Journal of Business Ethics (2011) 100:253281
DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0679-7
An Analysis of Cause-Related Marketing
Implementation Strategies Through Social
Alliance: Partnership Conditions
and Strategic Objectives
ABSTRACT. Cause-related marketing (CRM) is an
effective marketing tool for promoting corporate social
responsibility (CSR) activities and the bulk of campaigns
are designed and delivered through collaborative social
alliances with non-profit organisations (NPOs). The au-
thors seek to uncover some of the factors that explain
how firms and NPOs choose their potential partners in
the development of their CRM strategy. The rationales
for the observed patterns are investigated through semi-
structured interviews conducted with managers employed
by the UK-based firms and NPOs. The authors find that
each party has specific preferences when choosing the
particular CRM implementation strategies in different
situations, as well as different initial positions when
negotiating the formation of the social alliance. This
article contributes to our understanding of the CRM
implementation strategies and both the companys and
the NPOs behaviours toward each of the strategies.
KEY WORDS: cause-related marketing, resource-based
view, resource-dependence theory, legitimacy, social
alliance, corporate social responsibility
ABBREVIATIONS: CRM: Cause related marketing;
NPO(s): Nonprofit organisation(s)
Introduction
With the increase in public concern regarding the
social duties of firms, pressure groups have started to
lobby corporate executives to disclose more infor-
mation about the firms ethical practices. Based on
the increasing importance and popularity of corpo-
rate philanthropy, the social activity of a corporation
has increased substantially. Corporate executives are
 Springer 2010
Gordon Liu
Wai-Wai Ko
now far more proactive about the tactics they use in
giving funds, and will set up corporate social
responsibility (CSR) strategies that fit within an
overall business strategy (Menon and Menon, 1997).
Unlike pure corporate giving, where the corporate
contribution is based on the altruistic impulse of the
management and shareholders, who intend only to
improve the welfare of the community, corporations
launch the so-called strategic giving that treats CSR
as an investment and calculates the returns for the
company (Orlitzky et al., 2003). Management
experts have begun to focus on finding the com-
mercial value of CSR (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004;
Crook, 2005). More specifically, they are starting to
focus on transforming ethical practices from the
purely philanthropical approach into more com-
mercially related business activities.
Garriga and Mele (2004) classify the main CSR
theories and related approaches into different groups
(political, integrative, ethical and instrumental) with
cause-related marketing (CRM) belonging to part of
the instrumental theories group. Their explanation
echoes Varadarajan and Menons (1988) assertion
that CRM is an effective marketing tool for pro-
moting CSR activities. Other than the purely
instrumental CSR practice, the addition of market-
ing tools gives CRM the ability to form and reshape
the organisational identity, which leads to the
enhancement of corporate legitimacy and profit-
ability (Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Liston-Heyes and
Liu, 2010). The typical delivery pattern for CRM
can be divided into two forms: conventional and
social alliance (see Table I for summaries and
examples). The conventional delivery pattern refers
to a company directly addressing the social issue

Sponsorship
Description It refers to the event spon-
sorship, which means that the
corporate sponsorship must
directly attach to a specific
nonprofit event, scheme or
challenge
Selected literature Sneath et al. (2005), Menon
and Kahn (2003)
Example (conventional Coca-Cola Bottlers (Ulster)
delivery pattern)a Ltd (CCBU) sponsor a series
of sporting programmes
ranging from top level to
grassroots and just for fun
activities, and focuses on
providing opportunities for
everyone to become involved
in sport in Northern Ireland
(CCBU, 2008)
Example (social alliance Musgrave SuperValu-Centra
delivery pattern)a (NI) Ltd, sponsor Action
Cancers health promotion
programme for schools in
Northern Ireland to promote
the importance of healthy
lifestyles (Centra, 2004)
a
Case example is obtained from Business in the Community, the UK premier NPO, provides assistance and guidance to help companies integrate responsible
business through their operations to have a positive impact on their community (http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/index.html).
TABLE I
CRM implementation approaches
Transaction-based
Giving a percentage for every
single transaction when some
makes a purchase or uses a
corporations product or ser-
vice
Olsen et al. (2003), Strahile-
vitz and Myers (1998)
Tesco helps schools improve
their IT equipment by run-
ning a voucher redemption
scheme with customers gain-
ing one voucher for every
10 spent in store (Tesco,
2007)
Noble Foods gives farmers 2p
per dozen premium, and
generates funds for the
Woodland Trust to help plant
and care for native trees in the
UK (Noble Foods, 2007)
Joint-promotion
It refers to the cooperation in
advertising effort between a
for-profit corporation and a
cause
Samu and Wymer (2009),
Drumwright (1996)
B&Q launched its energy
efficiency campaign, bringing
wind turbines to the UK mass
market for the first time and
energy-efficiency advice
booklets, TV advertising and
an online advertising cam-
paign to raise awareness
(B&Q, 2007)
Marks & Spencer Break-
through Breast Cancer alli-
ance aims to raise fund and
awareness of breast cancer
(Marks and Spencer, 2004)
254
Donation in-kind
It refers to non-financial cor-
porate contribution towards
the improvement of a social
cause
Lafferty and Browning (1993),
Peterson (2004a, b)
Pfizer encourages colleagues
to spend 5 days a year volun-
teering their practical and
professional skills to support
organisations improving
community health and sup-
port them by offering in-kind
donations (Pfizer, 2009)
Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
D&A launched a Charity of
the Year campaign with
Moorfields Eye Hospital by
donating employee time to
volunteer on the hospital and
organise fundraising event
(D&G, 2007)
 CRM Implementation Strategies
through planning and executing a CRM campaign
exclusively (Barone et al., 2000; Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2004). On the other hand, the social alliance
delivery pattern involves a partnership between the
company and non-profit organisation (NPO), in
which the parties work jointly towards the devel-
opment and implementation of a CRM campaign
(Arya and Salk, 2006; Berger et al., 2004; Strahile-
vitz, 1999). The formation of this social alliance
allows each organisation to strengthen its resource
profile by accessing a resource that its partner pos-
sesses (Andreasen, 1996; Till and Nowak, 2000).
In this research, the authors focus particularly on
the social alliance delivery pattern of the CRM
campaign. The authors investigate both parties
preferences and initial positions in negotiating the
formation of the social alliance regarding different
CRM implementation strategies. The authors also
acknowledge that the initial positions may change
after the start of the CRM project, as the project
evolves and both parties gain experience with the
other.1 This article begins with a review of the lit-
erature that classifies the CRM implementation
strategies into four major forms: sponsorship, trans-
action-based, joint promotion, and donation
in-kind. It is followed by a presentation of the
development of the Alliance Conditions Frame-
work. This framework is then used to interpret the
authors 70 interviews (with 33 companies and 37
NPOs) about the issues involved when making
decisions about their CRM implementation strategy.
The contributions of this research are (1) to propose
a conceptual framework for analysing the parties
positions within a social alliance; (2) to map out both
parties initial positions for different CRM imple-
mentation strategies; and (3) to provide information
that will assist the partnerships negotiation regarding
future alliances.
The classification of CRM implementation
strategies
CRM implementation strategies refer to the specific
ways of delivering the CRM programme. A large
number of field experts has attempted to classify the
taxonomy of the strategies (e.g. Berglind and
Nakata, 2005; Gupta and Pirsch, 2006; Smith and
Alcorn, 1991). The authors synthesise their argu-
255
ments and propose that CRM implementation
strategies can be undertaken in four main forms: as
sponsorship, transaction-based, joint promotion, and
in-kind contribution (see Table I for summaries and
examples).
The definition of sponsorship is strictly restricted
to event sponsorship, which means that the corpo-
rate sponsorship must directly attach to a specific
nonprofit charitable event, scheme or challenge.
According to previous studies, sponsorship can
enhance a firms image by associating the name of a
sponsoring company with a cause that is important
to a particular target group (Menon and Kahn, 2003;
Sneath et al., 2005). A successful CRM campaign,
through the corporate sponsorship of a social event,
offers effective product exposure and helps to target
specific populations, including groups that are diffi-
cult to reach through more traditional forms of
advertising, as well as providing general publicity for
a company through the use of carefully chosen
and highly visible symbols and activities (Roy and
Graeff, 2003).
The transaction-based CRM implementation
strategy refers to corporations donating, to a desig-
nated charity, a portion of their profits from each
product sold. This product link to a charity may
create a purchasing incentive for the target cus-
tomers (Olsen et al., 2003). Varadarajan and Menon
(1988) define CRM as a revenue-providing trans-
action that satisfies the organisational and individual
objectives. This implementation strategy is con-
cerned with how a corporation uses the corporate
donation per transaction as an incentive for everyone
to become involved in the CRM programme, with
the most frequently targeted audience being the
firms own consumer group. Strahilevitz and Myers
(1998) suggest that companies use the transaction-
based implementation strategy to trigger a persons
guilt and so enhance their consumption incentive as
a way of doing good to compensate for that feeling.
Thirdly, a joint promotion involves cooperation
with regard to the advertising effort between a
company and a cause (an NPO can be considered as
a representative of a particular cause). In comparison
to sponsorship, the joint-promotion implementation
strategy is not attached to a specific event/scheme/
challenge. It focuses on the content of the message
that organisations seek to deliver to people, and this
is closely related to the level of involvement in the
256 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
ethical advertising messages (Nan and Heo, 2007).
Experts suggest that individuals have different levels
of involvement in the CRM messages (Drumwright,
1996; Samu and Wymer, 2009). The focus of a joint
promotion implementation strategy is to produce a
joint advertising campaign to activate the publics
emotions about corporate ethical behaviour. Irwin
et al. (2003) and Broderick et al. (2003) suggest that
individual emotional involvement is the key differ-
entiating factor regarding the extent to which an
individual will notice, perceive, and respond to the
CRM message. The individual will feel highly
involved if they find relevance in the CRM adver-
tising message.
Finally, the donation in-kind refers to a non-
financial corporate contribution towards the improve-
ment of a social cause. Hellenius and Rudbeck (2003)
suggest that the in-kind gifts market value is usually
more than double the value of a cash donation to the
same sector, because the cost of the gift is only the
products marginal costs. Corporations are usually
more willing to donate their products and services
than to give cash to the cause. The range of donation
of in-kind activities includes donating products or
services (Lafferty and Browning, 1993), providing
corporate volunteers (Muthuri et al., 2009; Peterson,
2004a, b) and donating or making improvements to
facilities (Bronn and Vrioni, 2001).
In general, these four CRM implementation
strategies represent four distinct ways of imple-
menting a CRM campaign. However, this does not
mean that a CRM campaign can only have one
particular strategy. It can also be a combination of
several implementation strategies (Liston-Heyes
and Liu, 2010). A classical case was British Tele-
communications working with ChildLine (which
merged with the NSPCC in 2006) to launch the
Am I Listening? campaign in 2002 (BT, 2004). In
this case, British Telecommunications sponsored the
BIG Listen Week competition event with CBBC
Newsround to raise 200,000 for ChildLine
(Sponsorship), donated 1 for every person who
signed up to the answer service (Transaction-Base),
raised brand awareness of both the company and
ChildLine as well as the importance of listening to
young people (Joint-Promotion), and offered office
space, telephony and the memorable helpline
number 0800 1111 (In-Kind Contribution). Even
though this may involve all four CRM implemen-
tation strategies, each party still has a unique position
in each specific type of strategy.
Theoretical framework
Previous research explained the complexity of
managing a social alliance, such as Waddock and
colleagues (1989, 1991, 1995) study on the typology
of social alliances, its formation and their potential
for solving the social problem. Sharfman et al. (1991)
find that collaboration should adopt a more dynamic
orientation to take into account shifts in the balance
between driving and restraining forces. Fleisher
(1991) uses the agency-based approach to analyse
that factors that affect the creation and maintenance
of collaborative relationships. Austins (2000) col-
laboration continuum framework categorised
different types of partnership based on either one
of three stages: philanthropic, transactional and
integrative. Knox and Gruar (2006) suggest using
relationship marketing techniques to manage the
stakeholder relationship. These contributions pro-
vide managerial implications that allow the managers
to manage the alliance relationship in different sit-
uations. In this article, the authors attempt to take
one step further by exploring the development stage
of the alliance and, in particular, understand each
sides preferences and initial positions before enter-
ing into the alliance negotiation with regard to dif-
ferent types of CRM implementation strategy. The
authors propose a conceptual framework entitled the
Alliance Conditions Framework to address these
issues (see Figure 1).
This proposed conceptual framework maps out
the delivery pattern for a companys CRM cam-
paign. It begins with the companys decision to
choose either the conventional or social alliance
delivery path for the CRM programmes. The
company that has chosen the conventional delivery
pattern aims directly to deliver the social benefits to
the cause and marketing messages to the relevant
audiences through adopting a particular CRM
implementation strategy. On the other hand, the
company that has chosen the social alliance delivery
pattern will begin to enter the negotiation phase
with the prospective NPO to determine the con-
ditions of the collaboration for a specific type of
CRM implementation strategy, then deliver the
 CRM Implementation Strategies 257

Conventional Cause-Related Marketing Social alliance

delivery pattern delivery pattern Alliance Conditions
Variable

Collective Strength
Tangible
Intangible
Company
Social Alliance
Interpartner Conflict
Diversity
Private Interest
Company Collaboration Nonprofits
Interdependence
Power Maximisation
Autonomy

CRM Implementation CRM Implementation Institutional Legitimacy

Sponsorship Sponsorship Market Legitimacy
Transaction-Base Transaction-Base Relational Legitimacy
Joint Promotion Joint Promotion Social Legitimacy
Donation-in- Kind Donation-in- Kind Investment Legitimacy
Alliance Legitimacy

Solid Line: CRM delivery pattern focused in this research

Deliver the social benefits to the cause and marketing messages Dashed Line: CRM delivery pattern not focused in this research

Relevant
Stakeholders

Figure 1. Alliance conditions framework.

social benefits to the cause and marketing message to
the relevant stakeholders. In this article, the authors
attempt to address only the situation with regard to
the social alliance delivery pattern.
In the social alliance delivery pattern, the com-
pany and NPO form an alliance to deliver social
benefits. In order to form an alliance, there are
certain conditions governing the dynamic interactive
relationship between the partners, known as the
alliance conditions (Arino and de la Torre, 1998;
Kogut, 1988). These variables are the characteristics
of an alliance and can be used to describe the state of
the alliance. The alliance conditions that the authors
propose consist of four variables. The first three
elements are adopted and modified from Das
and Teng (2002)s study on alliance conditions.
According to Das and Teng (2002), the formation of
the alliance depends on three variables: collective
strength, interpartner conflicts, and interdependen-
cies. These variables cover three critical aspects of
alliance, and some common relational issues, such as
trust, commitment and capabilities, are incorporated
within these three aspects. The first condition vari-
able is collective strength, which can be viewed as a
positive effect of an alliance. Das and Teng (2002,
p. 730) note that the collective strengths of an
alliance are the aggregated resource endowments of
partner organisations in relation to the specific stra-
tegic objectives that they aim to pursue jointly. The
one fundamental reason for parties entering into an
alliance together is that they can gain access to each
others resources, enabling the joint-entity to
become stronger in the marketplace (Das and Teng,
2000). The types of resource can be divided into two
primary categories: tangible and intangible (Branco
and Rodrigues, 2006). When two or more organi-
sations establish a strategic alliance, their pool of
resources will be expanded. As a result, the joint-
entity will become more competitive (Lin et al.,
2009).
Secondly, interpartner conflict can be considered
as the negative effect of alliances. Das and Teng
(2003) identify two major sources of interpartner
conflict. The first source relates to interpartner
diversity, such as strategic orientation, organisational
routines, decision-making style and so on. Each
party wants the other to act according to its own
management agenda. The second source is the pri-
vate interest of each of the alliance partners. When
each party places their private interest on top of the
258 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
common interest, it may result in incompatibility
goals, resource allocation and competition in
downstream marketing (Hardy and Phillips, 1998).
The third type of condition variable is interde-
pendence, and only when the partners mutually
depend on each other will cooperation take place
(Das and Teng, 2002, p. 732). The reason for an
alliance occurring is because of both partners lacking
key resources, which acts as an incentive to pull the
partnership together (Barringer and Harrison, 2000).
In practice, organisations will respond to demands
made by external actors or organisations upon whose
resources they are heavily dependent and, at the
same time, will try to minimise that dependence
whenever possible and preserve autonomy. Each
party acts to maximise its power by increasing the
dependence of other organisations on them and to
minimise inter-organisation dependence by pre-
serving their autonomy (Medcof, 2001).
Although these three condition variables were
originally proposed to examine intra-sector strategic
alliances, however, the authors felt that they can also
be used to examine social (cross-sector) alliances. The
reason for this is that Das and Tengs (2002) frame-
work is firmly grounded in resource-dependence
theory,2 which has already been used to analyse the
organisational behaviour within social alliances. For
example, Froelich (1999) highlights the challenges
that NPOs will face if they are highly dependent on
fewer sources of funding (i.e. contributions from the
for-profit sector). Moreover, some relevant research
works examine cross-sector collaboration, such as
Selsky and Parkers (2005) and Guo and Acars (2005)
study, that use resource dependence theory as one of
the cornerstones of their proposed conceptual
framework. Using a resource dependence-based
theoretical framework, it may be possible to under-
stand both parties preferences and initial positions in
alliance conditions, whereby both parties will nego-
tiate the details of the alliance to their own advantage
whilst presenting to their target audience their social
image in the best possible manner.
Although the above discussion provides explana-
tions about the appropriateness of using Das and
Tengs (2002) study for the purpose of this article,
however, the authors are aware of the differences
between strategic alliances and social alliances. Ber-
ger et al.s (2004) study sets the tone for the modern
research on social alliance by distinguishing social
alliances from typical strategic alliances, and suggests
that social alliances involve at least one NPO partner
and include non-economic objectives on their
agenda. Two implications can be drawn from this
argument. First, the social alliance is a type of stra-
tegic alliances that comprises cross sector collabora-
tion. Second, some of the conceptual frameworks
for strategic alliances can also be applied to social
alliances. Institutional legitimacy, putatively, is one
of the strategic alliance frameworks that can be used
to describe the situation. Campbell et al. (2003)
propose that organisations need to operate within
certain boundaries (expectations) imposed by society
to enjoy continued access to products and resources.
When it performs accordingly, an organisation is
described as acting legitimately. More recently,
study by researchers such as Berger et al. (2008,
p. 135) indicates that, in social alliance relationships,
both firms and NPOs will align their commercial
identities with their legitimate roles in society, a
process which creates strong mutually reinforcing
and mutually identifying relationships. Given the
nature of the social alliance, institutional legitimacy
is critical for the formation of social alliances (Liston-
Heyes and Liu, 2010). Therefore, the authors
propose to add a fourth variable institutional
legitimacy to the alliance conditions. Dacin et al.
(2007, p. 173) identify five types of institutional
legitimacy that are relevant to the formation of a
strategic alliance: market legitimacy (rights and qual-
ifications to conduct business in a particular market),
relational legitimacy (worthiness to be a partner), social
legitimacy (conformity of the firm to societal rules and
expectations), investment (worthiness of the business
activity) and alliance legitimacy (validity or appropri-
ateness of a strategic alliance). Together, the four pre-
viously mentioned condition variables address the
aspects relating to cross-sector alliances between
private enterprises and NPOs.
So far, the authors have discussed the four CRM
implementation strategies and four alliance condi-
tions. In this article, the authors seek empirically to
explore the alliance conditions in four different
CRM implementation strategies. More concretely,
the authors want to enhance the understanding of
both parties positions in each specific type of CRM
implementation from the alliance conditions per-
spective. The analysis and discussion will follow the
conceptual framework of this study.
 CRM Implementation Strategies
Research method
Seventy semi-structured elite interviews were
undertaken between September 2006 and 2008, to
gather the views of managers from both British
companies (n = 33) and NPOs (n = 37) about the
issues involved in determining their CRM imple-
mentation strategy (see Appendix 1). Elite inter-
views focus on gathering information from the key
decision makers in a field, thus enabling the
researcher to understand how the decisions are made
within the organisation (Berry, 2002; Blumberg
et al., 2005; Goldstein, 2002). The corporate exec-
utives interviewed were from firms located in the
UK and listed on the London Stock Exchange, with
a market capitalisation value of over 100 m. The
NPO managers worked for NPOs registered with
the UK Charity Commission, with annual revenue
in excess of 500,000, thus classifying them as large
under the criteria operated by the Commission.
Letters of introduction describing the study were
sent to 132 firms and 74 NPOs each followed up
by a phone call. When an organisation replied pos-
itively, another letter was sent describing the topics
to be addressed during the proposed telephone
interview and a reminder of the agreed date and time
of the interview.
The interview questions provided a structure for
each interview, but it was frequently necessary to
explain and clarify some of the questions. Each
interview started by asking a question about the
interviewees organisational role and the details of
the social alliance projects in which he or she had
been involved recently. The authors then introduce
the four types of CRM implementation strategy,
provide some examples for each type, and draw the
necessary links between the types of strategy and the
interviewees personal experience of social alliance,
as described earlier by the interviewee. The authors
found that all of the interviewees in this study have
experience of being either directly (acting as a
decision maker or negotiator) or indirectly (being a
member of the execution/operation team) involved
in all four types of CRM implementation strategy,
because of their rich experience of the industry and
the fact that many CRM campaigns offer a combi-
nation of several implementation strategies. After the
introduction, the authors started to engage in more
detailed discussions with the interviewees about
259
their experiences of each of the four CRM imple-
mentation strategies. The questions are designed to
address the four alliance condition variables that the
authors proposed in the theoretical framework. For
collective strength, the authors asked what they
expect to gain from social alliance relationships that
help to strengthen their organisations current posi-
tion in the marketplace. For interpartner conflicts,
the authors asked them what kinds of conflict arise
during the alliance relationship and whether these
conflicts will have any effect on the alliance rela-
tionship. For interdependence, the authors asked
how they make demands in the alliance negotiation
process that will minimise their own dependence
and obtain autonomy. For institutional legitimacy,
the authors asked them about their perspectives on
evaluating whether the partnership is desirable,
proper, or appropriate with regard to the value of
the organisation. Throughout the interviews, the
respondents describe their organisations position on
each of the issues, as well as what they sense about
others.
The majority of the interviews lasted between 60
and 80 min and were recorded on an MP3. To gain
a better understanding of the data, the authors
employed NVivo software to assist the data analysis
(Welsh, 2002). By the end of the sampling period,
the authors had 70 positive responses from an initial
mail-out of 206, yielding a response rate of 34%.
Earlier pilots did not suggest the existence of obvious
response biases of any kind, although there was a
marked preoccupation with confidentiality. The
authors carried out the data analysis in three stages.
The first stage involved transcribing all of the audio
files into words. The researchers checked the tran-
scripts against notes taken during the interviews.
There were no major discrepancies from the con-
tent, except for the editing and correcting of the
interview quotes. The second stage is the coding, for
which the authors used Nvivo 7 software to assist us.
The authors coded each passage according to the
corresponding research question. The last stage is the
analysis, where the authors make connections be-
tween the interpretations of the interview answers of
this study, the parallel literature, and theoretical
framework model developed by the authors. The
authors move back and forth between the theory
and data by analysing and comparing the data to
existing theory, developing insights to support new
260 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
theory, verifying that the new theory matches the
data, and returning to the theory for further revision.
Though a large number of new insights emerged from
the study, the authors focus on the key areas that the
authors wish to explore and those with the greatest
potential for stimulating future research. Given the
current space limitations, the authors only provide
brief summaries of the interview data collected under
each of these themes. Representative quotes are pre-
sented in Tables IV, V, VI and VII.
Findings
The proposed conceptual framework (see Figure 1)
outlines the key strategic variables relating to the
alliance condition. Here, the authors aim to address
both the company and NPOs strategic objective in
each of the variables for different CRM imple-
mentation strategies situations. Tables II and III
summarise the results of this research.
Although the four alliance conditions are pre-
sented in Tables II and III as if they were discrete
and separable, however, intuitively, there seem to be
deep connections between them.3 For instance, the
alliances collective strength appears to be related to
its institutional legitimacy. The findings of this study
show that the potential alliance partner (for either
side), who confirms all the legitimacy expectations
(i.e. market legitimacy) of the focal organisation, is
also more likely to meet the focal organisations
objective of collective strength. The interpartner
conflict seems to have a relationship with interde-
pendence. The authors found that a mutual depen-
dence situation tends to reflect on each partys
private interest and both sides of the alliance appear
to demand power and autonomy to address their
diversity. Therefore, the authors decided to present
and discuss the study data under four general themes
sponsorship, transaction-based, joint-promotion,
and donation in-kind, rather than discuss each of the
alliance conditions separately for each CRM
implementation strategy.
CRM implementation strategy: sponsorship
CRM sponsorship refers to when a company asso-
ciates itself with a charitable event (or scheme,
challenge, etc.) by purchasing (in cash or kind) the
right to do so. The following quotes (see Table IV)
provide some examples of suggestions about spon-
sorship from both the company and NPO managers.
The corporate executives suggest that CRM
sponsorship enables a company to have access to the
target customers in a relatively sociable environ-
ment. Bennett (1997) indicates that companies
increasingly recognise the corporate philanthropy
associated with sponsorship as a communication
weapon to provide more marketing opportunities.
The results of this study show that corporate exec-
utives attempt to organise a charitable event as they
would organise a commercial one. The only differ-
ence is that the charitable event emphasises the
promotion of the companys goodwill rather than its
products and services. In terms of event design and
operation, there should be no difference between
the two. Therefore, the informants reveal that their
ideal NPO partner must have a highly recognised,
good reputation in the community where it can help
the company improve its legitimacy, as well as be
able to draw the attention of the key customer
groups whom the company wants to please. This
argument is in line with Crimmins and Horns
(1996) suggestion that corporate sponsorship can
improve its consumers ethical perceptions about the
company by linking the consumers beliefs about a
charitable event that they already value highly.
Moreover, the corporate executives also attempt to
use the sponsored event to win approval from their
employees by encouraging them to participate in the
company-sponsored event. Because of that, the
executives also want to make sure that their
employees have a favourable attitude towards the
selected NPOs.
From the NPO managers perspective, CRM
sponsorship can be considered as a more reliable and
less risky way to collaborate with the company,
because all of the major concerns can be written into
the sponsorship contract and the scope of the after-
math (either good or bad) impacts can be easier to
manage, in comparison with the other three CRM
implementation strategies that attempt to commu-
nicate to much wider audiences. NPO managers
suggest that the main purpose of being involved with
a corporate sponsored charitable event is the
increased opportunity to attract potential donors
who are not currently listed in the NPOs database
 TABLE II
Partnership condition and strategic objective for CRM findings (company)

Variablea Sponsorship Transaction-based Joint-promotion Donation in-kind

Collective strength Tangible Number of consumers
resource who are aware of the
companys social
contribution
Intangible Adds ethical association
resource to the brand, especially
for the intangible product
Interpartner conflict Diversity Event should be
organised with
commercial objective
Private The appearance of
interest companys name and sales
logo
Employee participation involvement of NPO
Reach new customers Number of customers Attract new customers
in a new market link the NPO brand Channels to distribute
with company products to potential
user
NPOs brand serves as Links companys Links companys
entry ticket for com- brand with NPOs brand with NPOs
pany to enter the new brand to add ethical brand to add more eth-
market association ical associations
Add ethical associa- NPOs brand is Provide opportunities
tion to the brand, espe- highly-recognised for employees to vol-
cially for the tangible unteer and gain relative
product benefit from the volun-
teer programme
NPO should focus on NPO should not Management style
promoting the com- restrict the access of its
panys products brand name and logo
Focusing on product Raise brand awareness Employee
and improve corporate participation
Encourage the reputation in regional, Exercises in the
national or international volunteer programme
CRM Implementation Strategies

level) The impact of CSR

Reputation
Interdependence Mutual Reaching target Improve sales Improve brand Improve reputation
dependence audiences Improve reputation awareness Employee volunteer
Attract peoples atten- Reach new target Improve brand repu- Community involve-
tion in terms of firms customers tation ment
social involvement
Power Control sponsorship Performance pay Take control of the Design and control
autonomy funding system campaign employee volunteer
Take control of the Take control of the Access multiple part- activities
campaign campaign ner
261
 TABLE II
continued 262

Variablea Sponsorship Transaction-based Joint-promotion Donation in-kind

Institutional legitimacy Market legitimacy NPO has a good
reputation and brand
awareness in the
community
Relational legitimacy Can help company
enhance its ethical image
Social legitimacy Acceptance in the
community
Acceptance from
employees
Investment legitimacy NPO is able to deliver
the results
NPO has previous its supporters (donor,
experience
in organising certain scale
of event
Alliance legitimacy NPO is willing to work
with company and has a
NPO has good NPO has good repu- NPO has good repu-
national and regional tation toward the cause tation toward the cause
reputation in this field in regional, national or in the community
NPO fits either com- international level
pany or product image Brand-cause fit
Can help company Can help company Can help company
enhance its ethical enhance its ethical enhance its ethical
image image image
Acceptance in the Acceptance in the Acceptance from
community regional, national or employees
international level
NPO can introduce NPO is able to im- NPO has ability to
companys product to prove company reputa- deliver a large quantity
tion and enhance its of goods
volunteer, etc.) brand awareness NPO provide oppor-
NPO is able to deliver tunities for employee
the results volunteers
NPO is easy going NPO has less restric- NPO is willing to
and flexible toward com tion on the usage of its work with company
Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko

good track record NPO is willing to logo and has a good track
work with company NPO is willing to record
and has a good track work with company NPO is willing to
record companys and has a good track work with company
request record and has a good track
record
a
Alliance condition variable is adopted from Figure 1 and discussed in the theoretical framework section of this article.
 TABLE III
Partnership condition and strategic objective for CRM findings (NPO)

Variablea Sponsorship Transaction-based Joint-promotion Donation in-kind

Collective strength Tangible resource Cash contribution Cash contribution Cash contribution Goods/service con-
Donation of goods Donation of goods tribution
Intangible resource Donation of service Donation of service Promote NPOs Employee expertise
Attraction for the event Promote NPOs brand brand awareness Labour force
awareness
Interpartner Diversity Event should be NPO should not be The company should Preferred cash dona-
conflict organised with non- involved in promoting not use NPOs brand tion
commercial objective companys products name and logo freely Company needs to
The amount of dona- without NPOs cover all the necessary
tion is not highly reliable approval volunteer expense
Private interest Fundraising Receive donation Attract potential Attracting firms
Attracting potential To maintain ethical donor employee as potential
donor who is not cur- status by keeping distance Raising brand aware- donor and volunteer
rently in NPOs data base from companys com- ness
mercial activities Cash contribution
Interdependence Mutual dependence Financial resource Financial contribution Financial contribution Goods/service con-
Publicity Publicity Publicity tribution
Employee volunteer
Powerautonomy Have more than one Ask for the minimum Restriction the com- Takes control of the
company involved in a donations panys usage on NPOs employee volunteer
CRM Implementation Strategies

single sponsorship Restrict the companys brand name and logo plan
scheme usage on NPOs brand Contract Control in-kind dis-
Get control on event name and logo Pay per use tribution
organising Restrict the companys Professional support Contract
Set restriction on using usage in NPOs donor
NPOs brand and logo database
Contract Contract
Institutional legitimacy Market legitimacy Socially responsible Socially responsible Socially responsible The quality of in-kind
business business business donation
The companys product Employee skill and
attached to charitys name experience
needs to have scientific
evidence on its perfor-
mance
263
 TABLE III
continued 264

Variablea Sponsorship Transaction-based Joint-promotion Donation in-kind

Relational legitimacy Promotes NPOs Adds ethical publicity Adds ethical publicity Adds ethical publicity
brand in the community for charity for charity for charity
Firms employee as
potential donor and
volunteer
Social legitimacy Reputation of the Reputation of the Reputation of the Quality of in-kind
company company company donation
Accepted by NPOs
supporter (i.e. donor)
Investment legitimacy The past results of The past results of The past results of The past results of
company in sponsorship company in transaction- company in CRM company in CRM
based CRM
Alliance legitimacy Show interests and The business opera- Show interests and Show interests and
enjoyment to work tion is relevant to enjoyment to work enjoyment to work
with NPO NPOs service with NPO with NPO
a
Alliance condition variable is adopted from Figure 1 and discussed in the theoretical framework section of this article.
Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
 CRM Implementation Strategies 265

TABLE IV
Data supporting the sponsorship theme

Collective strength
[]. We look at the cause first in how much our target customers are interested in this cause, how big the event will be
and how many people know our purpose and efforts toward this event. []. It is easier to tell people that we are a
trustworthy company through this activity [sponsorship], because people cannot touch and feel the quality of our service.
They have to trust us as service provider (Bank, Marketing Executive)
There are many different ways a company can support us. In particular, I like the sponsorship programme the most.
[The reasons are] First, sponsorship is very specific and easy to control. We know when the event will start, where the
event will be held, and who the audiences are. Secondly, we know exactly how much money or goods [including
services] that it [company] wants to donate to us. It helps us to budget our finances for the future. Thirdly the companys
name sometimes can be a big attraction for the people to attend our event (Social Cause NPO, Corporate Partnership
Manager)
Interpartner conflict
We have an internal event-organising team and they are professional event organizers. I mean that they are really good
at what they do. They use all these marketing data to support their decision. However, it seems to me that some partners
[NPOs], which we have worked with, are reluctant to accept their suggestions (Asset Management Firm, CSR Exec-
utive)
[]. I must say although some companies will provide us some ideas about event organizing and we appreciate that.
However, it does not mean that all their tips are good ones, because we are focusing on raising funds and attract our future
potential donors, not to make a big advertising display (Social Cause NPO, General Manager)
Interdependence
[] the key for us to maintain control is to ask more than one company to sponsor our event. We dont want to have
all our eggs in one basket. We also request to have total control for the event organising [including the usage of NPOs
brand name/logo], however, that is not always the case (Health Cause NPO, Fundraising/Marketing Manager)
The sponsorship programmes give us an opportunity to give back to the community and to reach some audiences that
we will otherwise have a hard time to reach. Therefore, we often have a clear agenda on when and where the event
should take place. We would like the charity to appreciate that (Engineering-General, CSR Executive)
We usually will not give all of our sponsorship donation at once, instead of we will make many different small payments
at different stages (Insurance Company, Marketing Executive)
Institutional legitimacy
They [NPO] need to be well respected in the community and can help us to raise the public profile. It is also important
that they are willing to work with us. Otherwise, there is no point in us collaborating with them [NPO] (Insurance
Company, Marketing Executive)
[] we want them to show us that they [the NPO] have the capacity to organise such an event and our employees are
comfortable with that, because we want our employees to participate in the event (Telecommunication Service, HR/
General Administrator)
The companys reputation is always the most important selection criteria. We also want to make that they are really
enjoying working with us to raise funds for the art cause. For a particular sponsorship event, we also want to see the past
results of the company, to make sure that it is the type of partner we want (Art Cause NPO, Corporate Partnership)
Other than checking the companys reputation, we want to make sure that there is no objection from our supporters.
[] (Social Cause NPO, Fundraising/Marketing)

rather than to raise additional funds for the cause.
The study conducted by Webber (2004) supports
this argument by suggesting that raising funds
through an event is not a very cost-effective
approach. For every pound () spent on raising
funds through the event, the NPO might only
receive 2.20. However, even though the corporate
sponsored event is not a very productive way of
raising funds, there is a secondary gain, which is to
recruit future donors and volunteers. This is because
the company itself can be an incentive for people to
attend the event because they want to impress their
reference group (such as a sign of wealth or social
grouping). The results of this study confirm this
266 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
view, NPO managers believe that having a big
name corporate sponsor can improve the attendees
at a charitable event. These attendees can then be
targeted as future donors and volunteers for the
NPO.
In terms of event organisation, interpartner con-
flicts usually arise when the company wants to make
sure that they are entitled to the credit for making
this charitable event possible to feed their commer-
cial interests by making the companys brand name
and logo appear everywhere at the event. On the
other hand, NPO managers want to use the event to
demonstrate its social value, that leads to the
enhancement of the participants involvement and
public awareness that may promote the recruitment
of future donors and volunteers. To cope with that,
both the company and NPO managers seem to
endorse the idea of gaining complete control over
the approach of the sponsorship. This is especially
true for the NPOs, as they will often be required to
include all of the necessary terms and conditions in
the sponsorship contract to ensure the charitable
nature of the event and to reduce any potential
reputational risk. Cliffe and Motion (2005) echo the
managers responses by suggesting that the party who
controls the sponsorship event cannot only maximise
the partys benefits from the sponsorship event but
also minimise the risk of negative associations arising
from the event. Alternatively, to hold their control
position in the relationship, companies focus on
controlling the flow of funding to the sponsorship
event, given that the method of instalment payment
can enhance a partys bargaining power and ensure
that the opponent deliver the promised results (Lee
and Png, 1990).
CRM implementation strategy: transaction-based
The transaction-based CRM implementation strategy
refers to companies that link the amount of their
donation to the cause to the companys performance
with regard to certain activities (i.e. the sale of its
product). In the social alliance setting, this cause is
represented by a particular NPO that provides a social
service linked to this cause. The following quotes (see
Table V) provide some examples about the sugges-
tions about the transaction-based strategy from both
the company and the NPO managers.
Pracejus et al. (2003) suggest that a transaction-
based CRM campaign provides a purchasing
incentive to customers, as it acts similarly to a price
discount promotion for the firms products.r The
results of this study suggest that the corporate
executive views that the transaction-based CRM
form combines both external legitimacy enhance-
ment and price-discounting tactics. The only dif-
ference is that the benefits from price discounts are
given to the NPOs instead of the customers. The
strategic objective for companies to engage in this
type of CRM is to attract new customers who either
have a close link with the selected NPO (i.e. donors
and volunteers) or perceive the cause that the NPO
represents as being worthwhile. The companies
want to use the NPOs images to promote the
ethical attributes of their products. The NPO, in this
case, acts as the product endorser in the eyes of the
customers. Ogilvie and Everhardus (2004) suggest
that product endorsement by highly credible NPOs
could be a powerful tool for influencing peoples
perceptions of the companys products. The reason
for this is that NPOs have a well-established image
in their field. The alliances between the corporations
and NPOs can create a convincing message for their
audiences in terms of the firms credibility and
legitimacy.
From the NPOs perspective, the managers
unanimously agree that the cash contribution is the
key resource that it receives from the company
through the CRM alliance of a transaction-based
campaign as well as helping NPOs to disseminate
their brand awareness and recognition. Dickinson
and Barker (2007) suggest that one of the benefits for
an NPO from engaging in a CRM alliance is the
cost savings on marketing expenditure. For example,
in American Express famous 1983 Statue of Liberty
campaign, the firm spent $6 million to promote the
CRM campaign and only raised $1 million for the
cause (Berglind and Nakata, 2005). As a result, even
through the cash donation from the transaction-
based campaign was lower than the NPO expected,
however, the marketing expenditure that the com-
pany spent on promoting CRM is worth the NPOs
involvement.
Given the promotional nature of the transaction-
based CRM strategy, the company often demands
that NPOs should contribute some efforts towards
the success of the campaign (e.g. promoting the
 CRM Implementation Strategies 267

TABLE V
Data supporting the transaction-based theme

Collective strength
It is similar to our other sales promotion campaigns in our store, instead the amount of price discount is given to the
charity rather than our customers. People will sense our contribution to society. [] (High Street Retailer, HR/General
Administration Executive)
They put our name or logo on the product packaging and donate to us for every product sold. I think it also helps us to
get our name across to many potential donators (Youth and Educational Cause NPO, General Manager)
We welcome the concept of cause-related marketing [transaction-based type] as it provides us with some additional
income. In addition, it also helps us to improve our publicity (Art Cause NPO, General Manager)
Interpartner conflict
[]. If I have my sales people promote this [products] to our clients, I will prefer our partner to do the same. It is similar
to how I motivate my sales team; the more you put in the better you will get paid. In fact, all the profits are going to them
[NPO] anyway (Supermarket, Marketing Executive)
[]. The public believe that we must make a fortune in this campaign [CRM]. In fact, most of the time, our income
from this activity is very small and highly unreliable. They [companies] expect us to sell this to the people who we know
will support us regardless. However, I dont feel this is very ethical to ask people to purchase the things that they dont
want originally. [] (Health Cause NPO, General Manager)
In order for our programme to perform well, we need to both put in a lot of effort. Some of them think that is solely the
companys effort, but it is not true. For this type of campaign to work, they need to spend the same effort to promote the
products to the people that they know (High Street Retailer, Marketing Executive)
Many companies want us to promote the products to our supporters, however, we dont think that it is ethical. They
[our supporters] can choose whatever product they want, I dont want to influence their decisions (Social Cause NPO,
Fundraising Manager)
Interdependence
We like to use cause-related marketing to improve our brand image while at the same time increase our sales. By
working with the charity they can introduce us to a new customer segment by sharing their information [database] (Food
and Drug Store, CSR Executive)
I think the most effective way to motivate our charity partner is to make the campaign totally based on performance:
The more the sales, the bigger the donation for the charity (Diversified Industries, HR/General Administrator)
[] we dont put many restrictions [alliance conditions] like others. Although we may not allow the company to access
our database directly, however, we are willing to mail out the promotion flyer to the donor in our database to let them
know about our campaigns (Social Cause NPO, Fundraising/Marketing Manager)
[] I usually dont have a problem to let our donors know that by purchasing companys product can help us
financially. I think that is how partnership supposes to work. [] For our financial security, I will always make sure that
the company can guarantee the minimum donation for this campaign (Health Cause NPO, Fundraising/Marketing
Manager)
Institutional legitimacy
Our ideal candidate is the charity that has good national or regional reputation and well-respected in its field. It will be a
plus that the charity has done this kind of campaign before and the campaign is successful (Department Store, HR/
General Administrator)
We want to work with a charity that is easy going, because this types of strategy [transaction-based] needs a lot of
co-operation from the charity. It is even better, if the charity brand can also fit with our product image (Food and
Drug Store, HR/General Manager)
We have to make sure the company has a good reputation and are relevant to our operation. We have been approached
by other companies but we felt that they only wanted the market. They do not really want to raise the awareness of the
cause (Health Cause NPO, General Manager)
We want to make the sure the product that the company wants to sell passes all necessary tests, especially the food
products. []. It will also help their proposal if they can demonstrate that they have done similar things in the past with
success (Youth and Educational Cause NPO, Fundraising/Marketing Manager)
268 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
companys products to their donors) and views the
performance-based donation scheme as designed to
stimulate a greater level of involvement by the
NPO. Conflict usually arises because of this. NPO
managers often feel that it is unethical to promote
the companys products directly to their own sup-
porters (i.e. donors). The reason for this is that this
approach has the high potential to damage the
NPOs brand, as it acts as if the NPO has directly
endorsed the companys products. Other than the
reputational risk concerns, the NPO managers also
suggest that the benefits received from helping
companies to promote the products often outweigh
the effort. This perception reinforces the study of
Pracejus and Olsen (2004) and Olsen et al. (2003),
who suggest that NPOs are concerned about the
reliability of the amount of money that the company
will donate through the CRM campaign. Never-
theless several NPO managers express different
points of view about the transaction-based imple-
mentation strategy by suggesting that they welcome
this form of CRM alliance as they welcome any
forms of donation from the company and that they
will fully cooperate with any strategies that the
company proposes.
In terms of power, the company has a nature
dominant position in a transaction-based CRM.
First of all, the entire marketing and distribution
channels tend to be controlled by the company. It is
rare for the NPO to be the one that distributes the
products or advertising pieces to potential customers,
unless the NPO also have its own distribution
channels (i.e. charity shops). Secondly, since the
rationale of a transaction-based CRM campaign is
built around the performance pay system (Barone
et al., 2000; Chaney and Dolli, 2001), this enables
the company to measure and control the progress of
the CRM campaign. These advantages enable the
company to have a strong influence over its NPO
partner, and three key selection criteria emerged
because of this. Firstly, the managers suggest that the
compatibility between the brand image of the
company and the NPO can enhance the perfor-
mance of the CRM campaign, which has been
supported by many previous studies (Barone et al.,
2007; Hamlin and Wilson, 2004). This condition is
also embraced by NPO managers who suggest that
the fit between the NPO and the company brand is
important. Secondly, the NPO must be able to
introduce the companys products to potential cus-
tomers. The company has more interests to work
with NPOs that can help it to increase its sales and
potential customer base. Finally, the corporate
executives are looking for an NPO that has more
flexibility in the transaction-based CRM campaign,
because actions such as promoting the companys
products to the donors (potential customers) require
NPOs to have a flexible alliance policy. To combat
the natural dominant position that companies have
in this type of CRM campaign, the NPO managers
suggest three counter strategies: limiting the rights to
the NPOs brand name, establishing an alliance
contract, and agreeing to a minimum donation
amount. The two former strategies are similar to the
counter strategies used in CRM sponsorship, while
the last one is somewhat unique to a transaction-
based alliance. It was stressed by the interviewees
that guaranteeing a minimum donation amount
strengthens the corporate alliance and covers the
relationship-specific investments that are borne by
the NPO. It could also be perceived as the NPOs
counter strategy to the companys performance pay
system. Fundamentally, it will be much easier to
ensure that the company has a good track record for
being socially responsible by checking the back-
ground of the company and asking them to offer
scientific proof of the products performance before
fully engaging in a transaction-based CRM cam-
paign.
CRM implementation strategy: joint-promotion
The joint-promotion CRM implementation strat-
egy involves cooperation in the advertising efforts
between the company and the NPO. The following
quotes (see Table VI) provide some examples about
the suggestions about joint-promotion from both
the company and NPO managers.
To choose an ideal partner, the corporate exec-
utives are concerned about the following three
issues. Firstly, the demand for the NPOs ethical
image and brand recognition is the highest among
the four forms of CRM implementation strategy.
For example, the effectiveness of CRM sponsorship
can also be increased by the quality of an organised
event. In joint-promotion campaigns, there is no
other medium besides the marketing campaign itself,
 CRM Implementation Strategies 269

TABLE VI
Data supporting the joint-promotion theme

Collective strength
It is about brand awareness. Charities provide services to different causes. When companies associate their brand with a
charitys brand, they also get associated with those causes that are represented by the charities (Consumer Finance Firm,
Marketing Executive)
Associating with a well known and well respected company can really bring up our organizational [NPO] status. We are
suddenly becoming more well known, at the same time we also receive quite a sum of money from the company (Social
Cause NPO, Fundraising/Marketing Manager)
Interpartner conflict
The charities usually impose a lot of rules on the usage of their brand name and logos. I find this is quite annoying. If
they are not willing to do that, why collaborate with us in the first place? (Food Retailer, HR/General Administrator)
We want to produce a good marketing campaign and in order for us to succeed we want to have full access to our
partners logo so that we can put it to best use. However, the charity seems as if they dont want their logo to appear
anywhere. I think that may undermine our campaign performance (Consumer Finance Firm, CSR Executive)
Our brand name is the most valuable thing for us, therefore we want to protect it. I will not let the company use our
logo without our approval first. I know that they may think differently, however, this is not really negotiable in our
situation (Health Cause NPO, Corporate Partnership Manager)
Interdependence
[] we want to take the total control of the campaign planning. If our potential partner cannot agree to our terms, we
will walk away from this partnership. I will not spend shareholder money that way (Department Store, Marketing
Executive)
[] it is a company policy to work with more than one charity partner. I sometime found this policy can increase our
bargaining power on the negotiation table (Asset Management, CSR Executive)
We are going after some businesses in our community and hoping that they accept our proposal. We dont have much
to give. We can only give them access to our logo [], I will always bring people with professional knowledge with me
when we negotiate (Educational Cause, Corporate Partnership Manager)
To protect our brand name and gain more control in this situation, we will normally impose a restriction on using our
brand name and logo. [] The company needs to get our approval if they want use our brand differently than our initial
agreement. Of course, it also means that they need to increase the amount of donation (Health Cause NPO, General
Manager)
Institutional legitimacy
We want to find a highly reputable and recognisable non-profit brand to associate with. We have so many different
businesses and operations in different locations. We want to find a non-profit organization which is recognisable
everywhere and has a natural link to our diverse portfolio (Asset Management Firm, HR/Administration Executive)
It is important that they dont have too many rules on how we can use their brand (Food Retailer, Marketing
Executive)
[]. By associating our brand with a well-recognisable [and well-fitted] charity brand can increase our brand awareness
and ethical image internationally (Bank, HR/General Administrator)
We had some conditions that there are certain corporations that we like to work with. We cannot give you all the
details, but I can assure you the final contract is very long. [] we like to work with companies that are ethical and have
to be accepted by the public and really want to work with us. [] (Youth and Educational NPO, Corporate Partnership
Manager)

which the company can use to address certain social
issues to enhance its legitimacy. Corporate execu-
tives refer openly to the fact that they expected to
create a nationwide awareness of the firms ethical
behaviour in this type of CRM implementation
strategy. They suggested that having a joint-pro-
motional campaign with a well-respected NPO
delivered through the mass media is the easiest way
to enhance the legitimacy of the organisation. As
Docherty and Hibbert (2003) argue, CRM enables
270 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
companies to increase their press coverage and raise
their brand awareness about their association with
ethical issues. If the main objective of the CRM
campaign only concerns raising public awareness of
the firms ethical behaviour, then the expressions by
corporate executives clearly indicate that they would
prefer to have joint promotion CRM campaigns.
Secondly, the NPO should not impose tight access
restrictions on the use of the NPOs brand and logo.
In order to maximise the marketing results, the
corporate executives demand full control of the
campaign (i.e. full access of NPOs brand name and
logo), which allows the company to gain flexibility
in the CRM campaign. Some corporate executives
even suggest that he/she will walk away from the
partnership if he/she cannot gain full control of the
campaign. Therefore, the company often works
with multiple NPOs rather than merely one to in-
crease its bargaining power in the alliance negotia-
tion. This concurs with Simons (1995) claim that
the company can increase its options and flexibility
by working with multiple partners in different
markets and it has the added advantage of freshening
up the appeal of a cause. Thirdly, the corporate
executives also consider the brand-cause fit for the
joint-promotion types of CRM alliance more than
that for other types. Given that the compatibility
between the companys brand and the NPOs brand
can generate the highest recall and more favourable
public perception (Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006;
Nan and Heo, 2007), consequently, the company
will want to seek an NPO that has a high brand-
cause fit with the company.
NPO managers, on the other hand, agree that the
joint-promotion CRM campaign can generate rev-
enue and publicity. However, it is very difficult to
control the usage of its brand name and logo through
a joint promotional CRM campaign. One of the
reasons for this is because many of the NPOs do not
possess the necessary expertise to deal with market-
ing-related issues. Although NPO managers do not
want to lose the opportunity to work with the
company, as it enables them to enhance their brand
awareness and enlarge their donor base, however,
they indicate that they will reject a firms request
unless the company is agreeable to certain condi-
tions, such as controlling the advertising content,
and every usage of the NPOs brand name is sub-
jected to the NPOs authorisation. This is where the
corporate executive often feels that NPOs habitually
impose restrictions on the usage of the NPOs name
and logo, which reduces the flexibility of the com-
panys CRM campaign execution. The authors
impression is that these conditions fulfil double
purposes. They reflect a genuine concern to preserve
the status of the NPO and enhance the terms of the
agreement. For instance, if the corporate partner
wants a more extensive use of the logo, then the
donation must be increased. There is evidence that
managers are resorting to brand management tech-
niques and adopting a longer-term perspective with
regard to the pricing and negotiation of the usage of
their logo. This pay-per-use approach perhaps
exemplifies the extent to which business values and
techniques have permeated the sector. Whilst short-
term pressures for funds can hamper an NPOs
ability to protect its image, managers have stressed
that they were careful to avoid long-term brand
deterioration.
CRM implementation strategy: donation in-kind
Donation in-kind CRM refers to a non-financial
corporate contribution towards an NPO. At the
same time, the company earns the right to link its
brand with the NPOs brand. The following quotes
(see Table VI) provide some examples about the
suggestions about the donation in-kind campaigns
from both the company and NPO managers.
In comparison with the other three types of
CRM implementation strategy, both parties appear
to be less concerned with seeking managerial control
in donation in-kind CRM campaigns, mainly be-
cause of a lack of direct cash involvement. Corporate
executives suggest that they receive less pressure in
terms of whether the spending on CRM (in the
other three forms of implementation strategy) has
produced results, such as a return on investment or
in terms of improving the companys reputation.
Nevertheless, companies still want their NPO part-
ners to have a good brand reputation and be able to
transfer this ethical reputational equity to the com-
panys brand. The corporate executives view it as an
effective strategy for communicating to the people
that the company really does care, as supported by
Ellen et al.s (2000) finding, that in-kind donation
can increase trust among consumer groups. Other
 CRM Implementation Strategies
than donation of goods/services, the overwhelming
messages suggest that the concept of employee vol-
unteers is becoming more popular. This activity has
proved to be a powerful tool for enhancing the
firms internal legitimacy if the employees perceive
that they have say in the programme (Liu et al.,
2010), as well as providing training and team-
building for the employees. This finding concurs
with several authors who have reinforced the ben-
efits of volunteer programmes: improving the
employees motivational level (Brown and Ashcraft,
2005); enhancing the organisational reputation
(de Gilder et al., 2005); gaining job-related skills
(Peterson, 2004a); and increasing the employees
commitment to the organisation as well as their
personal fulfilment (Dawley et al., 2005).
From the NPOs perspective, managers suggest
that, unless the NPO has a sophisticated distribution
network or the donated goods can be used directly
in the NPOs operations, the companies goods
donation adds little value to the NPO. Therefore,
many NPOs prefer a cash donation rather than a
donation of goods. However, if a NPO decides to
accept a goods donation from the companies and
distribute it to those in need, then it subsequently
becomes the endorser of the companys products.
Therefore, if the quality of the goods is not up to
standard, then both the companys and the NPOs
brand reputation can be tarnished (Polonsky and
Wood, 2001). Moreover, NPO managers express an
extreme interest in receiving in-kind donations in
the form of employee volunteers. The reason is
because the employee volunteer programme is
playing an increasingly important role in corporate
CRM packages, and NPO managers are aware of
the hidden benefits (such as labour force, exper-
tise) from it. Interestingly, the NPOs are able to
view the volunteers as individuals, separate from the
company (no reputational risk concern). As a result,
the NPO can accept an employee who works in a
particular industry, such as tobacco or weapons, with
which many NPOs do not usually want to be
associated (Liston-Heyes and Liu, 2010).
Although both parties highly favour the concept
of employee volunteers, some conflicts still arise.
NPO managers note that the extra expense needs to
be covered by employee voluntary activities. In this
sense, the NPO managers suggest that the company
should take responsibility for covering these
271
expenses, if the company truly wants to get involved
in voluntary activities. Moreover, the respondents
also report the diversity of the management style
about volunteer between the company and the
NPO. The company managers report that NPO
manager should adopt the way that the company
does (i.e. performance driven) in managing volun-
teers. Berger et al.s (2004, p. 66) suggestion that the
stronger partner (the company) assumes that its
timelines, priorities, structures and processes should
take precedence, which can result in what is partner
perceives to be unreasonable demands provides a
similar interpretation. This does not mean that the
companys management style of volunteers can really
make an impact on the actual volunteer perfor-
mance, because the nature of the work is different.
Discussions and implications
CRM is one method of commercialising CSR ini-
tiatives by publicising companys social performance
its target audience with the intention of enhancing
corporate legitimacy and profitability. Instead of
engaging in purely philanthropic social activities,
firms are incorporating their CSR activities into
their marketing strategy through the practice of their
CRM programme. The authors focus particularly on
the social alliance delivery pattern of the CRM
campaign and investigate both parties preferences
regarding different CRM implementation strategies.
This research documents both the NPOs and the
companys attitudes towards four types of CRM
implementation strategy, using the proposed
theoretical framework on alliance conditions (see
Figure 1). The authors find that each party has
specific preferences regarding choosing particular
CRM implementation strategies in different situa-
tions. From the companys perspective, sponsorship
allows it to communicate its ethical brand image to a
specific group of people. Therefore, the company
appears more prone to choose a sponsorship strategy
if its potential target audiences are involved in cer-
tain charitable events/schemes/challenges. Transac-
tion-based CRM implementation strategy represents
a pay per results sales promotion model that focusing
on creating sales. The finding of this study suggests
that the company tends to use this type of
CRM implementation strategy when its approach
272 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
emphasises improving sales and reaching new cus-
tomers. A joint-promotion campaign emphasises
raising the awareness of the ethical associations of the
companys brand image; therefore, it offers more
incentive for a company that seeks marketing
exposure. Finally, the authors find that the company
has expressed more interest in conducting the
donation in-kind strategy, especially employee vol-
untary activities. Therefore, the authors suspect that
the company with a specific objective of increasing
the involvement of its employees in its CRM
campaign will prefer a donation in-kind strategy.
From the perspective of the NPOs, corporate
sponsorship of fundraising events/schemes/chal-
lenges offers opportunities for them to attract new
donors to attend fundraising events, as well as con-
trol and financial reliability. Therefore, an NPO that
is more engaged in the event organising type of
fundraising tactics or seeking a less risky, more reli-
able way to raise funds is more likely to work with a
company on this type of CRM strategy. A transac-
tion-based strategy offers opportunities for an NPO
to raise bonus funds through increasing its engage-
ment in the CRM campaign. The authors find that
an NPO with a large and loyal donor base is more
interested in cooperating with a company that offers
brand compatible products in this type of CRM
implementation strategy. The joint promotion
strategy enables the NPO to raise brand awareness;
therefore, it offers more incentive for an NPO that
mainly seeks publicity. Finally, the donation in-kind
strategy provides additional fundraising opportuni-
ties for NPOs to re-sell the donated products, as well
as acquiring both manpower and skills from
employee volunteers. Thus, the NPO with a well-
organised distribution channel (i.e. charity shops) or
one that is keen to acquire more skilled volunteers
will be more interested in cooperating with the
company in this type of CRM implementation
strategy. In general, these findings address each
partys preferences when choosing different types of
CRM implementation strategies to address specific
strategic objectives.
Social alliances operate under a mutual depen-
dence situation and Casciaro and Piskorski (2005,
p. 174) argue that this can create a substantial
incentive to exchange with each other as well as
opening up significant scope for negotiation. The
resource dependence theory can help to understand
the process whereby both parties will negotiate the
details of the alliance to their own advantage whilst
presenting to their target audience their social image
in the best possible manner. By analysing the alliance
conditions, the authors find that, before entering into
a social alliance negotiation, both parties have some
sets of requests in mind, which the authors refer to as
the initial position in the negotiation (see Table VII).
Either a company or an NPO that has sets of qualities
to satisfy the other sides initial position will preserve
great bargaining power when entering into social
alliance negotiations (Table VIII).
In general, the authors find that both the com-
pany and NPO have some general demands across
the four different types of CRM implementation
strategy. From the companys perspective, the NPO
needs to have a well-recognised ethical reputation in
its field, to be able to help a company to reach and
access new customer groups, and have a good track
record of working with the company. The NPO
that possesses these three qualities has a solid bar-
gaining position for dealing with the company in the
social alliance negotiation. Conversely, a company
that is in a position to offer an NPO either financial
or non-financial contributions, help an NPO to gain
public brand awareness, provide a signed contract
protecting an NPOs benefits, and demonstrate to an
NPO that it has a good track record of working with
third sector organisations, has an advantage when
negotiating with NPOs. Apart from the general
demands, the authors also found that there are some
specific demands for each of the four CRM imple-
mentation strategies.
In the sponsorship situation, the focus is on the
specific event/scheme/challenge, where the com-
pany uses it to build up its ethical brand equity in the
community by associating its brand name and logo
with the event (Bennett, 1997). The NPO per-
spective is that it not only uses the event to enhance
its brand profile and raise additional funds, but also
to attract potential donors and build up its existing
database (Webber, 2004). In addition to the general
demands across all four CRM implementation
strategies, the authors also found that the NPO can
offers employee participation opportunities in the
event or allow the company to control the event
organising procedure to enhance its bargaining
power during the negotiation. On the other hand,
an NPO prefers to work with a company that can
 CRM Implementation Strategies 273

TABLE VII
Data supporting the donation-in kind theme

Collective strength
[]. We are shifting our donation strategy more toward this way. Since they know very well about who will need our
help, they have done a good job to distribute our products. It is a very effective way to tell people that we really care
(High Street Retail, CRM Executive)
[]. We encourage our employees to volunteer for the local charities and our corporate headquarters will provide some
support to them. We found that the volunteer programme gives us many benefits such as training, getting people to know
each other and so on. Overall it works very well to improve our PR (Engineering-General, HR/General Administrator)
The corporate volunteers are very helpful for us. It gives us an extra hand for our community work. Some of them are
willing to share their skills and experience with us. For example, this one company worked with us in the past. Their
employees taught us how to develop our own website (Social Cause NPO, General Manager)
Interpartner conflict
I found that the business and charity have a different business culture. I remember that we have had a couple of conflicts
with the charity about the management of the volunteer programmes (Insurance Company, CSR Executive)
We need to provide weekly performance feedback about what we have done for that week. Seems to me, our charity
partner did not get this. I understand that we have a different culture, but we still need to report to the board about our
CSR performance. [] (Media Agency, Marketing Executive)
I prefer companies to give us cash rather than goods or services. The reason is it is simple and easier to manage. We have
experience of a company giving us their off-season products to us. It actually creates more problems than benefits. [] I
think the employee volunteer is a good idea, those employees usually become our donors and future volunteer arms
(NPO General Manager)
[] some companies may only send their employees to us but we need to cover the rest of the expense such as
transportation. For a charity the size of ours, it is a big extra expense that we need to pay (NPO Partnership Manager)
Interdependence
It is part of our CSR strategy. We want to be known as community friendly organization and they can help us to
achieve that. For example, they are free to use our conference facility any time they want (Insurance Company,
Marketing Executive)
[]. We like to choose a charity from within our community, because our employees can have a chance to be involved
with their work. Our employees love to work with our charity partner in their community projects. It can help them
relax from their office work. At the same time, I also see this as a great bonding activity to let the employees know each
other on a personal level (Diversified Industries, Marketing Executive)
Most of the volunteer supports that we get are from the business. They really want to make differences in our cause.
Other than money, they have brought lot of other things such as employee and equipment. They are very important to
our organization. However, we will not work with the company if they can not follow our agenda (Social Cause NPO,
Corporate Partnership Manager)
Institutional legitimacy
[]. We usually will not be in partnership with any charitable organization, if we cannot get the favourable replies from
our employees (Food and Drug Store, HR/General Administrator)
We want to make sure that the goods they donate are of a good quality. We dont want the people who receive the
goods to feel inferior. If a company wants to donate food, we want to make sure it is still within the expired date (Youth
and Education Cause, Fundraising/Marketing Manager)
For the employee volunteer, we dont really consider the companys reputation. I think we see employee as an
individual separate from the company. So, I have no problem in receiving employee volunteers from companies such as
those concerned with tobacco (Social Cause NPO, Fundraising Manager)

attract many people to the event, agrees to let the of the above qualities will have more bargaining
NPO control the event organising procedure, and power when facing an NPO across the negotiating
demonstrate to the NPO that the company is a table. The interesting thing in CRM sponsorship
socially responsible business. A company that has all alliances is that both parties wish to gain control of
274 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko

TABLE VIII
Initial positions in negotiation

Company NPO

Across all CRM implementation NPO that has well-recognised ethical Company provides either financial or
strategies (general demands) reputation non-financial contributions to NPO
NPO that can reach and access new Company is able to enhance NPOs brand
customer groups awareness
NPO has a good track record to work Company has a good track record to work
with company with NPO
Company is able to sign an alliance con-
tract
In addition to the general demands,
there are some specific demands
for individual CRM implementation
strategies
Sponsorship NPO offers employee participation Company is able to attract many people to
opportunities the event
NPO agrees to let company to control Company agrees to let NPO to control
sponsored event/scheme/challenge sponsored event/scheme/challenge organ-
organising ising
Company is a socially responsible business
Transaction-based NPO is able to reach wider audiences Company is able to provide minimum
NPO agrees to let company to control donation
promotion programme and product/ser- Company is a socially responsible business
vice distribution
NPO and the company have brand-
cause fit
NPO is willing introduce companys
product/service to its supporters (donor,
volunteer, etc.)
Joint-promotion NPO is able to reach wider audiences Company is a socially responsible business
NPO agrees to let company to control Company consults with NPO on the
advertising campaign design and launch usage of NPOs brand name and logo
NPO and the company have brand-
cause fit
NPO has less restriction on its brand
name and logo
Donation in-kind NPO offers employee participation Company agrees to let NPO to control the
opportunities employee volunteer plan
NPO agrees to let company to design Company is willing to let its employee to
and control employee voluntary activities share their skills and experience
NPO has ability to distribute goods Company agrees to cover all the necessary
donated from company expenses related to employee volunteer
programme

organising a charitable event. In reality, there will be that is willing to give up this control right when
only one party who gets this right, unless they work entering the negotiation will generate greater bar-
together to come up with some creative solutions gaining power that will enable them to exchange
about this issue. The authors argue that either party better rewards relating to other issues.
 CRM Implementation Strategies
The focus on transaction-based CRM imple-
mentation is shifted to the sales of the companys
products and services. The company uses the NPOs
ethical brand equity to influence customers pur-
chasing behaviour and, ultimately, the company is
seeking to gain access to the NPOs donor database
to promote products directly (Ogilvie and Everhar-
dus, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2003). From the NPOs
perspective, they often face a dilemma regarding
whether or not to help the company to sell its
products. The act of partnership in this kind of
campaign will be viewed as product endorsement
from the customers perspective. Besides the general
demands, the company perceives the NPO as a
highly valuable alliance partner and is willing to pay
a high price (not necessarily a cash donation) to
acquire it, when this particular NPO possesses the
following qualities, such as reaching a wider audi-
ence, letting the company control the promotion
programme and produce the service distribution,
possessing a cause image that fits with the companys
brand, and being willing to introduce the companys
products and services to its supporter groups. In this
research, the corporate managers suggest that any of
these merits that the NPO partner has enables the
company to achieve better results in a transaction-
based CRM campaign. Therefore, the NPO can use
them to bargain for a better alliance deal. Con-
versely, from the NPOs point of view, a company
that is known as a socially responsible business and is
willing to guarantee a minimum donation will be
considered as an attractive alliance partner. There-
fore, the company will have more bargaining power
in transaction-based CRM, if it can fulfil these two
NPOs requests.
Compared to the other types of CRM imple-
mentation strategies, the exchanges of resources
appear to be the least complex in the joint-promo-
tion strategy. To maximise the return on investment,
the company is more likely to demand control over
the advertising campaign design and launch, as well
as ultimate access to the NPOs brand to enhance the
flexibility of the marketing strategy. Other than the
above two qualities, NPOs that have the ability to
reach wider audiences and possess a compatible cause
image with the companys brand are also in a better
position to negotiate a great alliance deal with the
company. From the NPOs perspective, the joint-
promotion CRM campaign has a higher potential
275
reputational risk and therefore they tend to impose
restrictions on the usage of their brand name and
logo to minimise this risk. Therefore, the NPO
managers are more willing to offer a better alliance
deal to a company if the company itself is highly
recognised as a socially responsible business along
with showing a willingness to consult with the NPO
about the usage of an NPOs brand name. Notice
here that a company that possesses a socially
responsible business image in addition to the general
demands has a big advantage when negotiating with
NPOs in the sponsorship, transaction-based and
joint-promotion forms of CRM implementation
strategy. There is also a general point there about
company-NPO relationships that beyond the joint-
promotion type of CRM.4 One of the important
considerations for a company when entering into a
social alliance is to leverage on the NPOs brand
reputation for improving the companys own brand
reputation. For the NPO, this can be a risky prop-
osition, involving potential dents in its reputation
that may affect its future fundraising abilities.
Therefore, there is a trade-off between the volume
of funds and the potential reputation damage, and
the NPO managers increasingly resort to brand
management techniques to manage this trade-off and
impose restrictions on the image and logo usage to
reduce the probability of hold-up.
The two primary activities for the donation
in-kind CRM implementation strategy are the
in-kind goods/service donation and employee vol-
unteers. The latter have been becoming more pop-
ular recently, since more benefits about such an
approach have been revealed through various studies
(de Gilder et al., 2005; Muthuri et al., 2009; Peloza
and Hassay, 2006). Since there is no cash directly in-
volved in the resource exchange, both the company
and the NPO representatives have suggested that
the managers are under less pressure in respect of the
performance of this type of campaign. From the
companys perspective, an NPO that can offer
employee participation opportunities, agree to let the
company design and control the employee voluntary
activities and has the ability to distribute goods
donated from the company to individuals in need in
addition to the general demands is the ideal alliance
partner. NPOs that possess these qualities can be
considered as having greater bargaining power when
entering a CRM alliance negotiation. On the other
276 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
hand, the company will have an advantage during the
alliance negotiation if it can forgo the desire to control
the employee volunteers, allow its employees to share
their skills and experience when volunteering, or
cover all of the necessary expenses related to the
employee volunteer programme. Similar to the spon-
sorship form of CRM implementation strategy, both
parties are seeking to control the employee volunteer
programme. As a result, the party that is willing give
up this power should be able to gain an advantage
through demanding rewards relate dot other issues.
Overall, many of the above findings are consistent
with the general arguments among CRM alliance
studies (Berger et al., 2006; Till and Nowak, 2000;
Varadarajan and Menon, 1988), in which the funda-
mental principle is where the company offers a
financial contribution (except for a donation in-kind
CRM campaign where the company uses in-kind
donation to replace its financial contribution) to the
NPO in exchange for the right to associate the com-
panys brand with the NPOs brand that usually con-
tains a higher ethical value. Both parties considering
the CRM campaign, in their quest to optimise their
own outcome, will assess the opportunities relating to
each individual strategy. Although the fundamen-
tal principle of the social alliance is very similar
among CRM implementation strategies, however, the
authors find that the specific objectives for the alliance
condition do differ for different types of CRM
implementation strategy. This research documents
both parties preferences regarding the four different
types of CRM implementation strategy. It contributes
to the field of knowledge by discovering both parties
perceptions and underlines the motives to work
together in a particular CRM implementation strat-
egy. The alliance conditions for both parties are devel-
oped as the result of this research. Each of the CRM
implementation strategies have unique characteristics
and, as such, both parties must be clear as to their own
individual objectives to be achieved from the social
alliance. The authors believe that this knowledge can
assist both parties in the process of choosing their
alliance partner and negotiating their alliance package.
Concluding remarks
In this research, the authors explored both the
companys and the NPOs positions regarding dif-
ferent CRM implementation strategies. The forma-
tion of a cross-sector alliance allows each organisation
to strengthen its resource profile by accessing a
resource that its partner possesses. NPOs receive
a monetary contribution, managerial knowledge
and/or volunteers from the allied company, depend-
ing on the availability of resources and the NPOs
needs. In exchange, the corporate partner gains an
enhanced social image, favourable publicity and the
means to influence their stakeholders opinions. In
terms of both parties preferences, the authors find
that the important considerations for the companies
are more closely associated with the marketing
performance. On the other hand, the NPOs pref-
erences are more closely based on their fundraising
potential and reputation protection. The authors also
recognise that there are four major limitations to this
study. Firstly, this research does not produce any
quantitative measurements about each partys pref-
erences with regard to certain alliance conditions.
For example, the authors recognise that it is
important for a company if its NPO partner can
provide employee participation opportunities during
a CRM sponsorship campaign. However, the above
data sets cannot provide a precise quantitative scale
about just how important this is. As a result, it is hard
to determine what the proper rewards are for
NPOs if they fulfil the companies demands. Sec-
ondly, as the authors mentioned in the discussion
section, due to the nature and scope of this study,
further researches are required to explore more
detailed issues with regard to managers preferences
regarding one CRM implementation strategy over
others. For example, the future research can examine
which managers (i.e. which causes, which industries)
prefer which CRM implementation strategy over
the others. In order to answer these questions,
larger scale quantitative research is required. Thirdly,
although the authors acknowledge the connections
between the four alliance conditions and provide a
belief discussion about how they are interrelated,
however, the data that the authors have collected are
not enough to draw practical implications. Future
research can explore the correlation or compromise
between these four conditions to extend the con-
tribution of this article. Finally, it is important to
note that, although each type of CRM implemen-
tation strategy has been discussed separately, these
four types of CRM implementation strategy can also
 CRM Implementation Strategies 277
2
be interrelated. For example, in a sponsorship event, This critical statement has been provided by an
the company can also donate either cash or in-kind anonymous reviewer.
3
(or sometimes both) to the NPO. Moreover, both An anonymous reviewer provided especially helpful
the company and the NPO can choose to engage in arguments.
4
multiple types of CRM activity within a single social An anonymous reviewer pointed this out from the
findings of this study.
alliance. As a result, the strategic objectives for both
parties will become more complex and thus warrant
becoming the subject of further study. Despite these
limitations, this research contributes to the under- Acknowledgements
standing of both the companys and the NPOs
positions with regard to the different types of CRM The authors gratefully acknowledge the suggestions,
implementation strategy. This research gives man- inspiration, and feedbacks of Isabella Chaney in devel-
agers a comprehensive view of the alliance condi- oping the ideas set forth in this manuscript. The authors
tions for social alliances. also thank section editor Scott John Vitell and two
anonymous JBE reviewers for thoughtful developmental
feedback that help sharpen the arguments of the article
considerably.
Notes
Appendix
1
This critical suggestion has been provided by an
anonymous reviewer. See Table IX.

TABLE IX
Summary of interviewees

Industry Sub-Sectora/causeb Position Number

For-profit Asset Management Firm CSR Executive 2

Asset Management Firm HR/General Administrator 1
Bank CSR Executive 1
Bank HR/General Administrator 1
Bank Marketing 1
Consumer Finance Firm CSR Executive 1
Consumer Finance Firm Marketing 1
Department Store HR/General Administrator 1
Department Store Marketing 1
Diversified Industries HR/General Administrator 2
Diversified Industries Marketing 1
Engineering General CSR Executive 1
Engineering General HR/General Administrator 1
Food and Drug Store CSR Executive 1
Food and Drug Store HR/General Administrator 2
Food and Drug Store Marketing 1
High Street Retailer CSR Executive 2
High Street Retailer HR/General Administrator 2
High Street Retailer Marketing 1
Insurance Company CSR Executive 1
Insurance Company Marketing 2
Media Agencies Marketing 1
278 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko

TABLE IX
continued

Industry Sub-Sectora/causeb Position Number

Medical Equipment Supplier CSR Executive 1

Supermarket HR/General Administrator 1
Supermarket Marketing 1
Telecommunication Service HR/General Administrator 1
Telecommunication Service Marketing 1
Non-profit Art Cause NPO Corporate Partnership 1
Art Cause NPO Fundraising/Marketing 1
Art Cause NPO General Manager 2
Social Cause NPO Corporate Partnership 5
Social Cause NPO Fundraising/Marketing 5
Social Cause NPO General Manager 4
Health Cause NPO Corporate Partnership 3
Health Cause NPO Fundraising/Marketing 4
Health Cause NPO General Manager 4
Youth and Educational Cause NPO Corporate Partnership 3
Youth and Educational Cause NPO Fundraising/Marketing 3
Youth and Educational Cause NPO General Manager 2
a
For-profit organisations are identified by their industry sector (LSE index).
b
NPO are classified by their causes.

References Barringer, B. and J. Harrison: 2000, Walking a Tight-

Andreasen, A.: 1996, Profits for Non-Profits: Find a Cor-
porate Partner, Harvard Business Review 74(6), 4759.
Arino, A. and J. De la Torre: 1998, Learning from
Failure: Towards an Evolutionary Model of Collabo-
rative Ventures, Organization Science 9, 306325.
Arya, B. and J. Salk: 2006, Cross-Sector Alliance Learning
and Effectiveness of Voluntary Codes of Corporate
Social Responsibility, Business Ethics Quarterly 16(2),
211234.
Austin, J. E.: 2000, Strategic Collaboration Between
Nonprofits and Business, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 29(1), 6797.
B&Q: 2007, B&Q plc Energy Efficiency Made Easy at
B&Q, http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/
afe1473_icc07_bq.html. Accessed June 2010.
Barone, M. J., A. D. Miyazaki and K. A. Taylor: 2000,
Does One Good Turn Deserve Another? Examining
the Influence of Cause-Related Marketing Efforts on
Consumer Choice, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 28(2), 250264.
Barone, M. J., A. T. Norman and A. D. Miyazaki: 2007,
Consumer Response to Retailer Use of Cause-
Related Marketing: Is More Fit Better, Journal of
Retailing 83(4), 437445.
rope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational
Relationships, Journal of Management 26(3), 367403.
Becker-Olsen, K. L. and R. P. Hill: 2006, The Impact of
Sponsor Fit on Brand Equity, Journal of Service Research
9(1), 7383.
Bennett, R.: 1997, Corporate Philanthropy in the UK:
Altruistic Giving or Marketing Communications Weap-
on?, Journal of Marketing Communications 3(2), 87109.
Berger, I., P. Cunningham and M. Drumwright: 2004,
Social Alliances: Company/Nonprofit Collaboration,
California Management Review 47(1), 5890.
Berger, I., P. Cunningham and M. Drumwright: 2006,
Identity, Identification and Relationship Through
Social Alliance, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science
34(2), 128137.
Berger, I. E., P. H. Cunningham and M. E. Drumwright:
2008, Identity, Identification, and Relationship
Through Social Alliances, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 34(2), 128137.
Berglind, M. and C. Nakata: 2005, Cause-Related
Marketing: More Buck Than Bang?, Business Horizons
48, 443453.
Berry, J. M.: 2002, Validity and Reliability Issues in
Elite Interviewing, Political Science & Politics 35(4),
679682.
 CRM Implementation Strategies
Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen: 2004, Doing Better at
Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers
Respond to Corporate Social Initiative, California
Management Review 47(1), 924.
Blumberg, B., D. R. Cooper and P. S. Schindler: 2005,
Business Research Methods (McGraw-Hill Education,
Berkshire).
Branco, M. C. and L. L. Rodrigues: 2006, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspec-
tives, Journal of Business Ethics 69(2), 111132.
Broderick, A., A. Jogi and T. Garry: 2003, Tickled Pink:
The Personal Meaning of Cause-Related Marketing
for Customers, Journal of Marketing Management 19(1),
583610.
Bronn, P. and A. Vrioni: 2001, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Cause Related Marketing: An
Overview, International Journal of Advertising 20(2),
205222.
Brown, W. A. and R. F. Ashcraft: 2005, Corporate
Employee Volunteer Programs: Considering the
Interests of Multiple Stakeholder, Journal of Volunteer
Administration 23(2), 1519.
BT: 2004, BT and ChildLine Am I Listening?
Campaign, http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_
studies/afe_crm_04_bt.html. Accessed June 2010.
Campbell, D., B. Craven and P. Shrives: 2003, Volun-
tary Social Reporting in Three FTSE Sectors: A
Comment on Perception and Legitimacy, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 14(4), 558581.
Casciaro, T. and M. J. Piskorski: 2005, Power Imbal-
ance, Mutual Dependence and Constraint Absorption:
A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory,
Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 167199.
CCBU: 2008, Coca-Cola Bottlers (Ulster) Ltd, Be Ac-
tive, http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/
cocacola_bottlers_1.html. Accessed June 2010.
Centra: 2004, Musgrave SuperValu-Centra (NI) Ltd
Centra School Action Partnership with Action Cancer
in Northern Ireland, http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/
case_studies/crmcentraschact.html. Accessed June 2010.
Chaney, I. and N. Dolli: 2001, Cause Related Marketing
in New Zealand, International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 6(2), 156163.
Cliffe, S. J. and J. Motion: 2005, Building Contemporary
Brands: A Sponsorship Brands: A Sponsorship-Based
Strategy, Journal of Business Research 58(8), 10681077.
Crimmins, J. and M. Horn: 1996, Sponsorship: From
Management Ego Trip to Marketing Success, Journal
of Advertising Research 36(4), 1121.
Crook, C.: 2005, The Good Company, Economist,
January, 318.
D&G: 2007, Dollond & Aitchison in Partnership
with Moorfields Eye Hospital, http://www.bitc.org.
279
uk/resources/case_studies/afe1276_crm_da.html. Ac-
cessed June 2010.
Dacin, M. T., C. Oliver and J. P. Roy: 2007, The
Legitimacy of Strategic Alliances: An Institutional
Perspective, Strategic Management Journal 28, 167187.
Das, T. K. and B. S. Teng: 2000, A Resource-Based
Theory of Strategic Alliance, Journal of Management
26(1), 3161.
Das, T. K. and B. S. Teng: 2002, The Dynamics of
Alliance Conditions in the Alliance Development
Process, Journal of Management Studies 39(5), 725746.
Das, T. K. and B. S. Teng: 2003, Partner Analysis and
Alliance Performance, Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
ment 19, 279308.
Dawley, D. D., R. D. Stephens and D. B. Stephens:
2005, Dimensionality of Organizational Commitment
in Volunteer Workers: Chamber of Commerce Board
Members and Role Fulfilment, Journal of Vocational
Behaviour 67(3), 511525.
de Gilder, D., T. N. M. Schuyt and M. Breedijk: 2005,
Effects of an Employee Volunteering Program on the
Work Force: The ABN-AMRO Case, Journal of
Business Ethics 61(2), 143152.
Dickinson, S. and A. Barker: 2007, Evaluations of Branding
Alliances Between Nonprofit and Commercial Brand
Partner: The Transfer of Affect, International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 12, 7589.
Docherty, S. and S. Hibbert: 2003, Examining Company
Experiences of a UK Cause-Related Marketing
Campaign, International Journal of Nonprofit and Vol-
untary Sector Market 8(4), 378389.
Drumwright, M. E.: 1996, Company Advertising with a
Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Cri-
teria, Journal of Marketing 60(4), 7187.
Ellen, P. S., L. A. Mohr and D. J. Webb: 2000, Chari-
table Programs and the Retailer: Do They Mix?,
Journal of Retailing 76(3), 393406.
Fleisher, C. S.: 1991, Using an Agency-Based Approach
to Analyze Collaborative Federated Interorganizational
Relationships, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
27(1), 116131.
Froelich, K. A.: 1999, Diversification of Revenue
Strategies: Evolving Resource Dependence in Non-
profit Organizations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 28(3), 246268.
Garriga, E. and D. Mele: 2004, Corporate Social
Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory,
Journal of Business Ethics 53, 5171.
Goldstein, K.: 2002, Getting in the Door: Sampling and
Completing Elite Interview, Political Sciences & Politics
35(4), 669672.
Guo, C. and M. Acar: 2005, Understanding Collabora-
tion Among Nonprofit Organizations: Combining
280 Gordon Liu and Wai-Wai Ko
Resource Dependency, Institutional and Network
Perspectives, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
34(3), 340361.
Gupta, S. and J. Pirsch: 2006, A Taxonomy of Cause-
Related Marketing Research: Current Findings and
Future Research Directions, Journal of Nonprofit and
Public Sector Marketing 15(1), 2543.
Hamlin, R. P. and T. Wilson: 2004, The Impact of
Cause Branding on Consumer Reactions to Products:
Does Product/Cause Fit Really Matter?, Journal of
Marketing 20(7), 663681.
Hardy, C. and N. Phillips: 1998, Strategies of Engage-
ment: Lessons from the Critical Examination of Col-
laboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational
Domain, Organization Science 9, 217230.
Hellenius, R. and S. Rudbeck: 2003, In-Kind Donations
for Nonprofit, McKinsey Quarterly 4, 5560.
Irwin, R. L., T. Lachowetz, B. T. B. Cornwell and J.
Clark: 2003, Cause-Related Sport Sponsorship: An
Assessment of Spectator Belief, Attitudes and Behav-
iour Intentions, Sport Marketing Quarterly 12(3), 131
139.
Knox, S. and C. Gruar: 2006, The Application of
Stakeholder Theory to Relationship Marketing Strat-
egy Development in a Nonprofit Organization, Jour-
nal of Business Ethics 75, 115135.
Kogut, B.: 1988, Joint Ventures: Theoretical and
Empirical Perspective, Strategic Management Journal 9,
319332.
Lafferty, J. and T. Browning: 1993, Accounting for
Gifts-in-Kind, Nonprofit World 11, 4142.
Lee, T. K. and I. P. L. Png: 1990, The Role of Instal-
ment Payments in Contracts for Service, The Rand
Journal of Economics 21(1), 8399.
Lichtenstein, D. R., M. E. Drumwright and B. M. Braig:
2004, The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility
of Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported
Nonprofits, Journal of Marketing 68(4), 1632.
Lin, Z., H. Yang and B. Arya: 2009, Alliance Partners
and Firm Performance: Resource Complementarity
and Status Association, Strategic Management Journal 30,
921940.
Liston-Heyes, C. and G. Liu: 2010, Cause-Related
Marketing in the Retail and Finance Sectors: An
Exploratory Study of Determinants of Cause Selection
and Non-Profit Alliances, Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 39(1), 77101.
Liu, G., C. Liston-Heyes and W. W. Ko: 2010, Em-
ployee Participation in Cause-Related Marketing
Strategies: A Study of Management Perceptions from
British Consumer Service Industries, Journal of Business
Ethics 92(2), 195210.
Marks & Spencer: 2004, Marks & Spencer Break-
through Breast Cancer, http://www.bitc.org.uk/
resources/case_studies/afe_872_crb_06_ms.html. Ac-
cessed June 2010.
Medcof, J. W.: 2001, Resource-Based Strategy and
Managerial Power in Networks of Internationally
Dispersed Technology Units, Strategic Management
Journal 22(11), 9991012.
Menon, S. and B. E. Kahn: 2003, Corporate Sponsor-
ships of Philanthropic Activities: When Do They
Impact Perception of Sponsorship, Journal of Consumer
Psychology 13(3), 316327.
Menon, A. and A. Menon: 1997, Environmental Mar-
keting Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Envi-
ronmentalism as Market Strategy, Journal of Marketing
61(1), 5167.
Muthuri, J. N., D. Matten and J. Moon: 2009, Employee
Volunteering and Social Capital: Contributions to
Corporate Social Responsibility, British Journal of
Management 20, 7589.
Nan, X. and K. Heo: 2007, Consumer Responses to
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives: Examining
the Role of Brand-Cause Fit in Cause-Related Mar-
keting, Journal of Advertising 36(2), 6374.
Noble Foods: 2007, Noble Foods Woodland Eggs,
http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/afe
1159_noblefoods.html. Accessed June 2010.
Ogilvie, K. B. and E. Everhardus: 2004, ENGO-Business
Partnerships: Lessons Learned (Pollution Probe, Tor-
onto), pp. 160.
Olsen, G. D., J. W. Pracejus and N. R. Brown: 2003,
When Profit Equals Price: Consumer Confusion
About Donation Amounts in Cause-Related Market-
ing, Journal of Public and Marketing 22(2), 170180.
Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes: 2003,
Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-
Analysis, Organizational Studies 24(3), 403441.
Peloza, J. and D. N. Hassay: 2006, Intra-Organizational
Volunteerism: Good Soldiers, Good Deeds and Good
Politics, Journal of Business Ethics 64, 357379.
Peterson, D. K.: 2004, Recruitment Strategies for
Encouraging Participation in Corporate Volunteer
Programs, Journal of Business Ethics 49, 371386.
Peterson, D. K.: 2004, Benefits of Participation in
Corporate Volunteer Programs: Employee Participa-
tion, Personnel Review 33(6), 615627.
Pfizer: 2009, Pfizer Ltd Working Together for a
Healthier World, http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/
case_studies/afe2049a.html. Accessed June 2010.
Polonsky, M. and G. Wood: 2001, Can the Overcom-
mercialization of Cause-Related Marketing Harm
Society?, Journal of Macromarketing 21(1), 822.
 CRM Implementation Strategies
Post, J. E. and S. A. Waddock: 1995, Strategic Philan-
thropy and Partnerships for Economic Progress, in R.
F. America (ed.), Contributions in Economics and Eco-
nomic History (Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa
Barbara, CA), pp. 6586.
Pracejus, J. W. and G. D. Olsen: 2004, The Role of
Brand/Cause Fit in the Effectiveness of Cause-Related
Marketing Campaigns, Journal of Business Research
57(6), 635640.
Pracejus, J. W., G. D. Olsen and N. R. Brown: 2003,
On the Prevalence and Impact of Vague Quantifiers
in the Advertising of Cause-Related Marketing,
Journal of Advertising 32(2), 1928.
Roy, D. P. and T. R. Graeff: 2003, Consumer Attitudes
Toward Cause-Related Marketing Activities in Pro-
fessional Sport, Sport Marketing Quarterly 12, 163172.
Samu, S. and W. Wymer: 2009, The Effect of Fit and
Dominance in Cause Marketing Communication,
Journal of Business Research 62(4), 432444.
Selsky, J. W. and B. Parker: 2005, Cross-Sector Part-
nerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory
and Practices, Journal of Management 31(6), 849873.
Sharfman, M. P., B. Gray and A. Yan: 1991, The
Context of Interorganizational Collaboration in the
Garment Industry: An Institutional Perspective, Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2), 181208.
Simon, F. L.: 1995, Global Corporate Philanthropy: A
Strategic Framework, International Marketing Review
12(4), 2037.
Smith, S. M. and D. S. Alcorn: 1991, Cause Marketing:
A New Direction in the Marketing of Corporate
Responsibility, Journal of Consumer Marketing 8(3),
1934.
Sneath, J. Z., R. Z. Finney and A. G. Close: 2005, An
IMC Approach to Event Marketing: The Effects of
Sponsorship and Experience on Customer Attitude,
Journal of Advertising Research 45(3), 373381.
Strahilevitz, M.: 1999, The Effects of Product Type and
Donation Magnitude on Willingness to Pay More for a
Charity-Linked Brand, Journal of Consumer Psychology
8(3), 215241.
281
Strahilevitz, M. and J. Myers: 1998, Donations to
Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work
May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell, Journal
of Consumer Research 24(4), 434446.
Tesco: 2007, Tesco Computers for Schools, http://
www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/afe903crbtesco
comp.html. Accessed June 2010.
Till, B. D. and L. I. Nowak: 2000, Toward Effective Use
of Cause-Related Marketing Alliance, Journal of
Product and Brand Management 9(7), 472484.
Varadarajan, P. R. and A. Menon: 1988, Cause-Related
Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and
Corporate Philanthropy, Journal of Marketing 52(3),
5874.
Waddock, S. A.: 1989, Understanding Social Partner-
ships: An Evolutionary Model of Partnership Organi-
zations, Administration & Society 21(1), 78100.
Waddock, S. A.: 1991, A Typology of Social Partnership
Organization, Administration & Society 22(4), 480515.
Webber, D.: 2004, Understanding Charity Fundraising
Events, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing 9(2), 122134.
Welsh, E.: 2002, Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the
Qualitative Data Analysis Process, Qualitative Social
Research 3(2), 2030.
Gordon Liu
The Business School,
Bournemouth University,
Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole,
Dorset BH12 5BB, U.K.
E-mail: gliu@bournemouth.ac.uk
Wai-Wai Ko
School of Management,
Royal Holloway, University of London,
Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K.
E-mail: W.W.Ko@rhul.ac.uk