Corporate Reputation Review,Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 140–158© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan, 1363-3589

Corporate Reputation Review Volume 12 Number 2

www.palgrave-journals.com/crr/

ABSTRACT This study is motivated by the lack of informa-tion about the retail industry ’ s commitment to and attention given to socially responsible be-haviors. The purpose of the study is to dis-cover in what context corporate social responsibility (CSR) is being addressed with-in the top 100 US retail organizations. The framework of the study consists of principles of CSR, processes of CSR and outcomes of CSR. Based on this, corporate web pages were reviewed using content analysis procedure. Just over one-half of 100 US retailers mentioned CSR principles either in separate statements or embedded in mission statements. Economic statements were most common to category kill-ers whereas discount stores predominantly men-tioned philanthropic statements. In the analysis of CSR programs, social programs followed by environmental programs were most frequently mentioned. The results suggest more retail firms should be involved in communicat-ing their social responsibility beliefs on their corporate website although previous research showed that a majority of Fortune 500 com-panies used their website to promote some aspects of CSR.

Corporate Reputation Review (2009) 12, 140 – 158. doi: 10.1057/crr.2009.10

KEYWORDS: corporate social responsibility ; top 100 retailers ; corporate website ; content analysis

INTRODUCTION Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming a mainstream issue as more organizations seek to integrate social and environmental concerns into the daily op-erations of their businesses. Being neither a passing trend nor an optional addition for many organizations, the interest in CSR is ‘ refl ective of a deeper change in the relation-ship between companies and their stake-holders ’ ( Bowd et al. , 2006: 147 ). Ideally, companies would feel compelled to act in a socially responsive manner at all times as a result of ethical obligations that are either internally or externally motivated ( Holcomb et al. , 2007 ). Academic and trade literature supports this notion by suggesting a range of reasons that many organizations are incorporating CSR including the general idea that it is the ‘ right thing to do ’ ( Gan, 2006 ; Juholin, 2004 ).

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of the Top 100 US Retailers

Min-Young Lee Department of Merchandising, Apparel, and Textiles, University of Kentucky , Lexington , USA

Ann Fairhurst Department of Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, University of Tennessee , Knoxville , USA

Scarlett Wesley Department of Merchandising, Apparel, and Textiles, University of Kentucky , Lexington , USA

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 141

Currently there is little research reporting the degree to which top US retailers detail their CSR initiatives in the public domain. Given the growing emphasis on the integra-tion of CSR into corporate strategy, the purpose of this study is to explore in what context the US retail industry presents itself as CSR-oriented. Specifi cally, the level of socially responsible behavior as exemplifi ed through a review of corporate web pages using a content analysis procedure is reported. This review focused on the activities of the top 100 US retailers as list-ed in the annual Stores Top 100 Retailers rankings. This paper will provide a brief overview of pertinent CSR literature. Next, the research methodology will be explained, and the research fi ndings will be presented and discussed. Finally, key conclusions from the study will be highlighted and future research suggestions will be made.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Corporate Social Responsibility A literature review reveals that while CSR has been a feature within many US companies since the 1960s, the movement has gained a higher profi le as a corporate attribute in the 1990s ( Whitehouse, 2006 ). CSR involves the integration of environ-mental, social and economic considerations into an organization ’ s corporate culture and strategy formulation. In the broadest sense, CSR focuses on ‘ the obligations which a business has to fulfi ll if it is to be considered a good corporate citizen ’ ( Asongu, 2007: 2 ). Most consumers prefer organizations that behave more socially and environmentally responsible ( Webb et al. , 2008 ), and more consumers themselves are engaging in socially responsible consumption than ever before ( California Green Solutions, 2007 ; Kennedy, 2007 ; Schulz, 2007 ).

CSR itself has had many manifestations throughout the years, but through its incep-tion the common thread in each work has

been that the goal of CSR was to integrate the public ’ s interest into the corporation ’ s mission ( Senser, 2007 ). In his early research on CSR, Carroll (1991) observed that ‘ the social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretion-ary expectations that society has of organiza-tions at a given point in time ’ (p. 500). Carroll (1991) delineates four domains of CSR: economic, legal, ethical and philan-thropic. Typically, organizations are largely driven by profi t, therefore economic per-formance often overrides the other three CSR components identifi ed by Carroll (1991) . However, the other domains are gaining in importance and infl uence. The legal domain involves the organization following all federal, state and local govern-ment laws and regulations ( Carroll, 1991 ). Ethical responsibilities incorporate the stand-ards, norms and expectations that regard what consumers, employees, shareholders and the community think is fair and just to stakeholders ’ moral rights ( Carroll, 1991 ). Lastly, the philanthropic responsibility of the organization includes the expectation that they will in general be a good corporate citizen, actively engaging in the advance-ment of their communities ( Carroll, 1991 ).

CSR in essence serves as a set of manage-ment practices that propel an organization to maximize the positive impacts of its operations on society ( Jamali and Mirshak, 2006 ) allowing the fi rm to meet and in some cases exceed the legal, ethical, commercial and public expectations often placed on business. Davis (1973) offered a classic defi -nition of CSR as ‘ the fi rm ’ s consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the fi rm … (to) accomplish social benefi ts along with the traditional economic gains which the fi rm seeks ’ (p. 312). An essential view of CSR has been that business corporations have an obligation to work for social betterment. According to Wood (1991) , ‘ the basic idea of CSR is that

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589142

business and society are interwoven rather than distinct entities; therefore, society has certain expectations for appropriate business behavior and outcomes ’ (p. 695). CSR has become more about how companies are able to manage the business process so that an overall impact on society is felt ( Baker, 2005 ). This includes the organization ’ s ‘ commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run benefi cial impact on society ’ ( Mohr et al. , 2001: 47 ). This approach advocates doing business in a way that improves both the customer ’ s and society ’ s well-being. The processes of an organization ‘ designate the managerial procedures and instruments employed by businesses to bring their mo-tivational principles into practice ’ ( Maignan and Ralston, 2002: 498 ). After these processes are implemented within the entire organization, then it becomes easier to keep up with and successfully address stakeholder needs and demands.

Reporting of socially responsible activities within organizations can be classifi ed into three phases of development ( Marlin and Marlin, 2003 ). The fi rst phase dating from the early 1970s to the 1980s was composed of advertisements and annual-report sections that acknowledged environmental concerns, but were not linked to corporate perform-ance. The focus at this time was mainly environmental, concentrating on air and water pollution, and the reporting taking place was done under very little standardiza-tion. The second phase in the late 1980s was characterized by the introduction of social audits. The audits were typically called Stakeholders Reports and were divided into major stakeholder categories: communities, employees, customers, suppliers and inves-tors. Although these audits did bring new stakeholder groups such as suppliers to the table, the social audits lacked a set of accepted standards against which perform-ance could be measured. The third phase, dating from the late 1990s, saw the strengthen-

ing of CSR reporting through the inclusion of third-party certifi cation of the reports by bodies accredited to certify against social or environmental standards. This change gave organizations a standards measurement upon which to gauge an organization ’ s actions. From the stakeholder view of the fi rm ( Clarkson, 1995 ; Wood, 1991 ; Wood and Jones, 1995 ), businesses are not respon-sible to society as a whole, but only toward their stakeholders (ie communities, employees, customers, suppliers, investors, etc). Maignan and Ralston (2002) proposed that a ‘ fi rm committed to CSR has principles and processes in place to minimize its negative impacts and maximize its positive impacts on selected stakeholder issues ’ (p. 498). From the perspective of stakeholder theory, organizations should consider how their actions are going to affect all relevant constituencies (shareholders, customer, employees, suppliers, environment and community) ( Smith, 2003a, b ). Reasons for these considerations range from an improve-ment in investor relations, increased economic profi ts, stronger employee com-mitment, increased public scrutiny, up to and including the general idea that CSR is the ‘ right thing to do ’ ( Gan, 2006 ; Holcomb et al. , 2007 ; Juholin, 2004 ).

Retailing and CSR in the United States Retailing today in the United States is at an all time high. In 2007, retail industry sales (excluding automobiles, gas stations and restaurants) realized $3.1 tn up from $ 1.6 tn in 1995 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007) with employment reaching 10 percent of the nation ’ s workforce. Sales projections for 2008 show a retail industry sales (excluding automobiles, gas stations and restaurants) increase of 3.5 percent from last year according to the National Retail Federation. Retailing in the US is truly a dominant industry.

In the US, outside of economic factors, retailers are focused on subjects such as

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 143

‘ green ’ , ‘ organic ’ and ‘ natural ’ ( Schulz, 2007 ). Today for many retailers ‘ going green is no longer a part of retailers ’ CSR efforts – it ’ s a part of many retailers cultures ’ ( Kennedy, 2007: 9 ). US customers are beginning to request more sustainable products, and they are expecting more sustainable behavior from retailers than ever before. In fact, in the 22nd Annual Holiday Survey of retail spending and trends by Deloitte, almost one in fi ve consumers (18 percent) said they were planning to purchase more ‘ eco-friendly ’ products than in the past, and 17 percent of shoppers were planning to shop at more ‘ green ’ retailers ( California Green Solutions, 2007 ). While these results may somewhat be due to social desirability bias, US retailers have begun to act more proactively at every level of the business ( Kennedy, 2007 ). Efforts to incor-porate sustainability include offering more ‘ green ’ and ‘ organic ’ merchandise to changes in store design, construction and operation ( Schulz, 2007 ). With these actions, how-ever, there is little understanding of what is going on in the industry as a whole.

Currently, some US retailers have adopt-ed socially responsible practices into their companies, but only a handful of examples are common public knowledge. One of the more publicized examples of efforts has been seen at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has begun to make social responsibility and sustainability a more mainstream topic. Wal-Mart has pestered ‘ its suppliers to clean up their products by eliminating long-lived toxic chemicals, reducing packaging to the bare minimum and adding more organic and natural ingredients in their offerings ’ ( Schulz, 2007: S4 ). Wal-Mart has also been testing the incorporation of implementing things such as ‘ cool ’ LED lights in freezers and cold boxes as well as using recycled cooking and motor oils to fuel traditional hot water boilers ( Schulz, 2007 ). Other efforts include the Kohl ’ s certifi cation under the US Green

Building Council ’ s LEED program of more than 80 new locations, which places Kohl ’ s among the fi rst adopters of such building practices in the retail sector ( The Business Journal , 2007 ). Likewise, Target plans to launch two store prototypes in 2008, both of which will be green certifi ed (Vomhof, 2008).

In 2007, Home Depot introduced a new labeling program to help consumers iden-tify products that promote energy conserva-tion, sustainable forestry and clean water. This program is expected to include over 6,000 products by 2009, representing 12 percent of the chain ’ s sales ( Barbaro, 2007 ). This represents the largest green labeling program in American retailing and is expected to infl uence other retailers to incorporate more merchandising changes into their own stores. Likewise, JCPenney recently announced a major storewide pro-gram to identify merchandise that is either organic or eco-friendly. They have brought on board a corporate ‘ Green Living Partner ’ who will be assisting them in socially responsible efforts going forward ( Home Textiles Today, 2008 ).

Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance The association between CSR and corporate social performance (CSP) has implications for corporate management. Wood (1991) integrated previous CSR work in an acknowledged defi nition of CSP as the ‘ confi guration of the principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsive-ness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the fi rm ’ s societal relationships ’ (p. 693). It is under the umbrella of CSP that the organization begins to infl uence stakeholder actions. Some researchers argue that there is a positive relationship between CSR activities and corporate performance citing that often the costs are small while the benefi ts are poten-tially large ( Moskowitz, 1972 ). On average,

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589144

corporate leaders believe that CSR does pay off fi nancially. For example, Margolis and Walsh (2001) in a review of the results of 95 studies on CSR-profi tability relationship found the majority of studies (59 percent) revealed signifi cant positive relationships while only four percent found a signifi cant negative relationship. Waddock and Graves (1997) found similar results. They estab-lished a link between CSP and profi tability through such factors as employee or cus-tomer loyalty, community goodwill and socially responsible investing.

In research among 1000 Global CEOs, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2004) found that 79 percent believed that CSR was vital to the profi tability of any organization. Previous studies have shown organizations eager to display their CSR principles and processes in order to convey a positive image among their stakeholders and to gain legitimacy along with support from these groups ( Adams et al. , 1998 ; Esrock and Leichty, 1998 ; Hooghiemstra, 2000 ). These fi ndings support the notion that ‘ most corporate executives need more than aggre-gate research results to convince them to embrace CSR – they need hard evidence that there will be fi nancial payoffs for the company ’ ( Webb et al. , 2008: 92 ). The identifi cation of specifi c rewards for an organization can act as a catalyst for encour-aging them to incorporate CSR into their operations.

These results notwithstanding, even when data analysis between CSP and profi tability are consistently supported, little understand-ing is gained with regard to why such an association exists ( Rowley and Berman, 2000 ). Identifying whether ‘ CSP is posi-tively or negatively related to fi nancial performance does not help us understand how fi rms should behave (what behaviors lead to CSP), and / or what antecedent conditions infl uence CSP (besides perhaps fi nancial performance) ’ ( Rowley and Berman, 2000: 401 ). Findings support that

a negative CSP will be evaluated differently than a positive CSP ( Van der Laan et al. , 2008 ), and that a positive CSP can in effect infl uence performance. Therefore, to some extent organizations have an obligation to work for social betterment beyond their necessary daily operations that typically focus on economic, technical and legal require-ments ( Davis, 1973 ). This shifts the CSP focus away from fi nances and toward providing management with a rationale for adopting socially responsible practices ( Freeman, 1994 ). With these ideas in mind, the motivation often leans toward the organization simply ‘ doing the right thing. ’

Web Pages as a CSR Reporting Tool Traditionally, US corporations have been expected to foster a leadership role in the communities where they do business ( Maignan and Ralston, 2002 ). These corpo-rations in many instances have contributed to the growth and development of the cities and communities in which they reside and therefore have been assigned ‘ substantial responsibility for the moral and physical character of the communities in which they have invested ’ ( Vogel, 1992: 42 ). Corporate web pages have emerged as a tool for communicating messages to various con-stituencies. The web can certainly be used to share information, but it can also serve as a catalyst for discussion and change ( Esrock and Leichty, 1999 ).

In a study of the incorporation of social responsibility issues on Fortune 500 corpora-tion websites, Esrock and Leichty found that ‘ 90 percent had Web pages and 82 percent of the sites addressed at least one corporate social responsibility issue ’ Esrock and Leichty (1998: 305) . Websites unlike traditional mass media channels ‘ can have multiple sec-tions, each targeted to a different audience (eg customers, government offi cials, news media, employees, dealers, suppliers, and issue activists) ’ ( Esrock and Leichty, 2000:

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 145

328 ). This makes them ideal communication tools for a CSR message.

Without a doubt, US retailers are recog-nizing ‘ that, as large commercially operating entities, they have a responsibility to restore and sustain the environment ’ ( Kennedy, 2007: 9 ). This study is motivated by the lack of information about the retail industry ’ s commitment to and attention given to socially responsible behaviors. The objective of the study is to examine the extent to which US retailers attempt to present them-selves as socially responsible organizations. Retail corporate web pages were selected as the communication medium for this study. Particularly with their web pages, organiza-tions have been enthusiastic to communicate their CSR principles and processes hoping to build positive images and secure legiti-macy among various company stakeholders ( Esrock and Leichty, 1998 ; Hooghiemstra, 2000 ). In past research, corporate web pages have been shown to provide informa-tion about CSR practices because they tend to reach a variety of stakeholders and their content is not mandated by government regulations ( Esrock and Leichty, 2000 ; Maignan and Ralston, 2002 ).

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK Wood (1991) proposes an integrated model of CSR, which includes the principles of motivating responsible behavior, the proc-esses of responsiveness and the outcomes of performance. Based on Wood’s (1991) CSP model, this study developed a research framework ( Figure 1 ). The framework is composed of principles of CSR, processes of CSR and outcomes of CSR. Principles of CSR are obtained by analyzing corporate mission statements published on the web-sites. Carroll’s (1991) four dimensions of CSR – economic, legal, ethical and philan-thropic – were used for the analysis of mission statements. Table 1 shows examples of each dimension. Processes of CSR consist of various socially responsible activities including economic, social, environmental and educational programs sponsored by a company. Examples of programs are shown in Table 1 . Outcomes of CSR are attained by corporate reputation.

METHOD This study used the rank-ordered list of top 100 US retailers presented by the National Retail Federation and Stores magazine

Figure 1 : Research framework

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589146

( http://www.stores.org/pdf/07TOP100Chart.pdf ) in 2007 as a sample for studying corporate websites (see Appendix).

Using Google search engine, 100 compa-nies ’ corporate websites were found. The websites were analyzed for the presence of messages relating to 11 CSR content areas including mission statements related to CSR (ie general mission statement, CSR state-ment embedded in general statement, separate CSR statement), type of statement (ie economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic), and CSR programs (ie economic, social, environmental and educational). Table 1 shows some retailer examples of each cate-gory. In order to measure the reliability of coding scheme that was developed, we examined intercoder reliability. The fi rst 20 of the websites were analyzed by two cod-ers, and coding variables were examined for

reliability. The reliability coeffi cients ranged from 0.75 to 1.00 ( M = 0.92).

The framework of the study consists of principles, processes and outcomes of CSR. For the principles of CSR, mission state-ments were coded based on the categories developed by Carroll (1991) . We examined whether the statements were embedded in general statements or separated from gen-eral statements. We assume that those who have separate statements have made CSR a stronger part of their culture than those that embed it with general mission statement because for anybody who wants to check companies ’ websites for information on CSR, it is much more recognizable as a separate statement instead of embedded. In addition, highlighting a company ’ s CSR in a separate statement would allow indi-viduals who access a company ’ s website to

Table 1 : Examples of CSR Statements and Programs as Presented on Websites

Examples

Type of Statement Economic ‘ We are proud of the positive economic impact we have on communities – from

the job opportunities we provide to the money we save working families; and from the tax revenue we generate to ... ’ (Wal-Mart).

Legal ‘ A deep commitment to legal compliance and ethical business practices is fi rmly embedded in JCPenney’s history and company culture … ’ (JCPenny).

Ethical ‘ We have a responsibility to lead with the highest ethical standards to understand our impacts … ’ (Hope Depot).

Philanthropic ‘ We strive to ensure the ongoing health and strengths of our communities by giving and … volunteer hours in support of education, arts and social service organization … ’ (Target).

Programs Economic ‘ Lowe’s added 150 new stores and approximately 23,000 jobs in 2005, helping

boost local economies with jobs and tax benefi ts ’ (Lowe’s). Social ‘ Kohl’s Cares for Kids is a promise of hope for bright, healthier future for kids in

our communities. From injury prevention and immunization programs … ’ (Kohl’s).

Environmental ‘ We ’ ve established three aggressive goals in our Sustainability Efforts … to be supplied 100 % by renewable energy … to create zero waste … to sell products that sustain our resources and Environment … ’ (Wal-Mart ).

Educational ‘ Energy education and awareness for both Club and corporate staff is facilitated through a chain wide information exchange programs ’ (BJ’s Wholesale Club).

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 147

determine their CSR initiatives to have the information readily available. Otherwise, an individual may have to read through a lengthy general statement before fi nding the information relevant to their interest in CSR.

The processes of CSR were coded by checking the CSR programs presented in the corporate websites. Four categories of CSR programs – economic, social, environ-mental and educational – were checked. These categories was developed based on the analysis of websites and previous research ( Jamali and Mirshak, 2006 ; Katsoulakos and Katsoulacos, 2007 ).

Outcomes of CSR were measured by the data from Fortune magazine ’ s America ’ s Most Admired Companies ’ research. The research is annually conducted by the Hay Group ( http://www.haygroup.com ). The survey is started with the 1,000 largest US companies ranked by revenue and the top foreign com-panies operating in the US. Next the listed companies are sorted by industry and se-lected the ten largest in each. A total of 616 companies in 68 industries are selected for survey. During the fourth quarter of 2006, executives, directors and analysts were asked to rate the companies in their own industry by giving each company a numerical score from zero (poor) to ten (excellent) that represented the strength of its reputation. Due to insuffi cient responses, the results of 587 companies in 63 industries were reported. A total of 587companies were listed in Fortune magazine ’ s research; however, only 36 retailers in our sample were included in this list. Even though more than half of the scores were not available from the Fortune list, we used this score because it is one of the most reliable data points to measure corporate reputation (Gossling and Vocht, 2007). Therefore, this study used overall reputation scores from the Fortune ’ s list, which are available online ( http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2007/index.html ).

Retail type was also recorded for the comparison of principles, processes and out-comes of CSR across retail type. Six distinct retail types were identifi ed: discount store ( n = 15), category killer ( n = 16), grocery / restaurant ( n = 26), department store ( n = 10), drug / convenience store ( n = 17) and spe-cialty store ( n = 16). Finally, several corpora-tion attributes, such as revenue, earnings, ranking on the Stores list and number of stores were recorded.

RESULTS As indicated in Table 2 , the websites men-tioning one or more (1) CSR principles in their mission statements, and (2) CSR pro-grams were counted fi rst. These frequencies revealed whether retailers considered each of the dimensions of CSR as being suffi -ciently important enough to mention on their web pages.

Twenty retailers out of 100 presented separate CSR statements on their websites. Thirty-eight retailers had CSR principles embedded in their general mission state-ments. However, 42 retailers out of 100 did not present company principles of CSR at all on their web pages. Analysis of type of statement presented by the retailers reveals that economic statements ( n = 36) are the most frequently mentioned. Some of these statements contained the following verbiage: ‘ … positive economic impact we have on communities … ’ and ‘ … from the job opportunities we provide to the money we save working families; and from the tax revenue we generate to … . ’ Philanthropic statements ( n = 32) were also frequently mentioned. These remarks were ‘ … do all we can to improve the lives of our custom-ers and employees through philanthropic and volunteer supported efforts … ’ and ‘ … believe community involvement extends beyond the boundaries of the traditional retail setting. ’ Only two retailers mentioned legal statements related to CSR. One of these was ‘ A deep commitment to legal

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589148

compliance and ethical business practices is fi rmly embedded … . ’

Analysis of CSR programs showed that social programs ( n = 66) were the most fre-quently directed or sponsored by the retail-ers. Additional phrases included, ‘ … support nonprofi t organizations that provide innova-tive programs and services focusing on help-ing children … ’ and ‘ … goal of positively impacting the culturally diverse populations in communities we serve … . ’ Comments related to environmental ( n = 30) programs included ‘ … aggressive goals for sustainabil-ity … ’ and ‘ … consistently address our environmental impacts … ’ and educational programs ( n = 29) ‘ … support local arts,

music, sports and enrichment programs. ’ Economic programs ( n = 12) were the least frequently sponsored by retailers and ‘ … being a good neighbor that benefi ts local economies … ’ was a statement made relative to this type of program. Twenty-seven retailers did not mention their CSR program on their websites.

Corporate reputation was determined through the overall scores from Fortune magazine ’ s America ’ s Most Admired Com-panies ’ research. Using the scores we divided retailers into groups: high reputa-tion, mid-level reputation and low reputa-tion. As a selection criterion for high reputation, we used a score of 7 or higher and the criterion for low reputation was 4 or lower on the Fortune score. This selec-tion led to a group of high reputation com-panies that consisted of 11 retailers and the low reputation group that consisted of three retailers. Twenty-two retailers scored between 4 and 7 and fell in mid-level repu-tation group

In a second step, the number of fi rms discussing at least one of the dimensions of CSR – principles, processes and outcomes – was counted for each retail type; this encompassing score indicated the differ-ences among retail types in terms of CSR communication ( Table 3 ). To explore the differences among retail types, we profi led each retail type on the CSR principles, processes and outcomes. Because the number retailers in each group are not same (ie dis-count store = 15, grocery / restaurant = 26), profi ling based on the frequencies among retail types cannot provide meaningful results. So the frequencies of each retail type were divided by the total number of each retail type and expressed by a percentage.

Figure 2 demonstrates the profi les of CSR statement presented by retail types. Almost 70 percent of category killers and grocery / restaurant retailers present a CSR statement on their website either as a separate state-ment or an embedded statement. Category

Table 2 : CSR Principles, Processes and Outcomes

Content in the Company’s Website N

Principles CSR Statement Separate mission statement

for CSR 20

Embedded in general statement

38

No statement in the website 42

Type of Statement Economic 36 Legal 2 Ethical 10 Philanthropic 32

Processes CSR Programs Economic 12 Social 66 Environmental 30 Educational 29 No CSR programs 27

Outcomes Reputation* High 11 Middle 22 Low 3 Not available 64

*CSR reputation is based on the CSR score published by Fortune (2007) .

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 149

killers (63 percent) were more likely to present their CSR principles as a separate statement on their web pages than others followed by grocery / restaurant retailers (46 percent). However, department stores were less likely to have CSR statements on their web pages. Figure 3 illustrated type of state-ments that explains principles of CSR by retail type. Fifty-six percent of category killers had CSR statements related to eco-nomic principles and 47 percent of discount stores mentioned their philanthropic princi-ples. More than 30 percent of grocery / restaurant retailers showed both economic and philanthropic principles in their CSR statements. However, 20 percent of department

stores mentioned economic and philan-thropic principles. Although retailers did not frequently mention ethical principles, grocery / restaurant retailers were more likely to present ethical principles than other retailers.

Figure 4 profi les CSR program by retail type. Eighty-one percent of category killer retailers and 77 percent of grocery / restaurant retail fi rms have social programs, whereas only 44 percent of specialty stores have social programs. Environmental programs were more likely to be supported by grocery / restaurant retailers and discount stores than other retailers such as drug / convenience stores and specialty stores. In general, drug / convenience stores and

Table 3 : Comparison of CSR Principles, Processes and Outcomes by Retail Type

DIS CK G / R DES D / C SS

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Total 15 100 16 100 26 100 10 100 17 100 16 100

CSR Statement Separate 6 40 10 63 12 46 3 30 4 24 3 19 Embedded 4 27 1 6 6 23 1 10 5 29 3 19 No statement 5 33 5 31 8 31 6 60 8 47 10 63

Type of Statement Economic 7 47 9 56 8 31 2 20 6 35 4 25 Legal 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 Ethical 1 7 2 13 5 19 0 0 1 6 1 6 Philanthropic 7 47 7 44 9 35 2 20 6 35 1 6

CSR Programs Economic 3 20 2 13 4 15 3 30 0 0 0 0 Social 9 60 13 81 20 77 6 60 11 65 7 44 Environmental 6 40 6 38 9 35 4 40 2 12 3 19 Educational 3 20 7 44 10 38 2 20 4 24 3 19

Reputation * Total (available) 5 100 7 100 9 100 7 100 4 100 4 100 High 1 20 2 29 4 44 1 14 1 25 2 50 Middle 3 60 4 57 5 56 6 86 2 50 2 50 Low 1 20 1 14 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0

Abbreviations : DIS=discount store, CK=category killer, G / R=grocery / restaurant, DES=department store, D / C=drug / convenience store, SS=specialty store, online store, and home shopping . *CSR reputation is based on the CSR score published by Fortune (2007): high=7 – 10, middle=4 – 7, low=0 – 4 .

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589150

specialty stores were less likely to have CSR program than other retail types.

Table 3 illustrates fi ndings relative to cor-porate reputation. As mentioned above, For-tune ’ s corporate reputation score is only available for 36 retailers in our sample. Thirty-six companies include fi ve category killers, seven discount stores, nine grocery / restaurants, seven department stores, four drug / convenience stores, and four specialty stores. All nine grocery / restaurant retailers received high ( n = 4) or middle ( n = 5) level of reputation. Two category killers out of seven received high scores, while only one department store out of seven and one discount store out of fi ve received a high score of reputation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The fi rst goal of this research was to inves-tigate the attention given to CSR by the

Top 100 retailers. The investigated compa-nies ’ websites were analyzed for reference to CSR. The results suggest variation in the amount of attention given to the principles and processes of CSR. Just over one-half of the Top 100 retailers mentioned CSR on their websites. Food retailers (grocery and restaurants) had the highest percent (18 percent) of mention of CSR on their website, with specialty stores being the lowest (six percent). This is expected since a lot of attention has been directed to the grocery / restaurant industry in regard to CSR-related issues such as animal welfare and disease ( Piacentini et al. , 2000 ; Klein and Dawar, 2004 ). This research supports the idea that there are defi nite distinctions of the attention given to CSR in the current retail community. This fi nding suggests that not enough retail fi rms are involved in com-municating their social responsibility beliefs

SteparateEmbeded

No statement

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%DIS CK G/R DES D/C SS

Figure 2 : Profiles of CSR statement presentation by Retail type

Abbreviations: Dis = discount store, CK = category killer, G / R = grocery / restaurant, DES = department

store, D / C = drug / convenience store, SS = specialty store, online store and home shopping .

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 151

on their corporate website although previ-ous research showed that a majority of Fortune 500 companies used their website to promote some aspects of CSR ( Esrock and Leichty, 1998 ). This outcome corresponds to a past study, showing the wholesale / retail industry as low scorers on a social responsi-bility index ( Esrock and Leichty, 1998 ).

The next phase of the research addressed CSR principles. The mission statements of the retail fi rms who mentioned CSR were more likely to suggest economic principles, followed by philanthropic principles. This may suggest that retail corporations feel that the primary audience for the corporate web-site consists of investors and stakeholders of the fi nancial community. Consequently, the economic principles would be of most inter-est. Highlighting philanthropic principles might appeal more to their customer base

and contribute to the organization ’ s social responsibility image. This idea was support-ed in previous research that suggested that when corporate websites ’ content focus was the customer, more social responsibility informa-tion was provided ( Esrock and Leichty, 2000 ).

With regard to CSR programs, retail fi rms paid attention to social programs, followed by environmental programs then educational programs. Food retailers and category killers paid more attention to social and environmental programs. These results are supported by research on CSR in the grocery industry ( Anselmsson and Johansson, 2007 ). It was suggested that dominant CSR actions included community support such as sponsorship of local charities and projects and environmental aspects that revolved around health. Educational programs were also paid attention to. The emphasis

EconomicLegal

Ethical

Philanthropic

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

DIS CK G/R DES D/C SS

Figure 3 : Profiles of type of CSR statement by retail type

Abbreviations: DIS = discount store, CK = category killer, G / R = grocery / restaurant, DES =

department store, D / C = drug / convenience store, SS = specialty store, online store and home

shopping .

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589152

on social, environmental and educational programs seems to correspond with the impor-tance of these matters in public discussion.

For those retailers who were involved in CSR programs, the majority mentioned the actual amount of fi nancial contributions made to charitable organizations. The retail fi rms also listed the organizations / programs they were involved in. They identifi ed how they participate in specifi c charitable organ-izations either at a national level (ie United Way) or local level. Many retail fi rms iden-tifi ed programs they have initiated, specifi c to their company, which involved such issues as education, health and fi tness, in-come disadvantaged citizens, human serv-ices and sustainability. This discussion would be a natural way for retail fi rms to enhance their image within the communities they operate ( Esrock and Leichty, 1998 ).

Although a number of retail fi rms in the Top 100 list present themselves as socially responsible, there are a signifi cant number of fi rms who do not mention CSR in their mission statement or on the company web-site. Since many employees like to be a part of a company that contributes to society, retail fi rms should consider a more compre-hensive statement relative to their position on CSR and communicate this more fully to their employees ( Turban and Greening, 1997 ). Previous research on customers, another primary stakeholder group for retail fi rms, suggest that consumers are more like-ly to patronize and purchase from companies that participate in socially responsible activities ( Webb, Mohr and Harris, 2008 ; Du et al. , 2007 ). If not included on their web page, it may be diffi cult for consumers to determine how retail fi rms engage in

Economic

SocialEnvironmental

Educational

90%

80%

70%

50%

60%

40%

20%

30%

10%

0%DIS CK G/R DES D/C SS

Figure 4 : Profiles of CSR programs by retail type

Abbreviations: DIS = discount store, CK = category killer, G / R = grocery / restaurant, DES =

department store, D / C = drug / convenience store, SS = specialty store, online store and home

shopping .

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 153

socially responsible behavior ( Klein and Dawar, 2004 ; Sen et al. , 2006 ). CSR strategies need to be developed and communicated. Effective communication of CSR initiatives may provide a competitive advantage to those retail fi rms who position themselves in terms of their CSR strategies. In the long term, positive CSR beliefs may lead to loyalty from their stakeholders. CSR may create an opportunity to build meaningful, long-term relationships ( Du et al. , 2007 ).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The sampling frame focused on the Top 100 retailers thereby limiting any generalizations beyond this sample. Future research should examine a wider list of retail fi rms. In addi-tion, comparing US-based retail fi rms with international retail fi rms with regard to the attention given to CSR and specifi c CSR programs may provide valuable information, especially as more US retailers go global.

The methodology of this study could also be considered a limitation. The proce-dure of using website analysis instead of case analysis does not allow the researchers to determine the commitment to socially responsible behaviors. Just coding the con-tent on the website by the primary thrust of the content does not allow for in-depth analysis of the content, consequently some relevant information may have been missed. Relatively small number of corporate reputation scores available in Fortune ’ s list is another limitation of this study. In addition to limited corporate reputation scores, we initially felt the retailers with the highest corporate reputation scores would focus on their CSR initiatives by highlighting them through separate mission statements and including their actions. We were unable to observe a link between corporate reputation scores and principles, processes and perform-ance. Also the outcomes of CSR should be assessed by more holistic view including intrinsic and extrinsic results of activities. Future study should include other variables

to measure outcomes of CSR such as fi nan-cial performance, social performance and consumer loyalty.

One interesting fi nding relative to corpo-rate reputation is that specialty stores achieved a high reputation score, although, examining their websites, a greater majority of specialty stores did not mention CSR, and if they did, it was minor. Although the corporate reputation score included variables other than social responsibility, we must ask if there are other ways to communicate to stakeholders, beliefs and participation in CSR activities. Since consumers actively search for information on corporate social values ( Anselmsson and Johansson, 2007 ), according to our study, specialty stores pay limited attention to CSR on their websites. Is word-of-mouth and other marketing activities more effective in communication efforts in regard to CSR? This should be a topic for future research.

Another area of future research would be to examine additional ways that retail fi rms may use their websites to disseminate more social responsibility information and facili-tate more interactivity with their customers, employees and other stakeholders. Also, investigating the degree that retail fi rms actually practice their CSR activities identi-fi ed on their websites would be important. Lastly, what do stakeholder groups who connect to corporate websites want to see relative to CSR? What aspects of CSR are important? What is the profi le of a con-sumer who actively seeks information on CSR? Does the attention given to CSR contribute to the retailer ’ s image? The perceptions of a retail fi rm ’ s CSR actions would be worthy of investigation to deter-mine their importance and effectiveness.

REFERENCES Adams , C . A . , Hill , W . and Roberts , C . B . ( 1998 )

‘ Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behavior? ’ British Accounting Review , 30 (1) , 1 – 21 .

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589154

Anselmsson , J . and Johansson , U . ( 2007 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility and the positioning of grocery brands ’ , International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management , 35 (10) , 835 – 856 .

Asongu , J . J . ( 2007 ) ‘ The legitimacy of strategic cor-porate social responsibility as a marketing tool ’ , Journal of Business and Public Policy , 1 (1) , 1 – 12 .

Baker , M . ( 2005 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility – What does it mean? ’ , available at www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfi les/defi nition.html .

Barbaro , M . ( 2007 ) ‘ Home depot to go green ’ , Inter-national Herald Tribune , 17 April, available at www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5314895 .

Bowd , R . , Bowd , L . and Harris , P . ( 2006 ) ‘ Com-municating corporate social responsibility: An exploratory case study of a major UK retail centre ’ , Journal of Public Affairs , 6 (2) , 147 – 155 .

California Green Solutions ( 2007 ) ‘ Consumer holiday trends toward green in 2007 ’ , California Green Solutions , 16 November, 2007, available at www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=1403 .

Carroll , A . B . ( 1991 ) ‘ Corporate social performance measurement: A commentary on methods for evaluating an elusive construct ’ , in U.E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social performance and Policy , Greenwich, CT: JAI . Vol. 12, pp. 385 – 401 .

Clarkson , M . B . ( 1995 ) ‘ A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social per-formance ’ , Academy of Management Review , 20 (1) , 92 – 117 .

Davis , K . ( 1973 ) ‘ The case for and against business assumptions of social responsibilities ’ , Academy of Management Journal , 16 (2) , 312 – 322 .

Du , S . , Bhattacharya , C . B . and Sen , S . ( 2007 ) ‘ Reap-ing relational rewards from corporate social respon-sibility: The role of competitive positioning ’ , International Journal of Research in Marketing , 24 (3) , 224 – 241 .

Esrock , S . L . and Leichty , G . B . ( 1998 ) ‘ Social respon-sibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? ’ Public Relations Review , 24 (3) , 305 – 319 .

Esrock , S . L . and Leichty , G . B . ( 1999 ) ‘ Corporate world wide web pages: Serving the news media and other publics ’ , Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , 76 (3) , 456 – 467 .

Esrock , S . L . and Leichty , G . B . ( 2000 ) ‘ Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and functions ’ , Pub-lic Relations Review , 26 (3) , 327 – 344 .

Freeman , R . E . ( 1994 ) ‘ The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions ’ , Business Ethic Quar-terly , 4 (4) , 409 – 421 .

Gan , A . ( 2006 ) ‘ The impact of public scrutiny on corporate philanthropy ’ , Journal of Business Ethics , 69 (3) , 217 – 236 .

Gossling , T . and Vocht , C . ( 2007 ) ‘ Social role concep-tions and CSR Policy Success ’ , Journal of Business Ethics , 74 (4) , 363 – 372 .

Holcomb , J . L . , Upchurch , R . S . and Okumus , F . ( 2007 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting? ’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 19 (6) , 461 – 475 .

Home Textiles Today ( 2008 ) ‘ JCPenney going “ Simply Green ” ’ , Home Textiles Today , 18 January, 2008, available at www.hometextilestoday.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrintandarticleID=CA6523994 .

Hooghiemstra , R . ( 2000 ) ‘ Corporate communication and impression management – New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social report-ing ’ , Journal of Business Ethics , 27 (1 – 2) , 55 – 68 .

Jamali , D . and Mirshak , R . ( 2006 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a de-veloping country context ’ , Journal of Business Ethics , 72 , 243 – 262 .

Juholin , E . ( 2004 ) ‘ For business or for the good of all? A Finnish approach to corporate social respon-sibility ’ , Corporate Governance , 4 (3) , 20 – 32 .

Katsoulakos , T . and Katsoulacos , Y . ( 2007 ) ‘ Strategic management, corporate responsibility and stake-holder management integrating corporate responsi-bility principles and stakeholder approaches into mainstream strategy: A stakeholder-oriented and integrative strategic management framework ’ , Cor-porate Governance , 7 (4) , 355 – 369 .

Kennedy , S . ( 2007 ) ‘ Environment, responsibility and retail ’ , Retailing Today , 46 (6) , 9 .

Klein , J . and Dawar , N . ( 2004 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility and consumers ’ attribution and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis ’ , International Journal of Research in Marketing , 21 (3) , 203 – 217 .

Maignan , I . and Ralston , D . ( 2002 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses ’ self-presentations ’ , Journal of International Business Studies , 33 (3) , 497 – 514 .

Margolis , J . D . and Walsh , J . P . ( 2001 ) People and Profi ts? The Search for a Link Between a Company’s Social and Financial Performance , Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

Marlin , A . and Marlin , J . T . ( 2003 ) ‘ A brief history of social reporting ’ , available at http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/nl/51.html#anchor857 .

Mohr , L . A . , Webb , D . J . and Harris , K . E . ( 2001 ) ‘ Do consumers expect companies to be socially respon-sible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior ’ , Journal of Consumer Affairs , 35 (1) , 45 – 72 .

Moskowitz , M . ( 1972 ) ‘ Choosing socially responsible stocks ’ , Business and Society , 1 , 71 – 75 .

PriceWaterhouseCoopers ( 2004 ) ‘ Corporate social re-sponsibility show to enhance profi tability and long term shareholder value ’ , available at www.pwc.

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 155

com/extweb/ncpressrelease.nsf/docid/CB5752E1DCB1BE9A80256E1B002BE744 .

Piacentini , M . , MacFadyen , L . and Eadie , D . ( 2000 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility in food retailing ’ , International Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage-ment , 28 (11) , 459 – 469 .

Rowley , T . and Berman , S . ( 2000 ) ‘ A brand new brand of corporate social performance ’ , Business and Society , 39 (4) , 397 – 418 .

Schulz , D . P . ( 2007 ) ‘ SAP top hundred retailers ’ , Stores , July, pp. S2 – S19 .

Sen , S . , Bhattacharya , C . B . and Korschun , D . ( 2006 ) ‘ The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships ’ , Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 34 (2) , 158 – 166 .

Senser , R . A . ( 2007 ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility: A fl edgling movement faces a crucial test ’ , Dissent Winter, 2007 , 77 – 82 .

Smith , H . J . ( 2003a ) ‘ The shareholders vs. stakeholders debate ’ , MIT Sloan Management Review , 44 (4) , 85 – 90 .

Smith , N . C . ( 2003b ) ‘ Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? ’ , California Management Review , 45 (4) , 52 – 76 .

The Business Journal ( 2007 ) ‘ Kohl’s to pursue “ green ” certifi cations for stores ’ , The Business Journal , 7 November, 2007, available at www.milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2007/11/05/daily22.html?t=printable .

Turban , D . B . and Greening , D . W . ( 1997 ) ‘ Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees ’ , The Academy of Manage-ment Journal , 40 (3) , 658 – 672 .

U.S. Census Bureau ( 2007 ) ‘ Estimates of monthly retail and food services sales by kind of business: 2007 ’ , available at www.census.gov/mrts/www/data/html/nsa107.html .

Van der Laan , G . , Van Ees , H . and Van Witteloostu-ijn , A . ( 2008 ) ‘ Corporate social and fi nancial per-formance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures ’ , Journal of Business Ethics , 79 , 299 – 310 .

Vogel , D . ( 1992 ) ‘ The globalization of business ethics: Why America remains distinctive ’ , California Man-agement Review , 35 (1) , 30 – 49 .

Vomhof , J . ( 2008 ) ‘ Target’s future stores will bigger, greener ’ , Business Journal, 8 February 2008, avail-able at http://twincities.bizjournals.com .

Waddock , S . A . and Graves , S . B . ( 1997 ) ‘ The corpo-rate social performance-fi nancial performance link ’ , Strategic Management Journal , 18 (4) , 303 – 319 .

Webb , D . J . , Mohr , L . A . and Harris , K . E . ( 2008 ) ‘ A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement ’ , Journal of Business Research , 61 (2) , 91 – 98 .

Whitehouse , L . A . ( 2006 ) ‘ Corporate social responsi-bility: Views from the frontline ’ , Journal of Business Ethics , 63 (3) , 279 – 296 .

Wood , D . ( 1991 ) ‘ Corporate social performance revisited ’ , Academy of Management Review , 16 (4) , 691 – 718 .

Wood , D . and Jones , R . E . ( 1995 ) ‘ Stakeholder mis-matching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance ’ , Inter-national Journal of Organizational Analysis , 3 (3) , 229 – 267 .

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589156

APPENDIX See Table A1 .

Table A1 : List of Top 100 Retailers Presented by National Retail Federation and Stores in 2007

Rank Name Retail Type 2006 Revenue

1 Wal-Mart discount 348,650,000 2 Home Depot category killer 90,837,000 3 Kroger grocery 66,111,200 4 Costco discount 60,151,227 5 Target discount 59,490,000 6 Sears department 53,012,000 7 Walgreen drug store 47,409,000 8 Lowe’s category killer 46,927,000 9 CVS drug store 43,813,800 10 Safeway convenience 40,185,000 11 BestBuy category killer 35,934,000 12 SuperValu Retail discount 28,016,000 13 Federated Dept. Stores (Macy’s) department 26,970,000 14 Ahold USA(e) grocery 24,000,000 15 Publix grocery 21,700,000 16 McDonald’s restaurant 21,586,400 17 JCPenney department 19,903,000 18 Staples category killer 18,200,000 19 Rite Aid drug store 17,507,719 20 TJX discount 17,404,637 21 Delhaize America(e) grocery 17,250,000 22 Gap specialty 15,943,000 23 Kohl’s department 15,544,200 24 Offi ce Depot category killer 15,010,781 25 7-Eleven (e) convenience 15,000,000 26 Toys ‘R’ Us category killer 13,050,000 27 Meijer (e) discount 12,750,000 28 H.E.B. (e) grocery 12,750,000 29 Circuit City category killer 12,429,800 30 Pilot Travel Centres (e) convenience 11,800,000 31 Jean Coutu Group drug store 11,143,100 32 Amazon.com online 10,711,000 33 Limited Brands specialty 10,670,599 34 Alimentation Couche-Tard convenience 10,157,300 35 Yum! Brand restaurant 9,561,000 36 Dollar General discount 9,169,822 37 Offi ceMax category killer 8,965,700 38 Army Air Force Exchange specialty 8,917,600

Lee, Fairhurst and Wesley

© 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589 Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 Corporate Reputation Review 157

Table A1 : Continued

Rank Name Type of Store 2006 Revenue

39 Nordstrom department 8,560,698 40 BJ’s Wholesale discount 8,480,281 41 Dillard’s department 7,849,400 42 Starbucks restaurant 7,786,942 43 Winn-Dixie grocery 7,194,000 44 QVC TV shopping 7,074,000 45 AandP grocery 6,850,268 46 Bed Bath and Beyond category killer 6,617,429 47 Menard (e) specialty 6,600,000 48 Family Dollar discount 6,394,772 49 Giant Eagle (e) grocery 6,125,000 50 The Pantry convenience 5,961,702 51 AutoZone category killer 5,948,355 52 Foot Locker specialty 5,750,000 53 Darden Restaurants restaurant 5,720,640 54 Whole Foods grocery 5,607,376 55 Ross Stores discount 5,570,210 56 GameStop online 5,318,900 57 Hy-Vee (e) grocery 5,275,000 58 Barnes and Noble category killer 5,261,254 59 Longs Drug Stores drug store 5,097,052 60 Quik Trip (e) convenience 5,000,000 61 RaceTrac Petroleum (e) convenience 5,000,000 62 Trader Joe’s (e) grocery 5,000,000 63 Travel Centres of America convenience 4,783,514 64 RadioShack specialty 4,777,500 65 Aldi (e) grocery 4,750,000 66 Save Mart (e) grocery 4,750,000 67 Big Lots discount 4,743,048 68 CompUSA(e) category killer 4,700,000 69 Advance Auto Part specialty 4,616,503 70 Luxottica Retail (e) specialty 4,250,000 71 PetSmart category killer 4,233,857 72 Wegman’s (e) grocery 4,200,000 73 Brinker International restaurant 4,151,291 74 Neiman Marcus department 4,105,596 75 Borders Group category killer 4,063,900 76 Pathmark grocery 4,058,000 77 Casey’s General Store convenience 4,024,010 78 Roundy’s (e) grocery 4,000,000 79 Dollar Tree discount 3,969,400 80 OSI Restaurants restaurant 3,940,959

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 12, 2, 140–158 © 2009 Palgrave Macmillan 1363-3589158

Table A1 : Continued

Rank Name Type of Store 2006 Revenue

81 Michaels Stores category killer 3,864,976 82 Sheetz (e) convenience 3,800,000 83 Love’s (e) convenience 3,750,000 84 Williams-Sonoma specialty 3,727,513 85 Stater Bros grocery 3,507,881 86 The Bon-Ton Stores department 3,455,810 87 Burlington Coat Factory discount 3,403,000 88 Raley’s(e) grocery 3,400,000 89 Berkshire-Hathaway specialty 3,334,000 90 Abercrombie andFitch specialty 3,318,158 91 IACI Retail specialty 3,291,600 92 Wawa(e) grocery 3,250,000 93 Price Chopper (e) grocery 3,150,000 94 Belk department 3,150,000 95 Dick’s Sporting Goods category killer 3,114,162 96 Retail Ventures discount 3,067,658 97 Charming Shoppes specialty 3,067,517 98 Cumberland Farms (e) convenience 3,050,000 99 Mervyn’s (e) discount 3,000,000 100 Saks department 2,940,003