What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging

Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility

Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging
An Austrian Model Identifies
Influential CSR Content and Communication Channels
Verena Gruber Scholarly work over the past 15 years has demonstrated that corporate social
HEC Montreal
responsibility (CSR) initiatives can have a positive impact on consumer behavior toward
verena.gruber@hec.ca
brands. Many consumers, however, claim they are uninformed about CSR. The goal of
Magdalena Kaliauer
the current study was to find out what types of CSR-related media and content are more
GfK, Austria
magdalena.kaliauer@gfk. effectively communicated than others. The authors surveyed Austrian consumers for
com their preferences and compared the CSR communication methods used by international

Bodo B.
brands. They found that external sources—for instance, notices of prizes and awards
Schlegelmilch for CSR initiatives—generated higher credibility than social media and certain corporate
Vienna University of
internal-communication methods.
Economics and
Business, and Sun
Yat-sen University, China INTRODUCTION and to attract new talents (Nidumolu, Prahalad,
bodo.schlegelmilch@ In recent years, corporate sustainability has and Rangaswami, 2009).
wu.ac.at continued to gain importance in industry prac- Moreover, customers have rewarded companies
tice (Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron, with CSR programs and, consequently, many CSR
2011). Investors, suppliers, and other business initiatives have had a positive impact on behavior
partners require environmentally friendly and toward brands (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006; Marin,
socially acceptable practices from firms. And Ruiz, and Rubio, 2009; Page and Fearn, 2005; Sen
the benefits are clear: awareness of corporate and Bhattacharya, 2001).
social responsibility (CSR) initiatives of a com- Consumers increasingly spend money for
pany is important both for employee satisfaction sound corporate practices—such as fair labor

• Consumers find specific information about the impact of CSR more credible than broad
references. An “amount-of-CO2-saved” attribution is preferable over a “protects-the-
environment” claim.

Received (in revised form)
December 13, 2014; accepted
January 8, 2015; published online
December 14, 2015
• Consumers attach greater credibility to information originating outside the focal company.
• Awards for CSR efforts have a stronger impact on consumers than messages delivered through
social media and/or internal channels.
• Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different social-media strategies for
disseminating information about CSR.

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-015December 2017  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  397

What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging
practices—and, thereby, exert bottom-up
pressure (Mohr and Webb, 2005). Some 1
fast-moving consumer-goods (FMCG)
retail chains already have responded
to such incentives. To respond to the
demands of the various stakeholders,
companies need to evaluate carefully
how to inform them about their sustain-
able fabric and initiatives (Polonksy and
Wood, 2001). In response to the global
farm-to-table movement, for example, the
German supermarket Aldi has expanded
its inventory by offering sustainable prod-
ucts under its own label and regional
products from small companies or farm-
ers (Aldi, 2015).
To the current authors’ knowledge,
scholars have paid scant attention to the
topic of corporate-sustainability com-
munication (CSC; Du, Bhattacharya, and
Sen, 2010; McDonagh, 1998; Öberseder,
Schlegelmilch, and Gruber, 2011). At the
same time, because CSR has had a positive
effect on consumer behavior, there have
been growing calls for managers to learn
how to improve the effectiveness of CSR
messaging (Öberseder et al., 2011).
The current study seeks to fill that gap.
The authors propose that managers need
to improve both the “what” (i.e., the spe-
cific content) and “how” (the method or
channel) of CSR communication.
Note that CSR and corporate sustainabil-
ity (CS) have been used interchangeably to
denote the efforts and initiatives of a com-
pany to contribute to the social or envi-
ronmental situation (Hildebrand, Sen, and
Bhattacharya, 2011, p. 1353). Accordingly,
the authors of the current article refer to
these as “CSR” and “CS” interchangeably
throughout this article.
The authors propose that marketing
managers need to address a series of ques-
tions about CSR communication:
1
 “Doing Well by Doing Good,” Nielsen, June 17, 2014.
Retrieved August 14, 2015, from http://www.nielsen.com/
us/en/insights/reports/2014/doing-well-by-doing-good.html
398  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2017
• Which initiatives should be
communicated?
• What is the appropriate message?
• What are the most credible channels?
Country-sustainability rankings (e.g., Yale
Environmental Performance Index2) have
placed Austria among the top countries
worldwide in terms of the country’s focus
on sustainability. The EPI ranks the per-
formance of countries on high-priority
environmental issues. Some scholars also
contend that Austria is a country with a
population keenly conscious of social and
environmental aspects (e.g., Thøgersen,
2007). Indeed Austria has many large-
scale activities to strengthen awareness
about CSR. In fact, respACT—an Austrian
business council for sustainable devel-
opment—provides a platform for CSR
and sustainability.
The Austria-based research team used
the set of assumptions about the efficacy
of CS in their homeland as sound footing
to investigate opinions about CSR com-
munication. As such, their study drew on
a large, nationally representative sample
of Austria to examine how consumers
want to be informed about corporate-
sustainability initiatives.
The authors believe the findings from
the survey not only could benefit Aus-
trian companies but also serve as a guide
for companies around the world to
develop appropriate and effective CSR-
communication strategies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Public interest in CSR and CS has risen
tremendously among various stakehold-
ers (e.g., consumers, employees, and inves-
tors). A full 89 percent of global consumers
indicate their willingness to purchase
products based on companies’ responsible
practices (Sustainable Brands, 2015).
 Yale Environmental Performance Index. “2014 EPI.”
2
Retrieved August 14, 2015, from http://epi.yale.edu/
Brands need to take their customers’
opinions seriously because they appear to
be willing to reward sustainable corporate
behavior. Previous research has demon-
strated a positive impact of CSR on:
• purchase intention (Sen and Bhattacha-
rya, 2001),
• customer loyalty (Marin et al., 2009),
• customer satisfaction (Luo and Bhat-
tacharya, 2006), and
• corporate reputation and thus consumer
brand equity (Page and Fearn, 2005).
One study reinforced those findings:
“Managers can be confident that green-
ing their marketing programs can have
a beneficial effect on their firm’s future
performance” (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and
Morgan, 2013, p. 167).
For these positive outcomes to material-
ize, however, consumers’ knowledge about
companies’ socially responsible behavior is
imperative (Öberseder et al., 2011). Indeed,
sustainability has introduced new com-
plexities to the marketing mix, especially
when it comes to corporate communication
strategies (Leonidou et al., 2013). Informa-
tion about a company—including its CSR
efforts—is an important, active means to
attract consumers’ attention.
The Challenges of Communicating
About CSR
The goal of CSR—CS-related commu-
nication should be to provide credible
information on corporate initiatives to
various interested stakeholders. The
current authors believe brands should
act proactively because these stakehold-
ers mostly wait to be “educated” about
the respective sustainability initiatives
(Öberseder et al., 2011) rather than seek
it out. At the same time, there are a large
number of skeptics who are doubtful
about a company’s sustainability poli-
cies, motivations, and the credibility of
 Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging  thearf.org

CSR communication (GfK, 2015). Corpo-

rate transgressions in the realm of social CSR CONTINGENCY COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION FACTORS OUTCOMES
(e.g., Nike sweatshops) or environmental
(e.g., BP in the Gulf of Mexico) practices Message Content Stakeholder Internal Outcomes
have been widely reported (Skarmeas Issue Characteristics Awareness
Importance Stakeholder Types Attributions
and Leonidou, 2013). This confronts com- Issue Support Attitudes,
Initiative
panies with the challenging task of devel- Commitment, Impact Social Value Identification
oping communication strategies that are Motives, Fit Orientation Trust
informative and credible. Message Channel External Outcomes
Corporate Consumers
Despite the importance and challeng-
CSR Report Purchase, Loyalty,
ing nature of communicating effectively Advocacy
Corporate Website
about CSR–CS, to the current authors’ PR Employees
knowledge little research has been done Advertising Company Productivity, Loyalty
Point of Purchase Characteristics Citizen Behaviour,
on this topic. The term “corporate sustain-
Independent Reputation Advocacy
ability communication” was coined “as an
Media Coverage Industry Investors
evolving concept that refers to corporate Word-of-Mouth Marketing Amount of Invested
communications about sustainability Strategies Capital, Loyalty
issues,” thereby including “societal, envi-
ronmental and business aspects” (Sig- Note: This framework was adapted from Du et al. (2010)

nitzer and Prexl, 2008, pp.  2 and 5). One

study synthesized fragmented parts of the
CSR communication process to provide
a holistic conceptual framework, albeit
without offering any empirical evidence
(Du et al., 2010). That model (Du et al.,
2010) suggested that effective CSR com-
munication can be differentiated by mes-
sage content and message channel. The
model also took into account contingency
factors—characteristics of the company
and the stakeholder at whom the commu-
nication is directed.
Combined, these aspects—contingency
factors, message content, and message
channel—influence the communication
outcomes, which are either
• internal (e.g., stakeholder awareness,
attitudes, trust) or
• external (e.g., purchases by consumers,
productivity for employees, or loyalty
among investors; See Figure 1).
The Message Channels
A company can rely on two types of chan-
nels to disseminate information about
CSR initiatives:
Figure 1 A Framework of CSR Communication
• internal, (e.g., its own platforms, such
as internally generated reports on CSR
initiatives, advertising, and the company
website) or
• external (e.g., independent media cov-
erage and/or awards from independ-
ent organizations applauding its CSR
efforts).
Prior studies have called for research on
the differential effect of communication
sources, because the ones under control of
the respective company have been shown
to be less trustworthy (Becker-Olsen,
Cudmore, and Hill, 2006; Pomering and
Dolnicar, 2009; Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and
Schwarz, 2006). Accordingly, the current
study examined various internal and exter-
nal (independent) channels:
• Internal Channels
Companies’ sustainability reports are an
important and credible source of infor-
mation on corporate initiatives, given
that they
converge around the same key aspects
——
(and therefore make comparability
among companies easier);
increasingly are regulated (Stiller and
——
Daub, 2007).
Available to the general public (and
increasingly prevalent over the past
15 years), such internally generated
sustainability reports aim “to provide
internal and external stakeholders with
a picture of the corporate position and
activities on economic, environmental
and social dimensions” (WBCSD, 2002,
p. 7). In these integrated reports, com-
panies combine traditional financial
information with aspects of their sus-
tainability practices.
The Brazilian cosmetics company
——
Natura used a single annual report
to communicate its core values and
activities to interested audiences (Nat-
ura, 2013).

December 2017  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  399

What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging
L’Oréal, in an internal sustainable
——
development report, linked its devel-
opment and achievements within the
respective year to its future vision
(L’Oréal, 2015).
San Jose, CA-based Cisco Systems
——
has received multiple honors for
its CSR reports focused around its
key stakeholders and priority areas
(Cisco, 2015).
Company websites are vital infor-
mation sources: the more consumers
get involved with sustainability, the
more they proactively seek informa-
tion about companies (Golding, 2008),
and company websites are vital infor-
mation sources.
Enterprises can reinforce their digital
communications by using social media
to provide in-depth information about
their various sustainability initiatives
and actively engage their consumers in
a dialogue (Du et al., 2010). Independ-
ent parties also can inform the broader
audience about corporate sustainability
through these digital platforms.
• External Channels
The function of traditional advertising—
television, radio, or print—is “not just to
stimulate demand, but also to stimulate
and reinforce the consumption lifestyle”
(Kilbourne, 2004, p. 199).
The U.S. fast-food chain Chipotle and
——
its animated advertisement on sus-
tainable farming was named best tel-
evision campaign at the Cannes Lions
International Festivity of Creativity
festival of creativity.3
Austrian retailer Hofer, a division
——
of the Aldi Group, has launched the
3
 “Chipotle’s Sustainable Farming Ad Named Best TV
Campaign At Cannes.” The Guardian, June 23, 2012.
Retrieved August 13, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.
com/media/2012/jun/23/chipotle-ad-wins-tv-cannes
400  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2017
initiative “project 2020” that includes
a strong television presence. The idea
is to make individuals aware that
together, “we can make the world a
better place to live in” (Hofer, 2015).
Prizes and awards, as well as third-
party labels or certifications, can be
viable means to communicate corporate
sustainability. The external recognition
of a company’s efforts is considered to
increase consumer trust significantly
(Horne, 2009).
In Austria, for example, the “TRIGOS”
is awarded to companies that dem-
onstrate a holistic CSR engagement.
TRIGOS, in fact, was adopted by other
European countries after Austria teamed
up with the European Commission to
distribute “European CSR Awards” in
2013 (TRIGOS, 2015).
There also are globally coordinated ini-
tiatives, such as the annual World’s Most
Ethical Companies awards, for which
L’Oréal was nominated (L’Oréal, 2015).5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The authors began by drawing on previous
research about CSR content regarding:
• CSR/Sustainability reports (WBCSD,
2002);
• stakeholder and company characteristics
(Du et al., 2010);
• labeling schemes (Horne, 2009);
• sponsorships (Simmons and Becker-
Olsen, 2006),
They then posed three research questions
regarding a company’s message content
and the channels it uses to communicate
that content:
4
 TRIGOS. “About Us.” Retrieved August 13, 2015, from
http://www.trigos.at/
5
 “2015 World’s Most Ethical Companies.” Ethisphere.
Retrieved July 12, 2015, from http://ethisphere.com/
worlds-most-ethical/
RQ1: How does the fit between a com-
pany’s business and the CSR ini-
tiative impact the credibility that
consumers associate with the
CSR communication?
In this context, past studies have shown
that a closer link between a company’s
core business and a given cause results in a
stronger consumer engagement (Simmons
and Becker-Olsen, 2006) but that con-
sumers’ awareness of many specific CSR
activities is very low (Pomering and Dol-
nicar, 2009). The authors thus investigated
whether a good company–cause fit still is
4
important to generate a positive reaction
among consumers. These effects poten-
tially could be indirect in nature, when
consumers infer a more favorable overall
company image (Brunk, 2010).
RQ2: How does the level of detail
of the communicated content
influence credibility of CSR
communication?
RQ3: What are the channels consum-
ers consider most credible to
communicate CSR?
More specifically, the authors aimed to
determine the influence that different
types of communicated content have on
perceived credibility. Are consumers’ per-
ceptions, for example, influenced more by
specific numbers reflecting the amount,
durability, and consistency of corpo-
rate engagement with CSR activities,
or are they more influenced by general-
value orientations?
The researchers also examined consum-
ers’ preferences for receiving the informa-
tion via different communication channels
(e.g., television advertisements, prizes and
awards, labels, company websites).
Other factors that consumers attribute
to the CSR communication, such as “per-
ceived motivates” or “commitment” of
 Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging  thearf.org
the respective company already have been
empirically examined (e.g., Du et al., 2010;
Ellen, Webb, and Mohr, 2006). For this
reason, the authors of the current paper
explored the most effective approach for
communicating about CSR, regardless of
the consumer’s underlying assumptions
about (and associations with) a company’s
CSR involvement.
METHODOLOGY
To the authors’ knowledge, there is a
dearth of extant research concerning the
credibility of corporate-sustainability
communication. With that failing in mind,
the research team took an exploratory
approach—combining both qualitative
and quantitative inquiry—as they inves-
tigated how Austrian companies pre-
sent the specific initiatives they engage
in and what they should do to improve
that communication.
The authors’ model, adapted from the
framework presented above (Du et al.,
2010), aims to understand how aspects of
content and the company’s choice of chan-
nel for communicating CSR influence the
overall credibility of CSR information (See
Figure 2). It outlines
• “what” companies communicate
Information content:
——
–– Broad versus concrete (facts–figures)
–– Company cause–fit
• “how” companies communicate CSR
Information source:
——
–– External channels (e.g., prizes
and awards, labels, cooperation
with NGOs [nongovernmental
organizations–nonprofit])
–– Internal channels (e.g., a company’s
sustainability report, website, tel-
evision and radio advertisements).
Pilot Study
The pilot study was conducted in two
parts, qualitative and quantitative:
WHAT HOW OUTCOME
Information Content Information Source Credibility of CSR
Broad vs concrete Company vs external Communication
(facts & figures) organizations
information
External Information
Channels
Company-Cause Fit
Prizes and Awards
Cooperation with NGOs
TV or Newspaper Coverage
Social Media Coverage
Labels
Internal Information
Channels
Company (CSR) Report
Company Website
TV Advertisements
Radio Advertisements
Social Media Pages
Figure 2  The Model: Factors Influencing the Credibility
Associated With CSR Communication
• Qualitative: As a first step, a series of 20 clarity, the questions were distributed
in-depth interviews were conducted to through GfK Austria’s online pool for the
develop a grounded understanding of main survey, continuing the quantitative
the various factors influencing the cred- analysis. The questionnaire originally
ibility of CSR communication. The inter- was written in English then translated to
viewees—all Austrian consumers—were German (including a back-translation to
diverse in terms of their backgrounds, assure semantic consistency).
demographic criteria, and attitudes
toward CSR. Respondents first were DATA AND MEASURES
asked to freely talk about their attitudes Sampling Frames
and feelings toward CSR and its com- The pilot study involved a nonrepresenta-
munication. Their responses helped to tive sample of 631 individuals:
elicit items for a quantitative pilot study
• 55 percent female
that followed, targeting a narrower
• 70 percent of the total sample ages 20 to
demographic: students and employees
30 years.
of a major business school in Vienna.
• Quantitative: Next, a quantitative pilot The main survey included N = 1,055
study (involving 631 participants, see consumers
“Sampling Frames,” below) was used
• between 15 and 65 years of age (M = 42
to assess the psychometric properties of
years) and
the measures.
• equally distributed by gender (51 per-
cent female).
Main Survey
After rewording two of the items from the The main survey was representative of
current authors’ questionnaire to improve the population of Austria, a citizenry that
December 2017  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  401
What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging
ranked high in terms of the importance its
citizens attached to sustainability and CSR
(Thøgersen, 2007).6 The authors, therefore,
believed that the Austrian population was
relatively knowledgeable about these con-
cepts and had formed an opinion as to how
they wanted to be informed about corpo-
rate efforts.
The pilot study did not indicate any psy-
chometric problems. And, although there
were some subtle variations between the
pilot study and the main survey, the results
of the main survey were rich enough to
provide proper direction for the research.
Main Survey Measures
In order to minimize common-method
variance, the researchers incorporated a
priori measures related to both design and
administration of the questionnaires:
• respondents’ anonymity was assured;
• the researchers stressed that there were
no right or wrong answers;
• questions were unambiguous and pre-
sented in randomized order.
Furthermore, the researchers ran the Har-
man’s Single Factor Test (no rotation),
a commonly used post hoc measure to
assess a potential common-method bias
(in which case the single factor would
account for a majority of the variance in
the model). Only 16 percent of total vari-
ance was accounted for by the single-factor
solution. Thus, they concluded that com-
mon method variance was not a problem
within the data (Harman, 1976).
The current study’s dependent vari-
able—credibility of CSR communica-
tion—was based on the existing scale of
“ad credibility,” defined as “the extent
to which the consumer perceives claims
made about the brand in the ad to be truth-
ful and believable” (MacKenzie and Lutz,
 Yale Environmental Performance Index, “2014 EPI.”
6
Retrieved August 14, 2015, from http://epi.yale.edu/
402  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2017
TABLE 1
Sample Composition
Gender (%)
n Male
Pilot Study 631 45
Main Survey (GfK Pool) 1,055 49
1989, p. 51). Accordingly, for the purposes
of the current study, credibility of CSR
communication was operationalized as
agreement to the statement, “The commu-
nication of a company with regard to its
sustainable initiatives is credible,” meas-
ured on a 5-point Likert scale.
All remaining independent variables
(e.g., Du et al., 2010), referring to the source
of information, specific content, and com-
pany–cause fit—as well as the various
channels—were self-developed items,
based on the current researchers’ qualita-
tive interviews, and were assessed within
the quantitative pilot study.
RESULTS
General Attitudes Toward CSR
Among the respondents, concerning their
general attitudes toward CSR
• 48 percent had heard the term CSR but
knew only little about it;
• 40 percent considered themselves to be
very knowledgeable;
• 12 percent either had not heard the term
at all, or heard it but did not know any-
thing about it;
• 33 percent considered the topic of cor-
porate sustainability to be extremely
important;
• 46 percent considered the topic very
important;
• 19 percent considered the topic
important.
The relationship between level of
knowledge and importance ascribed to
Age (%)
Female 18–34 35–54 55+
55 71 20  9
51 34 44 22
sustainability was investigated using
Pearson product–moment correlation
coefficient (SPSS 20). Preliminary analyses
ensured no violation of the assumptions
of normality, linearity, and homoscedas-
ticity. There was a small (Cohen, 1988),
positive correlation between the variables,
r = 0.257, N = 1,055, p < 0.0005, with
high levels of importance associated
with high levels of knowledge about
sustainability.
Furthermore, the current authors of
this article assessed whether there were
differences between individuals who con-
sidered themselves knowledgeable about
CSR and those who were not very familiar
with the concept. A dummy variable was
created, allocating
• the knowledgeable respondents (40 per-
cent) and
• those who know only little about CSR
(48 percent) in different groups.
• The remaining 12 percent who heard the
term “CSR” but do not know anything
were excluded.
An independent t test yielded no sig-
nificant differences between the groups
and the credibility they associated with
CSR communication (even though there
was a tendency of knowledgeable con-
sumers to consider the communication
more credible).
Additionally, the authors examined
whether there was a difference in gen-
der and found that female consumers
more likely would consider the CSR
 Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging  thearf.org

communication of a company to be cred-
ible (Mfemale  = 3.21) than males did (Mmale =
3.06, p = 0.002).
Exploratory Analysis
The following exploratory analysis was
conducted with PLS-SEM (Hair, Ringle,
and Sarstedt, 2011) in SmartPLS (Ringle,
Wende, and Will, 2005).
First, the psychometric properties of all
items were examined to assess how well
they related to the latent constructs. The
researchers considered construct-to-item
loadings of the latent constructs (demon-
strating acceptable standardized loadings)
as well as measures to gauge the internal
consistency of the independent constructs.
Factors loadings all were between 0.7
and 0.9 with the exception of one item on
“cooperation with NGOs” with a factor
loading of 0.635.
Next, to assess internal consistency, the
researchers calculated the composite reli-
ability, which consistently exceeded 0.80
in all constructs, as well as the more con-
servative Cronbach’s α values, fulfilling
the strict reliability benchmark (Nunnally,
1978; See Table 2).
Moreover, there was support for dis-
criminant validity as the average vari-
ance extracted (AVE, between 0.57 and
0.79) exceeded squared correlations of
the latent variables, except for the cor-
relation between internal and external
communication channels (r = 0.74 as com-
pared with an AVE of 0.59). To this end,
the results fulfilled the Fornell-Larcker Cri-
terion, which supports discriminant valid-
ity (See Table 3).
Additional support for discriminant
validity came through the examination
of indicators’ cross-loadings, which were
highest on their designated constructs
(See Table 4).
Assessment of the Structural Model
A bootstrapping procedure (1,055 cases
and 5,000 samples, individual changes)
was run to obtain the standard errors of
the estimates and assess the significance of
path coefficients:

TABLE 2
Psychometric Properties and Measurement Statistics
1. Construct 2. Item 3. Loading 4. CR 5. AVE 6. Cronbach’s α
Information Concrete information concerning corporate sustainability initiatives
IC1 0.703
Content are credible
By means of facts and figures, companies can demonstrate their 0.802 0.575 0.631
IC2 0.829
corporate sustainability in a credible way
Broad information concerning corporate sustainability are unreliable IC3 0.736
Information Information from external organizations concerning corporate
IS1 0.901
Source sustainability are credible 0.884 0.792 0.737
Independent information sources on corporate sustainability are credible IS2 0.879
Information Prizes and awards for companies’ sustainability ICE1 0.844
Channels: Cooperation with NGOs ICE2 0.635
External
Independent coverage in TV or newspapers ICE3 0.822 0.879 0.596 0.829
Independent social media pages (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.) ICE4 0.781
Labels (e.g., Fair Trade, Marine Stewardship, etc.) ICE5 0.762
Information Company internal reports (e.g., sustainability report) ICI1 0.788
Channels: Company website ICI2 0.755
Internal
TV advertisements ICI3 0.796 0.879 0.594 0.829
Radio advertisements ICI4 0.785
Social media pages of a company (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.) ICI5 0.726
Fit The CSR initiatives of a company should fit its core business Fit 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

December 2017  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  403

What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging

• The influence of content and source Furthermore, the structural model was blindfolding procedure issued the Stone-
was significant at the 1  percent level, assessed through a blindfolding proce- Geisser’s Q, postulating the model’s ability
whereas dure with an omission distance of seven to correctly predict the indicators of each
• the other constructs did not show a (i.e., every seventh data point was omit- endogenous latent construct, which was
significant influence on “credibility of ted and the resulting parameter estimates above 0.36, thereby providing support
CSR communication.” were used to predict the omitted ones). The for the predictive relevance of the model
(CCC; See Table 5).
Accordingly, the results addressed the
TABLE 3
three research questions:
Fornell-Larcker Criterion
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 RQ1: How does the fit between a com-
1. CCC 1 0 0 0 0 0 pany’s business and the CSR ini-
tiative impact the credibility that
2. Channel External 0.126 0.596 0 0 0 0
consumers associate with the
3. Channel Internal 0.121 0.739 0.594 0 0 0
CSR communication?
4. Content 0.252 0.178 0.176 0.575 0 0
5. Fit 0.168 0.171 0.134 0.239 1 0 Prior research (Simmons and Becker-
Olsen, 2006) had shown the importance
6. Source 0.363 0.191 0.200 0.435 0.367 0.792
of fit between a company’s core business
and the CSR initiatives it engages in. The
current researchers, however, did not find
TABLE 4 a significant effect of fit on overall credibil-
Cross Loadings ity, indicating that fit is not a necessary cri-
Channel Channel Information Information terion for companies’ CSR communication.
Indicators External Internal Content Source Fit CCC
RQ2: How does the level of detail
ICE1 0.844 0.719 0.378 0.382 0.304 0.325
of the communicated content
ICE2 0.635 0.696 0.323 0.237 0.239 0.199
influence credibility of CSR
ICE3 0.762 0.503 0.207 0.306 0.345 0.227 communication?
ICE4 0.822 0.614 0.306 0.419 0.387 0.324
ICE5 0.781 0.696 0.330 0.306 0.314 0.263 Especially the significant result of the
“content” construct was interesting, point-
ICI1 0.682 0.788 0.330 0.338 0.268 0.286
ing toward the importance to communicate
ICI2 0.626 0.755 0.322 0.380 0.302 0.256 facts and figures instead of merely stating
ICI3 0.679 0.796 0.335 0.340 0.274 0.291 that the company cares about CSR. This
ICI4 0.642 0.785 0.322 0.374 0.269 0.284 result helps to answer RQ2 and shows that
detailed information on CSR initiatives
ICI5 0.698 0.726 0.309 0.285 0.320 0.212
positively impact the credibility of a com-
IC1 0.347 0.371 0.703 0.426 0.384 0.316 pany’s CSR communication. The influence
IC2 0.354 0.340 0.829 0.525 0.367 0.438 of the source also was mirrored in the cur-
IC3 0.264 0.256 0.736 0.543 0.372 0.377 rent findings concerning the most impor-
tant communication channels, further
IS1 0.389 0.419 0.626 0.901 0.553 0.561
discussed hereafter.
IS2 0.389 0.376 0.546 0.879 0.523 0.510
Fit 0.414 0.366 0.489 0.605 1 0.409 RQ3: What are the channels consum-
CCC 0.355 0.348 0.502 0.603 0.409 1 ers consider most credible to
communicate CSR?

404  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2017

 Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging  thearf.org

TABLE 5 Educate Consumers About Your CSR

Efforts
Total Effects Bootstrapping Aside from the descriptive statistics point-
Variable Path Coefficients SE T p ing toward the importance of CSR to con-
Channel External → CCC 0.074 0.056 1.339 0.162n.s. sumers, the correlation analysis provided

Channel Internal → CCC 0.008 0.028 0.291 0.771n.s. further evidence of the positive relation-
ship between information and impor-
Content → CCC 0.161 0.060 2.675 0.008***
tance. This was not surprising, given that
Fit → CCC 0.029 0.055 0.526 0.599n.s. consumers who care about social and envi-
Source → CCC 0.443 0.114 3.882 0.000 ***
ronmental aspects more likely will seek

Note: *ps for a two-tailed test; calculated by means of TDIST (TVERT) function in Excel based on empirical t value and df
(see Hair et al., 2011). CCC = credibility of CSR communication.
The path coefficients of both internal and
external channel constructs in the bootstrap-
ping were not significant, thus the authors
decided to look at consumers’ responses
concerning the specific channels to address
RQ3. More specifically, the researchers
examined the credibility associated with
each channel used for corporate sustain-
ability by looking at their mean values.
Among the five most credible communica-
tion channels, four are external to the com-
pany, indicating that consumers consider
CSR communication disseminated through
independent sources more credible:
• prizes and awards (M = 2.84)
• television and newspaper coverage (M
= 2.75)
• labels (M = 2.65)
• cooperation with NGOs (M = 2.39) and
one internal channel, namely
• company (CSR) reports (M = 2.19; See
Figure 3).
Grounded in the findings of 20 in-depth
interviews, the authors of the study devel-
oped items for evaluating the credibility
of companies’ CSR communication, which
subsequently were incorporated into a
large-scale pilot study (N = 631) and a main
study (N = 1,055) representative of the Aus-
trian population.
The results of the study produced the
following takeaways for marketers:
Prizes & Awards
TV/Newspaper Coverage
Labels
Cooperation with NGOs
Company (CSR) Reports
Corporate Homepage
Social Media Coverage
relevant information.
In turn, consumers who have learned
about these aspects—and are knowledge-
able about their potential positive conse-
quences—consider sustainability to be
more important. Although the direction of
causality cannot be determined with the
current data, the data do show that con-
sumers knowledgeable about corporate
sustainability initiatives are appreciative
of them.
This finding underlines the importance
of corporate sustainability communication
for both companies and consumers.
Company external channels

DISCUSSION Radio Advertisement

The current research explored consum- TV Advertisement

ers’ evaluation of the credibility associated
Social Media Pages of a Company
with different aspects of CSR communi-
cation. Relying on qualitative and quan- 1 2 3 4 5
titative field data, the study provided Mean Values
Note: 1 = not at all credible,
credible, 55 == very
very credible
important insights into consumers’ assess-
ment of the process of communicating
CSR-related information. Figure 3 Mean Values of Credibility Associated With Channels
December 2017  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  405
What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging
Carefully Choose Your CSR
Communication Channel
The current research elaborated on the
central decision of choosing a CSR initia-
tive and demonstrated that this choice can
be related to a company’s core business.
Respondents indicated they considered
independent sources more credible—one
reason why the authors believe that com-
panies should disseminate positive CRM
messages information to the appropriate
media channels, consumer groups, and
other outlets.
According to one review of extant liter-
ature, “Companies should use a variety of
communication channels or, alternatively,
focus on one or two highly relevant chan-
nels” (Du et al., 2010, p. 16). The results
of the current field study extended that
recommendation, and, by assessing the
respective credibility associated with dif-
ferent communication channels, the cur-
rent research identified specific channels
for managers:
• First, companies should provide suf-
ficient information about their CSR
and sustainability initiatives on their
websites.
• Companies need to make sure that
they have a conclusive, comprehensive
sustainability report available for inter-
ested stakeholders. This channel will be
used widely to gauge the importance a
company ascribes to sustainability.
A report by KMPG (2013) on global
——
CSR reporting demonstrated that
most companies understand this
necessity: 93 percent of the largest
250 Fortune Global companies report
on CSR, and reputational considera-
tions are the prime motivator for vol-
untary reporting.
• Furthermore, companies should com-
municate external certifications, such
406  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2017
as prizes and awards received, and seek
out television coverage about their sus-
tainability efforts.
ImagePower Green Brands Survey
——
reported that consumers particu-
larly use the Internet and television
to inform themselves about corpo-
rate sustainability (Landor, 2009).
Respondents of the ImagePower
Green Brands Survey reported “that
they trust advertising to inform them
about green products” (Landor, 2009,
p. 5).
Make Your Contribution Explicit
Professional communication grounded
in in-depth information and hard facts
is needed to address a general public
still largely uninformed about sustain-
ability. Scholars have speculated that
the low credibility often associated with
“green” advertising results from those
messages’ low information content
(Iyer and Baerjee, 1993) and that more
specific information on environmental
aspects may lead to enhanced brand atti-
tudes among consumers (Hartmann and
Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009).
Both the quantitative analysis and the
in-depth interviews in the current study
revealed an influence of the information
content on the communication’s credibil-
ity, depending on how the specific mes-
sage is framed. Consumers stated that
program-specific information was more
credible than a company’s general claim
to “protect the environment.”
• Austrian retailer Hofer has provided a
clear message and consumer benefit by
displaying details about its private eco-
labeled products regarding the amount
of CO2 saved as compared with conven-
tionally produced alternatives (Hofer,
2015).
• The “nutrition” label of Timberland has
demonstrated an effective, innovative use
of product packaging (i.e., shoe boxes)
to provide in-depth information about
social and environmental aspects. The
company revealed hard facts, such as,
climate impact (kg of CO2 per shoe);
——
resources used (e.g., whether organic,
——
nonrecycled, or renewable material
was used; Timberland, 2015).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The current study only included com-
munication approaches that respondents
named within the qualitative prestudy—
prizes and awards, television–newspaper
coverage, labels, cooperation with NGOs,
company (CSR) reports, corporate home-
page, social media coverage, or radio
advertisements.
Other channels that might be used
to communicate sustainability include
blogs, consumer-focused newsletters, or
company sponsorship programs that tie
into (and highlight) the appropriate CSR
initiative.
Similarly, different social-media chan-
nels (i.e., YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,
etc.) might offer varying levels of trust
and credibility, depending on the depth
of information.
The current analysis ended at the point
of assessing communication credibil-
ity; whether such information—even if
considered highly important and cred-
ible—will lead to a corresponding behav-
ior cannot be answered. Consumers, as
well as other stakeholders, are prone to
attitude–behavior inconsistencies. Nev-
ertheless, given the increasing pressure
on companies to show their sustain-
ability intent, reassuring consumers
with knowledge about the “what” and
“how” can provide them with valuable
competitive advantages.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The academic contribution of the current
study lay in the consolidation of several
 Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging  thearf.org
previously examined fragments of CSR
communication processes in a unified
investigation. Furthermore, as the current
study was grounded in empirical data, the
research team believe their findings offer
important insights into consumers’ evalu-
ation of CSR communication.
The authors of the current study believe
that it is increasingly important for compa-
nies to have a reputation for being socially
responsible (Morsing, Schultz, and Nielsen,
2008) and for stakeholders to be informed
about CSR initiatives. The current research
addressed this imperative, and it evaluated
the necessary aspects for credible and effi-
cient corporate sustainability communica-
tion. Furthermore, the authors believe that
some marketing managers may need to
gain a better understanding of how to com-
municate their CSR efforts to consumers
or to assess why existing communication
approaches might not have led to fruitful
outcomes.
In the realm of CSR, companies should
cater to two different types of consumers,
each with specific needs:
• Individuals who already are interested
in sustainability and who might seek
specific information about the compa-
ny’s CSR efforts in this respect.
• Consumers without a strong preexist-
ing attitude toward sustainability who
still might be positively influenced once
they were provided with knowledge
about a company’s initiatives.
To reach the first group of consumers, the
current researchers advise companies to
use more subtle channels, such as their
online home pages and online sustain-
ability reports, to inform interested audi-
ences about their CSR initiatives. These
channels can provide consumers with the
opportunity to retrieve in-depth informa-
tion and concrete facts on the aspects in
which they are most interested.
The more difficult endeavor is to reach
the second group of consumers. In this
case, large-scale communications—tel-
evision, social media, and radio advertis-
ing, for example—can be viable means
to inform the general public about a
company’s sustainable initiatives. As
often as possible, these messages should
be supported by an external institution
(i.e., federal ministries, nongovernmen-
tal organizations like Greenpeace, and
consumer protection groups) to increase
the credibility.
Advertisers particularly should be care-
ful with purely emotional approaches to
CSR communication as such efforts may
evoke skepticism. The current study
found that consumers are more willing
to act responsibly once they see how a
company leads, in terms of demonstrable
improvements of the environmental and/
or social situations. In such instances, con-
sumers likely will act on their beliefs and
support the company, in some cases by
becoming its advocates or, in others, by
purchasing its products.
Content is an important element of the
CSR mix, and the current study disclosed
that companies should use informative,
substantial approaches when communi-
cating their CSR efforts. Such disclosures
are important in both legacy and new
media, though often more easily imple-
mented in the cases of digital services and
report channels.
Third-party collaborations with like-
minded allies may further increase the
credibility of communicated content, par-
ticularly for large-scale communication
channels primarily directed at a general
consumer prone to skepticism.
Properly aligned CSR initiatives also
can serve the best interests of nonprofit
organizations and public-policy makers
(Polonksy and Wood, 2001). To get con-
sumers involved, the authors of the cur-
rent paper believe such enterprises need to
December 2017  JOURNAL
provide detailed specific information.
This current research
• provides insights into the best practices
(and missteps) of corporate sustainabil-
ity communication;
• proposes specific channels as to which
consumers might be considered most
credible;
• assesses the influence of information
source on overall credibility of CSR
communication.
Overall, the current authors have found that
outlined aspects of corporate sustainability
communication can help companies reap
the benefits of their CSR engagement—and
potentially provide a positive stimulus for
the general public to act likewise. 
Verena Gruber is adjunct professor at HEC Montreal
in the department of marketing. Her work has been
published in journals such as Psychology & Marketing,
International Marketing Review, and Journal of Business
Ethics. She coauthored this research when she was at
the Institute for International Marketing Management
at Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU
Vienna). Gruber also consults on marketing research
projects for global corporations, including Philips, HP,
and Red Bull.
Magdalena Kaliauer is a senior marketing consultant
at GfK. She focuses on household-purchasing and
consumer-panel analyses and consults for leading
beverage companies in Austria. Kaliauer’s research
has been published in Journal of Business Ethics, AMS
Review, and Journal of Business Research.
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch is chair of the Institute for
International Marketing Management at WU Vienna
Austria and distinguished research professor at Lingnan
(University) College, Sun Yat-sen University, China.
Previously, he held professorships in the United States
and the United Kingdom. In the private sector, he has
worked at Deutsche Bank as a stock advisor and at
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  407
What we know about corporate social responsibility messaging
Procter & Gamble in brand management. Schlegelmilch’s
work can be found in a variety of books and journals,
including Strategic Management Journal, Journal of
International Business Studies, and Journal of World
Business. He is a former editor-in-chief of the Journal of
International Marketing.
REFERENCES
Aldi. “Bio-Produkte” (Organic Products).
Retrieved August 13, 2015, from https://
unternehmen.aldi-sued.de/de/qualitaet/
lebensmittel/bio-produkte/
Becker-Olsen, K. L., B. A. Cudmore, and R.
P. Hill. “The Impact of Perceived Corporate
Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior.”
Journal of Business Research 59, 1 (2006): 46–53.
Brunk, K. H. “Reputation Building: Beyond
Our Control? Inferences in Consumers’ Ethi-
cal Perception Formation.” Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 9, 4 (2010), 275–292.
Chabowski, B., J. Mena, and T. Gonzalez-
Padron. “The Structure of Sustainability
Research in Marketing, 1958–2008: A Basis for
Future Research Opportunities.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 39, 1 (2011): 55–70.
Cisco. “2014 Corporate Social Responsibility
Report.” Retrieved July 12, 2015, from http://
csr.cisco.com/pages/csr-reports
Cohen, J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.
Du, S., C. B. Bhattacharya, and S. Sen.“Max-
imizing Business Returns to Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Commu-
nication.” International Journal of Management
Reviews 12, 1 (2010): 8–19.
Ellen, P., D. J. Webb, and L. A. Mohr.“Build-
ing Corporate Associations: Consumer Attri-
butions for Corporate Socially Responsible
408  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH December 2017
Programs.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 34, 2 (2006): 147–157.
GfK. ( 2015 ). “CSR Monitor 2015 der GfK
Austria” (CSR Monitor 2015 of GfK Aus-
tria). Retrieved August 14, 2015, from http://
www.marktmeinungmensch.at/studien/
csr-monitor-2015-der-gfk-austria/
Golding, K. M. “Fair Trade’s Dual Aspect.”
Journal of Macromarketing 29, 2 (2008): 160–171.
Hair, J. F., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt.
“PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” Journal of
Marketing Theory & Practice 19, 2 (2011): 139–152.
Harman, H. H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chi-
cago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Hartmann, P., and V. Apaolaza-Ibáñez.
“Green Advertising Revisited: Conditioning
Virtual Nature Experiences.” International Jour-
nal of Advertising 28, 4 (2009): 715–739.
Hildebrand, D., S. Sen, and C. B. Bhat-
tacharya. “Corporate Social Responsibility:
A Corporate Marketing Perspective.” European
Journal of Marketing 45, 9/10 (2011): 1353–1364.
Hofer.“Projekt 2020.” Retrieved May 25, 2015,
from https://www.projekt2020.at/
Horne, R. E. “Limits to Labels: The Role of
Eco-Labels in the Assessment of Product Sus-
tainability and Routes to Sustainable Con-
sumption.” International Journal of Consumer
Studies 33, 2 (2009): 175–182.
Iyer, E., and B. Baerjee. “Anatomy of Green
Advertising.” Advances of Consumer Research 20,
2 (1993): 494–501.
Kilbourne, W. E. “Sustainable Communica-
tion and the Dominant Social Paradigm: Can
They Be Integrated?” Marketing Theory 4, 3 (2004):
187–208.
KPMG.  “The KPMG Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2013.” Retrieved Sep-
tember 3, 2015, from https://www.kpmg.com/
Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPubli-
cations/corporate-responsibility/Documents/
kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-
reporting-2013.pdf
Landor. “Green Brands, Global Insight:
Findings from the 2009 ImagePower
Green Brands Survey.” Retrieved May
25, 2015, from http://landor.com/pdfs/k9/
GreenBrandsGlobalInsights_28Sept09.
pdf?utm_campaign=PDFDownloads&utm_
medium=web&utm_source=web
Leonidou, C. N., C. S. Katsikeas, and N. A.
Morgan. “‘Greening’ the Marketing Mix: Do
Firms Do It and Does It Pay Off?” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 41, 2 (2013): 151–170.
L’Oréal.“ CSR Commitments.” Retrieved
July 12, 2015, from http://www.loreal.com/
csr-commitments
Luo, X., and C. B. Bhattacharya. “Corporate
Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction,
and Market Value.” Journal of Marketing 70, 4
(2006): 1–18.
MacKenzie, S. B., and R. J. Lutz. “An Empiri-
cal Examination of the Structural Antecedents
of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising
Pretesting Context.” Journal of Marketing 53, 2
(1989): 48–65.
Marin, L., S. Ruiz, and A. Rubio. “The Role
of Identity Salience in the Effects of Corporate
Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior.”
Journal of Business Ethics 84, 1 (2009): 65–78.
McDonagh, P. “Toward a Theory of Sustain-
able Communication in Risk Society: Relating
Issues of Sustainability to Marketing Commu-
nications.” Journal of Marketing Management 14,
6 (1998): 591–622.
 Improving the Effectiveness and Credibility Of Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging  thearf.org
Mohr, L. A., and D. J. Webb. “The Effects of
Corporate Social Responsibility and Price on
Consumer Responses.” Journal of Consumer
Affairs 39, 1 (2005): 121–147.
Morsing, M., M. Schultz, and K. U. Nielsen.
“The ‘Catch 22’ of Commmunicating CSR:
Findings From a Danish Study.” Journal of Mar-
keting Communications 14, 2 (2008): 97–111.
Natura. “Natura Report 2013.” Retrieved
August 14, 2015, from http://natu.infoinvest.
com.br/ptb/4888/Relatrioanualemingls.pdf
Nidumolu, R., C. K. Prahalad, and M. R.
Rangaswami. “Why Sustainability Is Now the
Key Driver of Innovation.” Harvard Business
Review 87, 9 (2009): 56–64.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Öberseder, M., B. B. Schlegelmilch, and V.
Gruber. “Why Don’t Consumers Care About
CSR? A Qualitative Study Exploring the Role
of CSR in Consumption Decisions.” Journal of
Business Ethics 104, 4 (2011): 449–460.
Page, G., and H. Fearn. “Corporate Reputa-
tion: What Do Consumers Really Care About?”
Journal of Advertising Research 45, 3 (2005):
305–313.
Polonsky, M. J., and G. Wood.“Can the Over-
commercialization of Cause-Related Marketing
Harm Society?” Journal of Macromarketing 21, 1
(2001): 8–22.
Pomering, A., and Dolnicar, S.“Assessing the
Prerequisite of Successful CSR Implementation:
Are Consumers Aware of CSR Initiatives?”
Journal of Business Ethics 85, 2 (2009): 285–301.
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and S. Will ( 2005 ).
“SmartPLS 2.0 (M3).” Retrieved August 14,
2013, from http://www.smartpls.de
Sen, S., and C. B. Bhattacharya.“Does Doing
Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity.” Journal of Marketing Research 38, 2 (2001):
225–243.
Signitzer, B., and A. Prexl. “Corporate Sus-
tainability Communications: Aspects of Theory
and Professionalization.” Journal of Public Rela-
tions Research 20, 1 (2008): 1–19.
Simmons, C. J., and K. L. Becker-Olsen.
“Achieving Marketing Objectives Through
Social Sponsorships.” Journal of Marketing 70,
4 (2006): 154–169.
Skarmeas, D., and C. N. Leonidou. “When
Consumers Doubt, Watch Out! The Role of CSR
Skepticism.” Journal of Business Research 66, 10
(2013): 1831–1838.
December 2017  JOURNAL
Stiller, Y., and C.-H. Daub. “Paving the Way
for Sustainability Communication: Evidence
From a Swiss Study.” Business Strategy and the
Environment 16, 7 (2007): 474–486.
Sustainable Brands. (2015, May 27). “Study:
81% of Consumers Say They Will Make Personal
Sacrifices to Address Social, Environmental
Issues. “ Retrieved from http://www.sus-
tainablebrands.com/news_and_views/stake-
holder_trends_insights/sustainable_brands/
study_81_consumers_say_they_will_make_
Thøgersen, J. “Country Differences in Sus-
tainable Consumption: The Case of Organic
Food.” Journal of Macromarketing 30, 2 (2007):
171–185.
Timberland. “Earthkeeping.” Retrieved
August 13, 2015, from http://community.tim-
berland.com/Earthkeeping/Green-Index
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development. Sustainable Development Report-
ing—Striking the Balance. Stevenage, Hertford-
shire, England: Earthprint, 2002.
Yoon, Y., Z. Gürhan-Canli, and N. Schwarz.
“The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad
Reputations.” Journal of Consumer Psychology
16, 4 (2006): 377–390.
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  409