The effects of stakeholder group, media use and stakeholder
expectations on CSR awareness and perceived CSR of Royal
Dutch Shell
Anna Le Guennec (11901233)
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Corporate Communication
Iina Hellsten
29
thof June 2018
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an integral part of communication for organisations. Those who do not use it are assumed to partake in negative
practices, yet those who communicate about it too much are doubted (Morsing, Schultz & Nielsen, 2008). Organisations deal with multiple stakeholder groups, each with their own expectations as to what CSR means to them. These stakeholder groups use different media platforms to inform themselves on an organisation’s CSR
practices. This paper is split into two parts. The first part answers the question of what effect stakeholder groups, and their various media habits, have on stakeholder
expectations and CSR awareness. The second part focuses on Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), and the effects that different stakeholder groups have on expectations and on the perceived CSR of RDS. The results concerning the first part of the research find that stakeholders have different media habits across groups, and that they have different expectations regarding what CSR should be. Stakeholder CSR expectations and media use habits had a mediating effect on how aware the stakeholders were of RDS’s CSR activities. The results for the second part of the research found no statistically significant mediation between stakeholder groups, CSR expectations, and the perceived CSR of RDS.
Introduction
According to the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project, 2016), Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) ranks as the fourth most sustainable oil and gas companies in the world, behind Statoil, Eni, and Total. Since publication of these rankings, RDS is likely to have moved further up the ranking, as the company recently vowed to cut their net carbon footprint of its products in half by 2050 (Vaughan, 2018). Despite the ranking, RDS has found itself on the top of another, less complimentary ranking - that of most hated company (Moodie, 2016). RDS has been at the top of this ranking for several years running, in a variety of different (yet similarly themed) charts, regarding perceived reputation and brand image according to the general public (Moodie, 2016;
Prweek.com, 2016; Rodionova, 2016).
Organisations are increasingly at reputational risk if their CSR does not align with their corporate behaviour. Communication has been called the missing link between CSR on paper and CSR in practice (Dawkins, 2003). Communication in the 21st century now strongly refers to digital communication, which has taken on two main forms for almost all organisations: Owned media, and earned media (Illia, Romenti, Rodríguez-Cánovas, Murtarelli & Carroll, 2017). Owned media refers to spaces in which the organisation owns and controls the content, such as official social media accounts and company websites. Earned media refers to content generated by an outside source, such as the news, or word of mouth (Illia et al., 2017). Furthermore, different stakeholder groups rely on different communication platforms to receive credible information from organisations, leading to questions about how organisations should communicate their CSR initiatives (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010).
A study by Vanhamme & Grobben (2009) concluded that CSR influences a consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. However, CSR can only influence
consumers if they are aware of the initiatives, meaning the organisation has to be successful in their CSR communication (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). Therefore, corporations such as RDS have become more vocal about their practices in an attempt to generate a more favourable reputation towards their consumers (Shell.com, 2018).
Additionally, CSR has the ability to impact many other stakeholders, such as investors. Socially responsible investment (SRI), where investors choose to invest in organisations that abide to socially responsible behaviour, has become increasingly important in mainstream investors (Sparkes & Cowton, 2004). As this practice becomes mainstream, organisations are being forced into acting more socially responsible (Sparkes & Cowton, 2004). It is important for RDS to communicate effectively and efficiently, in order to convince investors, such as asset managers, that they are doing their best to be a socially responsible organisation.
Carroll (1991) created the pyramid of CSR, in which he states that an organisation should be responsible for making sure they are profitable, as well as making sure to be legally responsible for their actions, followed by their responsibility towards ethical behaviour, and lastly, they should behave philanthropically. However, in Europe, it has long been the case that society expects organisations to have
responsibilities that surpass those towards just their profitability, shareholders and consumers (Doh & Guay, 2006). Non-government organisations (NGOs) also bridge the gap between the concerns of the general public and organisational concerns (Guay, Doh & Sinclair, 2004). Therefore, NGOs are an important stakeholder when it comes to CSR.
The research paper will answer two different questions. The first will answer, ‘How do different stakeholder groups’ media use and CSR expectations affect CSR
awareness?’ The second question will answer, ‘How do stakeholder groups’ CSR expectations affect the perceived CSR of RDS?’
Previous research has often included variables such as CSR expectations, CSR awareness, media use habits, and stakeholder groups. These variables have all been studied before (Carroll, 1991; Illia et al., 2018; Dawkins & Lewis, 2003; Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Golob, Lah & Jančič, 2008), however, they have never been studied in relation to one another in the same way as is being done in this research paper. Furthermore, there are organisations that make a lot of effort in their CSR initiatives, but still struggle to been seen as socially responsible by some of their biggest stakeholders. This research can help organisations understand how different stakeholder groups differ in their media consumption habits, as well as how they differ in their CSR expectations, and how this will affect the way they are perceived.
Theoretical framework
Defining CSR
Any CSR definition should consider all stakeholder groups of an organisation (Hopkins, 2003). However, creating a definition of CSR that tries to encompass all stakeholder groups and their expectations end up being vague, hesitant statements (Dahlsurd, 2008). Therefore, several definitions of CSR should be presented and criticised, in order to provide a better understanding of the term (Hack, Kenyon & Wood, 2014).
Bouwen (1953) described CSR as organisations having a duty to “pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are
Carroll’s (1979) definition of CSR was described as the “economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organisations at a given point and time” (Carroll, 1979, p.499). Carroll (1991) later developed the CSR
pyramid, showing the four key components that an organisation should be responsible for: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic.
Economic responsibilities are depicted as being the building block for an organisation. However, Carroll (1991) states that the priority of an organisation should not be maximum profitability, particularly if that means sacrificing the other three components. The second component is legal responsibility, where an
organisation is expected to reach profitability within the constructs of the law. This ties into the third component of the pyramid, ethics, whereby organisations should also make sure to follow the societal ethics, even if they are not legally obliged. The final block in the pyramid is the philanthropic component, described as the
responsibility for an organisation to become a good corporate citizen.
Elkington (1997) proposed the Triple Bottom Line approach, which put CSR at the core of organisational responsibilities. This approach consists of a ‘Profit, People and Planet’ model, where all three of these terms are put into consideration when measuring the success of an organisation. ‘Profit’, refers to the economic state of an organisation. ‘Planet’, measures how an organisation and its activity impact the environment. ‘People’ explores how socially responsible the organisation is a whole (Elkington, 1997). An issue with the Triple Bottom Line approach, however, is the difficulty to measure the three P’s (Profit, Planet and People) in an equal and quantitative manner (Sridhar & Jones, 2013).
of Carroll’s 1991 CSR pyramid (economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic) set up in a similar way to Elkingston’s (1997) Triple Bottom Line. Instead of a pyramid structure, economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities are all equally important to achieve corporate social responsibility.
Stakeholder groups & Media Use
Du, Bhattacharya & Sen (2010) state the importance of good CSR communication. When stakeholders are convinced of a company’s positive CSR contributions, they’re more likely to purchase products, seek employment, or to invest money in the organisation (Du et al., 2010). Additionally, there has been an increased demand in recent years by stakeholders for organisations to take accountability for their actions through transparency, due to more accessible information regarding organisational CSR activities being available on social media platforms and in the news (Waddock & Goggins, 2011).
Illia et al. (2017) defines to two types of media. The first is owned media, referring to information that is controlled by the organisation, such as their own social media platforms. The second is earned media, referring to content generated by an outside source, such as the news, or other stakeholders through word of mouth. Most stakeholders see owned media (information that is controlled by the organisation, such as their own social media platforms) as untrustworthy (Illia et al., 2017).
Consumers tend to be the main reason for organisations to implement CSR activities (Auger, Devinney & Louvier, 2004), as consumers have strong relationships with organisations (Friednman & Miles, 2006). This makes consumers one of the most important stakeholders for organisations to consider when they implement CSR activities (Golob, Lah & Jančič, 2008).
Investors have traditionally been less concerned with CSR in organisations, although this has changed in recent years with the growing popularity of socially responsible investments (SRI) (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003; Sparkes & Cowton, 2004). Asset managers are investors in organisations, and many of them are focusing exclusively on socially responsible investments (RobecoSAM, 2018). This makes asset managers an interesting group to study, due to the possible shift in their expectations regarding CSR.
NGOs have access to corporations and other institutions in order to instigate social gain, or to try avoid the negative effects of one sector affecting another (Teegan, Doh & Vachani, 2004). Teegan et al (2004) further state that NGOs fill a gap where organisations do not meet the social and environmental needs of
consumers, local communities, and society as a whole, making them an important stakeholder to organisations.
Du et al (2010) state that every stakeholder group differs in the way they gather information about CSR. Dawkins (2003) put stakeholders into two groups. The first are opinion-leader audiences, which include investors and NGOs. The second are the general public, which includes consumers and local communities. Opinion-leader audiences are more likely to find CSR information about an organisation through their own media, such as corporate websites and CSR reports (Du et al., 2010). Students, typically aged from 18 to 29, are more likely to use social media than any other societal demographic, yet do not necessarily use those platforms to inform themselves about organisational activity, instead opting to use earned media, such as news outlets, instead (Tran, 2018). This leads to the following hypotheses regarding the use of media amongst the stakeholder groups:
NGO workers
H1b: Students and NGO workers read earned media more frequently than asset managers
Stakeholder groups & Expectations
The CSR definition by Carroll (1979, p.499) connects with expectations that stakeholders have of an organisation. According to Creyer and Ross (1997),
stakeholder expectations are the beliefs that stakeholder groups have regarding what is expected of an organisation.
One of the factors the above definitions fail to specifically mention is that not all stakeholder groups have the same CSR expectations. Dawkins & Lewis (2003) argue that the responsibilities of an organisation should not be on just one stakeholder, such as its shareholders, but rather on having a greater perspective, and balancing the different demands of all of their stakeholders to try and meet all of them.
Maignan (2001) discussed the fact that managers and consumers have
different ideas about what they expect from CSR, where consumers are most likely to place legal and ethical responsibilities above economic ones, and managers are more likely to find economic responsibilities most important. Kolodinsky, Madden, Zisk & Henkel (2010) found that students were more likely to favour the importance of ethical and philanthropic behaviour in organisations, over purely economic behaviour, if this aligned with their already ethical views.
For other stakeholder groups, such as NGOs with an environmental focus, their concerns were found to be much more fixated on organisations being responsible for their impact on the environment (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003). Investors, on the other hand, are more likely to be concerned about the financial responsibilities of an
organisation. This leads to the following hypotheses
H2a: Asset managers have higher agreement with statements that prioritise organisations’ economic responsibilities over legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities
H2b: Students and NGO workers have higher agreement with statements that prioritise legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities over organisations’ economic responsibilities
Stakeholder groups & RDS CSR Initiative Awareness
Organisations are under pressure when it comes to their CSR activities, due to social media, CSR rankings, and CSR surveillance institutions (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Stakeholders are therefore expected to have more CSR awareness towards an organisation than before, due to the increase in available information (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). In a study by Lee and Shin (2010), a positive relationship was found between CSR awareness and purchase intention, meaning that CSR awareness is important for the success of an organisation.
Although organisations communicate their CSR initiatives, stakeholders often have low awareness of those initiatives, which in turn may have a negative effect on the organisation - despite the positive impact that the CSR initiatives have on society (Du et al., 2010; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2008). Opinion-leaders, such as investors and NGOs, are more likely to see evidence of the impact that a company’s CSR programs has, as they are more likely to read earned media, which include benchmarks, trends in the CSR report, indicators and targets (Du et al., 2010). Therefore, this leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Asset managers and NGO workers have higher CSR awareness than students
Stakeholder Expectations & RDS CSR Initiative Awareness
Werther and Chandler (2005) state that for CSR to be successful,
organisations should not raise stakeholder expectations if they are not prepared to then meet those expectations. The awareness that stakeholders have of an
organisations’ CSR practices can be related to expectations, as the higher those expectations are, the more invested stakeholders are in CSR initiatives (Werther & Chandler, 2005). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Stakeholder expectations have a positive effect on CSR awareness
Media Use & RDS CSR Initiative Awareness
Stakeholders have proven to be more convinced of an organisation’s CSR efforts when informing themselves about it using earned media rather than through the organisation’s owned media (Du et al., 2010; Ilia et al., 2017). As stakeholders find earned media more convincing, the following hypotheses are proposed, assuming that stakeholders are less likely to take-in information they do not find believable:
H5a: More frequent use of owned media has a negative effect on CSR awareness
H5b: More frequent use of earned media has a positive effect on CSR awareness
Stakeholder Groups, Media Use & RDS CSR Initiative Awareness Du et al (2010) found that stakeholders show low awareness when an
organisation is seen as too aggressively promoting their CSR activities, or when they are too ambitious about the targets they wish to reach. This is partly due to
organisations using ‘greenwashing’, where a positive spin is used to convince stakeholders that the organisation is being more socially responsible than it is in
reality (Reilly & Hynan, 2014). Reilly and Hynan (2014) contribute greenwashing in part to the media owned and controlled by the organisations, such as their social media accounts, corporate websites, annual and sustainability reports.
As different stakeholder groups use different media outlets to inform
themselves on CSR initiatives of organisations (Du et al., 2010; Tran, 2018), media use could act as a mediator between the different stakeholder groups, and how aware they are of RDS’s CSR initiatives. Therefore, the following hypotheses are being tested:
H6a: Stakeholder groups using RDS’s owned media more frequently have higher CSR awareness
H6b: Stakeholder groups reading more earned media about RDS more frequently have higher CSR awareness
Stakeholder Groups, Stakeholder Expectations & Perceived RDS CSR Responsibility
Additionally, T\the higher a consumers’ expectations of CSR are, the higher their perception of an organisations own CSR activities (Liu, Wong, Rongweir & Tseng, 2014). Therefore, consumers with higher CSR expectations will regard RDS as being socially responsible to their stakeholders. As
stakeholder groups have differing expectations regarding CSR (Golob et al., 2008), the following hypothesis is proposed:
H7: Stakeholder groups with higher stakeholder expectations perceive RDS as having less responsibility towards it stakeholders
Stakeholder Group Media Use: - Owned media - Earned media Stakeholder Awareness Stakeholder Expectations RDS Perceived CSR H1a & H1b H5a & H5b H2a & H2b H6a & H6b H3 H7 H4
Methodology Research Design
In order to be able to test the hypotheses, a survey was used and distributed to RDS’s three stakeholder groups: the general public (students), investment firms that hold RDS, and NGOs. A survey was used as it produces empirical data, and has the ability to collect data on many individuals, creating a representative sample that can eventually be used to generalise a population (Kelley, Clark, Brown & Sitzia, 2003).
Several variables will be tested to answer the hypotheses. The independent variable is stakeholder group, while the dependent variables are stakeholder
expectations, CSR awareness, earned and owned media use, and the perceived CSR of RDS. Media use and stakeholder expectations are used as a mediator. Media use is used to determine whether it creates a stronger or weaker relationship between stakeholder groups and CSR awareness, whereas stakeholder awareness will be used as a mediator between stakeholder group and the perceived CSR of RDS.
The owned media variable includes RDS’s social media and corporate reporting. Earned media includes mainstream news, business newspapers, business magazines, and word of mouth. The perceived CSR of RDS variable will stem from asking respondents how responsible they believe RDS is towards its stakeholders.
The first questions in the survey (see Appendix 2) are categorised under ‘Basic Information’, and are needed in order to define what stakeholder group the participant belongs to, what age group they belong to, what level of education they have achieved, and to identify which social media platforms they use the most, as well as which platforms they use in order to inform themselves on RDS’s
The questions that follow were categorised under ‘stakeholder expectations’, and are used to understand what sustainability within an organisation means to stakeholders, and whether they believe RDS falls into the category of a sustainable company. The questions are based on previous literature by Golob et al (2008), and were created to measure CSR stakeholder expectations using 22 statements and a 5-point Likert scale. The scale to test stakeholder expectations was tested in a prior research by Golob et al (2008). The questions were split into four categories, which were economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (which will in this research be referred to as ‘philanthropy’ for reasons of clarity). The scale was a 5-point Likert scale, varying from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’, and was found to be reliable (Golob et al., 2008).
The ‘CSR awareness’ questions have been gathered by going through the Facebook page of RDS, and checking the posts from the passed year, as well as RDS’s sustainability reports from the last ten years. The most recurring CSR projects and efforts have been integrated into the questions, and participants were asked to what extent they are aware of these projects.
Sample
The sample included a total of 102 respondents, the majority of which are students (64.7%). All participants were above the age of eighteen. Furthermore, the participants agreed to the terms and conditions of the survey. The terms included a brief overview of the survey, as well as a confidentiality agreement, where it is stated that their answers are completely anonymous.
Procedure
distributed among respondents using an anonymous link, which the researcher sent out through social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. These social media platforms were used, as they are amongst the most used world wide, and RDS makes use of all three (Statusbrew Blog, 2018).
Results
The aim of this research paper is to answer two different questions. The first question will answer how different stakeholder groups’ media use and CSR
expectations affect CSR awareness. The second question will answer how stakeholder groups’ CSR expectations affect the perceived CSR of RDS.
Descriptives
The total size of the population came to 102 participants of the survey. The percentage of participants who were students was 64.7% (n=66), 97% of which were aged 18 to 29. Asset managers made up 20.6% (n=21) of the population, 47.6% of which were aged 18 to 29, 23.8% were aged 30 to 39, and 14.3% were aged 50 to 59. NGO employees/volunteers made up 14.7% (n=15) of the population, with 66.7% of which were aged 18 to 29, 13.3% were aged were aged 30 to 39, 13.3% were aged 40 to 49, and 6.7% were aged 60 to 69.
Scale Reliability
A reliability analysis was carried out on the scale measuring how often participants use both social and traditional media. The scale comprised of 8 items, which can be found in Appendix 2, including ‘Never’ to ‘A few times a day’. Cronbach’s Alpha showed the scale to reach questionable reliability, α = 0.68.
However, most items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted. There were two exceptions to this, items one and two, which would
increase the alpha to α = 0.74 and α = 78. As such, removal of these two items, which were Facebook use and Twitter use, should be considered.
The same scale, an 8-point scale, was used to measure how often participants use RDS’s social media platforms and traditional media platforms. Cronbach’s Alpha showed the scale to reach excellent reliability, α = 0.90. All items were worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted.
To answer the question of which communication methods participants deem the most necessary, a 5-point Likert scale was used, from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Cronbach’s alpha showed the scale to reach excellent reliability, α = 0.81. However, if the item ‘communication through corporate advertising’ were deleted, reliability would increase, α = 0.83. This should be taken in account for future research.
To measure the reliability of the CSR Awareness questions, Cronbach’s Alpha is used. A 5-point Likert scale was used, varying from ‘Not At All Aware’ to
‘Extremely Aware’. Cronbach’s alpha showed the scale to reach excellent reliability, α = 0.92. All items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in either a decrease or equal to the alpha if deleted.
The final scale whose reliability was measured was that of Perceived Responsibility of RDS by the participants of the survey. A 5-point Likert scale was used, varying from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’. Cronbach’s Alpha showed the scale to reach questionable reliability, α = 0.69. All items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted.
Stakeholder Group & Media Use
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences in owned media use scores between the three different stakeholder groups. Distributions of the owned media scores were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of owned media scores were all statistically significantly different between the groups, mainstream news H(2) = 16.736, p = .001, business newspapers H(2) = 33.790, p = .001, and business magazines H(2) =
21.010, p = .001. The use of word of mouth communication had no significant
differences between the groups. A summary of these can be seen in Table 1.1.1 in the appendix.
As all of the scores were statistically significant, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p-values are presented.
Table 1.1.2 in the appendix shows an overview of the statistically significant differences between the groups based on the varying owned media uses, as well as the insignificant differences. A higher mean rank indicates more frequent use, while a lower mean rank indicates a less frequent use.
The following hypothesis was being tested, H1a: Asset managers read RDS’s owned media more frequently than students and NGO workers
The results show that asset managers use more owned media on platforms such as LinkedIn, the RDS official websites, and the reports. However, students and NGOs used RDS’s Twitter and Facebook more often. Therefore, the hypothesis can be partially accepted.
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences in earned media use scores between the three different stakeholder groups. Distributions of the earned media scores were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of owned media scores were almost all statistically significantly different between the groups, apart from word of mouth use, RDS Facebook H(2) = 13.292, p = .001, RDS Twitter H(2) = 10.295, p = .006, RDS LinkedIn H(2) = 9.827, p = .007, RDS Official Website H(2) = 24.731, p = .001, RDS annual reports H(2) = 44.944, p = .001, and RDS sustainability reports H(2) =
46.600, p = .001. A summary of these results are as shown in the Table 1.2.1 in the appendix.
To further assess the three significant scores of earned media use, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p-values are presented.
Table 1.2.2 in the appendix shows an overview the statistically significant differences between the groups based on the varying owned media uses, as well as the insignificant differences (show in red). A higher mean rank indicates higher
frequency use, while a lower mean rank indicates a lower frequency use.
The following hypothesis was being tested, H1b: Students and NGO workers use earned media more frequently than asset managers
The results show that asset managers use more earned media to read about RDS than NGO workers and students. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted.
Stakeholder Group & Expectations
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences in how different stakeholder groups view the CSR of organisations, based on four categories: Philanthropic, Legal, Ethical and Economical. The test checks if there were
differences in these expectations. The scores were between three categories of
participants from different stakeholder groups. The distributions of all four categories of stakeholder expectations were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. Each category will be assessed separately.
Philanthropic Category
In the philanthropic category, the distributions of the expectations were statistically significantly different between groups, specifically for the following variables, Actively seek to reduce unemployment χ2(2) = 7.908, p = .019, Offer job opportunities for vulnerable groups χ2(2) = 15.508, p = .001, Take part in voluntary activities for society welfare χ2(2) = 23.152, p = .001, and Play a crucial role in projects aimed at quality of life improvement χ2(2) = 13.636, p = .001. Table 1.3.1 in the appendix show the overview of the results.
As all of the differences in the philanthropic category were statistically significant, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p-values are
presented. The outcome of all the tests can be found in the appendix under Table 1.3.2.
Ethical Category
In the ethical category, the distributions of the expectations were statistically significantly different between groups, specifically for the following variables: Conduct ethical business despite being less economically efficient χ2(2) =
12.195, p = .002, Consider people, society and nature before profit χ2(2) =
16.887, p = .001, Check every business decision in light of ethical standards χ2(2) = 10.757, p = .005, Define ethical standards and be ethical to them at all times χ2(2) = 6.857, p = .032, First meet all ethical business principles and then think of profit growth χ2(2) = 13.236, p = .001. Table 1.3.3 in the appendix show the overview of the results.
As almost all of the differences in the economic category were statistically significant, a post hoc analysis was performed. A summary of the results can be found in Table 1.3.4 in the appendix.
Legal Category
In the legal category, there were no statistically significant differences in the distributions of the expectations between the groups.
Economic Category
In the economic category, the distributions of the expectations were statistically significantly different between groups, specifically for the following variables: Take profit as the company’s only concern χ2(2) = 7.405, p = .025, Take profitability as the only measure of effectiveness χ2(2) = 10.408, p = .005, Always improve economic performance χ2(2) = 20.901, p = .001, Work only for the
shareholders’ interests χ2(2) = 6.857, p = .032, Conduct business just for profit χ2(2) = 11.585, p = .003, and Be bound to achieve maximum profitability χ2(2) =
20.131, p = .001. 1.3.5 in the appendix show the overview of the results.
As all of the differences in the economic category were statistically significant, a post hoc analysis was performed. A summary of the statistical differences between the groups can be found in Table 1.3.6.
The following hypotheses were being tested: H2a: Asset managers have higher agreement with statements that prioritise organisations’ economic responsibilities over legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities, and, H2b: Students and NGO workers have higher agreement with statements that prioritise legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities over organisations’ economic responsibilities
Based on the results, asset managers agreed more with organisations prioritising economic responsibilities over ethical and philanthropic ones, whereas students and NGOs agreed with organisations prioritising ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Therefore, the hypothesis can be accepted.
Stakeholder Group & CSR Awareness
A Kruskal-Wallis H test was run to determine if there were differences in CSR awareness scores between three different stakeholder groups. Distributions of the owned media scores were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a boxplot. The distributions of owned media scores were almost all statistically significantly different between the groups, including: carbon capture and storage efforts χ2(2) = 42.691, p = .001, transition to natural gases χ2(2) = 37.845, p = .001, cooperation to transition to low carbon energy χ2(2) = 28.772, p = .001, investment in cleaner burning natural gases χ2(2) = 36.388, p = .001, RDS ‘GameChanger’ program χ2(2) = 13.205, p = .001, RDS ‘Shell Technology’ program χ2(2) = 7.191, p = .027, RDS ‘TechWork’ program χ2(2) = 12.836, p = .002, and the sky scenarios χ2(2) = 32.919, p = .001. The only statistically insignificant variable was the RDS eco-marathons. A summary of the results can be found in Table 1.4.1.
To further assess the three significant scores of CSR awareness, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn's (1964) procedure with a Bonferroni
correction for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p-values are presented. This post hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in between the stakeholder groups, the specifics of which can be found in Table 1.4.2.
The following hypothesis was tested, H3: Asset managers and NGO workers have higher CSR awareness than students
The results showed that asset managers and NGOs both had higher CSR awareness than students. Therefore, the hypothesis is partially accepted.
Stakeholder Expectation & CSR Awareness
A multiple regression was run to predict CSR awareness from stakeholder expectations. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.564. R2 for the overall model was 32.3% with an adjusted R2 of 15.6%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that stakeholder expectations statistically significantly predicted CSR awareness, F(20, 81) = 1.935, p = .020.
When examining the coefficients, the only variables that had a statistical significance were those between CSR awareness, and the following five variables: Take profit as the company's only concern(β = .35, p = .045), Work only for the shareholders' interests (β = -.34, p = .014), Conduct ethical business despite being less economically efficient (β = -.34, p = .024), and Check every business decision in light of ethical standards (β = -.49, p = .001).
The following hypothesis was being tested, H4: Stakeholder expectations have a positive effect on CSR awareness
A summary of the results is shown in Table 1.5.1 in the appendix. The results show that there is indeed a statistically significant effect of stakeholder expectations on CSR awareness, and that the predictors of CSR awareness were from the ethical and philanthropic categories. Therefore, the hypothesis is accepted.
Media Use & CSR Awareness
A multiple regression was run to predict CSR awareness from owned media use, which included Facebook use, Twitter use, LinkedIn use, and official company website use. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.855. R2 for the overall model was 32.7% with an adjusted R2 of 29.9%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that owned media use statistically significantly predicted CSR awareness, F(4, 97) = 11.776, p = .001. Two of the four variables added statistical significance, which were Facebook Use (β = -.41, p = .001), and LinkedIn Use (β = .33, p = .001). Table 1.6.1 in the appendix shows a summary of these results.
The following hypothesis was tested, H5a: More frequent use of owned media has a negative effect on CSR awareness
The result can be partially accepted, as Facebook use and LinkedIn use had statistically significant positive relationships with CSR awareness.
A multiple regression was run to predict CSR awareness from earned media use, which included mainstream news use, business newspaper use, business
magazine use, and word of mouth. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.841. R2 for the overall model was 28% with an adjusted R2 of 25%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that earned media statistically significantly
predicted CSR awareness, F(4, 97) = 9.432, p = .001. However, only one of the four variables added statistical significance, Business Use (β = .69, p = .001).
The following hypothesis was tested, H5b: More frequent use of earned media has a positive effect on CSR awareness
The result can be partially accepted, as business newspaper use has a significantly positive relation with CSR awareness.
Stakeholder Group, Royal Dutch Shell Media Use & Royal Dutch Shell CSR Awareness
In order to test whether RDS’s own media use is a mediator between the stakeholder groups and CSR awareness, multiple regression was run to predict CSR awareness from stakeholder group. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.697. R2 for the overall model was 35.7% with an adjusted R2 of 35%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall
multiple regression model showed that stakeholder group significantly predicted CSR awareness, F(1, 100) = 55.492, p = .001.
The test was then run to predict RDS’s owned media use from stakeholder group. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.752. R2 for the overall model was 30.2% with an adjusted R2 of 29.5%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that stakeholder group significantly predicted CSR awareness, F(1, 100) =
43.337, p = .001.
Finally, test was then run to predict CSR awareness from owned media use. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of
2.114. R2 for the overall model was 59.3% with an adjusted R2 of 56.7%, a moderate size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that owned media use significantly predicted CSR awareness, F(6, 95) =
23.054, p = .001. The only statistically significant variable under earned media use was ‘RDS’s official website’.
A Sobel test was conducted and found a mediation in the model (z = 2.89, p = .004). (c = .58, p < .001; c’ = .37, ns; Sobel’s Z = 4.93, p < .001).
The following hypothesis was being tested, H6a: Stakeholder groups using RDS’s owned media more frequently have higher CSR awareness
As RDS’s own media was found to mediate the relationship between stakeholder groups and CSR awareness, the hypothesis can be accepted.
In order to test whether RDS’s earned media use is a mediator between stakeholder group and CSR awareness, the above results were used to predict CSR awareness from stakeholder group, which, as stated above, was statistically
significant, F(1, 100) = 55.492, p = .001.
The second step was to run a multiple regression analysis to predict earned media use from stakeholder group. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.660. R2 for the overall model was 30.7% with an adjusted R2 of 30%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that stakeholder group significantly predicted earned media, F(1, 100) = 44.321, p = .001.
The third step was to run a multiple regression in order to predict CSR awareness use from earned media. There was independence of residuals, as assessed
by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.060. R2 for the overall model was 47.5% with an adjusted R2 of 45.3%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that earned media predicted CSR awareness, F(4, 97) = 21.907, p = .001. The only statistically significant variable under earned media use was ‘Business Magazines’.
A Sobel test was then conducted and found a mediation in the model (c = .92, p < .001; c’ = -.61, ns; Sobel’s Z = -3.22, p = .001).
The following hypothesis was being tested, H6b: Stakeholder groups reading more earned media about RDS more frequently have higher CSR awareness
As RDS’s own media was found to have a mediating effect, the hypothesis can be accepted.
Stakeholder Group, Stakeholder Expectations & RDS Perceived CSR
In order to test for this hypothesis, a multiple regression was run to predict RDS perceived CSR from stakeholder group. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.068. R2 for the overall model was 58% with an adjusted R2 of 48%, a moderate size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that stakeholder group significantly predicted CSR awareness, F(1, 100) = 66.209, p = .015. Exact differences between the groups were tested using a Kruskal-Wallis H, of which a summary of the results can be found in Tables 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 in the appendix.
Step two was to run a multiple regression to predict stakeholder expectations from stakeholder group. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.222. R2 for the overall model was 43% with an
adjusted R2 of 33%, a small size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that stakeholder group significantly predicted stakeholder expectations, F(1, 100) = 4.461, p = .037.
Step three was to predict RDS perceived CSR from stakeholder expectations. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.131. R2 for the overall model was 70% with an adjusted R2 of 60%, a moderate to high size effect according to Cohen (1988).The overall multiple regression model showed that stakeholder expectations predicted RDS perceived CSR, F(1, 100) = 7.495, p = .007.
A Sobel test was then conducted and found that there was no statistically significant mediation in the model (c = 2.74, p = .037; c’ = 1.31, ns; Sobel’s Z = -1.68, p = .093).
The following hypothesis was being tested, H7: Stakeholder groups with higher stakeholder expectations perceive RDS as having less responsibility towards it stakeholders
As there was no mediation effect found between stakeholder expectations, stakeholder groups and RDS perceived CSR, the hypothesis is rejected.
Discussion
The aim of this research paper was to answer two different questions. The first question relates to how different stakeholder groups’ media use and CSR expectations affect CSR awareness. The second question will aim to answer how stakeholder groups’ CSR expectations affect the perceived CSR of RDS.
Stakeholder Group & Media Use
The results showed that asset managers use RDS’s LinkedIn profile, corporate website, and sustainability and annual reports more than NGOs and students. Students, on the other hand, are the most likely to use RDS’s Facebook, while NGO workers use RDS’s Twitter the most. Dawkins & Lewis (2003) categorised NGOs and asset managers in the same group, as opinion leaders, while Du, Bhattacharya & Sen (2010) stated that these two groups were likely to gather more owned media information. However, asset managers were still much more likely to read RDS’s sustainability and annual reports than NGO workers, which leads to the potential conclusion that NGO workers may not be as invested in finding out about RDS’s CSR initiatives via their own media as asset managers.
Overall, asset managers used earned media much more than students or NGO workers. This is an unexpected result, since NGO’s and students were likely to find RDS’s owned media less believable, leading to them putting more trust in earned media (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). This could be a result of lack on interests amongst NGOs and students for the topic of RDS’s CSR.
Stakeholder Group & Expectations
The results showed that asset managers highly prioritise economic success over philanthropic and ethical responsibilities,. Asset managers invest in organisations, and therefore value the importance of succeeding economically first, and ethically and philanthropically second (Carroll, 1991).
NGO’s were in much higher agreement with statements that prioritized ethical and philanthropic responsibilities over economic success. Students, on the other hand, were found to have moderate mean ranks, putting them in between NGO’s and asset
managers. This could be due to varying results, as previous research has shown that students have different attitudes depending on their pre-existing opinions on ethics (Kolodinsky et al., 2010).
The three stakeholder groups showed to agree on organisations obeying the law at all costs. Referring back to Maignan (2001), this shows that although different stakeholder groups do differ in their expectations towards CSR, they all agree legal responsibilities are important for an organisation.
These results point to difficulties for organisations, as they must communicate their CSR in different ways to satisfy their stakeholder groups. However, if
organisations exaggerated their ethical and philanthropic initiatives for the purpose of pleasing certain groups, such as NGOs or students, they risk resorting to
greenwashing, which would paradoxically place them as neglecting their ethical responsibilities (Reilly & Hynan, 2014).
Stakeholder Group & CSR Awareness
Overall, the results proved to be as expected, with asset managers and NGOs being more aware of the various CSR initiatives taken on by RDS than students. The results correlate with previous research by Du et al (2010). Asset managers were the most highly aware of CSR initiatives compared to NGOs. This could in part be due to the growth in socially responsible investing over the last decade, leading to investors paying more attention to the CSR activities of the organisations in which they are investing (Sparkes & Cowton, 2004).
Interestingly, all stakeholder groups were relatively unaware of some of the programmes RDS initiated, such as the Eco Marathon, the TechWork programme, and the Technology Ventures programme. These initiatives were found on RDS’s
official Facebook profile (Facebook.com, 2018), which the results showed as mostly being followed by students. Students had relatively low overall awareness of RDS’s CSR initiatives, while NGOs and asset managers were less inclined to follow RDS’s Facebook profile.
Stakeholder Expectation & CSR Awareness
The results showed that two statements from the economic category, and two statements from the ethical category had significant relationship with CSR awareness. However, as is summarised in Table 1.5.1 of the appendix, the results do not follow a reasonable correlation patter. The only variable with a strong statistical significance is the statement “Check every business decision in light of ethical standards”, which has a strong positive relation to CSR awareness. This result implies that stakeholder who value the ethical responsibilities of an organisation have higher CSR awareness.
Media Use & CSR Awareness
The results show that the use of Facebook has a negative effect on CSR awareness, meaning that RDS’s social media presence does not seem to have much effect on their CSR awareness. On the other hand, LinkedIn use is positively related to CSR awareness. However, these results are more likely to be correlated with stakeholder group, as asset managers were more likely to use LinkedIn, as well as have higher CSR awareness. Students, on the other hand, were most likely to use Facebook, yet were the least likely to be aware of RDS’s CSR initiatives.
Business newspaper use is the only platform that has a positive effect on CSR awareness. As with the previous hypothesis, this can be related to the correlations between stakeholder group and CSR awareness, as asset managers were the most likely to use business newspapers, and had the highest CSR awareness. However,
previous research states that investors and NGOs are more likely to use owned media over earned media (Du et al., 2010). Furthermore, all of the other forms of earned media yielded no significant results.
As can be seen in Table 1.2.2 of the appendix, business newspaper use had the highest use amongst asset managers, compared to mainstream news and business magazines. This could explain the significant relationship the use of business newspapers has with CSR awareness. The results imply that organisations should focus on communicating their CSR initiatives to business newspapers in order to inform investors of these initiatives.
Stakeholder Group, Media Use & CSR Awareness
The results show a statistically significant full mediation of RDS’s own media and earned media used by stakeholder groups to create increased CSR awareness. This means that where RDS communicates their CSR efforts, by using their own platforms, has a positive effect on CSR awareness, as does the way in which they are communicated about in earned media. It also indicates that stakeholder groups are predicted using RDS’s own and earned media, which has been demonstrated and discussed above. Furthermore, previous results showed that in fact, earned and owned media did not, in most cases, have a significant effect on CSR awareness.
Stakeholder Group, Stakeholder Expectations & RDS Perceived CSR No mediation was found between the stakeholder groups, stakeholder expectations, and RDS perceived CSR. However, all predictor variables were found statistically significantly predict the dependent variables. As seen in Table 1.7.2 in the appendix, asset managers had the highest agreement about RDS’s CSR towards its
stakeholder groups, while NGOs had the lowest, especially regarding RDS’s local community and the environment.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this research, organisations should keep in mind that their different stakeholder groups use different platforms in order to gather
information on CSR. Asset managers are more inclined to use mainstream news, business newspapers, business magazines, LinkedIn accounts, corporate websites and annual and sustainability reports. This stakeholder group expects organisations to perform ethically and philanthropically, within the constraints of the law, and while making sure to prioritise economic success. Therefore, this relevant information should be made clear when communicating with asset managers. Furthermore,
LinkedIn positively affects CSR awareness. This result means that organisations such as Royal Dutch Shell should focus on communicating relevant CSR initiatives that highlight economic benefits towards their asset managers.
NGOs use Twitter more often that asset managers, and use LinkedIn, annual reports and sustainability reports more than students. Furthermore, NGOs and students both find ethical and philanthropic responsibilities more important for organisations than asset managers do. NGOs are more aware of RDS’s CSR
initiatives than students, yet not as aware as asset managers. The results suggest that organisations such as RDS should predominantly use their Twitter account to
communicate with NGOs about ethical and philanthropic initiatives. Students should be communicated with on similar initiatives, but rather through Facebook.
Limitations & Further Research
One of the limitations to this study is the lack of diversity in the population. The majority of the population are students between 18 and 29 years of age. This limitation creates an issue with the reliability of the research, as the distribution is not
normally distributed. Measuring overall stakeholder awareness therefore becomes less reliable. Related to this issue is a second limitation with the sample, in that it was relatively small.
Future research should aim to further test the assumptions in this paper, using a population with varying age groups, and a greater diversity amongst stakeholder groups. Additionally, surveying RDS employees could create interesting results in comparing stakeholder awareness and CSR expectations, as well as how RDS employees perceive their responsibilities towards CSR in comparison to other stakeholders.
References
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and
profitability. Academy of management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 258-271.
Blowfield, M. (2009). Business, corporate responsibility and poverty reduction. In J. C. Marques & P. Utting (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and regulatory governance: Towards inclusive development?. Palgrave: Basingstoke.
Bowen, H. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 15(1), p.42.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California management review, 56(2), 130-153.
Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1997). Tradeoffs between price and quality: How a value index affects. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(2), 280-302.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate social responsibility and environmental
management, 15(1), 1-13.
Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholde expectations: And their
implication forcompany strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3), 185 193.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: an institutional‐ stakeholder
perspective. Journal of management studies, 43(1), 47-73.
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. Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and
reporting of survey research. International Journal for quality in health care, 15(3), 261-266.
Kolodinsky, R. W., Madden, T. M., Zisk, D. S., & Henkel, E. T. (2010). Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 167-181.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of twenty-first centurybusiness. Capstone.
Facebook.com. (2018). Shell. [online] Available at: https://www.facebook.com/Shell/ [Accessed 19 Apr. 2018].
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.
New York Times Magazine, September, 13.
Golob, U., Lah, M., & Jančič, Z. (2008). Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 83-96.
Guay, T., Doh, J. P., & Sinclair, G. (2004). Non-governmental organizations,
shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: Ethical, strategic, and governance implications. Journal of business ethics, 52(1), 125-139. Hack, L., Kenyon, A. J., & Wood, E. H. (2014). A Critical Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Timeline: how should it be understood now. International Journal of Management Cases, 16(4), 46-55.
Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448.
Hopkins, M. (2003). The business case for CSR: where are we?. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(2-3), 125-140.
Lee, K. H., & Shin, D. (2010). Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 193-195.
Illia, L., Romenti, S., Rodríguez-Cánovas, B., Murtarelli, G., & Carroll, C. E. (2017). Exploring corporations’ dialogue about CSR in the digital era. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 39-58.
Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of business ethics, 30(1), 57-72.
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.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1), 2.
Robecosam.com. (2018). Sustainability Investing | RobecoSAM. [online] Available at: http://www.robecosam.com/ [Accessed 26 May 2018].
Reilly, A. H., & Hynan, K. A. (2014). Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It's not easy (really) being green. Business Horizons, 57(6), 747 758.
Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Habbash, M. (2012). An Examination of Environmental Disclosures in UK Corporate Annual Reports. Journal of Accounting, Business & Management, 19(1).
Sheehy, B. (2015). Defining CSR: Problems and solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 625-648.
Shell.com. (2018). Sustainability – Our Approach. [online] Available at:
https://www.shell.com/sustainability/our-approach.html [Accessed 24 May 2018].
Sparkes, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2004). The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 45-57.
Sridhar, K., & Jones, G. (2013). The three fundamental criticisms of the Triple Bottom Line approach: An empirical study to link sustainability reports in
companies based in the Asia-Pacific region and TBL shortcomings. Asian
Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 91-111.
Statusbrew Blog. (2018). 100 Social Media Statistics You Must Know [2018]. [online] Available at: https://blog.statusbrew.com/social-media-statistics-2018-for business/ [Accessed 27 May 2018].
Tingchi Liu, M., Anthony Wong, I., Rongwei, C., & Tseng, T. H. (2014). Do perceived CSR initiatives enhance customer preference and loyalty in casinos?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 26(7), 1024-1045.
Teegen, H., Doh, J. P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An
international business research agenda. Journal of international business studies, 35(6), 463-483.
Tran, K. (2018). Social platforms are most popular among 18- to 29-year-olds. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/social platforms-are-most-popular-among-18-to-29-year-olds-2018-3?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 25 May 2018].
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85(2), 273.
Wim J.L. Elving (2013) Scepticism and corporate social responsibility
communications: the influence of fit and reputation, Journal of Marketing Communications, 19:4, 277-292, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2011.631569
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (2012). Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on mediacoverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1079-1101.
Appendix
1. TablesTable 1.1.1
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in owned media use scores between stakeholder groups Owned Media Use d.f. H-value p-value
RDS Facebook use 2 13.292 .001 RDS Twitter use 2 10.295 .006 RDS LinkedIn use 2 9.827 .007 RDS Official website use 2 24.731 .001 RDS Annual reports 2 44.944 .001 RDS Sustainability reports 2 46.600 .001
Table 1.1.2.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in owned media use scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) RDS Facebook 33.05** 58.13 48.17 RDS Twitter 52.67 42.62** 71.33 RDS LinkedIn 63.74** 44.81 63.80 RDS Official Website 67.38** 41.00** 74.47 Annual Reports 81.86** 40.20** 58.73** Sustainability Reports 82.90** 40.00** 58.13** **p < 0.05 Table 1.2.1.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in earned media use scores between stakeholder groups Earned Media Use d.f. H-value p-value
Mainstream news 2 16.736 .001 Business newspaper 2 33.790 .001 Business magazine 2 21.010 .001
Word of mouth 2 2.929 .239
Table 1.2.2.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in earned media use scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) Mainstream news 74.40** 44.44 50.50** Business newspaper 83.64** 41.19 50.50** Business magazine 76.81** 43.36 51.87** **p < 0.05 Table 1.3.2.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in philanthropic scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) Actively seek to reduce
unemployment
37.45 52.61 61.87**
Offer jobs to vulnerable groups
34.33 52.69** 70.70** Take part in voluntary
activities for societal welfare
28.76 53.88** 72.87**
Play a crucial role in projects aimed at quality of life improvement
36.05 41.00 70.00**
**p < 0.05
Table 1.3.1.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in philanthropic scores between stakeholder groups Philanthropic category d.f. H-value p-value
Actively seek to reduce unemployment
2 7.908 .019
Offer jobs to vulnerable groups
2 15.508 .001
Take part in voluntary activities for societal welfare
2 23.152 .001
Play a crucial role in projects aimed at quality of life improvement
Table 1.3.3.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in ethical scores between stakeholder groups Ethical category d.f. H-value p-value
Consider moral standards on account of profit
2 2.871 .238
Conduct ethical business despite being less economically efficient
2 12.195 .002
Consider people, society & nature before profit
2 16.887 .001
Check every business decision in light of ethical standards
2 10.757 .005
Define ethical standards and be ethical to them at all times
2 6.857 .032
First meet all ethical business principles and then think of profit growth
2 13.236 .001
Table 1.3.4.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in ethical scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) Conduct ethical business
despite being less economically efficient
36.50 52.77 69.27**
Consider people, society & nature before profit
33.12** 52.77 71.63** Check every business
decision in light of ethical standards
47.05 48.14** 72.50**
Define ethical standards and be ethical to them at all times
44.98 43.88 67.43**
First meet all ethical business principles and then think of profit growth
42.26 49.12** 74.90**
Table 1.3.5.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in economic scores between stakeholder groups Economic category d.f. H-value p-value
Take profit as the company's only concern
2 7.405 .025
Take profitability as the only measure of effectiveness
2 10.408 .005
Always improve economic performance
2 20.901 .001
Work only for the shareholders’ interests
2 6.857 .032
Conduct business just for profit 2 11.585 .003 Be bound to achieve maximum profitability 2 20.131 .001 Table 1.3.6.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in economic scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) Take profit as the
company's only concern
37.43 52.01 68.23**
Take profitability as the only measure of effectiveness 37.83 52.01 68.40** Always improve economic performance 34.12** 54.10** 71.27** Work only for the
shareholders’ interests
29.21 55.10 71.50**
Conduct business just for profit 39.12** 54.10 71.27** Be bound to achieve maximum profitability 34.14** 51.10 77.57** **p < 0.05
Table 1.4.1.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in CSR awareness scores between stakeholder groups CSR Awareness d.f. H-value p-value
Carbon capture & storage 2 7.405 .025 Transition to natural gases 2 10.408 .005 Cooperation with governments to
transition to low carbon energy
2 20.901 .001
Investment in cleaner burning natural gases
2 6.857 .032
‘GameChanger’ program 2 11.585 .003
‘Shell Technology’ program 2 20.131 .001
‘TechWork’ program 2 12.836 .002
Eco-Marathons 2 1.291 .524
Sky Scenarios 2 32.919 .001
Table 1.4.2.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in CSR awareness scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) Carbon capture & storage 84.17** 38.98** 60.87** Transition to natural
gases
79.79** 38.84** 67.60 Cooperation with
governments to transition to low carbon energy
79.96** 40.70** 63.73
Investment in cleaner burning natural gases
79.40** 39.42** 65.60 ‘GameChanger’ program 65.57** 49.39 45.93 ‘Shell Technology’ program 63.12** 49.05 45.93 ‘TechWork’ program 56.86** 50.33 49.13** Sky Scenarios 77.93** 41.93 56.60** **p < 0.05
Table 1.5.1
B SE B β t p
Take profit as the company's only concern 2.936 1.441 .351 2.038 .045 Work only for the shareholders' interests -2.276 1.076 -.342 -2.534 .013 Conduct ethical business despite being less
economically efficient
-2.982 1.292 -.337 -2.308 .024 Check every business decision in light of ethical
standards 5.581 1.567 -.490 3.562 .001 Table 1.6.1 B SE B β t p Facebook use -1.825 .375 -.413 6.345 .001 LinkedIn use 1.328 .367 .334 3.615 .001 Table 1.6.2. B SE B β t p
Business newspaper use 2.599 .754 .688 3.446 .001
Table1. 7.2.
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in perceived RDS CSR scores between stakeholder groups Asset Managers
(and Students)
Students (and NGOs)
NGOS (and Asset Managers) Its employees 68.02** 43.45** 63.77 Its consumers 67.76** 47.31 47.17 Its shareholders 60.52 46.29 61.80 The local community 58.02 55.95** 31.53** The environment 64.45 53.89** 22.83** **p < 0.05
Table 1.7.1
Kruskal-Wallis H for differences in perceived RDS CSR scores between stakeholder groups Perceived Responsibility d.f.a H-valueb p-valuec
Its employees 2 15.910 .001
Its consumers 2 8.888 .012
Its shareholders 2 6.523 .038 The local community 2 9.019 .011 The environment 2 19.953 .001
