Practice what you preach, but should you preach what you practice? Dynamic interplays between corporate social responsibility action and communication

IF 3.4 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
Whitney Ginder , Sang-Eun Byun , Wi-Suk Kwon
{"title":"Practice what you preach, but should you preach what you practice? Dynamic interplays between corporate social responsibility action and communication","authors":"Whitney Ginder ,&nbsp;Sang-Eun Byun ,&nbsp;Wi-Suk Kwon","doi":"10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a societal and business imperative, strategic and ethical uncertainty remains regarding how best to leverage CSR to enhance stakeholders’ evaluations while minimizing scrutiny. This experimental study (<em>n</em> = 609) investigates the effects of internal CSR actions and external CSR communication on consumer publics’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across three CSR contexts: labor, environment, and LGBTQ+ inclusion. We find that internal CSR actions heighten perceptions of corporate sincerity and commitment to CSR while reducing corporate hypocrisy perceptions. Conversely, external CSR communication increases perceived CSR commitment at the risk of damaging corporate sincerity and arousing hypocrisy perceptions. As supported by the CSR decoupling literature, legitimacy theory, and cognitive dissonance theory, our findings highlight the dynamic interplay between internal CSR action and external CSR communication and its nuanced differences across CSR contexts. Specifically, internal CSR actions without external communication (i.e., CSR-hushing) may backfire by provoking hypocrisy perceptions, subsequently damaging organizational legitimacy. In contrast, external CSR communication without congruent internal actions (i.e., CSR-washing) culminates in stronger hypocrisy perceptions and lower sincerity perceptions compared to staying silent. This misalignment adversely affects stakeholders’ behavioral intentions. Our findings illuminate the CSR marketing and public relations dilemmas that firms face in today’s complex and often contradictory institutional environment. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48263,"journal":{"name":"Public Relations Review","volume":"51 4","pages":"Article 102617"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Relations Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811125000797","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a societal and business imperative, strategic and ethical uncertainty remains regarding how best to leverage CSR to enhance stakeholders’ evaluations while minimizing scrutiny. This experimental study (n = 609) investigates the effects of internal CSR actions and external CSR communication on consumer publics’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across three CSR contexts: labor, environment, and LGBTQ+ inclusion. We find that internal CSR actions heighten perceptions of corporate sincerity and commitment to CSR while reducing corporate hypocrisy perceptions. Conversely, external CSR communication increases perceived CSR commitment at the risk of damaging corporate sincerity and arousing hypocrisy perceptions. As supported by the CSR decoupling literature, legitimacy theory, and cognitive dissonance theory, our findings highlight the dynamic interplay between internal CSR action and external CSR communication and its nuanced differences across CSR contexts. Specifically, internal CSR actions without external communication (i.e., CSR-hushing) may backfire by provoking hypocrisy perceptions, subsequently damaging organizational legitimacy. In contrast, external CSR communication without congruent internal actions (i.e., CSR-washing) culminates in stronger hypocrisy perceptions and lower sincerity perceptions compared to staying silent. This misalignment adversely affects stakeholders’ behavioral intentions. Our findings illuminate the CSR marketing and public relations dilemmas that firms face in today’s complex and often contradictory institutional environment. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
实践你所宣扬的,但是你应该宣扬你所实践的吗?企业社会责任行动与沟通之间的动态相互作用
尽管企业社会责任(CSR)已经成为社会和商业的当务之急,但在如何最好地利用企业社会责任来提高利益相关者的评估,同时最大限度地减少审查方面,战略和道德上的不确定性仍然存在。本实验研究(n = 609)考察了企业内部社会责任行动和外部社会责任沟通在劳动、环境和LGBTQ+ 包容三种社会责任背景下对消费者公众感知和行为意图的影响。研究发现,企业内部的社会责任行为提高了企业对社会责任的诚意和承诺的感知,同时减少了企业对社会责任的虚伪感知。相反,外部企业社会责任传播增加了企业社会责任承诺的感知,但却有破坏企业诚信和引发伪善感知的风险。在企业社会责任解耦理论、合法性理论和认知失调理论的支持下,我们的研究结果强调了企业社会责任内部行动与企业社会责任外部沟通之间的动态相互作用及其在企业社会责任背景下的细微差异。具体而言,没有外部沟通的内部企业社会责任行动(即企业社会责任沉默)可能会引发虚伪的认知,从而破坏组织的合法性,从而适得其反。相反,与保持沉默相比,没有一致的内部行动(即企业社会责任洗涤)的外部企业社会责任传播最终会产生更强的伪善感和更低的真诚感。这种错位会对涉众的行为意图产生不利影响。我们的研究结果阐明了企业在当今复杂且经常相互矛盾的制度环境中所面临的企业社会责任营销和公共关系困境。讨论了理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
19.00%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The Public Relations Review is the oldest journal devoted to articles that examine public relations in depth, and commentaries by specialists in the field. Most of the articles are based on empirical research undertaken by professionals and academics in the field. In addition to research articles and commentaries, The Review publishes invited research in brief, and book reviews in the fields of public relations, mass communications, organizational communications, public opinion formations, social science research and evaluation, marketing, management and public policy formation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信