responses of 6.13 and 6.34 for men and women, both genders agree the

U.S. company violates CSR by permitting its manufacturer to expose employees to an unsafe

work environment or poor working conditions.

Considering CSiR relative to corporate profits, results of responses to questions about

this relationship are significantly different and statistically significant at the 1% level (t-statistic

= -5.06). The average score for males is 3.03, while females’ average is 1.90 indicating a strong

disagreement with the statement, “Based on what I read in the scenario, I am happy with the

corporate profits made by using the cheapest labor” (US_3). It appears that males are willing to

trade off using cheap labor for profits, while females are opposed to this practice. With males

disagreeing somewhat, but females disagreeing strongly, H1 is supported: gender makes a

difference in Millennials’ views towards CSiR for a U.S. company.

Following questions about CSiR, we asked students about their intended actions towards

the firm’s product. Participants responded to the following statement, “If a product I own/use is

made by the U.S. company mentioned in the scenario, I will stop using it” (US_4). Neither

gender is willing to give up using the products made by the generic firm, despite their relatively

strong objection to the company’s irresponsible behavior.

It appears that convenience and regard for their mobile devices as necessities make it

difficult for Millennials to give up or change their devices to assert their social beliefs. The

average score of the response to US_4 is “somewhat agree”, i.e., 3.28 for males and 3.69 for

females. These results support Sen and Bhattacharya’s (2001) study indicating that under certain

CSR domains, such as labor relations and employee working conditions, consumers with

particular CSR beliefs can be more linked to a firm’s products rather than to the company’s CSR

actions. Results testing CSiR indicate Millennials are more interested in the products to which

they are attached than to issues of corporate irresponsibility, even if they initially supported the

importance of CSR.

Responses to question US_5, “If the mobile phone I own/use is made by the U.S.

company mentioned in the scenario, I will buy another brand next time I am in the market to

buy,” demonstrate respondents are more willing to substitute their current devices for those of

another brand. The average score for males is 3.99 or neutral to the statement, while females’

average score is 4.76, indicating they somewhat agree with the statement. The difference

between genders is statistically significant at the 5% level (t-statistic = 2.86) thereby supporting

H2 that Millennial consumers’ behavior, given their awareness of the generic U.S. company’s

CSiR, is dependent on gender.

With respect to the statement, “My overall impression of the U.S. company is….”

(US_6), students are asked about their impression of the U.S. company with answer choices

ranging from extremely unsatisfied (score of 1) to extremely satisfied (score of 7). The average

score for males is 3.18 (unsatisfactory), while females’ average is 2.47 (very unsatisfactory) with

the U.S. company, a difference statistically significant at the 1% significance level (t-statistic = -

3.62). These results support H1, indicating the overall impression of the U.S. company, due to

the firm’s CSiR is based on gender.

Question US_7, “If you needed a mobile phone right now, how likely is it that you would

buy it from the U.S. company?” generated an average response of 4.71 for males and 4.31 for

females. Thus, it appears females are more impartial about foregoing purchase of the generic

phone than their male counterparts when knowing the U.S. company has been socially

irresponsible.

Scenario 2: Apple, Inc.

After considering a second scenario in which Apple, Inc. is the subject company,

respondents are asked to score the firm using the same questions previously posed about the

generic U.S. company. Table 3 displays the average score for males and females for select

questions labeled Apple_1 through Apple_8. While study participants agree that Apple acted in

a socially irresponsible manner by partnering with a manufacturer who has employees work in an

unsafe environment (Apple_1), or in poor working conditions (Apple_2), respondents are not as

strongly opposed to Apple’s behavior as they are in the case of the U.S. company. Males’

average score is 6.00 and 5.94, respectively (versus their average score for the generic U.S.

company at 6.15 and 6.13), while females’ average response is 6.22 and 6.23, respectively

(versus those for the U.S. company at 6.38 and 6.34). As it is for the U.S. company, the

difference in the average scores between genders is not statistically significant.

For question Apple_3 where respondents are asked if they agree with the statement, “I

am happy with the corporate profits by using the cheapest labor,” the results exhibit a strong

difference in reaction towards Apple. Females average response is 2.60, while males’ answers

are relatively neutral at an average of 3.50, indicating a statistically significant difference in

scores at the 1% level (t-statistic = -3.21). Both genders appear to disagree less when they are

told the company is Apple versus the U.S. company: males’ average score increases from 3.03

for the generic company to 3.50 for Apple, and from 1.90 to 2.60 for females. It is difficult to

disentangle these results as we are unable to pinpoint whether they are due to the markedly high

88% of our sample who currently own an iPhone, or if product loyalty tempers respondents’

views. Regardless, these findings support H3 where females’ views differ notably from those of

males when Apple is making profits using the cheapest labor.

While gender plays a role in CSiR’s impact on Millennial’s perceptions, respondents are

more willing to agree with the statements the survey posed about CSiR when the company is

unnamed versus identified as Apple, Inc. How do study participants react to Apple and

purchases of the firm’s products? Question Apple_4 asks the same question as US_4 about

study participants’ decisions to “stop using it” (the electronic device). Males’ average response

to the statement is 2.75 (disagree), females’ answers average 2.57, but the difference between

them is not significant. Likewise, for Apple_5, “I will buy another brand next time I am in the

market to buy,” the average scores are close, 3.24 for males and 3.53 for females, providing

evidence that rejects H4.

Question Apple_7, “If you needed a mobile phone right now, how likely is it that you

would buy it from Apple?” generated an average response of 5.19 for males and 5.19 for females

(somewhat likely). Both genders agree, indicating neither are willing to forego their Apple

products, even if they recognize the company has been socially irresponsible. Question Apple_8

asks, “As a consumer of technology devices, my buying intentions toward Apple’s product

would be ____?” Males’ average response is 4.74 and females is 4.51, suggesting both genders

are neutral to somewhat likely to buy from Apple. Despite the response to Apple_6, which asks

respondents about their overall impression of Apple, average scores are 4.19 and 4.50 for males

and females, respectively, signifying neutral (score of 4) to satisfactory (score of 5) responses

after recognizing Apple’s irresponsible behavior.

Discussion

The results of our analysis show Millennials are opposed to CSiR in general, regardless

of gender. However, when a corporation earns profits by using the cheapest labor, gender

matters. Females are considerably more opposed to this practice than males. Also, females are

more likely to substitute brands when they are in the market to buy another device. A firm like

Apple with strong brand recognition and consumer loyalty appears to overcome some CSiR

behavior, regardless of gender. Both males and females express a neutral to satisfactory

impression of Apple even when the company is socially irresponsible. When Millennial

consumers own offerings from a well-known company, in this case Apple, Inc., it appears they

are torn between their desire to continue using the products they like and their inclination to

oppose CSiR behavior: these consumers’ high preference for a firm’s branded product appears

to supersede their commitment to the company’s corporate social awareness practices.

Theoretical Implications and Contributions

Though the extant literature has examined the impact of CSR on Millennials, it has not

assessed their perceptions of CSiR or its effect on future purchases. We fill this gap by exploring

empirically Millennial views of CSiR, considering their consequent buying decisions, and

offering insights into gender’s role on their behavior relative to a company’s socially

irresponsible acts.

Using a sample of students who are considered Millennials, we examine gender

differences among a distinct segment and their impressions of CSiR, whilst further exploring the

impact of these consumers’ reactions to social irresponsibility on purchase intentions. As noted

earlier, gender plays a significant role in Millennials’ perception of CSiR when the brand is

unidentified; but its impact is tempered and not as harsh when the same socially irresponsible

behavior is attributed to the Apple brand where both males and females are unwilling to give up

or switch brands when shopping for devices in the future. While impressions of the generic U.S.

company generate quite unsatisfactory responses, study participants’ views of Apple remain

neutral. Traditional Millennial college students are likely to purchase technology devices from

both Apple and the generic U.S. company, but more favorably inclined to buy these products

from Apple. Further, Millennials recognize CSiR and object to it but are willing to overlook

such behavior for the benefit of owning and using technology devices that support their

lifestyles. Between genders, females are more likely to support their views of CSiR and consider

giving up brands of firms engaging in socially irresponsible actions. In delving deeper into

whether Millennials believe they should punish Apple for misdeeds, we show a strong gender

effect. Females believe their decision to stop purchasing Apple products to punish them may

have some consequence and significance to the firm. Males are more neutral, rationalizing their

actions would not have much effect on the company.

Managerial Implications and Recommendations

Our findings have implications for CSR and its relationship to a firm’s marketing of its

products. While Millennials are generally opposed to CSiR, its negative effects are perceived

more strongly by females than by males. Though aware of a firm’s bad behavior, males are

prone to overlook effects of CSiR if a product benefits them, but females are likelier to seek

alternative offerings in the future. These results imply companies with products targeted to

women should carefully review their corporate social behavior and attempt to avoid and/or

address socially irresponsible acts. Such bad behavior, or CSiR, could affect company revenues

negatively for offerings geared towards female markets. Conversely, firms engaging in socially

responsible actions should publicize and market such CSR initiatives directly to their female

target audiences because these markets will be more inclined to respond to such activities with

increased sales.

Limitations and Future Research

The literature on Millennials in the context of CSiR is rather limited, particularly in the

area of gendered reactions to a company’s misdeeds. While we further this area of research and

offer new insights, we are aware of the limitations of our study. A larger sample size would

explicate more clearly gendered and generational similarities and differences. Also, we

conducted this work in the heart of the Silicon Valley, the mecca for technology. It would be

interesting to see a comparative analysis of how and whether or not findings would differ in

other regions of the United States, let alone in other countries. Would results vary if we asked

the same questions of students located in Denver or New Zealand, for example?

Another limitation is that the study was conducted at a college with a strong focus in

business. Future research could include teasing out whether business majors vary from Arts &

Sciences majors, and, if so, in what ways. Further, study participants’ responses are another

limitation as the subjectivity of self-disclosure can be perceived as subjective bias. Because

Millennials range from approximately 18-35 years of age, and we directed our attention to the

traditional college-aged student segment within this generation, we do not know how ‘older’

Millennials might view CSiR.

As such, a longitudinal study might be worth exploring to see how these undergraduates

evolve (or not) in their opinions of CSiR, and gain insights relative to gender differences, brand

perceptions, and purchase intentions. Lastly, it would be interesting to compare and explore

differences and similarities of Generation Z’s perceptions of CSiR with those of Millennials born

during the later years of the latter’s cohort.

Concluding Comments

While not a comprehensive examination of Millennials and their consumer behavior, our

study adds to the existing literature in a meaningful way. Pew Research Center (2018) reports

that before 2020, Millennials will exceed Baby Boomers to become the largest living generation

in the United States. Though studies characterize Millennials as achievement-oriented and hard-

working, they are also often seen as feeling entitled to certain lifestyles and products (Stein,

2013; Kane, 2019). Our research shows this generation is keenly aware of the shortcomings of

society and corporate social behavior, but are not willing to trade the products they use and

cherish due to these issues. As they become the largest work force in U.S. history, Millennials

will wield enormous economic power (Nielsen, 2017; Forbes, 2018). They should be aware they

can greatly affect how corporations do business: if Millennials truly believe in supporting the

greater good, their generation will exert an extraordinary influence on how firms benefit and help

all stakeholders.

Author Biographies

Marianne Marar Yacobian is Professor of Global Studies at Menlo College. She received her doctoral degree from University of San Francisco. Her areas of expertise include diaspora studies, human rights education, and tribal-collectivism. Frances Turner is Associate Professor of Management, Marketing and Economics at Christian Brothers University in Memphis, TN, USA. She received her DBA from Grenoble Ecole de Management in France. Her research is in the areas of consumer perceived value, mass customization, individual thinking style, and consumer experience. Janis K. Zaima is Professor of Accounting and Finance at Menlo College. She received her Ph.D. from University of Washington in Seattle. Her area of interests includes the relationship between corporate social responsibility/irresponsibility and investment/consumer decisions.

References

Arlow, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students' evaluations of business ethics and

corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 63-69.

Bloomberg News (2018). Apple supplier workers describe noxious hazards at China factory.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/workers-at-apple-supplier-

catcher-describe-harsh-conditions

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and

consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.

Cone Communications (2017). 2017 Cone Communications CSR study.

https://www.conecomm.com/2017-cone-communications-csr-study-pdf.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1992). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to 2069.

Harper Collins.

Forbes (2018). Eight corporate social responsibility (CSR) trends to look for in 2018.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanmcpherson/2018/01/12/8-corporate-social-

responsibility-csr-trends-to-look-for-in-2018/

Forbes (2018). Understanding the research on Millennial shopping behaviors.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/06/04/understanding-the-

research-on-millennial-shopping-behaviors/

Ipsos (2013). Eight out of ten Australians rate corporate social responsibility as important.

http://ipsos.com.au/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/06/Corporate-social-responsibility-media-

release-FINAL

Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social

responsibility: Competing realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300-310.

Kane, S. (2019). The common characteristics of Millennial professionals.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/common-characteristics-of-generation-y-

professionals-2164683

Klimkiewicz, K., & Oltra, V. (2017). Does CSR enhance employer attractiveness? The role of

Millennial job seekers' attitudes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 24(5), 449-463.

Kölbel, J. F., Busch, T., & Jancso, L. M. (2017). How media coverage of corporate social

irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11), 2266-

2284.

Kurz, C. J., Li, G., & Vine, D. J. (2019). Are millennials different? In A. Haughwout, & B.

Mandel, B. (Eds.), Handbook of US Consumer Economics (pp. 193-232). Academic

Press.

Lee, P.K., Lau, A.K., & Cheng, T.C.E. (2013). Employee rights protection and financial

performance. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1861-1869.

Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social

Irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1928-1936.

Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by

business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

Nielsen (2017). Nielsen unveils first comprehensive study on the purchasing power and

influence of the multicultural Millennial. https://www.nielsen.com/us/

en/press-releases/2017/nielsen-unveils-first-comprehensive-study-on-the-purchasing-

power-of-multicultural-millennial/.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance:

A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.

Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. (2013). License to ill: The effects of corporate social

responsibility and CEO moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility. Personnel

Psychology, 66(4), 861–893.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B., & Murphy, P. (2013). CSR practices and consumer

perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1839–1851.

Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:

The paradox of social cost. Quorum Books.

Pew Research Center (2015). The whys and hows of generations research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-

research/

Pew Research Center (2018). Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-

generation-z-begins/

Pew Research Center (2018). Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s

largest generation. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/

millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

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.

Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social

performance and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental

performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 195-204.

Stein, J. (2013). Millennials: The me me me generation. https://time.com/

247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/

Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility

and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business

Studies, 37(6), 850-862.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 4(1), 25–29.

Tyler, K. (2007). The tethered generation. HR Magazine, 52(5). https://www.shrm.org/hr-

today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0507cover.aspx

Vitell S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy–Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and

application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267-275.

Table 1 Tables and Figures

Summary Statistics of Sample by Classification

Gender Number Percentage

Male 68 43%

Female 88 55%

Other/No response 4 3%

Totals (N =) 160 100%

Age

Millennials (19821996)

Millennials (19972000)

Gen X 86 54%

67 42%

3 2%

No response 4 3%

Totals (N =) 160 100%

Mobile Phone Ownership

iPhone 140 88%

Samsung

ZTE 7 4%

1 1%

Huawei 1 1%

Android

Cell phone

Moto 2 1%

1 1%

1 1%

Essential 1 1%

LG 1 1%

No response/no phone 5 3%

Totals (N =) 160 100%

Note: Given the small number of respondents identifying themselves as “other”, our study does not reflect transgender and/or gender nonconforming groups.

Figure 1.

Advocate for Human Rights

Note: Each bar represents the frequency of males (females) who gave scores of 1 to 7 in blue (orange) regarding human rights issues. The response score of 1 indicates the participant believes the question “definitely is not true of me”, 2 indicates “somewhat not true of me”, 3 indicates “not true of me”, 4 indicates “neutral”, 5 indicates “true of me”, 6 indicates “somewhat true of me”, and 7 indicates “definitely true of me”.

Figure 2.

Advocate for Corporate Social Responsibility

Note: Each bar represents the frequency of males (females) who gave scores of 1 to 7 in blue (orange) regarding CSR advocacy. The response score of 1 indicates the participant believes the question “definitely is not true of me”, 2 indicates “somewhat not true of me”, 3 indicates “not true of me”, 4 indicates “neutral”, 5 indicates “true of me”, 6 indicates “somewhat true of me”, and 7 indicates “definitely true of me”.

Table 2

Average score for males and females for each question related to generic U.S. company

U.S.

Average Average t-statistic

Company

Score for Score for of

Questions

Males Females Difference

US_1 6.15 6.38 1.01

Significance

US_2 6.13 6.34 0.93

US_3 3.03 1.90 -5.06 ***

US_4 3.28 3.69 1.57

US_5 3.99 4.76 2.86 **

US_6 3.18 2.47 -3.62 ***

US_7 4.71 4.31 -1.41

Note: Statistical significance at the 5% and 1% level are denoted as ** and ***, respectively (see Appendix A).

Table 3

Average score for males and females for each question related to Apple, Inc.

U.S.

Average Average t-statistic

Company

Score for Score for of

Questions

Males Females Difference

Apple_1 6.00 6.22 0.96

Significance

Apple_2 5.94 6.23 1.33

Apple_3 3.50 2.60 -3.21 ***

Apple_4 2.75 2.57 -0.75

Apple_5 3.24 3.53 1.00

Apple_6 4.19 4.50 -1.55

Apple_7 5.19 5.19 0.01

Apple_8 4.74 4.51 0.84

Note: Statistical significance at the 5% and 1% level are denoted as ** and ***, respectively (see Appendix A).

Appendix A

Selected Survey Questions

Study participants were asked to read an edited excerpt of an article describing corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) practices of an overseas manufacturer who produces digital devices for an unidentified U.S. company. Respondents replied to questions about this generic firm, after which they were asked to reconsider the scenario and respond to the same questions as if Apple was the company that had engaged in the actions noted in the excerpt. Below are the selected set of questions referenced in the study about the generic company, labeled U1-U7, and Apple, Inc. labeled Apple_1-Apple_8.

Questions

for

U.S. Company Questions

for

Apple, Inc. Selected Survey Items

Response choices for questions below:

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Somewhat Disagree

(4) Neither Agree nor Disagree (5) Somewhat Agree

(6) Agree (7) Strongly Agree

US_1 Apple_1 In my opinion, the U.S. company [Apple] in the scenario acts socially irresponsible when it partners with manufacturers who are having employees work in an unsafe environment.

US_2 Apple_2 In my opinion, the U.S. company [Apple] in the scenario acts socially irresponsible when it partners with manufacturers providing poor working conditions to employees.

US_3 Apple_3 Based on what I read in the scenario, I am happy with the corporate profits made by using the cheapest labor.

US_4 Apple_4 Please rate each of the following statements: If a product I own/use is made by the U.S. company mentioned in the scenario I will stop using it.

US_5 Apple_5 Please rate each of the following statements: If the mobile phone I own/use is made by the U.S. company mentioned in the scenario I will buy another brand next time I am in the market to buy.

Response choices for questions below:

(1) Extremely unsatisfactory (2) Very unsatisfactory

(3) Unsatisfactory (4) Neither unsatisfactory nor satisfactory

(5) Satisfactory (6) Very satisfactory (7) Extremely satisfactory

US_6 Apple_6 My overall impression of the U.S. company [Apple] is ____________________?

Response choices for questions below:

(1) Completely unlikely (1% likelihood) (2) Very unlikely

(3) Somewhat unlikely (4) Neither unlikely nor likely

(5) Somewhat likely (6) Very likely (7) Completely likely (99% likelihood)

US_7 Apple_7 If you needed a mobile phone right now, how likely is it that you would buy it from the U.S. company [Apple]?

- Apple_8 As a consumer of technology devices, my buying intention toward Apple's products would be _________________?

Appendix B

Survey Scenario Presented to Study Participants (edited from Bloomberg, 2018)

At a Catcher Technology Co. manufacturing complex in the Chinese industrial city of Suqian, about six hours’ drive from Shanghai, workers stand for up to 10 hours a day in hot workshops slicing and blasting, handling noxious chemicals sometimes without proper gloves or masks.

These conditions — some described in a recent report by advocacy group China Labor Watch and others in Bloomberg News interviews with Catcher workers — show the downside of a high-tech boom buoying the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese recruiters play up the chance to build advanced consumer electronics to attract the millions of typically impoverished, uneducated laborers without whom production of cell phones and other digital gadgets would be impossible.

Goggles and earplugs are not always available, a problem when some factory machines are noisy and spray tiny metallic particles or coolant, according to interviews with workers. CLW said the noise was about 80 decibels or more.

That’s roughly equivalent to an average factory or a garbage disposal, according to IAC Acoustics, an industrial noise-control specialist. Hundreds throng a workshop where the main door opens only about 12 inches. Off duty, they return to debris strewn dorms bereft of showers or hot water. Many go without washing for days at a time, workers said.

“My hands turned bloodless white after a day of work,” said one of the workers, who makes just over $2 an hour in her first job outside her home province of Henan. She turned to Catcher because her husband’s home decorating business was struggling. “I only tell good things to my family and keep the sufferings like this for myself.” All workers who spoke with Bloomberg asked not to be identified out of fear of recrimination.

Companies spent years upbraiding manufacturers after a rash of suicides at its main partner, Foxconn Technology Group, in 2010 provoked outrage over the harsh working environments in which its upscale gadgets were made. Foxconn hired psychological counselors, set up a 24-hour care center, and attached large nets to factory buildings to prevent impulsive suicides, according to the US Company’s progress report. Soon after, companies developed standards and started audits of the hundreds of companies that produce components for its devices, threatening to pull business from those that flout labor laws.

A company spokeswoman said the company has its own employees at Catcher facilities but sent an additional team to audit the complex upon hearing of China Labor Watch’s impending report. After interviewing 150 people, the team found no evidence of violations of its standards, she

added. “We know our work is never done and we investigate each and every allegation that’s made. We remain dedicated to doing all we can to protect the workers in our supply chain,” the spokeswoman added. In its supplier-responsibility report covering 2016, it conducted a record 705 comprehensive site audits. The number of high performing supplier locations increased by 59 percent, while low-performing sites decreased by 31 percent, the company reported.

Catcher facilities were the subject of scrutiny in 2013 and 2014, when another investigation by CLW and Green America found 22 issues, including forced, unpaid overtime and improper handling of hazardous materials. At the time, companies dispatched a team to investigate, and reiterated its commitment to “ensuring safe and fair working conditions for everyone in our supply chain.” The US Company continued to work with Catcher, according to its annual supplier lists.

Catcher’s factory-floor staff is mainly low-skilled laborers recruited through hiring agencies from rural areas across China. As seasonal workers far away from their families, they may be reluctant to push back against managers and complain about conditions for fear of losing shifts.

One production line is required to crank out about 1,450 units during a 12-hour shift, which includes breaks for meals, according to CLW. In interviews with Bloomberg, workers expressed concern about safety issues and a lack of training about the materials they come into contact with. Some have to quickly switch among at least four machines, increasing the risk of accidents, the workers said.