Interactive CSR communication on
social media
A possibility to foster consumer trust and corporate reputation while
diminishing consumer skepticism?
Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam
Master Corporate Communication (MSc)
submitted by Carolin Stratmann on the 1st of February 2017 student number: 11107626
Abstract
Following Schmeltz’s (2012) call for research on how open and direct CSR communication could be used as an asset for companies, the present research investigated the effectiveness of CSR communication on social media towards a young audience. As many young consumers want to be informed about CSR, but might at the same time become critical towards CSR messages, it is particularly important that the CSR communication approach is well-founded. To test which communication approach led to a high corporate reputation and determine whether consumer skepticism and trust were acting as mediators in this relationship, an online experiment (N = 197) with four different communication style conditions (interactive and precise, interactive and vague, non-interactive and precise, non-interactive and vague) was conducted. In line with expectations, interactive communication on social media led to a higher reputation, yet only when the young consumers’ trust could be instilled beforehand. In contrast, no impact was found for skepticism. As assumed, a combination of the interactive and the precise communication style was the most trustworthy approach and therefore appealing for young consumers. Findings indicate that companies should choose an interactive and precise CSR communication on social media when targeting a young audience.
There is extensive research on how companies should communicate their corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts (see for example Elving, 2013; Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006; Du, Bhattarcharya, & Sen, 2010; Seele & Lock, 2015). CSR communication is seen to be increasingly important, as consumers are expecting companies to engage in social practices (Elving, 2013). Following Carroll (1991), companies should not only act on their economic responsibility to be profitable, they also have to engage in legal, ethical and philanthropical practices to gain legitimacy. Above this, research also showed a positive connection between CSR engagement and corporate reputation (for example Aksak, Ferguson, & Duman, 2015). Hence, CSR communication became an important task for companies.
However, there is still uncertainty about how to communicate on CSR most effectively. As Du et al. (2010) stated, it remains the key challenge to find a CSR communication strategy that raises the awareness of the public, while at the same time preventing critical reactions. This is due to the so-called “Catch 22” of communicating CSR (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008), which means that consumers want companies to engage in CSR, but they become skeptical, when CSR communication becomes too salient. Existing literature posed two main challenges for CSR communication: sending out credible messages in order to avoid skeptical consumers (Bachmann & Ingenhoff, 2016; Lock & Seele, 2016; Elving, 2013) and fostering consumer trust (Park, Kim, Oh, & Chung, 2016; Pivato, Misani, & Tencati, 2008). Thereby, skepticism and trust can be seen as two opposing reactions to CSR communication: While consumers become skeptical, when they perceive the company’s motives to engage in CSR as self-centered (Elving, 2013), they will on the other hand be more trusting when the CSR is perceived to be sincere (Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos and Avramidis, 2009).
This paper puts its focus on young consumers as receivers of CSR messages, because they care for social causes on a high level (Lauritsen & Perks, 2015) and are seen to be particularly critical and demanding by marketing managers (Grant, 2004). Grant (2004) found out, that because of today’s media environment which young consumers grow up in, they are well aware and hence more critical towards the intentions and aims of marketers. Furthermore, young consumers’ perceptions on CSR communication remain underexplored. As Schmeltz (2012, p.46) stated, „research into how new, digital media can facilitate CSR communication between corporations and young consumers is called for“. This statement also introduces the second focus of this study: digital media, in particular social media platforms. Kent and Taylor (2016, p.62) declared that CSR and social media are “a match made in heaven”, as effective CSR is presupposing stakeholder engagement and social media platforms enable this interaction between consumers and the company. Yet, there is still a lack of literature about the effects of CSR communication on social media (Dutot, Lacalle Galvez, & Versailles, 2016) and on how the interactive feature of social media is possibly influencing the effectiveness of CSR communication (Eberle, Berens, & Li, 2013).
Hence, this study investigates how social media should best be used to communicate corporate CSR efforts to young consumers. Central to the present research is the distinction between an interactive and a non-interactive social media use, whereby companies do not engage with their consumers, but rather use the social medium to disseminate messages (Grunig, 2009). The paper thereby aims to fill a research gap on whether and how social media should be used in order to inhibit consumer skepticism and enhance trust. Following existing literature, the dialogical platform that social media provides is of increasing significance, because there is an increasing necessity to engage with stakeholders when it comes to CSR (Moutschnik, 2013). In order to increase one's legitimacy, companies should interact with their public (Moreno & Capriotti, 2009; Kent & Taylor, 1998). Consequently,
the following central research question emerges: How should companies use social media to communicate their CSR efforts to young consumers, in order to enhance their corporate reputation?
To answer this question, the paper first of all gives an overview about existing literature on CSR communication and its challenges and CSR communication on social media. Subsequently, the experimental design used in this paper is illustrated by giving information on the sample, the measurements and the procedure. Following, the results are presented and discussed. The paper concludes with theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretical Framework Importance of CSR communication
CSR communication is essential, as it informs stakeholders about CSR strategies and efforts (Signitzer & Prexl, 2007). As this study focuses on consumers, the theoretical
framework focuses on this particular stakeholder group, too. Consumers’ awareness for their social and environmental footprint grows continuously (Lauritsen and Perks, 2015). They expect companies to participate in CSR efforts and thus put pressure on them (Aksak et al., 2016). Hence, companies constantly have to legitimize their social and environmental validity to their stakeholders (Lauritsen and Perks, 2015). Following this, corporate social responsibility is seen as a tool to enhance and to maintain corporate legitimacy (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013; Bachmann & Ingenhoff, 2016). Above that, when implementing a successful CSR communication, research found strong evidence for a positive relationship with corporate reputation, which is the sum of all stakeholders’ perceptions of a company taken together (see for example Stanaland, Lwin, & Murphy, 2011; Galbreath, 2010; Fombrun, 2005; Lai, Chiu, Yang, & Pai, 2010).
While young consumers feel the urge for a high CSR awareness, they at the same time do not actively seek this information (Dawkins, 2005). Schmeltz (2012) found out that only about 14% of young consumers say that they actively look for corporate CSR information, even though the 82 respondents claimed to be interested in it. This paradox is what
companies have to solve through their CSR communication strategies. The following
chapters will focus on why it can be difficult to implement an effective CSR communication, which could raise the consumer awareness and foster a good reputation.
Skepticism towards CSR messages
By actively communicating their CSR, companies might raise critical reactions, which could in turn lead to consumer skepticism (Du et al., 2010). Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) define consumer skepticism as “the tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims” (as cited in Obermiller, Spangenberg, & MacLachlan, 2005, p.7). To explain why consumers might react skeptically when confronted with corporate CSR activities, scholars were using attribution theory (Elving, 2013; Forehand & Grier, 2003; Yoon et al., 2006). Consumers attribute different motives of a company to engage in CSR activities - skepticism appears, when consumers question the motives of a company to be sincere and think rather, that a company engages in CSR for self-interest reasons (Elving, 2013). In line with that, Du et al. (2010, p.10) argued, that „any discrepancies between stakeholders perceived CSR motives and a company’s publicly stated motives will trigger stakeholders’ skepticism and feelings of being deceived, which in turn will drive negative reactions to its CSR activities“. These skeptical reactions then result in a poor reputation (Aksak et al., 2016).
What follows is that even though companies want to achieve a greater awareness, they should not spread too many messages about being socially responsible, as consumers will become more and more skeptical towards the authenticity of all those messages (Lyon &
Montgomery, 2013) and will hence question the motives to be sincere. If attempts of increasing legitimacy through CSR communication get too salient, legitimacy might in fact decrease. In other words, a legitimacy problem might only arise because of CSR
communication (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Supporting this, Berens and van Rekom (2008) found out that consumers perceive CSR communication to be more credible, when it is communicated via subtle, discreet ways.
However, Morsing and Schultz (2006) argued, that in order to profit from CSR
communication, companies have to engage in dialogue with their stakeholders. This so-called stakeholder involvement strategy would mean to openly communicate on CSR and is
therefore in contrast to the indirect and subtle communication style that other scholars
recommended (Schmeltz, 2012). If CSR communication requires a direct interaction between companies and stakeholders (Bartlett, 2011), then the question that arises is, how this direct CSR communication could be implemented without evoking skeptical reactions.
Trust towards CSR communication
In contrast to skepticism, which should be avoided, effective CSR communication aims to instill trust in the consumers. Corporate brand trust is defined as a consumer’s belief that a company keeps its promises (Pivato et al., 2008) and „will deliver a good or service at the quality which the consumer expects“ (Sichtmann, 2007, p.1001). In relation to CSR, Vlachos et al. (2009) define trust as consumer expectations towards socially responsible behavior from companies. Supporting this, research found that CSR activities have a positive impact on consumer trust (Park et al., 2016; Pivato et al., 2008; Fatma, Rahman, & Khan, 2015).
Moreover, as CSR initiatives help in building consumer trust, this also positively affects the reputation of a company (Fatma et al., 2015). Park, Lee and Kim (2014) argued,
that trust can be seen as an antecedent of corporate reputation because CSR activities will only result in a positive reputation, when a company could gain the consumers’ trust that the CSR activities are implemented with good intentions. Thus, research showed that consumer trust is a possible mediator for the relationship between corporate CSR activities and
corporate reputation (Kim, Hur, & Yeo, 2015; Fatma et al., 2015). Furthermore, Park et al. (2014) found that ethical and philanthropical CSR activities by themselves do not increase corporate reputation, but they only result in a higher reputation when trust had been gained beforehand. Following Vlachos et al. (2009), trust can only be instilled when consumers perceive the motives for CSR engagement as being value-driven instead of egoistic-driven.
Hence, it depends on the consumers’ perceived motives of CSR engagement whether trust or skepticism arises. If CSR messages become too prominent, consumers start to question the company’s motives. Consequently, they might perceive them to be untrustworthy and become skeptical. Yet, if messages are perceived to be honest and credible, this will also enhance the consumers’ trust towards the company.
Corporate communication on social media
In contrast to traditional media, which only allow for the dissemination of messages, social media are relational as they enable a two-way interaction that can take place in real time (Kent & Taylor, 2016; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social media are of great importance for companies, since consumers use them more and more to retrieve corporate information and make purchase decisions (Mangold & Faulds, 2009) and those consumers can easily be reached through communication on social media (Kesavan, Bernacchi, & Mascarenhas, 2013). Thus, companies increasingly use social media to communicate with their consumers in a direct and interactive way (Tomaselli & Melia, 2014). In particular, they try to attach to young consumers via their social media platforms (Dutot et al., 2016).
There are several advantages for companies when communicating with the public via social media. Firstly, they can enhance their visibility, thereby strengthening the brand awareness (Kesavan et al., 2013; Nwagbara & Reid, 2013), which is crucial especially for CSR communication, as consumers would like the CSR efforts of companies to be more visible (Curley & Noormohamed, 2014). However, communication practitioners should keep the paradox in mind, that even though consumers want to have more information about CSR, at the same time they start to become critical towards CSR messages (Morsing et al., 2008). Hence, it is particularly important how to communicate about CSR, when using social media.
Secondly, social media can raise the engagement of consumers, as they have the opportunity to give feedback and engage in a public dialogue. Through this new engagement, the consumer-company-relationship can be improved (Nwagbara & Reid, 2013; Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Moretti & Tuan, 2013). A higher stakeholder involvement (Lee, Oh, & Kim, 2013) also leads to empowered consumers, as they can easily be part of the corporate communication when entering into dialogue (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013; Colleoni, 2013). This new role allocation results in social media being perceived as a more credible source, as companies have less control over the content (Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Du et al., 2010). On social media the distinction between content that is company-controlled and content that is third-party controlled is blurred (Eberle et al., 2013). However, as Kent (2010) noted, corporate social media content might still be controlled, as companies could moderate and censor their channels. Still, van Halderen, van Riel and Brown (2011) found out that using interactive communication creates an impression of sincerity, as companies open their CSR messages to criticism and that makes the company’s messages more believable. Following this, interactive communication on social media is able to enhance consumer trust (Kesavan et al., 2013; Curley & Noormohamed, 2014; Kelleher, 2009; Calefato, Lanubile, & Novielli, 2015), as there will be a stronger relationship between the company and its consumers
(Sweetser, 2010; Zhang & Lin, 2015; Jo & Kim, 2003). When consumers are able to engage in an online dialogue via social media, they feel more connected to the company (Zhang & Lin, 2015).
However, as Tomaselli and Melia (2014) stated, there has not yet been sufficient literature and results on the potential of interaction on social media for companies. Vernuccio (2014) begun by analysing the social media channels of 60 international companies and looking at whether they adopt an interactive communication approach. She found out that one third of the companies still use social media non-interactively as they fear to loose too much control over the corporate content. These findings coincide with Eberle et al.’s (2013) assertion that companies are concerned about whether interactive communication has a positive outcome for their reputation. Communicating interactively and openly on social media comes with an increase in transparency. This also means, that companies can more easily be held accountable for possible untruthful CSR claims, which could then again lead to an increase in skepticism (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013). As companies fear stakeholder skepticism when communicating interactively, they still use social media as a traditional medium, which means that rather than creating dialogue, they use it as a tool to disseminate marketing messages (Lee et al., 2013; Colleoni, 2013; Grunig, 2009). Nevertheless, Lee et al. (2013) argued, that because there is a push towards CSR and dialogue, companies are
pressured to become more and more open. Moreover, as stakeholder dialogue is seen to be central for CSR practices, it could also be argued, that due to the possibility to interact with stakeholders and build company-public relationships on social media platforms, its use is essential for good CSR communication (Kent & Taylor, 2016).
CSR communication on social media
The following section aims to shed light on if and how companies should use social media channels to communicate about their CSR efforts. Following Colleoni (2013), social media are the adequate channel to communicate about CSR, as the dialogical features are able to create a bridge between the consumers’ expectations and the actual CSR strategies of a company. Also, Kesavan et al. (2013) assumed that social media should be used, because an open approach on traditional media could in their view not be proven to work well.
Nevertheless, companies are confronted with a special challenge, because while consumers want companies to engage in CSR, they also become critical towards CSR efforts when the company communicates about them very openly (Morsing et al., 2008). Hence, it really depends on how companies adapt social media for their CSR communication.
In their qualitative content analysis, Dutot et al. (2016) detected, that CSR
communication strategies on social media affect the corporate reputation – measured through online reach and sentiment - of a company positively. Supporting that, Lauritsen and Perks (2015) also found out, that interactive CSR communication is more effective than non-interactive, because it leads to a more positive corporate brand reputation. They interviewed young consumers on their preferences and conclude that a young audience prefers explicit and engaging communication and that they are less likely to develop negative perceptions, because they are aware of the benefits of CSR efforts for companies.
As well, Eberle et al. (2013) conducted an online experiment on how the use of interactive media is beneficial to corporate reputation. They found out, that when CSR messages are perceived as being interactive, the message credibility increased and therefore also the corporate reputation. Yet, when interactivity led to negative reactions in the form of critical comments by the audience, this had an opposing effect on reputation. Hence they concluded, that stakeholders should have the feeling that the company is interested in their
opinions, but the effectiveness also depends on the style of communication. Supporting this, Tomaselli and Melia (2014) also declared, that the language a company uses for its CSR communication is of critical importance.
In regard to the style of communication, Colleoni (2013) looked at the Twitter channels of companies with a highly rated CSR to find out which communication strategy is effectively fulfilling the stakeholders’ expectations in order to increase corporate legitimacy. She found out that, it is in fact not enough to follow an interactive and engaging approach, because the effectiveness also depends on what stakeholders want to hear from the company, the content. Regarding the content of CSR communication, Schmeltz (2012) determined that young consumers not only prefer an open and explicit communication, but also a factual and precise communication style.
Hypotheses and Model
The abovementioned research indicates, that interactive communication on social media makes the message more sincere and should therefore create less skepticism. Moreover it allows for stakeholder interaction, an essential feature of CSR, which enhances the
relationship between consumers and the company. Thus, research also found that interactive communication has a positive impact on trust. In contrast, if companies use social media in a non-interactive, traditional way, consumers could react just as skeptical as always and condemn messages as untrustworthy, when confronted with CSR messages that are send in an open, explicit manner. Hence, the following two hypotheses emerge:
H1: Non-interactive communication on social media leads to more skepticism than interactive communication on social media.
H2: Interactive communication on social media leads to a higher level of trust than non-interactive communication on social media.
Furthermore, the abovementioned studies show, that interactive communication has a positive impact on the corporate reputation of the company. This is due to higher message credibility or less negative perceptions towards the company, when communicating interactively about CSR on social media. Moreover, the reputation of a company is also higher when more consumer trust could be gained. As interactive communication is connected to a higher level of consumer trust, it should lead to a higher reputation. Yet, if companies still use social media in a non-interactive manner, the CSR communication might make no difference for the corporate reputation, due to a higher skeptical reaction on open, explicit communication strategies. Thus, this paper establishes the following assumptions:
H3: Interactive CSR communication on social media has a more positive impact on corporate reputation than non-interactive communication on social media, due to a lower level of young consumers’ skepticism.
H4: Interactive CSR communication on social media has a more positive impact on corporate reputation than non-interactive communication on social media, due to a higher level of young consumers’ trust.
Moreover, existing research on CSR communication on social media found out, that interactivity seems not to be the only crucial factor for the effectiveness of CSR
communication, but that it also depends on the style of communication. So far, research indicates, that young consumers prefer a factual and precise communication style. That is why this paper will take the following four hypotheses into account:
H5: Young consumers are even less skeptical towards interactive CSR communica-tion on social media, when the style of communicacommunica-tion is factual and precise - which will in turn lead to a higher corporate reputation.
H6: Young consumers are more skeptical towards interactive CSR communication on social media, when the communication style is vague and general - which will in turn lead to a lower corporate reputation.
H7: A precise and factual communication style enhances young consumers’ trust to-wards an interactive CSR communication approach on social media – which will in turn lead to a higher corporate reputation.
H8: A vague and general communication style undermines young consumers’ trust to-wards an interactive CSR communication approach on social media – which will in turn lead to a lower corporate reputation.
In figure 1, the conceptual model, on which this paper is based in order to investigate on the above-mentioned hypotheses, can be observed:
Figure 1: Conceptual Research Model
Method Research Design
To investigate the effects of different CSR communication approaches of a company on skepticism, trust and corporate reputation, a 2x2 between-subject online experiment was conducted, with interactive vs. non-interactive communication as one factor and precise vs. vague communication as the second factor. In the following section, information will be given on the sample and procedure, the stimuli material and the measurement of all variables.
Sample
As this paper aims to build upon research by Schmeltz (2012) on young consumers, the same age span of respondents, namely between 18 and 30 years old, was used. The online experiment was conducted in December 2016, in a time period of ten days. Respondents were asked to participate via Facebook and WhatsApp. Hence, a convenience sample was used. Participants got randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. In total, 260
people filled out the survey, after subtracting all incomplete and all responses that had to be excluded due to the age, a total amount of 197 respondents remained. 62,4% of respondents were female. 169 out of 197 participants had a university degree and the remaining 28
participants had a high school degree. Moreover, most of the participants were either between 22 and 25 years old (58%) or between 26 and 30 years old (36%). Finally, it should also be mentioned, that almost 60% of respondents were from Germany and 85,5% from Europe. Hence, the sample used in this study is not representative of young consumers in general.
In order to see whether the random assignment of participants was successful, a one-way ANOVA with the four different conditions as independent variables and age, nationality and education as dependent variables was conducted. Results show, that the randomization was successful for age (F(3, 193) = 1.31, p = .272, η2 = 0.02), education (F(3, 193) = 1.97,
p = .120, η2 = 0.03) and nationality (F(3, 193) = 0.93, p = .427, η2 = 0.01). Moreover, a
Chi-square test showed that the randomization for gender was successful, N = 197 = 9.39, p = .152.
Procedure
There were four different experimental groups: Respondents assigned to an
interactively used social media channel with a factual and precise communication style (n= 51), respondents assigned to an interactively used social media channel with a vague and general communication style (n= 49), respondents assigned to a non-interactively used social media channel with a factual and precise communication style (n= 49) and finally
respondents assigned to a non-interactively used social media channel with a vague and general communication style (n= 48).
Participants could take part in the online experiment by clicking on the link shared with them. First, they received an introduction to the study and the company they would be
asked about. Next, participants were confronted with one of the four different conditions. Then, the questionnaire included questions about their level of skepticism and trust towards the companies CSR claims as well as their image of the company. After that, respondents answered some general questions about them and their preferences and habits. Finally, the participants were debriefed about being part of an experiment, where fictive Facebook accounts of companies were set up.
Measurements
The following section will shed light on which variables were used in the experiment and how they were measured (see Appendix A for all survey items; Appendix B, figures B1-B4 for the stimuli material and Appendix C, table C1 for the descriptives of all computed variables).
Independent variable (first manipulation). As its manipulation, this experiment used corporate Facebook pages with different communication approaches. Facebook was chosen, as it still has the highest number of active users according to the Global Social Media Ranking (Statista, 2016). Furthermore, the paper used a fictive, rather than a real company, because prior opinions and attitudes towards a company could bias the level of consumer skepticism, trust and the perceived reputation. As for the type of the company, it should be relevant for all young consumers and the sector should have a fairly neutral image when it comes to CSR engagement. Hence, I chose the telecommunications industry.
Interactive communication here meant, that the company engages its consumers in a dialogue, and follows a two-way, rather than one-way communication (Sweetser, 2010). Following Zhang and Lin (2015), I considered communication on social media as interactive, when there is a message exchange between consumers and company. Hence, interactivity is connected to company responsiveness (Ott, Vafeiadis, Kumble, & Waddell, 2016) and to the
expectation of the company to receive feedback (Jo & Kim, 2003; Kelleher, 2009). In
contrast to non-interactive communication, the interactive condition included questions to the audience and answers by the company to users’ comments. As opposed to this, the non-interactive condition only showed messages disseminated by the company, following the traditional, one-way communication approach (Grunig, 2009). For the analysis, the independent variable was coded into a dummy variable with interactive communication coded as 1 and non-interactive communication coded as 0.
Moderator (second manipulation). For the second factor of the manipulation – style of communication – respondents either received CSR messages on Facebook that included vague and general statements, like „In 2017, we will further work on reducing our CO² emissions“ or statements including specific details and concrete outcomes (Reilly & Hynan, 2014). Specific examples like „In 2017, we want to reduce our CO² emissions by 10%, thereby further raising the reductions by 2.5% compared to 2016“ were presented, rather than general descriptions (Schmeltz, 2012). For the analysis, I built a moderator variable with vague communication style coded as 1 and precise communication style coded as 0.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable used in this study was corporate
reputation. A selection of an existing scale by Gardberg and Fombrun (2002) was used. The variable was operationalized with seven statements, for example “I have a good feeling about this company“ and “This company is well-managed”. Participants could give their answers on a 7-point Likert Scale, reaching from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A principal component analysis (PCA) showed that all items form a single uni-dimensional scale, as only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 4.14) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. The respective variables showed a high internal consistency and could hence be computed into the scale “Corporate Reputation” (Chronbach’s α= .882).
Mediators. The experiment aimed to measure the impact of interactive and
non-interactive CSR communication on corporate reputation through the level of skepticism and trust towards the companies CSR communication. The present paper used an existing scale for CSR skepticism by Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013). The variable was operationalized with four items, for example “It is questionable that this company acts in a socially responsible way”, respondents could give their answer on a 7-point Likert scale. A PCA showed that the four items form a single uni-dimensional scale, as only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.57) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Moreover, the “Consumer Skepticism” scale was found to be reliable (Chronbach’s α= .802).
For consumer trust, this paper adopted scales by Sirdeshmukh, Singh and Sabol (2002) and Kim et al. (2015). Five items were used to measure consumer trust, asking if the company appeared to be “competent”, “of high integrity”, “honest”, “trustworthy” and “reliable” on a 10-point scale, reaching for example from „very dishonest“ to „very honest“. A PCA showed that all items form a single uni-dimensional scale, as only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 3.82) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. The scale “Consumer Trust” showed a high level of internal consistency (Chronbach’s α= .922).
Control variables. Respondents were asked about their gender, age, education and nationality. Furthermore, the questionnaire included questions about the personal importance of CSR, using items by Schmeltz, 2012. The scale originally consisted of six items, asking about how important participants rate for example that the company takes good care of the environment or that the company treats its employees well. After running a reliability
analysis, I deleted one item (“That the company generates profits”), so that Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale “CSR importance” was reasonably reliable (α= .755). A PCA showed that the
five items form a single uni-dimensional scale, as only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.55) and there is a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. Furthermore, respondents were asked to indicate how familiar they were with Facebook on a 5-point Likert scale, how often they used social media to get information about companies and if they believed that CSR increases a company’s credibility and image.
Manipulation Check
Firstly, participants were asked if they perceived the Facebook page to be interactive, with answer options reaching from „not interactive at all“ to „very interactive“ on a 5-point Likert scale. Secondly, there were 5 items asking for how precise, factual, specific, general and vague the communication on the Facebook page was perceived on a 7-point Likert scale.
To check if the two manipulations worked, independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the level of perceived interactivity on the interactive and
non-interactive condition and to compare the perceived communication styles (precise and vague) on the two different communication style conditions. Results showed, that the first
manipulation was successful, because participants perceived the interactivity to be significantly higher for the interactive condition (M= 3.77, SD= 0.86), than for the non-interactive condition (M= 2.16, SD= 1.15), t(195)= -11.1, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.89; -1.32]. The effect is very large, Cohen’s d = 1.59. Moreover, participants from the precise
communication condition (M= 13.56, SD= 4.11) rated the communication style to be more precise, factual and specific than participants who were assigned to the general
communication style condition (M=10.35, SD= 4.16), t(195)= 5.45, p < .001, 95% CI [2.05; 4.32]. The effect is large, Cohen’s d = 0.78. The same applied vice versa, as the general communication style condition scored significantly higher on the perceived vagueness (M= 10.06, SD= 2.68) than the precise communication style condition (M= 8.01, SD= 2.70),
t(195)= -5.41, p < .001, 95% CI [-2.83; -1.32]. The effect is large, Cohen’s d = 0.76. Hence,
both manipulations worked successfully.
Analysis and Results
In my analysis I tested for the effect of interactive and non-interactive CSR
communication on social media on consumer skepticism and trust. Besides, I tested if trust and skepticism played an opposing mediation role on corporate reputation. On top of that, the experiment examined whether the communication style could strengthen or weaken the relationship between interactive and non-interactive communication and trust or skepticism and thereby also the corporate reputation.
All variables were tested for normal distribution. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed, that the assumption for a normally distributed variable was not met by the consumer skepticism scale (p = .003). The variable was a little left-skewed, however, after visual interpretation it can be stated that the skewness was not critical (see Appendix C, figure C1).
To test hypotheses 1 to 4, a mediation analysis by Hayes (2012) was applied, by running a regression analysis in Process. For the mediation analysis, I used model 4 of the program with 1.000 bootstrap samples to estimate the bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. To test the remaining four hypotheses I conducted two moderated mediation analyses by using model 7 in Process (Hayes, 2012). For both moderated mediation analyses interactive communication was the independent variable, communication style the moderator and corporate reputation the dependent variable. For the first analysis, skepticism was entered as the mediator and for the second analysis trust. For all mediation and moderated mediation analyses, I included CSR importance, CSR opinion, Facebook familiarity, Facebook
corporate usage and gender as control variables. Age and education were not included, as an analysis of variance showed, that there were no differences in skepticism, trust and reputation
between the three different age groups and the three different educational groups (see Appendix C, tables C2-C7). Moreover, age and education were already quite homogenous groups, as described in the sample section.
The relationship between interactive communication and consumer skepticism vs. consumer trust
After two mediation analyses with firstly skepticism and secondly trust as the
mediators were conducted, the regression coefficients of the a-paths could give indication of the level of skepticism and trust in relation to interactive CSR communication on social media. The effect of interactive communication on skepticism was non-significant (b = -.02,
SE = 0.17, p = .927). Hence, H1 has to be rejected, as interactive communication did not lead
to a lower level of skepticism (nor to a higher level).
The a-path of the second mediation model showed, that interactive communication has no significant effect on the level of consumer trust (b = 0.47, SE = 0.24, p = .056). Hence, H2 has to be rejected as well. Nor the level of skepticism neither the level of trust of young consumers is different for interactive vs. non-interactive communication on social media.
The relationship between interactive communication and corporate reputation mediated by skepticism and trust
The first mediation model with skepticism as a mediator, interactive vs. non-interactive communication as the independent variable and reputation as the dependent variable was significant, F(195) = 2.86, p = .011, so the model could in general be used to predict corporate reputation. 8% of the variation in corporate reputation could be explained by the independent variable and all control variables together (R² = .08). There was a significant negative effect of skepticism on reputation (b = -.48, SE = 0.05, p < .001) and a
significant direct effect of interactive communication on corporate reputation (b = 0.36, SE = .11, p = .001), in the expected direction, as participants assigned to the interactive condition were on average more positive about the reputation. Table 1 shows the regression coefficients of the independent variable and all control variables for skepticism and reputation.
Table 1: Estimates of regression model of interactive communication on skepticism and corporate
reputation DV: skepticism DV: reputation b SE b SE Constant 5.38*** 0.71 5.20*** 0.55 Int. communication -0.02 0.17 0.36** 0.11 Skepticism / / -0.48*** 0.05 CSR importance -0.06 0.12 0.01 0.10 FB corporate usage -0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 FB familiarity -0.01 0.11 -0.02 0.07 CSR opinion -0.16* 0.08 0.09 0.05 Gender -0.44* 0.17 0.01 0.12
Note. Mediation analysis with skepticism as the mediator. N = 196. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Furthermore, results showed a significant indirect effect of interactive vs. non-interactive communication on corporate reputation via consumer skepticism (b = .01, SE = .08, 95% bca CI [-0.15; 0.17]). Following this, H3 needs to be rejected. It was not because young consumers were less skeptical when confronted with interactive communication, that they had a more positive attitude towards the company.
The second mediation model with the same predictor and outcome variable, but trust as a mediator is significant, F(195) = 2.34, p = .033. 26% of the variation in corporate
reputation can be explained by the independent variable and all control variables together (R² = .26). While interactive communication did not lead to a higher level of trust (see above), trust significantly led to a higher corporate reputation (b = .39, SE = .03, p < .001). Further, there was no significant direct effect of interactive communication on corporate reputation (b = 0.19, SE = .10, p = .064). Table 2 shows the regression coefficients for trust and reputation.
Table 2: Estimates of regression model of interactive communication on trust and corporate
reputation DV: trust DV: reputation b SE b SE Constant 3.44** 1.05 1.27** 0.44 Int. Communication 0.47 0.24 0.19 0.10 Trust / / 0.39*** 0.03 CSR importance -0.03 0.23 0.05 0.09 FB corporate usage 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.05 FB familiarity 0.16 0.16 -0.07 0.07 CSR opinion 0.21 0.12 0.09 0.05 Gender 0.24 0.25 0.13 0.10
Note. Mediation analysis with trust as the mediator. N = 196. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Moreover, interactive communication significantly led to a higher score on corporate reputation via consumer trust (b = 0.18, SE = .10, 95% bca CI [0.01; 0.38]). Thus, H4 can be supported. When confronted with an interactive CSR communication on social media, young consumers perceived the company to have a higher reputation due to a higher level of trust.
The moderating effect of the communication style on the mediation relationship For skepticism, the moderated mediation model was significant, F(195) = 2.70, p = .008, and could therefore in general be used to predict corporate reputation. 32% of the variation in corporate reputation could be explained by the independent variable and all control variables together (R² = .32). The regression coefficients of the independent, moderator, mediator and control variables on skepticism and reputation can be observed in table 3.
Table 3: Estimates of regression analysis of interactive communication on skepticism and corporate
reputation moderated for communication style
DV: skepticism DV: reputation b SE b SE Constant 5.27*** 0.71 5.20*** 0.54 Int. communication 0.20 0.23 0.36** 0.11 Vague communication 0.48* 0.24 / / Skepticism / / -0.48*** 0.05 CSR importance -0.07 0.15 0.01 0.10 FB corporate usage -0.04 0.08 0.06 0.05 FB familiarity -0.05 0.11 -0.02 0.07 CSR opinion -0.16* 0.08 0.09 0.05 Gender -0.48** 0.17 0.01 0.12
Note. Moderated mediation analysis with skepticism as the mediator. N = 196. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
The model showed a non-significant effect of both vague communication style (b = 0.10, SE = .11, 95% bca CI [-0.11; 0.32]) and precise communication style (b = -.10, SE =
communication and corporate reputation with skepticism as a mediator. Thus, H5 and H6 have to be rejected. This means, that both communication styles had no influence on the relationship between interactive and non-interactive communication on social media and skepticism, which can also be observed in figure 2.
Figure 2: The interaction effect of interactive vs. non-interactive communication and the
communication style on consumer skepticism
For trust, the moderated mediation model in general was significant, F(195) = 2.36, p = .020, 30% of the variation in corporate reputation could be explained by the independent variable, the moderator variable and all control variables together (R² = .30). The regression coefficients of the independent, moderator, mediator and control variables on trust and reputation can be observed in table 4.
Table 4: Estimates of regression analysis of interactive communication on trust and corporate
reputation moderated for communication style
DV: trust DV: reputation b SE b SE Constant 3.42** 1.04 1.27** 0.44 Int. communication 0.73* 0.34 0.19 0.10 Vague communication -0.16 0.34 / / Trust / / 0.39*** 0.03 CSR importance -0.07 0.22 0.05 0.09 FB corporate usage 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.05 FB familiarity 0.19 0.16 -0.07 0.07 CSR opinion 0.23* 0.12 0.09 0.05 Gender 0.28 0.25 0.13 0.10
Note. Moderated mediation analysis with skepticism as the mediator. N = 196. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
There was a non-significant moderating effect of the vague communication style condition on the relationship between interactive communication and corporate reputation with trust as a mediator (b = 0.07, SE = 0.13, 95% bca CI [-0.17; 0.33]), but a significant positive effect of precise communication on the relationship (b = 0.28, SE = 0.13, 95% bca CI [0.04; 0.56]). While H8 has to be rejeceted, this confirms, what was expected about the relationship in H7. It means, that young consumers trusted the company's CSR messages on interactive social media channels even more, when the communication style was precise and factual. Below, in figure 3, it is visualized that while the level of trust was approximately the
same for non-interactive communication and both communication styles, consumers trusted a company by far the most, when the communication was interactive and precise.1
Figure 3: The interaction effect of interactive vs. non-interactive communication and the
communication style on consumer trust
Discussion
This study aimed to find out how companies should best use social media to communicate about their CSR efforts. It proposed, that interactive communication should lead to less skeptical reactions and to a higher level of trust. Both, in turn, should make interactive CSR communication on social media a more suitable way to raise a company’s reputation than non-interactive communication. Besides, this paper investigated on whether the style of communication, in particular preciseness vs. vagueness, would have an impact on
the effectiveness of CSR communication on social media. In the following, the findings of this study will first be discussed for skepticism and secondly for trust.
Skepticism and CSR communication on social media
The present results corroborate previous research by Lauritsen and Perks (2015), who suggested that interactive communication has a positive effect on corporate reputation. As this paper found the same connection to be present, there is strong evidence to assume, that companies should rely on an open, interactive CSR communication approach. This implies, that the overall research question can be answered by saying that companies should use social media interactively to communicate about their CSR efforts to young consumers in order to enhance their corporate reputation. Furthermore, the present study aimed to explain the composition of the abovementioned relationship, by including possible antecedents of corporate reputation.
In line with Aksak et al. (2016), skepticism proves to be a significant antecedent, which lowers the corporate reputation. Yet, quite surprisingly, there is no difference in the level of skepticism for interactive and non-interactive communication. In fact, consumer skepticism seems not to play any role in the relationship between interactive communication and corporate reputation, as it also does not act as a mediator. This differs from what was suggested by Eberle et al. (2013), who found out that consumers prefer an interactive communication as they perceive it to be more credible. Moreover, whether the
communication was precise or vague did not change the level of skepticism and so the corporate reputation remained unaffected.
Hence, it can be concluded, that in line with what Schmeltz (2012) stated, skepticism does not play a crucial role for young consumers anymore, when it comes to open and direct CSR communication. A possible reason might be, that young consumers are aware that
companies benefit from their CSR efforts as well and thus do not question the corporate CSR motives that much anymore, which leads to less critical reactions towards open CSR
communication (Lauritsen & Perks, 2015; Du et al., 2010). In addition, Bachmann and Ingenhoff (2016) examined, that even when companies communicate about their CSR openly and extensively, the credibility of a company will profit instead of suffer, as they had
expected due to stakeholder skepticism. They concluded, that companies should always communicate their CSR openly and directly to enhance corporate legitimacy.
Trust and CSR communication on social media
Contradicting to what was expected, the results show that interactive communication is not related to a higher level of trust. Unlike what scholars assumed, the possibilities of interactive communication to engage with consumers (Mangold and Faulds, 2009), build relationships (Ott et al., 2016; Jo & Kim, 2003) and the fact, that consumers have more control over the content (Mangold & Faulds, 2009) do not result in more trusting consumers.
Surprisingly, the findings of the present study could not prove the idea, that interactive communication enhances consumer trust, even though it could show, that interactive communication only leads to a higher reputation when trust could be instilled before. This further confirms the mediating role of trust between CSR communication and reputation (Fatma et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2015).
Moreover, for non-interactive communication, it does not make a difference if the communication style is precise or vague, whereas for the interactive communication the level of trust is a lot higher when the communication is precise. So, in fact it is the combination of interactive and precise communication that really enhances the level of trust. This is the most relevant and important finding of this paper, as it has never been researched in that
interact with the public, because consumers will only be satisfied when the dialogue is informative as well (Ott et al., 2016). Also, Colleoni (2013) stressed out, that there has to be alignment in the dialogue between the company and the consumers. Yet, it could never be explained how and why exactly a company should aim for alignment when interacting with its public on social media. Following the present findings, we know now, that young consumers trust a company a lot more, when they not only see how the company interacts with its public, but when the company also manages to satisfy the consumers’ need for precise information and responses.
Conclusion
After combining existing research and the findings of this study, it can be stated, that companies should choose open and interactive CSR communication when communicating to a young audience. Rather than reacting skeptically when confronted with a direct CSR communication, young consumers in fact want to be engaged in dialogue about the company's CSR efforts and strategies. Social media seem to be an effective way to
communicate with young consumers, especially because it enables their engagement. Hence, Kent and Taylor’s (2016) claim that CSR and social media are „a match made in heaven“ can be justified at least when companies reach out to their younger consumers. More precisely, companies should not only use social media channels interactively, but it seems to be just as important, that the messages they send out are precise and factual. Young consumers are critical and highly demanding when it comes to the implementation of CSR, so they seek for precise information. When they engage with companies on social media, it seems to be particularly important, that the company asks for specific feedback and does not give
responses that are too general, so that the consumers feel like their feedback is actually taken seriously.
While young consumers will not be any more or less skeptical when confronted with CSR communication on social media, they will trust companies more, when they
communicate about their CSR in an interactive and precise manner. Hence, only when a company manages to instill trust in the consumer through their CSR communication on social media, there will be a positive impact on the corporate reputation.
Limitations and Future Research
A few limitations have to be mentioned, when interpreting the results. First of all, the present study is not applicable to young consumers in general, as I used a convenient sample (Bryman, 2015). Hence, my sample significantly differs from the targeted population, in that most respondents are highly educated and from Germany (or Europe). Thus, future research with less time and financial restrictions should use a probability sample to test the model. Further, the stimuli material that has been used for the different experimental conditions, is rather restrictive. Respondents could have been biased by the choice and the description of the fictive company. They could also have been influenced by the Facebook page, which has been set up only for the purpose of this study. Future research could verify the results by testing the model with actually existing companies, which follow different CSR
communication approaches on social media.
Also, effect sizes for the mediation and moderated mediation with trust as a mediator are acceptable, yet it is still likely that other factors might explain additional variance
between the interactive and the non-interactive condition. Future research could take other antecedents into account, that have been related to corporate reputation in existing literature, like customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Walsh, Mitchell, Jackson, & Beatty, 2009). Moreover, instead of involving skepticism in the research model, researchers should probably
focus on message credibility, which had an effect on corporate reputation in past research (Eberle et al., 2013; Bachmann & Ingenhoff, 2016).
In general, future research could build on the present study by further filling the research gap on direct CSR communication via social media. While we know that young consumers prefer interactivity, it remains unclear how they can be motivated to interact with a company on social media. Above that, it should be tested if the results are actually only applicable to young consumers, or if they are also appropriate for other age groups. It should also be further validated, if the combination of interactive and precise communication is indeed the most effective way to foster trust in different company sectors.
To sum up, this study contributes to existing research as it gives new insights into how CSR communication can be applied in order to have the most positive outcomes. Different to many studies in the field, it suggests, that companies should not be worried, when communicating about their CSR openly and directly – at least when directed to a young audience. Whereas skepticism is no relevant factor anymore when asking how to
communicate CSR effectively, trust is of central importance. The present study confirmed that there will not be an enhanced corporate reputation due to interactive communication on social media, unless consumer trust could be instilled before. Further, this research is the first to integrate the communication style into the research model. The novel finding, that
interaction is only appealing to consumers, when the company sends out precise messages, is noteworthy. All in all, this study is indicatory for how researchers as well as communication practitioners should think about creating an appealing CSR communication on social media.
References
Aksak, E. O., Ferguson, M. A., & Duman, S. A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and CSR fit as predictors of corporate reputation: A global perspective. Public Relations
Review, 42(1), 79-81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.004
Bachmann, P., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 386-394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.02.008
Bartlett, J. L. (2011). Public relations and corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social
responsibility (pp. 67-86). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Berens, G., & Van Rekom, J. (2008). How specific should corporate communication be. In T. C. Melewar (Ed.), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Reputation (pp. 96-117). New York: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford university press. Calefato, F., Lanubile, F., & Novielli, N. (2015). The role of social media in affective trust
building in customer–supplier relationships. Electronic Commerce Research, 15(4), 453-482.
DOI: 10.1007/s10660-015-9194-3
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral man-agement of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: an International Journal, 18(2), 228-248.
Curley, C. B., & Noormohamed, N. A. (2014). Social media marketing effects on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business & Economics Research (Online), 12(1), 61. Dawkins, J. (2005). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of
Communication Management, 9(2), 108-119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540510621362
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.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Dutot, V., Lacalle Galvez, E., & Versailles, D. W. (2016). CSR communications strategies through social media and influence on e-reputation: An exploratory study.
Management Decision, 54(2), 363-389.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1108/MD-01-2015-0015
Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsi-bility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics,
118(4), 731-746.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1957-y
Elving, W. J. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-292.
Fatma, M., Rahman, Z., & Khan, I. (2015). Building company reputation and brand equity through CSR: The mediating role of trust. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
33(6), 840-856.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1108/IJBM-11-2014-0166
Fombrun, C. J. (2005). The leadership challenge: Building resilient corporate reputations. In J. P. Doh & S. A. Stumpf, Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in
Global Business, 54 (pp. 61-68). Pennsylvania: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Forehand, 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_15
Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22(4), 411–431.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1108/09555341011056186
Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: First steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate
Reputati-on Review, 4(4), 303-307.
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540151
Global social media ranking 2016. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.
Grant, I. C. (2004). Communicating with young people through the eyes of marketing practi-tioners. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(5-6), 591-606.
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism,
6(2), 1-19. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.670.1714&rep=rep1&type= pdf
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable me-diation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White Paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 199-223.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1503_1
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and oppor-tunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172-188.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars. The Sage
Handbook of Public Relations, 2, 643-656.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.003
Kesavan, R., Bernacchi, M. D., & Mascarenhas, O. A. (2013). Word of mouse: CSR communication and the social media. International Management Review, 9(1), 58. Retrieved from http://scholarspress.us/journals/IMR/pdf/IMR-1-2013/v9n113-art6.pdf Kim, H., Hur, W. M., & Yeo, J. (2015). Corporate brand trust as a mediator in the relation-
ship between consumer perception of CSR, corporate hypocrisy, and corporate reputa-tion. Sustainability, 7(4), 3683-3694.
DOI: 10.3390/su7043683
Lai, C. S., Chiu, C. J., Yang, C. F., & Pai, D. C. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 457-469.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0433-1
Lauritsen, B. D., & Perks, K. J. (2015). The influence of interactive, non-interactive, implicit and explicit CSR communication on young adults’ perception of UK supermarkets’ corporate brand image and reputation. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 20(2), 178-195.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1108/CCIJ-09-2013-0065
Lee, K., Oh, W. Y., & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis of fortune 500’s twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. Journal of Business
Ethics, 118(4), 791-806.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1961-2
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 122, 186-200.
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on corporate greenwash. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 747-757.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1958-x
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the pro-motion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
Moretti, A., & Tuan, A. (2013). Social Media as a laboratory of value creation in the CSR field. In Xth Congress of the Italian Society of Marketing.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 15(4), 323-338.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1080/13527260701856608
Moutchnik, A. (2013). Im Glaslabyrinth der Kommunikation. Der Dialog mit Stakeholdern über Umwelt, Nachhaltigkeit und CSR in Social Media. uwf
Umwelt-WirtschaftsForum, 21(1-2), 19-37.
DOI: 10.1007/s00550-013-0286-z
Nwagbara, U., & Reid, P. (2013). Corporate social responsibility communication in the age of new media: Towards the logic of sustainability communication. Revista de
Ma-nagement Comparat International, 14(3), 400-414. Retrieved from
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The conse-quences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/4189305
Ott, H. K., Vafeiadis, M., Kumble, S., & Waddell, T. F. (2016). Effect of message interactivi-ty on product attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Promotion Ma nagement,
22(1), 89-106.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1080/10496491.2015.1107011
Park, G., Kim, W., Oh, J., & Chung, K. (2016). Study on the structural relationship among CSR motivations, CSR activities, trust and loyalty: Focused on Korea retailing sector.
International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology, 9(5), 169-180.
Retrieved from http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJUNESST/vol9_no5/15.pdf Park, J., Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and
corporate reputation: South Korean consumers' perspectives. Journal of Business
Research, 67(3), 295-302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.016
Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer trust: The case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3-12.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00515.x
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.07.008
Schmeltz, L. (2012). Consumer-oriented CSR communication: Focusing on ability or mo-rality?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(1), 29-49. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1108/13563281211196344
Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 401-414.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2282-9
Sichtmann, C. (2007). An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 999-1015.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1108/03090560710773318
Signitzer, B., & Prexl, A. (2007). Corporate sustainability communications: Aspects of theory and professionalization. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(1), 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1080/10627260701726996
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relatio-nal exchanges. Jourrelatio-nal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/3203367
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
Stanaland, A. J., Lwin, M. O., & Murphy, P. E. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the ante-cedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics, 102(1), 47–55.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0904-z
Sweetser, K. D. (2010). A losing strategy: The impact of nondisclosure in social media on relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 288-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627261003614401
Tomaselli, G., & Melia, M. (2014). The role of interactive technologies for CSR communica-tion. Publications in International Scientific Publications: Economy & Business
Van Halderen, M. D., van Riel, C. B., & Brown, T. J. (2011). Balancing between legitimacy and distinctiveness in corporate messaging: A case study in the oil industry.
Corpo-rate Reputation Review, 14(4), 273-299.
DOI: 10.1057/crr.2011.19
Vernuccio, M. (2014). Communicating corporate brands through social media: An explorato-ry study. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(3), 211-233.
DOI: 10.1177/2329488414525400
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170-180.
DOI: 10.1007/s11747-008-0117-x
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. W., Jackson, P. R., & Beatty, S. E. (2009). Examining the antece-dents and consequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective. British
Journal of Management, 20(2), 187-203.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00557.x
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsi-bility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer
Psy-chology, 16(4), 377-390.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
Zhang, C. B., & Lin, Y. H. (2015). Exploring interactive communication using social media.
The Service Industries Journal, 35(11-12), 670-693.
