The effects of CSR scepticism, consumers’ perceived ethicality, source of information and type of industry on corporate reputation

The effects of CSR scepticism, consumers’ perceived ethicality, source of information and type of industry on corporate reputation.

University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication

Corporate Communication Master’s Thesis

Submission date: 24th _{of January 2020} Supervisor: Iina Hellsten

Thesis written by: Maëlle Tschumi 12320064

Abstract

This experiment examines the impact of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation. Simultaneously, the study tests the mediating effect of consumers’ perceived ethicality, as well as the moderating effect of the source of information and the type of industry on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Results show that CSR scepticism negatively influences corporate reputation, which means that the more an individual is sceptical toward CSR, the less positive he/she is to evaluate the organization. Furthermore, results demonstrate that consumers’ perceived ethicality mediates the latter relationship. However, the effect of the source of information and the type of industry were not significant. The study contributes to extending the literature about CSR, scepticism and corporate reputation, as well as to narrowing down the research gap that surrounds the perception consumers’ have about CSR and ethical consumerism.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a crucial aspect of corporations nowadays, and companies acknowledge the importance of it by responding with substantial resources dedicated to CSR initiatives and communicating about these actions. This increase in attention towards CSR has led both the academic field and organizations to focus more interest on what constitutes CSR, the consequences it can have and how to use it effectively. CSR has an impact on both short and long term (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007). It can have an effect on short term variables such as purchase intentions (Lee & Lee, 2018; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), but also on long term concepts such as corporate reputation (Fatma, Rahman, & Khan, 2015; Hur, Kim, & Woo, 2014; Kim, Hur, & Yeo, 2015; Khojastehpour & Johns, 2014; Park, Lee, & Kim, 2014), advocacy behaviors or loyalty (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010; Louis, Lombart, & Durif, 2019).). Louis et al. (2019) also emphasize that CSR can be used to create and maintain strong and long-lasting relationships with consumers. Stakeholders pay increasingly more importance to the impact organizations have on society and the environment, and they are progressively more likely to “take actions to reward good corporate citizens and punish bad ones” (Du et al., 2007, p. 8).

There has been a substantial amount of research about the relationship between CSR and corporate reputation. Studies have shown that CSR is a means for organizations to improve their reputation (Fatma et al., 2015; Hur et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Khojastehpour & Johns, 2014; Park et al., 2014). Park et al. (2014) note that CSR is an “essential element in building and maintaining a favorable corporate reputation” (p. 295). Having a positive reputation is a competitive advantage and can be used to enhance corporate image (Porter and Cramer, 2006). Ardent and Brettel (2010) note that the question of how CSR affects corporate reputation has become a key topic at the intersection of sustainability and marketing research. Reputation enhancement is commonly perceived as one of the main purposes of CSR communication (Crane & Glozer, 2016) and is a means to build corporate image (Du et al., 2010).

However, with the growth of CSR and organizations putting more effort into their CSR activities and communication, scepticism toward these practices is also expanding (Connors, Anderson-MacDonald, & Thomson, 2017). Cases of corporate hypocrisy become public and consumers are getting more aware of the use of CSR as a persuasive technique (Connors et al., 2017; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013) and attribute extrinsic or intrinsic motives to organizations for engaging in CSR (Du et al, 2010; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Lauritsen & Perks, 2015; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Yoon, Gühran-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006). Consequently, scepticism toward CSR can reduce the effectiveness of CSR initiatives (Yoon et al., 2006) and this may have a negative impact the effect of CSR on corporate reputation. Thus, this study aims at exploring the effects of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation.

Corporate reputation is formed according to stakeholders’ perceptions of what an organization does (Khojastehpour & Johns, 2014). Stakeholders take what they know about the organization’s CSR initiatives and engagement into consideration. They regroup pieces of information they have access to and build their general evaluation of the company according to them (Brunk & Blümelhuber, 2011). However, Brunk (2012) highlights that organizations and stakeholders do not necessarily have the same perception of what CSR entails and means. An extensive amount of studies explores consumers’ attitudinal reactions to CSR initiatives and many of them show the positive effects on consumer behavior (Bezençon & Etemad-Sajadi, 2015; Du et al., 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Singh, Iglesias, & Batista-Foguet, 2012). However, there are fewer examples of studies focusing on the perception consumers have of CSR initiatives and ethics (Awasthi & Singhal, 2014; Brunk, 2012). Therefore, since the focus on ethical consumerism is developing, there is a growing need to understand the point of view of consumers on the notion of ethics (Awasthi & Singhal, 2014; Crane & Glozer, 2016) and to focus on their perspectives on ethics. This lack of research into ethicality needs more attention and requires further investigation (Singh et al., 2012). In line with the development of this new

stream of literature about consumers’ perception of ethics and CSR, Brunk (2012) has developed and conceptualized the concept of consumers’ perceived ethicality (CPE). This concept covers the different “cognitive dimension of consumers attitudes toward ethical/unethical behavior on part of the companies” (Singh et al., 2012, p. 542). Singh et al. (2012) demonstrate that positive CPE can lead to a positive evaluation of an organization. In the present research, the concept of CPE will be explored in association with the notions of CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. This study will investigate whether CPE mediates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation.

Additionally, the source from which someone receives information about CSR activities can impact the effectiveness of CSR in the formation of the company’s evaluation and in building corporate reputation (Tao & Ferguson, 2015; Yoon et al. 2016). Moreover, the type of industry the company is part of also plays a role in how CSR initiatives are perceived by stakeholders (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Du et al, 2010). Therefore, the final aim of this study is to examine whether the source of information and the type of industry impact the effects of CSR and moderates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation.

This study is relevant for both the academic and practical fields. First of all, despite the fact that the relationship between CSR and corporate reputation have been extensively explored by researchers, this research aims at exploring CSR in relation to consumers’ perception. The concept of CPE is rather new and deserves to be explored more extensively. As Brunk (2012) notes, the literature on CSR focuses mainly on outcomes such as purchase intentions, loyalty, reputation, but it does not deeply explore the perceptions consumers have of CSR initiatives and ethics. Secondly, according to Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013), studies exploring consumers’ scepticism toward CSR are lacking. Thus, this study seeks to investigate the relationships between CSR scepticism, CPE and corporate reputation, as well as the potential moderating effects of the source of information and the type of industry.

Consequently, the research questions in this study are as follow:

• Main research question: To what extent does CSR have an impact on corporate reputation?

• Sub-question 1: How does CSR scepticism influence corporate reputation?

• Sub-question 1: How does CPE influence the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation?

• Sub-question 2: How do source of information and type of industry influence the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation?

Theoretical framework CSR initiatives

Broadly, CSR can be understood as “... a commitment to improve [societal] well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources” (Du et al., 2010, p. 8; adapted from Kotler, & Lee, 2005). As noted by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), “CSR is an economic imperative in today’s national as well as global marketplace”. (p. 225) Over the decades, it has shifted from voluntary actions that companies took regarding their different stakeholders, to a strategic necessity, these actions being considered as the fundamental duty of organizations (Du et al., 2007). CSR has become an obligation for companies. Indeed, stakeholders’ expectations regarding business ethics and ethical behaviors have heightened considerably (Crane & Glozer, 2016). Consumers are getting more and more aware of the impact some industries have on environmental or societal issues, such as land field pollution or the poor work conditions in certain regions of the world and require from corporations to ameliorate their impact on our society and planet. Therefore, CSR is not a basic marketing tool

anymore but should be integrated to the overall vision and goals settled by companies (Du et al., 2007; Porter & Cramer, 2006)

CSR has become a decisive component of companies’ competitiveness and the literature on CSR agrees on the fact that CSR activities can play a significant role in increasing purchase behavior, brand loyalty or brand image (Bezençon & Etemad-Sajadi, 2015; Du et al., 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Singh et al., 2012). Along the same lines, Sprinkle and Maines (2010) demonstrate that customers may be more likely to purchase goods/services from organizations they perceive as more socially responsible. CSR has a positive impact over short and long term (Du et al., 2010). It not only has a positive effect on greater purchase likelihood but also longer-term variables such as loyalty and advocacy behaviors (Du et al., 2010; Louis et al., 2019). Stakeholders are also interested in companies with efficient CSR for seeking employment or investing money (Bhattacharya, Korshun, & Sen, 2009). Therefore, we can conclude that CSR is not only a marketing technique to acquire more costumers but is a way to build and strengthen relationships with stakeholders (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Du et al., 2010; Louis et al., 2019). The global purpose of this study is to explore the effects of CSR, the impact scepticism has on the latter concept and how it influences corporate reputation.

Corporate reputation

Corporate reputation has become a crucial competitive advantage in a business environment where brands struggle to differentiate from one another (Khojastehpour &Johns, 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Park et al., 2014). Corporate reputation can be considered as the extent to which stakeholders esteem an organization (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Stakeholders base their judgment on the past actions of the company, its history, promises for the future and any information they may get from internal or external sources. It is the way stakeholders perceive the company as a whole. In other words, corporate reputation is a matter of perception (Jung &

Seock, 2016). It varies from one individual to another, and also depends on individuals’ experience with the brand, their expectations towards it and the information they get about it from all possible sources (media, word-of-mouth, etc.). The definition given by Gardberg and Fombrun (2002) regroups all these aspects and states that corporate reputation is “a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders” (p. 304)

CSR plays an essential role in building and maintaining corporate reputation. CSR is a means to ameliorate corporate reputation (Brunk, 2012; Fatma et al., 2015; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Hur et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Khojastehpour and Johns, 2014; Park et al., 2014; Porter and Kramer, 2006;). According to Porter and Kramer (2006), organizations engage in CSR activities in order to establish a good reputation. In their study, Hur et al., (2014) demonstrate that CSR positively impacts corporate reputation. Along the same lines, Park et al. (2014) have found that “economic and legal CSR initiatives had a direct positive effect on corporate reputation” (p. 295). Fombrun and Shanley (1990) highlight that CSR may be one of the most successful means to create a positive reputation. Fatma et al. (2015) based their study on the Indian retail banking industry and demonstrate that in industries where differentiation is hard to reach, CSR activities can help in building reputation. This study intends to shed some light on the effects CSR has on the perception of companies, and how it impacts corporate reputation.

CSR scepticism

As CSR is getting progressively more present in our society, scepticism from consumers toward these practices is also growing (Connors et al., 2017). The idea of CSR scepticism can be understood as the “publics’ inclination to question, distrust, and have negative feelings toward an organization’s socially responsible actions and claims” (Rim & Kim, 2016, p. 248).

Scepticism toward CSR was found to seriously diminish the positive outcomes of CSR activities (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Consumers’ scepticism towards CSR efforts can shape corporate reputation (Du et al., 2010; Lauritsen & Perks, 2015).

People can develop scepticism when they are given certain pieces of information regarding organizations, but actions from these companies do not fulfil or match these pieces of information. This relates to the notion of “window dressing” effect, explored by Connors et al. (2017). This window dressing effect, defined as a “self-serving enhancements undertaken by companies in order to distract from larger truths or underlying problems” (Connors et al., 2017, p. 599), leads people to think of CSR initiatives as a marketing tool companies use to enhance their reputation.

Consumers are getting aware of the possible extrinsic motives companies can have to engage in CSR more extensively (Du et al, 2010; Ellen et al., 2006; Lauritsen & Perks, 2015; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Yoon et al., 2006). Research on CSR attributions demonstrate that people are aware companies have both intrinsic and extrinsic motives to use CSR, and that “companies often seek to achieve certain business goals through their CSR initiatives” (Du et al., 2010, p.12). If people attribute intrinsic motives to certain CSR initiatives, they are more likely to perceive it positively, unlike extrinsic motives, that may lead to negative perceptions about CSR initiatives (Yoon et al., 2006). As Lauritsen and Perks (2015) note, “When consumers sense self-interest as the motive for CSR, it creates consumers scepticism towards the ethical and social responsibility claims of organizations” (p.180). Thus, one objective of the present study is to explore how scepticism towards CSR can influence corporate reputation.

Consumers’ perceived ethicality (CPE)

If CSR is often studied in relation to consumer’s attitudinal reactions and behaviors (Bezençon & Etemad-Sajadi, 2015; Du et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2012; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), there

are fewer examples of studies focusing on the perception consumers have about CSR initiatives and corporate ethicality (Brunk, 2012). Indeed, if some authors have found relationships between CSR and both affective and behavioural consumers’ responses and the effects on different concepts such as brand affect or brand trust (Awasthi & Singhal, 2014; Singh et al, 2012), very little literature was found to examine CPE (Brunk, 2012). Brunk (2010) highlights that the varieties of un/ethical behaviours related to CSR that can impact consumers’ perceptions are innumerable and constantly evolve in conformity with moral values or emerging sensitivities about ethics. Thus, it is crucial to develop the existing knowledge about the public’s point of view on ethical consumerism and examine changes that occur in this domain. As Bezençon and Etemad-Sajadi (2015) note, “the use of the consumers’ perceived ethicality construct offers new opportunities to investigate the relationships between the actions of a company that are related to its social responsibility and the consumer responses to such actions” (p. 323). Therefore, this construct allows to shed some light on an important research gap that surrounds the notion of consumers’ perception of ethicality.

Brunk (2010) shows that there are “disparities between consumer and the business perspective” (p. 260) and demonstrates that sources on which consumers base their perceptions of ethicality are consequently more diverse and complex than suggested in the literature. CPE is a “complex summary construct describing consumer’s subjective moral judgement or right/wrong or good/bad” (Brunk & Blümelhuber, 2011, p. 134) and was conceptualized and operationalized by Brunk (2012). In her studies, Brunk (2010; 2012) emphasizes the subjective aspect of CPE. Consumers have their own vision of what is ethical and unethical, and it may not always fit with the point of view companies have of ethics. Therefore, it is important to take consumer’s perceptions into consideration, since it may have an impact on their cognitive, affective and behavioral responses. The study by Brunk and Blümelhuber (2011) suggests that the effect of ethical or unethical practices of an organization on CPE is asymmetrical.

Therefore, their study highlights a potential “negativity bias”, which implies that consumers’ give more importance to negative information than to positive information when it comes to their perception of the ethicality of a company. In another study, Brunk and de Boer (2018) extend the knowledge about CPE and explore how consumers reconcile positive and negative information and mentally build their own ethical brand perceptions. They show that consumers’ perceptions significantly depend on their estimation of the relevance of the information and therefore find slightly different results from the previous study.

Relying on the construct of CPE and on the existing literature on the subject, this study aims at exploring how people perceive a brand to be ethical or not according to their CSR initiatives, and the mediating impact it can have on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation.

Type of industry and source of information

CSR initiatives do not necessarily lead to positive outcomes. The positive effects of CSR initiatives on corporate reputation can be weakened or even reversed by certain factors. Other variables can have an impact on the relationship between CSR initiatives and corporate reputation. Yoon et al. (2006) demonstrate that the source from which stakeholders receive the information plays a role in the formation of their evaluation of the company. They show that depending on the source of information, consumers perceive the organization and its CSR initiatives as more or less sincere. Therefore, hearing about an organization’s CSR activities through an unbiased source of information can lead consumers to attribute more sincere motives to the organization than when the information comes from the organization itself (Yoon et al. 2006). This can be connected to the Persuasion Knowledge Model by Friestad and Wright (1994), which explains how individuals use their knowledge of persuasion tactics and persuasion motives in order to interpret and evaluate persuasive messages. In accordance with

this model, consumers might perceive messages from companies as a persuasion attempt and believe it to be part of a marketing strategy (Tao & Ferguson, 2015).

The type of industry the organization is part of can also influence the perception stakeholders have of the organization and its CSR activities. Du et al. (2010) acknowledge that "the industry in which a company operates will also moderate the effectiveness of CSR communication” (p. 15). Along the same lines, Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) also note that for some industries, such as the oil, tobacco and alcohol industries, the outcomes of CSR activities may not be as positive as desired, because of “unfavourable often cynical attributions” (p. 17) stakeholders can make with industries that are negatively perceived. Indeed, some industries can harm society in general, by being particularly polluting or by generating health issues for instance. Therefore, these industries can be negatively perceived and are “more vulnerable to criticism because of the inherent nature of their operations” (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004, p. 23). In these cases, CSR scepticism may be harder to counteract.

The final objective of this study is to examine whether the source from which someone hears information about a company’s CSR activities and the type of industry this company is part of influence the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation.

Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are derived: H1: CSR scepticism negatively influences corporate reputation.

H2: Consumer’s perceived ethicality mediates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation.

H3: The type of industry moderates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation; a more negatively perceived industry will lead to a more negative corporate reputation.

H4: The source of information moderates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation; information about CSR initiatives received from the company itself will

lead to a more negative corporate reputation, in comparison with information from an external source.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Method Design and procedure

To test the hypotheses, an experiment was conducted, using a two (source of information: external versus internal) x two (type of industry: oil and gas industry versus food industry) between-subjects factorial design (Bryman, 2012). This experiment was conducted through an online survey via Qualtrics.com. Participants were invited to participate in the study through an invitation via email or on social media. After reading the invitation, participants clicked on a link which directly led them to the survey. Respondents could decide to fill in the questionnaire either in English or in French. After reading the terms and conditions and accepting to participate in the survey, respondents were asked two demographic questions, respectively their age and their gender. Participants who were under 18 were directed to the end of the questionnaire, since no parental consent was given beforehand. Participants were then asked

type of industry Corporate reputation Consumers’ perceived ethicality (CPE) CSR scepticism source of information

questions concerning their opinion about CSR in general. After that, respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Participants either read an abstract from a press release or an abstract of a newspaper article. These either concerned an organization in the oil and gas industry or an organization in the food industry. After reading the abstract, participants first had to answer two questions about the case they just had seen which acted as manipulation checks. They secondly had to answer to questions regarding their perception of the ethicality of the organization and its reputation. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were given a description of the study, they were thanked for their participation and were told that all organizations present in the questionnaire were fictive.

Sample and sampling technique

The data was collected with a convenient sampling technique. In addition, a snowballing technique was used, since participants were asked to share the invitation email or social media post with their own network. The data collection lasted two weeks. In total 273 responses were collected. Partial responses were excluded from the final data set, as well as participants under 18. After cleaning the data, 221 responses remained. 62.4% of the participants are female, against 35.7% of them being male. One participant responded “other” and three participants preferred not to answer. 47.5% of the sample are between 18 and 29 years old. We observe that the sample was predominantly composed of young women.

Stimuli

To manipulate the type of industry (oil and gas industry versus food industry) and the source of information (external versus internal), the participants were shown one of the four conditions. In condition one, participants read a message from an external source, which was an abstract from a newspaper article. The message was about a company in the oil and gas industry. In

condition two, respondents were exposed to a message published by a company in the food industry. The message was an abstract from a press release written and published by the company itself. In condition three, respondents were exposed to a message published by an organization in the oil and gas industry. The message was an abstract from a press release, directly written and published by the company itself. Finally, in condition four, participants read an abstract from a newspaper article. The message was about a company in the food industry. The abstracts of press releases were identical, except for the names of the companies, in order for the participants not to be biased by the content of the message. The abstracts of the newspaper articles were adapted to suit the style of standard newspaper articles. However, the text was kept as similar to the abstracts from the press releases as possible, in order for the participants not to be biased by the content of the message.

Two different company names were invented for the purpose of this study. The oil and gas company was named PETROL&GAS INC. and the food company was named GIBSON FOOD. These names were chosen since they explicitly state the kind of industry these companies work in. The aim was to accentuate this difference as much as possible, so that participants understand what type of company they were exposed to. The names chosen do not exist in real life, since participants could have been biased if they knew companies with these names. The name of the newspaper was The Daily Report and is also fictive.

The content of the messages referred to CSR initiatives PETROL&GAS INC. and GIBSON FOOD are involved in. The messages can be found in appendix A. The message mainly explains that the organization plans to cut 25% of its carbon footprint by 2030. Then the abstract says that the new program is consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The texts were inspired by existing press releases and were then adapted for condition one and four.

The variable source of information was manipulated with two different types of communication channels; an external source which was an abstract from a local newspaper and

an internal source, which was an abstract from a press release. These two sources were chosen because they are two standard forms of internal and external communication. The aim was for participants to easily understand where the message comes from.

The variable type of industry was manipulated using two different industries. The oil industry was chosen because it is typically perceived negatively by consumers. This is one of the most polluting industry and consumers are generally quite aware of it. Thus, they may have a negative opinion about it. Over the years, the oil and gas has been the centre of many scandals related to the environment, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. On the other hand, the food industry was selected because it is not necessarily perceived as negative. The aim was not to counterbalance the negative reputation of the oil and gas industry with an industry that has a really good reputation, but to compare it to an industry with a more neutral reputation.

Measures

To measure the independent variable CSR scepticism, a scale from a previous study by Connors et al. (2017) was used. The participants had to indicate on a seven-points Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with different statements. There were three statements in total. A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on these items. All items had factor loadings above .3 and loaded on one factor. All items were retained. Together, the three items form a reliable scale (α =.84).

The dependent variable corporate reputation was measured with a scale from a previous study by Newburry (2010). The participants had to indicate on a seven-points Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with different statements. There were four statements in total. A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on these items. All items had factor loadings above .3 and loaded on one factor. All items were retained. Together, the four items form a reliable scale (α =.92).

The mediator CPE was measured with a scale from a previous study by Brunk (2012). The participants had to indicate on a seven-points Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with different statements. There were four statements in total. A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on these items. All items had factor loadings above .3 and loaded on one factor. All items were retained. Together, the four items form a reliable scale (α =.89).

Pre-test

A pre-test was conducted before the data collection, in order to test the survey and assess its clarity. 13 participants (eight English speaking participants and five French speaking participants) were asked to complete the survey and to send a feedback afterwards, regarding the content and the wording. These feedbacks led to some changes in term of words, and a short description of what CSR means was added. The manipulation was checked, and all the participants responded correctly.

Manipulation check

In order to make sure that participants understood what they were shown and that the manipulation worked, a manipulation check was done. The participants were firstly asked whether they saw a message from the organization itself, or from an external source. Secondly, they were asked whether the organization was part of the oil and gas industry (negative), or the food industry (neutral). Two chi-square tests confirmed that the manipulation of the variables type of industry (χ2 = 194.30, p < .001) and source of information (χ2 = 68.49, p <.001) worked.

214 participants out of 221 gave the right response to the question about the type of industry and 172 participants gave the right answer to the question about the source of information. Therefore, the manipulation was successful.

Randomization check

In order to verify if the randomization worked, four independent sample t-tests were run. First, an independent t-test was conducted to compare the age categories with the type of industry. There was no significant difference in the scores for the oil and gas industry (M = 3.42, SD =1.72) and the food industry (M = 3.65, SD = 1.84), t (219) = .95, p = .34, 95% CI [-.24; .70]. Secondly, an independent t-test was conducted to compare the gender with the type of industry. There was no significant difference in the scores for the oil and gas industry (M = 1.39, SD =.60) and the food industry (M = 1.42, SD = .56), t (219) = .37, p = .71, 95% CI [-.13;.18]. Thirdly, an independent t-test was conducted to compare the age categories with the source of information. There was no significant difference in the scores for the external (M= 3.47, SD = 1.80) and the internal sources (M= 3.60, SD = 1.77), t (219) = .55, p = .59, 95% CI [-.60; .34] . Finally, an independent t-test was conducted to compare the gender with the source of information. There was no significant difference in the scores for the external (M =1.44, SD =.64) and the internal sources (M= 1.38, SD = .51), t (219) = .75, p = .46, 95% CI [-.09; .21]. We can therefore assume that the respondents were divided equally between the four conditions, without significant differences across the groups.

Result Effect of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation

To test H1 which states that CSR scepticism negatively influences corporate reputation, a simple regression was run on SPSS 26. This simple regression analysis was run and shows that the regression model with CSR scepticism as independent variable and corporate reputation as dependent variable was significant, F (1, 219) = 62.81, p < .001. CSR scepticism has a significant moderate negative effect on corporate reputation, b* = -.47, t = -7.93, p < .001, 95%

CI [-.66; -.40] and explains 22.3% of the variance in corporate reputation (R2 _{= .22). For every}

unit increase in CSR scepticism, corporate reputation decreases by .53. Therefore, H1 is supported.

Mediating effect of CPE

In order to test the mediation effect of CPE on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation (H2), the SPSS PROCESS v. 3.4 macro was used. In this analysis, model four was used, which assesses a simple mediation. Firstly, CSR scepticism has a negative effect on CPE and this effect is significant, b = -. 45, t = -7.26, p < .001. Secondly, CPE also has an

effect on corporate reputation, and it is also significant, b = .86, t = 19.56, p < .001. There is an indirect effect of how sceptical people are on corporate reputation through their perception of ethicality (see figure 2). This represents a moderate effect. Therefore, CPE mediates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. H2 is supported. Since both the mediation and the direct effect between the independent and the dependent variables are significant, it is a partial mediation.

b = -. 45, p < .001. b = .86, p < .001

Direct effect, b = -.14, p < .05

Indirect effect, b = -.39, 95% BCa CI [-.50 ; -.27] Figure 2. Results of the mediating effects.

Corporate reputation Consumers’ perceived ethicality (CPE) CSR scepticism

Moderating effect of type of industry

To test H3 which states that the type of industry moderates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation, a regression model with PROCESS was used. In this analysis, model one was used, which assesses a simple moderation. The analysis with CSR scepticism as independent variable, corporate reputation as dependent variable and type of industry as moderator shows that the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation is not moderated by the type of industry, b = -.18, t = -1.41, p = 0.16. Therefore, H3 is rejected.

Moderating effect of source of information

To test H4 which states that the source of information moderates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation, another regression model with PROCESS was used. This analysis with CSR scepticism as independent variable, corporate reputation as dependent variable and the source of information as moderator shows that the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation is not moderated by the source of information, b = -.14, t = -1.03, p = 0.30. Therefore, H4 is rejected.

Discussion

The major purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Subsequently, this research aims at examining whether CPE mediates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Finally, this study explores whether the type of industry and the source of information moderate the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation.

The results show that CSR scepticism negatively influences corporate reputation. Therefore, the more sceptical about CSR someone is, the more negatively this person is to

evaluate the reputation of a company. These results are similar to previous results in the literature and show that scepticism toward CSR efforts can have a negative impact on corporate reputation (Du et al., 2010; Ellen et al., 2006; Lauritsen & Perks, 2015; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Yoon et al., 2006). Individuals may be sceptical about CSR for multiple reasons. People may perceive CSR actions from organizations as a means for them to improve their image, seem more sustainable, or develop a positive reputation in order to reach business goals. Individuals may perceive CSR initiatives as being part of a business strategy and that these actions have hidden motives which reach for egoistic goals rather than authentic stakeholder-driven reasons. Thus, when consumers are sceptical about the motives behind CSR initiatives, the reputation of the organization can deteriorate and become more negative.

The results about the mediation effect of CPE on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation shed some light on the necessity of taking what consumers perceive as ethical or not into consideration when it comes to CSR initiatives. As noted by Brunk (2010), “little is known about the types of behaviour that lead to un/ethical perceptions” (p. 255). This study addresses the notion of ethics from the point of view of consumers and explores the notion of CPE, ethical consumerism and their relationship with scepticism and reputation. The findings show that CPE significantly mediates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Therefore, individuals’ own perception about CSR and their level of CSR scepticism influence their subjective perception of a company, whether it acts ethically or not, and their perception has an impact on corporate reputation. These results demonstrate that the formation of the perception of ethicality by consumers can have an important effect on reputation, and thus, if consumers perceive the brand as unethical its reputation can get damaged despite all CSR efforts. CSR initiatives can become useless if the consumers’ perception of ethicality of an organization is negative.

The results of the main relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation and the results of the mediating effect of consumers perceived ethicality on the previous relationship can be related to the results of Brunk and Blümelhuber (2011) and Brunk and de Boer (2018). In their study, Brunk and Blümelhuber (2011) extend the existing research about the notion of CPE and found out that consumers react stronger to negative information and can have a “negativity bias”. This phenomenon lead consumers to give more importance to negative information than to positive information. In another study Brunk and de Boer (2018) focus on how consumers reconcile negative and positive information about one brand. If these studies concentrate on how consumers form their perception of one brand out of different information, it is possible to link their results to ethical consumerism in general. When individuals hear negative information about companies, about their misconducts or about corporate scandals, these individuals may become sceptical about the ethicality of companies in general, and not only about the brands concerned about these crises. If an individual hears about ethical misconduct committed by an organization, this negative information may impact his/her perception of ethicality in general, and therefore influence his/her perception of the ethicality of other brands. This leads to the formation of CSR scepticism, and potentially to scepticism towards the idea of ethical consumerism. Therefore, organizations may be negatively impacted by their own corporate misconducts, but also by other organizations’ misbehaviours.

Contrary to what was expected with H3 and H4, neither the source of information nor the type of industry significantly moderated the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. These results are different from what was found in the existing literature. Multiple reasons could explain these non-significant results. Firstly, this lack of significant result may be related to the sample. The sample was a rather small convenient sample and was mainly composed of young women. The sample was not very representative of the general population and it may have had an impact on the results of this study. Moreover, the oil and gas

industry and the food industry were potentially to similar in term of general reputation. Indeed, if consumers are generally more suspicious of companies in the oil and gas industry (Du et al., 2010), the participants in this study were maybe also sceptical about companies in the food industry. In the last decade, scandals about the food industry have emerged, such as the scandal about horse meat (Ndubisi & Nygaard, 2018) and consumers are getting more aware of the implication of this industry in climate change and pollution, for example in relation with the use of palm oil or plastic packaging. Therefore, the difference between the two industries may not have been strong enough to significantly impact the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Finally, despite the fact that a chi-square analysis showed that the manipulation worked, 49 participants responded incorrectly to the question about the source of information. This may imply that the difference between the two conditions was not as clear as desired and this may have had an impact on the results.

This research brings multiple implications for both the academic and practical fields. The existing literature about CSR and ethics highlight the necessity for companies to be engage into CSR and communicate efficiently about it (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Du et al., 2007; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). However, the results of this study demonstrate that the positive effects pursued by organizations when engaging into CSR can be cancelled by consumers’ scepticism about CSR in general. Therefore, managers should be aware of consumers’ scepticism and should take it into consideration when planning a CSR strategy.

Secondly, this study shows how important it is for practitioners to take consumers’ perception of ethics into consideration. The way consumers perceive a brand to be ethical or not influences their evaluation of the general reputation of the company. Therefore, if they consider the brand as unethical, corporate reputation may be damaged despite the efforts put into CSR. This is also important for researchers to consider what people think ethics mean and how they react to ethical or unethical actions, products or organizations. As Brunk (2010) notes,

“researchers must also investigate the way that corporate decisions are perceived by the public” (p. 255).

Limitations

This study is not free from some limitations. Firstly, the size of the sample in the experiment is 221. This represents a small sample. Therefore, a larger number of respondents would have been more representative, which would have led to more reliable results. Secondly, the data was collected with a convenient sampling technique. Since the data is not a probability sample, the sample was not selected using random selection and is therefore not representative of the general population. Nearly half of the participants were between 18 and 29 years old, and a large majority were females. We can conclude that the sample is not very representative and therefore the external validity of this study may be rather weak.

Another pitfall that deserves some attention is the fact that many respondents were not able to answer correctly to the manipulation check regarding the source of information. 49 participants responded incorrectly to this question. If the chi-square test was nonetheless significant, it may be beneficial to consider making changes to the stimuli if this study was to be replicated.

Future research

This study shed some light on some noteworthy matters that grow in importance nowadays such as CSR scepticism, consumers’ perception of CSR and ethics. It would be interesting in future research to investigate more into the subject of CSR scepticism, and notably what generates consumers’ scepticism towards such practices. While many brands are trying to build a “greener” image, consumers are becoming very aware of the marketing strategies behind CSR, and scepticism, in relation to concepts such as greenwashing, is growing (Connors et al., 2017).

Therefore, it is crucial for both researchers and practitioners to investigate scepticism, what produces such behaviours and how to neutralize them.

The effects of CPE also appeared to have important consequences on reputation. As noted by Brunk (2012), research on consumers’ perceptions of ethics is lacking. Therefore future research can focus on extending our knowledge of these phenomenon. Singh et al. (2012) explored the relationship between consumers’ perception of ethics and brand trust and demonstrated that consumer’s perceived ethicality positively influences brand trust. It would be valuable to extend the knowledge about the relationship between CPE and brand trust. Moreover, it would be profitable for both the academic and practical fields to gain knowledge about the consumers’ point of view on ethics.

Conclusion

The main goal of this study was to explore the effect of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation. Literature has shown that scepticism towards CSR can negatively impact the effects of CSR initiatives on corporate reputation (Du et al., 2010; Ellen et al., 2006; Lauritsen & Perks, 2015; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013, Yoon et al., 2006). This study also aimed at exploring the concept of CPE and whether it mediates the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Finally, the study intended to examine if the source of information that delivers the message about CSR initiatives and the type of industry an organization is part of influenced the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. In order to examine these relationships, an experiment embedded in a survey was set into place. This study was a two (type of industry: oil and gas industry versus food industry) x two (source of information: press release versus newspaper article) factorial between-subjects design.

The results of this study shed some light on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation, and the indirect effect of CPE on that relationship. CSR scepticism

negatively influences corporate reputation. The more sceptical about CSR an individual is, the more negatively he/she is to evaluate the reputation of an organization. CPE significantly mediates this relationship. Therefore, the perception someone has about how ethical or unethical an organization is significantly impacts the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. However, the type of industry and the source of information did not lead to any significant effects. H3 predicted that a more negatively perceived industry (oil and gas industry) would strengthen the negative impact of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation in comparison with a less negatively perceived industry (food industry). H4 predicted that a message published by the company itself would strengthen the negative impact of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation, in comparison with a message from an external source, such as a newspaper article. None of these two hypotheses were supported. These results differ from the existing literature. These non-significant results may have been caused by multiple reasons. First, this experiment was completed with a rather small convenient sample and may not have been representative of the general population. Secondly, the industries chosen may have played a role. Finally, despite the fact that a chi-square test revealed that manipulation worked, participants may not have noticed the difference between the two sources, since some respondents gave the wrong answer to the manipulation check. This may have had an influence on the results obtained.

This research represents a relevant contribution to the fields of ethics consumerism, CSR communication and reputation management. The results highlight the importance of the perception consumers have about an organization and the impact it can have on corporate reputation. Therefore, if consumers perceive an organization as unethical, CSR initiatives may not be sufficient to improve the reputation of a brand. In future research, it would be relevant to examine how to improve CPE. Specifically, trust may be an important component that relates to both the perception of ethicality and CSR scepticism. By focusing on improving the

perception of trustworthiness, organizations that suffer from consumers’ scepticism or that are perceived as unethical may be able to rebuild the relationship with consumers. Therefore, future research should focus on extending the existing knowledge about the relationship between CPE, CSR scepticism and the notion of trust.

References

Ardent, S., & Brettel, M. (2010). Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance. Management

Decision, 48(10), 1469-1492.

Awasthi, A. K., & Singhal, M. (2014). Exploring the domains of consumer perceived ethicality. Journal of Management Research, 14(2), 101-108.

Bhattacharya, C., B., & Sen S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24.

Bhattacharya, C., B., Korshun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives.

Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257-272.

Bezençon, V., & Etemad-Sajadi, R. (2015). The effect of a sustainable label portfolio on consumer perception of ethicality and retail patronage. International Journal of Retail

and Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 314-328.

Bezençon, V., & Blili, S. (2010). Ethical products and consumer involvement: what’s new?

Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions – A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 255-262.

Brunk, K. H. (2012). Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: conceptualizing and operationalizing consumer meanings. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 551-565.

Brunk, K. H., & Blümelhuber, C. (2011). One strike and you’re out: qualitative insights into the formation of consumers’ ethical company or brand perceptions. Journal of

Business Research, 64, 134-141.

Brunk, K. H., & de Boer, C. (2018). How de consumers reconcile positive and negative CSR-related information to form an ethical brand perception? A mixed method inquiry.

Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223-1252.

Connors, S., Anderson-MacDonald, S., & Thomson, M. (2017). Overcoming the “window dressing” effect: mitigating the negative effects of inherent skepticism towards corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 599-621.

Cowan, K., & Guzman, F. (2018). How CSR reputation, sustainability signals, and country of origin sustainability reputation contribute to corporate brand performance: an

exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 1-11.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., B., & 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.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 8-18.

Ellen, P., Webb, D., & Mohr, L. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer

attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.

Eryandra, A., Sjabadhyni, B., & Mustika, M. D. (2018) How older consumer’s perceived ethicality influences brand loyalty. SAGE Open, 1-5.

Fatma, M., Rahman, Z., & Khan, I. (2015). Building company reputation and brand equity through CSR: the mediating role of trust. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(6), 840-856.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.

Gardberg, N., A., & Fombrun, C., J. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: first steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate

Reputation Review, 4(4), 303-307.

Hur, W.-M., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR leads to corporate brand equity: mediating mechanisms of corporate brand credibility and reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 75-86.

Jung, N., & Seock, Y.-K. (2016). The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and purchase intention. Fashion and Textiles, 3(1), 1-15.

Kim, H., Hur, W.-M., & Yeo, J. (2015). Corporate brand trust as a mediator in the

relationship between consumer perception of CSR, corporate hypocrisy, and corporate reputation. Sustainability, 7, 3683-3694.

Khojastehpour, M., & Johns, R. (2014). The effect of environmental CSR issues on corporate/brand reputation and corporate profitability. European Business Review, 26(4), 330-339.

Lauritsen, B. D., & Perks, K. J. (2015). The influence of interactive, non-interactive, implicit and explicit CSR communication on young adult’s perception of UK supermarkets’

corporate brand image and reputation. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 20(2), 178-195.

Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2018). Effects of multi-brand company’s CSR activities on purchase intention through a mediating role of corporate image and brand image. Journal of

Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 22(3), 387-403.

Louis, D., Lombart, C., & Durif, F. (2019). Impact of a retailer’s CSR activities on

consumers’ loyalty. International Journal of Retail & distribution Management, 47(8), 793-816.

Ndubisi, N., O., & Nygaard, A. (2018). The ethics of outsourcing: when companies fail at responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(5), 7-13.

Newburry, W. (2010). Reputation and supportive behavior: moderating impacts of

foreignness, industry and local exposure. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 388-407.

Park, J., Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’ perspectives. Journal of Business

Research, 67(3), 295-302.

Porter, M., E., & Kramer, M., R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.

Rim, H., & Kim, S. (2016). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 28(5-6), 248-267.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C., B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?

Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-243.

Singh, J., J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-Foguet, J., M. (2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty.

Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 541-549.

Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C., N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838.

Sprinkle, G., & Maines, L., A. (2010). The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 53(5), 445-453.

Tao, W., & Ferguson, M., A. (2015). The overarching effects of ethical reputation regardless of CSR cause fit and information source. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 9(1), 23-43.

Yoon, Y., Gühran-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of

Appendix A Survey Dear participant,

I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The survey will take about 5-10 minutes. An explanation about the aim of the study will be given at the end of the survey. As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that: 1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions. 2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research. 3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material. 4) For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact me by e-mail at any time: maelle.tschumi@student.uva.nl I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.

I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the invitation for this study. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact maelle.tschumi@student.uva.nl. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.

• I agree

Q1 What is your gender? • Female

• Male • Other

• Rather not say

Q2 How old are you? • 17 or less • 18-29 • 30-39 • 40-49 • 50-59 • 60-69 • 70-79 • 80 or more

The following questions are related to the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is the commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources. For example, CSR initiatives can impact environmental or social issues. Keep in mind that the following questions concern your own perception. There is no correct/incorrect answer.

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about companies in general.

Q3 I do not trust companies to deliver on their social responsibility promises. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q4 Companies are usually honest about their real involvement in social responsibility initiatives.

• Strongly disagree • Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q5 In general, I am not convinced that companies will fulfil their social responsibility objectives.

• Strongly disagree • Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Condition 1 (EXT/OIL&GAS)

Below, you will read an abstract from an article published in The Daily Report, a daily

newspaper. Take your time to read the abstract. When you finish reading the abstract, press on →

The multinational oil and gas company PETROL&GAS INC.

releases its new sustainability program

22nd of January 2019 By Alexandra Meyers

On the 21st of January 2019, PETROL&GAS INC., one of the largest multinational oil and gas companies in the world has announced the development of a new program aiming at minimizing the impact of the organization on the environment. With this program, PETROL&GAS INC. plans to cut their carbon footprint by 25% by 2030. $10m will be allocated to the project. The organization claims that their environmental initiatives are in line with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which calls for the world to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of sustainable development.

OR Condition 2 (INT/FOOD)

Below, you will read an abstract from a press release published by a multinational food company named GIBSON FOOD. Take your time to read the abstract. When you finish reading the abstract, press on →

Press release

Amsterdam, 22nd of January 2019

GIBSON FOOD accelerates action to tackle climate change

and releases its new sustainability program

This week, the company has announced the implementation of a new program aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. GIBSON FOOD is determined to play a significant role in tackling climate change. The company has announced $10m of funding for the new program. The main goal of this program is to reduce the company’s carbon footprint by 25% by 2030. This new program is consistent with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which calls for the world to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of sustainable development.

OR Condition 3 (INT/OIL&GAS)

Below, you will read an abstract from a press release published by a multinational food company named PETROL&GAS INC. Take your time to read the abstract. When you finish reading the abstract, press on →

Press release

PETROL&GAS INC. accelerates action to tackle climate

change and releases its new sustainability program

This week, the company has announced the implementation of a new program aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. PETROL&GAS INC. is determined to play a significant role in tackling climate change. The company has announced $10m of funding for the new program. The main goal of this program is to reduce the company’s carbon footprint by 25% by 2030. This new program is consistent with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which calls for the world to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of sustainable development.

OR Condition 4 (EXT/FOOD)

Below, you will read an abstract from an article published in The Daily Report, a daily

newspaper. Take your time to read the abstract. When you finish reading the abstract, press on →

The multinational food company GIBSON FOOD releases its

new sustainability program

22nd of January 2019 By Alexandra Meyers

On the 21st of January 2019, GIBSON FOOD, one of the largest multinational food companies in the world has announced the development of a new program aiming at minimizing the impact of the organization on the environment. With this program, GIBSON FOOD plans to cut their carbon footprint by 25% by 2030. $10m will be allocated to the project. The organization claims that their environmental initiatives are in line with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, which calls for the world to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of sustainable development.

Q6 The message you just read was delivered by... • The company itself, via a press release • The Daily Report, a daily newspaper

Q7 The company was...

• a company in the oil and gas industry • a company in the food industry

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about the company you read about. Keep in mind that it only concerns your own perception.

Q8 This company respects moral norms. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree

• Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q9 This company always adheres to the laws. • Strongly disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q10 This company is a socially responsible company. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q11 This company is a good company. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about the company you read about. Keep in mind that it only concerns your own perception.

Q12 I have good feelings about this company. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree

• Somewhat agree • Agree

• Strongly agree

Q13 I admire and respect this company. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q14 I trust this company. • Strongly disagree • Disagree

• Somewhat disagree • Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

Q15 This company has a good overall reputation. • Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Somewhat disagree

• Neither agree nor disagree • Somewhat agree

• Agree

Conclusion

Thank you for participating in this survey! It truly means a lot to me.

The aim of the study is to examine whether Corporate Social Responsibility influences corporate reputation. To examine that relationship, I first measure the extent to which participants are sceptical about Corporate Social Responsibility in general. In a second time, each participant reads a message. Four different messages are shown to participants, therefore you were randomly assigned to one of them. These messages are either delivered by the company itself, via a press release, or by an external source, namely a newspaper. The messages concern either an organization in the oil and gas industry, or a company in the food industry. These manipulations seek to examine whether the type of industry or the source of information influence the impact of CSR on corporate reputation. Finally, I measure your perception of the ethicality of the organization, as well as its reputation. Companies presented in this survey were fictive. The message you read was inspired by existing press releases and were invented for the purpose of the study. Your responses will stay anonymous and will only be used for this study.

Appendix B Table 1

Simple regression analysis to test the effect of CSR scepticism on corporate reputation.

Coefficient SE t p

Constant 6.271 .315 19.920 .000

Scepticism -.532 .472 -7.926 .000

Notes. F (1,219) = 62.814, p <.001, R2 _{= .223}

Appendix C Table 2

Mediation effect of CPE on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Coefficient SE t p Regression 1 Predictor: CSR scepticism Outcome: CPE Constant 6.129 .292 21.024 .000 Scepticism -.451 .062 -7.256 .000 Regression 2 Predictor: CPE Outcome: reputation Constant .988 .330 2.993 .003 Scepticism -.143 .045 -3.173 .001 CPE .862 .044 19.561 .000 Notes. N = 221

Appendix D Table 3

Moderating effect of the type of industry on the relationship between CSR scepticism and corporate reputation. Coefficient SE t p Constant 6.312 .408 15.519 .000 Scepticism -.453 .086 -5.247 .000 Industry -.026 .586 -.044 .965 Interaction -.176 .125 -1.410 .160 Notes. N = 221