Framing Climate Change: Why Message Designs
Matter to CSR Communication
Master’s Thesis
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Science
Master’s Programme Communication Science
Thesis Supervisor: Sanne Kruikemeier
Abstract
Climate change is now one of the most salient topics that is discussed in this globalized society. Several sectors are working together, trying to come up with potential consensus and solutions to solve this thorny risk. Even though studies and analyses regarding climate change have been proliferating in communication science since the late 1990s, the threats of climate change to the humanity are still underestimated and the engagement of public remains low. All the citizens around the globe need to take immediate actions and well-designed messages are the keys to unlock a better world. As corporate actors can significantly influence the public in the era of globalization and the message framing is considered as a crucial method of message designs, this study uses a case of Signify, formerly known as Philips Lighting, to see how differently-framed messages with CSR communication can affect the public when communicating the topic of climate change. Regardless of the insignificant or contradicting outcomes, this study determines that with strategic message frames and CSR communication plans, potential positive influence of differently-framed messages with CSR communication can still trigger the public’s emotions, attitude and behavioral intention towards preserving the environment.
Introduction
The topic of climate change has been researched and discussed for decades (Nerlich, Koteyko & Brown, 2010). An increase of scientific evidence in favor of climate change and a rise in natural disasters are urging society to take action. Influential messages are the keys to call for action within different actors. As for message designs, it is wildly believed that differently-framed messages would have different levels of persuasiveness, systematic impacts upon behavioral intentions and actual behavior (e.g., Schneider et al. 2001; Rothman et al., 2006).
Framing climate change communication could be used to pare down information and giving greater weight to certain attentions (Nisbet, 2009). It is said that the frames that focus on the potential outcomes in terms of potential gains or loss when taking or not taking certain environmental actions would have different effects on the message receivers (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). Spence and Pidgeon (2010) stated that gain frames were superior to loss frames in increasing people’s positive attitude toward climate change mitigation and surging their perceived severity of climate change.
Who can frame and who can be an influential communicator is also a long-discussed topic when analyzing the message persuasiveness (Druckman, 2001). In the era of globalization, business firms have become significant political actors (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). Building trustworthy and creditable images of being concerned about corporate social responsibility (CSR) is highly valued by numerous corporate actors nowadays. For instance, a study conducted by the Varkey Foundation, which was in collaboration with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), shows that the Fortune Global 500 companies spent USD 19.9 billion on CSR projects in 20131. Also, a study shows that companies’ commitment on
stainability and CSR topics have already become important issues that appear in annual reports and CEO letters (Conaway & Wardrope, 2010).
However, several studies addressed that such CSR communication is regarded as superficial and frequently described as a powerful and political means to ward off criticism from
1 New report finds Fortune 500 companies commit a fraction ... (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/single-view/news/new_report_finds_fortune_500_companies_commit_a_fraction_of/
the public (Porter & Karamer, 2006; Newell, 2008). Several scholars suggest that CSR communication is merely a business approach to gain legitimacy by expressing policies and determinations without having actual actions (Hopwood et al., 2005; Kolk, 2003; Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009). Although research about CSR has been conducted for years from different angles, debates regarding the efficacy of CSR communication have not reached a consensus (May, Cheney & Roper, 2007).
Even though the topic of CSR communication has been widely researched, it should be noted that definitions for CSR are various from different angles (Smith, 2011). One of the recognized definitions for CSR is that it is an approach that enables corporate actors to have contributions to public wealth and well-being through the practices of ethical or sustainable management (Smith, 2011). Perrini (2006) indicated that the concepts of CSR have evolved from a vague awareness of the relationship or responsibilities between corporate actors and social-environmental contexts into a clear identification of rules of conduct and management tools. As for corporates acting as political influencers, the concept of political CSR extends the conventional notions of CSR based on the traditional economic role of business sections and such private firms may also play roles to fill in the missing parts of government services, acting as advocators or influencers in the topic or issues that are related to the public welfare (Wickert, 2014).
Distinct from the crisis communication that resulted from environmental disasters, the new form of corporate eco-communication emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Livesey & Graham, 2007). Regardless, the debates regarding the intentions behind conducting CSR projects and the influence of CSR implementations are still widely studied. A 30-year longitude study shows that organizations have significantly increased their communication about corporate environmental responsibility (Bortreea et al., 2013). When it comes to CSR communication regarding environmental issues such as climate change, it is said that different frames, for example the quantity and valence of green message frames, would contribute to different effects on the message efficacy of persuasion (Olsen, Slotegraaf & Chandukala, 2014).
Such CSR communication offers corporations opportunities to influence on the issues of public policy and affecting public opinion (Esrock & Leichty, 1998). Also, it should be noted that CSR communication is a two-way relationship, in which the persuasiveness of CSR communication is positively related to people’s trust on corporate actors and hence affects the
influence of the conveyed messages on people’s behavioral intention and political attitude regarding environmental issues (Kiousis, Popescu & Mitrook, 2011; Baesecke, Chen & Boyd, 2016).
The present thesis will analyze a case of Signify, formerly known as Philips Lighting, which is recognized as the market leader in the lighting industry, aiming to see to what extent Signify can play a role as an influencer that shapes or increases to the public’s attitude toward the current situation of climate change or willingness to protect the environment. To test the effects caused by Signify and see what people’s reactions will be when being exposed to a message released by a corporate actor, an independent variable, CSR communication, is examined in the present experiment. “CSR Communication” in the present research refers to the impact a cooperate actor’s CSR communication can have on the receiver’s interpretation of the message. For instance, if the information about company’s sustainability commitment can be observed by readers, the message might be perceived as CSR communication.
A study shows that different moderating factors can help explain the persuasiveness of gain-framed or loss-gain-framed related messages (Newman et al., 2012). Druckman (2001) believed that framing effects might occur when citizens delegate sorting out various sources of information to ostensibly credible elites. Also, the sources of the framed message would have considerable influence on the credibility of such messages. Considering that Signify has continuous CSR projects – one of the goals being to become carbon neutral by 2020 – and has received top scores in the categories Environmental Reporting, Operational Eco-Efficiency in the 2018 Dow Jones Sustainability Index2, this thesis will also test the moderating effects caused by Signify’s CSR
communication, focusing on how a credible corporate actor can influence the efficacy of the framing effects when communicating the migration of climate change.
Again, it is suggested that such corporate elites, armed with superior financial and technical recourses, have the abilities to act tactically within existing structures or ideologies while simultaneously shape the public opinions and hence affect the public policies (Conrad & Abbott, 2007). Yet, currently studies of CSR communication viewing corporate actors as potential political
2 Signify named Industry Leader in the 2018 Dow Jones Sustainability Index. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.signify.com/global/about/news/press-releases/2018/20180913-signify-named-industry-leader-2018-dow-jones-sustainability-index
influencers are still limited and the studies of CSR communication regarding message design still remain narrow. Nowadays, corporate elites’ roles have dramatically changed and are no longer merely benefit-oriented under the continuous trend of globalization. Also, owing to the repaid development of new technology, CSR communication can be conveyed across borders and will therefore reach more people around the world.
The existing studies mostly focus on large multinational corporations when it comes to political CSR (MNCs, Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013; Wickert et al., 2016). However, the diverse traits among MNCs will lead to different levels of persuasiveness considering people’s brand attitude, affiliation and the brand reputation (Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004). Altogether, the present study focuses on the actor, Signify, with social recognition as industry leader when it comes to sustainability, which will contribute to current studies by providing new insights regarding CSR communication. Also, in order to contribute to the related research fields, the present thesis aims to bridge the field of CSR message designs, offering academical insights of what influence on people’s environmental behavior can be caused by being exposed to differently-framed CSR messages from a corporate elite.
To sum up, present thesis would like to combine two research fields of communication science, climate change communication and CSR communication, and examine the classic discourse of Lasswell (1948): “Who communicates what in which channel to whom with what effects?”. Focusing on the content of the messages, the deliverer of messages and the effects caused by the previously mentioned factors, the present thesis would like to test how can differently framed messages result in different levels of behavioral intention and attitude toward protection environment and how can a corporate actor, Signify in this case, affect the expected framing effects (Figure 1). As a consequence, the research question of the present thesis is:
RQ: To what extent does exposure to a gain frame message (vs. loss frame) about climate change affect the public’s attitude and behavioral intentions regarding preserving the environment, and to what extent is the relationship moderated by the CSR communication of Signify?
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Frames, attitude and behavioral intention
When it comes to message designs, there is no such thing as unframed messages, and almost every successful communicator is adept at framing, whether using frames intentionally or not (Nisbet, 2009). Message receivers tend to rely on frames to discuss or make sense of a certain issue (Scheufele, 1999). Scholars indicate that message framing techniques may be a promising tool for effective climate change communication (Myers et al. 2012; Krantz and Monroe 2016). It is shown that strategic message framing may help build public consensus when it comes to climate change issues, such as causes, risks and solutions (Stevenson et al., 2017).
For many members of our current world, climate change is still an ambiguous situation with considerable uncertainty. Scholars support that polarization of public opinions on climate change may be rooted in political ideology (Hornsey et al. 2016). Nisbet (2009) believed, if certain individuals are given an ambiguous or uncertain situation to consider, the different ways in which a message is framed can lead to very different outcomes and hence affect public engagement. Therefore, in order to have a deeper understanding regarding climate change communication, the topic of framing effects cannot be neglected.
Message framing can be identified as information about a certain issue or event that being shaped by words, images, or phrases with specific persuasive purpose (Chong & Druckman, 2007). Namely, frames can be defined as interpretive storylines that set a particular thought in motion, conveying the reasons why a certain issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and how can it be solved (Nisbet, 2009).
Gain/loss frame Behavioral Changes/
Attitude CSR communication
The way of how the messages are framed can have a significant impact on the recipient (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). Messages that communicate climate change normally aim to call for action or awareness, individually or collectively; however, in spite of the fact that climate change is scientifically observed, public opinion regarding climate change still remains polarized and engagement with the environment still remains low (Hamilton et al., 2015). Nowadays, framed messages about climate change are increasingly used in order to encourage sustainable or environmentally friendly behavior since climate change has been considered as one of major public policy issues that is still underestimate by the public and requires urgent mitigation (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010).
Various studies that focus on different types of frames shows that message frames are significantly related to people’s perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions (e.g. Gifford & Comeau, 2011; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). This thesis focuses on one of the most often used frames when it comes to environmental issues, the outcome frame, which refers to presenting a specific issue or event in terms of gains or losses (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). In other words, the gain/loss frame can be considered as whether issues are presented in a positive or negative manner (Davis, 1995).
With regard to gain/loss frames, the effects might vary under different circumstances (Banks et al., 1995). As for climate change, there are several facts that should be taken into consideration when trying to understand the impact of this gain/loss frames. As mentioned before, the idea of climate change has considerable uncertainty for some people, regarding the accurate extent, time-scale, and outcomes of climate change (Morton et al., 2011). It is shown that under uncertain circumstances, such it is the case with communication about climate change regarding global warming, people tend to act in their self-interest rather than the collective benefits (Morton et al., 2011). The trait of being uncertainty makes the climate change communication can be linked to the previous studies, indicating that people tend to be more reluctant to take action in response to information that comes with uncertainty or vagueness (Fox and Weber, 2002). Combining framing effects, based on the study conducted by Morton et al. (2011), the gain framed messages will produce a stronger intention to act accordingly to the promoted behavior compared to loss framed message when people are exposed to a message with high uncertainty.
A study suggests that gain frames are superior to loss frames in increasing positive attitudes towards climate change mitigation and increased the perceived severity of climate change (Spence
& Pidgeon, 2010). Also, it is believed that positive gain frames can increase people’s pro-environmental attitudes and support for mitigation and adaptation policies (Hurlstone et al., 2014; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). Therefore, the following hypotheses are tested:
H1a: A gain framed message leads to higher behavioral intention towards preserving the
environment than a loss framed message.
H1b: A gain framed message leads to attitude (more concern) toward preserving the environment
than a loss framed message.
CSR communication, attitude and behavioral intention
The idea of corporates acting as social actors responding to social issues began to be accepted in the 1970s (Clark 2000). The concept of CSR is as widespread as they are in this globalized generation since the public did not generally believe that corporate actors should involve in social or political problems back then (Grunig, 1979; Lee & Carroll, 2011). However, nowadays, corporations are expected to perform more proactively in diverse dimensions of CSR. Despite the soaring CSR initiatives and expectations from the pubic on business sectors, surprisingly little is known about the effects of CSR and CSR communication on the public (David, Kline, & Dai, 2005).
Recent discussions in terms of CSR have highlighted that many corporate actors have started to undertake social and political responsibilities that go beyond legal requirements and fill the regulatory vacuum in the global governance (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). The literature about cross-sector collaboration among state sector, market sector and civil sector notes that with the growing size and complexity of social issues in the current globalization society, the boundaries of responsibilities are becoming ambiguous and cross-sector collaboration is encouraged and expected (Austin, 2000; Peterson & Norton, 2007). As for such mixed roles, a study utilizing the case of Royal Dutch/Shell Group shows how the CSR talks from some corporations have the potential to transform not only the perceptions, but also the practices of social actors that shapes the public’s understandings of environmental responsibility (Livesey & Graham, 2007). Therefore, the transformation and the blurring boundaries imply that corporate actors are increasing collaboration between corporations and different sectors, which consequently produce the abilities of business to have more corporate power and call for collective action (Austin, 2000; Traap, 2012).
Even though the blurring boundaries between different sectors are generally witnessed, the actual effects of CSR communications still remain debated and related studies are still comparatively limited (May, Cheney & Roper, 2007). However, several studies show that corporate actors, with their massive global influence, can be also viewed as opinion leaders and are present in the public sphere as political influencers (e.g. Livesey & Graham, 2007; Peterson & Norton, 2007). While CSR communication is also considered as a public relation (PR) approach, it cannot be denied that PR is playing a soaring central role in the discussion and deliberative democracy regarding global climate change (Greenberg et al., 2011). Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen (2013) stated that aspirational CSR communication from corporate leaders may be an important element for social change and it is crucial to keep CSR issues and CSR practices on the public agenda. When it comes to the influence of opinion leaders, the general importance of them in shaping public preference, informing citizens and altering behavior has already been widely researched and confirmed (Nisbet & Kotcher, 2009). All in all, in the public sphere and marketplace of ideas, corporate actors can be viewed as opinion leaders and influential advocators regarding global social issues such as climate change.
To sum up, considering the increasing corporate power and influence in the contemporary society, the business sector is also considered as one of the most significant players in the public sphere and act as an opinion leader that can cause impact on people’s attitude and behavioral intentions. Also, in the aspect of environmental CSR, Signify is recognized as prominent and credible firm that could be considered as trustworthy communicator when distrusting CSR communication and hence affects the public. All in all, the present thesis predicts:
H2a: A message with CSR communication leads to higher behavioral intention toward preserving
the environment than a message without CSR communication.
H2b: A message with CSR communication leads to better attitude (more concern) toward
preserving the environment than a message without CSR communication.
The interaction effects
Previous literature reviews regarding the effects of framing and CSR communication indicate that both gain-framed messages and messages with CSR communication can lead to more positive attitude and behavioral intentions regarding protection environment. Logically, when
messages are designed with these two factors, congruent effects can be hence expected. Such interaction effects can be seen as an extension of a previous study, which states that differently-framed messages with CSR communication about climate change would lead to different effects on the message efficacy of persuasion (Olsen, Slotegraaf & Chandukala, 2014).
This study uses the case of Signify, which is considered as the industry leader in the aspect of sustainability and recognized as a corporate actor demonstrating that sustainability is central code to company strategy and purpose. Consequently, Signify’s CSR communication can be viewed as credible source. Several studies show that a credible source usually can lead to higher level of behavioral compliance compared to those who with low credibility (e.g. Levine et al., 1978; Tybout, 1978; Parguel, Moreau & Larceneux, 2011). Also, research has shown that a corporate actor’s CSR records and the CSR communication are positively associated to its messages persuasiveness that leads to better brand attitude and behavioral intentions, such as purchase intentions and advocacy behavior(Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007). Besides, CSR communication also has a positive influence on customers’ trust in the company (Homburg, Stierl & Bornemann 2013). Therefore, people receiving Signify CSR communication mentioning its commitment and achievements in terms of sustainability would increase their trust and brand attitude toward Signify. Hence, compared to the messages without mentioning any information about the communicator, Signify CSR communication allows the receivers to be more aware of the trustworthiness of the message source and its credibility.
An experiment conducted by Druckman (2001) can help in illustrating this statement that people’s perceived source credibility appears to be essential for effective framing. He concluded that framing effects may occur, not because opinions leaders seek to manipulate the public, but rather because citizens look for guidance from credible authorities. Druckman (2001) hence concluded that source credibility moderates the framing effects. Extending the conclusion made by Druckman (2001), Signify’s CSR communication can be considered as a highly credible source and make the framing effects more profound compared to those who received a message without any information about the source. Again, in the combination of the framing effects of climate change communication and the influence of CSR communication, it is predicted that there will be interaction effects on people’s behavioral intentions and attitude under the different circumstances of message designs, gain/loss frame and with/without CSR communication. In other words, the
expected framing effects will be more profound when the respondents are also exposed to Signify’s CSR communication. Hereby, the present thesis would like to hypothesize:
H3a: A gain framed message leads to higher behavioral intention toward preserving the
environment than a loss framed message, but the effect will be more pronounced for people receiving CSR communication.
H3b: A gain framed message leads to better attitude (more concerns) toward preserving the
environment than a loss framed message, but the effect will be more pronounced for people receiving CSR communication.
Method
Research design, procedure and sample collection
The present research regarding message design deployed a 2 (gain vs. loss frame) x 2 (Signify’s CSR vs. no Signify’s CSR communication) experiment. This indicates there were four conditions, a) a gain-frame message without Signify’s CSR communication (n = 74), b) loss-framed message without Signify’s CSR communication (n = 76), c) gain-loss-framed message with Signify’s CSR communication (n = 80) and d) loss-framed message with Signify’s CSR communication (n =78).
The experiment and data were collected through an online survey which was launched from December 10th to December 24th 2018. Owing to the limited budget, the survey was spread out mainly among the researcher’s social circle through social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram. In addition, it was also distributed to the Integrated Communication Team and CSR Team of Signify via emails. The online survey link came with a short note explaining to my friends and family that this experiment was used for the Master thesis and requested further sharing of the link within their social circles. After the participants confirmed to join the experiment, they were distributed to one of four conditions randomly.
The respondents needed to be 18 years or older and have the ability to understand messages written in English. In total, 485 respondents joined the online experiment while 309 of them completed it. Within these 309 respondents, most of them indicated that their current residency country was Taiwan (63.4 %), following up by the Netherlands (19.4%). The mean age of the
respondent was 38.63 years old (SD = 11.83), the youngest was 18 years old and the oldest was 66 years old. Male respondent comprised 64.7% of the sample while female and the other took 35.3%. As for education levels, 51.5% of the participants reached Master’s degree and 37.5% of them reached Bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education.
Message design
The messages used in this experiment were designed and crafted based on Signify’s tone of voice. These messages had been proofread by the Signify’ media spokesperson, Elco van Groningen. The four messages were different in the second and final paragraph. Aside from the framing section and CSR communication section, the remaining parts of the messages remained the same. The first paragraph stated facts regarding climate change. The third paragraph indicated the figure regarding global electricity consumption and called for action. The fourth paragraph implied that LED lighting is the key to achieve sustainability (see Appendix A for the four completed messages).
Measure
Several measures were required in order to examine the present model. These included: framing effect, effects caused by CSR communication, people’s attitude or concern toward climate change and people’s behavioral intentions to mitigate climate change. Each measurement was partially based on the metrics of earlier studies and adapted to fit the purposes and traits of the present study.
Independent variable: Frames. Spence and Pidgeon (2010) noted that possible to discuss
climate change mitigation in terms of the positive consequences of undertaking mitigation actions or in terms of the negative consequences of not mitigating. They framed the messages and communicated the possible outcomes that might be brought to the society in terms of taking actions or not taking actions. Accordingly, the present research used similar sentences. In the message with gain frame, respondents read the message including: “By reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change, we will have more chances to ensure the world’s average surface temperature doesn’t surpass 3°C (5.4°F) this century and also prevent our world from suffering from future extreme weather catastrophes;” while in the message with loss frame, respondents read the message including: “Without reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change, the world’s average surface temperature is likely to surpass 3°C (5.4°F) this century and our world is also more likely to suffer from future extreme weather catastrophes”
Independent variable: CSR communication. As mentioned before, if the information
about company’s sustainability commitment can be observed by readers, the message might be perceived as CSR communication. Therefore, in the messages with Signify’s CSR communication, there was an extra paragraph added the last sentences of the message, stating the company’s commitments to the society and helped achieve sustainability. This extra text was: “To unlock the extraordinary potential of light for brighter lives and a better world, Signify, formerly known as Philips Lighting, is committed to sustainable operations aiming to become carbon neutral and 100% powered by renewable electricity by 2020. The company was named Industry Leader in the in the Electrical Components and Equipment category in the 2018 Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the second year in a row. Signify does not just talk about sustainability, we are walking the talk”. This message aimed to not only reveal the fact that the message was sent by a corporate actor but also increase Signify’s source credibility by using the recognition from another credible actor.
Dependent variable: Behavioral intentions. Aiming to understand the public’s behavioral
intention regarding mitigation climate change, the items used by Paço and Lavrador (2017) were incorporated in this study. Also, considering that the behaviors researched by Paco and Lavrador cannot be fully adapted to the present research, we adjusted and created nine items that comprehensively included individual behavioral intention and collective behavioral intentions, which were “To what extent do you agree with the following statements?: ‘I am willing to do more to save energy.’, ‘I am willing to buy environmentally friendly products, such as LEDs, even though I may pay a bit more.’, ‘I am willing to talk about the benefits of adopting LEDs with the others.’, ‘I am more willing to purchase products from the brands with more environmentally friendly concerns.’, ‘I am willing to promote buying products from the brands with environmentally friendly concerns to the others.’, ‘I am willing to support my government to spend budgets on updating the lighting system for electricity efficiency.’, ‘I am willing to vote for the parties or candidates with environmentally friendly concerns.’, ‘It is not at all clear that climate change actually exists.’, and ‘I am willing to become active in promoting the government to pass stricter laws to stop climate change’”. Participants also answered on 7-point Likert scales, in which 1 = strongly disagree; while 7 = strongly agree.
After conducting a factor analysis, one factors can be derived from these nine items. A dependent variable, behaviors, was formed by the mean value of all the statement (eigenvalue = 58.23, explained variance = 58.23%, Cronbach’s α= .91; M =5.61, SD = .89).
Dependent variable: Attitude (or concerns) toward climate change. In order to
understand people’s attitude toward climate change, this study took the research conducted by Paço and Lavrador (2017) as reference. Considering the elements and the conveyed information that were relevant to the present messages, we correspondingly adopted nine items, which were “To what extent do you agree with the following statements?: ‘LEDs can help mitigating climate change.’, ‘My personally lighting using behavior makes a difference to the national energy situation.’, ‘Climate change is caused by human activities related to using energy.’, ‘Climate change has been established as a serious problem; therefore, immediate actions are necessary.’, ‘My government should have stronger standards on the electricity efficiency of household.’, ‘Companies should hold stronger standards on the electricity efficiency of operations.’, ‘Multinational corporations will help succeed in stopping climate change.’, ‘It is not at all clear that climate change actually exists.’, and ‘Climate change is not as dangerous as we are told.’”. Participants answered on 7-point Likert scales, in which 1 = strongly disagree; while 7 = strongly
agree.
After conducting a factor analysis, two factors can be derived from these nine items. A new dependent variable, factuality, made by the mean value of the statements regarding the factuality of climate change, which were “It is not at all clear that climate change actually exists” and “Climate change is not as dangerous as we are told.” (eigenvalue = 1.64, explained variance = 18.23%, Cronbach’s α= .75; M =2.53, SD =1.53). Another factor, attitude toward climate change, was formed by the mean value of the rest of the items. (eigenvalue = 3.98, explained variance = 44.22%, Cronbach’s α= .84; M =5.67, SD = .89).
Control variable: Environmental concern. Abundant amounts of studies indicate that
people’s environmental concern can directly or indirectly encapsulate their evaluation of environmental issues and behavioral intentions such as purchase intentions and political supports (e.g. Lee, 2008; Dunlap, Xiao & McCright, 2001). In order to rule out alternative explanations for their finding or reduce error, some factors should be controlled for by the researcher (Schmitt & Klimoski, 1991). Considering the fact that the participants were collected by the method of
convenience sampling and informed beforehand that the topic was environmental-issue-related, people’s willingness to join the experiment might be biased by their environmental concern. Consequently, environmental concern, conducted by the question “To what extent are you concerned about environment-related issues?” was controlled in the present study (M = 5.36, SD
= 1.12; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Manipulation checks
As an experiment focusing on different message designs, it was crucial to test if the respondents successfully perceived the expected factors. Firstly, the manipulation check for the gain/loss frame was elicited the respondents’ answers for the statement “To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ‘The message I read highlighted the positive outcomes that could happen without reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change.’ Participants answered it on a 7-point Likert scale, in which 1 = strongly disagree; while 7 = strongly agree. Based on the result of an independent t-test, there were significant difference between those who received gain-framed message (M = 5.63, SD = 1.12) and those who received loss-framed message (M = 2.96, SD = 1.49); t(285.52) = 17.77, p < .000.
When it comes to the manipulation check for CSR communication, a question, “Is there any corporate brand name included in the previous message about climate change you read?”, was asked to those who received the message with Signify’s CRS communication. The result showed that 53% of them (n = 84) reported that they had notice the brand information. Also, the duration of answering the survey was highly related to the degrees of comprehension considering some participants might not fully focus on the messages which may cause flaws to the validity. Leeuw and Leeuw (1990) indicated that around 250 words per minute were an average speed for the general public. It was suggested by the online survey system, qualtrics.com, that it may take up to 10 minutes to answer the survey. However, the texts for consent and briefing took up to half of the content. Therefore, under all the consideration regarding the respondents’ comprehension, those who failed the spent less than 5 minutes to answer and failed the manipulation check for CSR communication were excluded from the result analysis. There were 181 respondents in four conditions after excluded the respondents failed the checks, gain-frame message without Signify’s CSR communication (n = 57), loss-framed message without Signify’s CSR communication (n =
56), gain-framed message with Signify’s CSR communication (n = 35) and loss-framed message with Signify’s CSR communication (n = 34).
Results
Direct effects of frames
To test the direct effects, with people’s environmental concern being the control variable, of gain/loss frame on people’s environmental behavioral intentions, general attitude toward environmental issues and the attitude toward the factuality of climate change, three one-way ANCOVAs were conducted.
First, the result indicated that there was no significant direct effect of receiving different frames on people’s behavioral intentions after controlling for environmental concerns F(1, 178) = .01, p = .93. Therefore, H1a cannot be supported. As for the direct effects of framing on respondents’ attitude, same approach was taken. The results showed that there were also no significant direct effects of receiving different frames on people’s general attitude, F(1, 178) = .19,
p = .67, or attitude regarding the factuality of climate change, F(1, 178) = .19, p =.67, after
controlling for environmental concerns. Consequently, H1b cannot be supported by the results either. The results of the covariate, environmental concern, was significantly related to the participants’ behavioral intentions, F(1, 178) = 39.18, p < .001, general attitude, F(1, 178) = 16.34,
p < .001, and attitude regarding the factuality of climate change, F(1, 178) = 16.47, p = .05.
Direct effects of CSR communication
Another three one-way ANCOVAs were conducted in order to test the direct effects caused by Signify’s CSR communication on participants’ environmental behavioral intentions, general attitude toward environmental issues and the attitude toward the factuality of climate change.
First, the result indicated that there was no significant direct effect of receiving CSR communication on people’s behavioral intentions after controlling environmental concerns F(1, 178) = 1.01, p = .32. Accordingly, H1a cannot be supported. Second, another ANCOVA analyses aiming to understand the direct effects of Signify’s CSR communication on respondents’ attitude toward environmental issues. Interestingly, there was a significant direct effect of CSR
communication on respondents’ general attitude toward environmental issues, F(1, 178) = 3.76, p = .05. It showed that participants who received Signify’s CSR communication had less positive attitude towards protection of environment (n = 68, M = 5.60, SD = .85) compared to those who did not received Signify’s CSR communication (n = 113, M = 5.78, SD = .80). However, there was also no significant direct effect of receiving CSR communication on people’s attitude regarding the factuality of climate change, F(1, 178) = .68, p =.41, after controlling environmental concerns. To sum up, H2b was rejected by the results that CSR communication would not positively lead to more positive attitudes (more concern) toward protection environment.
The results of the covariate, environmental concern, was significantly related to the participants’ behavioral intentions, F(1, 178) = 40.60, p < .001, general attitude, F(1, 178) = 18.01,
p < .001, and attitude regarding the factuality of climate change, F(1, 178) = 8.20, p = .05.
Interaction effects of frames and CSR communication
To test the interaction effects, with people’s environmental concern being controlled, caused by gain/loss frame and CSR communication on people’s environmental behavioral intentions, general attitude toward environmental issues and the attitude toward the factuality of climate change, three two-way ANCOVAs were conducted.
First, the result of the interaction effects on people’s behavioral intentions indicated that there were no significant interaction effects of receiving different frames and exposing to CSR communication on people’s behavioral intentions after controlling environmental concerns, F(1, 176) = .89, p = .35. Therefore, H3a cannot be supported. Similarly, the results of the interaction effects on people’s environmental attitude indicated that there were also no significant interaction effects of receiving different frames and exposing to CSR communication on people’s general attitude, F(1, 176) = 1.46, p = .23, or attitude regarding the factuality of climate change, F(1, 176) = .76, p = .39, after controlling environmental concerns. Hereby, H3b cannot be supported by the results either.
The results of the covariate, environmental concern, was significantly related to the participants’ behavioral intentions, F(1, 176) = 39.28, p < .001, general attitude, F(1, 176) = 17.45,
Discussion and implication
The primary purpose of the experiment was to examine the potential effects of differently designed messages regarding climate change on the public’s behavioral intention and attitude towards preserving the environment. It was expected that gain-framed messages with the benefits of reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change would be more influential on the receivers. It was also expected that the messages with CSR communication from Signify would lead to more positive impacts and make the gain-framed message to have an even more positive influence on the respondents.
The results are not in line with the predictions. In other words, gain-framed messages do not cause significant effects in this case. Similarly, CSR communication from Signify does not significantly engage the respondents to protect the environment. However, contradicting the initial prediction, it is determined the participants who received CSR communication of Signify had less positive attitude toward protecting the environment. Aside from these, no interactions effects were found in this case.
Even though the results are either not significant or contradicting the original expectation that Signify, the industry leader in terms of sustainability performance, has the ability to positively influence people’s attitude toward protecting the environment by their CSR communication, the findings can still yield some interesting contributions to the current understanding regarding message design in terms of framing effects and CSR communication.
According to the findings, it can be determined that an individuals’ concern for the environment is still the main factor that affects their behavioral intention and attitude. This finding is in line with the previous studies that indicate that environmental concern has direct effects on people’s behavior intentions attitude towards preserving the environment (e.g. Zimmer, Stafford & Stafford, 1994; Minton & Rose 1997). Also, a previous experiment shows that different levels of environmental concern might play a role in the relationship as a moderator between the effects of the message frame and people’s behavioral intention and attitude towards preserving the environment; however, the message frames do not have significant direct effects (Newman et al., 2012).
It is said that when people’s environmental concern is high, the effects of the message frame will be reduced (Newman et al., 2012). The valid participants in the present experiment had a high concern level for environment (M = 5.36, SD = 1.12; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), which can explain why the results are not in line with the predictions since the framing effects were not prominent on those who have high concern and the such existed belief dominated their decision-making process.
Also, studies suggest that framing effects might not directly change attitude or behavioral intentions, instead, framing climate change in a way that makes a specific target audience feel concerned may have the potential to trigger off people’s emotions toward the subject of climate change (Bernauer & McGrath, 2016; Stevenson et al., 2017). Research suggests that message framing strategies that adhere to ideological drivers of climate change perceptions could be a promising tool for effective climate change communication (Krantz & Monroe 2016). Namely, even though the framing effects in the present might not work as expected, the potential effects of triggering the respondents’ emotions might in turn positively influence individual or collective climate change action to a certain degree. In the combination of previous studies and the results of the present experiment, it is suggested that message frames might not have enough influence on people’s attitude and behavioral intention; however, the potential changes in emotions can still be an influential indicator in terms of climate change communication.
As for the effects of CSR communication, it is believed that people’s evaluations of CSR initiatives are influenced by perceived CSR motives (Trapp, 2012). Compared to intrinsic company motives, stakeholder skepticism might be less pronounced when CSR communication is perceived as extrinsic or superficial (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Trapp (2012) used the case of a Swedish energy company, Vattenfall, to test the effects of perceived CSR motives and concluded that persuasiveness of company’s CSR communication was weakened by being more intent on organizing a public, collective action to fight climate change than on securing company-related business interests. Back to the case of Signify, even though the benefits of adopting LEDs and connected lighting was included in the messages used in the present experiment, the messages still mainly focus on Signify’s general concern for global environmental problems and aims to awaken a call for action. This might be able to explain the contradicting result of the effects of Signify’s CSR communication.
Research shows that CSR communication can be categorized into company-controlled communication, such as a company’s commitment to achieve sustainability, and uncontrolled information, such as word of mouth and mass media. (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau & Larceneux, 2011). It is noted that the use of a source that is not perceived as controlled by the company increases the positive impact of CSR campaigns (Swaen & Vanhamme, 2005). Although a third party’s recognition, 2018 Dow Jones Sustainability Index, can be observed in the messages with Signify’s CSR communication, the less positive impact might result from the problem of convenient sampling. The receivers of Signify’s CSR communication in the researcher’s personal social circle were more aware of the facts that the message was crafted by the employee of Signify and hence perceived more company-controlled communication.
Conclusion
Climate change is now one of the most salient topics that is discussed in this globalized society. Several sectors are working together, attempting to reach consensus and find potential solutions to solve this thorny risk. Even though studies and analyses of climate change have been proliferating in communication science since the late 1990s, the threats of climate change to the planet are still underestimated and the engagement of the public still remains low (Nerlich, Koteyko & Brown, 2010). Regardless, different actors are working on communicating climate change, the ineffectiveness raises questions about the significance of current communication efficacy and the ability of constructing effective message designs.
This study yields several suggestions of effective message designs regarding climate change. To have more significant influence on the public, climate change communicators should have more focus on strategic targeting and framing on people with different levels of environmental concerns, which can affect the emotions and hence cause potential alternation of attitude and behavioral intention. The future studies under the environment-related subjects should have broader and deeper research on how differently-framed messages can trigger the changes of receivers’ emotions and how the various personal traits can affect the results. This direction can yield a more solid foundation for future studies to understand human behavior when receiving differently-framed environmental messages.
As for the potential influence that corporate actors can have on the public through CSR communication, this study contributes to the related fields with a specific case of communicator. Existing studies are mostly focusing on the potential market benefits that companies might be able to acquire with communicating their CSR commitment and performance. The present study finds out that being exposing to Signify’s CSR communication may weaken the expected persuasion effects. It is suggested that this outcome might be the result of the receivers’ perceived CSR initiatives. Also, the different channels of distributing CSR communication and the sources of CSR information may also affect the public’s evaluation of such messages and hence receive different levels of communication efficacy.
To sum up, this study stresses the importance of strategic message designs when communicating climate change and fuel a call for action. Even though more studies are still needed to identify and confirm the effective ways of communicating climate change, current study determines that message frames and CSR communicators can indeed have potential positive influence the public’s attitude and behavioral intentions towards preserving the environment. As the world population faces a surge in natural disasters and is confronted with scientific evidence in favor or climate change by human behavior, it becomes apparent that our global society should take immediate action to tackle climate change. By communicating well-designed and optimized messages, corporate actors can become beacons of light and guide society towards a better climate for future generations.
Limitations
With a limited budget, the study adopted convenience sampling. Therefore, the samples might not perfectly reflect the composition of society and hence raise concerns regarding the validity of the experiment. As stated before, those who have relatively low levels of environmental concern might not be willing to join the experiment in the first place, as it is mentioned the description provided with the online experiment – spread on social media platforms – that the experiment is related to the subject of climate change. Also, people who are in the researcher’s social circle might be aware of the researcher’s status as a Signify employee. This could potentially affect how CSR communication from Signify is perceived by participants. Lastly, future studies regarding message designs should examine and control for possible language barriers in relation to
the interpretation of multiple messages.. Most of the participants of the experiment, which was conducted in English, reported that their current residency area was not in English speaking countries. This raises the question as to whether the language skills of participants were sufficient or insufficient to be able to interpret the messages properly. To control for the language skills of participants, experiments should be conducted in various languages to cater towards various non-English speaking countries.
References
Argenti, P. A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and the Corporate Brand.
Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 368-374. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540005
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic Collaboration Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69-97.doi:10.1177/089976400773746346
Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., & Al, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178-184. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.14.2.178
Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. and Scherer, A. G. (2013). ‘Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of
Business Ethics, 115, 693–705.
Bernauer, Thomas, and L. McGrath. 2016. “Simple Re-Framing Unlikely to Boost Public Support for Climate Policy.” Nature Climate Change 6: 1–
4.doi:10.1038/nclimate2948.
Bortree, D. S., Ahern, L., Smith, A. N., & Dou, X. (2013). Framing environmental
responsibility: 30 years of CSR messages in National Geographic Magazine. Public
Relations Review, 39(5), 491-496. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.003
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372-393. doi:10.1177/1350508413478310
Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 363-380. doi:10.1016/
s0363-8111(00)00053-9
Conaway, R. N., & Wardrope, W. J. (2010). Do Their Words Really Matter? Thematic Analysis of U.S. and Latin American CEO Letters. Journal of Business
Communication, 47(2), 141-168. doi:10.1177/0021943610364523
David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices, Corporate Identity, and Purchase Intention: A Dual-Process Model. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291-313. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1703_4
Davis, J. J. (1995). The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285- 299.doi:10.1177/107769909507200203
Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: A Systems Approach For Socially Responsible Capitalism (Unpublished master's thesis). Thesis / Dissertation ETD. (2011).
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? The Journal
of Politics, 63(4), 1041-1066. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00100
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
Dunlap, R., Xiao, C., & Mccright, A. (2001). Politics and Environment in America: Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Public Support for
Environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48. doi:10.1080/714000580 Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305- 319.doi:10.1016/s0363-8111(99)80142-8
Fox, C. R., & Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 476-498. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2990
Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental
Greenberg, J., Knight, G., & Westersund, E. (2011). Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States. International
Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 65-82. doi:10.1177/1748048510386742
Grunig, J. E. (1979). A New Measure of Public Opinion on Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 738-764. doi: 10.5465/255812
Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W., & Safford, T. G. (2015). Tracking Public Beliefs About Anthropogenic Climate Change. Plos
One, 10(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138208
Homburg, C., Stierl, M., & Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in Business-to-Business Markets: How Organizational Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement. Journal of
Marketing, 77(6), 54-72. doi:10.1509/jm.12.0089
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & Obrien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52. doi:10.1002/sd.244 Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the
determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate
Change, 6(6), 622-626. doi:10.1038/nclimate2943
Hurlstone, M. J., Lewandowsky, S., Newell, B. R., & Sewell, B. (2014). The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies. PLoS
ONE, 9(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114335
Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding? Journal of
Business Ethics, 88(1), 103-113. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding Influence on Corporate Reputation: An Examination of Public Relations Efforts, Media Coverage, Public Opinion, and Financial Performance From an Agenda-Building and Agenda-Setting Perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147-165. doi:
10.1080/10627260701290661
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding Influence on Corporate Reputation: An Examination of Public Relations Efforts, Media Coverage, Public
Opinion, and Financial Performance from an Agenda-Building and Agenda-Setting Perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147-165. doi:
0.1080/10627260701290661
Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business
Strategy and the Environment,12(5), 279-291. doi:10.1002/bse.370
Krantz, Shelby A., and Martha C. Monroe. (2016). Message Framing Matters:
Communicating Climate Change with Forest Landowners. Journal of Forestry, 114 (2): 108–115. doi:10.5849/jof.14-057.
Lasswell, H. D. (2006). The structure and function of communication in society. Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 573-586. doi:10.1108/02634500810902839
Lee, S. Y., & Carroll, C. E. (2011). The Emergence, Variation, and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Public Sphere, 1980–2004: The Exposure of Firms to Public Debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 115-131. doi:10.1007/ s10551-011-0893-y
Leeuw, M. D., & Leeuw, E. D. (1990). Read better, read faster: A new approach to
effecient reading. London: Penguin.
doi:10.1111/j.1540.6261.2005.00690.x
Levine, B. A., Moss, K. C., Ramsey, P. H., & Fleishman, R. A. (1978). Patient Compliance with Advice as a Function of Communicator Expertise. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 104(2), 309-310. doi:10.1080/00224545.1978.9924079
Livesey, S. M. and Graham, J. (2007) ‘Greening of Corporations? Eco-talk and the Emerging Social Imagery of Sustainable Development’, in S. May, G. Cheney and J. Roper (eds) The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility, pp. 336–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, S. K., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (2007). The debate over corporate social
responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly,36(2), 176. doi:10.1086/267990
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The Effects of Environmental Concern on
Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
Business Research, 40(1), 37-48. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(96)00209-3
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103-109.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
Myers, Teresa A., Matthew C. Nisbet, Edward W. Maibach, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. (2012). A Public Health Frame Arouses Hopeful Emotions about Climate Change.
Climatic Change, 113 (3–4): 1105–1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6.
Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N., & Brown, B. (2009). Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 97-110. doi:10.1002/wcc.2
Newell, P. (2008). CSR and the Limits of Capital. Development and Change, 39(6), 1063-1078. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00530.x
Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., Burton, S., Kozup, J. C., & Tangari, A. H. (2012). The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. International Journal of
Advertising, 31(3), 511-527. doi:10.2501/ija-31-3-511-527
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 51(2), 12-23. doi:10.3200/envt.51.2.12-23
Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. E. (2009). A Two-Step Flow of Influence? Science
Communication, 30(3), 328-354. doi:10.1177/1075547008328797
Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New Products Change Brand Attitude. Journal of
Marketing, 78(5), 119-137. doi:10.1509/jm.13.0387
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate
Communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15-28. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2
Paço, A., & Lavrador, T. (2017). Environmental knowledge and attitudes and behaviours towards energy consumption. Journal of Environmental Management, 197, 384- 392. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.100
Peterson, T. R. and Norton, T. (2007) ‘Discourses of Sustainability in Today’s Public Sphere’, in S. May, G.Cheney and J. Roper (eds) The Debate Over Corporate
Social Responsibility, pp. 351–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR Theory: Evidence and Implications from an Italian Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305-316. doi:10.1007/
s10551-006-9186-2
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2007). Strategy & society: The link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The Strategic Use of Gain-and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice. Journal of Communication,56(Suppl_1). doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899-931. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x
Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of
Communication, 49(1), 103-122. doi:10.1093/joc/49.1.103
Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A. M., Pizarro, J., Mccarthy, D., Zullo, J., & Rothman, A. J. (2001). The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20(4), 256 266. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.20.4.256
Smith, R. E. (2011). Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: A Systems Approach For
Socially Responsible Capitalism (Unpublished master's thesis). University of
Pennsylvania.
effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental
Change, 20(4), 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Stevenson, K. T., King, T. L., Selm, K. R., Peterson, M. N., & Monroe, M. C. (2017). Framing climate change communication to prompt individual and collective action among adolescents from agricultural communities. Environmental Education
Research, 24(3), 365-377. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1318114
Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. (2007). Strategic Direction, 23(5).
doi:10.1108/sd.2007.05623ead.006
Sustainable Development in Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. (2013). Encyclopedia
of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2435-2435.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_101573
Swaen, V., & Vanhamme, J. (2005). The use of corporate social responsibility arguments in communication campaigns: Does source credibility matter? Advances in
Consumer Research, 32(1), 590-591.
Trapp, N. L. (2012). Corporation as climate ambassador: Transcending business sector boundaries in a Swedish CSR campaign. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 458-465. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.03.004
Tybout, A. M. (1978). Relative Effectiveness of Three Behavioral Influence Strategies as Supplements to Persuasion in a Marketing Context. Journal of Marketing
Research, 15(2), 229-242. doi:10.1177/002224377801500206
Waltzer, H. (1988). Corporate advocacy advertising and political influence. Public
Relations Review, 14(1), 41-55. doi:10.1016/s0363-8111(88)80034-1
Wickert, C. (2014). “Political” Corporate Social Responsibility in Small- and Medium- Sized Enterprises. Business & Society, 55(6),
792-824.doi:10.1177/0007650314537021
Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and Talking Corporate Social Responsibility: Implications of Firm Size and Organizational Cost. Journal of
Management Studies, 53(7), 1169-1196. doi:10.1111/joms.12209
Zimmer, M. R., Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (1994). Green issues: Dimensions of environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 30(1), 63-74. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(94)90069-8
Appendix A Gain-framed message without CSR communication
Our world is changing. Rising temperatures caused by carbon emission is threatening our planet. Climate change is affecting every country on every continent, no exception. Nowadays, sea levels are rising, weather extremes are more frequent and greenhouse gas emissions are at the highest levels in history. Energy production and consumption are the biggest contributors to such climate issues.
By reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change, we will have more chances to ensure the world’s average surface temperature doesn’t surpass 3°C (5.4°F) this century and also prevent our world from suffering from future extreme weather catastrophes.
In 2018, lighting accounts for about 13% of all electricity consumption. As population and urbanization are growing rapidly, 10 billion people will inhabit the earth and 2/3 of them will live in cities by 2050. More people need more resources and more light. It is time to take action.
By adopting LEDs, lighting’s share of the electricity consumption worldwide can be reduced by about 50%. Also, installing connected LED lighting systems in offices and public areas, can reduce energy consumption by up to 80%. LED lighting is the future, it can help us to live better, see better and have a better, cleaner and safer world.
Loss-framed message without CSR communication
Our world is changing. Rising temperatures caused by carbon emission are threatening our planet. Climate change is affecting every country on every continent, no exception. Nowadays, sea levels are rising, weather crises are more extreme, and greenhouse gas emissions are now at the highest in history. Especially, energy production and usage is the single biggest contributor to such climate issues.
Without reducing energy consumption and mitigating climate change, the world’s average surface temperature is likely to surpass 3°C (5.4°F) this century and our world is also more likely to suffer from future extreme weather catastrophes.
