Communicating CSR initiatives:
The effect of communication content and channel on
skepticism, authenticity and reputation
Marjolein van de Flier 10615881
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication
Supervisor: Pernill van der Rijt Date: June 24, 2015
2 Abstract
Consumers tend to doubt and question organizations Corporate Social Responsibility. These doubt and questioning can results in skepticism towards CSR programs, which can diminish the reputation of an organization. So, it is important for organizations to reduce skepticism among their stakeholders. The tensions inherent CSR can make stakeholders somewhat skeptical and motivate them to ascertain the extent to which they see the organization as authentic. When consumers experience less skeptical feelings, they often have a feeling of authenticity. In this study the influence of CSR communication content and CSR communication channel on skepticism, authenticity and organizational reputation was tested. A 3 by 2 experimental design was used to investigate whether the CSR communication of the fictitious organization Avona Care would influence stakeholder skepticism, authenticity and the organizational reputation. No effects were found for the influence of CSR communication content and CSR communication channel on skepticism and authenticity. Significant support was found for the influence of skepticism and authenticity on organizational reputation. This research contributes by showing consumers are skeptical to CSR efforts in general. This implies organizations need to take good care of the CSR program itself, instead of investing in CSR communication.
Introduction
Today, an increasing number of organizations engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as they want to give something back to the community and be a good corporate citizen. Being a good corporate citizen means the extent to which businesses are socially responsible for meeting legal, ethical and economic responsibilities. Being a good corporate citizen is about managing CSR and investing in social initiatives. At a minimum, CSR focuses on the ways corporations handle economic, social and/or environmental issues (Ihlen, Bartlett &
3 May, 2011). By investing in social initiatives, an organization will be able to generate favorable stakeholder attitudes, but also, over the long run, build a corporate image and reputation and strengthen stakeholder relationships and engagement (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). Literature has shown that the greater an organization’s contribution to social welfare, the better its reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). So, it seems logical to link CSR to reputation – and ultimately to overall corporate performance.
Previous research has shown that stakeholders claim they want to know about the good deeds of organizations they interact with, but that they have a low awareness of the CSR activities of organizations most of the time (Du et al., 2010). This constitutes a stumbling block in organizations quest to reap strategic benefits from CSR activities. But, in contrast, when organizations create awareness, criticism about the CSR program often comes along and increases at an alarming rate (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). As a result, more and more consumers tend to doubt and question corporate social involvement, and feelings of skepticism toward CSR practices of organizations are on the rise (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Skepticism by stakeholders can diminish the corporate reputation (Bae & Cameron, 2006). So, in order to try to create a good reputation, organizations need to decrease stakeholder criticism and skepticism. When consumers experience less skeptical feelings, they often have a feeling of authenticity (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). Authenticity and skepticism are somehow connected, because the tensions inherent CSR can make stakeholders somewhat skeptical and motivate them to ascertain the extent to which it is truthful, accurate, reliable and genuine; the factors that form authenticity. In other words, stakeholders want to know the extent to which the CSR program is a reflection of the organization’s true self (Mcshane & Cunningham, 2011).
Organizations can decrease skepticism and increase authenticity by communicating their CSR initiatives in the right way. In order to do this, communication managers are faced
4 with questions surrounding what to communicate and by which channel to communicate (Du et al., 2010). Since creating stakeholder awareness of and managing stakeholder attributions towards a company’s CSR activities are key prerequisites for reaping CSR’s strategic benefits, it is imperative for managers to have a deeper understanding of the key issues related to CSR communication. The key issues addressed in this study are message content and message channel. It is important for organizations to know what they should communicate about their CSR activities (content) and how they should communicate (channel) in order to reduce skepticism and create a good reputation. This leads to the following research question of this thesis: How can organizations utilize their CSR communication to create a positive corporate reputation?
While there is a huge amount of literature about CSR, the literature about CSR communication is disproportionate in size, which makes it relevant to research the topic (Ihlen et al., 2011). When CSR communication is mentioned in the literature, the communication ideal that is implied is often ill-defined and vague (Ihlen et al., 2011). The existing literature does not provide support what and how organizations should communicate, but only give advise that organizations need to engage in stakeholder dialogue and be transparent in their publications and nonfinancial reports (Ihlen et al., 2011).
Another weakness of research studies on CSR is that they rarely take into account the communication theoretical framework, meaning they do not systematically question the expression of the message, the credibility of the source or the medium used (Du et al., 2010). CSR communication studies are important in order to understand how the meaning of CSR is constructed, how it is implemented in organizations and used to achieve organizational goals (Ihlen et al., 2011). This thesis will question these expressions and investigate which content should be communicated and which channel should be used to determine when and why CSR
5 communication positively enhances the organization and when and why CSR communication demands the corporate reputation. (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau & Larceneux, 2011).
This thesis will contribute to existing research and literature because it is important to investigate what organizations should communicate in order to reduce skepticism, create an authentic view and a good reputation. By investigating CSR communication, an advise can be given to communication professionals how they have to present their CSR initiatives to stakeholders, in order to avoid being accused of “greenwashing” among their stakeholders (Elving, 2012). Greenwashing is the use of marketing or public relations practices to create a misleading impression of an organizations environmental performance. Greenwashing often exaggerates good practices while downplaying or ignoring harmful activities. Broadly, greenwashing aims to deflect criticism and build reputational capital while allowing an organization to conduct business in ways that might be viewed as unacceptable if people knew about them (Elving & Van Vuuren, 2010). This thesis will investigate how companies should design and implement their communication strategy, paying attention to details of their CSR messages as well as utilizing a variety of communication channels (Dawkins 2004; Du et al. 2010; Wagner et al. 2009).
Theoretical background
In this study the effects of CSR communication content and channel on skepticism, authenticity and organizational reputation will be examined. First, information will be given on CSR, the domain in which this research is set. Second, the concepts of skepticism and authenticity will be addressed followed by theories about CSR communication content and channels. Finally, organizational reputation will be addressed and its relation to CSR, skepticism and authenticity.
6 CSR
There are numerous definitions of CSR. One of the most comprehensive and widely used definition is the one from Caroll (1979). Caroll (1979) describes CSR as entailing economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility (Lee & Caroll, 2011). In the last decade most attention is paid to the last two, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. The ethical responsibilities require that businesses follow the modes of conduct considered to be morally right. Codes of ethics help organizations meet their ethical responsibilities (Lee & Caroll, 2011). Philantrophic responsibilities reflect the common desire to see organizations actively involved in the betterment of society beyond their economic, legal and ethical responsibilities (Lee & Caroll, 2011). This way, CSR is the corporate attempt to negotiate relationships with stakeholders and public (Ihlen et al., 2011). CSR can be seen as a socially constructed value. The standards for this value differ by social context. Organizations can survive only when their stakeholders are aware of their activities and when the activities meet their expectations and social norms (Lee & Caroll, 2011). Without creating awareness and fulfilling the expectations of stakeholders, dedication to a higher level of responsibility cannot enhance corporate status in society or elevate corporate reputation (Cho & Hong, 2008). To create awareness and elevate the corporate reputation organizations need to communicate about their CSR activities. The next paragraph will give an introduction of CSR communication.
CSR communication
As there are a numerous definitions of CSR, there also are a numerous definitions of CSR communication. A simple definition of CSR communication comes from Morsing & Schultz (2006); CSR communication is the communication that is designed and distributed by the company itself about its CSR efforts. A more extensive definition is the one from Podnar (2008). Podnar (2008) sees CSR communication as a process of anticipating stakeholders’
7 expectations, articulation of CSR policy and managing different organization communication tools designed to provide true and transparent information about a company’s or a brands integration of its business operations, social and environmental concerns, and interactions with stakeholders (Podnar, 2008). This definition resembles the idea of Ihlen et al. (2011) that CSR is the corporate attempt to negotiate relationships with stakeholders and public.
When organizations communicate about their CSR, stakeholders will experience and contribute different motives to the CSR activities. The literature suggest different ways how stakeholders attribute motives when they hear or read about an organization’s CSR activities (Du et al., 2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). The first way is the attribution of extrinsic or intrinsic motives (Du et al., 2010). The attribution theory from Heider (1982) describes how consumers ascribe these extrinsic and intrinsic motives to organizations. Intrinsic motives relate to honest and credible motives. Extrinsic motives relate to external motives as profit and the organization’s image and reputation (Heider, 1982). Stronger attributions of intrinsic motives lead to more positive thoughts about the organizations underlying character and stakeholders will react more positively towards the organization (Du et al., 2010). Stronger attributions of extrinsic motives lead to less positive thoughts and less favorable stakeholder attitude towards the organization (Du et al., 2010). Another way to describe how stakeholders attribute motives comes from Skarmeas & Leonidou (2013). They make a distinction between firm-serving motives and public-serving motives (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Firm-serving motives emphasize the potential benefit to the firm itself, and public-Firm-serving motives focus on the potential benefits to people outside the company (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Firm-serving motives are often perceived as more negative because they connote an individualistic or opportunistic perspective. Stakeholders perceive public-service motives more favorably because they show an element of altruism and enhanced societal interest (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Firm-serving motives match extrinsic motives and
public-8 serving motives match intrinsic motives from the attribution theory. When consumers attribute sincere motives, CSR activities will have a positive influence on the organization. But, it is questioned whether investing in CSR always leads to better business because publics often perceive it as self-interested behavior (Bae & Cameron, 2006). There is somehow risk involved in CSR communication: skeptical reactions can diminish future corporate reputation (Elving & Van Vuuren, 2011). How publics can become skeptical towards an organization CSR effort will be explained in the next paragraph.
Skepticism
Communicating CSR initiatives is important, since it may create awareness. Unfortunately, when an organization communicates about the CSR activities, consumers may react skeptical (Bae & Cameron, 2006). Consumers can be skeptical to the interests and transparency of an organization and to the motives of an organization to be corporate social responsible (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998). Skepticism is the tendency towards disbelief (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). When stakeholders mostly experience extrinsic, firm-serving motives stakeholders will make an external attribution of the motives and perceive them as profit-driven, which will lead to more skepticism about the motives of the organization to adept CSR activities (Elving & Van Vuuren, 2011).
Skarmeas & Leonidou (2013) did research drawing on the attribution theory and tested a model that explains how consumer skepticism towards CSR activities of grocery retailers develops and influence consumer outcomes. They found that when consumers believe that an organization is concerned with the well-being of society and is committed to “doing good” CSR actions, they tend to form favorably attitudes toward the organization and develop a sense of attachment or connection with the organization. But when consumers are skeptical towards the CSR activities of an organization, they are not convinced about the genuine social
9 consciousness of the organization and believe the organizations character is not honest, enduring or capable of enhancing their self-esteem (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Skepticism arises when stakeholders and consumers suspect that the organization is acting in its own interest and not regarding sincere motives (Du et al., 2010). Skeptical stakeholders will have doubt about the organizations ethical standards and social responsibility and question it. Skepticism affects the credibility of CSR activities of an organization (Elving, 2010), so one of the most crucial challenges for CSR communication is to reduce skepticism (Du et al., 2010; Ihlen et al., 2011).
Besides skepticism, it is argued that authenticity is particularly relevant to the CSR judgments stakeholders make (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). A challenge for organizations campaigning for a long-term solution to societal issues is to achieve a positive customer attitude toward their cause related campaign without coming across as inauthentic (Rekom, Go & Calter, 2014). Thus, organizations need to create an authentic view of themselves. Authenticity will be explained in the next section.
Authenticity
Authenticity is often defined as “the notion of being true to oneself” (Liedtka, 2008). In other words, consumers want know the extent of which the CSR program is a reflection of the organization’s true self (Mcshane & Cunningham, 2011). McShane & Cunningham (2011) held in depth interviews with employees to investigate how they differentiate between authentic and inauthentic CSR programs. They found that the employees try to make an alignment between the CSR program and the organization’s true identity. In the end, the extent to which the CSR program is viewed as authentic influences the organizational benefits associated with the CSR program (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). That makes authenticity an important factor regarding CSR (Van Rekom et al., 2014). Van Rekom et al., (2014) did
10 research how an organization needs to communicate about their CSR activities while still coming across as authentic. They found that stakeholders will perceive the organization as authentic when they experience the societal contributions as a flow forth from the organizations characteristics. When stakeholders believe the CSR activities fit the organization, they will experience it as authentic (Van Rekom et al., 2014).
Authenticity has a connection with skepticism, but the differences and similarities are not that simple and clear. Skepticism arises about the CSR activities and program itself, stakeholders become skeptical when they do not believe the activities are genuine (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). It is about questions like “Is this organization truly intended to improve the quality of life in Third World countries?”. In other words, it is about the perceived sincerity of the motives inherent CSR (Yoon et al., 2006). Skepticism is about distrust, while authenticity is about truthfulness, accuracy, reliability and genuineness. When stakeholders evaluate the organization as authentic, they asses the organization as a whole (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). The motives inherent to CSR can make stakeholders skeptical of the organizations commitment, thus motivating them to investigate the extent to which the organization is truthful, accurate, reliable and genuine. These factors come together in what the literature calls the perceived authenticity (Shen & Kim, 2012).
The perceived authenticity describes how stakeholders view the organization as authentic (Shen & Kim, 2012). Stakeholders use available cues, such as accuracy and genuineness, to ascertain the extent to which the organization is true to itself (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). Perceived authentic organizational behavior is characterized as truthful, transparent, and consistent (Shen & Kim, 2012). Truthfulness refers to the way organizations act in accord with the true self and how they present a genuine as opposed to fake self. The authentic organization needs to present the genuine self in a transparent fashion (Shen & Kim, 2012). Transparency means that organizations objectively and truly acknowledge
11 consequences of self-behavior, be they negative or positive (Shen & Kim, 2012). Third, authentic organizations are consistent. Consistent organizational behavior is behavior that is congruent with the organizations values, beliefs and rhetoric. Consistency is built on truthfulness and transparency. Without true knowledge and an objective and transparent assessment of itself, an organization will not be able to act consistently (Shen & Kim, 2012). Research found that individuals will have an authentic feeling when they experience openness (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). This suggests that when an individual or in this case, an organization, openly communicates, this can lead to authentic individual behavior. Extending it to the organizational context, organizations become authentic when they openly and symmetrically communicate with their publics about their decisions and actions (Shen & Kim, 2012). To create an authentic view related to, organizations should openly communicate about all the CSR efforts. Consumers are willing to adopt a win-win perspective, believing that CSR initiatives can and should serve both the needs of society and the bottom lines of business (Du et al., 2010).
By communicating information about CSR activities a stakeholder can perceive the organization as transparent and as a reaction on that, authentic. The stakeholder will be less skeptical towards the CSR activities of the organization and in the end, rate the organizations reputation as positive (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). It is important for organizations to have a deeper understanding of how CSR communication needs to be designed in order to overcome skepticism and create an authentic view of themselves. One way organizations can reduce skepticism and create an authentic view is by engaging in a CSR initiatives and communicate about these initiatives. The next section will present different ways how organizations can design their CSR communication in order to do that.
12 CSR communication: content
Du et al. (2010) present a conceptual framework of CSR communication and analyzed different aspects, from message content to communication channels and factors that influence the effectiveness of CSR communication. In the conceptual framework of Du et al. (2010) a distinctions are made on what organizations should focus in their CSR communication. This thesis will follow the distinction made between CSR communication that focuses on commitment to the social cause and CSR communication that focuses on impact in society of the social cause (Du et al., 2010). When CSR communication focuses on commitment to a social cause, the focus will lay on the input side. Organizations can focus on their commitment to a social cause by emphasizing the amount of input, the durability of the association and the consistency of the input (Du et al., 2010). When CSR communication focuses on the impact of the social cause, the focus will lay on the output side. Organizations can focus on the impact by highlighting the output side of their CSR endeavor, the societal impact, or the actual benefits that have accrued or will accrue to the target of a social cause (Du et al., 2010).
According to Du et al. (2010) most CSR communication focuses on a company’s involvement in various social causes, rather than on the social causes themselves. Consumers are more likely to be suspicious of ulterior motives when the CSR message is predominantly about the social issue instead of the company or its products (Friestad & Wright, 1992; Du et al., 2010). Communicating the commitment of the organization can help solve societal issues may increase stakeholders awareness, but at the same time elevate skepticism, because stakeholders are generally more skeptical when they suspect CSR is only carried out in order to improve the corporate image (Yoon et al., 2006). If stakeholders and consumers think CSR is carried out in order to improve the corporate image, they accuse the organization of identity washing. This means that the organization tries to provide a better looking picture of
13 themselves than actually feasible (Elving & Van Vuuren, 2010). Identity washing can be seen as a promotional form of CSR to attract ‘ethical consumers’, allaying protests of activist stakeholders, and enhance the corporate reputation (Elving & van Vuuren, 2010). Identity washing creates skepticism amongst stakeholders, reducing credibility and trust in all corporate communications, making it more difficult for well-meaning corporations to communicate their real CSR achievements (Elving and van Vuuren, 2010).
It can be argued that stakeholders will experience more extrinsic motives and firm-serving motives when CSR communication focuses on the organizations commitment to the social cause and accuse the organization of identity washing. Stakeholders will probably experience more intrinsic and public serving motives when CSR communication focuses on the impact in the society. Since the literature showed that extrinsic motives and identity washing will lead to more skepticism than intrinsic motives, it can be argued that when CSR communication focuses on the output side of the organization’s CSR endeavor consumers will be less skeptical than when CSR communication focus on the organization’s commitment to a social cause. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: CSR communication with the focus on an organization’s commitment to CSR leads to more skepticism towards the CSR activities than CSR communication with the focus on the impact in the society.
Stakeholders will have an authentic feeling when they experience openness (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and see an alignment between the organization’s identity and the CSR program (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). Organizations need to openly and symmetrically communicate about their decisions and actions in order to be authentic (Shen & Kim, 2012). Consumers are willing to adopt a win-win perspective when it is about CSR. This means that
14 organizations should communicate all the CSR efforts they make; consumers are aware of the fact that CSR initiatives can and should serve both the needs of the society and the organization (Du et al., 2010). When an organization openly communicates about either the commitment to the social cause as well the output side, the impact, it can be expected that consumers will experience the organization’s behavior as genuine and trustful and have a high degree of authenticity (Shen & Kim, 2012). It makes an organization more reliable if the organization communicates both their own effort and the outcomes of the CSR. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: when CSR communication is a mix from communication with the focus on impact and commitment consumers will perceive the organization as more authentic then when the CSR communication only focuses on impact or commitment.
Besides the importance of the content organizations should communicate about their CSR activities, the channel by which they communicate can influence skepticism and authenticity as well. There exist a diverse range of channels through which companies communicate their CSR related information, such as social, environmental, and sustainability reporting, corporate websites, CSR advertising, public relations and social media platforms (Du & Vieira, 2012). Social, environmental, and sustainability reporting provide the most comprehensive picture of an organization’s overall performance (Gray, 2006; Du & Vieira, 2012). But organizations also communicate their CSR on corporate websites, through public relations and advertising. These communication channels are most of the time seen as marketing tools. Finally, CSR communication can come from a neutral, third-party source, including social audits by non-profit organizations (e.g. Greenpeace and Oxfam), newspaper editorials and CSR ranking by various organizations (Du et al., 2010). Nowadays, the
15 corporate identity and reputation is a total product of controlled and non-controlled messages (Cornelissen, 2000). Organizations have less control about what is being said about them. Organizations cannot control everything what is being said about them, so it is important to have a deeper understanding how the different communication channels influence consumers and other stakeholders skepticism and their perceived authenticity.
CSR communication: channel
From a consumer perspective, two types of communication channels differ: company controlled communication and company uncontrolled communication (Balmer, Fukukawa & Gray, 2007; Parguel et al., 2011). Organizations can control the content of the CSR communication trough their own corporate website, annual reports and public relations. But they cannot control how their CSR activities are communicated by external communicators like media, blogs, consumers and on forums. Research has shown that the less controllable the communicator is, the more credible it is, and vice versa (Bhattacharya & Sen 2003). Communicating CSR through independent channels has the distinct advantage that companies might appear more trustworthy and avoid being perceived as self-serving (Du et al., 2010). It is important to communicate in a neutral way, to avoid consumers to become skeptical (Asforth & Gibbs, 1990). This is confirmed by Yoon et al. (2006) who conducted three experiments in order to highlight the mediating role of perceived sincerity of motives, or in other words; skepticism, in determining the effectiveness of CSR activities. One of their results is that the source through which consumers learn about CSR affects the perceived sincerity (Yoon et al., 2006). This means that when the CSR activities are communicated by a seemingly neutral, company uncontrolled source, the CSR activities will be perceived as more intrinsically motivated and honest (Yoon et al., 2006). So consumers will be less skeptical when they learn about CSR activities from a neutral, company uncontrolled source, than when
16 they learn or hear about the CSR activities from an organizations own channel. CSR communication diffused through corporate channels will elicit more skepticism than communication from neutral sources (Du et al., 2010). Although getting media co-operation is often difficult, organizations should try to get positive media coverage from independent and neutral sources since this will result in less skepticism towards the organizations CSR activities. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: stakeholders will be less skeptical when they learn about CSR activities from a neutral source than from the company.
As stated before, consumers become skeptical when they perceive an organizations CSR motives as extrinsic and self-serving, instead of intrinsic. So, consumers will be most skeptical when the CSR activities are communicated by the organization itself, with the communication focusing on commitment to the social cause. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H4: skepticism amongst stakeholders will be highest when they learn about CSR activities from the company, with the company focusing on the organization’s commitment to CSR.
At the same time, organizations want to create an authentic view of themselves. The authentic organization needs to present the genuine self in a transparent fashion (Shen & Kim, 2012). Stakeholders use available cues, such as accuracy and genuineness, to ascertain the extent to which the organization is true to itself (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). Perceived authentic organizational behavior is characterized as truthful, transparent, and consistent
17 (Shen & Kim, 2012). Autonomously functioning individuals become authentic when they readily perceive their ongoing experience with openness (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). This suggests that communication can lead to authentic individual behavior. Extending it to the organizational context, organizations become authentic when they openly and symmetrically communicate with their publics about their decisions and actions (Shen & Kim, 2012). This suggests that organizations need to communicate by themselves and when they communicate the focus should lay on both their commitment as well as the impact in the society. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H5: stakeholders will perceive the organization as more authentic when they learn about CSR activities from the company, rather than from a neutral source.
H6: stakeholders will perceive the organization most authentic when they learn about CSR activities from the company itself, with the company focusing on both
commitment and impact.
The primary purpose for organizations to engage in corporate social activities is to increase corporate reputation as a function of good citizenship. The organizational reputation and its link with CSR will be explained next.
Reputation
Corporate reputation can be defined as “a cognitive representation of a organization actions and results that crystallizes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to its stakeholders” (Fombrun, Gardberg & Barnett, 2000, p.87). The reputation of an organization represents the reality of the organization for the stakeholder, regardless of what the organization believes
18 about itself (Bronn, 2010). With reputation it is about the question “what do others actually think about us?” Past behavior, performances and experiences influence the reputation, as well as communication (Bronn, 2010). Research has shown that the greater a firm’s contribution to social welfare, the better its reputation (Elving & Van Vuuren, 2011). Elving & Van Vuuren (2011) aim helping organizations who want to present and communicate about their CSR activities by suggesting ways to avoid the impression of greenwashing and create a better reputation with the engagement in CSR programs. When consumers and stakeholders perceive the organizations as doing good, it will cause them to see other activities in a more positive way (Bae & Cameron, 2006). So, when they think the CSR initiatives are good, investing in CSR activities will lead to a better reputation. In that way, engaging in and communicating about CSR can positively influence the reputation of a company (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006).
Several studies have shown that the degree of skepticism regarding the organizations motives to engage in CSR is a main predictor of the success of the CSR program (Bae & Cameron, 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). When stakeholders experience a high degree of skepticism, it can influence the organizational reputation in a negative way (Elving, 2010). If an organizations CSR initiatives are received as negative and skepticism among consumers and stakeholders will arise, this could be attributed to the whole organization and therefore have a negative influence on the organizations reputation. If consumers and stakeholders think the organization is not doing good, it will regard this to other activities of the organization (Bae & Cameron, 2006). This will lead to the following hypothesis:
H7: the degree of skepticism will negatively influence the reputation of the organization.
19
At the same time, the opposite can arise. When stakeholders attribute sincere motives and have a little or no skepticism, CSR activities have a positive influence on the attitude towards the organization (Bae & Cameron, 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). If consumers and stakeholders think the organization is doing good and the communication is received as truthful transparent and consistent, they will experience little or no skepticism and have a feeling of authenticity (Shen & Kim, 2012). Because of the feeling of authenticity, stakeholders will see the CSR program as a reflection of the organization and rate the organizations reputation as positive (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). In that way authenticity can strengthen the organization (McShane & Cunningham, 2012). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H8: the degree of authenticity will positively influence the reputation of the organization
An overview of all hypotheses can be found in the conceptual model in figure 1.
20 Method
To answer the research question (how can organizations utilize their CSR communication to create a positive corporate reputation?) and test the hypotheses, an online experiment is conducted. In this chapter, the research methodology regarding the experiment will be explained. First, a pre-test was conducted to check whether the manipulations were successful. The results of the pretest are presented in the first section of this chapter. After that the research design and procedure will be explained, followed by the measurements of this study. In the next section a description of the variables and experimental manipulations will be given. This chapter ends with an description of the respondents, the results of de randomization and an overview of the control variables.
Pre-test
The experiment test the differences between six conditions on the dependent variables skepticism, authenticity and reputation. There will be a random assignment of subjects to the conditions. The design will be a 2x3 design. In table 1 an overview of the conditions can be found.
Table 1. Experimental design
Channel Content
Condition 1 Controlled Commitment
Condition 2 Controlled Impact
Condition 3 Controlled Commitment x impact
Condition 4 Uncontrolled Commitment
Condition 5 Uncontrolled Impact
21 To make a distinction between the controlled communication and uncontrolled communication conditions, two fictitious organizations are made up. The controlled communication condition comes from an organization called Avona Care and the uncontrolled communication condition comes from an organization called MVO Magazine (in English: CSR Magazine). The message of both the parties is about the CSR activities of Avona Care. Avona Care is an organization that makes consumer care products and donates money from their Care-for-Health to help local communities in Africa. The focus on this message lays on either the commitment to the social cause, the impact or both the commitment and impact. To test whether the manipulations were successful a pre-test is conducted. A total of 42 respondents took part in the pre-test. Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents over the six conditions.
Table 2 – distribution of respondents in the pre-test (N)
Commitment Impact Commitment x Total Impact
Controlled communication 7 6 8 21
Uncontrolled communication 9 7 5 21
Total 16 13 13 42
The respondents were asked to answer three questions. The first question was to check if respondents were aware who the sender of the message was. The question respondent had to answer was “the message comes from…” with two answer options. The first answer option was organization self/Avona Care and the second option was neutral party/MVO magazine. The 21 respondents exposed to the Controlled/Avona Care condition answered the question from who the message was in the right way. One respondent who was exposed to the
22 Uncontrolled/MVO magazine condition answered the question from who the message was wrong, the other twenty respondents answered the question right. A chi-square test with message channel and the manipulation check question about the channel as the variables showed that the differences between the conditions were significant ² (1, N = 42) = 15.17, p < .001. The manipulation is successful.
The second question exists of two statements and regards questions about the content of the message. These questions were asked to check if the content was manipulated in the right way and if the respondents made a distinction between the commitment, impact and commitment x impact condition. The first statement was: “the message focuses mainly on what the organization does in the field of sustainability and development (for example, by defining what the organization does and how the organization is involved).” Respondents had the answer these statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree). Respondents exposed to the commitment condition had the highest score that the focus of the message laid on the organization’s commitment (M = 4.31, SD = .60) than respondents exposed to the impact condition (M = 2.38, SD = 1.45). Respondents exposed to the commitment x impact condition scored the same as respondents exposed to the commitment condition (M = 4.31, SD = .86). An Anova with the independent variable message content and the dependent variable the commitment manipulation check question showed that the differences found between the conditions are significant F(2, 39) = 3.82, p = .031. A post hoc test using the Bonferroni correction revealed that only the difference found between the commitment and the impact condition was significant, M difference = -1.93, p = .007. The manipulation is successful.
The second statement was: “the message focuses mainly on the results the organization has achieved in the field of sustainability and development (for example, by defining what the organization has accomplished).” Respondents had the answer these
23 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree). Respondents exposed to the impact condition were more agree that the message they just had seen was about the impact in the society (M = 4.46, SD = 1.45) than respondents exposed to the commitment condition (M = 1.69, SD = .60). Respondents exposed to the commitment x impact condition agreed most that the message was about the impact in the society (M = 4.83, SD = 1.30). An Anova with message channel as the independent variable and the channel manipulation check question as the dependent variable showed that the differences found between the conditions are significant F(2, 39) = 19.13, p < .001. A post hoc test using the Bonferroni correction revealed that the difference found between the commitment and the impact condition was significant, M difference = -2.77, p = .005. The manipulation is successful.
Research design
A 3x2 between subjects online experiment was conducted to measure the effects of CSR communication content and CSR communication channel on skepticism, authenticity and reputation. An experiment was conducted to analyze the influence of communication content and channel on skepticism and authenticity as well as test the causality between the skepticism, authenticity and reputation. The experiment was set up in Qualtrics, an online survey tool. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. A convenience sample of respondents eighteen years and up were asked to take part in the online experiment via social media, e-mail, and face-to-face contact. The snowball sampling method was also used in this experiment; respondents were asked to share the link directing to the online experiment through social media or e-mail with their friends and family. Participation in this research was voluntary and respondents did not receive any compensation for their participation.
24 Procedure
Over a period of eleven days respondents were asked to participate in an online experiment. After the respondents read an introduction to the experiment and were told they should take their time to view the page and read the text, they were exposed to one of the six conditions. When the respondents were done reading the webpage they were asked what the focus of the message was and who the sender of the message was. This in order to make sure the respondents properly viewed the material to ensure internal validity. After the control questions the respondents had to fill in a questionnaire. The questionnaire includes questions about skepticism, authenticity and organizational reputation. At the end of the questionnaire the respondents had to answer some questions regarding their age, gender and level of achieved education. After completing the questionnaire the respondents were offered the chance to provide feedback on the experiment. Almost all of the respondents took around four till five minutes to complete the online experiment.
Measurements Manipulations
CSR communication content. CSR communication content exists of two variables; Communication with the focus on an organizations commitment to the social cause and communication with the focus on the societal impact. CSR communication with the focus on commitment means that an organization focuses in their communication on the amount of input, the durability of the association and the consistency of input. Commitment was manipulated by words and sentences that describe what the organization does and think is important. Commitment is manipulated by phrases and words like: Avona Care attaches great importance to…, dedication, our activities, we donate money, we support and we are concerned. CSR communication with the focus on impact means that an organization focuses
25 in their communication on the output side of the CSR endeavor, the societal impact and the actual benefits that have accrued or will accrue. Impact was manipulated by words and sentences that describe what the organizations CSR activities has reached and achieved. Impact is manipulated by phrases and words like: Avona Care is a leader in the field of…, our our performances, results by which we help others and we make a difference. The commitment x impact condition is a mix from the two conditions described above. The manipulation texts can be found in Appendix A.
CSR communication channel. CSR communication content exists of company controlled communication by the organization itself and uncontrolled communication by a neutral source. Both the organization itself, as well the neutral source are fictitious organizations. The organization self is called Avona Cara and the neutral source is called MVO Magazine. For both the organizations a webpage was designed. The pages almost looked the same, but were different in organizational logo, web link and URL balk. The manipulation designs can be found in Appendix A.
Dependent variables:
Skepticism. The first dependent variable is skepticism. Skepticism was measured with four items on a five-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree) based on Skarmeas & Leonidou (2013). Examples of items that were included are “this organization is a social responsible organization” and “this organization cares about the welfare of society.” A reliability analysis showed that the items were reliable, α = .833.
Authenticity. The second dependent variable is authenticity. Authenticity was measured with seven items on a five point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree) and based on Shen & Kim (2013). Examples of the items are “This organization always tells
26 the truth” and “The organization’s beliefs and actions are consistent.” A reliability analysis showed that the items were reliable, α = .905.
Reputation. The third dependent variable is reputation. Reputation was measured with four items on a five point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree) based on Bae & Cameron (2006). Examples of the items are “I think this organization is an expert” and “This organization is trustworthy.” A reliability analysis showed that the items were reliable, α = .846.
Other questions
Manipulation check/control questions. To check whether the manipulation was successful the three questions from the pre-test were included in the survey and an extra question was added to make the manipulation check more valid. To check for the communication channel the respondents were asked who they thought the message came from and about which organization the message was. To check for communication content the respondents were asked with two statements what they thought the message was about and what the focus of the message was. they had to answer these statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree).
Demographics/personal questions. At the end of the survey respondents were asked to fill in some demographics. The respondents were asked for their gender, age and highest level of education. Beside these demographics the respondents were asked to answer two statements about their interest in sustainability and importance of corporate social responsibility. The total questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.
27 Participants
A total of 264 respondents were recruited via Facebook and email, 195 of them completed the experiment. Respondents had to answer four questions to check if they processed the website content. The first two questions were: “From who is this message?” and “About which organization is this message?” The respondents also had two answer two statements about the content and channel of the message to check if they processed the website content and to check if the manipulation was successful. The first statement was: the message focuses mainly on what the organization does in the field of sustainability and development (for example, by defining what the organization does and how the organization is involved).” Respondents had the answer these statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree). The second statement was: “the message focuses mainly on the results the organization has achieved in the field of sustainability and development (for example, by defining what the organization has accomplished).” Respondents had the answer these statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree). Seven respondents answered the control questions in the wrong way. These respondents are removed from the data, which resulted in a total of 188 respondents. 87 respondents are men, 101 respondents are women. Age varied from 18 years to 81 years old. The majority of the respondents was higher educated (41,5%). Table 3 shows the distribution of the respondents over the six conditions.
Table 3 – distribution of respondents over the six conditions (N)
Commitment Impact Commitment x Total Impact
Avona Care/controlled 38 36 30 104
MVO Magazine 25 27 32 84
/uncontrolled
28 Randomization
Whether the randomization to conditions was successful was examined by investigating the distribution of gender, age and level of education over the six experimental conditions. A two-way Anova with channel and content as the independent variables and age as the dependent variable showed that the distribution of age was equal between the two channel conditions, F(1, 182) = .18, p = .669, and between the three different content conditions, F(2, 182) = 2.26, p = .107. Also in the interaction between the channel and content conditions is age equally distributed F(2, 50) = 1.22, p = .298.
A two-way Anova with channel and content as the independent variables and highest educational level as the dependent variable showed that the distribution of education was equal over the two channel conditions F(1, 182) = .047, p = .829, and equal over the three content conditions F(2, 182) = .694, p = .501. Also in the interaction between channel and content was educational level equally distributed, so I can assume that education is equally distributed over the conditions F(2, 182) = .612, p = .543.
To check the distribution for gender a chi-square test was conducted and showed that the distribution of gender was equal over the conditions ² (2, N = 188) = 1.927, p = .381.
Control variables
Bivariate correlation analyses were conducted to see if there was a relationship between the control variables and the dependent variables. From the control variables interest in sustainability and importance corporate social responsibility it was expected that they might influenced the dependent variables. Interest in sustainability has no relationship with the dependent variables skepticism, r = .07, n = 188, p = .348, authenticity, r = .08, n = 188, p = .250 and reputation, r = -.01, n = 188, p = .900. Also importance corporate social responsibility has no relationship with the dependent variables skepticism, r = .123, n = 188, p
29 = .091, authenticity, r = .10, n = 188, p = .196 and reputation, r = .04, n = 188, p = .547. The control variables are excluded from further analysis.
Results
In the following section the results of the experiment are presented. The means and standard deviations of the variables are presented in the tables 4-6 in Appendix C. The results are divided in three parts and presented by dependent variable. First, the hypotheses regarding skepticism are tested. Second the hypotheses regarding authenticity are tested and third, the hypotheses regarding reputation are tested.
Skepticism
To test the hypotheses several univariate tests were conducted. In hypothesis 1 it was stated that CSR communication with the focus on an organization’s commitment to CSR leads to more skepticism towards the CSR activities than CSR communication with the focus on the impact in the society. Respondents exposed to the commitment condition were a little bit more skeptical (M = 3.75, SD = .69) than respondents exposed to the impact condition (M = 3.66, SD = .75) and respondents exposed to the commitment x impact condition (M = 3.59, SD .82), but the differences are minimal. An one-way Anova with CSR communication content as the independent variable and skepticism as the dependent variable shows that these means are not significantly different F(2, 185) = .68, p = .510. Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
In hypothesis 3 it was stated that stakeholders will be less skeptical when they learn about CSR activities from a neutral source than from the company. Respondents exposed to the uncontrolled, neutral condition were a little bit less skeptical (M = 3.60, SD = .77) than respondents exposed to the company controlled condition (M = 3.72, SD = .75), but the differences are at a minimum. An one-way Anova with CSR communication channel as the
30 independent variable and skepticism as the dependent variable shows that these means are not significantly different F(1, 186) = 1.02, p = .313. Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
In hypothesis 4 it was stated that skepticism amongst stakeholders will be highest when they learn about CSR activities from the company, with the company focusing on the organization’s commitment to CSR. Results show that skepticism amongst stakeholders when they learn from the company itself about its CSR activities is lowest when the focus lays on commitment (M = 3.67, SD = .73), instead of the focus on impact (M =3.74, SD = .69) or the focus on commitment x impact (M = 3.75, SD = .85). This is in contrast with the results from the uncontrolled content condition. In the uncontrolled/MVO magazine condition skepticism is lowest when the focus lays on commitment x impact (M = 3.44, SD = .78) instead of the focus on commitment (M = 3.86, SD = .64) or the focus on impact (M = 3.56, SD = .83). An one-way Anova with condition as the independent variable and skepticism as the dependent variable shows that these means are not significantly different F(5, 182) = 1.15, p = .335. A post hoc test using the Bonferroni correction did also not show significant results between the conditions. Hypothesis 4 is rejected.
Authenticity
In hypothesis 2 it was stated that when CSR communication is a mix from communication with the focus on impact and commitment consumers will perceive the organization as more authentic then when the CSR communication only focuses on impact or commitment. Respondents exposed to the commitment x impact condition perceived the organization almost as the same authentic (M = 3.09, SD = .63) as respondents exposed to the commitment condition (M = 3.10, SD = .58) and respondents exposed to the impact condition (M = 3.07, SD = .78). A one-way Anova with CSR communication content as the independent variable
31 and authenticity as the dependent variable shows that these means are not significantly different F(2, 185) = .04, p = .965. Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
In hypothesis 5 it was stated that stakeholders will perceive the organization as more authentic when they learn about CSR activities from the company source, than from a neutral source. Respondents exposed to the company condition perceived the organization as less authentic (M = 3.04, SD = .62) than respondents exposed to the neutral source condition (M = 3.15, SD = .71). A one-way Anova with CSR communication channel as the independent variable and authenticity as the dependent shows that these means are not significantly different F(1, 186) = 1.12, p = .291. Hypothesis 5 is rejected.
In hypothesis 6 it was stated that stakeholders will perceive the organization as the most authentic when they learn about CSR activities from the company itself, with the company focusing on both commitment and impact. Results show minimal differences between the six conditions. The controlled channel, impact condition is perceived as most authentic (M = 3.12, SD = .73) and the controlled channel, commitment condition has the lowest perceived authenticity (M = 2.93, SD = .51). Table 4 shows the results for all the conditions. An one-way Anova with condition as the independent variable and authenticity as the dependent variable shows that these means are not significantly different F(5, 182) = 1.40, p = .225. A post hoc test using the Bonferroni correction did also not show significant results between the conditions. Hypothesis 6 is rejected.
Reputation
Respondents in the uncontrolled commitment condition rated the reputation of Avona Care the highest (M = 3.24) and respondents in the controlled impact condition rated the reputation of Avona Care the lowest (M = 2.92). The average reputation in the different conditions can be found in table 5. An one-way Anova with the six conditions as the independent variable and reputation as the dependent variable shows that these means are not significantly different
32 F(5, 182) = 1.06, p = .385. A post hoc test using the Bonferroni correction did also not show significant results between the conditions.
In hypothesis 7 it was stated that the degree of skepticism among stakeholders will negatively influence the reputation of the organization. A regression analysis with reputation as the dependent variable and skepticism as the independent variable is significant, F(1, 186) = 40.56, p < .001. Reputation is predicted by skepticism for 17.9% (R² = .179). Skepticism significantly predicted reputation = .41, t = 6.37, p < .001, 95% CI [0.28, 0.53]. Hypothesis 7 is confirmed.
In hypothesis 8 it was stated that the degree of authenticity among stakeholders will positively influence the reputation of the organization. A regression analysis with reputation as the dependent variable and authenticity as the independent variable is significant, F(1, 186) = 56.28, p < .001. Reputation is predicted by authenticity for 57.1% (R² = .571). Authenticity significantly predicted reputation = .76, t = 15.73, p < .001, 95% CI [0.72, 0.93]. Hypothesis 8 is confirmed. To compare the influence of skepticism and authenticity on reputation with each other a multiple regression analysis was run with reputation as the dependent variable and skepticism and authenticity as the independent variables. The regression model is significant F(2, 185) = 126.70, p < .001. The regression model can therefore be used to predict the organizational reputation; 59% of the reputation can be predicted on the degree of skepticism and authenticity (R² = .59). Authenticity has a strongest significant association with reputation = 0.71, t = 13.22, p < .001, skepticism did not show a significant association with reputation in the multiple regression, = 0.10, t = 1.79, p = .08. Authenticity is a strong predictor of reputation.
33 Conclusion & discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of CSR communication content and communication channel on skepticism, authenticity and reputation. The research question in this study was: “How can organizations utilize their CSR communication to create a positive corporate reputation?” It was assumed that communication content and channel have an effect on skepticism among stakeholders towards the CSR program and create an authentic view of the organization. It was also assumed that the degree of skepticism amongst stakeholders and the perceived authenticity have a relation with the organizational reputation. This means that when an individual is less skeptical about the CSR initiatives it would rate the reputation of the organization as more positive than when the respondent is more skeptical. At the same time, when an individual perceived the organization as more authentic, he or she would rate the reputation as more positive, than when the individual perceived the organization as less authentic. This study contributed to the literature by researching the effect of CSR communication on skepticism, authenticity and reputation with an experiment (Ihlen et al., 2011). The results confirm that skepticism and authenticity influence organizational reputation, but do not confirm the expectation that communication content and communication channel influence skepticism, authenticity and reputation.
In the literature it was stated that consumers are skeptical about CSR initiatives of organizations (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Elving & Van Vuuren, 2011; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). In this study the assumptions were stated that CSR communication with the focus on commitment leads to more skepticism than CSR communication with the focus on impact (Du et al., 2010), that stakeholders will be less skeptical when they learn about CSR activities from a neutral source than from a company source (Asforth & Gibbs, 1990; Du et al., 2006) and that skepticism amongst stakeholders will be the highest when they learn about CSR activities from the company, with the company focusing on the organization’s
34 commitment to CSR (Asforth & Gibbs, 1990; Du et al., 2006). No significant support was found for these assumptions. A possible explanation is that stakeholders are leery of extrinsic motives inherent CSR in general and accuse the organization of greenwashing. As the literature has shown greenwashing has a direct link with skepticism and can ruin a good reputation (Elving, 2012). Regardless the focus of the CSR communication on commitment to a social cause, impact to a social cause or CSR communication that focus on a mix of those two, consumers are somehow skeptical to CSR initiatives of organizations and the degree of skepticism was average in all the conditions. Having a neutral, I do not know what to think or skeptical opinion about CSR could result in little or no differences in the evaluation of skepticism.
Besides skepticism, the literature stated that authenticity is particularly relevant to CSR (McShane & Cunningham, 2011). In this study the assumptions were stated that when CSR communication is a mix from communication with the focus on impact and commitment consumers will perceive the organization as more authentic then when the CSR communication only focuses on impact or commitment (Du et al., 2006; McShane & Cunningham, 2011), that stakeholders will perceive the organization as more authentic when they learn about CSR activities from the company source, than from a neutral source (Shen & Kim, 2012) and that stakeholders will perceive the organization as the most authentic when they learn about CSR activities from the company itself, with the company focusing on both commitment and impact (Du et al., 2006; McShane & Cunningham, 2011; Shen & Kim, 2012). No significant support was found for these assumptions. Little or no differences were made in the evaluation of authenticity in the six conditions. A possible explanation for these results is that the organizations were fictitious, which made it harder for respondents to evaluate the authenticity of the organization. It can be difficult to evaluate if the CSR program is a reflection of the organizations true self, if individuals do not have any background
35 information. A suggestion for further research would be to give respondents neutral, background information about the organization. Next to that, since consumers were a bit skeptical, it is logically that the perceived authenticity is not that high, as the literature showed that skepticism and authenticity are connected with each other (Shen & Kim, 2012). When consumers are somehow skeptical towards the CSR initiatives they will not consider the organization as truthful, accurate, reliable and genuine; factors that together form the perceived authenticity (Shen & Kim, 2012)
In this study the assumptions were stated that the degree of skepticism among stakeholders and the degree of authenticity among stakeholders will influence the reputation of the organization. Significant support was found for these assumptions. This is in line with the expectations that the degree of skepticism and authenticity will influence the organizational reputation (Bae & Cameron, 2006). As the results show, authenticity had a strong association with reputation, more than skepticism. Reputation was predicted for almost sixty percent by authenticity. So, it is important for organizations to create an authentic view if they want to have a good reputation.
Limitations and recommendations
The communicated content and channel did not have a positive influence on skepticism, authenticity and reputation. CSR communication is a complicated matter for organizations. Research showed consumers have a low awareness of CSR activities and want to know more about the good deeds organizations commit (Du et al., 2010), but at the same time stakeholders are skeptical when organizations communicate about their CSR activities (Bae & Cameron, 2006). Organizations need to be careful when communicating their CSR initiatives, so stakeholders will not get leery of extrinsic motives. Organizations have to convince stakeholders of their good intentions without making them distrustful. This makes it difficult
36 because organizations do not want their CSR communication have a backlash effect. Given the conclusion individuals are skeptical towards CSR activities of organizations, it might be good for organizations to start with thinking about the fit between the social cause and the organization, instead of investing in the communication. When stakeholders believe the CSR activities fit the organization, they will experience it as authentic (Van Rekom et al., 2014). With a fit, individuals will probably see an alignment and evaluate the CSR program as a notion of the organization true self. So, for further research it would be suggested to include fit as a variable and test whether fit would influence the outcomes.
However, the effects could also be caused by the choice to research the effects of a fictitious organization. Choosing an organization who individuals already know information of and have an opinion about, could provide more insight in skepticism about the CSR program of that organization, the authenticity of the organization and how these two concepts are related to how the stakeholders rate the reputation. It is easier for individuals the evaluate if the CSR program is a notion of the organizations true self, if the communication is about an existing organization. It can be hard to see alignment between the organization and the CSR program and evaluate at fictitious organizations truthfulness, accuracy, reliability and genuineness. So a limitation of this study can be the choose of organization. For further research it would be suggested to investigate an existing organization, as it will be easier to evaluate the organization if individuals do know more about the organization, so they can make an alignment between the organization and its CSR program.
Despite the limitations, this study has contributed to knowledge about CSR communication. More and more organizations are involved in CSR activities and since doing good needs to be made public they use various forms of communication to convey their information. It is clear that more research needs to be done to investigate how CSR communication needs to be designed to avoid feelings of distrust and greenwashing. The
