Criticism and impression management: investigating their
relationship
Rosalie Anne Gérardine Smits Student number: 10438270 Due date: 29th of June 2015 Final Version Master Thesis
Msc. In Business Administration – Strategy Track University of Amsterdam
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student: Rosalie Anne Gérardine Smits, who
declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and
that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision
of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
With the rising level of criticism on organizations due to the increasing speed by which criticism can be shared and the society becoming more critical in general, ways to defend the legitimacy of organizations become increasingly important too. One way to defend
legitimacy is with the use of impression management. Impression management is a tactic, which is used by a character (which could be an individual or an organization) to influence the perception others have of that character. Impression management can be carried out using various forms, and in this research three different techniques will be used that outline three forms of impression management. Looking at the recent developments around criticism, this study analyses the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management. In this research, two country-level specific variables are taken into account: level of literacy and the level of press freedom. Assuming that these two variables influence the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management, a moderating analysis was performed. The results obtained, which are based on the sample from The Dow Jones Sector Titans Index, show that there is not a significant positive relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management.
However, for one variable, ‘Amount of positive news’, a negative significant relationship was found. The moderating analyses showed that the level of literacy does not significantly
influence the relationship. For the level of press freedom a significant relationship was found, but again this was negative. This meant that all hypotheses were rejected because of results that were non-significant or the opposite of what was hypothesized. The present research fills the identified gap in the impression management literature and provides multiple insights for future research.
Table of Content
1. Introduction 5
2. Literature Review 11
2.1 Legitimacy 11
2.2 Impression management 12
2.3 Country-specific variables that might have a moderating effect on the relationship between criticism and
impression management.. 17
2.3.1. Literacy 18
2.3.2. Press Freedom 21
2.4 Conclusion 24
3. Theoretical Framework & Conceptual model 25
3.1 Hypotheses 25
4. Research Methods 29
4.1 Sample & data collection 29
4.2 Variables 32 4.2.1. Dependent variables 32 4.2.2. Independent variable 35 4.2.3. Moderating variables 35 4.2.4. Control variables 37 4.3 Data analysis 38 4.4 Results 43 5. Discussion 49
5.1 Analyses of the results 49
5.2 Academic relevance 52
5.3 Managerial implications 54
5.4 Limitations & suggestions for future research 55
6. Conclusion 57
7. Acknowledgement 60
1 Introduction
‘Do you know how to turn ordinary water into a billion-dollar business? In Switzerland there's a company which has developed the art to perfection - Nestlé. This company dominates the global business in bottled water.’ These are the first sentences of the plot summary for the documentary ‘Bottled Life: Nestlé’s Business with Water’ which was released in 2012. This documentary investigates the world of bottled water and attacks Nestlé for not conducting responsible business and for being unethical. Following this documentary, a couple of old video clips appeared online in which the Chairman of the Board of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, called the notion of drinking water as a basic human right ‘an extreme idea’. Clearly, Nestlé was under a lot of pressure. Brabeck-Letmathe reacted to this criticism with a letter in the Huffington Post in which he explained he had been
misunderstood; of course he thought that safe drinking water is a human right (Brabeck-Letmathe, 2013). An often-used way to deal with criticism is through the use of impression management, a technique that is aimed at influencing the perception others have of you, which is exactly what Nestlé did. Shortly after the article was published, Nestlé started an online blog called ‘Water Challenge’ promoting the idea of availability of water for everyone. This blog developed into an extensive website about Responsible Water
Stewardship (Nestlé, 2015). This blog is a form of impression management, because via this website Nestlé is trying to influence and change the perception the audience has about Nestlé.
But why exactly was Nestlé so concerned about the criticism in the first place? This is because the criticism threatened their organizational legitimacy. ‘Organizations seek to establish congruence between the social values associated with or implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable behaviour in the larger social system of which they are a part. Insofar as these two value systems are congruent we can speak of organizational legitimacy. When an actual or potential disparity exists between the two value systems, there will exist a
threat to the organizational legitimacy’ (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). This was the case for Nestlé in 2012: a disparity existed between the two value systems and this was pointed out by the critics, which led to a potential threat to the legitimacy of the Swiss Company.
‘The notion that an organization will be rewarded for having legitimacy is a
ubiquitous theme in organizational theory’ (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Lipskey, 1968; Zald, 1978 as cited in Elsbach & Sutton, 1992, p.700). ‘Acquiring and maintaining legitimacy are chronic difficulties for most organizations, regardless of how widely recognized they are or how widely supported they have been in the past’ (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992, p. 700). Criticism in the media can threaten the legitimacy of companies, which can be extremely problematic. For example, in 1994, a firm known for its good social responsibility, the Body Shop, was criticized for exploiting the populations it was supposedly helping. ‘This type of criticism may threaten members’ perceptions of what the organization is and what it stands for’ (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996, p.442). The Body Shop case was extensively covered in newspapers like ‘The Independent’ and ‘The Guardian’. Jon Entine (1994) published a revealing article in ‘Business Ethics: The magazine of Corporate Social Responsibility’, in which he attacked the Body Shop and made several accusations. He, for example, claimed that The Body Shop sourced only a tiny amount of its ingredients through its Trade Not Aid Program, although that was a centrepiece of the company’s image, and he also stated that the company invented stories about the exotic origins of its products. As a consequence of this criticism, the share price of the Body Shop fell (Delroy, 1994). The number of cases such as that of the Body Shop, in which multinationals receive a lot of criticism, has increased in the past decades and therefore a lot of research has been conducted on the ways in which a company can deal with this criticism (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996, Elsbach & Sutton, 1992, Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982).
manage their legitimacy. However, the focus of this article will be solely on the impression management technique. Impression management, according to Schlenker (1980), ‘involves the behaviours people exhibit to create and maintain desired impressions’ (as cited in Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p.42). For companies, it is very important to manage the perception of the public audience about the company, and one of the ways to do this is by using impression management techniques, for instance by spreading positive information about the social impact of these companies.
In the past decades, the criticism and boycotting of companies has changed and increased. ‘Activist organizations of all kinds, both on the right and the left, have grown much more aggressive and effective in bringing public pressure to bear on corporations. Activist may target the most visible or successful companies merely to draw attention to an issue, even if those corporations actually have little impact on the problem at hand’ (Porter & Kramer, 2006, p. 2).
The change is mainly due to the rise of the Internet and social media, which made communication much faster and thus led to a situation in which critics could more easily unite and start campaigns. ‘Activists nowadays use the media to make negative claims about their corporate targets, hoping to gain leverage over them by damaging their reputation’ (McDonnell & King, 2013, p. 389). They hope that they can make a change for a better world by convincing consumers to acknowledge their responsibility, or by pressuring companies to a point where they must revise their production. With the use of the new media, they can reach a bigger audience than decades ago and thus make a bigger change.
Next to the technological developments, society in general has become more critical of companies, which has caused an increase in the level of criticism itself. ‘Discussions of the responsibilities of business and its role in society have been motivated by the growing
awareness of unfair or discriminatory business behaviour and an increasing number of social and environmental scandals’ (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). The traditional understanding of responsibility was that companies were responsible only for their own asset in the production chain. Consumers were not responsible for the way the products were produced, and thus also not for the poor working conditions of the workers manufacturing those products (Young, 2004). This understanding no longer suffices nowadays, because there is a growing belief that companies should take responsibility for the production of their goods. An example of this is the campaigns against the poor working conditions of the far-away workers who produced goods for the multinationals Gap, Disney, Nike and Victoria’s Secret in the 1990s. Even though these companies actually only bought the end-product produced and were therefore not legally responsible for what happened lower in the supply chain, they were compelled to take responsibility for the poor working conditions of the workers. Companies that often reacted to external critique by pointing to the legal independence of their suppliers were forced to start to act on a concept of responsibility that instead referred to the consequences of their structural connectedness and covered the whole supply chain (Young, 2004). The pressures increased, and according to Scherer and Palazzo (2007, p.1096), ‘companies nowadays are sometimes expected to become socially committed even in areas not directly related to their business’.
In the light of the developments in the past decades described above, this research will focus on the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management. The level of criticism has increased in the past years and a way to deal with criticism is using impression management techniques. There will be a specific focus on whether the amount of criticism on a company influences the level of impression management conducted by that specific company. The research question therefore is: ‘Do companies that receive a higher
level of CSR-related criticism also engage more strongly in CSR-related impression management?’ The criticism and impression management in this research are only CSR-related criticism and CSR-CSR-related impression management because this research focuses on social and environmental issues.
Following the first research question, this study will examine whether the level of literacy and the level of press freedom in the countries, in which the companies are active, have an influence on the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of
impression management. Because the companies used in this research are active in multiple countries, these levels can vary from one country to another. It can be argued that both aspects – level of literacy in a country and the level of press freedom – have an impact on how strongly public criticism weighs on companies. Therefore it seems conceivable that these moderators can influence the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management.
This research is a contribution to the academic field because in most existing research, impression management is operationalized and/or measured in one way while there are many different types of impression management techniques. For example, McDonnell & King (2013) only use prosocial claims as a key impression management tool in their research. That is why in this research, different facets of impression management will be studied. These three different types of impression management form a broader explanation of impression management – instead of just using one variable - and can therefore lead to new insights and enrich the field of impression management. By measuring more types of impression
management, there will be more elaborate results, which can contribute to the field of impression management.
management, a single national context is studied and the fact that companies are active in many different countries is not taken into consideration. In this research however, country specific data will be considered to see whether this has an effect on the relationship between criticism and impression management. These country-specific variables will be the level of literacy and the level of press freedom in a country, in which the company operates. This has the potential to broaden the perspective of impression management and may lead to new insights into the importance of country-level variables. These outcomes have interesting implications for International Business as well, because they provide insight into the extent to which the literacy level and the level of press freedom of a country, in which the firm
operates, may impact the behaviour of a company.
This research consists of several chapters. The first chapter will discuss the existing literature on this topic so far, to gain a complete perspective on the topic. After that, the theoretical framework will follow in which all hypotheses will be explained. Thirdly, the method section will explain how the data was gathered, what exact method was used for this research and what the results are. This will lead to chapter four, the discussion, in which the results will be discussed. The final chapter contains the conclusion, the academic and managerial
2 Literature review
This chapter will elaborate on the most relevant literature on this thesis’ topics to give an overview of what kind of research has been conducted on these topics so far. Firstly, the definition of legitimacy and why it is important for companies will be explained. After this an overview will be given of different types of impression management. Lastly the two possible moderators, level of literacy and level of press freedom, and their effects on populations will be described.
2.1 Legitimacy
‘Organizations rely on the approval of relevant others, or ‘target audiences’, to obtain needed resources and survive’ (Meyer & Rowan, 1977 as cited in McDonnell & King, 2013). The audience, the general public, is very important for a company because it is very
powerful, and therefore it is willing to go far to keep this audience content. For example, the recent collapse of the garment-factory in Bangladesh led to discussions about the labour conditions. Critics called for changes in laws to end modern slavery by forcing major High Street companies (like H&M, Zara) to audit their supply chain. The companies who were producing their clothing in Bangladesh were of course not pleased with all this negative media attention. Such criticisms may threaten members’ perceptions of what the organization is and what it stands for (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). This might change the way the audience sees the company: their legitimacy is in danger. But what exactly is legitimacy? Suchman (1995) explains that over the years, social scientists have offered a number of definitions of legitimacy, with varying degrees of specificity. He adopts an ‘inclusive, broad-based definition of legitimacy that incorporates both the evaluative and the cognitive dimensions
and he explicitly acknowledges the role of the social audience in legitimisation dynamics’ (Suchman, 1995, p. 573). His definition of legitimacy is: ‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’. In this study this definition of the term legitimacy will be used.
2.2 Impression management
The important question is: ‘How to achieve and maintain this legitimacy’? As said, there are many different management techniques to deal with critique and achieve and maintain legitimacy. However, this article will solely focus on impression management and thus this management technique will be explained in depth.
Impression management is originally a concept from sociology and physiological sociology. Schlenker (1980) described it as ‘a goal-directed activity of regulating or controlling
information that is conveyed to audiences, thereby influencing the impressions formed by those audiences’. The definition of impression management is often vague, because there are many activities that could be considered impression management. First and foremost,
impression management is about a character (this could be an individual or an organization) trying to control the image others have of that character. This controlling is done by self-presentation. Schneider (1981) defined this self-presentation as ‘the manipulation of information about the self by the actor. Such presentations may involve verbal behaviour, nonverbal behaviour, and artifactual displays such as dress and office décor’ (as cited in Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p. 42). In addition, Schneider (1981) ‘identified purposive behaviours as a larger class of self-presentational behaviours that involve the application of
verbal, nonverbal, and artifactual behaviours to the pursuit of an actor’s interaction objectives’. Types of these behaviours are ingratiation, intimidation, self-promotion,
exemplification and supplication (as cited in Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p.42). This research will focus on verbal behaviour. According to Pfeffer (1981) ‘language is the vehicle through which managers rationalize and legitimize their activities’ (as cited in Garder & Martinko, 1988, p. 42).
Since there are so many ways to present yourself and influence the perception others have of you, it is difficult to define impression management. Also, impression management has been introduced in different academic fields and thus the emphasis is laid upon other aspects of the technique, depending on the academic field. Therefore, the definition
impression management is used as an umbrella definition under which many different forms of impression management can exist. Below the forms of impression management that are relevant for this research will be explained.
After the introduction of the term in the (physiological) sociology, impression management gradually became a subject of research for management and organizational academia. These academics started to examine it because they realized that organizational actors also engage in a strategic ‘presentation of self’, just as individuals do (Goffman, 1959 as cited in McDonell & King, 2013) and that thus, impression management could also be useful in the field of management and organizations. Managers are a good example of this. ‘Managers in organizations occupy highly visible positions and thus it is particularly
important for them to manage their impression on others’ (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977 as cited in Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p 42.). Also, impression management can be helpful in the process of achieving and maintaining legitimacy, which is something every organization is aiming for. When an organization is able to present itself in a positive way, there is a bigger chance that congruence will be established between social values associated with or
implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable behaviour in the larger social system of which they are part, like Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) explained. Overall, impression management can thus be used by both individuals and organizations to appear legitimate in the eyes of the external audience.
So how exactly is impression management used in an organizational setting? In other words: how can an organization influence the perception the general public has of them?
Organizations can influence the general public by using two types of impression management: direct and indirect tactics. The first type explained is the direct form of impression management. Elsbach (1994) refers to Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1989,1991) when stating that impression management researchers have focused on how individual spokespersons use verbal accounts or explanations to avoid blame or gain credit for controversial events that may affect organizational legitimacy. Next to the different verbal accounts, the effectiveness of these different tactics in protecting legitimacy has been
examined. Elsbach (1994, p. 58) found that effective forms were: ‘enhancing explanations of company practices following good news and excuses or justifications following bad news (Staw, McKenhnie, & Pfuffer, 1983; Bettman & Weitz, 1983; Salancik & Meindl, 1984), accommodative signals following scandals and defensive signals following accidents (Marcus & Goodman, 1991), and admissions of responsibility following bankruptcies or failed negotiations (Sutton & Callahan, 1987; Sutton & Kramer, 1990)’. As becomes clear from these effective forms, impression management is not about disguising your true colours but more about increasing the positive information about yourself. In cases where boycotts attract increasing attention, the more likely it is that the targeted firm will notice that, interpret it as a reputational treat, and take action to counter it. This countering can be
this as follows: ‘As the reputational threat grows, so do the demands placed on the organization to respond by issuing positive claims that potentially neutralize the attack’. But, these direct statements are not always the best option. By using direct defence, organizations may ‘implicitly acknowledge and give credence to challengers’ claims, which could expose the organization to residual reputational damage’ (McDonnell & King, 2013, p. 388). Therefore there are also indirect impression management tactics that organizations use to protect their legitimacy. One of these indirect tactics is the use of prosocial claims.
Prosocial claims are public claims of corporate social actions (Marquis, Glynn & Davis, 2007 as cited in McDonnell & King, 2013). They are described as voluntary actions of an
organization, which are not aimed at increasing profit but to lend a helping hand to society. Engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of a prosocial claim. By using prosocial claims, organizations can strengthen their image and protect their legitimacy because they can show that they are committed to trying their best and practicing what they preach. This tactic is indirect because it is not a reaction to a specific accusation or claim from activists while on the other hand it clearly strengthens the organization’s image. Organizations often write reports about their prosocial claims and put these on their public websites, which is a way to spread information and make as much people as possible aware of what they are doing well. Organizations use annual reports like these to influence insiders’ and outsiders’ perception of their firm (Bansal & Clelland, 2004). McDonnell and King (2013) explore in their research to what extent firms targeted by consumer boycotts strategically react to defend their public image by using pro social claims. They found evidence that organizations enjoy reputational gains when they actively make prosocial claims. This type of tactic is seen as impression management because it allows organizations ‘to emphasize what (they are) doing ‘well’, while downplaying what (they are) not’ (Holder-Webb et al., 2009 as cited in McDonnell and King, 2013, p. 390). Here again, it is not about
disguising anything bad, but more about enhancing awareness of what you are doing well. Gardner & Martinko (1988) also looked at different forms of impression management. According to them, the use of prosocial claims can also be seen as a form of
entitlement/enhancement verbal behaviour. ‘Entitlements are designed to maximize an actor’s apparent responsibility for an event; enhancements are designed to maximize the favourability of the event itself’ (Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p.44). By using prosocial claims and writing and speaking about these, the organization creates the chance to describe itself favourably. The results of McDonnell and King (2013) suggest that a firm’s response to a reputational threat is a function of both what a firms knows how to do and its position in the field, and they highlight the dynamic tactical interplay between movement and their targets, each vying to convince the public of their own preferred image of the company.
Another phenomenon that can be seen as a tactic of indirect impression management is the publication of a policy, code of conduct and commitment reports. These publications can be linked to a verbal self-presentation behaviour, which is a specific type of impression management: organizational description (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Organizational description is a tactic of impression management because ‘the manner in which managers describe organizational activities, personnel, and accomplishments is a key implication for their own images, since they are typically viewed as the symbolic heads of their work units’ (Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p. 44). Although many organizations have been publishing policy, code of conduct and commitment reports for a long time, there has been a rapid increase in accountability pressures on companies in the past years. This is both because accountability requirements in the context of corporate governance have expanded and because sustainability reporting has emerged (Kolk, 2008). Also, the content of these reports has changed; it now includes not only information about the environment but also
deals with these issues. These elaborate reports meet the same requirements that McDonnell and King (2013) set for prosocial claims to be a tactic of impression management. Just like the prosocial claims, these reports are not aimed at specific accusations of activists but are a way in which an organization can show its best side and thus influence the perception of the general public. It is again emphasizing what the organization is doing well.
Individuals and companies, who try to maintain their legitimacy, often engage in impression management. All forms of impression management can be divided into two methods: direct and indirect. Even though there are so many forms of impression management, it became clear that most studies only research one particular form, as in the case of McDonnell and King (2013) who only use prosocial claims as a form of impression management, or Gardner & Martinko (1988) who only look at verbal interaction behaviour.
This research will look at whether the use of impression management increases when the level of criticism increases and if the level of literacy or the level of press freedom influence this relationship. Accordingly, these two variables will be explained.
2.3 Country-specific variables that might have a moderating effect on the relationship between criticism and impression management
Much research has been conducted on the effect of criticism on companies and the ways in which companies deal with potential threats. Not much attention has yet been paid to different circumstances in different countries and the influence these can have on the
relationship between criticism and impression management. This study will examine the level of literacy and the level of press freedom in the countries in which a firm is active, as
paragraph.
2.3.1. Literacy
Since the 1950s, much research has been carried out on literacy, especially in the social academic field. The subject was researched from different perspectives, which also changed the notion of what constituted literacy. For example, UNESCO stated in 1954 that a person was literate if he or she had undergone four years of education. Nowadays this definition no longer suffices because ‘the uses of literacy for the exchange of knowledge are constantly evolving, along with the advances in technology’ (UNESCO, 2015).
Despite the developments, there is still no consensus on the exact definition of literacy. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Fact book uses the simplest definition: ‘literacy is the ability to read and write at a specified age’ (CIA, 2015). The definition from the Department of Education and Skills (DES) of Ireland is more elaborate: ‘Literacy includes the capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of
communication including spoken language, printed text, broadcast media, and digital media (as cited in Kennedy, Dunphy, Dwyer, Hayes, McPhillips, Marsh, O’Connor & Shiel, 2012). There are many different definitions of literacy because the measurements used are not always the same in every country: sometimes it only measures the basics, like assessing whether or not individuals can read a simple sentence aloud, while other measurements are more elaborate, involving comprehension and interpretation of prose and documents (Schaffner, 2005). These measures differ because there is not one agreement on what constitutes literacy. According to Ntiri (2009) there is not yet a suitable and appropriate definition for all of the contexts in which people think about literacy because of the multidimensional facets of the subject and its value-laden nature.
Next to this, there are multiple forms of literacy because the focal population is divided into two groups: youths and adults. Youth literacy concerns the population between
the ages of 15 and 24 years while the adult literacy concerns the population aged 15 and over (UNESCO, 2013). This thesis conducts research using only adult literacy rates. Because there is no exact definition of adult literacy, the most common understanding of literacy will be used in this thesis: a person aged 15 and over is literate when he/she is able to read and write basic sentences (CIA Factbook, 2015).
In the 1950s when the topic of literacy gained attention in the academic field, great expectations were made for the role of literacy in developing economies and for advancing societies (Mangubhai, 1995). Many researchers focused on the positive effects of literacy. A UNESCO policy document (1975) as cited in Olson and Marshall (1994) claimed that literacy was crucial to the ‘liberation and advancement of man’. Also, a literate person was more likely to lead a ‘life of duty and godliness’ (Cressy 1980, as cited in Mangubhai, 1995). Freire (1973) saw literacy ‘as a political, human and transformative process capable of liberating learners in their own historical and cultural context’ (as cited in Ntiri, 2009, p. 99). Another study showed that illiteracy makes people defenceless against cheating, simply because they cannot read the contracts they are supposed to sign (Robertson, 1974).
However, there were also studies that researched the possible negative and even dangerous effects of literacy on populations. Heath (1983) showed that literacy was not a fundamental concern for the communities in the sample studied (as cited in Mangubhai, 1995). There were more extreme claims made by researchers who found literacy a tool for suppression. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian social theorist saw literacy as ‘a double-edged sword; it could be wielded for the purpose of self and social empowerment or for the perpetuation of relations of repression and domination (as cited in Freire, Macedo, 2013, p. 1). Ntiri agrees with this last view, she argues that ‘in some cases, as in many third-world nations, literacy is used as an instrument to suppress ethnic and gender advancement’ (2009, p. 100). From the literature it is shown that literacy can be seen as a tool for development
while others see this purported role as a myth (Ewert, 1989 as cited in Ntiri, 2009).
Anno the twenty-first century, the debate on literacy has become more unanimous and most researchers recognize the importance of literacy for development. The general view is that literacy is not only important for economic development but it also constitutes a
profound injustice because illiterates are not able to make decision for themselves or to participate in the political process (Freire & Macedo, 2013). Nowadays, UNESCO even considers literacy a right. The rationale for recognizing literacy as a right is the set of benefits it confers on individuals, families, communities and nations. Indeed, it is widely reckoned that, in modern societies, ‘literacy skills are fundamental to informed decision-making, personal empowerment, active and passive participation in local and global social
community’ (UNESCO, 2005). Their ‘Education for all global monitoring report: Literacy for life’ from 2005 shows that the human benefits from being literate are related to factors such as improved self-esteem, empowerment, creativity, and critical reflection. According to UNESCO, illiterate persons are more vulnerable to suffering from low self-esteem, are less autonomous and have less ability for critical reflection. If people are able to read, they gain more power: illiterates have only limited knowledge of, and access to, the rights to which they are entitled by legal entities. Literacy enables people to actively promote the collective rights, which are essential to human dignity (UNESCO, 2005). Ntiri (2009, p. 100) agrees with UNESCO, stating that ‘learners are empowered when learning how to read and write. Literacy instructions grants learners a way to confront, question, and challenge the world as they develop written language abilities’. Kennedy et al. (2012, p. 10) also recognize the importance of literacy in ‘empowering the individual to develop reflection, critique and empathy, leasing to a sense of self-efficiency, identity and full participation in society’.
From the literature it is shown that populations become more empowered and able to be critical, when the level of literacy rises. Because of the important effect of literacy on
population and society, it is remarkable that little research has been conducted on the effects of literacy in business studies. In the field of impression management, no research has taken literacy into account. Therefore, this study will be the first to look at the influence of the level of literacy on the relationship between criticism and impression management.
2.3.2. Press Freedom
The second country-specific variable is the level of freedom of the press. The freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through various mediums such as electronic media and published materials (Reporters without Borders, 2015). This freedom implies that constitutional or other legal protections do not interfere. Barron (1973) describes the freedom of the press as the freedom from government control and censorship. According to Amnesty International (2015) ‘free speech is a right, not a crime. Everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or interference’. All definitions agree on the fact that in a country where the press is free, people are truly free to write and share their ideas via various sorts of media without the interference of governments or other entities who might seek to exercise authority.
The level of press freedom varies across countries. There are many governments who control what is published. According to Amnesty International (2015) there are many
‘journalist, bloggers and others facing harassment and imprisonment for exercising their right to free speech’. On the other hand, there are also many countries in which the press is free. Because of the differences between countries, there are various degrees of press freedom around the world.
These variances can have serious consequences for the populations in these countries. According to the United Nations, ‘Media freedom and access to information feed into the wider development objective of empowering people. Empowerment is a multi-dimensional social and political process that helps people gain control over their own lives. This can
only be achieved through access to accurate, fair and unbiased information, representing a plurality of opinions, and the means to actively communicate vertically and horizontally, thereby participating in the active life of the community’ (United Nations, 2015). The access to information is seen as a very important element of empowerment. ‘Information is power: informed citizen are better equipped to take advantage of opportunity, access service, exercise their rights and hold state and nonstate actors accountable’ (Narayan-Parker, 2002, p. xix). Press freedom is important in the empowerment of populations and thus a difference in press freedom can make a difference in how empowered a population is. Companies operating in multiple countries (MNE’s), therefore encounter populations with different levels of empowerment. Reporters without Borders state that freedom of expression and of information will always be the world’s most important type of freedom. ‘If journalists were not free to report the facts, denounce abuses and alert the public, how would people resist problems? (2015)’ They state that the freedom of the press enables the population to be informed and to be alerted. This is in line with UNESCO (2015) stating that the media enables citizens to be more informed and participate in their society, which generates real empowerment. Sen (2004) adds to this: ‘the press has a major informational role in
disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny’. This critical scrutiny is possible in countries where people are free to criticize because countries where the press is free are an environment in which people can discuss and share ideas freely. According to Habermas (1996), the discussion about the role of the firm and its responsibilities is facilitated in
countries where the free speech and the freedom of the press are guaranteed by democracy. In countries were this freedom is not guaranteed, there is therefore less room for discussion and criticism.
Press freedom is mostly researched in political and social sciences. In these fields, press freedom is often connected to democracy because it is seen as an essential element of a
truly democratic society (Feinstein, 1995). A nowadays-popular topic, privacy, is another subject which is often connected to press freedom (Dawes, 2014).
In other academic fields, research is mostly conducted on the more practical effects of freedom of the press. For example, research into the relationship between press freedom and stock prices informativeness (Kim, Zhang, Li & Tian, 2013). They found that the freedom of the press could enhance the information environment of stock markets. While some research has been conducted in the field of business studies on the effects of press freedom on the economy or companies, it does not amount to much.
There has been little attention paid to the freedom of the press in the field of impression management and criticism in particular. One researcher, Maistriau (2013),
conducted a research on press freedom but this research was about CSR performance and not about impression management specifically. Maistriau looked at the extent to which firms raise their environmental and social performance due to the level of press freedom in foreign markets. Maistriau states that ‘in countries where the press is free, firms are more subject to scrutiny by consumers, reporters, activist and other civil society members. As a result, in order to increase their market share and/or to avoid consumer awareness campaigns and boycotts, firms have more incentives to maintain a good reputation by implementing measures. Therefore, firms selling in foreign countries with higher levels of press freedom should exhibit higher levels of CSR performance’. Maistriau (2013, p. 7) argues that it is more important to maintain a good reputation in countries where the level of press freedom is high, than in countries were the press freedom is low: ‘the potential benefits of maintaining a good reputation and the risks of exposure of a firm for socially irresponsible behaviour is larger in countries where the firms’ behaviour can be exposed by the media and freely discussed by consumers, activists, and civil society.’
makes people capable of being critical (United Nations, 2015), and that states that companies have more incentive to maintain a good reputation in countries where the press is free
(Maistriau, 2013), it is interesting to study the level of press freedom in relation to criticism and impression management.
2.4 Conclusion
Impression management is a technique that is often used by companies to achieve and maintain legitimacy. There are many different forms of impression management, which makes it difficult to give a short and clear explanation of this management style. The core of impression management is that it is about a character controlling the image others have of that character. So for companies it is about controlling the image the general public has about them. This control can be carried out in multiple ways, for example via verbal and nonverbal behaviour (Schneider, 1981 as cited in Gardner & Martinko, 1988), direct tactics (Elsbach, 1994) and indirect tactics (McDonnell & King, 2013). Most studies only research one form of impression management. In this study however, three different forms of impression
management will be used in testing the relationship with criticism.
Most impression management studies have not taken into account how differences in countries in which companies are active can have an influence on the extent to which
companies engage in impression management. This, while the literature on the country-level variables, freedom of press and literacy, shows that these two factors can have a great impact on populations. This impact may have consequences for the levels of impression management used by the companies. Hence, the aim of this research is to find whether different levels of criticism lead to different levels of impression management and how this relationship is influenced by the level of press freedom and the level of literacy of the countries in which the firm operates.
3 Theoretical Framework & Conceptual Model
In this chapter the three hypotheses of this research will be introduced based on the theory discussed in the Literature Review. The first hypothesis will be about the relation between criticism and impression management, the second hypothesis includes the moderator ‘level of literacy’ and the third hypothesis introduced will include the moderator ‘level of press
freedom’.
3.1 Hypotheses
As discussed in the previous chapter, it is clear that not much attention has yet been paid to the relationship between the level of criticism a company receives and the level of impression management in which that company is engaged. The aim of this research is to answer the question: ‘Do companies that receive a higher level of CSR-related criticism also engage more strongly in CSR-related impression management?’
The literature showed that impression management is used, by both individuals and organizations, to create the appearance of legitimacy in the eyes of the external audience. The assumption here is that companies who are receiving a higher level of CSR-related criticism engage more strongly in CSR-related impression management because when they receive criticism, they feel a stronger need to justify themselves publicly and to prove their social worthiness to the public and their stakeholders. Therefore, one could expect companies that are more subject to CSR-related criticism to engage more strongly in CSR-related impression management.
This research will test the extent to which levels of impression management are affected by levels of criticism. Accordingly:
Hypothesis 1: Companies that receive a higher level of CSR-related criticism engage more strongly in CSR-related impression management.
After the testing of the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management, this research will focus on whether the level of literacy in a country influences this relationship. UNESCO stated in their ‘Education for all global monitoring report: Literacy for life’ (2005) that literacy is an empowering tool that enables people to reflect critically upon situations. The ability to read and write informs and empowers people, which makes it easier for them to speak up and be critical. Ntiri (2009) confirms this by stating that people who are literate are able to confront, question and challenge the world. According to Kennedy et al. (2012) literate people can fully participate in society whereas illiterates are often not really involved in decision-making processes, for example. Companies operating in countries where a large part of the population is able to read and write and therefore more critical and independent, will have to devote more energy to managing their reputation, compared to companies operating in countries where the population is less autonomous and not able to reflect upon situations critically due to illiteracy. Because these companies have to make a more concerted effort to manage their reputation, it is likely that they will make more use of impression management. For a company who is engaged in a country where literacy is low, it is logical to assume that it is easier to manage their reputation. When only a small number of the population can read what is written about the company, these articles become less relevant and thus managing their reputation becomes easier and less time consuming. This would mean that the level of impression management is lower in these countries.
Thus, it can be assumed that the literacy rate of a population of countries in which a
Level of criticism
H1 +
Level of impression management
company is active has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between the level of criticism and the level of impression management. Accordingly:
Hypothesis 2: The level of literacy in the countries in which a company operates positively moderates the relationship between CSR-related criticism and CSR-related impression management, such that this relationship is stronger for companies operating in countries with higher levels of literacy.
Next to the positive moderating effect of the literacy rate of a country, it could also be assumed that the level of press freedom has a moderating effect in this relationship.
Freedom of the press is an important factor for the empowerment of people. Empowerment can be achieved only through access to accurate, fair and unbiased information (United Nations, 2015). In countries where the press is free, people are more informed and informed citizens are better equipped to take advantage of opportunity, access service and exercise their rights (Narayan-Parker, 2002).
It is clear that the freedom of press can have a great deal of influence on the
empowerment of the population. In this research it is included as a moderator because ‘the potential benefits of maintaining a good reputation and the risk of exposure of a firm for
Level of criticism
Level of the literacy in the countries in which a
company operates
H2 +
Level of impression management
socially irresponsible behaviour is larger in countries where the firms’ behaviour can be exposed by the media and freely discussed by consumers, activities and civil society’
(Maistriau, 2013, p. 7). Therefore, the incentive for companies to raise the level of impression management should be higher in countries with more press freedom than in countries with less press freedom. Dyck & Zingales (2002) ‘showed in an earlier study that there is a positive correlation between a country’s press freedom and the responsiveness of this country’s private sector to environmental concerns’ (as cited in Maistriau, 2013, p. 8). This result provides an incentive to assume that the level of press freedom can influence the way a company chooses to portray itself, or manage its reputation. If there is simply no one writing about companies because the level of press freedom is low, companies have fewer incentives to manage their reputation. But if the level of press freedom is high, and companies are thus more exposed to the risk this brings along, the managing of the reputation becomes more important and therefore the level of impression management would increase. Accordingly: Hypothesis 3: The level of press freedom in the countries in which a company operates positively moderates the relationship between CSR-related criticism and CSR-related impression management, such that this relationship is stronger for companies operating in countries with higher levels of press freedom.
Level of criticism
Level of the press freedom in the countries in which a
company operates
H3 +
Level of impression management
4 Research Methods
This chapter gives a step-by-step overview of how this research was conducted. First the sample and data collection are explained. Then the different variables and how they were constructed are described. Next, the type of analysis and the data analysis itself is explained. Lastly, the results are presented.
4.1 Sample & data collection
This study uses a cross-sectional research design to examine the effect of criticism on impression management including two moderators: the level of literacy in the countries in which the company operates and the level of press freedom in the countries in which the company operates. The sample that is used for this research was based on 541 companies in the Dow Jones Sector Titans Index. These indices measure the performance of the largest stocks within countries, sectors and regions. The Dow Jones Sector Titans Indices reflect the composition and performance of the largest sectors. Stocks are chosen based on
float-adjusted market capitalization, revenue and net income. All indices in the family are constructed and maintained according to the same underlying principles, with the goal of covering the largest and most established companies in specified markets. (S&P Dow Jones Indices). The Dow Jones Sector Titans Index sample is appropriate for this study because it represents the world’s largest sectors and the biggest companies within these. Because of their size and global reach, it is reasonable to assume that such companies are most vulnerable to criticism and thus most likely to display characteristics of impression
management. In addition, almost all of these companies publish their corporate and financial reports publicly online, which ensures that there is enough available data and that it can be
obtained relatively easily.
For the purpose of this present thesis, a unique dataset is developed by combining six data sources: Covalence EthicalQuote, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), Thomson Reuters Worldscope, CSR reports and sustainability reports of all companies in the sample, Freedom of press report 2011/2012 by Reporters Without Borders and lastly the CIA world fact book. Covalence EthicalQuote tracks online news on topics relevant to corporate social responsibility (CSR) based on 50 CSR-criteria developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (EthicalQuote, 2015). The analysts at Covalence EthicalQuote code each news item in terms of whether it constitutes criticism or praise directed towards the company, the source of the news item (the company itself or non-company sources, such as the media), which country the news item has been originally published in and which country is concerned with the incident described in the news article. Each year, the CDP sends out a very detailed questionnaire to companies regarding their greenhouse gas emissions. Particularly relevant for the present study, the CDP asks multinational corporations (MNCs) both to report their total greenhouse gas emissions and to break down these total emissions by country. The Thompson Reuters Worldscope database reports the financial and other relevant company-specific information used for the present study. From all the companies in the sample, the Corporate Social Responsibility Report and/or Sustainability Report were retrieved from their public website. Companies often had one of these two but in cases where they had both, both reports were counted because the content is both about social and environmental issues and both reports can be seen as a form of impression management. Some companies did have reports concerning social and environmental topics but did not call these CSR Reports. In these cases, if the content was similar to a CSR report, the reports were included in the research. Most of the companies had a CSR report for the year 2011. Some companies only published half-year reports (e.g. March 2011/February 2012), which made it necessary to use
2011/2012 reports in these cases. Where a company did not publish anything like a CSR report, the part that covered CSR in the Annual Report was used. Reporters Without Borders annually report the world press freedom index. This index is made up of complementary indicators that together assess the state of media freedom. To compile this index, Reporters Without Borders prepared a questionnaire with 44 main criteria indicative of the state of press freedom. It asked questions about every kind of violation directly affecting journalists and netizens and news media. The questionnaire was sent to partner organizations of Reporters Without Borders, to its network of 150 correspondents around the world and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human right activists. A scale devised by the organization was then used to give a country score to each questionnaire. All this data together was used to create an index that reflects the press freedom per country (Reporters without Borders, 2012). Finally, the CIA factbook was used to retrieve country-level literacy scores. Literacy data is not collected every year so when the data about 2011 was not available, data from years closest to 2011 were used. Also, many high-income countries have not collected data about literacy rates in their countries for years because these countries have reached a level of development at which the majority of the population are able to read and write. More specifically, these countries no longer collect data on literacy that can be used to divide the population in a “literate” and “illiterate” part. Therefore, a percentage of 99% is used for these countries. The high level of development of these countries makes in reasonable to assume a 99% rate of literacy in these cases.
The original sample consisted of the 541 companies tracked by Covalence
Ethicalquote for 2011. In this study the focus will be solely upon the year 2011. This year was chosen because it is the most recent year for which full data from Covalence
Ethicalquote was available. After combining the different data sources, the original sample of 541 companies was reduced to 241 companies, for which full data was available.
4.2 Variables
4.2.1 Dependent variable
The dependent variable in this research is impression management. As became clear from the Literature Review, impression management has been operationalized in several ways.
Schneider (1981) defined impression management as ‘the manipulation of information about the self by the actor’ (as cited in Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p. 42). He identified purposive behaviours as a larger class of self-presentational behaviours. Some types of purposive behaviours include ingratiation, intimidation, self-promotion, exemplification, and supplication (as cited in Garder & Martinko, 1988). Elsbach (1994, p. 58) showed that
impression management could also be operationalized in other ways. She mentioned different effective forms like: ‘enhancing explanations of company practices following good news and excuses or justifications following bad news (Staw, McKenhnie, & Pfuffer, 1983; Bettman & Weitz, 1983; Salancik & Meindl, 1984), accommodative signals following scandals and defensive signals following accidents (Marcus & Goodman, 1991), and admissions of
responsibility following bankruptcies or failed negotiations (Sutton & Callahan, 1987; Sutton & Kramer, 1990)’. Subsequently, McDonnell and King (2013) showed that the use of
prosocial claims is also a form of impression management. Corporate Social Responsibility activities are considered prosocial claims and thus is this another tactic to influence the perception about the self. Finally, Gardner and Martinko (1988) mentioned ‘organizational descriptions’ as a verbal self-presentation behaviour, another way of operationalizing impression management.
management and thus this research will use three different variables to measure impression management.
The first variable for measuring impression management is called ‘Amount of positive news’. This variable has been calculated on the basis of the Covalence EthicalQuote database and contains data on the number of times the focal company has communicated positively about itself on CSR-relevant topics during 2011. This variable is a form of self-promotion and entitlement/enhancement (Gardner & Martinko, 1988).
The second variable for impression management is called ‘Number of words used in CSR report’ and is based on McDonnell & King (2013) who consider the use of prosocial claims as a tactic of impression management. To measure to what extent these companies are carrying out the message that they are corporate socially responsible, the number of words that are used in a Corporate Social Responsibility Report were counted. Some companies did not have a CSR report but did have something comparable such as a sustainability report or global citizens report. If the content of these reports was similar to that of a CSR report (social and environmental issues which the company is dealing with for example), then these reports were counted. For this purpose, CSR reports (or similar) for all the companies in the sample were looked up and the words used therein were counted using the program
WordCounter that is available on http://www.docwordcounter.com. When a company did not publish a CSR Reports or anything alike, the words used in their annual report that had some relevance to social or environmental issues were counted. This variable is a form of
impression management because it can be classified as organizational description, which is a form of verbal self-presentation (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Also it is not aimed at specific accusation of activists but it is way in which companies can show their positive contribution to society.
conduct, policy and commitment statement, all regarding social and environmental issues, in 2011. This data was retrieved from the Asset 4 database. Code of conduct here is the
document in which the social values, norms and responsibilities of the organization are stated. Policy is the document in which the guidelines for making decisions and how to achieve rational outcomes, is published. It is a statement of intent. The commitment here shows whether there has been a public commitment on various social and environmental topics made by the senior management. All three items contained the results of answers to multiple yes/no questions. If the company could answer yes, a score of 1 was assigned to the company. If they had to answer no, a score of 0 was given. All items and content will be explained. The first item is ‘code of conduct’. This item consisted of 9 questions, which asked whether or not the code of conduct contained information about a specific subject. For example, one question was about community involvement. The question here was: ‘Does the company describe in the code of conduct that it strives to be a good corporate citizen?’ Thus the subject of the question is a short summary of the content. The other eight subjects were: critical countries, suppliers or contractors, ingenious people, indirect economic effect, fair competition, bribery and corruption, political contribution and business ethics. The second item is ‘policy’, which is similar to the code of conduct item. Only in this case, the questions were directed at ascertaining whether the policy of a company contained information about specific subjects. In this case the subjects were: bribery and corruption, business ethics, community involvement, critical countries and fair competition. Here too, a score of 1 was assigned to the company if the question could be answered with yes, 0 if this was not
possible. The last item is ‘commitment’. In this case, questions were asked to find if there had been a public commitment from a senior management or board member on a specific subject. For example, the question regarding the subject ‘indigenous people’ was: ‘Has there been a public commitment from a senior management or board member to respect the rights of
indigenous people?’ The other subjects were the same as for ‘Code of conduct’: community involvement, critical countries, suppliers or contractors, indirect economic effect, fair competition, bribery and corruption, political contribution and business ethics. Also in this case, a score of 1 was assigned to the company if the question could be answered with yes, 0 if this was not possible. Eventually, all scores were added up and computed into one variable: ‘Policy, code of conduct & commitment’. This variable gives a score between 0 and 23, indicating how many ‘points’ were scored on the questions, which indicate to what extent the company makes use of policies, code of conducts and commitments to show their
engagement with social and environmental issues.
4.2.2. Independent variable
The independent variable used in this thesis is criticism, which refers to the number of times the focal company was target of CSR-relevant public criticism during 2011. This variable is named ‘Total criticism’ and has been calculated on the basis of the Covalence EthicalQuote database. Overall 4566 events have occurred for the 241 companies in the year 2011.
4.2.3. Moderating variables
This study tests if the level of literacy or press freedom of a country in which a firm operates, influences the relationship between criticism and impression management. The first
moderating variable is the literacy level of countries in which the company is active. Data about literacy was retrieved from the CIA World Factbook. Because there is not an
organization or institute that reports on literacy rates around the world annually, data that was closest to 2011 was used if data for the year 2011 was not available. Furthermore, a literacy rate of 99% was assumed for the countries that no longer collect data about literacy. This was the case for some OECD countries. To determine the degree to which a company is exposed
to a literate population throughout the countries in which a company is active, the data about literacy was combined with data from the Carbon Disclosure Project. To assess in which countries a company is active and how important these countries are for the company, data from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) was used. When filling in the CDP questionnaire, the companies report their total greenhouse gas emissions and they break these emissions down by the countries in which they are active. In order to determine the importance of each one of the countries for the focal company, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the company emitted in a country was divided by the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions of the company. This information was then combined with the Literacy scores from the CIA factbook. For each country in which a company is active, the country’s literacy score was multiplied by that country’s importance for the company. This resulted in a weighted
Literacy score for each country in which the company is active. Once this weighted Literacy score had been computed for each one of the countries in which the company is active, these scores were added up. This resulted in the variable ‘exposure to a literate population’. A lower score indicates exposure to a less literate population and a higher score indicates exposure to a more literate population. Negative scores are not possible.
The second country-specific variable is the level of press freedom. This variable consists of data obtained from the Press Freedom Index, an annual ranking of countries compiled and published by Reporters Without Borders based upon the organization’s assessment of the countries’ press freedom records in the previous year. The way this variable was computed is similar to the method used for the variable of literacy. Here again, data from the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index was combined with data from the Carbon Disclosure Project to determine the degree to which a company is exposed to a free press throughout the countries in which a company is active. Data from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) was used to assess in which countries a company is active
in and how important these countries are for the company. To determine the importance of each one of the countries for the focal company, the same method was used as for the previous moderator. Eventually, this information was then combined with the data on Freedom of Press scores from Reporters without borders for 2011/2012. For each country in which a company is active, the country’s Freedom of Press score was multiplied by that country’s importance for the company. This resulted in a weighted Freedom of Press score for each country in which the company is active. Once this weighted Literacy score had been computed for each one of the countries in which the company is active, these scores were added up. This resulted in the variable ‘exposure to a free press’. A lower score indicates exposure to a freer press and a higher score indicates exposure to a less free press. Negative scores are possible.
4.2.4. Control Variables
This study hypothesizes that criticism is positively related to impression management. To test if this is indeed the case, several other factors, which might also have an effect on impression management, must be considered. The first control variable is the size of the firm. Larger companies are usually criticized more, which in turn may lead to a higher level of impression management: there is simply more to manage in these cases. In this research, firm size is measured by looking at the net sales/ net revenues. Secondly, return on asset is used to test profitability, as a general proxy for performance and financial strength, which is similar to the method employed by McDonnell & King in their research (2013). They also use the industry type as a control variable because a target firm’s industry may affect its general propensity to engage in corporate social initiatives. This could also be the case for the use of impression management; it may be that some industries are more vulnerable to this than others, and thus type of industry will be used as a control variable. The Worldscope database
provided the General Industry Classification, which is a classification of all the companies into 6 different industry types. All companies were assigned a number which represents the industry of which they are part. This variable is used to check if the industry type has an influence on impression management.
Lastly, a check on the home country of the company will be carried out to see if this influences the relationship. All countries have been divided into 6 regions: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania.
For the analysis of the variable upon which the variable ‘Amount of positive news’ was dependent, another control variable was added: ‘Total times mentioned in public sphere’. This variable refers to the total number of times the company was mentioned in Covalence EthicalQuote database with respect to environmental, social and governance topics. This number includes both positive and negative mentions. This control variable is used because it can be assumed that the number of times a company sends out positive news about itself is related to the frequency with which a company is mentioned in the public sphere overall, instead of to the level of criticism.
The data about net sales/ net revenues, return on asset and industry type was obtained from the Thomson Reuters Worldscope. The data for the ‘Total times mentioned in public sphere’ control variable was obtained from the Covalence Ethicalquote database.
4.3 Data Analysis
The descriptive statistics for all key variables can be found in table 1. These statistics were calculated using the descriptive analysis tool in SPSS. It comprises the statistics of the
original data, so before they were transformed. For the 241 companies in this study, the mean of total criticism is 18,95 with a standard deviation of 37,54. This means that on average,
