Walking the tightrope: How does corporate advocacy for controversial social issues catalyze change or spark backlash?

Despite a growing trend in corporate social advocacy (CSA), public responses to a company’s stance on controversial issues have been understudied. Using an online survey targeting U.S. adults, this study examines the theoretical mechanisms underlying consumers’ multifaceted reactions to CSA using Dick’s stance on gun control as a specific case of CSA. Drawing on attribution theory and moral emotion theories, this study finds that positive moral emotions—gratitude and elevation—fully mediate the relationship between perceived intrinsic CSA motives and brand loyalty intention (primary impact), as well as willingness to pay more for companies advocating the same cause (secondary impact), thereby amplifying the overall impact of the advocacy. In contrast, CSA lacking intrinsic motives triggers negative moral emotions (anger), which in turn undermines brand loyalty intention. However, perceived extrinsic CSA motives have no significant influence. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.