According to the model of fit, which is defined as a “perceived link between a cause and the firm’s product line, brand image, positioning and target market” (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006), organisations choose what CSR initiatives they will engage with dependent on wanted outcomes.

 

     There two main types of fit, and subsequent outcomes, that this text will be looking at: Personal and CSR fit, and some of their sub-dimensions.

 

1. Personal fit outcomes (Figure 1):

 

• Person–Environment fit (P-E): Congruence between social and work environments and personal values (e.g. Social responsibility initiatives). This can lead to either more positive or negative job attitudes and behaviours. This is the umbrella type of fit, which incorporates the four subgroups: job, group, vocation and organisation (Vogel and Feldman 2009).

 

• Person-Organisation fit (P-O): People are attracted to things that align themselves to their own things that they value in life, whether it is people, places or products. Dependent on organisation’s values: “organizational commitment, organizational identity, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours.” (Winters 2015 p.iii)

 

• Person-CSR fit (P-CSR): Aligning individual’s social responsibility values to the organisation’s CSR initiatives (Winters 2015).

 

 2.   CSR fit outcomes (Figure 1):

 

• CSR-Institutional fit: Focuses on the reputation of the organisation (Aksak 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      Within these types of “fit” the compatibility of an employee to CSR may depend on the circumstance (Kristoff 1996). Here is a way of dividing the types of circumstances (Winters 2015):

1. Complementary fit: Both employer and organisation share similar values.

2. Supplementary fit: Employer and organisation coexist within a form of values without exchanging views.

 

     Vogel and Feldman (2009) argue that the Supplementary fit, compared to the Complementary fit, would not give employers the chance to exchange their views to align their values to the organisation through the model of fit. Therefore, the Complementary fit should be used I organisations to develop a model of fit.

 

 

WHY IS THE MODEL OF FIT IMPORTANT?

 

• It allows a company to differentiate themselves through competitive advantages to other companies that are like theirs (Epstein-Revees, 2012).

 

• It helps to enhance a company’s reputation through communicating values to stakeholders (Winters 2015; Aksak 2016).

 

• It allows an organisation to be future-focused through establishing and maintaining socially responsible initiatives (Kristoff 1996).

 

• It determines how much thought a customer will give to the relationship between a company and its CSR initiatives. If there is a:

  • “High fit” or high congruency, it means the CSR initiatives are closely aligned to the values of the company or organisation. More customers will be able to remember the CSR messages, and therefore they will feel motivated to purchase from a company that they remember and know (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006). In this way, consumers will feel less scepticism (Aksak 2016).

  • “Low fit” or low congruency, means the CSR initiatives within a company or organisation are not aligned with the its values. Customers will have difficulty in retaining knowledge of CSR initiatives, and therefore customers will be less likely to buy from a company that they do not know (Becker-Olsen et al. 2006). Subsequently, consumers will feel sceptical and the organisation will have a negative reputation (Aksak 2016).

 

        For example, Loreal choose to base their initiatives (reference the Beauty campaign) to making their target audience (being women) feel special and unique. To discover what model of fit Loreal is we look at whether the organistaion is aiming their CSR towards aligning it the company or personal needs (CEO or other staff wants). In this way, Loreal are aligning their social initiatives to their target audience, and therefore have a corporate fit.

 

       In another example, a US national survey discovered that On one hand, consumers who participated in a national survey in the US were found to have enduring positive effects from the strategic communications about CSR initiatives. On the other hand, the survey found that the companies that did not communicate CSR initiatives had a negative impact on consumer trust (Kim 2017).

 

       “For consumers, CSR has become a tool to determine reputable companies and then to develop relationships with them” (Aksak et al. 2016)