Advertising CSR Initiatives to Communicate Corporate Image

Advertising corporate socialresponsibility initiatives to

communicate corporate imageInhibiting scepticism to enhance persuasion

Alan PomeringFaculty of Commerce, School of Management and Marketing,

University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, and

Lester W. JohnsonMelbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a set of research propositions concerned with howthe alignment between socially responsible corporate image and corporate identity might be enhancedthrough the reduction of scepticism by considering diagnostic dimensions of the corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) image advertising claim.

Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews corporate image advertising, the toolinvestigated for informing about the firms CSR record, discusses the scepticism construct andtheoretical explanations of why this communication approach might induce scepticism, considersextant empirical findings that lend support to these theories, and describes several elements of CSRadvertising claims considered to be diagnostic and capable of inhibiting scepticism responses to CSRimage advertisements among consumers. Research propositions are advanced and discussed.

Findings The paper provides conceptual insights into reducing consumer scepticism towardCSR-based corporate identity communicated via corporate image advertising.

Research limitations/implications The paper advances four research propositions, andproposes a method for testing these propositions.

Practical implications The paper acknowledges the increase in CSR-based corporate imageadvertising, discusses why such communication approaches may be prone to consumer scepticism,and considers message elements to inhibit this persuasion-eroding cognitive response.

Originality/value This paper suggests a study to understand how corporate identity based on CSRachievements can be more persuasively communicated via CSR-based corporate image advertising

Keywords Consumers, Corporate identity, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate branding,Advertising

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionAmid widespread and growing distrust of large corporations (Verschoor, 2008), firmsare increasingly turning to corporate image advertising campaigns based on corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) initiatives (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) to meet consumerdemand for information on businesss concern for and impacts on society (Dawkins,2004). These campaigns project desired corporate identities (van Rekom, 1997) thatseek to shape corporate image perceptions. While such advertising may seek toinfluence various stakeholder audiences, this paper focuses on consumers, a key

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

CCIJ14,4

420

Received July 2008Revised December 2008,February 2009, June 2009Accepted July 2009

Corporate Communications: AnInternational JournalVol. 14 No. 4, 2009pp. 420-439q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1356-3289DOI 10.1108/13563280910998763

stakeholder audience with the ability to shape the destiny of individual firms andeconomies (Hansen and Schrader, 1997). In this paper, we examine the potential forconsumer scepticism to such identity-based communication appeals. In doing so, wedevelop a set of research propositions to test how the alignment between desiredCSR-based corporate identity messages and perceived corporate image might beenhanced through the inhibition of scepticism. Diagnostic dimensions of the corporateimage advertising message structure that echo Albert and Whettens (1985) central,enduring, and distinctive requirements for corporate identity are argued to mitigatescepticism to CSR claims. The paper marks a contribution to our understanding ofidentity-based corporate image advertising communication by examining the role ofdiagnostic message elements in increasing effectiveness of such advertising appeals.

A firms external constituencies, including such diverse groups as legislators,directors, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and community members, will form animage of the firm, at least in part, in response to identity-based communications(Hatch and Schultz, 1997, p. 356). This corporate image can be described as the totalityof a stakeholders perceptions of the way an organization presents itself, eitherdeliberately or accidentally (Markwick and Fill, 1997, p. 396). This totality ofperceptions is formed from the corporate identity, and goes beyond visual symbols andis revealed through behaviour, communications, as well as through symbolism tointernal and external audiences (van Riel and Balmer, 1997, p. 340). Corporate imageadvertising, along with other marketing communications opportunities formanufactured publicity (Rossiter and Bellman, 2005, p. 375), such as publicrelations and sponsorships, allows the firm to inform key stakeholder audiences aboutdesired corporate identity cues, what we say we are (Balmer and Greyser, 2006,p. 735). Corporate image advertising will be used to project what van Rekom (1997)describes as the desired corporate identity, which may differ from the factual identitythat may be communicated by less-controlled channels. Overly positive corporateclaims, particularly in the non-economic domain, run the risk of increased scrutiny andeven a backlash (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990). This study considers the potential forlimiting such a backlash to such corporate image advertising, through the manipulationof message structure.

The paper will proceed as follows: corporate image advertising, as the tool to informabout the firms identity-based CSR record, is discussed, leading to a discussion of thescepticism construct and theoretical explanations for why this communicationapproach might induce scepticism. Several persuasion and cognitive psychologytheories are drawn upon to inform this discussion. Extant empirical findings that lendsupport to these theories are then presented. On the basis of this discussion, severalelements of CSR-identity-based advertising claims will be put forward as diagnosticmessage dimensions capable of inhibiting scepticism. To conclude, potential researchpropositions will be advanced, and theoretical and managerial implications discussed.

Corporate image advertising and the CSR positioning paradoxCorporate image advertising is just one of a variety of communication tools that mightbe used to promote the desired corporate identity of the corporate brand or masterbrand rather than specific products or services (Rossiter and Bellman, 2005). Suchadvertising may also take a less direct, or advocacy form, in which the company doesnot promote itself directly but rather promotes an issue or cause that has an indirect

Advertising CSRinitiatives

421

bearing on its operations (Rossiter and Percy, 1997, p. 335). Rossiter and Bellmanestimate that around 70 percent of US companies engage in corporate imageadvertising, but note that, on average, it receives only a small percentage of marketingcommunications budgets. Corporate image advertising is a popular promotional tool asit permits greater creativity, and communication value and flexibility in terms of targetaudience reach and reach pattern (Rossiter and Bellman, 2005).

The corporate image advertisement conveys the desired corporate identity via theadvertisements executional elements. One way to achieve this is through theadvertisements visual elements. British Petroleum (BP), for example, in order toreposition itself as caring for the environment and distinguish itself from other oilcompanies, used lower-case bp letters in a smoother, more child-like font in its logo,to stand for beyond petroleum rather than BP, made tonal changes to the green andyellow colours used, and made a greater use of yellow the incorporation of a sun-likeimage to convey a sense of solar rather than oil power (Wells et al., 2008, p. 481).In BPs case, the visual changes were intended to be diagnostic. While much of theearly work on corporate identity focused on such visual aspects of corporate brands(Markwick and Fill, 1997), the diagnostic elements of CSR advertising to be advancedin this paper will deal with the specific message structure of the advertising copyrather than executional style elements.

CSR image advertising is based around positive CSR-identity cues that claim thefirm has a commitment to contribute to sustainable economic development, workingwith employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improvetheir quality of life (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004).Carroll (1979) has articulated this CSR commitment to be supported by four pillars ofresponsibility: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic, or discretionary. Otherauthors, for example, Petkus and Woodruff (1992), argue that a firms meeting its socialresponsibility, which includes responsibility for the physical environment, requires itgoing beyond minimal legal requirements, which may lag behind changing socialattitudes. CSR advertising claims might also be based on how the firm is reducing thenegative externalities or increasing the positive externalities of its operating activities.

The benefits of establishing a perceived CSR-identity-based corporate image areargued to be many: enhanced brand differentiation (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001);brand equity (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002); competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer,2002); and customer loyalty and other positive post-purchase outcomes (Bhattacharyaand Sen, 2003; Maignan et al., 1999). A meta-analysis by Orlitzky et al.(2003) has foundthat CSR can deliver superior financial performance, primarily through reputationeffects.

CSR advertising claims are potentially fruitful for a companys identity-based image(Maignan, 2001), as, regardless of a businesss actual CSR performance, consumerevaluations of its performance are contingent upon the information they receive(Maignan and Ferrell, 2001). Such claims, however, are susceptible to consumer scepticism(Forehand and Grier, 2003; Pirsch et al., 2007; Roberts, 1996; Schultz and Morsing,2003). This scepticism diminishes communication effectiveness. Such scepticism maybe implicated in Mohr and Webbs (2005, p. 124) observation, if consumer response toCSR was reliable and strong, most all companies would have embraced the conceptby now. The next section explores the potentiality for scepticism toward CSRadvertising claims.

CCIJ14,4

422

A potentiality for scepticismScepticism is one potential cognitive response to advertising exposure. Cognitiveresponses are message-relevant thoughts that arise during elaboration as a result of onesrelation of message material to other message content or to prior knowledge and attitudesstored in memory, with persuasion reflecting net favourableness of ones cognitiveresponses (Meyers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999). Cognitive responses to advertisingexposure have been found to affect brand evaluations (Hastak and Olson, 1989), and thoseeffects have been found to be persistent over time (Chattopadhyay and Alba, 1988).

Scepticism has received considerable attention in relation to advertising (Boushet al., 1994; Calfee and Ringold, 1994; Darley and Smith, 1993; Ford et al., 1986, 1990;Gaski and Etzel, 1986; Koslow and Beltramini, 2002; Mangleburg and Bristol, 1998;Moore-Shay and Lutz, 1988), dealing with disbelief of stated claims (Darley and Smith,1993; Ford et al., 1990), however, several studies (Boush et al., 1994; Forehand andGrier, 2003), and distrust of the firms motives (Forehand and Grier, 2003), a dimensionoften associated with cynicism (Kanter and Wortzel, 1985).

Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998, p. 161) argue that ones sceptical dispositiontoward advertising is a marketplace belief, based on socialisation and experiences, butthat situational factors, such as claim substantiation, prior knowledge, messagevariables, and source characteristics should play roles in determining acceptance ofclaims in specific advertisements. To the extent that one is sceptical, one is more likelyto examine the claims made in advertisements in a critical way and not accept them atface value (Mangleburg and Bristol, 1998). Consumers have been found to be moresceptical toward advertising than other forms of communication (Obermiller et al., 2005).

Although scepticism is defended on the basis that it is a critical approach toevaluating and coping with advertising messages, and therefore an important skill forconsumers to acquire (Mangleburg and Bristol, 1998; Mohr et al., 1998), Pollay and Mittal(1993, p. 99) argue that it impedes advertising credibility and reduces marketplaceefficiencies. Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998, p. 164) note too that if consumers arepredisposed to disbelieve ad claims, one fundamental route to persuasion is closed.Corporate marketing communicators attempts to shape a desired corporate image withthis particular stakeholder audience, through appeals based on desired identity cues,will be impaired as a result. van Rekom (1997, p. 410) notes that:

[. . .] if management wishes to influence the content of the innumerable messages theorganization sends consciously or unconsciously into the world, it has to do so within theconstraints within which a company can communicate with various target groups.

Consumer scepticism is one such important constraint on corporate image advertising.

CSR advertising claims and persuasion theoryThe use of advertising to communicate CSR-based identity cues has been found to bedistasteful to some consumers (Schultz and Morsing, 2003). Keller (1991) relates thedual-process theories to processing goals, and considers two alternative yet commonprocessing goals to be ad evaluation and brand evaluation. An ad evaluation goalmotivates a respondent to:

[. . .] decide whether or not they like the ad execution and how the brand claims are made(e.g. the creative aspects of the ad). Consumers with a brand evaluation goal, in contrast,would be motivated to decide whether or not they like the advertised brand (Keller, 1991, p. 43).


423

For an ad evaluation goal, only the cognitive resources necessary to evaluate themerits of the ad execution would be activated from memory, while for a brandexecution goal, the consumer would be expected to retrieve from memory productcategory knowledge sufficient to process any product information in the ad to formtheir attitude toward the brand (Keller, 1991, p. 43). MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) showthe relationship between the heuristic and central processing routes of thedual-process theories, adding that evaluation of the ad itself may influence brandevaluation.

Davis (1994) complements Kellers (1991) argument from an ethics perspective.Davis argues that two elements of consumer scepticism toward firms CSR initiativesmay arise in response to CSR advertising claims: advertiser ethical attributions, whichdeal with the consumers attempt to evaluate the underlying ethics of the advertiser,and message ethical attributions, which deal with the consumers attempt to evaluatethe underlying ethics of the advertising claim itself. Consumers tend to use simpleheuristics such as a schemer schema (Wright, 1985), or their persuasion knowledge(Friestad and Wright, 1994) to judge the appropriateness of the firms use of advertisingclaims. This heuristic, or short-hand processing judgment, will allow the consumer todetermine whether further message processing is warranted.

Consumers will attempt to reduce the dissonance promoted when faced with newinformation that conflicts with prior beliefs, in line with dissonance theory (Festinger,1957). Social judgment theory posits that peoples prior attitudes distort theirperceptions of persuasive messages (see Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, p. 363 for adiscussion). In a similar manner, cognitive responses theory (Wright, 1973) argues thatnew information will be evaluated against already-held cognitions that serve as a frameof reference for new messages. Cognitive-response theory assumes that the respondentis motivated to try to make sense of incoming information from the advertisement(Rossiter and Percy, 1997, p. 269).

Dual-process theories, such as the elaboration likelihood model (Petty andCacioppo, 1981, 1986) and the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980), suggest asystematic (central) and a heuristic (peripheral) route to persuasion, with the relativestrength of each route determined by the extent of respondent elaboration. Whenmotivation and ability are high, elaboration likelihood is high, and more effortful(central) processing is expected to generate a relatively large number of both ad andbrand cognitions. When motivation or ability is low, elaboration likelihood is low, andprocessing is linked to relatively few advertisement and brand cognitions, withjudgments likely formed by heuristics (Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken and Maheswaran, 1994;Petty and Cacioppo, 1979).

Motivation is influenced by individual differences, such as ones need for cognition(Cacioppo and Petty, 1982) and personal relevance of the communication (Petty andWegener, 1999), while ability is determined by both situational factors, such asrepetition and distraction, and individual differences, such as knowledge (Kang andHerr, 2006). Kang and Herr argue that source effects determine whether anadvertisement looks right, such that if the source is perceived as credible by therespondent, this may positively heighten attention to the message, with subsequentsystematic processing of the message. Since the firm is typically the source of itsCSR-identity-based message in corporate image advertising, its message is likely to faceheightened scrutiny.

CCIJ14,4

424

An individual who perceives CSR to be an inappropriate theme for marketingcommunications, or does not support the notion of CSR in general, may automaticallyprocess a message heuristically and sceptically, whereas a respondent responding to afavourable source effect may then go on to scrutinize the message in greater depth. Thesupplying of only minimal cognitive resources to the processing task is in line withEagly and Chaikens (1993) sufficiency threshold principle. This source effect suggestsa potential moderation of scepticism towards CSR-based, desired identity advertisingclaims.

Biased processing of CSR claimsRather than process information objectively, consumers may be motivated by goalsother than accuracy, and may selectively process message-relevant information in linewith those other goals (Johar et al., 2006). This may be in line with social judgmenttheorys distortion of perceptions of new information by prior attitudes, and how suchperceptions mediate persuasion (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). One such biasing influenceis defense motivation (Agrawal and Maheswaran, 2005; Ahluwalia, 2002; Eagly andChaiken, 1993). Consumers may be accuracy motivated to process advertisingcommunications in a systematic and objective manner (Ratneshwar and Chaiken,1991), or they may also be defense motivated, using heuristics to protect vestedinterests, attitudinal commitments, or other preferences (Koslow, 2000, p. 247).

Srull and Wyer (1986, pp. 541-2) argue that processing goals:

[. . .] often determine what we attend to, how we perceive objects and events, how we usereasoning processes to make inferences about causal connections, how these events areorganized and represented in memory, how they affect both long-term storage and retrieval ofinformation (or lack thereof) to make higher order judgments and how they enter into possibleaffective reactions.

Keller (1991) agrees that the fact that processing goals influence the information thatconsumers notice, evaluate, or respond to in an advertisement is critically important.Defensively motivated consumers may employ forms of psychological reactance(Brehm, 1966; Brehm and Brehm, 1981) through which they attempt to resistpersuasion to preserve personal freedom (Eiser, 1990) Wrights (1985) schemerschema and the change-of-meaning event of Friestad and Wrights (1994) persuasionknowledge model, discussed earlier, are both types such reactance or protectself-image or material interests (Darke and Chaiken, 2005). Defense goals tend to biasprocessing in a way that reduces such personal threats (Darke and Ritchie, 2007).When the threat is minor, the resort to simple cues in defense-biased heuristicprocessing is believed to neutralise the threatening information (Liberman andChaiken, 1992). A negative stereotype about the source of the message may be evokedto undermine its credibility (Sinclair and Kunda, 1999). This defensive stereotypingtends to be automatic when an individual responds to a perceived threat (Spencer et al.,1998). In this way, the advertising sceptic regards advertising as not credible and,therefore, not worth processing (Obermiller et al., 2005). A lack of credibility willtherefore lead to heuristic message processing, based on the consumers defense goal.

While a defensive motivation may prompt a heuristic message judgment andscepticism response, defensive information processors may also engage in systematicprocessing, involving counterarguments and elaboration biased toward self-protectionif the threat from a persuasive message is considered to be relatively high


425

(Liberman and Chaiken, 1992). Kisielius and Sternthal (1986) argue that scepticismmay lead to greater elaboration, counterarguing, and less positive evaluations andbeliefs, but presumably only for high-involvement individuals who are motivated toassess the threat level. Whether a heuristic or systematic processing route, or both, isadopted by the consumer, persuasion will reflect net favourableness of ones cognitiveresponses (Meyers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999). Overcoming scepticism toward desiredidentity-based appeals is therefore important if the desired corporate image is to beformed in audience minds.

CSR from a resource matching perspectiveExtant research points to consumers typically lacking the prior knowledge, referred toas social topic knowledge, needed to effectively process CSR advertising claims (Augeret al., 2003). Or such knowledge may be moderately accessible and not easy to recall ondemand (Tybout et al., 2005). Tybout et al. (2005) argue that the retrieval ease ofmoderately accessible knowledge would be diagnostic. Thus, an involved consumerresponding to a CSR advertising claim but lacking the social topic knowledge thatallows one to place the firms claim into context is likely to turn to a more peripheralprocessing route (Kahneman and Tversky, 1973). The consumers ability to process amessage therefore depends not only on the supply of cognitive resources but also theresource demands of the message imposed by its complexity (Meyers-Levy andMalaviya, 1999, p. 47). Resource-matching theory addresses this consideration.

Resource-matching theory (Anand and Sternthal, 1989) holds that persuasion of anymessage, whether strong or weak, is dependent on the commensurability betweendemand for and supply of cognitive resources, with persuasion optimised if the levelsof cognitive resources required and made available are comparable (Keller and Block,1997; Meyers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999). Coulter and Punj (2004) confirm thatpersuasion is enhanced when cognitive resources are matched, but only under strongmessage conditions. If less cognitive resources are allocated to the processing task thanare required, persuasion is likely to be diminished due to incomplete, superficial, orinefficient message processing (Meyers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999), for example, if therespondent considers CSR ad claims inappropriate, or if they are not supportive of CSRin general. Should more cognitive resources be allocated to the processing task than arerequired, questioning or counter-argument, or advocacy-irrelevant, idiosyncraticthoughts are likely to ensue.

It is expected that the difficulty for consumers to be cognisant of various socialproblems engaged with in firms CSR programs may increase the cognitive complexityof the consumers information-processing requirements, often beyond his or hercapacity for efficient cognitive processing, or sufficiency threshold (see Eagly andChaiken, 1993, pp. 330-3 for a discussion). Mohr et al. (1998) contend that whenconsumers are faced with the new or changing conditions of firms CSR initiatives theymay not have developed adequate knowledge structures to make good use of CSRadvertising claims. Social topic information will be argued to assist the development ofthese structures.

The CSR positioning paradoxWhile there is general consumer support for firms providing CSR-identity-basedcues, as demonstrated in scenario-based studies (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and

CCIJ14,4

426

Bhattacharya, 2001) and marketplace polls (Cone Inc., 2004; Dawkins, 2004), thecommunication of this information via advertising is problematic (Dawkins, 2004).

Increasingly cynical consumers (Nye et al., 1997) appear to be suspicious of overlypositive advertising claims. Goldberg and Hartwick (1990) find overly positive claimsare often discounted, while Koslow (2000, p. 262) observes that, when:

[. . .] advertisers try honest, verified, and persuasive advertising, consumers may beconcerned that it is too good to be true and are on guard for discovering a hidden andunfamiliar persuasive tactic.

Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) develop the construct of ad skepticism to describea consumers general scepticism toward advertising. Brown and Dacin (1997) warnthat consumers may believe the company promoting its CSR record is trying to hidesomething. Osterhus (1997) argues a backlash is likely if consumers question thevalidity of such claims.

Despite the Danish telecommunications company TDCs attempts to reposition itselffrom a high-profit, shareholder driven company to a more socially responsibleorganization, its CSR message was met with scepticism, disbelief, and accusations ofwindow-dressing (Morsing, 2006, p. 176). Drumwright (1996, p. 71) identifies adilemma for firms wishing to influence corporate image through advertising, observingthat company advertisements with a social dimension have been among the mostcontroversial of marketing approaches, seen on the one hand as marketings greatestcontribution to society, while on the other, as marketings most unabashedexploitation. Kanter and Wortzel (1985, p. 9) simply warn that sincerity is suspect.

Attempts to communicate overly positive claims, such as CSR claims, are faced withwhat Ashforth and Gibbs (1990, p. 188) refer to as the self-promoters paradox,whereby the conspicuous promotion of good deeds is likely to backfire and evokescepticism, as protestation of legitimacy is interpreted as signalling legitimacy is infact in doubt. Conspicuous CSR communications are often associated with firmsfacing legitimacy problems, with the more problematic the legitimacy, the greater theprotestation (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990, p. 185).

Product type will influence advertising claim acceptance (Obermiller andSpangenberg, 1998), with some product categories, for example, demonised or sinindustries, like tobacco or gambling, or others beset by negative social attitudes,suffering a guilt-by-association prejudice. For this reason, BP, as discussed earlier,sought to reposition itself, differentiating itself from other oil companies.

The first communication task of such advertising will be to gain attention, whichexecution tactics such as identity-based cues can assist. Following attention,respondents need to be engaged with the product. The product featured in a firmsCSR advertising claims is the firms CSR- based identity characteristic, or promise thatit is acting in a socially responsible manner in one or more aspects of its businessactivities, across one or more CSR domains, such as the environment, or community oremployee relations. As with all information processing, the perceiver must bemotivated to process for persuasion to occur. Involvement with the social issue musttherefore be expected for persuasion to be effected, which is supported by extantresearch (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).

Such CSR-identity-based claims are not easily verified as they typically lack searchor experience characteristics (Nelson, 1970) and therefore confront respondents with


427

a credence information situation (Darby and Karni, 1973). Credence information cannever be obtained, is too costly to obtain, or is too complex and requires significantexpert knowledge to evaluate (Bloom and Pailin, 1995). Bloom and Pailin argueconsumers should be more distrustful of credence information situations than search orexperience situations. van Riel (1995) observes that the gap between a firms factualcorporate identity, what the organization actually is at a particular moment in time(van Rekom, 1997) and what Balmer and Greyser (2006, p. 735) describe as what weindubitably are, summarised as the firms character, and the desired identity isimportant in influencing communication effectiveness, but consumers typically havelow knowledge of firms factual identities (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).

As well as presenting consumers with a credence claim, CSR advertising claims alsoconfront consumers with a mixed-motive information-processing task, requiringrespondents to evaluate both an organizations economic and non-economic socialperformance. The firms CSR-based-identity claims, and the direct benefits to theconsumer of the societal initiatives within CSR advertising claims are difficult tocommunicate to the consumer (James, 2002). In the context of fair trade products, Jamesnotes that the added societal value inherent in the product, what Strong (1997, p. 35)refers to as the communication of the human element of sustainability, can never be astangible to the consumer as more functional benefits. Further, adding a socialdimension to commercial messages increases the complexity of the consumersprocessing task (Drumwright, 1996), often beyond the perceivers capacity for efficientcognitive processing, or sufficiency threshold.

Consumers will be sceptical of advertising claims unless they have credible basesfor evaluating the claims (Calfree and Ringold, 1994). Environmental marketing claimsfound to be unclear or misleading (Gray-Lee et al., 1994) have consequently provokedconsiderable scepticism, leading to the term green-washing entering the vocabulary.Similar scepticism toward CSR has lead to accusations of blue-washing whencorporations disingenuously attempt to wrap themselves in the flag of the UnitedNations for publicity purposes, through claimed adherence to the principles of itsGlobal Compact (Willard, 2005).

It is against this scepticism-charged communications backdrop that marketplacepressures are enticing corporate marketing managers to publicise their CSR activities(Dawkins, 2004; Environics, 1999). Corporate image advertising provides the creativeflexibility and target audience reach marketing communications managers seek, yetuse of this tool is problematic. The next sections consider how CSR-identity-basedmessages that are appropriately diagnostic might assist these managers by inhibitingscepticism.

Inhibiting scepticism through diagnostic CSR informationDiagnostic advertising claims are claims that discriminate between alternativehypotheses, interpretations, or categorizations (Herr et al., 1991, p. 457). Through thisdiscrimination, diagnostic claims are expected to reduce processing complexity byproviding consumers with increased processing ability. Without these knowledgestructures in place, the information-processing task for consumers will be moredifficult and effective communication less likely.

A recent study by Forehand and Grier (2003) has demonstrated thatconsumer scepticism toward a firms motives can be inhibited by the firms public

CCIJ14,4

428

acknowledgement of the strategic benefits it may enjoy as a result of its CSR initiative,along with the benefits that are expected to accrue to society. Forehand and Griersstudy of the informational content of CSR advertising claims makes a very usefulcontribution to the CSR communication discussion; consumers appear to appreciate thetransparency of such disclosures. Chang (2007) has also demonstrated that theresources required to process an advertisement may be altered by ad content,reiterating that informations diagnosticity, rather than its abundance, is critical forpersuasion.

We propose three CSR advertising message variables are critical to diagnosticity,social topic information, CSR commitment, and CSR impact specificity. While the firstof these aims to assist development of the knowledge structures needed for effectiveprocessing, the latter two message variables reflect Albert and Whettens (1985) threerequirements for corporate identity: claimed central character; claimed distinctiveness;and claimed temporal continuity. In the sections that follow, we articulate and defendresearch propositions to test the propensity of these message variables to inhibitscepticism toward CSR-identity-based advertising claims.

Research propositionsWe open this section by stressing that the message elements in the first three of thefour research propositions set out below must be accurate and real. Disingenuousclaims would merely contribute to the charges of green- or blue-washing that haveharmed corporate reputations. Since consumers are wary of advertising claims fromthe outset, open, honest, and diagnostic information, that allows audiences to makesense of the firms claimed identity, what Balmer and Greyser (2006) refer to as thefirms character, is critical if a positive brand image is to be built, on trust.

Social topic informationSocial, including environmental, problems are myriad, and consumers have been foundto lack familiarity with the social and environmental issues engaged in firms CSRinitiatives (Auger et al., 2003; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). That is, consumers lacksocial topic knowledge. By providing social topic information, as in the sick baby/wellbaby appeals common to social marketing (Fine, 1990), firms CSR claims can be mademore diagnostic. Obermiller (1995, p. 55) explains that whereas the sick baby appealworks by increasing concern for the problem, the well baby appeal works byincreasing the belief that one can do something to solve the problem. Theories fromcognitive psychology, such as contextualisation, priming, and assimilation (Ashcraft,2006) support the notion that informing about a social problem will allow respondentsto draw on those associations in order to activate socially evaluative criteria, allowingthe ease with which such information comes to mind to serve as the basis for judgment(Tybout et al., 2005). This explanation also conforms to the earlier discussion ofcognitive resource matching theory, as social topic information might provide thebackground detail that allows the firms CSR claims to be given real meaning. Hence,we advance the following research proposition:

P1. The inclusion of social topic information in CSR image advertisements will(a) increase message diagnosticity, and (b) inhibit scepticism toward themessage.


429

CSR commitmentConsumers are reportedly sceptical of firms CSR claims due to attributions ofself-interest to firms actions (Barone et al., 2000; Forehand and Grier, 2003; Lichtensteinet al., 2004; Webb and Mohr, 1998). Pirsch et al. (2007) report that institutionalised CSR,that is, a long-term commitment to CSR across different operating activities of the firm,as opposed to more short-term and opportunistic promotional CSR, provokes lessconsumer scepticism. This long-term commitment echoes Albert and Whettens (1985)claimed central character and claimed temporal continuity corporate identityrequirements. Forehand and Grier (2003) demonstrate how admission of how thefirm will benefit from its CSR initiative, along with how society will benefit, can alsoinhibit scepticism. On this basis, we expect that information that establishes a firmslong-term commitment to CSR that delivers benefits to both the firm and society will bediagnostic in CSR messages.

Establishing that CSR behaviour is also part of a firms strategic values, asdemonstrated by its commitment to the social issue(s) over the long-term is alsoimportant. As discussed earlier, the essence of social judgment theory, cognitiveresponse theory, and attribution theory is the biasing role of prior-held beliefs;confirming institutionalised CSR values by revealing a long-term, strategiccommitment to working to alleviate a social problem may give rise to a questioningof prior negative beliefs, and an affirmation of positive beliefs. We do not rule out thepotential for some residual effect of prior beliefs to diminish our proposed ability ofdiagnostic information to inhibit scepticism, and account for this potentiality in P4below. We argue, however, that establishing an air of authenticity of a firms CSRprogram is an important message inclusion. Hence, we propose:

P2. The inclusion of message content that establishes a firms long-termcommitment to CSR, which benefits both the firm and society will (a) increasemessage diagnosticity, and (b) inhibit scepticism toward the message.

CSR impact specificityCSR claim specificity provides a measure of what the firm is doing to avoid worseningor helping to alleviate a particular social problem, a judgment found to affect consumerresponse to cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns (Pracejus et al., 2003/2004). Intheir study of the specificity of CRM claims, Pracejus et al. (2003/2004) found CRMcampaigns overwhelmingly provided abstract, non-specific information on thedonation amount to the firms partner cause, which impaired consumer choice. Wood(1991) argues that information on the social impacts of a firms CSR should be morediagnostic than mere information regarding policies or programs. Specific informationdetailing the impacts of the firms CSR initiatives permits consumers, and otherstakeholders, to distinguish between firms that are committed to CSR, that is strategic,institutionalised CSR, from those that simply pay lip service to or seek toopportunistically exploit the concept. Albert and Whettens (1985) claimeddistinctiveness is echoed here. We might expect, also, that information about thespecific impacts of a firms CSR initiatives might go some way to negating themechanism behind the self-promoters paradox from the consumer perspective. On thisbasis, we propose:

CCIJ14,4

430

P3. The use of specific social impact, rather than policy or program, claims, will(a) increase message diagnosticity, and (b) inhibit scepticism toward themessage.

Moderation by corporate personality cuesA major challenge arises for firms that seek to alter perceptions of their corporateidentity, as Morsing (2006) has highlighted. While identity-based corporate imageadvertising is unlikely to be the only communication tool used to calibrate, or position,the desired corporate image, such marketing communications may stumble if they arediscordant with the current perceived corporate identity. The sum of unintentional oremergent cues being transmitted by the firm, its employees, or its activities (Markwickand Fill, 1997) and other external cues, for example, word-of-mouth, provide whatBernstein (1984) describes as the corporate personality, from which the corporateidentity is generated, and, in turn, the corporate image amalgam formed. The effects ofthese corporate personality cues on planned corporate image advertising is thereforeexpected to moderate the effects diagnostic CSR information may have on the inhibitionof consumers scepticism cognitions. This relationship is specified in the followingproposition:

P4. Unplanned corporate personality cues will moderate the size and/or directionof the effects of diagnostic CSR image advertising cues on consumerscepticism toward such cues.

ConclusionWe have proposed that consumer scepticism toward CSR-identity-based advertisingappeals might be mitigated by diagnostic dimensions of the corporate image messagestructure, dimensions that echo Albert and Whettens (1985) central, enduring, anddistinctive requirements for the desired corporate identity to promote the desiredcorporate image. The diagnostic message variables for CSR advertising claimsproposed here have the potential, we feel, to span the range of a firms stakeholders, andmight also have some degree of application across the range of corporatecommunication tools, in particular, corporate reporting and public relations.

We have limited our discussion to consumers and to the communication tool ofcorporate image advertising, which we would argue reflects businesss recent andincreasing interest in the overt projection of desired socially responsible identities forthe building of CSR-based corporate images. The benefits of what Hoeffler and Keller(2002) refer to as corporate societal marketing are attractive to firms not only keen toset themselves apart from their competitors but also legitimise their brands in the eyesof stakeholders, especially consumers.

Our focus on consumers is due to their ability to act as rewarding and punishingauthorities, able to influence the profits of competing firms, and indirectly also thedirection of the economy (Hansen and Schrader, 1997, p. 447). However, consumerstypically face asymmetries of information in regard to firms CSR programs; they lackknowledge of both social and environmental issues and firms initiatives in relation todifferent social and environmental issues. Hansen and Schrader (1997), for example,report that 75 percent of Germans feel inadequately informed about the social andecological impacts of business activities. Dawkins (2004) reports that UK consumersare critical of businesss approach to CSR, with 70 percent agreeing industry and


431

commerce does not pay enough attention to their social responsibilities, but around75 percent indicate more information about companies social, ethical, andenvironmental behaviour would influence what they buy.

The importance of the fit between the desired corporate identity projected throughdeliberate communications to selected audiences and the resulting corporate image thattakes shape in the minds of these audiences has been highlighted in extant literature(van Rekom, 1997; van Riel, 1995). We contribute to corporate identity and imagetheories by casting light on how identity-based corporate image advertisingcommunications might be rendered more effective through attention to diagnosticmessage elements. We propose key diagnostic message elements have particularimportance in CSR-identity-based appeals, a context with a unique set ofcommunication challenges, but suggest a possible wider application of our thesis.These diagnostic message elements fit closely the corporate identity requirements ofAlbert and Whetten (1985), and build on their framework by adding the need for socialtopic information in order to develop the knowledge structures needed for effectiveCSR-identity-based corporate image advertising appeals.

Corporate image advertising is an important tool used by corporate marketers toconvey desired corporate identity characteristics, what we say we are (Balmer andGreyser, 2006). Corporate claims of we say we are a socially responsible firm areparticularly prone to consumer scepticism, potentially hindering the construction ofthe desired corporate image in the minds of critical stakeholders, such as consumers.We have developed several propositions in which the manipulation of three keydimensions of CSR message content might be investigated to assess their contributionto message diagnosticity and the inhibition of consumer cognitive responses ofscepticism. An advertising copy experimental design, involving manipulation of thekey message variables we have outlined above, which support the work of Albert andWhetten (1985) and inform dimensions of consumers perceived corporate imageformulations, would allow the testing of our propositions.

Given the increased use of corporate societal initiatives in constructingidentity-based corporate image advertising campaigns, several implications of thisstudy emerge for practice. First, while consumers seek information on firms CSRinitiatives, and the specific impacts of those initiatives, Pracejus et al. (2003/2004) findthat, in the area of CRM at least, stakeholder audiences are provided little in the way ofsubstance in firms announcements of their pro-social commitment claims. Second, weargue that the demand for such information might be, in part, met through corporateimage advertising campaigns that are diagnostic, and thereby provide audiences withthe identity-based evidence needed to dismantle barriers of scepticism, often a naturaltendency in such overtly positive and non-economic message situations.

Our diagnostic message elements borrow, in part, from the corporate identityrequirements of Albert and Whetten (1985), and therefore build on extant research inthe corporate identity area, allowing a seamless integration, rather than a revolution, ofthinking. At a time when consumers are keen to learn of firms societal practices andachievements (Dawkins, 2004), the provision of more diagnostic corporate imageadvertising appeals offers to meet these information demands and reduce scepticismtoward such communication efforts. Wood (1991) has suggested that stakeholders seekinformation not only on firms CSR policies and practices but also on the specificimpacts of those policies and practices. Consumers indicate they want such diagnostic

CCIJ14,4

432

information, and will direct their spending accordingly, inviting managers to respondto their information needs and differentiate their brands on this basis.

Dawkins (2004) reports a large proportion of consumers purchase decisions could beaffect by information on CSR performances, and anecdotal evidence of the success offirms such as The Body Shop attest that consumers are willing to get behindcorporations that do good. The challenge is to convincingly communicate this pro-socialface of the corporation. As scepticism influences brand evaluations that will persistthrough time, the inhibition of scepticism is an important goal for CSR advertisingclaims.

References

Agrawal, N. and Maheswaran, D. (2005), Motivated reasoning in outcome bias effects, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 798-805.

Ahluwalia, R. (2002), How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments?,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 270-9.

Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985), Organizational identity, in Cummings, L.L. andStaw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 263-95.

Anand, P. and Sternthal, B. (1989), Strategies for designing persuasive messages: deductionsfrom the resource matching hypothesis, in Cafferata, P. and Tybout, A. (Eds), Cognitiveand Affective Responses to Advertising, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 135-59.

Ashcraft, M.H. (2006), Cognition, 4th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ashforth, B.E. and Gibbs, B.W. (1990), The double edge of organizational legitimation,Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-94.

Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J. (2003), What will consumers pay forsocial product features?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 281-304.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding,corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41.

Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K. (2000), The influence of cause related marketing onconsumer choice: does one good turn deserve another?, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 248-62.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006), The impact of perceived corporate socialresponsibility on consumer behavior, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1,pp. 46-53.

Bernstein, D. (1984), Corporate Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate Communications, Holt,Rhinehart and Winston, Eastbourne.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), Consumer-company identification: a framework forunderstanding consumers relationships with companies, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67No. 2, pp. 76-88.

Bloom, P.N. and Pailin, J.E. Jr (1995), Using information situations to guide marketing strategy,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 19-27.

Boush, D.M., Friestad, M. and Rose, G.M. (1994), Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertisingand knowledge of advertiser tactics, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 165-75.

Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.


433

Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981), Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control,Academic Press, New York, NY.

Brown, T. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), The company and the product: corporate associations andconsumer product responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982), The need for cognition, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 42, pp. 116-31.

Calfee, J.E. and Ringold, D.J. (1994), The seventy percent majority: enduring consumer beliefsabout advertising, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 228-38.

Carroll, A.B. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.

Chaiken, S. (1980), Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of sourceversus message cues in persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39No. 5, pp. 752-6.

Chaiken, S. and Maheswaran, D. (1994), Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing:effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitudejudgment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 460-73.

Chang, C. (2007), Diagnostic advertising content and individual differences, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 75-84.

Chattopadhyay, A. and Alba, J.W. (1988), The situational importance of recall and inference inconsumer decision-making, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Cone Inc. (2004), Cone corporate citizenship study, available at: www.coneinc.com (accessedMay 2006).

Coulter, K.S. and Punj, G.N. (2004), The effects of cognitive resource requirements, availability,and argument quality on brand attitudes, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 53-64.

Darby, M. and Karni, E. (1973), Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud, Journal ofLaw & Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-88.

Darke, P.R. and Chaiken, S. (2005), The pursuit of self-interest: self-interest bias in attitudejudgment and persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,pp. 864-83.

Darke, P.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. (2007), The defensive consumer: advertising deception, defensiveprocessing, and distrust, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 114-27.

Darley, W.K. and Smith, R.E. (1993), Advertising claim objectivity: antecedents and effects,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 100-13.

Davis, J.J. (1994), Consumer response to corporate environmental advertising, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 25-37.

Dawkins, J. (2004), Corporate responsibility: the communication challenge, Journal ofCommunication Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 108-19.

Drumwright, M.E. (1996), Company advertising with a social dimension: the role ofnoneconomic criteria, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 71-87.

Eagly, H.E. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,Orlando, FL.

Eiser, J.R. (1990), Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Environics (1999), The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility, EnvironicsInternational, Toronto, available at: www.mori.com (accessed May 2006).

Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Row, Peterson and Company, Evanston, IL.

CCIJ14,4

434

Fine, S. (1990), Social Marketing, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B. and Swasy, J.L. (1986), An empirical test of the search, experience andcredence attributes framework, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 15, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 239-43.

Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B. and Swasy, J.L. (1990), Consumer skepticism of advertising claims:testing hypotheses from economics of information, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 433-41.

Forehand, M.R. and Grier, S. (2003), When is honesty the best policy? The effect of statedcompany intent on consumer skepticism, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 349-56.

Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope withpersuasion attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-31.

Gaski, J.F. and Etzel, M.J. (1986), The index of consumer sentiment toward marketing, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 71-81.

Goldberg, M.E. and Hartwick, J. (1990), The effects of advertiser reputation and extremity ofadvertising claim on advertising effectiveness, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17No. 2, pp. 172-9.

Gray-Lee, J.W., Scammon, D.L. and Mayer, R.N. (1994), Review of legal standards forenvironmental marketing claims, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 155-9.

Hansen, U. and Schrader, U. (1997), A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society,Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 443-68.

Hastak, M. and Olson, J.C. (1989), Assessing the role of brand-related cognitive responses asmediators of communication effects on cognitive structure, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 444-56.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), Relations between organizational culture, identity andimage, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 356-65.

Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), Effects of word-of-mouth and productattribute-information on persuasions: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 454-62.

Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K.L. (2002), Building brand equity through corporate societalmarketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 78-89.

James, D. (2002), Consumer activism and corporate responsibility, Journal of Research forConsumers, Vol. 3, available at: www.jrconsumers.com (accessed 2007).

Johar, G.V., Maheswaran, D. and Peracchio, L.A. (2006), Mapping the frontiers: theoreticaladvances in consumer research on memory, affect, and persuasion, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 139-49.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973), On the psychology of prediction, Psychological Review,Vol. 80, pp. 237-51.

Kang, Y.-S. and Herr, P.M. (2006), Beauty and the beholder: toward an integrative model ofcommunication source effects, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 123-30.

Kanter, D. and Wortzel, L. (1985), Cynicism and alienation as marketing considerations: somenew ways to approach the female consumer, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1,pp. 5-15.

Keller, K.L. (1991), Cue compatibility and framing in advertising, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 42-57.


435

Keller, P. and Block, L.G. (1997), Vividness effects: a resource-matching perspective, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295-304.

Kisielius, J. and Sternthal, B. (1986), Examining the vividness controversy: anavailability-valence interpretation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 4,pp. 418-31.

Koslow, S. (2000), Can the truth hurt? How honest and persuasive advertising canunintentionally lead to increased consumer skepticism, Journal of Consumer Affairs,Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 245-68.

Koslow, S. and Beltramini, R. (2002), Consumer skepticism and the waiting room of the mind:are consumers more likely to believe advertising claims if they are merely comprehended,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 473-9.

Liberman, A. and Chaiken, S. (1992), Defensive processing of personally relevant healthmessages, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 669-79.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), The effects of corporate socialresponsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 16-32.

McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firmperspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-27.

MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), An empirical examination of the structural antecedentsof attitude toward the ad in a advertising pretesting context, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 48-65.

Maignan, I.M. (2001), Consumers perceptions of corporate social responsibilities:a cross-cultural comparison, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-72.

Maignan, I.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (2001), Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship:an investigation of French businesses, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51 No. 1,pp. 37-51.

Maignan, I.M., Ferrell, O.C. and Hult, G.T.M. (1999), Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedentsand business benefits, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 455-69.

Mangleburg, T.F. and Bristol, T. (1998), Socialization and adolescents scepticism towardadvertising, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 11-21.

Markwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997), Towards a framework for managing corporate identity,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 396-409.

Meyers-Levy, J. and Malaviya, P. (1999), Consumers processing of persuasive advertisements:an integrative framework of persuasion theories, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 45-60(special issue).

Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2005), The effects of corporate social responsibility and price onconsumer responses, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-47.

Mohr, L.A., Eroglu, D. and Ellen, S.P. (1998), The development and testing of a measure ofskepticism toward environment claims in the marketers communications, Journal ofConsumers Affairs, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 30-55.

Moore-Shay, E.S. and Lutz, R.J. (1988), Intergenerational transfer of shopping behavior andmarketplace beliefs: mothers and daughters, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 15, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 461-7.

Morsing, M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: on the roleof external stakeholders for member identification, Business Ethics: A European Review,Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 171-82.

CCIJ14,4

436

Nelson, P. (1970), Information and consumer behavior, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78No. 2, pp. 45-57.

Nye, J.S., Zelikow, P.D. and King, D.C. (Eds) (1997), Why People Dont Trust Government,Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Obermiller, C. (1995), The baby is sick/the baby is well: a test of environmental communicationappeals, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 55-70.

Obermiller, C. and Spangenberg, E.R. (1998), Development of a scale to measure consumerskepticism toward advertising, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 159-86.

Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E.R. and MacLachlan, D.L. (2005), Ad skepticism, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 7-17.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance:a meta-analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-41.

Osterhus, T.L. (1997), Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when and how do they work?,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 16-29.

Petkus, E. and Woodruff, R.B. (1992), A model of socially responsible decision-making processin marketing: linking decision makers and stakeholders, Marketing Theory andApplications, Vol. 3, pp. 154-61.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1979), Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion byenhancing message-relevant cognitive responses, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1915-26.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and ContemporaryApproaches, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, inBerkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY,pp. 123-205.

Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1999), The elaboration likelihood model: current status andcontroversies, in Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (Eds), Dual-Process Theories in SocialPsychology, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 41-72.

Pirsch, J., Gupta, S. and Landreth Grau, S. (2007), A framework for understanding corporatesocial responsibility programs as a continuum: an exploratory study, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 125-40.

Pollay, R. and Mittal, B. (1993), Heres the beef: factors, determinants, and segments in consumercriticism of advertising, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 99-114.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2002), The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 56-68.

Pracejus, J.W., Olsen, G.D. and Brown, N.R. (2003/2004), On the prevalence and impact of vaguequantifiers in the advertising of cause-related marketing (CRM), Journal of Advertising,Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 19-28.

Ratneshwar, S. and Chaiken, S. (1991), Comprehensions role in persuasion: the case of itsmoderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52-62.

Roberts, J.A. (1996), Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward?, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 79-83.

Rossiter, J.R. and Bellman, S. (2005), Marketing Communications, Theory and Applications,Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest.


437

Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1997), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Schultz, M. and Morsing, M. (2003), The catch 22 of integrating CSR and marketing: findingsfrom a reputation study of Danish companies, Conference Proceedings, MSI, BostonUniversity, September 17-19.

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumerreactions to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,pp. 225-43.

Sinclair, L. and Kunda, Z. (1999), Reactions to a black professional: motivated inhibition andactivation of conflicting stereotypes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77,pp. 885-904.

Spencer, S.J., Fein, S., Wolfe, C.T., Fong, C. and Dunn, M.A. (1998), Automatic activation ofstereotypes: the role of self-image threat, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,Vol. 24, pp. 1139-52.

Srull, T.K. and Wyer, R.S. (1986), The role of chronic and temporary goals in social informationprocessing, in Sorrentino, R. and Higgins, E. (Eds), Handbook of Motivation andCognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Guilford Press, Guilford, CT, pp. 503-49.

Strong, C. (1997), The role of fair trade principles within sustainable development, SustainableDevelopment, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Tybout, A.M., Sternthal, B., Malaviya, P., Bakamitsos, G.A. and Park, S. (2005), Informationaccessibility as a moderator of judgments: the role of content versus retrieval ease,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 76-85.

van Rekom, J. (1997), Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 410-22.

van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement andmanagement, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 340-55.

Verschoor, C.C. (2008), Citizenship survey shows gaps between rhetoric and reality, StrategicFinance, February, pp. 13-14.

Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), A typology of consumer responses to cause-relatedmarketing: from skeptics to socially concerned, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 226-38.

Wells, W., Spence-Stone, R., Moriarty, S. and Burnett, J. (2008), Advertising, Principles andPractice, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest.

Willard, B. (2005), Next Sustainability Wave: Building Board Room Buy-in, New Society, GabriolaIsland.

Wood, J.D. (1991), Corporate social performance revised, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004), Cross cutting themes corporateresponsibility, available at: www.wbcsd.org (accessed May 2004).

Wright, P. (1973), The cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Wright, P. (1985), Schemer schema: consumers intuitive theories about marketers influencetactics, in Lutz, R. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Association forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 1-3.

CCIJ14,4

438

Further reading

Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholderinformation, response and involvement strategies, Business Ethics: A European Review,Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 323-38.

Peracchio, L.A. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1997), Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from aresource-matching perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 178-91.

About the authorsAlan Pomering is a Lecturer in Marketing Subjects at the University of Wollongong, Australia.His main research interests focus on CSR, advertising, sustainability, strategy, and tourism. Herecently completed his doctorate, investigating the ability of message variables to inhibitconsumer scepticism toward CSR advertising claims. Alan Pomering is the corresponding authorand can be contacted at: [email protected]

Lester W. Johnson currently serves as a Professor of Management (Marketing) at theMelbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Australia.


439

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Advertising CSR Initiatives to Communicate Corporate Image

Documents

Transcript of Advertising CSR Initiatives to Communicate Corporate Image