Becker Et Al. - Communicating Social Value-1

15427854, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21529 by Hochschule Luzern, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 18 November 2021 Revised: 20 June 2022 Accepted: 23 June 2022
DOI: 10.1002/nml.21529
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Communicating social value:

An experimental study on credible
communication and social enterprises
Annika Becker1 | Carolin J. Waldner2 | Laura J. Nitsch3 |

4
Stefan Trautwein
1
Competence Center Public and
Nonprofit Management, Lucerne
Abstract
University of Applied Sciences and Arts, The management of marketing and communication
Lucerne, Switzerland strategies involves a complex mix of different require-
2
Department for Training and Further
ments, particularly for social enterprises, which try to
Education of Teachers, Henkel-Endowed
Chair for Sustainability Management, fulfill both social and business aims while operating in
Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, a resource-constrained context. Although social enter-
Düsseldorf, Germany
3
prises are a rising phenomenon, the research on how
Regional Council Freiburg, Freiburg,
Germany
these businesses communicate their activities remains
4
Chair for Public and Non-Profit in its infancy. This study builds on the theory of
Management, Albert-Ludwigs-University planned behavior and the source credibility theory, pre-
Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
senting a conceptual framework that distinguishes
Correspondence between high, moderate, and low credibility of a social
Annika Becker, Competence Center enterprise's communication, to analyze its effects on
Public and Nonprofit Management,
Lucerne University of Applied Sciences
potential customers' behavioral intentions. Through an
and Arts, Zentralstrasse 9, CH-6002 online experiment with 260 subjects, the authors
Lucerne, Switzerland. demonstrate that attitude toward a social enterprise,
Email: annika.becker@hslu.ch
subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and,
ultimately, the intention to support a social enterprise
by purchasing its products increases with the social
enterprise's message credibility. The authors also pre-
sent practical implications and avenues for future
research on the communication of social enterprises
based on the empirical findings.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Nonprofit Management & Leadership published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2022;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml 1

15427854, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21529 by Hochschule Luzern, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 BECKER ET AL.
KEYWORDS
communication, experimental design, message credibility,
social enterprise, source credibility theory, theory of planned
behavior
1 | INTRODUCTION
Today's multi-faceted global challenges have spawned the development of social enterprises
(SEs), which are organizations that go beyond the sectoral boundaries of traditional nonprofit
organizations and conventional businesses by creating “social value while securing profits and
doing so in an entrepreneurial/innovative way” (Saebi et al., 2019, p. 73). Potential customers
are increasingly presented with a span of innovative and sustainable products and services
offered by these organizations. Consequently, this widens the complexity of consumer deci-
sions, intentions, and behaviors, adding to product offers from more conventional businesses.
Consumer decisions to purchase an SE's product (as well as other forms of supportive
behavior toward SEs such as donating or volunteering) are greatly determined by the content of
the SE's organizational communication (Bandyopadhyay & Ray, 2020; Newbert, 2012; Pinheiro
et al., 2021). However, the development of a professionalized marketing and communication
strategy is particularly challenging for SEs, given that many customers still view social and busi-
ness aims as separate from each other (Mook et al., 2015; Sievert, 2011). Because SEs are a rela-
tively new type of organization, many customers are not aware of the possibility of connecting
social value creation with business goals (Sastre-Castillo et al., 2015). Consequently, SEs are not
viewed as nonprofit organizations that focus on donations, nor do they have the budget of com-
mercial enterprises, which would enable them to invest in a professional marketing campaign.
To convince potential customers to buy their products and to counteract claims that their social
purposes ultimately only serve their commercial interests (Sievert, 2011), it is essential that SEs
demonstrate credibility in their communication strategies. That is, potential customers tend to rate
information based on the credibility of its source of information, hence, credibility is a major factor
of the effectiveness of an organization's marketing and communication strategies (Eisend, 2004;
Hati & Idris, 2019). In an early experiment by Hovland and Weiss (1951), it was found that when
the same content was communicated by two different sources, one of which was presented as cred-
ible and the other one as non-credible, the credibility of the source substantially affected the target
group's decision-making processes. The authors explained this effect using source credibility theory
(SCT; Hovland & Weiss, 1951), which proposes that the effectiveness of a communication message
is dependent on the credibility of the source (Erdogan, 1999). Accordingly, perceived credibility is
based on the expertise and trustworthiness of the source (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Building exper-
tise and trustworthiness requires a professional, long-term marketing strategy.
However, many SEs exhibit resource constraints and lack the professional skills required for
a targeted communication strategy (Bandyopadhyay & Ray, 2020; Newbert, 2012). Therefore,
SE marketing practices (and related research discussions) are still in its infancy. In fact, in a
recent article, Asgari Ghods (2019) even claimed that despite the focus on SEs in the current
management literature, research on marketing approaches for SEs is missing. Although some
studies have investigated low-budget communication strategies of SEs that increase
(or decrease) stakeholders' support intentions (see, e.g., Andersson & Self, 2015; Waldner, 2020;
Willems et al., 2017), there is still a gap in the literature regarding effective communication
BECKER ET AL. 3
strategies for SEs. To overcome this gap, it is necessary to obtain a better understanding of how
message credibility influences the potential customers of an SE.
To investigate the intentions and ultimate behaviors of potential customers toward SEs, this
study draws on Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). The TPB has been
frequently used in consumer research, specifically in the area of sustainable decision-making
(see, e.g., Chen, 2020; Rex et al., 2015; Taufique & Vaithianathan, 2018) to predict and explain
human behavior in certain organizational contexts. The theory assumes that an individual's
behavioral intentions are shaped by three core components: attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control. The TPB can help direct the discussion on SE message credibility
by providing deeper insights into the decision-making processes of potential SE customers. This
study investigated how an SE can influence a potential customer's decision to support
it through its communication policy by asking the following research question:
RQ. How does an SE's message credibility influence a potential customer's attitude,
subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and ultimately his or her intention
to support the SE by purchasing its products?
To answer this question, we conducted a between-subjects online experiment with 260 subjects,
thereby, making two important contributions to the current literature. First, it contributes to the
increasing stream of research on managing SEs as a new type of purpose-driven organization. Our
findings reveal that the degree of message credibility in an SE's communication is a key factor in
potential customers' decisions on whether to support it. This adds to the knowledge on the market-
ing and communication of SEs, which has so far received little attention in the existing literature,
and specifically broadens our understanding of the interplay between the message credibility of SEs
and the customers' behavioral intention. Second, by combining the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and SCT
(Hovland & Weiss, 1951) and applying this combination to the context of SEs, we add a new per-
spective on these well-established theories. While various previous studies on the TPB have focused
on predicting consumers' decisions to support a sustainable service or product of a commercial
enterprise (see, e.g., Rex et al., 2015), our study demonstrates that the TPB, in combination with the
SCT, can help predict potential customers' decision on whether to support a specific (purpose-
driven) organization, based on whether its communication is perceived as credible.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: The next section builds on the current
literature in the field of SE marketing and communication to develop the conceptual frame-
work and specify the hypotheses. Then we describe this study's empirical testing of the
customers' responses and behavioral intentions to SE message credibility in an experimental
setting based on the theoretical context of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and SCT (Hovland &
Weiss, 1951). The results are presented in the section that follows. Finally, the findings are
discussed to provide practical recommendations to help SEs shape customers' behavioral
intentions to improve communication outcomes.
2 | THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
2.1 | Definition of SEs
Many academics and practitioners have witnessed the “emergence of social enterprises” (for an
overview, see Borzaga & Defourny, 2001, and Dart, 2004). Since the 1980s, both the United States
4 BECKER ET AL.
and Europe have experienced the rise of SEs, each bringing forward different schools of thought
(Kerlin, 2006). Although early thinkers, such as the founder of schools for disabled children,
Maria Montessori, laid the foundation for a business model that combines elements from both
nonprofit and commercial business organizations, today, a growing number of SEs have
attempted to address societal challenges by aligning their resources and capabilities toward that
goal. For example, Germany has 1700 high-profile and notably innovative SEs that account for a
diverse range of impacts (Ashoka & McKinsey, 2019).
SEs, broadly defined as dual-purpose or hybrid organizations, have emerged as a more
business-like counterpart to traditional nonprofit organizations. In that, SEs embody a novel,
value-based organizational form that addresses societal challenges across sectors (Cornelissen
et al., 2021). While SEs combine the logics of nonprofit organizations and for-profit businesses,
they also differ from the two “pure” forms. From nonprofit organizations, SEs differ as they
strategically generate income with a long-term focus and measurable outcomes to sustain their
operations, and from for-profit businesses they differ by aiming to create a social (and/or envi-
ronmental) impact (Austin et al., 2006; Battilana, 2018; Dart, 2004; Saebi et al., 2019).
2.2 | Communication of SEs
Although SEs follow business-like approaches and market orientation has already been found to be
among the most important SE components (Choi & Majumdar, 2014), research on SE activities
from a marketing and communication perspective is still scarce (Bandyopadhyay & Ray, 2020;
Asgari Ghods, 2019; Roundy, 2014). In a recent review of the SE marketing literature, Ban-
dyopadhyay and Ray (2020) identified a variety of research gaps and concluded that the marketing
of SEs is subject to a range of different challenges compared with marketing practices adopted by
conventional business organizations. In that, SEs are exposed to a broad range of different stake-
holders resulting in challenges of adequate communication (Mitchell et al., 2016). More precisely,
and similar to nonprofit organizations (see also Bünzli & Eppler, 2019), SEs frequently communi-
cate with different stakeholders, including “traditional” customers as well as partner organizations,
funders, beneficiaries, and other supporters such as donors and volunteers. This stakeholder hetero-
geneity forces SEs to address various expectations, making communication management a highly
complex endeavor.
The organization's hybrid nature adds to the complexity of SE communication efforts.
According to Ebrahim et al. (2014), accountability is the key challenge of governance in hybrid
organizations such as SEs, both for their dual performance objectives as well as to multiple
principal stakeholders. Accountability in SEs is highly complex (Connolly & Kelly, 2011), con-
sidering that the form of organizational accountability is heavily influenced by the type of SE as
well as the respective stakeholder group they are accountable to. This leads to different forms of
communication. For customers, for example, who are one of the more powerful stakeholder
groups (particularly in SEs that rely on market-based approaches), the accountability communi-
cation tends to be rather formal and focused on fulfilling the customers' demands (Bradford
et al., 2018). However, the strategic possibilities of SEs as well as the motives of SE customers
may differ substantially from those of customers of conventional businesses (Alter, 2007;
Mitchell et al., 2016). Consequently, it is utterly important that the communication toward SE
customers—and potential customers—is studied in more detail.
For an SE, understanding potential customers and predicting their behavior is the first step
toward actively convincing them to purchase its products and services. An extensive body of
research has applied the TPB as an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen &
BECKER ET AL. 5
Fishbein, 1980) to better understand consumer behavior. The TPB offers a psychological frame-
work that identifies a causal structure for predicting a wide range of human behaviors. According
to the theory, intention to perform a behavior is conceptualized as the closest antecedent of actual
behavior. These intentions are predicted by an additive combination of three core components:
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 2011). The attitude toward a
behavior reflects the individual's favorable or unfavorable assessments of performing that behav-
ior; more favorable attitudes are more likely to positively influence an individual's intention to
perform the behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Subjective norm refers to an individual's per-
ceptions of general social pressure regarding their behavior. If an individual perceives that signifi-
cant others endorse (or disapprove of) a behavior, they are more (or less) likely to engage in that
behavior. Last, perceived behavioral control relates to the perceived influence of specific factors
on a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB has been successfully applied to many domains in
the field of prosocial behavior, including volunteer engagement (Lee et al., 2014), donation behav-
ior (Smith et al., 2012), and sustainable consumption behavior (Chen, 2020; Rex et al., 2015).
However, these studies have all examined stakeholder behavior toward nonprofit organiza-
tions, which primarily focus on social value creation by relying on public and private donations,
or commercial enterprises, which may offer sustainable products and services, but follow the
main goal of increasing economic profits. Although nonprofit organizations benefit from an
advance in trust in credibility due to their sectoral affiliation (Handy & Katz, 1998), commercial
enterprises generally have more resources available for effective marketing budgets. SEs, how-
ever, not only face a multiplicity of heterogeneous stakeholders, as elaborated above, but also
operate in resource-constrained situations, follow a legacy mindset, and oftentimes lack profes-
sional communication traits. Taken together, the impact of a SE's marketing practices is quite
limited (Addae, 2018; Bandyopadhyay & Ray, 2020). Consequently, SEs are confronted with
complex marketing and communication tasks by adopting both low-cost and cost-effective tech-
niques such as relying heavily on personal contacts and networks to build a good reputation
instead of making use of expensive brand building activities (Bandyopadhyay & Ray, 2020).
Previous research has further shown that in an attempt to overcome financial restraints, SEs
may simply just use the term “social entrepreneurial” in their communication to stakeholders
to increase support intentions (Andersson & Self, 2015; Willems et al., 2017). Another low-cost
strategy of SEs is to put themselves in the spotlight to raise attention to their organization and
cause (Nicholls, 2013). However, these strategies appear to be less effective. For example, in a
recent experiment, Waldner (2020) found that a leader-centered communication strategy does
not influence stakeholders' likelihood of supporting an SE. In line with this, Hati and Idris
(2019) showed in a Muslim context that a leader's personal credibility has little influence on
customers' intention to support SEs. The authors found that the credibility of organizational
branding has a strong effect on potential customers of SEs. This new finding invites more
research on communication concepts that move away from the leader's attention, as the credi-
bility of their organizational communication has proven to be a reasonable construct that can
boost the SE's marketing success (Hati & Idris, 2019; Waldner, 2020).
2.3 | Organizational credibility
Organizational credibility plays a major role in business marketing and communication

research (see, e.g., Eisend, 2004, 2006; Hovland & Weiss, 1951), and is assumed to be of particu-
lar importance for sustainability-related products, which promise an additional value to the
6 BECKER ET AL.
customer (e.g. environmental friendliness; Jaeger & Weber, 2020). Shaw (2004) was among the
first to highlight this construct's importance for SEs, pointing out that the credibility of an SE
can encourage support from the community through its networking activities with customers.
It follows that if the message is conveyed by a credible source, the recipient's attitude changes
significantly more often compared with a non-credible source. This process is explained
through the SCT (Hovland & Weiss, 1951), which refers to the effectiveness of a communication
message that is dependent on the credibility of the source (Erdogan, 1999).
In principle, the SCT assumes that perceived credibility is based on the constructs of expertise
and trustworthiness (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Expertise refers to the degree to which an individ-
ual or organization is perceived as “trained, experienced, authoritative, skilled, [and] informed”
(Berlo et al., 1969, p. 567) in the subject area. Specifically for SEs, this perception is influenced by
the fit between the SE's products and services with the social cause it is supporting (e.g., the fit
between cosmetic products and climate change; Alcañiz et al., 2010). Trustworthiness refers to
the degree to which an individual or organization is considered decent, believable, and to have
integrity (Berlo et al., 1969; Lowry et al., 2014). For organizations that engage in solving societal
issues, including SEs that consider this their foremost organizational goal, trustworthiness is
significantly influenced by their stakeholders' attribution of altruistic motives, meaning the
degree to which stakeholders believe that the societal goal is feasible and predominant (Alcañiz
et al., 2010). Recent studies have shown that both components of credibility (expertise and trust-
worthiness) can be enhanced in communication, for example, by using specifically designed logos
on organizational websites (Lowry et al., 2014) or by collaborating with influencers that represent
the product (Schouten et al., 2020). Hence, both expertise and trustworthiness are important
determinants of the credibility of a SE's communication strategy.
2.4 | Conceptual framework and hypotheses
Based on previous research on SE communication, we developed a conceptual framework that

formed the basis of the analysis in this empirical study. The underlying rationale for the poten-
tial customer-centric framework builds on Ajzen's TPB (1991), including the aforementioned
components attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 2011). The
conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 distinguishes between high, moderate, and low SE
message credibility, depending on the organization's expertise and trustworthiness. Low credi-
bility is associated with lower levels of expertise and trustworthiness, and high credibility is
associated with higher levels. Within this context, we argue that the credibility of an SE's
communication positively influences potential customers' behavioral intention. That is, the more
credible the SE's organizational features are perceived by potential customers, the more positive
is the expected effect on their behavioral intention. Accordingly, the outlined framework tests
three effects on attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (Hypotheses 1–3), as
well as the effect on the more posteriorly conceptualized variable intention (Hypothesis 4).
2.4.1 | Attitude
An individual's attitude, that is, his or her personal favorable or unfavorable beliefs about acting
in a particular way, reflects the extent to which he or she trusts that the behavior will lead to a
certain outcome (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005; Rex et al., 2015). Accordingly, a better attitude
BECKER ET AL. 7
F I G U R E 1 Conceptual framework
toward an SE is likely to have a more positive influence on the potential customer's intention to
support the SE, by, for example, purchasing its products. Schouten et al. (2020) have shown that
a communication strategy that demonstrates the organization's expertise in their subject area,
such as the use of marketing material that emphasizes the organization's specialty (e.g., a house
painting company that uses a logo that displays a house and a paintbrush; Lowry et al., 2014),
and high levels of trustworthiness, such as showing integrity by communicating with the help
of product-related endorsers (e.g., collaborating with fashion models to advertise a fashion
brand; Schouten et al., 2020), is likely to have a positive effect on customers' attitudes
toward an organization. Despite the fact that SEs demonstrate expertise and trustworthiness in
solving societal problems and creating social value instead of pure product enhancement, the
underlying assumption that high message credibility enhances potential customers' attitudes
toward the organization remains intact. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:
H1. High (moderate, low) SE message credibility has a positive (moderate, negative)
influence on attitude.
2.4.2 | Subjective norm
Similar to perceived social pressure (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), subjective norm refers to an indi-
vidual's perceived expectations that important others want him or her to engage in or refrain
from a certain behavior (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005). Subjective norm has been found to
strongly influence donation intention (Croson et al., 2009), and the intention to engage in sus-
tainable behavior (Rex et al., 2015), which is not surprising, considering that important people
in a person's environment are likely to influence their decision to donate or purchase sustain-
able products and services. However, if a communication message is highly credible, meaning
that the customer has a positive perception of the SE's expertise and trustworthiness, the cus-
tomer's self-efficacy is likely to increase, meaning that they feel confident in making a reason-
able decision even without consulting other people (La Barbera & Ajzen, 2020). Consequently,
we assume that a potential customer is relatively less susceptible to social pressure and subjec-
tive norm when he or she receives a highly credible message from the SE. Therefore, we
assumed the following:
8 BECKER ET AL.
H2. High (moderate, low) SE message credibility has a negative (moderate, positive)
influence on subjective norm.
2.4.3 | Perceived behavioral control
Perceived behavioral control can be explained as the subjective perception of personal capabilities
and constraints that influence the performance of a behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Hagger &
Chatzisarantis, 2005). Factors that can interfere with perceived control over a behavior can be
internal (e.g., skills, knowledge, abilities) or external (e.g., time, dependence on others) (Davies
et al., 2002). Whether a person feels confident that they possess the necessary internal and exter-
nal prerequisites to successfully act in a certain way, for example, to help people living in slums
with access to clean drinking water by purchasing a product of a certain SE, highly depends on
the amount and quality of information the person is given. Hence, the perceived expertise and
trustworthiness of the SE plays an important role: If an SE demonstrates a high level of expertise
on a certain topic and its potential solutions, the potential customer is likely to have a rather
strong perception of his or her ability to contribute to the solution by supporting the
SE. Similarly, a high level of trustworthiness, meaning that the individual perceives the organiza-
tion's communication as honest and believable, is likely to enhance his or her perceived ability to
control the situation through support. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
influence on perceived behavioral control.
2.4.4 | Intention
Along with the effects of the credibility of SE communication on the TPB core components, we
also examined the direct effects of factors related to the potential customer's behavioral inten-
tion. As explained above, the credibility of a communication strategy is determined by the per-
ceived expertise and trustworthiness of the message (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Both components
were found to have a positive influence on an individual's intention to support a cause or prod-
uct, which, in our case, is the SE (Pornpitakpan, 2006; Yoon et al., 1998). According to Jaeger
and Weber (2020), this influence is even more relevant in the context of sustainability-related
products, such as products of SEs, because the idea of benefiting others can enhance the per-
ceived credibility of the message. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
influence on the intention to support SEs.
3 | RESEARCH ME T H OD OLOG Y
3.1 | Procedure and research design
To test Hypotheses 1–4, we conducted a between-subjects online experiment with 260 subjects
who were randomly assigned to three treatment groups. This method was appropriate for our
BECKER ET AL. 9
research question because it allowed us to reveal causal relationships between the dependent
and independent variables (Hsu et al., 2017; Koschate-Fischer & Schandelmeier, 2014). We cre-
ated a fictitious SE named Droplets of Hope to avoid biases that could have been introduced
with familiarity and prior knowledge of specific SE brands. Droplets of Hope was presented as a
nationally operating SE with a focus on the fair and climate-neutral production of stainless steel
flasks. Subjects were informed that 50% of the revenues were reinvested into WASH (water,
sanitation, and hygiene) projects, which are developed to meet basic human needs for accessing
clean water. This is considered a typical SE business model, with dual organizational goals con-
necting business motives with social value. Considering that there is no legal status for SEs in
Germany, it was important to use a business model that is easily identifiable as a social enter-
prise. By providing this information to the participants in the regional context of our study, it
was clear to the participants that they cannot expect an additional monetary value (such as tax
reduction) when they purchase the products from the SE.
The experimental structure was identical among the three treatment groups, in which the
subjects were divided. All subjects were provided with the same general information about the
vision and aim of Droplets of Hope, followed by information on the credibility of organizational
features and goals. The information about the SE's message credibility, however, differed sub-
stantially among the three variations, displaying high (n1 = 88), moderate (n2 = 86), or low
(n3 = 86) message credibility. To design the variations among the three different conditions, we
followed Ko-schate and Fischer's (2014) guidelines for designing experimental studies in mar-
keting research. Specifically, we designed each condition according to the same basic structure
to exclude undesirable effects beyond the variations of the independent variable (see
Appendix A).
The first condition, involved messages with high credibility, differentiated by high organiza-
tional expertise and trust. Specifically, subjects were told that employees of the SE were valu-
able experts in their field, and that the SE worked with highly qualified experts in WASH
projects. With regard to the trust component, the subjects were told that Droplets of Hope had
gained a particularly high score of 98 out of 100 points in a country-wide ranking for customer
trust. Trust rankings are commonly used to assess the organizational levels of trust among cus-
tomers (and other stakeholder groups), and are therefore suitable indicators for assessing orga-
nizational trust (see, e.g., Edelman, 2021). In the second condition, which involved messages
with a moderate level of credibility, subjects were told that Droplets of Hope possessed an aver-
age level of expertise in its market, and worked together with professional from WASH projects
that possessed a common market-like expertise. In addition, subjects were provided with infor-
mation about the trust ranking, and Droplets of Hope was depicted as having an average trust
score of 68 out of 100 points. The third condition involved messages with low credibility. Sub-
jects were presented with information on Droplets of Hope that indicated that the SE had low
expertise and low levels of trust. Droplets of Hope was presented as a newcomer, working
together with newly established WASH projects in the field. With regard to the trust compo-
nent, subjects were told that Droplets of Hope scored 28 out of 100 points in a country-wide
ranking on customer trust.
3.2 | Manipulation check
We conducted a manipulation check to test the effectiveness of the variation in the independent
variable (message credibility). Specifically, we performed two one-way analyses of variance and
10 BECKER ET AL.
tested whether the mean values of trust and expertise differed significantly among the experi-
mental conditions. The results showed that when asked about trust in the fictitious SE, a signifi-
cant effect was found that was consistent with the expectations of the experimental
manipulation: subjects assigned to the experimental group with high (low) credibility recorded
higher (lower) values compared with subjects in other conditions (Mhigh = 5.712,
Mmoderate = 4.585, Mlow = 3.636, F[2, 257] = 52.329, p < 0.001). Furthermore, an F-test showed
that respondents assigned to groups with higher credibility reported higher expert scores of the
fictitious SE (Mhigh = 5.800, Mmoderate = 4.572, Mlow = 2.826, F[2, 257] = 137.097, p < 0.001).
Thus, it can be assumed that the experimental manipulation was successful, and further ana-
lyses on how variations in the independent variable SE message credibility affect the dependent
TPB components are feasible.
3.3 | Data collection and methodological aspects
The online experiment was launched in December 2020. A questionnaire was distributed via a
popular social media business network through which we were able to contact business stu-
dents in their advanced studies. Potential subjects were invited to participate in an online sur-
vey with information given regarding the length and subject of the questionnaire. To reduce the
subjects' inclination to give socially desirable answers, respondents were asked to answer the
questions truthfully, and the researchers assured that all collected data were handled strictly
confidentially and for scientific purposes only.
A sample of 260 business students enrolled in diverse German universities were randomly
assigned to one of the three experimental groups (high credibility (n1 = 88), moderate credibil-
ity (n2 = 86), and low credibility (n3 = 86); see Appendix A). The sample included 161 (61.90%)
women, 98 (37.70%) men, and one non-binary person (.40%). The median patient age was
26 years. Prior to data collection, an a priori power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1
(Faul et al., 2009). The required sample size was calculated as a function of the significance
level α (α = 0.05), required statistical power 1 ß (ß = 0.95), and effect size (effect size = 0.25).
Based on these values, a sample size of 252 (84 respondents per group) was deemed necessary
to obtain a high statistical power (>0.90) of the experimental design for each of the dependent
variables.
The questionnaire (see Appendix B) included several multi-item scales that were devel-
oped based on a thorough literature review. Trust and expertise served as experimental
manipulation checks. These latent variables were measured with three- and five-item scales,
used by Ohanian (1990). To measure attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral con-
trol, and intention, we adapted the Fielding et al. (2008) measurement instruments to the
design of the study. In addition, we measured (general) attitude toward SEs (Webb
et al., 2000) and fair trade skepticism (De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007). Both scales were
adopted from Webb et al. (2000) and De Pelsmacker and Janssens (2007), respectively, and
served as controls in subsequent analyses. All manifest variables were measured using
7-point semantic differential scales. The median time to complete the questionnaire was
8.05 min, and therefore respondent fatigue was not an issue. Table 1 lists the group-specific
characteristics of the sample.
Further statistical tests were performed with SPSS 26.0 and SPSS Amos 26.0 (IBM Corpora-
tion, Armonk, NY).
BECKER ET AL. 11
T A B L E 1 Sample characteristics
Condition 3: Condition 2: Condition 1:

Overall Credibility Credibility Credibility
sample, N = 260 low, n3 = 86 moderate, n2 = 86 high, n1 = 88
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Age (in years) 25.577 7.654 23.977 4.710 27.593 10.642 25.170 5.945
Gender N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Female 161 61.9 52 60.5 55 64.0 54 61.4
Male 98 37.7 33 38.4 31 36.0 34 38.6
Non-binary 1 0.4 1 1.2 — — — —
Total 260 100.0 86 33.1 86 33.1 88 33.8
3.4 | Reliability and validity
Based on modification indices and considering the covariance between few error terms, we
tested the quality of the measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis. In addition to
the χ2-test statistic, we considered absolute (root mean square error of approximation with 90%
confidence interval and close fit [pc]; standardized root mean squared residual), incremental
(comparative fit index; Tucker-Lewis index; incremental fit index), and parsimony (χ2/df; parsi-
mony normed fit index) fit measures. To validate the measurement model, a confirmatory factor
analysis was performed, which revealed a good global fit (χ2 = 588.328, p < 0.001; χ2/
df = 1.577; comparative fit index = 0.975; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.971; incremental fit
index = 0.975; parsimony normed fit index = 0.802; root mean square error of approxima-
tion = 0.047[0.040, 0.054], pc = 0.733; standardized root mean squared residual = 0.037). Stan-
dardized factor loadings ranged from 0.599 to 0.974 (see Appendix B). At the 0.1% significance
level, they were all different from zero. Cronbach's alpha (α) and composite reliability values
exceeded the threshold of 0.7 and 0.6, respectively, indicating internal consistency at the con-
struct level (see Table 2). Only the average variance extracted of the control variables remained
slightly below the threshold of 0.5. However, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981), both con-
structs represent sufficient variance of the indicators because the corresponding associated com-
posite reliability values exceed a threshold of 0.6. In all cases, average variances extracted are
larger than the corresponding maximum shared variance, understood as the squared correlation
of the considered factor with the factor with which it correlates most strongly (see Table 2).
Heterotrait-Monotrait ratios remain below the threshold of 0.9 (Gold et al., 2001). The
researchers inferred that all latent factors were reliably measured and that there were both con-
vergent and discriminant validity.
3.5 | Results
To form the scale composites, the average values were calculated after the reliability and valid-
ity analyses. A descriptive analysis was conducted (see Table 3). Prior to hypothesis testing, data
were checked for skewness and kurtosis (see Appendix B). Because our data were sufficiently
parametric, we concluded that the analysis of variance was appropriate (Hair et al., 2014).
12
T A B L E 2 Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity
Factor M SD α CR AVE MSV F/L ξ1 ξ2 ξ3 ξ4 ξ5 ξ6 ξ7 ξ8

ξ1 TR 4.653 1.584 0.956 0.947 0.856 0.829 0.968 0.027
ξ2 EX 4.410 1.704 0.964 0.961 0.830 0.775 0.934 0.841 0.055
ξ3 ATT 5.192 1.634 0.960 0.957 0.848 0.829 0.978 0.895 0.835 0.019
ξ4 SN 4.914 1.620 0.946 0.947 0.855 0.814 0.952 0.836 0.820 0.897 0.041
ξ5 PBC 4.914 1.586 0.936 0.938 0.751 0.664 0.884 0.772 0.688 0.825 0.833 0.087
ξ6 IN 3.597 1.774 0.953 0.954 0.874 0.524 0.600 0.664 0.669 0.677 0.736 0.618 0.350
ξ7 ATTSE 5.661 0.752 0.788 0.792 0.489 0.203 0.415 0.079 0.007 0.000 0.051 0.009 0.132 0.286
ξ8 FTSC 5.397 1.184 0.736 0.739 0.486 0.203 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.460 0.283
Note: lower triangular matrix = HTMT (heterotrait-monotrait) ratios, diagonal matrix = AVE minus MSV.
Abbreviations: ATT, attitude; ATTSE, (general) attitude toward social enterprises; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; EX, expertise; F/L, Fornell-Larcker ratio; FTSC,
fair trade skepticism; IN, intention; M, mean; MSV, maximum shared variance; PBC, perceived behavioral control; SD, standard deviation; SN, social norms; TR, trust; α, Cronbach's alpha.
BECKER ET AL.
BECKER ET AL. 13
T A B L E 3 Group-specific mean scores among the experimental conditions
Condition 3: Condition 1:
Overall Credibility Condition 2: Credibility Credibility
sample, N = 260 low, n3 = 86 moderate, n2 = 86 high, n1 = 88
DV M SD M SD M SD M SD
ATT 5.192 1.634 4.209 1.896 5.253 1.377 6.094 .899
SN 4.914 1.620 3.888 1.764 4.892 1.344 5.939 .952
PBC 4.914 1.586 4.209 1.877 4.826 1.304 5.689 1.131
IN 3.597 1.774 2.589 1.532 3.698 1.376 4.485 1.847
Abbreviations: ATT, attitude; DV, dependent variable; IN, intention; M, mean; PBC, perceived behavioral control; SD, standard
deviation; SN, subjective norms.
To test the hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted. Age, gender,
attitude toward SEs, and fair trade skepticism served as control variables. The equality of the
covariance matrices of the dependent variables could not be confirmed by considering a Box-M
test (p < 0.001). Therefore, Pillai's trace was used to test for the multivariate influence of the
experimental manipulation (P = 0.321, F[8, 502] = 12.012, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.161).
Subsequently, to gain deeper insight into the effects of the experimental manipulation, four
one-way between-subjects analyses of covariance were conducted. For attitude,
FATT(2, 253) = 42.801, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.253; subjective norm, FSN(2, 253) = 51.253, p < 0.001,
η2 = 0.288; perceived behavioral control, FPBC(2, 253) = 23.500, p < 0.001 η2 = 0.157; and inten-
tion, FIN(2, 253) = 30.286, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.193; revealed significant differences between the
experimental conditions. However, because Levene's test did not verify homogeneity of variance
for attitude (p < 0.001), subjective norm (p < 0.001), perceived behavioral control (p < 0.001),
and intention (p < 0.01), Welch tests (FATT(2, 156) = 38.921, p < 0.001; FSN(2, 160) = 51.169,
p < 0.001; FPBC(2, 165) = 23.336, p < 0.001; FIN(2, 170) = 28.478, p < 0.001), and Brown-Forsythe
tests (FATT(2, 196) = 36.820, p < 0.001; FSN(2, 209) = 47.106, p < 0.001; FPBC(2, 212) = 22.154,
p < 0.001; FIN(2, 244) = 30.927, p < 0.001) were performed to confirm the previous results.
Games-Howell tests were used for post-hoc comparisons. At the 1% significance level, the tests
revealed significant differences among the group-specific mean scores of each dependent variable,
with the exception of perceived behavioral control for low and moderate credibility. However, the
Games-Howell tests indicated that perceived behavioral control differed significantly between
conditions 2 and 3 at a significance level of 5%. Thus, H1 and H4 were confirmed at the 1% signif-
icance level; H3 was supported at the 5% significance level. H2 could not be confirmed because,
contrary to our theory, subjective norm was found to positively affect SE message credibility. In
addition, Figure 2 and the effect sizes η2 reveal that subjective norm is most strongly affected by
SE message credibility, followed by attitude, intention, and perceived behavioral control.
4 | DISCUSSION
4.1 | Research and managerial implications
Applying the SCT and TPB, the present study sought to analyze whether SE message credibility
influences a potential customer's attitude toward the organization, subjective norm, perceived
14 BECKER ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Group-specific mean scores of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and
intention
behavioral control, and ultimately his or her intention to support the SE. Through experimental
manipulation of the components of message credibility (expertise and trustworthiness), our
study showed that an SE's message credibility does indeed positively affect all the aforemen-
tioned TPB components. Therefore, our study contributes to the existing literature on SE in
two important ways: First, by demonstrating that the degree of credibility in the organization's
communication plays an important role in potential customers' decisions to support an SE,
this study adds to the growing focus on marketing in SEs. As our findings show, all three
determinants of support intention (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral con-
trol) can be enhanced through high credibility of social entrepreneurial communication,
which ultimately enhances the support intention of potential customers of SEs. This is partic-
ularly relevant for purpose-driven organizations, which often lack sufficient financial and
human resources to invest in professional marketing strategies. They often look for low-
budget ways to improve customers' awareness and increase support intention through specific
wording (see, e.g., Andersson & Self, 2015) or by presenting their founders as “heroes”
(see, e.g., Nicholls, 2013).
However, while these strategies may spare the SE's budget, they are not necessarily effective
(Waldner, 2020). Additionally, Pomering and Dolnicar (2009) suggest that even for-profits with
marketing budgets have trouble communicating prosocial behavior effectively and argue that
the underlying problem lies with a missing understanding of customers' decision-making heu-
ristics. Hence, we advance our understanding of the purchase decisions of potential SE cus-
tomers by focusing on individuals' attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.
Our findings show that high levels of organizational expertise and trustworthiness (high per-
ceived message credibility) can help SEs to magnify their potential customers' support inten-
tion, and therefore open the pathway for a new tool in SE marketing. Hence, we are able to
shed light on the underlying heuristics that drive effective marketing, especially for organiza-
tions that aim to create societal value (Guercini, 2019; Guercini et al., 2015). Communicating
the SE's expertise and increasing its trustworthiness can therefore serve as a bridge to a
stakeholder-centric view of marketing and ultimately increase the customer's purchase and
BECKER ET AL. 15
support intention. Moreover, it serves as a mechanism to strengthen the SE's accountability

toward its potential customers (Bradford et al., 2018; Ebrahim et al., 2014). While Bradford
et al. (2018) differentiated mainly between formal and informal forms of communication, we
add to their findings by showing that also the perceived credibility of the message plays a role,
irrespective of whether it is formal or informal. In addition, we contribute to the SE literature
by applying an experimental research design, a method which has yet to be fully explored in
this research area (see, e.g., Andersson & Self, 2015).
Second, by combining the TPB with SCT and applying them to the context of communica-
tion of SEs, we add a new perspective to the well-established TPB (Ajzen, 1991). While previous
studies have focused on predicting customers' decisions to support a sustainable service or prod-
uct of a commercial enterprise (see, e.g., Rex et al., 2015; Alcañiz et al., 2010), our study demon-
strates that the TPB can also aid in predicting the potential customer's decision to support a
specific (social enterprise) organization as a whole, if the organization's communication is per-
ceived as credible. In this context, it is particularly interesting to consider the different weights
of the three components of the TPB and their interrelations. In a recent study, La Barbera and
Ajzen (2020) challenged the common interpretation of the TPB that attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control are independent predictors of intention. Using three experi-
ments, they showed that perceived behavioral control influences both attitude and subjective
norm, however, in different directions. Although perceived behavioral control strengthened the
individual's attitude to perform a certain behavior, it weakened the subjective norm. The
authors explained this finding as due to the lower degree of susceptibility toward social pressure
among subjects with a high level of perceived control.
However, our analyses revealed that message credibility has a positive influence on both
attitudes and subjective norm. In other words, high message credibility seems to strengthen the
influence of social pressure on an individual, irrespective of his or her perceived behavioral con-
trol. High SE message credibility seems to reinforce some sort of social obligation to behave in a
certain way (e.g., to purchase an SE's products or services) and an individual's desire to comply
with perceived expectations of significant others appears to increase with message credibility.
Our results are supported by Han and Hansen (2012), who, across several studies, found that
attitude and subjective norm accounted for a much larger proportion of the variance in inten-
tion than perceived behavioral control. These findings suggest a strong effect of message credi-
bility and challenge the conclusions of La Barbera and Ajzen (2020). Moreover, since attitude
and subjective norm are affected more strongly by SE message credibility within the framework
of our study, Han and Hansen's (2012) findings underline the importance of credible SE com-
munication. Our study contributes to the TPB by specifically investigating the role of credibility
in marketing and communication, and how it influences the potential customer's intention to
purchase SE products (Ganz & Grimes, 2018; Jaeger & Weber, 2020). While Jaeger and Weber
(2020) claim that credibility is highly, and maybe even more, important for sustainability-
oriented organizations (e.g., organizations that sell “green” products; SE), Ganz and Grimes
(2018) argue that “the question of how to reduce consumer skepticism towards green claims is
of central importance” (p. 4).
Practitioners can benefit from our findings by (re-)considering the content of their commu-
nication strategies and actively enhancing their credibility. As mentioned above, the SCT
(Hovland & Weiss, 1951) suggests that expertise and trustworthiness are the most relevant fac-
tors for message credibility, both of which can easily be enhanced by SEs. In terms of levels of
expertise, we suggest that social entrepreneurs directly mention their expertise, potentially
backed with relevant personal or professional background information (e.g., experience in the
16 BECKER ET AL.
field or related education programs). With regard to trustworthiness, SEs may benefit from
communicating customer ratings or participating in certification programs such as B-Corps
(see, e.g., Cooper & Weber, 2021).
4.2 | Limitations and suggestions for future research
This study had some limitations. First, because of their knowledge and familiarity with the
structures and offerings of SEs, we consider business students as qualified to draw inferences
about the population concerned. However, the use of an internet-based convenience sample
restricts the generalizability of the results, and future research could replicate this work by con-
sidering a sample of active society members who are regular customers and supporters of SEs
and thus capture the behavioral patterns in their responses to SE communication. In addition, a
future experimental design could consider variables such as prior donation experience, amount
and frequency of donations, or regular hours of volunteering to further discuss the relationships
between different forms of supportive behavior toward SEs such as purchasing SE products
compared to volunteering for or donating to SEs.
Second, we did not aim to understand actual support behavior toward SEs, but rather to
identify credibility as an important factor of support intention. Future research, however, may
benefit from investigating whether the credibility of an SE's communication message ultimately
serves as a tool to enhance stakeholders' support behavior, in the form of donations or
crowdfunding investments, volunteer work, or purchase behavior. Moreover, future research
could also benefit from a deeper understanding of the underlying indirect and/or interacting
effects within our model or an expanded model.
Finally, for our experiment we created a fictitious SE brand and a fictitious communication
message with manipulations of organizational source credibility. Although this experimental
setting helped us to reduce biases regarding potential attitudes and behaviors toward actual
SEs, the experimental results of this fictitious case need not be overstated. Thus, we encourage
further investigations with actual existing SEs and communication messages.
5 | C ON C L U S I ON
Effective communication is a highly relevant topic for SEs, considering their limited financial
resources and dependency on customers to support the business by purchasing their products.
Drawing on the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and SCT (Hovland & Weiss, 1951), we investigated the role
of message credibility on potential customers' purchase behavior. Findings of a between-
subjects online experiment showed that high message credibility in an SE's communication, in
the form of high levels of expertise and trustworthiness, improves a potential customer's atti-
tude toward the organization, their perception of social pressure, and the perceived influence of
their behavior. Ultimately, we found that a highly credible message is likely to increase poten-
tial customers' intention to support an SE, making the effective communication of organiza-
tional expertise and trustworthiness an effective tool for SEs' marketing endeavors.
A C K N O WL E D G E M E N T
Open access funding provided by Hochschule Luzern.
BECKER ET AL. 17
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors are aware of no financial or commercial interest in the manufacture or distribution
of the product, including any corporate funding or affiliations.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Annika Becker https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-6114
Carolin J. Waldner https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7838-8066
Stefan Trautwein https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2464-819X
R EF E RE N C E S
Addae, A. E. (2018). Pathways to sector selection: A conceptual framework for social enterprises. Nonprofit Man-
agement & Leadership, 28(3), 349–365.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–
1127.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Alcañiz, E. B., Caceres, R. C., & Pérez, R. C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of
company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169–186.
Alter, K. (2007). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC, 12(1), 1–124.
Andersson, F. O., & Self, W. (2015). The social-entrepreneurship advantage: An experimental study of social
entrepreneurship and perceptions of nonprofit effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2718–2732.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
Asgari Ghods, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial marketing: the missing link in social enterprise studies. Journal of
Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 1–12.
Ashoka & McKinsey. (2019). From small to systemic - the multibillion-euro potential in social innovations,
Retrieved October 09, 2020 from https://www.mckinsey.de/publika-tionen/2019-03-14—ashoka-wenn-aus-
klein-systemisch-wird
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei–Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or
both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Bandyopadhyay, C., & Ray, S. (2020). Social enterprise marketing: Review of literature and future research
agenda. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(1), 121–135.
Battilana, J. (2018). Cracking the organizational challenge of pursuing joint social and financial goals: Social
enterprise as a laboratory to understand hybrid organizing. M@n@gement, 21(4), 1278–1305.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources.
The Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563–576.
Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2001). The emergence of social enterprise (Vol. 4). Routledge.
Bradford, A., Luke, B., & Furneaux, C. (2018). Social enterprise accountability: Directions, dominance and devel-
opments. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(2), 156–179.
Bünzli, F., & Eppler, M. J. (2019). Strategizing for social change in nonprofit contexts: A typology of communica-
tion approaches in public communication campaigns. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 29(4), 491–508.
Chen, M. F. (2020). The impacts of perceived moral obligation and sustainability self-identity on sustainability
development: A theory of planned behavior purchase intention model of sustainability-labeled coffee and
the moderating effect of climate change skepticism. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2404–
2417.
18 BECKER ET AL.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new
avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.
Connolly, C., & Kelly, M. (2011). Understanding accountability in social enterprise organisations: A framework.
Social Enterprise Journal, 7(3), 224–237.
Cooper, L. A., & Weber, J. (2021). Does benefit corporation status matter to investors? An exploratory study of
investor perceptions and decisions. Business & Society, 60(4), 979–1008.
Cornelissen, J. P., Akemu, O., Jonkman, J. G., & Werner, M. D. (2021). Building character: The formation of a
hybrid organizational identity in a social enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1294–1330.
Croson, R., Handy, F., & Shang, J. (2009). Keeping up with the joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive
social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(4), 467–489.
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.
Davies, J., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the intention–behaviour mythology: An integrated model
of recycling. Marketing Theory, 2(1), 29–113.
De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. A. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived
quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4),
361–380.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountabil-
ity challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.
Edelman (2021). Edelman trust barometer global report. Retrieved July 05, 2021 from: https://www.edelman.de/
sites/g/files/aatuss401/files/2021-02/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report.pdf
Eisend, M. (2004). Is it still worth to be credible? A meta-analysis of temporal patterns of source credibility effects
in marketing. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 352–357). Associ-
ation for Consumer Research.
Eisend, M. (2006). Source credibility dimensions in marketing communication–a generalized solution. Journal of
Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 10(2), 1–33.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4),
291–314.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for
correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to
engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 318–326.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Ganz, B., & Grimes, A. (2018). How claim specificity can improve claim credibility in green advertising: Mea-
sures that can boost outcomes from environmental product claims. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(4),
476–486.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities per-
spective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
Guercini, S. (2019). Heuristics as tales from the field: The problem of scope. Mind & Society, 18(2), 191–205.
Guercini, S., La Rocca, A., Runfola, A., & Snehota, I. (2015). Heuristics in customer-supplier interaction. Indus-
trial Marketing Management, 48, 26–37.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2005). First-and higher-order models of attitudes, normative influence,
and perceived behavioural control in the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology,
44(4), 513–535.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Han, Y., & Hansen, H. (2012). Determinants of sustainable food consumption: A meta-analysis using a tradi-
tional and a structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(1),
22–45.
Handy, F., & Katz, E. (1998). The wage differential between nonprofit institutions and corporations: Getting
more by paying less? Journal of Comparative Economics, 26(2), 246–261.
Hati, S. R. H., & Idris, A. (2019). The role of leader vs organisational credibility in Islamic social enterprise mar-
keting communication. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(4), 1128–1150.
BECKER ET AL. 19
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650.
Hsu, D. K., Simmons, S. A., & Wieland, A. M. (2017). Designing entrepreneurship experiments: A review, typol-
ogy, and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 379–412.
Jaeger, A. K., & Weber, A. (2020). Can you believe it? The effects of benefit type versus construal level on adver-
tisement credibility and purchase intention for organic food. Journal of Cleaner Production, 257, 120543.
Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the dif-
ferences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246–262.
Koschate-Fischer, N., & Schandelmeier, S. (2014). A guideline for designing experimental studies in marketing
research and a critical discussion of selected problem areas. Journal of Business Economics, 84(6), 793–826.
La Barbera, F., & Ajzen, I. (2020). Control interactions in the theory of planned behavior: Rethinking the role of
subjective norm. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 401–417.
Lee, Y. J., Won, D., & Bang, H. (2014). Why do event volunteers return? Theory of planned behavior. Interna-
tional Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 11(3), 229–241.
Lowry, P. B., Wilson, D. W., & Haig, W. L. (2014). A picture is worth a thousand words: Source credibility theory
applied to logo and website design for heightened credibility and consumer trust. International Journal of
Human Computer Interaction, 30(1), 63–93.
Mitchell, A., Madill, J., & Chreim, S. (2016). Social enterprise dualities: Implications for social marketing. Journal
of Social Marketing, 6(2), 169–192.
Mook, L., Chan, A., & Kershaw, D. (2015). Measuring social enterprise value creation: The case of furniture
bank. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 26(2), 189–207.
Newbert, S. L. (2012). Marketing amid the uncertainty of the social sector: Do social entrepreneurs follow best
marketing practices. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 75–90.
Nicholls, A. (2013). Heroes. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 109–112.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise,
trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Pinheiro, P., Daniel, A., & Moreira, A. (2021). Social enterprise performance: The role of market and social entre-
preneurship orientations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(1),
45–60.
Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are con-
sumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285–301.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2006). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.
Rex, J., Lobo, A., & Leckie, C. (2015). Evaluating the drivers of sustainable behavioral intentions: An application
and extension of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(3),
263–284.
Roundy, P. (2014). Doing good by telling stories: Emotion in social entrepreneurship communication. Journal of
Small Business Strategy, 24(2), 41–68.
Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future prom-
ises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95.
Sastre-Castillo, M. A., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Danvila-Del Valle, I. (2015). What is different about the profile of the
social entrepreneur? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(4), 349–369.
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. influencer endorsements in advertising: The
role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2),
258–281.
Shaw, E. (2004). Marketing in the social enterprise context: Is it entrepreneurial? Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, 7(3), 194–205.
Sievert, H. (2011). Communicating social entrepreneurship: A seemingly impossible task, and how it can still
succeed. In H. Hackenberg & S. Empter (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship - Social Business: Für die Gesellschaft
unternehmen. VS Verlag.
Smith, B. R., Cronley, M. L., & Barr, T. F. (2012). Funding implications of social enterprise: The role of mission
consistency, entrepreneurial competence, and attitude toward social enterprise on donor behavior. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 142–157.
20 BECKER ET AL.
Taufique, K. M. R., & Vaithianathan, S. (2018). A fresh look at understanding green consumer behavior among
young urban Indian consumers through the lens of theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 183, 46–55.
Waldner, C. J. (2020). In the centre of attention: How social entrepreneurs influence organisational reputation.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2020.
1823456
Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes
influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(2), 299–309.
Willems, J., Waldner, C. J., Dere, Y. I., Matsuo, Y., & Hogy, K. (2017). The role of formal third-party endorse-
ments and informal self-proclaiming signals in nonprofit reputation building. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 46(5), 1092–1105.
Yoon, K., Kim, C. H., & Kim, M. S. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of the effects of source credibility on atti-
tudes and behavioral intentions. Mass Communication and Society, 1(3–4), 153–173.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Annika Becker is a researcher and lecturer at the School of Business at Lucerne University
of Applied Sciences and Arts. Her research interests include management of nonprofit orga-
nizations and social enterprises, and transformative service research. Her work is published
in a number of journals including Journal of Service Research, Nonprofit Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Mar-
keting, among others.
Carolin Waldner is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the Institute of Sustainability
Management at Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf and Düsseldorf Business School. Her
research focuses on social entrepreneurship, particularly reputation management, organiza-
tional paradoxes, and entrepreneurial solutions for sustainability in the Global South. Her
work is published in several peer-reviewed journals, including for example Decision Support
Systems, Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, and
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.
Laura Joanna Nitsch holds a Master of Science in Business Administration - Public and
Non-Profit Management. Currently, she completes an apprenticeship for higher lectureship
for the subjects business administration and macroeconomics at the department for training
and further education of teachers in Freiburg.
Stefan Trautwein holds a PhD in business administration from the University of Freiburg.
He lectured at the University of Education in Freiburg, and currently works at the Adminis-
trative Special-Purpose Association of the Protestant Church in Emmendingen, Germany.
His research addresses ethical consumption, prosocial and culturally specific consumer
behavior, nonprofit and environmental marketing, and innovation acceptance. Stefan has
published articles in a number of journals including Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-
terly, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Journal for Public
and Nonprofit Services, Journal of Service Management Research, among others.
BECKER ET AL. 21
How to cite this article: Becker, A., Waldner, C. J., Nitsch, L. J., & Trautwein, S. (2022).
Communicating social value: An experimental study on credible communication and
social enterprises. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nml.21529
A P P END I X A : INFORMATION ON THE FICTITIOUS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

AND EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION
Droplets of Hope
Droplets of Hope is a social enterprise operating nationwide. By producing fair and climate-neutral stainless
steel flasks, Droplets of Hope is committed to producing fewer plastic bottles and thus avoiding a lot of
plastic waste. From the proceeds of each bottle, 50% goes to holistically designed WASH projects
(WASH = Water Access, Sanitation and Hygiene). WASH projects aim to meet basic human needs for
access to clean drinking water, the opportunity for adequate personal hygiene and hygienic living
conditions.
• Droplets of Hope's employees [are experts in; have the usual market expertise in; are newcomers to] their
respective fields.
• Droplets of Hope collaborates with [highly qualified experts for WASH projects; WASH projects that have
the market standard expertise; newly established WASH projects].
• Droplets of Hope achieved an average score of [98; 68; 28] out of 100 in a nationwide rating on customer
trust.
22 BECKER ET AL.
A P P END I X B: INDICATORS
LV MV M SD Skew Kurt λ
Trust TR (Ohanian, 1990)
The social enterprise Droplets of Hope is…
… dishonest – honest 4.700 1.548 0.621 0.224 0.886
… insincere – sincere 4.731 1.603 0.546 0.433 0.914
… untrustworthy – trustworthy 4.527 1.795 0.583 0.556 0.974
Expertise EX (Ohanian, 1990)
The employees of the social enterprise Droplets of Hope are…
… not experts – experts 4.288 2.045 0.242 1.170 0.879
… inexperienced – experienced 4.100 1.951 0.145 1.117 0.859
… unknowledgeable – knowledgeable 4.508 1.802 0.475 0.801 0.913
… unqualified – qualified 4.546 1.630 0.460 0.495 0.955
… unskilled – skilled 4.608 1.639 0.444 0.478 0.946
Attitude ATT (Fielding et al., 2008)
I think that buying a fair trade product from the social enterprise Droplets of Hope is…
… bad – good 5.469 1.705 1.092 0.053 0.929
… foolish – wise 5.138 1.763 0.907 0.141 0.911
… unpleasant – pleasant 5.073 1.694 0.945 0.071 0.919
… unsatisfying – satisfying 5.088 1.754 0.936 0.057 0.926
Subjective norms SN (Fielding et al., 2008)
If I got involved with the social enterprise Droplets of Hope 5.077 1.682 0.893 0.071 0.924
people who are important to me would… (completely
disapprove – completely approve)
Most people who are important to me think that supporting 5.038 1.683 0.938 0.111 0.946
the social enterprise Droplets of Hope is… (completely
undesirable – completely desirable)
Most people who are important to me think that… (I should 4.627 1.752 0.472 0.661 0.903
not – I should)… support the social enterprise Droplets of
Hope
Perceived behavioral control PBC (Fielding et al., 2008)
How much control do you have over whether you support 5.054 1.874 0.803 0.477 0.808
social enterprises like Droplets of Hope? (Very little
control – a great deal of control)
For me to support social enterprises like Droplets of Hope 4.481 1.645 0.411 0.557 0.907
is… (very difficult – very easy)
If I wanted to I could easily support social enterprises like 4.862 1.802 0.657 0.472 0.902
Droplets of Hope (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
It is mostly up to me whether I engage with social 5.408 1.829 1.193 0.290 0.790
enterprises like Droplets of Hope (Strongly disagree –
strongly agree)
BECKER ET AL. 23
LV MV M SD Skew Kurt λ
How difficult would it be for you to support social 4.765 1.729 0.576 0.611 0.917
enterprises like Droplets of Hope? (Very difficult – very
easy)
Intention IN (Fielding et al., 2008)
I intend to support the social enterprise Droplets of Hope 3.596 1.812 0.157 0.969 0.943
by purchasing one of its products during the next
6 months (Extremely unlikely – extremely likely)
Do you intend to support the social enterprise Droplets of 3.746 1.928 0.111 1.164 0.916
Hope by purchasing one of its products in the next six
months? (I definitely intend not to – I definitely
intend to)
I… (do not intend – do intend)… to support the social 3.450 1.823 0.293 0.913 0.945
enterprise Droplets of Hope by purchasing one of its
products over the next 6 months
(General) attitude toward social enterprises ATTSE (Webb et al., 2000)
How much do you agree with the following statements? (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
The money given to social enterprises goes for good causes 5.715 0.940 1.398 3.768 0.599
My image of social enterprises is positive 5.662 1.025 0.930 1.096 0.767
Social enterprises have been quite successful in helping the 5.342 1.022 1.295 2.939 0.743
needy
Social enterprises perform a useful function for society 5.923 0.848 0.770 .992 0.677
Fair trade skepticism FTSC (De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007)
How much do you agree with the following statements? (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
Fair trade is too much like charity: Purchasing fair trade 5.015 1.632 0.605 0.824 0.751
products does not solve anything in the long run. It just
eases your conscience (R)
Fair trade products lack credibility (R) 5.496 1.371 1.074 0.269 0.703
Fair trade makes me think of a colonial attitude by means 5.681 1.371 1.122 0.428 0.633
of which we impose our norms to others (R)
Abbreviations: Kurt, kurtosis; LV, latent variable; M, mean; MV, manifest variable; R,
reverse scored; SD, standard deviation; Skew, skewness; λ, standardized factor loading.

Becker Et Al. - Communicating Social Value-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Becker Et Al. - Communicating Social Value-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Becker Et Al. - Communicating Social Value-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15427854, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21529 by Hochschule Luzern, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2022].

Communicating social value:

Annika Becker1 | Carolin J. Waldner2 | Laura J. Nitsch3 |

Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2022;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml 1

2 | THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 | Definition of SEs

2.2 | Communication of SEs

2.3 | Organizational credibility

Organizational credibility plays a major role in business marketing and communication

2.4 | Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Based on previous research on SE communication, we developed a conceptual framework that

2.4.2 | Subjective norm

2.4.3 | Perceived behavioral control

3.1 | Procedure and research design

3.2 | Manipulation check

3.3 | Data collection and methodological aspects

Condition 3: Condition 2: Condition 1:

3.4 | Reliability and validity

T A B L E 2 Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity

Factor M SD α CR AVE MSV F/L ξ1 ξ2 ξ3 ξ4 ξ5 ξ6 ξ7 ξ8

T A B L E 3 Group-specific mean scores among the experimental conditions

4.1 | Research and managerial implications

support intention. Moreover, it serves as a mechanism to strengthen the SE's accountability

4.2 | Limitations and suggestions for future research

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

A P P END I X A : INFORMATION ON THE FICTITIOUS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR

You might also like