Is CSR Just a Big Corporate Illusion?

Encouraging as it sounds, the belief that commercial health branding will – or even has a considerable potential to – lead to health promotion is nevertheless fallacious. In terms of theory and experimental studies marketing may impact positively on social norms and values that bear on health behavior, but in the real world of global capitalism raising profits is always the main driver for corporate organizations. Whatever kind of social aims corporate organizations promise to promote, expanding profits is always the motivating reason.

Reluctance and skeptisism. This fact often leaves researchers either unconvinced about the true potential of commercial marketing to push health (e.g. Evans and Hastings, 2008) or directly pessimistic (e.g. Ludwig & Nestle, 2008). Is reluctance and sometimes even pessimism in relation to commercial health promotion reasonable? Specific cases of health brand deception (e.g. the Nutella-case (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44078.htm) shows that we have a strong reason to be extremely critical in particular cases, but is it fair to say that we, by and large, should meet corporate promises to promote public health with an attitude of disinclination because the corporate world as such does not have a true interest in taking corporate social responsibility? Reflections on brand equity discredits the pessimism and grounds a reason to expect true health benefits from commercial food health branding. Or so we will argue.

Brand equity. According to Aaker’s (1996) influential brand equity model, brand equity is a set of assets (e.g. brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand associations). These assets provide consumer value that, in turn, provides corporate value. Branding products as healthy without delivering on the promise and being exposed for this in the medias is likely to deteriorate consumers’ perceived quality and create negative brand associations. In other words: not delivering on a health brand promise backfires on brand equity, which causes consumer value and, thus, corporate brand value to drop.
According to Keller’s customer-based brand equity model, the power of a brand is a function of consumer’s perception of and reaction to a brand. He says:

“A brand has positive customer-based brand equity when consumers react more favorably to a product and the way it is marketed when the brand is identified than when it is not (say, when the product is attributed to a fictitious name or is unnamed). … a brand has negative customer-based brand equity if consumers react less favorably to marketing activity for the brand compared with an unnamed or fictitiously named version of the product (2008, 48).”

As was the case with Aaker’s model, Keller’s brand equity model implies that if a brand conveys a health promise without delivering thoroughly on that promise, then brand equity is decreasing due to negative consumer perceptions and reactions.

Genuine corporate social concern. Now, where does these comments on brand equity take us? They demonstrate that we have a serious reason to expect that corporate organizations – that are concerned about their brand equity – have a strong corporate reason to act with genuine social concern whenever they make health brand promises. Thus, we (consumers, watchdogs, researchers) have a reason not to be too skeptical about corporate promises to promote health. There is a strong corporate reason not to let the consumer down on social promises. Despite the existence of cynical examples of fake health branding, we have a reason to believe in the power of commercial health branding to push public health in the right direction.

References

Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands, New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.

Evans, W.D. & Hastings, G. (2008). Public Health Branding, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keller, K.L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ludwig, D.S. & Nestle, M. (2008). Can the Food Industry Play a Constructive Role in the Obesity Epidemic?, Journal of American Medical Association, 300:15, 1808-1811.