Received: 31 January 2018 Revised: 1 September 2018 Accepted: 16 September 2018

DOI: 10.1002/csr.1690

RESEARCH ARTICLE

What makes consumers respond to creating shared value

strategy? Considering consumers as stakeholders in
sustainable development
Su‐Jung Nam1 | Hyesun Hwang2

1
Department of Home Economics Education,
College of Education, Jeonju University, Abstract
Jeonju, Republic of Korea Creating shared value is a strategic approach for sustainable development connected
2
Department of Consumer and Family
to social value that moves away from a corporation's profit and competition‐oriented
Sciences, College of Social Sciences,
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of strategies. This study examines consumers' responses, including attitudes and inten-
Korea
tions to participate in a strategy creating shared value by applying the persuasion
Correspondence
Hyesun Hwang, Department of Consumer and
knowledge model. Results reveal that consumers formed positive attitudes mainly
Family Sciences, College of Social Sciences, through persuasive knowledge, which led to higher intentions to participate in creat-
Sungkyunkwan University, Sungkyunkwan‐ro
25‐2, Jongno‐gu, Seoul, South Korea.
ing the shared value strategy. This study also provides evidence for the role of
Email: h.hwang@skku.edu consumers' propensity for socially responsible consumption, and intentions became
stronger when consumers had a strong propensity for socially responsible consump-
tion. This study elaborates on the discussion around corporations' strategies for
achieving a sustainable society through social‐centric corporate strategies that can
be developed by reconciling corporate and consumer morality in the marketplace.

KEY W ORDS

corporate social responsibility, creating shared value, persuasion knowledge model, socially
responsible consumption, sustainable development

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N long‐term profitability and competitiveness (Vidal, Kozak, & Hansen,

Companies and governments traditionally take an exclusive position
with a clear distinction of priorities (i.e., profit and public interest).
However, the recent global economic crisis and severe polarization
have led to a revelation that the market has limits. Due to economic,
environmental, and social changes, traditional government interven-
tion alone has failed to solve multiple market problems efficiently.
These market and government failures have emphasized the necessity
for “mass capitalism,” which creates a social atmosphere that values
the realization of social value, breaking away from selfish management
practices (Kaletsky, 2011).
Shifting the paradigm of business strategy from solely profit
driven to social value orientation stems from the perspective of the
corporations' social role in our society, which is effected through
corporate social responsibility (CSR). Corporations have tried to share
and redistribute a portion of their profit while integrating their corpo-
rate responsibility practices into their business strategies to achieve
2015). However, studies have criticized traditional CSR strategies in
two respects (Campbell, 2006; Moon, Parc, Yim, & Park, 2011). They
consider CSR strategies as activities that ultimately only return a
portion of corporate profits to the larger society. These fragmented
CSR practices might be less relevant to the business (Aravossis &
Pavlopoulou, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011). In addition, the efficacy
of a CSR strategy is significantly affected by corporate profit and loss;
hence, business persistency might not always be guaranteed. In this
sense, some scholars have emphasized that firms strive to increase
their competitiveness while they respond to social needs, which is
crystallized as a strategic CSR approach for sustainability (Lii, Wu, &
Ding, 2013; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). However, this instrumental
approach focuses mostly on gaining competitive advantages by
improving reputation or repositioning companies. Therefore, the
approach may be less related to the business and even unconnected
or only partially related to the companies' own value creation (Porter
& Kramer, 2019).

Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2018;1–8. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 NAM AND HWANG
In line with this, Porter and Kramer (2011) introduced the concept
of creating shared value (CSV). Although traditional CSR strategies
have focused on sharing corporate profits through redistribution of a
portion of a company's income, CSV is a paradigm shift that suggests
companies should positively affect social change through innovation
and expanding total economic and social value. Unlike CSR, CSV
expands sales and profits through socially contributory activities,
which is the main difference between them. Thus, CSV is considered
as a more sustainable manner to achieve corporations' socially respon-
sible strategy by expanding the totality of social value. Yet current
works on CSV have merely made propositions based on CSV concep-
tual characteristics or proposed strategic directions for companies
(Florin & Schmidt, 2011; Pfitzer, Bockstette, & Stamp, 2013).
The present study attempts to examine what makes consumers
respond to the CSV strategy. To be an effective, sustainable strategy,
it is essential to derive consumer responses based on their judgment
of the legitimacy of the strategy (Cheon, Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2014). As
CSV is one of the business strategies that appeals to consumers, we
need to examine how the strategy persuades them to support it with
their choice in the marketplace. Furthermore, CSV strategy involves
other stakeholders in the process of value creation, which requires
consumers' participation to implement. Thus, how consumers perceive
the legitimacy of the CSV strategy is critical to increasing their
involvement in the CSV practices. This study investigates how
consumers perceive the legitimacy of the strategy and what aspects
of the strategy need to be considered to increase their intention to
participate. The present study attempts to expand the discussion on
corporations' value creation strategies that can be developed by
reconciling corporate and consumer ethics in the marketplace.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 | Creating shared value
CSV is a concept, related to a new administration paradigm that is in
high demand, for resolving existing capitalist problems. Studies define
shared value as corporate activities that simultaneously pursue profits
while also creating social value, which improve not only a company's
competitiveness but also society's economic and social conditions
(Chatterjee, 2012; Porter & Kramer, 2011). In this sense, CSV is a
new type of capitalism that achieves efficiency by connecting
corporate success to social development, expanding the market,
differentiating other companies, and providing new value to the
market (Porter & Kramer, 2011).
The meaning of shared value itself refers to value for various
stakeholders in a society. Thus, the core concept of CSV postulates
that corporations are not merely economic agents but also socially
responsible entities that interrelate with multiple stakeholders in the
society (Driver, 2012; Fearne, Garcia, & Dent, 2012). The concept of
CSV has been criticized because of its similarity to existing business
strategies such as CSR (Corazza, Scagnelli, & Mio, 2017; Crane,
Palazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014). Because CSV suggests changing
corporate behavior to create shared value by encompassing not only
organizational but also social needs, we might view the expected
corporate behavior as corporate philanthropy or ethical practices.
Therefore, we might consider CSV as a new way to achieve
CSR‐related concepts (Corazza et al., 2017).
In spite of this criticism, what makes CSV different from conven-
tional CSR practices is how corporations respond to social needs. CSV
urges corporations to take the initiative in generating societal and
economic value for both the company and the whole society by
expanding conventional CSR practices (Aravossis & Pavlopoulou,
2013). Although CSR practices are based on the redistribution of
corporate profit, CSV emphasizes that current and future societal
needs have to be addressed by reconstructing the corporate value
chain in the first place (Porter & Kramer, 2011).
As the inherent self‐interested nature of corporations and their
fundamental and primary role as economic agents in the market
system may cancel out the momentum of their purposeful practices
to create shared value, corporations cannot pursue CSV practices as
business strategies unless they secure improved profitability (Crane
et al., 2014). Thus, scholars propose CSV strategies from the organiza-
tional perspective that intensify companies' core competitiveness such
as an increase in firm value or financial value (Dembek, Singh, &
Bhakoo, 2016; Pirson, 2012). As this organizational progress is part
of social progress, which affects human well‐being, CSV strategies
propose an integrated societal well‐being by advancing social and
organizational well‐being (Korhonen, 2013).
On the premise that the profits from the relationship between
corporate performance and consumers are not to be divided dichoto-
mously, CSV strategies consider these relationships as a driving force
to achieving ultimate social development and economic efficiency.
Thus, a CSV strategy is based on the awareness that corporate success
and social and community prosperity are closely connected and inter-
dependent. In this sense, this study focuses on consumers' responses
to corporations' CSV practices, which are directly connected to the
outcome of business strategies.
2.2 | Persuasion knowledge model
The persuasion knowledge model (PKM), suggested by Fristed and
Wright (1999), examines the influence of a consumer's knowledge
when dealing with a persuasion attempt.
2.2.1 | PKM constructs
PKM has a schema‐like function in the assumption that a message
receiver should have agent knowledge, topic knowledge, and persuasion
knowledge, which means that the perception level of persuasion tactics
and persuasive efficacy depends on the degree of such knowledge.
Agent knowledge refers to a belief in the characteristics or finan-
cial capability of a persuader (e.g., advertiser or salesperson). Previous
studies suggested that message receivers have a positive attitude and
prefer the message more when the agent is a non‐profit, rather than a
profitable, organization (Kim, 2005; Skzyman, Bloom, & Blazing, 2004).
Topic knowledge refers to a consumer's awareness and understanding
of the product, service, or basic message details. Consumers' knowl-
edge affects their responses to persuasion attempts and differentiates
persuasion efficacy (Hardesrty, Bearden, & Carlson, 2007). Persuasion
knowledge consists of beliefs about psychological mediators,
NAM AND HWANG
marketers' tactics, one's own coping tactics, the effectiveness and
appropriateness of marketer's tactics, marketer's persuasion goals,
and one's own coping goals. Williams, Fitzsimons, and Block (2004)
and Kirmani and Zhu (2007) observed that persuasive effectiveness
was lower for a group that was aware of the persuader's intentions
when compared with an unaware group.
Previous studies have highlighted the role of persuasion knowl-
edge to understand consumer acceptance of business strategy or
tactics (Cho & Kim, 2011; Kim, 2005; Skzyman et al., 2004). This study
instead takes a holistic view of consumers' acceptance of persuasive
messages as originally proposed by PKM, with agent and topic knowl-
edge. If they agree with the relevance of the operating agent (agent
knowledge) and if they understand and perceive the feasibility of
CSV strategy (topic knowledge), then they may have a positive atti-
tude toward the persuasive messages. Previous research found that
consumer skepticism, triggered by the short history of CSR, forms
negative perceptions of the company, its products, and its integrity
(Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). In addition, if consumers have ques-
tions about hidden intentions to persuade, the effect may not occur
(Campbell & Kirmani, 2000).
PKM provides a comprehensive picture of how consumers under-
stand the intent of the persuasion process and how they would
behave according to the persuasion efforts (Cho & Kim, 2011). PKM
has been applied to studies that investigate consumer attitude and
behavioral intention toward public services and CSR campaigns and
has been verified its validity (Cho & Kim, 2011; Kim, 2005; Skzyman
et al., 2004). This study attempts to address the following hypotheses
to examine the influences of agent knowledge, topic knowledge, and
persuasion knowledge on consumer attitudes and CSV participation
intentions.
Hypothesis 1a. A consumer who has a high level of
agent knowledge will have a more positive attitude
toward the CSV practice.
Hypothesis 1b. A consumer who has a high level of
topic knowledge will have a more positive attitude
toward the CSV practice.
Hypothesis 1c. A consumer who has a high level of per-
suasion knowledge will have a more positive attitude
toward the CSV practice.
Hypothesis 2. A consumer who has a more positive
attitude toward a company's CSV practice will have a
greater intention to participate in the CSV practice.
2.3 | Consumers' propensity for social responsibility
The CSV strategy is closely related to the consumers' propensity for
social responsibility. Previous studies indicate that a socially account-
able group demands corporate social responsibility, with a focus on
consumer economics, stability, the environment, and human rights
(Seo & Jeon, 2011). According to Park and Byun (2012), a company's
social responsibility activities have a positive effect on consumer's cor-
porate evaluation. Consumers who are engaged in several socially
responsible activities will positively evaluate a company's social
3
responsibility activities. Additionally, consumers who believe that
companies are socially responsible show a greater intention to pur-
chase products from those companies (Mohr & Webb, 2005). Thus,
consumers' propensity for social responsibility can have a moderating
effect on how consumers accept and evaluate CSV. The present study
also examined the moderating effect of consumers' propensities for
social responsibility by applying the PKM to a CSV tactic. This led to
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a. The relationship between agent knowl-
edge and consumer attitudes toward a company's CSV
practice will be stronger when consumers have a greater
propensity for socially responsible consumption.
Hypothesis 3b. The relationship between topic knowl-
edge and consumer attitudes toward a company's CSV
practice will be stronger when consumers have a greater
propensity for socially responsible consumption.
Hypothesis 3c. The relationship between persuasion
knowledge and consumer attitudes toward a company's
CSV practice will be stronger when consumers have a
greater propensity for socially responsible consumption.
Hypothesis 3d. The relationship between consumer
attitudes toward a company's CSV practice and their
intention to participate in the company's CSV practice
will be stronger when they have a greater propensity for
socially responsible consumption.
3 | METHOD
3.1 | Procedure and measures
We used a self‐report questionnaire to measure consumers' knowl-
edge and responses to the CSV strategy of a well‐known company
in Korea. First, we introduced participants to CSV concepts and then
provided them with an example of a company's ongoing CSV practices
through an unbiased newspaper report. We adapted a newspaper
report for this study from a previous newspaper story about the
company's ongoing CSV practices. The selected company had experi-
ence executing CSV practices and was chosen as a “world‐changing
company to watch” by Fortune magazine (Heimer, Fry, & Chew, 2016).
3.1.1 | PKM constructs
We measured agent knowledge by assessing consumers' beliefs about
the selected company's CSV strategy characteristics or capabilities.
Based on Porter and Kramer's (2011) study, three items (AK1–AK3)
were generated (e.g., “This company executes a lot of social contribu-
tions”). Topic knowledge was assessed with five items (TK1–TK5)
measuring the extent of consumers' understanding of issues related
to the feasibility of CSV strategies (e.g., “Finding profitable solutions
to social problems”). To measure persuasion knowledge, three items
(PK1–PK3) were adapted from Becker‐Olsen, Cudmore, and Hill
(2006) and Yoon, Gürhan‐Canli, and Schwarz (2006) to evaluate the
extent to which the company's CSV activity seemed to be authentic
4 NAM AND HWANG

(e.g., “This company's CSV activity has authenticity”). All variables 4 | RESULTS
were measured on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 7 = perfectly).

4.1 | Measurement validity

3.1.2 | Consumer responses
Consumer responses were measured based on their attitudes toward
the CSV strategy and intentions to participate in the strategy. Three
items (CA1–CA3) were generated to measure consumer attitudes
based on previous research (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Stanaland, Lwin,
& Murphy, 2011). Consumers' intentions were measured with three
items (IP1–IP3) based on previous research assessing consumers' par-
ticipation in CSR activities and consumers' behavioral intentions
according to corporation legitimacy (Shim & Lee, 2014; Stanaland
et al., 2011). All variables were measured on a 7‐point Likert scale
(1 = not at all to 7 = perfectly).
3.1.3 | Propensity for socially responsible
consumption
Participants completed 17 items adapted from a scale of socially
responsible consumption (Webb, Mohr, & Harris, 2008). Participants
responded to the questions assessing attitudes toward CSR reflecting
their consumer and environmental behaviors using a 7‐point Likert
scale (1 = not at all to 7 = perfectly).
3.2 | Participants
Participants were Korean consumers registered for a panel as part of a
professional market research organization. An online questionnaire
was sent to panel members who accepted the email invitation to par-
ticipate. The response rate of valid answers was 53% resulting in a
sample size of 300. To avoid bias, we recruited respondents only if
they and their family members were not working in the company
selected as a case for this study. As shown in Table 1, 50.3 and
49.7% of respondents were men and women, respectively. Of the
respondents, 26.0% were in their 20s, 24.0% in their 30s, 24.7% in
their 40s, and 25.3% were over 50 years of age. Regarding education
level, 72.3% were college graduates or more. With regard to income,
34.4% of the respondents earned between 2 million and 3.99 million
KRW, and 32.0% earned between 4 million and 5.99 million KRW.
TABLE 1 Description of the respondents
Frequency
Variables (%)
Gender Male 151 (50.3)
Female 149 (49.7)
To validate the scales, we performed item‐total correlations and a con-
firmatory factor analysis as shown in Table 2. Results of the item–total
correlations show acceptable scale reliability; Cronbach's αs for each
measure was all above 0.87. The PKM for the CSV strategy fits the
data well as follows: χ2 = 219.63, df = 109, p = 0.000, confirmatory
factor analysis (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.06, 90% confidence interval (CI) [0.05, 0.07]. Composite
reliability was acceptable, ranging from 0.84 to 0.89. We calculated
the average variance extracted (AVE), and the AVEs of all constructs
were greater than 0.50, providing further indication of convergent
validity. Additionally, we conducted a discriminant validity test,
suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981); all AVEs were greater than
the estimates of the squared correlation between constructs, which
confirmed discriminant validity (see Table 3).
4.2 | Verification of the structural model
To test our hypotheses, we performed structural equation modeling
using the AMOS 20.0. Results revealed mediocre fit to the data
(χ2 = 294.99, df = 112, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07, 90%
CI [0.06, 0.08]). According to suggested modification indices, we
added a direct path from agent knowledge to intention to participate
in the CSV practice. The effect of this path seemed reasonable
because previous research observed a positive relationship between
consumer knowledge and behavioral intentions (Laroche, Kim, & Zhou,
1996). This positive relationship is based on brand familiarity, which
can be regarded as a relevant agent knowledge construct (Campbell
& Kirmani, 2008). The model fit indices of the revised model are as fol-
lows: χ2 = 242.38, df = 111, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06
[0.05, 0.07]. When compared with the original model, the χ2 increase
was significant.
4.3 | Hypothesis testing
All hypotheses were verified, except for 1a (Table 4). Agent knowledge
negatively affected consumer attitudes towards the company's CSV
practice (β = −0.24, p < 0.01). Topic knowledge (β = 0.14, p < 0.01)
and persuasion knowledge (β = 0.89, p < 0.001) had significant effects
on consumer attitudes. In addition, agent knowledge had a strong and
positive effect on participation intention (β = 0.40, p < 0.001). Con-
sumer attitudes had a significant effect on the intention to participate

Age 20s 78 (26.0) in the CSV practice (β = 0.49, p < 0.001). Therefore, 2 was supported.
30s 72 (24.0) Approximately 62% of the variance in consumer attitudes and 58% of
40s 74 (24.7)
the variance in participation intentions was explained by the predictor
Over 50 76 (25.3)
variables.
Education High school or 83 (27.7)
less
College or 217 (72.3)
higher 4.4 | Moderating effect of consumers' propensity for
Monthly household income, unit = 1,000 Less than 2000 31 (10.3) socially responsible consumption
KRWa 2,000–3,999 103 (34.4)
4,000–5,999 96 (32.0) We performed a multigroup analysis to test a possible moderating
6,000 and more 70 (23.3)
effect of consumers' propensity for socially responsible consumption
a
KRW 1,000 = USD 0.88. on consumer attitudes and intentions to participate in the CSV
NAM AND HWANG 5

TABLE 2 Confirmatory factor analysis TABLE 4 Path coefficients of the full structural model

Standardized Standardized
factor Composite Path coefficient t p
Construct loadings α reliability AVE
Agent knowledge → attitude −0.235 −3.082 0.002
Agent knowledge 0.91 0.85 0.65
Topic knowledge → attitude 0.141 2.811 0.005
AK1 0.85
Persuasion knowledge → attitude 0.886 8.972 0.000
AK2 0.91
Agent knowledge → intention 0.400 7.376 0.000
AK3 0.89
Attitude → intention 0.492 8.562 0.000
Topic knowledge 0.90 0.84 0.52
TK1 0.78
TK2 0.84
TABLE 5 Multigroup moderation analysis: high vs. low propensity
TK3 0.85
for socially responsible consumption
TK4 0.76
TK5 0.79 Path Higha Lowa χ2 differencesb

Persuasion knowledge 0.87 0.89 0.73 Agent knowledge → attitude −0.129 −0.346** 1.98
PK1 0.92 Topic knowledge → attitude 0.109 0.183* 0.44
PK2 0.89 Persuasion knowledge → attitude 0.851*** 0.859*** 2.54
PK3 0.72 Agent knowledge → intention 0.333*** 0.467*** 0.02
Consumer attitudes 0.89 0.88 0.70 Attitude → intention 0.546*** 0.391*** 7.14**
CA1 0.84 a
Standardized coefficients.
CA2 0.87 b
The difference in parameter between the two groups is inferred from the
CA3 0.87 difference in chi‐square values when comparing the constrained model
Intentions to participate in CSV 0.91 0.86 0.67 with the equality constraints imposed on the base model.

IP1 0.88 *p < 0.05.

IP2 0.87 **p < 0.01.

IP3 0.87 ***p < 0.001.

Note. AVE: average variance extracted; CSV: creating shared value.

practice (3a–3d). We used a median split to identify two levels of con-
sumer propensity for socially responsible consumption. One group
included 148 participants with low propensity, and the other included
152 participants with high propensity. This analysis included a com-
parison between the χ2 values of the base model to the constrained
model. The comparison of the base model (χ2 = 396.576, df = 222)
and the constrained model (χ2 = 428.646, df = 238), while considering
differences in degrees of freedom (Δχ2 = 32.070, Δdf = 16,
χ2(16) = 26.296), revealed that the moderating effect was significant
(Byrne, 2001).
Table 5 shows that only the path between consumer attitudes to
intentions was statistically significant (Δχ2 = 7.14, df = 1, p = 0.01).
Specifically, the effect of consumer attitudes on intentions was
greater for the high propensity group (β = 0.546, p < 0.001) than for
the low propensity group (β = 0.391, p < 0.001). Regarding the
TABLE 3 Means, correlations, average variance extracted (AVEs),
and squared correlations
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 Mean (SD)
1. Agent knowledge 0.65 0.34 0.73 0.65 0.69 4.19 (1.13)
2. Topic knowledge 0.11 0.52 0.22 0.38 0.24 4.93 (1.10)
3. Persuasion knowledge 0.54 0.04 0.73 0.44 0.60 4.60 (1.07)
4. Consumer attitude 0.43 0.14 0.19 0.70 0.64 5.15 (1.00)
5. Intention 0.48 0.06 0.36 0.42 0.67 4.52 (1.14)
Note. Diagonal elements (in bold) are AVEs; values below the diagonal are
correlation estimates among constructs; values above the diagonal are
squared correlations.
relationship between agent knowledge and consumer attitudes, the
effect of agent knowledge was significant among the group with a
lower propensity for socially responsible consumption (β = −0.346,
p < 0.01) but not for the group with a higher propensity. The impact
of topic knowledge on consumer attitudes was significant for the
lower propensity group (β = 0.183, p < 0.05), but not the higher
propensity group. These path differences were not significant when
comparing χ2 value differences.
5 | C O NC L U S I O NS A N D D I S C U S S I O N
The present study addressed consumers' attitudes and intentions to
participate in CSV practices, providing simultaneous managerial
insights into business performance and sustainable societal develop-
ment. This choice of focus was prompted by the notion that con-
sumers' support is essential for implementing a CSV strategy that
seeks sustainability beyond the boundaries of corporate competitive-
ness and consumer benefits.
First, because firms strive for better performance in the market
while satisfying social needs, researchers have questioned whether
the emphasis on the pursuit of societal values will affect consumption
decisions (Bauman, 2009; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). The results pro-
vide evidence for a theoretical framework that can address the influ-
ential factors in deriving positive consumer responses. Consumers'
topic and persuasion knowledge informed their positive attitudes
and persuasion knowledge may be a critical factor for deriving positive
attitudes toward a company's CSV practice. This means that when
consumers perceive the feasibility (topic knowledge) and the
6 NAM AND HWANG

authenticity of a CSV practice (persuasion knowledge), they have relationship between corporate and consumer ethics, which can be
more positive attitude toward the practice. Furthermore, their positive construed as a reciprocal relationship proposed by CSV. It also enables
attitudes positively affect their intent to participate in a CSV practice. us to verify if PKM theoretical constructs can be applied to CSV
This result is consistent with the prior research that verified the effect strategies and can be used by organizations to develop relevant
of a company's CSR actions on consumers' positive attitudes, as well communication approaches.
as their purchase intentions (Creyer, 1997; Ellen, Mohr, & Webb,
2000; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006). 5.1 | Limitations and future research
On the basis of this result, we infer some managerial implications.
The current study has some limitations that should be addressed in the
The effect of the positive relationship between consumers' knowledge
future. First, we measured consumer attitudes and intentions with a
and attitude on their intent to participate implies that CSV's ultimate
newspaper report about a Korean company's actual practice that had
goal of reconciling corporations' strategic aspects with social values
been adapted from an actual media report. Because we surveyed
can lead to positive performance outcomes. Therefore, companies
consumers' responses to a specific CSV case in Korea, the result needs
need to educate consumers about CSV and convince them of the
to be adopted considering the specific case. Therefore, future research
authenticity of their CSV activities in order to form positive consumer
needs to conduct surveys or experiments that can be generalized.
responses toward CSV practices. This will help them to reap some of
Second, we measured consumer intentions to participate in CSV prac-
the benefits of their efforts. These results expand our perspective on
tices, not actual behaviors. Consumers' actual behaviors do not always
the possibility of virtuous circulation within the marketplace achieving
go hand‐in‐hand with their behavioral intentions. Therefore, future
both economic and social goals in several respects.
research needs to address how consumers' attitudes and intentions
On the other hand, agent knowledge had an insignificant or neg-
are related to their actual behaviors, such as actual participation or
ative effect on consumer attitudes. CSV practices differ from existing
experience with a CSV strategy.
charitable works and require new perspectives to evaluate effective
Overall, the effect of an organization's CSV strategy can be
practices. Because consumers are likely to be unfamiliar with these
synergized when consumers perceive and perform their responsible
practices, agent knowledge, which is likely more closely related to
roles within the marketplace. Therefore, corporations not only need
existing charitable works, might not be useful for forming positive atti-
to communicate what they do in terms of ethical behavior in the mar-
tudes toward a CSV strategy. Additionally, when consumers have
ketplace but also try to stimulate consumer interest regarding these
more agent knowledge, their expectations for corporate responsibility
ethical actions. Such communication promotes socially responsible
may be raised, which leads to increasingly more rigorous evaluations.
corporate behavior, suggesting actions on the part of consumers for
This result indicates that consumers' general belief in the company's
achieving a sustainable society through social‐centric corporate strat-
capacity to provide legitimate social contribution may be less related
egies. In addition, approaches based on CSV strategies cannot
to their positive attitudes. In this sense, organizations need to
completely solve societal problems; therefore, more elaborate busi-
focus more on communicating with consumers about the authenticity
ness model frameworks supplemented with normative or ethical moti-
of their ultimate CSV goal and increase consumers' interest and
vations are called for (de los Reyes & Scholz, 2019). Thus, future
knowledge of specific CSV practices.
research needs to analyze how consumers adopt CSV practices differ-
Second, the results provide evidence for the strengthening effect
ently from strategic CSR products and the traditional normative
of the role of consumer propensity for socially responsible consump-
approaches that can supplement the CSV framework, while tuning
tion on the relationship between consumer attitudes and intention
companies' activities toward a more sustainable way.
to participate. This suggests that companies should develop CSV
practices while considering both, their own and consumers' ethical
ORCID
underpinnings. Consumers' positive attitudes and intentions are
essential, because if consumers do not support a CSV strategy, its Hyesun Hwang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6282-3246
success cannot be guaranteed. In the same vein, previous research
demonstrated the importance of providing sufficient information to RE FE RE NC ES

consumers about the company's socially responsible activities,
because consumers are key stakeholders who determine the success
of a business (Alniacik, Alniacik, & Genc, 2011).
On the basis of this result, we infer some practical implications. In
order to maintain good corporate economic and social performance,
companies must inform consumers about the importance of pursuing
social value and the reasons for modifying the ultimate goal of partic-
ipants in the market toward more sustainable development. In this
sense, we need to address how consumers are knowledgeable
and faithful to their role as significant participants in a sustainable
market mechanism. The present study provides evidence that the
development of CSV strategies by reconciling corporate and consumer
ethics in the marketplace is possible. This suggests an interconnected
Alniacik, U., Alniacik, E., & Genc, N. (2011). How corporate social responsi-
bility information influences stakeholders' intentions. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(4), 234–245.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.245
Aravossis, K., & Pavlopoulou, Y. (2013). Creating shared value with
eco‐efficient and green chemical systems in ship operations and in
ballast water management. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 22(12a),
1–9.
Bauman, Z. (2009). Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers?
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Becker‐Olsen, K., Cudmore, B., & Hill, R. (2006). The impact of perceived
corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of
Business Research, 59(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2005.01.001
NAM AND HWANG
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Campbell, J. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate
social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 925–938.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285172
Campbell, M., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowl-
edge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on
perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27,
69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Campbell, M., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you're doing and why
you're doing it: The use of the persuasion knowledge model in
consumer research. In C. Haudtvedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Hand-
book of consumer psychology (pp. 549–574). New York: Psychology
Press.
Chatterjee, B. (2012). Business and communities—redefining boundaries.
NHRD Network Journal, 5(1), 55–60.
Cheon, H., Kim, S., Lee, D., & Lee, J. (2014). Creating shared value:
Redefining the role of the corporation and consumer. Journal of
Consumer Studies, 25(3), 1–19.
Cho, S., & Kim, S. (2011). Effects of prior image of a company and CSR's
congruence with the brand on CSR activities: An application of
persuasion knowledge model. The Korean Journal of Advertising and
Public Relations, 13(3), 509–538.
Corazza, L., Scagnelli, S., & Mio, C. (2017). Simulacra and sustainability
disclosure: Analysis of the interpretative models of creating shared
value. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
24(5), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1417
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the
value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56(2),
130–153. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130
Creyer, E. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention:
Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 14(6), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/0736376971
0185999
de los Reyes, G., & Scholz, M. (2019). Response to Porter: Responsibility
for realising the promise of shared value. In Managing sustainable busi-
ness (pp. 351–365). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐
94‐024‐1144‐7_17
Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared
value: A theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of
Business Ethics, 137(2), 231–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐
015‐2554‐z
Driver, M. (2012). An interview with Michael Porter: Social entrepreneur-
ship and the transformation of capitalism. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 11(3), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amle.2011.0002a
Ellen, P., Mohr, L., & Webb, D. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer:
Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 393–406. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022‐4359(00)00032‐4
Fearne, A., Garcia, M., & Dent, B. (2012). Dimensions of sustainable value
chains: Implications for value chain analysis. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 17(6), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13598541211269193
Florin, J., & Schmidt, E. (2011). Creating shared value in the hybrid venture
arena: A business model innovation perspective. Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.
2011.614631
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3150980
Fristed, M., & Wright, P. (1999). Every persuasion knowledge. Psychology
and Marketing, 16(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520‐
6793(199903)16:2<185::AID‐MAR7>3.0.CO;2‐N
7
Hardesrty, D., Bearden, W., & Carlson, J. (2007). Persuasion knowledge
and consumer reactions to pricing tactics. Journal of Retailing, 83(2),
199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.06.003
Heimer, M., Fry, E., & Chew, J. (2016). 7 World‐changing companies to
watch. Fortune. August 18, 2016.
Kaletsky, A. (2011). Capitalism 4.0: The birth of a new economy in the
aftermath of crisis. New York: Public Affairs.
Kim, J. (2005). The effects of public campaigns from perspective of
persuasion knowledge model. Advertising Research, 67, 9–32.
Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect
of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44(4), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.
44.4.688
Korhonen, H. (2013). Organizational needs: A co‐creation and human
systems perspective. Journal of Business Market Management, 6(4),
214–227.
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity and confidence as
determinants of purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple
brand context. Journal of Business Research, 37(2), 115–120. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0148‐2963(96)00056‐2
Lii, Y., Wu, K., & Ding, M. (2013). Doing good does good? Sustainable mar-
keting of CSR and consumer evaluations. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 20(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.294
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and mar-
keting: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 32(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303258971
Mohr, I., & Webb, D. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility
and price on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1),
121–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐6606.2005.00006.x
Moon, H., Parc, J., Yim, S., & Park, N. (2011). An extension of Porter and
Kramer's creating shared value (CSV): Reorienting strategies and seek-
ing international cooperation. Journal of International and Area Studies,
18(2), 49–64.
Park, S., & Byun, J. (2012). The interaction effect of social responsibility
activities of consumers and corporations on corporate evaluation.
Korean Management Science Review Special, 29(2), 127–141. https://
doi.org/10.7737/KMSR.2012.29.2.127
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for shared value.
Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 100–107.
Pirson, M. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as the paragons of shared value
creation? A critical perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 31–48.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226575
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value (pp. 62–77).
January–February: Harvard Business Review.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2019). Creating shared value. In Managing sus-
tainable business (pp. 327‐350). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978‐94‐024‐1144‐7_16.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a
globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its
implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of
Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐
6486.2010.00950.x
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate
social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships:
A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2),
158–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284978
Seo, J., & Jeon, H. (2011). Consumers' needs, for corporate social respon-
sibility according to the perception of consumer's social responsibility.
Korean Journal of Human Ecology, 20(5), 993–1008. https://doi.org/
10.5934/KJHE.2011.20.5.993
Shim, K., & Lee, H. (2014). The effect of perceived corporate legitimacy on
consumer behavioral intention: Focused on the mediating role of per-
ceived product values. Journal of Korean Marketing Association, 29,
25–53.
8 NAM AND HWANG
Skzyman, L., Bloom, P., & Blazing, J. (2004). Does corporate sponsorship of
a socially‐oriented message make a difference? An investigation of the
effect of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti‐drinking and
driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 13–20.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2
Stanaland, A., Lwin, M., & Murphy, P. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the
antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐
011‐0904‐z
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effective-
ness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9731‐2
Vidal, N., Kozak, R., & Hansen, E. (2015). Adoption and implementation of
corporate responsibility practices: A proposed framework. Business &
Society, 54(5), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650312464028
Webb, D., Mohr, L., & Harris, K. (2008). A re‐examination of socially
responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business
Research, 61(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.007
Williams, P., Fitzsimons, G., & Block, L. (2004). When consumers do not
recognize “benign” intention questions as persuasion attempts.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1086/
425088
Yoon, Y., Gürhan‐Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
How to cite this article: Nam S‐J, Hwang H. What makes
consumers respond to creating shared value strategy? Consid-
ering consumers as stakeholders in sustainable development.
Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2018;1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1690