Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:00:44.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Social (Ir)responsibility and Corporate Hypocrisy: Warmth, Motive and the Protective Value of Corporate Social Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2020

Zhifeng Chen ,
Haiming Hang ,
Stephen Pavelin  and
Lynda Porter
Zhifeng Chen
Affiliation:
University of the West of England
Haiming Hang
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Stephen Pavelin
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Lynda Porter
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how a firm’s prior record on corporate social responsibility (CSR) influences individual stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate hypocrisy in the wake of a corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) event. Our research extends extant corporate hypocrisy literature by highlighting the role of individual stakeholders’ inferences about a genuine CSR motive in their judgments of corporate hypocrisy. This can serve to differentiate perceived corporate hypocrisy from inconsistency that arises because of a lack of ability and/or resources. Our research further identifies a source for such perceptions: individual stakeholders’ perceptions of firm warmth generated by a firm’s prior record of CSR. In addition, we find that when CSR and CSI are in the same (vs. different) domains, it can strengthen perceptions of hypocrisy. This provides direct evidence to explain why markets react differently when CSR and CSI events occur in the same domain (vs. different ones).

Keywords

corporate hypocrisycorporate social responsibilitycorporate social irresponsibilityexperimental studies
Type
Article
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 486 - 524
Copyright
© 2020 Business Ethics Quarterly

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. 2010. Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: First stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37: 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38: 932–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arli, D., Grace, A., Palmer, J., & Pham, C. 2017. Investigating the direct and indirect effect of corporate hypocrisy and perceived corporate reputation on consumers’ attitudes towards the company. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37: 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2016. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A critique and an indirect path forward. Business & Society, 58: 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsk, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lanz, G. S. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20: 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanken, I., van de Ven, N., & Zeelenberg, M. 2015. A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 41: 540–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolton, L. E., & Mattila, A. S. 2015. How does corporate social responsibility affect consumer response to service failure in buyer–seller relationships? Journal of Retailing, 91: 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. 2006. Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunk, K. H., & de Boer, C. 2020. How do consumers reconcile positive and negative CSR-related information to form an ethical brand perception? A mixed method inquiry.Journal of Business Ethics, 161: 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N. 2002. The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6: 3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. 2018. Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 130–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34: 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. 2015. Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 40: 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen L, T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. 2013. CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20: 372–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. 2008. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 61–150.Google Scholar
Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior , 31: 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R., & Roper, S. 2001. The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review , 4: 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. 2010. Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36: 1618–1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Effron, D. A., O’Connor, K., Leroy, H., & Lucas, B. J. 2018. From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation? Research in Organizational Behavior, 38: 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, W. B., Jackson, K. E., Peecher, M. E., & White, B. J. 2014. The unintended effect of corporate social responsibility performance on investors’ estimates of fundamental value. Accounting Review, 89: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. 1992. A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39: 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. S., & Xu, J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82: 878–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, Y. L., & Mattila, A. S. 2014. Improving consumer satisfaction in green hotels: The roles of perceived warmth, perceived competence, and CSR motive. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42: 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30: 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, P.C., Hatch, N. W., & Hansen, J.M. 2010. Toward a general theory of CSRs: The roles of beneficences, profitability, insurance, and industry heterogeneity. Business and Society, 49: 316–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. 2017. Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44: 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. 2017. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hayes, A.F. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G. I., & Papagiannakis, G. 2018. All are not saints, who go to church: Corporate social responsibility, perceived corporate hypocrisy and the impact on customer satisfaction. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3169241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janney, J. J., & Gove, S. 2011. Reputation and corporate social responsibility aberrations, trends, and hypocrisy: Reactions to firm choices in the stock option backdating scandal. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1562–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. 2016. Washing away your sins? Corporate social responsibility, corporate social irresponsibility, and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 80: 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. 2012. Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22: 166–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, J. G., & Dawar, N. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21: 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J., & Prinz, J. 2008. Intuitions about consciousness: Experimental studies. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7: 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., & Choi, S. M. 2018. Congruency effects in post-crisis CSR communication: The mediation role of attribution of corporate motives. Journal of Business Ethics, 157: 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Cour, A., & Kromann, J. 2011. Euphemisms and hypocrisy in corporate philanthropy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20: 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, D., & Washburn, N. 2012. Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37: 300–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. 2005. The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, I., Wetzel, H. A., & Hammerschmidt, M. 2017. Can doing good lead to doing poorly? Firm value implications of CSR in the face of CSI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45: 677–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C.B. 2009. The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73: 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. 2007. Does it pay to be good … and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1866371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariconda, S., & Lurati, F. 2015. Ambivalence and reputation stability: An experimental investigation on the effects of new information. Corporate Reputation Review, 18: 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks & Spencer plc. 2016. Sustainability Benchmarks & Indices. http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/our-approach/delivering-plan-a/sustainability-benchmarks-indices.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33: 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S.L. 2006. Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society , 45: 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. 2010. Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43: 115–155.Google Scholar
Monin, B., & Merritt, A. 2011. Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and the struggle for moral integrity. In Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil: 167–184. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics. 2011. LC1117EW - Sex by age. Official Labor Market Statistics. http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/LC1117EW/view/2092957703?row=c_age&cols=c_sex.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics. 2017. Release: Graduates in the UK labour market. November 24, 2017. https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/graduatesintheuklabourmarket2017.Google Scholar
Oikonomou, I., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. 2014. The financial effects of uniform and mixed corporate social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 898–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. 2009. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45: 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24: 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormiston, M.E., & Wong, E.M. 2013. License to Ill: The effects of corporate social responsibility and CEO moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility. Personnel Psychology , 66: 861–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as Symbolic Action: the Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms. In Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3: 1052. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. 2015. SmartPLS 3. http://www.smartpls.com.Google Scholar
Sawyer,  A. G. 1975. Demand artifacts in laboratory experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 1: 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheidler, S., Edinger-Schons, L. M., Spanjol, J., & Wieseke, J. 2019. Scrooge posing as Mother Teresa: How hypocritical social responsibility strategies hurt employees and firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 157: 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38: 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, C.T., & Hawn, O. 2019. Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal , 62: 1609–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shim, K., & Yang, S. 2016. The effect of bad reputation: The occurrence of crisis, corporate social responsibility, and perceptions of hypocrisy and attitudes toward a company. Public Relations Review, 42: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. 2013. When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66: 1831–1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. 2005. PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48: 159–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Census Bureau. 2017. Quick facts.https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/LFE041216#viewtop.Google Scholar
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73: 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., Dou, J., & Jia, S. 2016. A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effects of contextual factors. Business & Society, 55: 1083–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessling, K. S., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. 2017. MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44: 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J. 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. 2016. The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 111: 493–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed