The Interaction Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Communication Message Approaches and CSR fit on Corporate Legitimacy Explained by Stakeholder Attribution and
Credibility of CSR Communication
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Research Master
Student: Yiran Zhao
Student Number: 11619228
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Guda van Noort Date: 28-06-2019
Abstract
The choice of message approach to communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR) information as an essential part of the CSR communication strategy. However, research on CSR message approaches is scarce. This study aims to find the effective CSR message approach that will contribute to higher corporate legitimacy which is the ultimate goal of corporate communication. Effects of two message approaches, the narrative message
approach and the informational message approach, on pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy are investigated. Also, to explain the effect of CSR message approaches on corporate legitimacy, the underlying principles stakeholders’ attribution and the perceived credibility of CSR communication are employed. In addition, to see the impact of the combination of “how to communicate CSR” and “what CSR content to communicate”, the interaction effects of CSR message approaches and CSR fit on two mediators are examined. The study finds that
compared with the informational message approach, the narrative message approach which is perceived as more credible and leads to more other-centered attributions predicts greater pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy. The mediation effect of self-centered attribution and the moderation effect of CSR fit are not found. The results provide evidence for the importance of the narrative CSR message approach.
The Interaction Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Communication Message Approaches and CSR fit on Corporate Legitimacy Explained by Stakeholders’ Attribution and
Credibility of CSR Communication Introduction
As a burgeoning research topic, the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication in building and maintaining corporate legitimacy is emphasized (Colleoni, 2013). Communicating CSR can be risky and fail to maintain or increase corporate legitimacy without proper communication strategies (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Waddock & Googins, 2011). The choice of message approach to communicating CSR messages with stakeholders should receive attention when making CSR communication strategies (Humphreys & Brown, 2008; Elving, Golob, Podnar, Ellerup-Nielsen & Thomson, 2015). Hence, it is pivotal to understand the elaboration of CSR message approaches and their relationship with corporate legitimacy.
The distinction between the narrative and the informational approach and the
effectiveness of two approaches are crucial for communication practitioners to formulate CSR communication strategies (McWilliams, Siegel & Wright, 2006; Mejri & De Wolf, 2012). In practice, two message approaches have already been frequently used by corporations with various CSR purposes (Araujo & Kollat, 2018; Elving et al., 2015). The roles of two message approaches have also been implicitly discussed in the context of CSR communication by previous qualitative studies (Gill, 2015; Rowan, 2003; Elving et al., 2015; Walsih & Brinker, 2016). However, due to the lack of quantitative research, the specific effects of two message approaches remain unknown in the context of CSR communication. Also, two comparable approaches haven't been investigated simultaneously concerning CSR communication. Thereby, the present study aims to gain more insights into the distinction between and the specific effects of the narrative and informational CSR message approaches.
Attaining or maintaining corporate legitimacy which is the corporate "license to operate," is the supreme goal of corporate communication (Boyd, 2009; Waymer & Heath, 2014; Palazzo & Scherer, 2006). Previous studies about corporate communication suggested that both message approaches have the potential influence on corporate legitimacy (e.g., Andersen & Rask, 2014; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Sharp & Zaidman, 2010), but the relationship hasn't been studied in the context of CSR communication which is an essential part of corporate communication (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2013). Besides, this study does not involve stakeholders in the decision-making process that is associated with input
legitimacy (Lock & Schulz-Knappe, 2019), so only two dimensions of output legitimacy (pragmatic and cognitive) are considered. Hence, this study aims to rigorously examine the effect of message approaches on pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy by experimenting.
It is also emphasized that why CSR message approaches leads to corresponding outcomes about legitimacy when communication practitioners tried to formulating effective CSR communication strategies (McWilliams et al., 2006; Du & Vieira, 2012). Although previous studies try to explain the roles of two message approaches by elaborating their characteristics (Marshall & Adamic, 2010; Yoo & MacInnis, 2005), little is known regarding the underlying mechanisms of CSR message approaches. Based on attribution theory and notions of credible communication (Heider, 1958; Kim, 2014; Du et al., 2010; Seele and Lock, 2015), this study suggests stakeholders' attribution and the credibility of CSR communication might help to explain the effect CSR message approaches on legitimacy.
In examining the impact of CSR message approaches which can be considered as "how to communicate CSR," it is necessary to take "what CSR content to communicate" referred as CSR fit into consideration as demonstrated in previous studies (Go & Bortree, 2017; Nan & Heo, 2007). Currently, corporations urge to explain the CSR fit without leading to stakeholder skepticism when they try to solve social issues with high or low congruence
with the core business of the corporation (de Jong & van der Meer, 2017; Morris, 2017). However, an efficient way to communicate that is not discussed. de Jong and van der Meer (2017) called for research on the role of CSR fit in CSR storytelling (narrative) which emphasized the special consideration for the interaction of CSR fit and CSR message approaches. Therefore, another aim of the current study is to examine the effect of CSR message approaches in conditions of different levels of CSR fit.
This study fills the gaps in studies of CSR communication by making contributions to our understanding of the effects of different CSR message approaches and the theory
developed in the domain of corporate legitimacy. Also, the study has important practical implications as it may lead to guidelines for communication managers to find a message approach to communicating CSR, and promote the positive relationship between corporations and stakeholders. To reach the study aims, a 2 X 2 between-subjects experiment in which participants are exposed to CSR articles from a financial company will be conducted to answer the research question: What the effect of CSR narrative message approach and informational message approach on pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy, and is this mediated by stakeholders' attribution and the perceived credibility of CSR communication, and
moderated by CSR fit?
Theoretical Background Message Approaches in CSR Communication
Corporations make their CSR efforts known to stakeholders through CSR
communication (Morsing, 2006). Previous studies have shown that corporations, on the one hand, want to satisfy stakeholders' increasing demands for CSR information, and on the other hand, they are afraid that stakeholders may doubt the self-promotional motives of
corporations to participate in CSR (Coombs & Holladay, 2011; Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008). This dilemma is primarily due to inappropriate and ineffective CSR communication
strategies (Kim & Ferguson, 2018). The choice of message approaches is of importance in the formulation of effective CSR communication strategies (Lewis, 2007). This study attaches importance to two message approaches, the narrative, and informational message approach.
The distinction between the narrative and informational approach is very significant in communication research (Ekström, 2000). The informational approach generates rational appeal while the narrative approach generates the emotional appeal (Obermiller, Spangenberg & MacLachlan, 2005). To wit, two message approaches used in CSR communication might lead to differentiated effects. However, the comparisons of two approaches and effects of them in CSR communication are studied to a lesser extent. When exploring effective CSR communication, message approaches’ roles were investigated separately by previous studies.
Previous studies which were conducted in qualitative ways considered the narrative approach as a useful instrument for CSR communication. By utilizing the narrative approach that consists of the story plot and the historical context, the corporation creates sharing senses, and emotional bonding with its stakeholders to achieve the strategic objects (Boyce, 1995; Marshall & Adamic, 2010). Specifically, in the context of CSR communication, the narrative approach mainly aims to help the corporation to explain the rationality of its CSR actions (Gill, 2015). Past studies suggested that the benefits of the narrative approach enable the corporation to achieve this CSR objective. First, by employing narratives, corporations can make their CSR efforts tangible, and stakeholders are more likely to identify with the values (Dowling, 2006). Second, it has been suggested that the emotional appeal facilitated by the narrative approach can add value to a company's participation in CSR (Du et al., 2010). Third, shared values created by narratives were suggested to reduce counterargument and skepticism for CSR practices (Du & Vieira, 2012; Wieseke, Edinger-Schons & Scheidler, 2013).
However, with theses abstract and scattered conclusions of the benefits, the specific effect of CSR narrative approach remains unknown.
Compared with the narrative approach, there are fewer studies concerning the informational approach, and researchers reached no consensus on its role in CSR communication. The informational approach mainly provides objective and reasonable information, plain materials for information processing of the audience (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005). Trapp’s (2014) research indicated that it is not enough for CSR managers to
communicate CSR with influential stakeholders by only providing plain information about CSR. On the contrary, the informational processing of CSR content was shown to receive positive stakeholders’ feedbacks in social media (Kollat & Farache, 2017). It should be emphasized that the effect of informational CSR approach should be inquired in depth.
Thus, to gain more insight into the knowledge about CSR message approaches, the current study aims to specify the differences and the effects of two message approaches in CSR communication with regard to corporate legitimacy.
Corporate Legitimacy and CSR Message Approaches
Corporate legitimacy that is the reflection of a corporation's relationship with stakeholders and its surrounding environment (Vlachos et al., 2009), is regarded as a
prerequisite for the survival and development of the corporation (Powell & DiMaggio, 2012). Corporations attach importance to corporate communication when trying to strategically gain or maintain legitimacy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). As regarded as a crucial component of corporate communication, CSR communication has the potential to influence corporate legitimacy (Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018).
As a multidimensional concept, the typology of corporate legitimacy has been
discussed in past studies. The classical three-dimensional construct with pragmatic, cognitive and moral dimensions of organizational legitimacy was proposed by Suchman (1995), which is more likely to capture the main components of legitimacy (Alexiou & Wiggins, 2018). In a CSR communication research with regards to legitimacy, Lock and Schulz-Knappe (2019)
creatively regarded pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy as output legitimacy, that is the public assessment of the organizational performance (Mena & Palazzo, 2012), and translated moral legitimacy into input legitimacy which is related to decision-making procedure on the basis of political-normative CSR theory. The results of the research indicated that output legitimacy was more significant for stakeholders while input legitimacy was more likely to be considered as a “procedure legitimacy” that should act as the process of communication rather than the outcome (Lock & Schulz-Knappe, 2019, p. 14). This study emphasizes the results of CSR communication rather than the decision-making process. Hence, two dimensions of output legitimacy are considered as the outcome variables.
Theoretically, the CSR message approaches have influences on two dimensions of legitimacy. In general, differentiated message approaches to farming the CSR practices in communicative efforts may lead to different ways in which stakeholders understand the corporation’s right to exist (Johansen & Nielsen, 2012; Sharp & Zaidman, 2010; Pérez, 2015). Pragmatic legitimacy is an instrumental concept that explains the give-and-take relationship between organizations and stakeholders (Suchman, 1995). Attaining pragmatic legitimacy can be achieved on the basis of exchange (Suchman, 1995; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018). The narrative approach utilizes specific roles and storylines, which can put the stakeholders in the context and transmit the experiences in the story to own lives (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013) as if the stakeholders themselves have benefited from CSR practices (Gill, 2015). Therefore, stakeholders are probably more willing to give pragmatic legitimacy to the company in exchange.
In contrast, the informational approach provides an objective description of CSR practices, which is closer to an idea that corporations show what they are doing or have done in CSR from a corporate perspective (Jamali, 2008). In such a situation, it is difficult for stakeholders to feel that the corporation concerns their interests, so they are less likely to give
pragmatic legitimacy to the company. Another dimension of legitimacy, cognitive legitimacy, represents stakeholders' perception of whether the existence of an organization is taken-for-granted (Suchman, 1995). Corporations can attain cognitive legitimacy by aligning corporate norms and stakeholders' norms (Suchman, 1995; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018). The narrative approach enables the corporation to make mutual senses and share values together with stakeholders by telling stories (Gill, 2015), while the informational approach highlights the self-talk of the corporations (Trapp, 2014). Thereby, compared with the informational approach, the narrative approach may have more advantages in attaining the cognitive legitimacy of corporations. However, these likely effects have not been investigated in the empirical test. Hence, this study aims to examine the impact of CSR message approaches on both dimensions of legitimacy by conducting an experiment.
Unlike previous quantitative studies about legitimacy, the current research measures pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy directly. Employing the proxies of legitimacy such as purchase intentions and public endorsements is the mainstream of measurements of
legitimacy (Alexiou & Wiggins, 2018; Deephouse & Carter, 2005). However, each of these proxies has its emphasis and does not match the definition of corporate legitimacy, "a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and
definitions" (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). This study uses the scale which can catch the
"generalized perception" directly to gauge two dimensions of legitimacy to avoid deficiency of previous studies (Alexiou & Wiggins, 2018).
Explaining the impact of CSR message approaches on pragmatic legitimacy: stakeholders’ attribution
Stakeholders mainly attribute corporations’ participation in CSR activities to two motives: other-centered motives with which corporations concern more interests of external
entities and self-centered motives with which corporations focus on their own interests (Foreh & Grier, 2003; Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006). The two types of stakeholders’ attribution (other-centered and self-(other-centered attribution) were employed to explain the relationship between CSR communicative efforts and stakeholders’ responses (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau & Larceneux, 2011; Story & Neves, 2015). This study aims to explore the mediating roles of two dimensions of stakeholders’ attribution in the relationship between CSR message
approaches and pragmatic legitimacy on the basis of attribution theory and legitimacy theory. Two paths in the mediation hypothesis will be explored separately.
Stakeholders' attributions about CSR motives were regarded as the outcome of CSR communication (Du et al., 2010). According to attribution theory, when audiences confront with CSR communication, they start automatically speculating on CSR motives of the focal corporation (Heider, 1958; Kim, 2014; Du et al., 2010). In this sense, after exposure to CSR messages constructed with different message approaches, stakeholders might attribute to differentiated CSR motives. The message tone is an inevitable topic that related to both CSR message strategies and stakeholders’ attribution (Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005; Kim, 2019). The narrative CSR message approach with which CSR messages are conveyed implicitly is considered to have a less self-promotional message tone (Land, 2007). On the contrary, the informational CSR message approach has a significant self-promotional message tone since it helps to present detailed and explicit company-centered CSR information, which might be associated with more self-centered attribution and less other-centered attribution (Trapp, 2014; Kim, 2019). Past studies show that public is more likely to attribute to other-centered motives after exposure to the CSR messages with a less self-promotional tone which leads stakeholders to believe the company is sincere (Coombs & Holladay, 2011; Kim & Ferguson, 2018). Therefore, compared with the informational approach, the narrative approach is likely to result in more other-centered attribution and less self-centered attribution.
Attribution theory illustrated that attributions would influence subsequent behaviors (Heider, 1958). In the context of CSR, it means that stakeholders’ attributions of CSR practices have an impact on their responses to corporations (Martinko, Harvey & Douglas, 2007). Previous studies showed that the other-centered motives of a corporation to engage in CSR is more likely to stimulate stakeholders to give the corporation a positive evaluation (Vlachos et al., 2009; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2006). According to the notion that pragmatic legitimacy relies on whether stakeholders receive expected values from the corporations (Dart, 2004; Alexiou & Wiggins, 2018), stakeholders respond positively to other-centered motives since they probably receive the "expected value" and further
legitimate the corporation pragmatically. Stakeholders may confer less pragmatic legitimacy on companies that are perceived to engage in CSR for self-centered motives, because
stakeholders may feel that these companies only care about own interests and stakeholders cannot benefit from CSR activities (Dart, 2004; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Webb & Mohr, 1998; Handelman & Arnold, 1999).
On the basis of the arguments above, the following hypotheses are developed. H1: The effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on pragmatic legitimacy is mediated by a) other-centered attribution, such that a narrative (versus informational) message approach leads to more other-centered attribution, which in turn leads to higher pragmatic legitimacy, and b) self-centered attribution, such that a narrative (versus informational) message approach leads to less self-centered attribution, which in turn leads to higher pragmatic legitimacy.
CSR Fit: moderating the impact on stakeholder attributions
CSR fit is defined as the congruency between a corporation's CSR behavior and its core business and is the main content of CSR communication (Du et al., 2010). In CSR communication, although CSR fit has been formed when corporations plan to engage in CSR
activities, it is not necessarily explicitly proposed or explained (Du et al., 2010; de Jong & van der Meer, 2017). On the basis of knowledge at hand, stakeholders might proactively infer the core business of the corporation and its relevance to CSR action when they confront with CSR messages (Elving, 2013). Previous studies have focused on stakeholder responses to the focal corporation when they exposed themselves to different levels of CSR fit. Studies have shown that stakeholders expect high consistency between the core business of the corporate and social issues the corporate cares about (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Haley, 1996). Other studies also suggested that low CSR fit is also likely to generate positive feedback from stakeholders (Bloom et al., 2006; Menon & Kahn, 2003). To sum up, previous studies
provided arguments and evidence for the roles of different levels of CSR fit in CSR practices and communication, but the specific outcomes of CSR fit remain unknown. Moreover, CSR fit as the content of CSR communication was discussed without its carrier, the message approaches in the study.
The present study aims to investigate the interaction effect of the message approach and stakeholder attributions. Previous research suggested that compared to a high CSR fit, the low CSR fit makes stakeholders believe the corporation sincerely concerns social issues rather than own interests (Menon & Kahn, 2003; Bloom et al., 2006). In this sense, a low CSR fit is more likely to be associated with other-centered motives. In contrast, high CSR fit which is considered to be a profit-related concern (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006), might be more related to self-centered attribution. Meanwhile, as argued above, compared with the informational approach, the narrative message approach leads to more other-centered attribution and less self-centered attribution. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated.
H2a The effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on other-centered attribution is moderated by CSR fit, such that the effect is stronger for low (versus high) CSR fit.
H2b The effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on self-centered attribution is moderated by CSR fit, such that the effect is stronger for low (versus high) CSR fit.
Explaining the impact of CSR message approaches on legitimacy: perceived credibility of CSR communication
The credibility of communication is often the source-related concept in
communication research (Jackob, 2008). However, in the context of CSR communication, the credibility of the communication itself is more salient, since this is a determinant factor that influences the relationship between corporations and stakeholders (Lock & Seele, 2017). Lock and Seele’s (2017) study suggested four criteria of credible CSR communication:
understandable, true, sincere, and appropriate. The specific situation related to this study is that the CSR message approach affects the credibility of CSR communication, and further the legitimacy.
According to the criteria of credible CSR information (Lock & Seele, 2017), stakeholders may attach different levels of credibility to two CSR message approaches. In past studies, the narrative approach has been found to make CSR communication more transparent, authentic and understandable (Moratis, 2017; Łyszczarz, 2005). Moreover, ss a message approach with a less self-promotional tone (Land, 2007), the narrative approach is suggested to associate with higher credibility and sincerity in CSR communication (Kim & Ferguson, 2018; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009; Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005). In contrast, the informational message approach provides data to support the authenticity of communication and displays relevant information in charts and other forms, which makes CSR information easier to understand (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005; Trapp, 2014). However, since the informational message approach describes CSR efforts in many details, it may be perceived as a message approach with a self-promotional tone (Kim & Ferguson, 2018), which leads to the perception
that communication by using the informational approach lacks sincerity. In this sense, compared with the informational approach, the narrative approach is more likely to add credibility to CSR communication.
The prerequisite for gaining legitimacy through CSR communication is that the communication provided by the corporation is credible (Seele and Lock, 2015). Corporate legitimacy is the product of organization-public trust (Kim, 2011). Lock and Schulz-Knapp (2019) suggested that to maintain that trust relationship, corporations must provide CSR communication which is perceived to be credible by stakeholders. Moreover, Lock and Schulz-Knapp’s (2019) experimental study indicated that perceived credibility of CSR communication leads to greater cognitive legitimacy and greater pragmatic legitimacy. These lead to the following hypotheses.
H3: The effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on pragmatic
legitimacy is mediated by perceived credibility of CSR communication, such that a narrative approach (versus informational) message approach leads to the higher perceived credibility of CSR communication, which in turn leads to higher pragmatic legitimacy.
H4: The effect of a narrative approach (versus informational) message approach on cognitive legitimacy is mediated by perceived credibility of CSR communication, such that a narrative approach (versus informational approach) leads to the higher perceived credibility of CSR communication, which in turn leads to higher cognitive legitimacy.
CSR Fit: moderating the impact on the perceived credibility of CSR communication The interaction effect of the message approach and CSR fit on the perceived credibility of CSR communication probably exists. A high CSR fit is likely to lead
stakeholders to perceive the company as the expert in the domain and regard CSR content as credible (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). Moreover, in the condition of high CSR fit, the motives of the focal corporation are relatively straightforward (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006), which makes
the CSR messages easy to understand. On the contrary, when the corporation's core business and CSR are inconsistent, stakeholders will think in more effort for inferring motives of the corporate (Fein, 1996). As argued above, compared with an informational approach, a narrative approach is expected to lead to the higher perceived credibility of CSR communication. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H5: The effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on the perceived credibility of CSR communication is moderated by CSR fit, such that the effect is stronger for high (versus low) CSR fit.
Figure 1. The conceptual model
Method Experimental Design
To test the hypotheses, an experiment was conducted with a 2 (message approach: narrative versus informational) x 2 (CSR fit: high fit versus low fit) between-subjects design. Two processing variables were included (i.e., attribution and perceived credibility of CSR content), and effects were measured on two dependent variables, including pragmatic legitimacy, and cognitive legitimacy.
Participants
The study applied a convenience sample. All the participants were recruited from the social networks of the author through social media posts. Among the 246 participants, 20 were dropped out because they did not complete the experiment. The total number of participants completing the experiment was 226, of which 120 were females. 46.5% of participants were between 18 and 24 years old and the largest portion of the participants completed a bachelor's degree (36.3%). 26.1% of participants belonged to Caucasian ethnicity and 14.6% of participants belonged to East Asian ethnicity.
Procedure
A link to the online experiment was distributed to participants through instant
messaging software, such as WhatsApp, Wechat, Messenger. Before starting the experiment, the participants read the brief introduction and signed the informed consent to confirm that they were willing to participate in the experiment. First, participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. They were instructed to read a real article from the website of "Company A". The articles were taken from the website of an existing company named "Ant Financial" which provides online financial service. However, the name of the company was not mentioned to avoid participants' preset impressions on the company. Participants were instructed to read this website article carefully for at least 1 minute. This website article was on CSR, in which the factors message approach and fit were manipulated. After reading one of the articles, participants were told that we were interested in their opinion on Company A
and their opinion about the article they read. Next, scales for the processing variables, attribution and perceived credibility of CSR content, as well as the scales for the dependent variables pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy, were assessed. Then questions to assess control variables, including financial product purchase, attitude towards the financial sector,
perceived importance of online financial safety (i.e., the focal topic of the high fit condition article), and organ donation (i.e., the focal topic of the low fit condition) were posted. Next, demographic information about the participants was collected, including age, gender, ethnicity, and education. Then participants were asked to report whether they noticed the corresponding characteristic of the two types of message approaches, and the two levels of CSR fit, to test the efficiency of the manipulation. Finally, at the end of the experiment, participants were thanked and debriefed on the aim of the study.
Manipulation
The manipulation of the independent variable and moderating variable was embedded in the stimuli materials (Appendix A) which were four articles downloaded from the website of Ant Financial, whose core business is online financial service. There are two reasons why the financial company was chosen. First, compared with companies from industrial sectors, financial companies bear fewer pressures on engaging in CSR activities (Weber, Diaz & Schwegler, 2014). This means that it is less likely for the public to hold a preconceived impression on financial companies’ CSR participation. Hence, the sector in itself will not or will have a relatively low impact on the variables of the study. Second, the focal company, Ant Financial, actively engages in solving multiple social issues which include issues with both high and low CSR fit, and its website provided abundant materials for the study. Besides, a corporate website is a vital tool for CSR communication (Du et al., 2010). Therefore, using the articles for the stimuli material is externally valid.
In this study, manipulation of the message approach mainly relies on characteristics of narrative and informational approach. The research of Green and Brock (2000) indicates that the article presented in narrative form can make the readers feel the emotional changes and scene restoration. Hence, two articles in the narrative approach used specific characters and situations to make the story closer to the real life of readers and added emotional content to make readers create emotional connections with the focal corporation in the CSR event. For the informational approach, its rationality and logic are essential features, which requires some statistical data and scientific demonstration (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005). Therefore, in the research, in the informational approach conditions, the articles utilized data and explanations for rationality.
CSR fit was manipulated according to the definition of CSR fit, which is the degree of congruence between the CSR activity a company participated in and its core business (Du et al., 2010). In the stimuli materials, the core business of the corporate organization is online financial services. Therefore, CSR activities with the theme of "online financial security" represented high fit, while CSR activities with the theme of "organ donation" represented low fit.
Except for the two factors reflected in the stimulus materials, other characteristics of the articles were identical. An online test for texts, ATOS, was used to measure the
complexity of articles in the four conditions. ATOS takes into account the most important predictors of text complexity—average sentence length, average word length, and word difficulty level. ATOS scores of four articles were roughly the same, around 11. This indicates that the complexity of the four articles was approximately the same.
Pretest
A pretest among 43 participants (67% female, Mage = 28.00) was conducted to ensure that the experimental materials had the intended effects. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of four conditions and asked to identify the level of CSR fit (low or high) and the characteristics of narrative or informational message approach (see “measurement” section). The result of the chi-square test yielded that 71% of the respondents correctly recognized the high CSR fit, and 73% correctly recognized the low CSR fit (χ2 = 22.76, p < .001). The result of an ANOVA revealed that participants in informational conditions were more likely to notice the characteristics of informational message approach than narrative message approach (M = 4.31, SD = 0.90, F (1,42) =4.84, p < .05). However, the narrative approach was not experienced more typically narrative (M = 4.10, SD = 0.91, F (1,42) =0.74, p=.395). The result showed that participants considered the articles in the narrative conditions less emotional than expected. Hence, without changing the original meaning, the emotional elements were added to the two narrative articles. The complexity of the texts of the articles was tested again, and the four articles remained roughly the same, around 11.
Measurement
Stakeholders’ Attribution. Stakeholders’ attribution was measured by a
two-dimensional scale consisting of the fifteen items used by Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013). The participants were asked to indicate on seven-point Likert scales how much they agreed with statements that reflect reasons for Company A to be involved in CSR (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Self-centered attribution was measured by seven items (see Appendix B) (α = .81, M = 4.20, SD= 1.10). Other-centered attribution was measured by eight items (see Appendix 2) (α = .82, M = 4.13, SD= 1.04). Higher scores on the two dimensions represent higher levels of self- and other-centered attribution.
Perceived Credibility of CSR Communication. The validated scale from Lock and Seele's (2017) study measured the perceived credibility of CSR communication (2017) (see Appendix B). This scale was used to evaluate whether CSR communication is credible. The participants were asked to indicate perceived credibility of CSR content with sixteen items on
a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (α = .91; M = 4.35; SD = 1.04). Higher scores reflect higher levels of perceived credibility.
Legitimacy. Pragmatic legitimacy and cognitive legitimacy were measured with a six-item scale developed by Alexiou and Wiggins (2018) (see Appendix B), which was designed to measure individual legitimacy perceptions. The participants were asked to indicate the legitimacy of the focal corporate on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Three items were used to measure pragmatic legitimacy (α = .88; M = 4.23; SD = 1.30) and, three items were used to measure cognitive legitimacy (α = .81; M = 4.44; SD= 1.18). Higher scores on each scale represent higher levels of pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy.
Control Variables. Due to the possibility that expected outcomes result from confounding variables, control variables were added in the experiment. First, demographic questions about age, sex, ethnicity, and educational level were presented. Second, whether the participant ever purchased any financial product was asked with a “yes-no” question (75% for yes). Third, the attitude towards the financial sector was assessed. The participants were asked how much they like the financial sector on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = a lot (M = 4.07, SD= 1.61). Furthermore, participants’ evaluations of social issues the company addressed in the articles probably have an impact on their opinions about the company (Hillman & Keim, 2001), so two more related questions adapted from the question in Chen and Hu’s (2010) study were asked. Fourth, the perceived importance of online financial safety was measured by an item “how much do you think online financial safety is important” on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot; M = 5.01, SD= 1.59). Fifth, the participants were asked to value the perceived importance of organ donation on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot; M = 5.02, SD= 1.52).
Manipulation Checks. To ensure that the manipulation worked in an expected manner, a manipulation check was conducted at the end of the experiment. The scale developed by Green and Brock (2000) (see Appendix B) for the test of narrative transportation was used for the manipulation check of the narrative (vs. informational)
message approach. The participants were asked to indicate the level of narrative transportation on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much with ten items (α = .85; M = 4.24; SD= 1.18). Higher scores represent a greater degree of this message transportation. Whether the participants exposed to CSR articles with an informational message approach realized the corresponding characteristics, was measured with a four-item scale developed by Yoo and MacInnis (2005) (see Appendix B). The participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement four statements on seven-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .66; M = 3.77; SD= 1.21). Higher scores reflect higher levels of agreement on the informational characteristics of the article.
Additionally, the manipulation for CSR fit was also checked. Whether the participants agreed that the core business of the company and social issues addressed are aligned was asked with a “low-high consistency” question (46.9% for low fit).
Results Randomization Check
To check for possible confounding variables, an ANOVA and a chi-square test was conducted with control variables as dependent variables and the type of source (influencer versus brand) as well as the type of CSR fit (low versus high) as two independent variables. The two factors did not have an effect on most control variables (all ps > .050), except on gender (X2 (1, N = 226) = 6.64, p < .05), education (X2 (1, N = 226) = 15.96, p < .05), and the perceived importance of organ donation (F (1,225) =5.18, p < .05). Therefore, these three variables were included as covariates in further analyses.
Manipulation Check
An ANOVA for message approach and a Chi-square test for CSR fit were conducted to test whether the manipulations were successful. The result of the ANOVA showed that participants in the narrative approach condition were significantly more likely to report agreement on realizing the characteristics of the narrative approach than the group exposed to an informational message (M = 4.24, SD = 0.08, F (1,225) = 43.35, p < .001). Also,
participants exposed to an informational message were significantly more likely to report agreement on the characteristics of the informational approach than the group exposed to a narrative message (M = 3.77, SD = 1.21, F (1,225) = 28.28, p < .001). Participants exposed to the high CSR fit reported significantly higher agreement on noticing the high CSR fit
(58.33%) than those exposed to low CSR fit, and the group exposed to the low CSR fit were more likely to report agreement on noticing the low CSR fit (62.26%) than the high CSR group X2 (1, N = 226) = 9.56, p < .050. Thus, the manipulations were successful.
Hypotheses Test
A bootstrap procedure was conducted by using the modeling tool PROCESS (Hayes, 2018; model 7; 5,000 samples) to test the mediation and moderation hypotheses. For the dependent variable, pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy, the analysis was conducted with the type of message approach (informational = 0, narrative = 1) as the independent variable, and the perceived credibility of CSR communication and attributions (other-centered and self-centered) as the mediators. The type of CSR fit (low fit =0, high fit = 1) acted as the moderator for the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator. Gender, education, the perceived importance of organ donation were inserted as covariates in the analysis. The models were run twice for each dimension of legitimacy separately.
With respect to H1a, stating that a narrative (versus informational) message approach leads to more other-centered attribution, which in turn leads to higher pragmatic legitimacy,
the result yielded that the main effect of message approach on pragmatic legitimacy was not significant (b = -0.24, SE = 0.14, t (217) = -1.74, p = .083 95%CI [-0.51, 0.32]). However the results did yield a significant effect of message approach on other-centered attribution (b = 0.42, SE = 0.19, t (218) = 2.20, p < .050 95%CI [0.04, 0.79]) and a significant effect of other-centered attribution on pragmatic legitimacy (b = 0.19, SE = 0.08, t (217) = 2.35, p < 0.050 95%CI [0.03, 0.35]). Moreover, an indirect effect of message approach on pragmatic legitimacy through other-centered attribution was found (b = 0.12, SE = 0.07, 95%CI [0.01, 0.28]). Thus the mediation hypothesis (H1a) can be supported.
For H1b, stating that a narrative (versus informational) message approach leads to less self-centered attribution, which in turn leads to lower pragmatic legitimacy, the results
showed that the effect of message approach on self-centered attribution was not significant (b = 0.29, SE = 0.18, t (218) = 1.61, p = .109 95%CI [-0.07, 0.65]). Therefore, although a
significant effect of a significant effect of self-centered attribution on pragmatic legitimacy was found (b = 0.30, SE = 0.08, t (217) = 4.03, p < .001 95%CI [0.157, 0.45]). H1b cannot be supported.
For the moderation hypothesis, H2a, stating that the effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on other-centered attribution is moderated by CSR fit, such that the effect is weaker for low (versus high) CSR fit, the result yielded that the overall model of message approach, CSR fit and their interaction was significant, F (7, 218) = 3.37, p < .010, R2 = 0.10. No main effect of the type of CSR fit was found (b = 0.10, SE = 0.19, t (218) = 0.53, p = .5956, 95%CI [-0.28, 0.48]). The main effect of message approach on other-centered attribution mentioned above was significant (p < .050). The interaction of the type of message approach and the type of CSR fit failed to predict othercentered attribution (b = -0.28, SE = 0.27, t (218) = -1.05, p = .293, 95%CI [-0.81, 0.25]). Therefore, H2a cannot be supported.
For H2b, stating that the effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on self-centered attribution is moderated by CSR fit, such that the effect is stronger for low (versus high) CSR fit, the results showed that the overall model of message approach, CSR fit and their interaction was significant, F (7, 218) = 3.37, p < .001, R2 = 0.52. However, the effect of message approach on self-centered attribution mentioned above was not significant (p = .109) and the main effect of CSR fit on self-centered attribution was not found (b = -0.76, SE = 0.34, t (218) = -1.38, p = .290, 95%CI [-0.81, 0.23]). Also, the interaction of the type of message approach and the type of CSR fit did not predict self-centered attribution (b = -0.26, SE = 0.25, t (218) = -1.03, p = .304, 95%CI [-0.76, 0.24]). Hence, H2b cannot be supported. With respect to H3, stating that a narrative approach (versus informational approach) leads to higher perceived credibility of CSR communication, which in turn leads to higher pragmatic legitimacy, the result showed that the main effect of the type of message approach on pragmatic legitimacy mentioned above was not significant (p = 0.083). A significant effect of the type of message approach on the perceived credibility of CSR communication was found (b = 0.60, SE = 0.13, t (218) = 4.53, p < .001 95%CI [0.34, 0.86]). The mediator, the perceived credibility of CSR communication turned have a significant effect on pragmatic legitimacy (b = 0.49, SE = 0.84, t (217) = 5.82, p < .001 95%CI[0.32, 0.65]). The indirect effect of message approach on pragmatic legitimacy through perceived credibility was found (b =0.43, SE = 0.11, 95%CI[0.22, 0.65]) Therefore, H3 can be supported.
With reference to H4, stating that a narrative approach (versus informational approach) leads to the higher perceived credibility of CSR communication, which in turn leads to higher cognitive legitimacy, the results of the analysis showed that the main effect of the type of message approach on cognitive legitimacy was significant (b = 0.77, SE = 0.15, t (220) = 5.12, p < .001, 95%CI [0.47, 1.06]). Also, a significant effect of the type of message approach on the perceived credibility of CSR communication was found (b = 0.60, SE = 0.13,
t (218) = 4.53 p < .001 95%CI [0.34, 0.86]). The mediator, the perceived credibility of CSR communication has a significant effect on cognitive legitimacy (b = 0.56, SE = 0.07, t (219) = 8.45, p < .001 95%CI [0.43, 0.69]). The directions yielded that a narrative (versus
informational) message approach leads to the higher perceived credibility of CSR communication, which in turn leads to higher cognitive legitimacy. Hence, H4 can be supported.
For the moderation hypothesis, H5, stating that “the effect of a narrative (versus informational) message approach on the perceived credibility of CSR communication is moderated by CSR fit, such that the effect is stronger for high (versus low) CSR fit”, the result showed that the overall model of message approach, CSR fit and their interaction was significant, F (7, 218) = 6.15, p < .001, R2 = 0.41. Although as mentioned above, the effect of CSR message approach on the perceived credibility of CSR communication was significant (p < .001), the effect of the type of CSR fit (b = 0.12, SE = 0.19, t (218) = 0.62, p = .538, 95%CI [-0.25, 0.48]) and the interaction effect of the type of message approach and the type of CSR fit (b = -0.09, SE = 0.26, t (218) = -0.36, p = .719, 95%CI [-0.60, 0.42]) were found not significant. Therefore, the moderation effect in H5 was not supported.
Notes: * significant at the p < .050,** significant at the ..p <.010 *** p < .001 levels, ns = non-significant
Figure 2. The conceptual model and results
Discussion
The present research aims to extend knowledge of CSR message approaches by focusing their effects on corporate legitimacy, and by investigating the underlying processing that might explain the impact of CSR message approaches, and by examining the interaction effect of CSR message approach and CSR fit. In general, our results showed that the narrative message approach which is more credible and leads to more other-centered attribution, is better than the informational approach in attaining pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy.
Two types of stakeholders' attribution were considered to be the processing variables. In line with Coombs and Holladay’s (2011) and Kim and Ferguson’s (2018) results, the CSR
narrative message approach which is considered to have a less self-promotional tone led to more other-centered attribution. It was also found that other-centered attribution leads to greater pragmatic legitimacy since stakeholders can receive expected values from corporate altruistic motives (Vlachos et al., 2009; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Dart, 2004; Alexiou & Wiggins, 2018). The results imply that generating more other-centered attributions is a key measure of the effective CSR message approach. Unexpectedly, the indirect effect of message approaches on pragmatic legitimacy through self-centered attribution was not found. The message tone was used to explain why CSR message approaches can lead to different levels of self-centered attribution (Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005; Kim, 2019; Kim & Ferguson, 2018). However, the experimental results showed that there's no difference in the effect of either CSR message approach on self-centered attribution. This may be due to the fact that the experiment was conducted in the context of a corporate website. Swaen and Vanhamme’s (2005) study showed that stakeholders may always attribute CSR practices to self-centered motives when the CSR information is from the corporate website regardless of message approaches and tones.
The perceived credibility of CSR communication’s mediation effect was exanimated. It is not surprising that CSR articles in the narrative message approach were considered to be more credible than those in the informational message approach since the narrative approach makes CSR communication more transparent, authentic and sincere (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009; Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005; Moratis, 2017; Łyszczarz, 2005) and audiences might regard the informational message approach as less sincere due to more self-promotional tone (Kim & Ferguson, 2018). In line with Lock and Schulz-Knapp’s (2019)’s results, this study also confirmed that credible CSR communication plays a vital role in gaining pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy (Lock & Schulz-Knappe, 2019).
It is unexpected that two dimensions of stakeholders’ attribution and the perceived credibility of CSR communication not influenced by the CSR message approaches when CSR fit acted at different levels. There are two possible reasons. The first is that the CSR fit is more complicated and more levels of CSR fit (e.g., high-medium-low fit) (Cha, Yi &
Bagozzi, 2016) may be at play in terms of the interaction effects of CSR message approach on processing variables. The second reason is that a financial company was used as the focal organization in the experiment, which relaxed participants' concentration on the corporation's explanations for engaging in a social issue with high or low CSR fit. Public expectations for the financial sector's involvement in CSR are much fewer than for manufacturing (Weber et al., 2014). At the same time, there are few ethical mistakes and scandals about CSR of the financial sector (Risso, 2010). Also, financial companies have extensive business connections with other industries (Cumming & Hirtle, 2001), which means that it is rational for financial companies to engage in CSR activities with any level of CSR fit. Therefore, stakeholders might have few special feelings about financial companies' participation in activities with different levels of CSR fit might not influence stakeholders' attribution and the perceived credibility of CSR communication.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The findings of this study have some important theoretical implications. First, this study contributed to the knowledge of the effectiveness of CSR communication in different message approaches in a quantitative way. In the present study, stakeholders' other-centered attribution and the perceived credibility of CSR communication were successfully used as processing variables to explain the specific effects of the CSR message approaches on organizational legitimacy.
Second, distinguishing from previous researches which considering consumer
& Kollat, 2018) as the outcomes of message approaches in CSR communication, this study included organizational legitimacy as the fundamental and instrumental output of CSR communication. Moreover, a psychometric measure of individual perceptions of legitimacy (Alexiou & Wiggins, 2018) rather than proxies of legitimacy was used in the experiment.
The present study also has some practical contributions and implications. In general, the CSR narrative approach had more favorable outcomes, compared with the informational approach. Therefore, communication practitioners could consider replacing some articles with sufficient information and data with real stories related to CSR projects. Trust and favorable attributions are more likely to be gain through CSR storytelling. Meanwhile, the authenticity and sincerity of stories should be emphasized in the process of writing.
Limitations
Despite the merits of the current study, some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, the results are based on a very young sample, and 65.4% of participants are under 30. Becker (1999) suggested that young people are more persuaded by stories than elder people. Although the age was not regarded as a confronting variable, it still possibly influenced the results of the study since the narrative approach indeed leads to more positive outcomes in the current study. Future studies should strike a balance among age groups, or focus on one specific group of stakeholders.
Second, as mentioned above, only the financial sector was considered in the experiment, which may have an impact on the effect CSR fit. Therefore, future studies are suggested to deliberate industry comparisons or the characteristic of a specific industry when considering CSR fit as a variable.
Third, the experiment was conducted in the context of a corporate website. In the theoretical framework suggested by Du et al. (2010), which channel is used to communicate CSR with stakeholders matters for stakeholders' attributions about CSR motives. Thereby, it
is better for future studies which focus on stakeholders' attributions to consider the channel of CSR communication.
Future research
In addition to different ways to overcome the limitations of the research, we could also provide other suggestions for future research. First, relationships between dimensions of legitimacy could be involved in the study of CSR communication. The relationships between three dimensions of legitimacy are important for CSR communication regarding
organizational legitimacy (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Lock & Schulz-Knappe, 2019). Future studies could include these dimensions and gain more robust results.
Second, a more complex category of stakeholder attribution should be involved in future studies. Du et al.'s (2006) study illustrated that one challenge for CSR communication is to generate favorable attribution among stakeholders. It would be relevant to take sub dimensions rather than only other- and self-centered attributions into account if more rigorous results of what kind of attribution would result from CSR communication are needed (Ellen et al., 2006).
Third, the prosperity of communication technology has allowed studying interactive message approaches (Elving et al., 2015). Future research can focus on the impact of the integration of multiple message approaches in CSR communication through the use of interactive communication channels.
References
Alexiou, K., & Wiggins, J. (2018). Measuring individual legitimacy perceptions: Scale development and validation. Strategic Organization, 1476127018772862.
Andersen, P. H., & Rask, M. (2014). Creating legitimacy across international contexts: The role of storytelling for international new ventures. Journal of International
Araujo, T., & Kollat, J. (2018). Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter: The power of engaging strategies and storytelling elements. Internet Research, 28(2), 419-431. Becker, B. (1999). Narratives of pain in later life and conventions of storytelling. Journal of
Aging Studies, 13(1), 73-87.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53. Bloom, P.N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K.L. and Meza, C. (2006). How social-cause marketing
affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, pp. 49–55. Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective centring and collective sense-making in the stories and
storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16(1), 107-137.
Boyd, J. (2009). 756*: The legitimacy of a baseball number. In Rhetorical and critical
approaches to public relations II (pp. 166-181). Routledge.
Cha, M. K., Yi, Y., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Effects of customer participation in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs on the CSR-brand fit and brand loyalty. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 57(3), 235-249.
Chaudhri, V. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and the communication imperative: Perspectives from CSR managers. International Journal of Business Communication,
53(4), 419-442.
Chen, P. T., & Hu, H. H. (2010). How determinant attributes of service quality influence customer-perceived value: an empirical investigation of the Australian coffee outlet industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 535-551.
Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. (2013). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look to the future.
In Organisationskommunikation und Public Relations (pp. 43-72). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228-248. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2011). Managing corporate social responsibility: A
communication approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Cumming, C., & Hirtle, B. (2001). The challenges of risk management in diversified financial companies. Economic Policy Review, 7(1).
de Jong, M. D., & van der Meer, M. (2017). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal
of Business Ethics, 143(1), 71-83.
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
14(4), 411-424.
Dowling, G. R. (2006). Communicating corporate reputation through stories. California
Management Review, 49(1), 82-100.
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, 12(1), 8-19.
Du, S., & Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413-427.
Ekström, M. (2000). Information, storytelling and attractions: TV journalism in three modes of communication. Media, Culture & Society, 22(4), 465-492.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of
Elving, W. J. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-292. Elving, W. J., Golob, U., Podnar, K., Ellerup-Nielsen, A., & Thomson, C. (2015). The bad,
the ugly and the good: new challenges for CSR communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 118-127.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1164.
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632.
Foreh, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349-356.
Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 662-674. Go, E., & Bortree, D. S. (2017). What and how to communicate CSR? The role of CSR fit,
modality interactivity, and message interactivity on social networking sites. Journal of
Promotion Management, 23(5), 727-747.
Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1149-1167.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701. Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social
Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers' understandings of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 25(2), 19-35.
Heath, R. L., & Waymer, D. (2014). Terrorism: Social capital, social construction, and constructive society?. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(2), 227-244.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line?. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125-139.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-89.
Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2008). An analysis of corporate social responsibility at credit line: A narrative approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 403-418.
Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143-1159.
Kim, S., & Ferguson, M. A. T. (2018). Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 549-567.
Kim, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public
Relations Review, 38(1), 168-170.
Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations
Review, 40(5), 838-840.
Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 799-815.
Kollat, J., & Farache, F. (2017). Achieving consumer trust on Twitter via CSR communication. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(6), 505-514.
Jackob, N. (2008). Credibility effects. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh
perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213-231. Johansen, T. S., & Nielsen, A. E. (2012). CSR in corporate self-storying–legitimacy as a
question of differentiation and conformity. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 17(4), 434-448.
Land, K. (2007). Storytelling as therapy: The motives of a counselor. Business
Communication Quarterly, 70(3), 377-381.
Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational stakeholder model of change implementation communication. Communication Theory, 17(2), 176-204.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of
Marketing, 68(4), 16-32.
Livesey, S. M. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable development. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 313-349. Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Measuring credibility perceptions in CSR communication: a
scale development to test readers’ perceived credibility of CSR reports. Management
Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 584-613.
Lock, I., & Schulz-Knappe, C. (2019). Credible corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication predicts legitimacy: Evidence from an experimental study. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 2-20.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 545-564.
Marshall, J., & Adamic, M. (2010). The story is the message: shaping corporate culture.
Journal of Business Strategy, 31(2), 18-23.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 561-585. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility:
Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18.
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 527-556.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of sponsor brand?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316-327.
Mejri, M., & De Wolf, D. (2012). Analysis of retailers' communication approaches in sustainability and social responsibility reports. International Journal of Marketing
Studies, 4(2), 30.
Moratis, L. (2017). The credibility of corporate CSR claims: A taxonomy based on ISO 26000 and a research agenda. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(1-2), 147-158.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: a
European Review, 15(4), 323-338.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of
Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility
communication: a legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 23(4), 492-511.
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71-88.
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.
Pérez, A. (2015). Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders: Gaps in the literature and future lines of research. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 20(1), 11-29.
Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR
implementation: are consumers aware of CSR initiatives?. Journal of Business Ethics,
85(2), 285-301.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Risso, M. (2010). Large Retailers’ Financial Services. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in
Management, (1), 65-75.
Rowan, K. E. (2003). Informing and explaining skills: Theory and research on informative communication. Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, 403-438. Sharp, Z., & Zaidman, N. (2010). Strategization of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1),
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Pollach, I. (2005). The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(3-4), 267-290.
Schoeneborn, D., & Trittin, H. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 18(2), 193-211.
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169.
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Schoeneborn, D., & Trittin, H. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 18(2), 193-211.
Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 111-124.
Swaen, V., & Vanhamme, J. (2005). The use of corporate social responsibility arguments in communication campaigns: does source credibility matter?. ACR North American
Advances.
Trapp, N. L. (2014). Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen Danish companies. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 42-49.
Villagra, N., Cárdaba, M. A., & Ruiz San Román, J. A. (2016). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: re-assessment of classical theories about fit between CSR actions and corporate activities. Communication & Society, 29(2), 133-146.
