GOING GREEN AFTER A CSR SCANDAL
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY INTO THE EFFECTS OF CSR CLAIMS
AFTER A CSR-RELATED CRISIS, IN RESPONSE TO THE VOLKSWAGEN
DIESELGATE AFFAIR
NAME: ANNE-LOTTE KRAESGENBERG STUDENT NUMBER: 11094796
PROGRAM: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TRACK: MARKETING
INSTITUTION: UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM FACULTY: ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS SUPERVISOR: LARS MORATIS
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Anne-Lotte Kraesgenberg, 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
AIM This study provides insights into the effects of CSR-claims on consumers’ judgements
after a CSR-related crisis has occurred. Significant differences and effects are identified to provide practical insights for future organizational communication towards consumers.
BACKGROUND More than ever before, companies engage in CSR initiatives to make a
positive contribution to society, support their strategic goals (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013), to reduce negative effects of their business (Lyon & Maxwell, 2008) or meet stakeholders’ expectations (Juščius & Snieška, 2015). Besides positive organizational outcomes, the abundancy of CSR claims and numerous reported incidents of corporate misconduct also lead to risks and crises. A contemporary example is the Dieselgate affair by Volkswagen.
METHOD A scenario based 2 (humour versus non-humour) x 2 (firm- versus public centered
CSR motives) x 2 (mentioning versus non-mentioning prior crisis) experiment is conducted through a fictitious online corporate CSR page. 313 Dutch respondents conducted the study and evaluated the organization based on corporate CSR communication.
FINDINGS The results give new insights in the strategic use of CSR claims. First, the use of
humour leads to higher perceived organizational credibility and social and environmental responsibility compared to the non-use of humour. Second, Firm-centered motives lead to higher consumer scepticism compared to public-centered motives. Third, consumer CSR orientation segmentation leads to differences in consumer judgements after a CSR crisis.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS This study provides practical implication and prove of
positive corporate outcomes using humour and appropriate CSR motives. Organizations should be aware of communication possibilities to restore organizational reputation.
Keywords: CSR crisis; humour, CSR motives; prior crisis reputation; consumer CSR orientation
CONTENT
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY 2 ABSTRACT 3 1 INTRODUCTION 6 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 CSR and organizations 102.2 Volkswagen’s Dieselgate affair 14
2.3 Consumer responses to CSR claims 15
2.4 Communication style 18
2.5 CSR motives 19
2.6 Prior crisis communication 20
2.7 Consumer CSR orientation 21 2.8 Conceptual model 22 3 METHOD 24 3.1 Design 24 3.2 Stimulus material 24 3.3 Pre-test study 25 3.4 Manipulation checks 26
3.5 Participants 26
3.6 Dependent measures 27
3.7 Control variables 29
4 RESULTS 30
4.1 Main effect of humour 30
4.2 Main effect of motives 31
4.3 Main effect of prior crisis communication 31
4.4 Main effect of consumer CSR orientation 32
4.5 Moderation effect of consumer CSR orientation 34
5 DISCUSSION 36
5.1 Discussion of the results 36
5.2 Managerial implications 40
5.3 Limitations and future research 42
6 CONCLUSION 44
7 REFERENCES 45
1
INTRODUCTION
General context
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a contemporary topic in management today. More than ever before, companies engage in CSR initiatives to make a positive contribution to society or support their strategic goals (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013), or to reduce negative effects of their business, such as pollution during production processes (Lyon & Maxwell, 2008). CSR engagement is not only based on intrinsic motivations by organizations themselves. Society nowadays expects organizations to be socially engaged and almost every modern organization is in one way or another involved in corporate social responsibility activities (De Jong & van der Meer, 2015).
In the face of an abundancy of CSR claims and numerous reported incidents of corporate misconduct, many people doubt the extent to which companies live up to their professed standards, and consumer skepticism toward corporate social involvement is on the rise (Skarmeas et al., 2013). Consumers believe only 38% of the CSR claims are credible, even though 72% of the consumers is ‘very interested’ in the topic (GlobeScan, 2012). Since
consumers are more sensitive to negative CSR information than to positive CSR information, managers need to be cognizant about the hazards of being perceived as socially irresponsible (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007).
Research paradox
Many studies analysed the positive effect of CSR on consumer behaviour (e.g. Brown & Dacin, 1997; Diehl, Terlutter & Mueller, 2015; Drumwright, 1994; Osterhus, 1997; Porter & Kramer, 2006 and Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Also, research discussed the use of CSR in crisis communication (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Klein & Dawar, 2004). However, little is known about negative effect of CSR, which could lead to a CSR-based challenge (Coombs &
minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently”. A CSR-based challenge could develop into an organizational crisis, with severe consequences for an organization’s reputation.
Relevant example
A contemporary example of this type of CSR-related crisis is the emission fraud, popularly known as Dieselgate, by the Volkswagen Group. Since they tampered with the emission software in a large amount of diesel cars, not only consumers accuse the organization of irresponsible behaviour, even the US Department of Justice sued Volkswagen for installing the fraudulent software in hundreds of thousands of cars. Volkswagen responded to the CSR-related crisis by resignation of the CEO, the product recall of the tampered cars, official statements and full page humorous advertisements where they apologize towards the consumers.
Literature gap
This incident raises many questions concerning the use of CSR by organizations. Although the latest literature does identify the risks of CSR claims (e.g. Skarmeas et al., 2013; Coombs et al., 2015), none of these studies give insights in proper organizational behaviour after a crisis has occurred and crisis communication is dispersed, especially not in a CSR context. When analysing the news about this severe CSR-related crisis at Volkswagen and seeing the contemporary ad in which they apologize towards the consumers, a knowledge gap surfaces. No current literature gives insights into the proper communication of CSR claims after a CSR-related crisis. Also, no insights into the communication style is provided, such as whether or not the humorous tone which VW used in their crisis adds are a suitable strategy for future CSR claims, or in what the organization could justify their future CSR activities in a credible manner after a CSR crisis is revealed.
Research goal
In summary, the primary contribution of this study is to give more insight into the effects of humour, CSR motives, negative CSR history and consumer CSR orientation on skepticism, credibility and reputation. This study will tap into this literature gap by conduction research based on the following research question:
How can organizations influence consumers’ scepticism, perceived organizational credibility and organization’s reputation through CSR claims after a severe CSR-related crisis has occurred?
The following sub questions are formulated to help answering the research question as described above:
(1) How does the use of humour in post-crisis CSR claims affect consumers’ judgements?
(2) How do CSR motives communicated trough post-crisis CSR claims affect consumers’
judgements?
(3) How does communication concerning prior negative CSR history during post-crisis
CSR claims affect consumers’ judgements?
(4) How does consumer CSR orientation affect consumers’ judgements?
(5) How does consumer CSR orientation affect the relationship between CSR claims and
consumers’ judgements? Academic relevance
This study contributes to the field of CSR literature in several ways. First, this study is the first research to explore the field of CSR communication after a CSR-related crisis has occurred, which could be seen as CSR communication by an organization with a negative CSR history. Second, this study segments consumer CSR orientation by a new model, the Sustainable Segment Model. This model segments consumers based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.
By applying this model, differences in consumers’ judgements based on their sustainable
attitude will be analysed. Third, this study analyses the effects of humour, CSR motives and mentioning prior CSR history based on a contemporary large-scale example, the Dieselgate affair. Overall, this study provides new insights into post-crisis CSR communication, consumer CSR orientation and consumers' judgements.
Managerial relevance
Where other studies analyse the effect of CSR during a crisis (e.g. Pirsch, Gupta & Grau, 2007; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009), this study goes a step further into the field of post-crisis communication towards consumers. Since CSR is such an upcoming topic nowadays, and almost every organization is involved in these activities, a crisis is around the corner. Managers could face severe challenges concerning future CSR claims towards their consumers, and guidance and practical insights is needed. By studying multiple variables concerning post-crisis CSR claims, this study will provide new ingredients to properly develop CSR claims after a CSR crisis.
Overview
In order to answer the research questions thoroughly, this study will pursue the following approach. A literature review will explore the field of CSR, organizational crisis, CSR-based challenges and multiple related organizational and consumer variables. Hypotheses will be formulated based on the gaps identified in the theoretical framework. Through the development of the hypotheses, a conceptual framework is identified. A large-scale study is conducted and results will be presented. At last, results will be discussed and conclusions will be drawn. Also, managerial implications and future research directions will be provided.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review provides insights into the academic literature on CSR, the risks and effects of CSR, consumer responses to CSR and the communication of CSR claims after a severe crisis. A contemporary example, the Dieselgate affair by Volkswagen, will be linked to these concepts as a case example and starting point for the study.
2.1 CSR and organizations
When organizations communicate about their corporate business practices, consumers can hardly ignore the organizational engagement in CSR activities. Attention towards CSR has been growing for years whereas CSR becomes a part of modern companies’ activity which is stimulated by a number of factors, one of which is the alternation of consumers’ wishes and demand (Juščius & Snieška, 2015). Consumers, governments, and other corporate stakeholders are increasingly interested in the contributions companies can and should make to society, and corporate social responsibility issues prominently appear on the corporate agenda (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013).
CSR has emerged in recent years as both an important academic construct and a pressing corporate agenda item (e.g., Colvin, 2001, Harrison & Freeman, 1999, Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001 and Waddock & Smith, 2000). Since there are many definitions of CSR in literature, Dahlsrud (2006) analysed five different dimensions of CSR, the (1) environmental, (2) social, (3) economic, (4) stakeholder and (5) voluntariness dimension and found the most cited definition which covered all dimensions; “CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social
and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (p. 7).
From a marketing perspective, the firm's economic benefits from CSR have been documented in its link to consumers' positive product and brand evaluations, brand choice, brand recommendations, brand image and reputation (e.g. Brown & Dacin, 1997; Diehl,
Terlutter & Mueller, 2015; Drumwright, 1994; Osterhus, 1997; Porter & Kramer, 2006 and Sen et al., 2001). Due to a growing concern for corporate social responsibility by stakeholders, leading companies in various industries are accelerating initiatives to demonstrate their CSR commitment (Kang, Lee & Huh, 2010). CSR initiatives are often communicated towards the organizations’ stakeholders through multiple marketing communication channels, such as
official documents, annual CSR reports or press releases, a CSR section on the corporate website, through TV commercials, product packaging, etc. (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). An important aspect of organizations’ stakeholders are consumers, which are the driving force behind companies’ CSR programs and practices. The positive effect on brand reputation
is strongly related to that. Since there are many positive outcomes of CSR, it could be seen as a tool to develop or recover an organizational reputation. An organization could deploy CSR during an organizational crisis. As CSR is seen as a positive effect on brand evaluations, it may also have a positive effect on brand evaluations after a crisis.
CSR and organizational crises
Coombs (2015) defined crises as “the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders related to health, safety, environmental, and economic issues and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes” (p. 3). Corporate crises call for effective communication to shelter or restore a company’s reputation. The use of CSR claims may provide an effective tool to counter the negative impact of a crisis. Studies show the positive effect of a long CSR history and institutional CSR program on reputation versus a short history and a promotional program (e.g. Pirsch, Gupta & Grau, 2007; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).
According to a 2012 study by the Reputation Institute, 42 percent of a company’s reputation is based upon perceptions of their CSR efforts. Studies determine that CSR could also acts as a buffer against a crisis, and may help a company recover from a crisis. Research
on the topic claims that consumers appear to provide greater support for companies that are socially and environmentally responsible (e.g. Pirch et al., 2007; Creyer & Ross, 1997; Ellen, Mohr & Webb, 2000 and Sen et al., 2001), and have negative reactions to companies that are not (Barrett, 1996).
From a marketing communication perspective, crisis accusations are critical because they can have a deleterious impact on consumers’ perceptions of the incriminated company and
its products. Years of work invested in building a strong company reputation can be annihilated virtually overnight by an article published or broadcast in the media because of the vast attention crises usually attract. Moreover, the media tend to emphasize crises, especially when their impact makes them newsworthy events for journalists (Heath, 1998). Therefore, companies absolutely must react properly to crises (Vanhamme et al., 2009).
In general, CSR efforts are viewed as an asset in crisis communication and crisis management. In an actual crisis, CSR can serve to buffer the corporation from harm as well as serve to bolster the corporation’s reputation (Coombs et al., 2015). However, there are limitations to the benefits of CSR in a crisis. Since organizations mostly engage in CSR practices based on the expectations of consumers, they are not always experts in the field of social responsible behaviour. Mostly, CSR is more of a marketing tool than their core business. Managers should also consider the downsides and risks arising from CSR claims. Since CSR has such an impact consumer’s perceptions, it follows that a threat to CSR is a threat to
corporate reputation and to the well-being of the corporation (Coombs et al., 2015).
CSR as an organizational risk
Although researchers conclude that a positive relationship exists between CSR actions and consumer attitudes toward a company (Sen & Bhattacharya 2001; Du et al. 2007; Wigley, 2008), consumers are found to be more sensitive to negative CSR (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007) than to positive. It is more likely that consumers wish to punish irresponsible companies than
support the social responsible ones with their repurchase choices (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). By publicly engaging in CSR efforts to enhance the organization, managers can be creating new crisis risks. In other words, there is an asymmetric effect and “doing bad” hurts more than “doing good” helps (Bhattacharya et al., 2007)
When CSR becomes integrated into the corporate reputation and become a public expectation, perceptions of social irresponsibility become a reputational threat. Skarmeas and Leonidou (2012) state that “While more and more companies embark on the CSR bandwagon
to leverage reputational and financial benefits, incidents of socially irresponsible company behaviour continue to occur at an alarming rate” (p. 1831). So, even though CSR is used to build a reputation, it could also easily destroy one. Stakeholders who are dissatisfied with a corporation’s social performance can manufacture a reputational based threat and a potential crisis by challenging an organization’s commitment to responsible behaviour (Coombs & Holladay, 2015). Coombs et al. (2015) studies this phenomenon and defined it as a CSR-based challenge, which transforms the effect of a CSR program from a potential asset to a potential liability. These challenges are first identified by Lerbinger (1997) as a crisis type.
By publicly engaging in CSR efforts and communicate about this towards the consumers, managers can be creating new crisis risks. CSR becomes a new standard of performance which the organization must be able to achieve. This could lead to perceptions of social irresponsibility and becomes a reputational threat (Coombs et al., 2015). The article states that stakeholders who are dissatisfied with a corporation’s social performance can manufacture a reputationally based threat and a potential crisis by challenging an organization’s commitment
to responsible behaviour.
A contemporary applicable example is the exposure of the emission fraud by Volkswagen Group. Whereas Volkswagen developed a positive reputation based on their CSR efforts, leading to the industry group leader in the automotive sector based on RobecoSam and
the review of the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI), their CSR program led from an asset to a liability. The Dieselgate affair illustrates a CSR-based challenge where consumers claim that the corporation is operating in an irresponsible manner and qualifies a type of reputational crisis. Since this affair is a CSR-related crisis which illustrates the negative effect of the application of CSR for an organization for which CSR is not their core business, and since this affair is known among a large public, this study will conduct research based on this CSR-based challenge at Volkswagen.
2.2 Volkswagen’s Dieselgate affair
On September 18 2015, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused Volkswagen AG of fraudulent software of diesel engines which led to more favourable emission outcomes during tests than in real driving situations, meaning that Volkswagen had violated the Clean Air Act. On the road, the corrective mechanism was turned off, and the engine emits 10 to 40 times more toxins than allowed according to European standards, and 15 to 40 times the US legal limit (Jaynes, 2015). Two days after the revelation of this CSR-related crisis, the stock market value of Volkswagen dropped with 27 billion euros. The CEO of Volkswagen, Martin Winterkom, resigned September 23th.
When analysing the affair of Volkswagen based on literature above, behaviour of Volkswagen could be seen as irresponsible. If stakeholders perceive that a corporation has violated important expectancies, the stakeholders will perceive the corporation to be in a crisis (Coombs et al., 2015). Since this crisis is directly related to some core values and positioning claims by Volkswagen, such as a manufacturer of clean diesels, sustainable cars and being a down to earth mainstream automotive organization, media and public responded strongly to this CSR-related crisis. Whereas Volkswagen was declared as most sustainable car company in 2013, Volkswagen became an ambassador of fraudulent environmental activities overnight. In the case of Volkswagen, the CSR-based challenge led to a crisis and the use of crisis
communication. Full page advertisements in national newspapers were used to apologize to the consumer for harming their trust. A product recall was set in motion and the CEO resigned. In terms of the response option on the CSR-based challenge, Volkswagen undertook corrective action and reformed the oppressive situation. Although the Volkswagen case is a large and well-known crisis, CSR-based challenges occur more often. Organizations such as Apple, H&M, Zara, Burberry, Starbucks and Nike have faced challenges with stakeholder expectations concerning their irresponsible behaviour.
The study by Coombs et al. (2015) illustrated that when a crisis violated CSR expectations (i.e. a CSR-related crisis), the buffering value of CSR, which is discussed above as a positive effect of CSR, was eliminated. It could be concluded that CSR represents a distinct type of crisis risk, and engaging in CSR activities creates expectations that form a unique crisis risk. All in all, it could be stated that managers anticipate on consumers and stakeholders’ expectations by implementing CSR, but that these CSR activities create expectations which increase reputational risks. Although these risk could lead to severe organizational crises, which is the case concerning the Dieselgate affair, little research has been done to explore this field of CSR management and crisis communication. With the emergence of these CSR crises and the abundance of CSR claims by organizations, consumers tend to question why companies embrace CSR and how such activities contribute to social well-being. Insights into the effects of a CSR-related crisis on consumer responses could provide directions for future CSR communication by organizations.
2.3 Consumer responses to CSR claims
Many studies demonstrate links between social initiatives and positive affective, cognitive and behavioural responses by consumers (e.g. Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill, 2005; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Ellen et al., 2000; Murray & Vogel, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Outcomes on perceived goodwill (Murray et al., 1997), perceived credibility (Ellen et al., 2000) and
purchase intention (Becker-Olson et al., 2005) illustrates effects of CSR activities on consumer responses. The authors argue that a company’s CSR record, instead of providing information about the attributes or overall quality of its products, creates a general context for consumers’
evaluation.
Brown et al. (1997) claim that CSR has an effect on consumers’ responses since ‘negative CSR associations can have a detrimental effect on overall product evaluations, whereas positive CSR associations can enhance product evaluations’(p. 80). Although this positive relationship between CSR and consumers’ responses represents understanding of CSR,
it masks potentially important company- and consumer specific differences (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). For example, before mentioned studies examine CSR claims in general, without a prior CSR-related crisis which could influence future CSR claims, which is a company-specific difference. A CSR-related crisis could have an effect on some consumer responses related to the attitude towards the organization, such as scepticism, credibility and reputation.
Consumers’ scepticism
When organizational need for legitimation is high, for example after a CSR related crisis, consumers are often sceptical. This phenomenon is based on the ‘self-promotor’s paradox’ (Jones and Pittman, 1982), which represents a crucial warning when organization use legitimacy management. People tend to disbelief the organization when it is perceived as manipulative or self-serving (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). Consumers fear that CSR is just a tool that firms use to manipulate, which results in negative attitudes toward such firms (Ellen et al., 2002).
When consumers are sceptical towards the CSR activities of an organization, they are not convinced about the genuine social consciousness of the organization and believe the organizations character is not honest, enduring or capable of enhancing their self-esteem
(Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Scepticism arises when stakeholders and consumers suspect that the organization is acting in its own interest and not regarding sincere motives (Du et al., 2010). Sceptical stakeholders will doubt the organizations ethical standards and social responsibility and question it. So, consumer scepticism affects consumer judgements negatively.
Perceived credibility of the organization
Another outcome of CSR claims besides consumer’s scepticism is the perceived credibility of
an organization (Du et al., 2010). Overall, CSR enhances people’ s perceptions of credibility of organizations (Daugherty, 2001). Becker-Olsen et al. (2005) identify this construct as a component of consumer responses to CSR initiatives. Corporate credibility measures the amount of trust, perceived benevolence and values of an organization as a part of consumer’s beliefs towards the organization. Corporate credibility may assist companies in times of crises (Pfau, Haigh, Sim & Wigley, 2008), whearas 83 percent of Americans claim that they give the benefit of the doubt to those companies they trust (Makovsky, 2003). Although this study gives insights into the effect of positive CSR history, little is known of the effect of negative CSR on credibility. Whereas credibility is based on a firm’s intention, actions will either confirm or disconfirm beliefs in the organization (Herbig,& Milewicz, 1993). Mixed signals decrease credibility and inconsistent mixed signals tend to erode a firm’s reputation.
Reputation of the organization
Corporate reputation can be defined as “a cognitive representation of a company's actions and results that crystallizes the firm's ability to deliver valued outcomes to its stakeholders”
(Fombrun, Gardberg, 2000, p. 87). Reputation could be divided in six dimensions according to the reputation quotient (Fombrun et al., 2000); Social and environmental responsibility, emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, financial performance, and workplace environment CSR is strongly related to reputation, an overall assessment of consumers’ attitude towards an organization. Consumers develop more positive attitudes
toward companies with good reputations than toward those with bad reputations (Vanhamme et al., 2009). Vanhamme et al. (2009) show that companies facing a crisis should be cautious when using CSR as a tool to defend their reputations. Irresponsible behaviour, i.e. negative CSR activities, leads to a damaged corporate reputation (Coombs et al., 2015). Although this is a clear statement, little is known about tactics how to restore this damaged reputation after a CSR-related crisis, and which type of future CSR claims would positively affect corporate reputation.
2.4 Communication style
Many studies investigated the appropriate use of crisis communication after a crisis occurred. For instance, variables such as crisis type (Claeys, Cauberghe & Vyncke, 2010), crisis severity (Coombs, 1998; Vassilikopoulou, Siomkos, Chatzipinanagiotou & Pantouvakis, 2009), the frame of the message (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2014) and the medium of the message (Utz, Schultz & Glocka, 2013) have been studied in relation to crisis. However, all these studies investigated these variables as input for crisis communication. Little is known how to communicate about a specific topic, such as CSR, as a new message towards consumers after the crisis is ‘dealt with’,
i.e. after crisis communication has occurred.
An interesting question arising from the crisis communication of Volkswagen, where they presented their new car colour ‘red from shame’, is how effective the use of humour is. Humour could be seen in different ways, as a positive approach, as a defence mechanism (Kubie, 1971) or even as inappropriate. Two studies by Markiewicz (1973; 197) indicated that light-hearted communications were rated as significantly more interesting than similar seriously-stated messages. Also, a study by Sternthal and Craig (1973) concluded that humorous messages attract attention, is persuasive, enhances source credibility and may distract the audience, yielding a reduction in counter argumentation and an increase in persuasion. Since this has not been studied in relation to organizational crisis or serious topics such as CSR, research on the effect of humour is desirable. Outcomes might give insights into the tone of
voice of CSR claims after a CSR-related crisis, which would help managers in developing corporate CSR messages. Since humour might be related to consumer scepticism, credibility and reputation, the following hypotheses is formulated:
H1: Humour during post-crisis CSR communication leads to lower a) consumer scepticism, b) higher perceived credibility and c) higher organizational reputation responses towards the organization compared to the non-use of humour.
2.5 CSR motives
An important antecedent of the effectiveness of CSR communication are the CSR motives of organizations perceived by consumers (Du et al., 2010). A study of businesses’ CSR communication at their websites by Maignan and Ralston (2002) finds that companies vary as to the types of CSR motives they communicate to stakeholders. Some stress the intrinsic motives for their CSR activities. Du et al. (2010) identify the importance of CSR motives during CSR communication. The study concludes that scepticism arises when stakeholders and consumers suspect that the organization is acting in its own interest and not regarding sincere motives (Du et al., 2010). This is in line with the study by Elving and Van Vuuren (2011), stating that when stakeholders mostly experience extrinsic, firm-serving motives stakeholders will make an external attribution of the motives and perceive them as profit-driven, which will lead to more scepticism about the motives of the organization to adapt CSR activities. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) confirm that although social initiatives may seem to be a public-serving action, consumers' perceptions of the underlying motivations for the act may drive their evaluations of the firm and impact beliefs, attitudes, and intentions.
Literature clearly confirms that public-serving motives (other-serving), lead to more positive outcomes than firm-serving (self-serving) outcomes (e.g. Du et al, 2010; Elving et al., 2011). However, research indicates that that consumers are willing to accept and give reputational credit for firm-serving motives behind the companies’ CSR initiatives, as long as
they also perceive that the companies are sincere in serving public interests. These outcomes are not applied on situations where an organization might not be perceived as public-serving, for example after a severe CSR-related crisis. Little is known which motive would be most suitable after a CSR crisis has occurred. Since public-centered motives lead to more altruistic reasons, this type of CSR motives might lead to less consumer skepticism compared to strategic motives.
H2: The use of firm-centered CSR motives after a CSR crisis leads to a) higher consumer skepticism b) lower perceived organizational credibility and c) lower organizational reputation responses towards the organization compared to the use of public-centered motives.
2.6 Prior crisis communication
CSR literature confirms the effect of an positive CSR history during crises (e.g. Pirsch, Gupta, & Grau, 2007; Öberseder, Schlegelmilch & Gruber, 2011. However, negative CSR information has a much stronger effect on the evaluation than positive information (Biehal and Sheinin 2007; Brown and Dacin 1997; Marin and Ruiz 2007; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Although these studies give reasonable insights into the effect of CSR history, little is known on communicating about the topic after the history is written. For example, should an organization act as nothing happened and communicate ‘with a fresh start’, our should it remind consumers
of prior activities and appear honest. Although first instinct suggest that you should never remind consumer of negative events, it might have impact on consumer scepticism and organizational credibility. Moreover, what if the topic communicated is the same as the topic of the crisis? For example in the Volkswagen case. No current study gives insight into the recommendation whether or not Volkswagen should mention the prior CSR-related crisis in new CSR claims. The following hypotheses is formulated and testing this hypotheses would develop better insights into the communication after crisis communication.
H3: Not mentioning the prior CSR-related crisis in CSR communication leads to higher a) consumer skepticism, b) lower perceived credibility and c) lower organizational reputation responses towards the organization compared to the presence of mentioning prior the CSR-related crisis.
2.7 Consumer CSR orientation
Besides different aspects of the CSR claims, consumer characteristics might lead to different consumer judgements. Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) identify the need for research on company- and consumer specific differences in responses to CSR. A deeper understanding into differences could lead to academic and managerial insights. When analysing marketing research on the effect of CSR on consumer outcomes, almost every study sees the consumer as one homogeneous group with the same behavioural and affective outcomes. Bhattacharya et al. (2004) reveal significant heterogeneity across consumers in their reactions to CSR initiatives. “What works for one consumer segment does not work for another” (p. 12).
The concept ‘consumer social responsibility’ (CNSR), introduced by Devinney, Auger,
Echkhardt & Birtchnell (2006), builds upon this statement and develops a new focus on differences between consumers concerning CSR initiatives. CNSR shows up through (1)
expressed activity with respect to specific causes – such as donations or willingness to be involved in protests and boycotts; (2) expressed activity in terms of purchasing or non-purchasing behaviour; and (3) expressed opinions in surveys or other forms of market research (Devinney et al., 2006). Also, Du et al. (2010) emphasize the importance of consumer types in CSR communication.
LAB51, a partner of MVO NL (the Dutch institution for Corporate Social Responsibility) developed a segmentation model which segments consumers based on their CNSR, presented as ‘sustainable segments’ (LAB51, 2015) . According to them, sustainable
organizations is promoted with the goal to emphasize ‘people, planet and profit’. Based on the
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the behaviour of consumers can be predicted. The organization includes self-identity in this model, since this independent variable determines sustainable behaviour, such as buying biological products and decreasing CO2 emission. The
segments (1) leaders, (2) traditionalists, (3) benevolent weighters, (4) freethinkers, (5) unconnected and (6) uninterested could be defined. Consumer CSR orientation could be seen as a main effect on consumers’ judgements. The following hypotheses is formulated:
H4: High consumer CSR orientation leads to higher a) consumer skepticism, b) lower perceived organizational credibility and c) lower organizational reputation compared to low consumer CSR orientation.
Since strongly identified consumers are more damaged by negative publicity, i.e. the CSR related crisis (Lin, Chen, Chiu & Lee, 2011), leaders who are more involved in CSR and are more informed than for example the uninterested, CSR orientation might influence the relation between CSR claims and consumer judgements such as skepticism, credibility and reputation. Moderation by consumer CSR orientation might impact this relationship.
H5: Consumer orientation moderates the effects of CSR claims after a CSR-related crisis on a) consumer skepticism, b) perceived organizational credibility and c) organizational reputation, whereas consumers with high CSR orientation have more negative consumer outcomes towards the organization compared to consumers with a low CSR orientation.
2.8 Conceptual model
The literature review on CSR, crisis communication and consumer responses and the analyzation of the Dieselgate-affair leads to the identification of a literature gap concerning CSR communication after a severe CSR-related crisis. A research question and hypotheses are
developed based on this preliminary study of academic literature and a case study. The research question and hypotheses require a quantitative approach. Since the hypotheses investigate differences between multiple independent variables, an experimental study design is developed. This study investigates antecedents and moderators when organizations communicate CSR claims after a CSR-related crisis. The relation between independent, dependent and moderating variables is presented in the conceptual framework below in figure 1.
Figure 1: conceptual model
H4 H3 H1 H5 Consumers’ judgements Consumer scepticism Organizational credibility Organizational reputation Communication style humour vs. non-humour CSR motives firm-centered vs. public-centered
Prior crisis com. mentioned vs.
non-mentioned
Consumer CSR orientation
H2
3
METHOD
3.1 Design
This study involves a 2 (humour versus non-humour communication style) x 2 (firm-centered versus public-centered motives) x 2 (mention versus non-mention prior crisis) mixed design experiment. Through an online survey, the consumer responses on all eight conditions are identified. While the lay out and length are the same, content differences are based on the eight scenarios. After reading the article, which is an online webpage from Volkswagen.com, manipulation questions were presented.
The manipulations will illustrate the communication of CSR claims by Volkswagen. This does not concern communication as a response to the Dieselgate in particular. The focus of the CSR claims will be a general message about the CSR activities of Volkswagen, since this study focusses on future CSR claims. They will communicate how Volkswagen is engaged in CSR activities in general, focusing on the production of ‘green cars’. This is in line with their current subpage of their corporate webpage about sustainability.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight different message conditions via Qualtrics. The order of manipulated messages was counterbalanced across participants. Respondents were informed about the prior crisis, the Dieselgate affair, through a short introduction text. The manipulation will be presented through stimulus material. Respondents will be exposed to CSR claims by Volkswagen. After exposure to one of the eight scenarios, manipulation checks and construct scales were presented through multiple questions based on literature. All questions could be answered on a 5-point Likert scale varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.2 Stimulus material
variant, it is ‘Volkswagen, geen GROENtje wat betreft duurzaamheid’ whereas green means being sustainable, but also being an amateur. The non-humorous variant has a headline such as ‘Volkswagen, gaat voor groen’. Prior crisis is mentioned in the second general paragraph, whereas non-prior crisis just focus on sustainability in general. The firm-centered variant introduces the sustainability activities motivation based on the needs of the consumer and tax advantages for lease drivers, whereas the public-centered focuses on intrinsic motivation based on responsibility for the environment. The distribution of scenarios among respondents is shown in table 1.
Table 1: Distribution of scenarios among respondents (N)
Motives
Communication style
Total
Humour Non-humour
Firm-centered Prior crisis Mentioned 38 39 77
Not mentioned 39 33 72
Total 77 72 149
Public-centered Prior crisis Mentioned 41 39 80
Not mentioned 43 41 84
Total 84 80 164
Total Prior crisis Mentioned 79 78 157
Not mentioned 82 74 156
Total 313
3.3 Pre-test study
Before the questionnaire was distributed, a pre-test indicated inconsistencies in the materials. The main purpose of the pre-test was to check the three manipulations of the main study. The sample consisted of 15 participants, six women and nine men who ranged in age from 21 to 56. The personal network of the researcher was used to collect the participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions and were asked to complete the online questionnaire via Qualtrics.
The focus of the pre-test was to test the clarity and content of the materials and questionnaire, to make sure the participants viewed the manipulations as indicated. The researcher was present with most of the respondents to interact with the participant concerning the understanding of the manipulations and the constructs. Based on the participants’
recommendations, small changes were made. First, the manipulation of the CSR motives was not clear and led to confusing interpretations during the manipulation test. Also, some questions were formulated double negative, which led to misunderstanding. The final materials can be found in Appendix A.
3.4 Manipulation checks
An independent samples T-test was used to compare the manipulations. The T-test was significant for all three manipulations (p < 0.05).
Table 2: Independent T-test manipulation checks
M1 SD1 M2 SD2 F Sig.
Humour 2.74 (1.215) 1.73 (0.938) 20.197 .000*
Motives 2.99 (1.197) 4.17 (0.803) 29.348 .000*
Prior crisis 4.50 (0.985) 1.34 (0.714) 10.213 .000*
3.5 Participants
A snowball sampling technique was used to recruit participants within the researcher’s network.
Participants were in turn requested to invite people within their network. In total, 454 participants started the survey and 336 respondents completed the questionnaire. Through visual inspection, a small selection of 23 respondents were deleted from the dataset, since they gave completely incorrect answers on the manipulation questions, suggesting that they did not expose themselves to the manipulations. Since the study format is an experiment, the
researchers decided to eliminate these respondents. 313 fully completed surveys remained. Regarding their gender, 45.1% were men and 54.9% were women. They ranged in age from 18 to 72 (M=35.19 SD=13.42). In general, the respondents were highly educated, with 29.5% HBO and 44.4% WO respondents. The complete overview of respondents’ demographic information is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Demographics of the respondents
Frequency Percentage Gender Male 141 (45.1%) Female 172 (54.9%) Age M = 35.19 (SD = 13.42) Education University 140 (44.4%)
University of Applied Sciences 93 (29.5%)
MBO 30 (9.5%)
VWO 23 (7.3%)
HAVO 19 (5.7%)
VMBO 2 (0.6%)
Vocational Education 1 (0.3%)
Other type of education 7 (2.2%)
Total 313 (100%)
3.6 Dependent measures
The dependent variables were measured with constructs retrieved from literature. Consumer scepticism, perceived organizational credibility and reputation were measured. Participants had to indicate their opinion on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from one ‘strongly disagree’ to five ‘strongly agree’. The items were translated in Dutch and some were reversed coded. An
overview of the scales and final questionnaire in Dutch can be found in Appendix B and C. To measure consumer scepticism, a 4-item scale by Skarmeas & Leonidou (2013) is used and Cronbach’s alpha showed high construct validity ( α = 0,849). The constructs consists of 4 items, namely ‘It is doubtful that Volkswagen is a socially responsible retailer’, ‘It is uncertain that Volkswagen is concerned to improve the well-being of society’, ‘It is unsure that Volkswagen follows high ethical standards’ and ‘It is questionable that Volkswagen acts in a socially responsible way’.
Organizational credibility is measured through a 4-item scale by Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill (2006), and Cronbach’s alpha showed high construct validity (α = 0,846). The four items are ‘Volkswagen is a firm I can trust’, ‘Volkswagen is a firm that cares about
its customers’, ‘Volkswagen has a strong value system’, and ‘Volkswagen is a firm I believe in’.
Corporate reputation is measured with a scale based on the Reputation Model by Fombrun, Gardberg and Sever (2000). Whereas the full construct consists of 6 sub-constructs, only three relevant constructs in this context of research were applied in the study; emotional appeal, and products and services and social and environmental responsibility.
Emotional appeal is a 3-item construct, with a Cronbach’s alpha with construct validity (α = 0,778). Items are ‘I have a good feeling about the company’, ‘I trust this organization’ and ‘I admire and respect the company’.
Products and services also has high construct reliability (α = 0,795). Items are ‘Volkswagen stand behind its products and services’, ‘Volkswagen develops innovative products and services’, ‘Volkswagen offers high quality products and services’ and ‘Volkswagen offers products and services that are goof value for the money’.
Social and environmental responsibility has high validity (α = 0,776). Items are
‘Volkswagen supports good causes’, ‘Volkswagen is an environmental responsible company’ and ‘Volkswagen maintains high standards in the way it treats people. When the sub-constructs
are measured as the construct reputation, overall validity remains high (α = 0893) when the 10-item constructs is analysed.
Table 4 shows the relationship between the control and dependent variables. All dependent variables are related, since they measure consumers’ judgements. Also, Dieselgate
awareness is correlated to gender, since men are more aware of the crisis (M = 4.26, SD= .750) compared to women (M= 3.56, SD = 1.114), according to ANOVA analysis, F(1, 311) = 39.567, p < 0.01.
Table 4: Means, standard deviations and correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gender 1.55 0.498 - 2. Age 35.19 13.57 -.348** - 3. Education 7.04 1.265 .052 .004 - 4. Dieselgate-awareness 3.88 1.026 -.336** .234** .078 - 5. Car-ownership 2.29 0.638 .267** -.445** -.008 -.233 - 6. Scepticism 3.522 0.864 -.052 .077 .023 .103 -.096 - 7. Credibility 2.797 0.893 .033 -.102 -.113 -.100 -.089 -.657** - 8. Emotional appeal 2.821 0.992 -.025 -.187** -.126 -.085 -.096 -.662** 840** - 9. SER 2.730 0.848 .001 -.102 -.131 -.163 -.066 -.701** 732** .693** - 10. Product & services 3.670 0.719 -.145** -.022 .061 .066 -.095 -.449** .693** -.592** .509* -
Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) **
3.7 Control variables
There was a statically significant association between ownership of a (Volkswagen) car and the interest in the Dieselgate topic., χ2(1) = 19.376, p < .05. Moreover, based on the ϕ statistic the association seems to be of medium size (ϕ= .249). Based on frequency distribution, this seems to represent the fact that that there is higher chance of being aware of the Dieselgate-affaire among car-owners, especially among Volkswagen-owners. On average, respondents were aware of the Dieselgate affair (M = 3.88 on a 5-point scale, SD = 1.026).
4
RESULTS
4.1 Main effect of humour
The hypotheses concerning communication style are: H1: The use of humour during post-crisis CSR communication leads to lower a) consumer scepticism, b) higher perceived credibility and c) higher organizational reputation responses towards the organization compared to the non-use of humour. Since all dependent variables are independently formulated as hypotheses, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is conducted to test the hypotheses. A significant main effect (F(1,311 = 4.781, p < 0.05) of communication style on credibility was found, whereas humour leads to higher credibility (Mhumour = 2.904, SDhumour = 0.914) compared to non-humour (Mnon-humour = 2.684, (Mnon-humour = 0.859). Also, (Mnon-humour (Mnon-(Mnon-humour = 2.845, SDhumour = 0.833). leads to significant higher outcomes (F(1,311 = 6.227, 9 < 0.05) than non-humor (Mnon-humour = 2.608, SDnon-humour = 0.849) when social and environmental responsibility (SER) is analysed.
Table 5: Main effects of communication style
Humour Non-humour ANOVA Hypotheses
M SD M SD F P
Scepticism 3.491 0.881 3.554 0.847 0.423 .516 H1a Not supported
Credibility 2.904 0.914 2.684 0.859 4.781 .030* H1b Supported
Emotional appeal 2.919 0.979 2.717 0.998 3.270 .072 H1ca Not supported
SER 2.845 0.833 2.608 0.849 6.227 .013* H1cb Supported
Products/services 3.714 0.717 3.623 0.721 1.251 .264 H1cc Not supported
4.2 Main effect of motives
The hypotheses concerning crisis response strategy are H2: The use of firm-centered CSR motives after a CSR crisis leads to a) higher consumer skepticism b) lower perceived organizational credibility and c) lower organizational reputation responses towards the organization compared to the use of public-centered motives. Through an analysis of variance (ANOVA), the hypotheses were tested. Differences in firm-centered motives versus public-centered motives were found as an effect on consumer scepticism (F (1, 311) = 4.898, whereas firm-centered motives (Mfirm-centered = 3.614, SD firm-centered = 0.835) leads to higher scepticism
than public-centered motives (Mpublic-centered = 3.419, SD firm-centered = 0.876). Other variables were
not found to differ significantly.
Table 6: Main effects of CSR motives
Firm-centered Public-centered ANOVA Hypotheses
M SD M SD F P
Scepticism 3.634 0.835 3.419 0.876 4.898 .028* H2a Supported
Credibility 2.735 0.869 2.854 0.913 1.382 .241 H2b Not supported
Emotional appeal 2.720 0.986 2.913 0.992 2.950 .087 H2ca Not supported
SER 2.640 0.885 2.811 0.807 3.205 .074 H2cb Not supported
Products/services 3.649 0.702 3.689 0.736 0.239 .627 H2cc Not supported
Note: * P < .05, ** P < .001
4.3 Main effect of prior crisis communication
The hypotheses concerning prior crisis communication are: H3: Not mentioning the prior CSR-related crisis in CSR communication leads to higher a) consumer skepticism, b) lower perceived credibility and c) lower organizational reputation responses towards the organization compared to the presence of mentioning prior the CSR-related crisis.
Since all dependent variables are independently formulated as hypotheses, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is conducted to test the hypotheses. There were no significant main effect of prior crisis communication on dependent variables. H3 was not supported.
Table 7: Main effects of prior crisis communication
Mentioning Non-mentioning ANOVA Hypotheses
M SD M SD F P
Scepticism 3.540 0.867 3.503 0.863 0.140 .708 H3a Not supported
Credibility 2.769 0.910 2.825 0.877 0.309 .579 H3b Not supported
Emotional appeal 2.809 1.001 2.833 0.986 0.047 .828 H3ca Not supported
SER 2.660 0.859 2.799 0.833 2.107 .148 H3cb Not supported
Products/services 3.699 0.750 3.641 0.688 0.508 .476 H3cc Not supported
Note: * P < .05, ** P < .001
4.4 Main effect of consumer CSR orientation
Consumers CSR orientation is measured as a main effect on the dependent variables. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the scores again yielded significant variation among the conditions of consumer CSR orientation on the emotional appeal towards the organization, F(4, 308) = 3.126, p < .05. Also, significant differences were found for the effect of CSR orientation on social and environmental responsibility, F(4, 308) = 3.905, p < .05.
Inspection of the skewness, kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk statistics indicated that the assumption of normality was supported for each of the five conditions. Levene’s statistic was
non-significant for all dependent variables, scepticism, F(4, 308) = 0.126, p > 0.05, credibility, F(4, 308) = 0.846, p > 0.05, emotional appeal, F(4, 308) = 0.907, p > 0.05, SER, F(4, 308) = 0.592, p > 0.05, product and services, F(4, 308) = 0.133, p > 0.05), and thus the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated.
Post hoc analysis with Tukey’s HSD revealed that for emotional appeal, uninterested (M= 3.117, SD = 0.140) had significant higher emotional appeal scores than freethinkers (M = 2.560, SD = 0.109). Also, Post hoc analysis with Tukey’s HSD revealed that for social and environmental responsibility, uninterested (M= 2.852, SD = 0.122) had significant higher scores than freethinkers (M = 2.429, SD = 0.083).
Table 8: Main effects of consumer CSR orientation
Mean square between groups F P Hypotheses
Scepticism 1.380 1.870 .116 H4a Not supported
Credibility 1.327 1.678 .155 H4b Not supported
Emotional appeal 2.996 3.126 .015* H4ca Supported
SER 2.705 3.905 .004** H4cb Supported
Products/services 0.51 0.097 .983 H4cc Not supported
Note: * P < .05, ** P < .001
The consumers were segmented based on the LAB51 model. This model bases segmentation on attitude, social norm, perceived behaviour control and social identity, and define segments based on high or low levels of these four factors. By computing main scores, it respondents could have a high or low score based on construct scores. After analysing whether or not respondents had high or low scores, they could be assigned to a segment. Outcomes can be find in the table below.
Table 9: Allocation of the respondents into segments
Attitude Social norm PBC Social identity N
M 3.709 2.815 2.949 3.723
SD 0.692 0.748 1.151 0.687
Trendsetters/traditionalists >3.709 >2.815 >2.949 >3.723 78
Freethinkers >3.709 >2.815 <2.949 > 3.723 84
Unconnected <3.709 >2.815 <2.949 <3.723 45
Uninterested <3.709 <2.815 <2.949 <3.723 54
4.5 Moderation effect of consumer CSR orientation
A process analyses was performed to analyse consumer CSR orientation as a moderator on the relationship between the significant main effects of CSR motives on consumer scepticism. It could not be stated that there is a significant moderation effect (F(3,296) = 3.459, p > 0.05, R2
change = 0.02). By analysing all significant main effects, specific moderation will be measured. Consumer CSR orientation does not significantly moderate the relationship between communication style and credibility. The regression coefficient for XM is b3=--0.058 and is statistically not different from zero, t (3, 309)= -0.813, p > 0.05. The moderation only explains 2.8% of variance (R2 change = 0.028) based on a process analysis.
Consumer CSR orientation does not significantly moderate the relationship between communication style and social and environmental responsibility (SER) either. The regression coefficient for XM is b3=-0.087 and is statistically not different from zero, t (3, 309)= -1.293, p > 0.05. The moderation only explains 3.4% of variance (R2 change = 0.034) based on a process analysis.
Consumer CSR orientation does not significantly moderate the relationship between motives and skepticism. The regression coefficient for XM is b3=0.065 and is statistically not different from zero, t (3, 309)= 0.9522, p > 0.05. The moderation only explains 0.29% of variance (R2 change = 0.0029) based on a process analysis.
Table 10: Moderation effect of consumer CSR orientation
Coefficient SE t p
R2-change
R2
Moderation on the relationship between communication style and credibility
Communication style (X) -0.068 0.217 -0.312 0.755
CSR orientation (M) 0.1479 0.1085 1.3626 0.174
XM -0.058 0.070 -0.813 0.417 0.028 0.002
Moderation on the relationship between communication style and SER
Intercept 2.595 0.315 8.247 0.000
Communication style (X) -0.006 0.206 -0.029 0.977
CSR orientation (M) 0.182 0.103 1.771 0.078
(XM) -0.087 0.067 -1.293 0.197 0.034 1.671
Moderation on the relationship between motives and skepticism
Intercept 4.206 0.336 12.512 0.000
Motives (X) -0.395 0.210 -1.088 0.061
CSR orientation (M) -0.129 0.108 -1.192 .234
5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion of the results
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of communicating CSR claims after a severe CSR-related crisis on consumers’ judgements. The research question ‘How can organizations influence consumers’ scepticism, perceived organizational credibility and organization’s reputation through CSR claims after a severe CSR-related crisis has occurred?’
is divided into five sub questions and answered through an experimental study among 313 Dutch participant. By manipulating CSR claims based on three independent variables, segmenting consumers based on their CSR orientation and measuring consumers’ judgements, new insights in the field of CSR are retrieved.
Effect of humour
Since Volkswagen has a history in using humourful advertising, and humour could be seen as a positive approach (Kubie, 1971) in communicating organizational messages, positive outcomes on consumers’ judgements were predicted. However, marketers cannot use humour in marketing communication without the threat of retribution (Macchiette & Roy, 1994). Results of this study show a significant positive effect of humour on perceived organizational credibility. In a study by Gruner (1967), research identified that the attribution of a humorous communication to a high credibility source appears to enhance persuasion. However, the source variable had yet to be manipulated systematically and the relative influence of a humorous message presented by a moderate or low credibility communicator was unknown (Sternthal & Craig, 1973). This study shows that after a severe crisis where the credibility might be decreased, the use of humour does affect credibility positively, and the study by Gruner (1967) still holds up after crises and for les credible communicators (Sternthal et al. 1973).
environmental responsibility are higher among respondents exposed to a humourful manipulation. It could be stated that humour positively influences the consumer judgement of how social and environmental responsible an organization is. Whereas Markiewicz (1972; 1973) indicated that light-hearted communications were rated as significantly more interesting than similar seriously-stated messages, this theory might explain the current outcomes. Consumers might enjoy light-heartedness during an extra serious topic, whereas the topic is serious and the organizational history with the topic negative. Developing a humourful trigger to enhance interest, as Markiewicz (1973) suggested, enhances perceived responsibly.
Reflecting on the manipulation of humour, the amount and emphasis could be called into question. The manipulation consists of the headline of the scenario and the extend of perceived humour could be doubted. Humour is not the central purpose of the manipulated web page. The effect of humour might not lead to direct persuasion, as Sternthal and Craig (1973) state, but might lead to a more complex outcome they suppose; the use of a humourful sentence might distract the audience, yielding a reduction in counter argumentation and an increase in persuasion.
Effect of motives
The study shows significant differences between firm- and public-centered motives in CSR communication on consumer scepticism, as firm-centered motives lead to higher skepticism compared to public-centered motives. This is in line with the study by Elving and Van Vuuren (2011), stating that when stakeholders experience extrinsic, firm-serving motives, stakeholders will make an external attribution of the motives and perceive them as profit-driven, which will lead to more scepticism about the motives of the organization to adapt CSR activities. Also, a study by Groza, Pronschinske and Walker (2011) confirms that consumers respond negatively when CSR efforts are enacted only after pressure from stakeholders (i.e., stakeholder-driven) because such actions are perceived as forced and insincere. Since the prior negative CSR history
should be taken into during the current study, a combination between Elving et al (2011) and Groza et al. (2011) statements connect to the outcomes of the current study.
Although the manipulation of CSR motives is applied in multiple sentences in the scenarios, no significant differences on credibility or the subscales of reputation were found. Even though the motives are manipulated through the text, since the way they argued for corporate social responsibility was manipulated, it could be called into question whether or not respondents used these arguments or combined this information with expected motives. It could lead to confusion when crisis information concerning CSR and CSR motives are combined in a corporate text. Since the respondents form opinions based on many aspects, and a related crisis might be on top of mind, consumer judgements might be influences by more aspects than the corporate text only.
Overall, literature clearly confirms that public-serving motives (other-serving), lead to more positive outcomes than firm-serving (self-serving) outcomes (e.g. Du et al, 2010; Elving et al., 2011). However, research indicates that that consumers are willing to accept and give reputational credit for firm-serving motives behind the companies’ CSR initiatives, as long as they also perceive that the companies are sincere in serving public interests. In this study, the organization just faced a severe crisis, which influences the sincerity. This study shows that the studies by Du et al. (2010) and Elving et al. (2011) might not hold for organizations with a negative CSR history. Whereas usually public-serving CSR motives lead to more positive outcomes, the CSR history of an organization might influence the process of consumers judging an organization.
Effect of prior crisis communication
CSR literature states that negative CSR information has a much stronger effect on the evaluation than positive information (Biehal and Sheinin 2007; Brown and Dacin 1997; Marin and Ruiz 2007; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). This study thieved to analyse strategical options to
communication future CSR claims when the negative CSR history is a given fact. Volkswagen’s scandal is the biggest scandal in the auto company’s 78 years in business
(Cremer, 2015). Most respondents were aware of the crisis (M = 3.88 on a 5-point scale). This study shows that whether or not the organization mentions the crisis during future communications, no significant differences on consumer judgements were found. One of the main reasons that there were no significant differences, is that the crisis might be framed and on top of mind of the respondents, since respondents were asked about their knowledge concerning Dieselgate, and an explanation about the affair is given. This rules out an aspect which would be present in a real-life situation, where some consumers might not know or link the affair to the organization.
Also, we might question whether or not respondents are capable to develop evaluations based on so many factors and manipulations. High expectations of processing all given information was expected by the study, however, consumers’ ability to form considered opinions might be overrated. Devinney et al. (2006) notify that complexity of the consumer decision making process should be taken into account. Since this study exposed consumer to many factors to develop judgements, a small notion concerning the prior crisis might not be a strong enough manipulation to process.
When we look into the reputation of Volkswagen, we could identify an overall change in evaluations after the crisis. Volkswagen is currently in the top 100 most visible companies, but ranked as the organization with the lowest reputation, scoring a 54.75 out of 100, which is labelled very poor (Harris poll report, 2016). However, Volkswagen was not in the top 100 most visible organizations in the past years in the Harris poll reports, meaning that they increased in visibility, but receiving the lowest reputation score.
