“Too Good to be True!”. The Effectiveness of CSR History in Countering Negative Publicity

  • Joëlle Vanhamme
  • Bas Grobben


Corporate crises call for effective communication to shelter or restore a company’s reputation. The use of corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims may provide an effective tool to counter the negative impact of a crisis, but knowledge about its effectiveness is scarce and lacking in studies that consider CSR communication during crises. To help fill this gap, this study investigates whether the length of company’s involvement in CSR matters when it uses CSR claims in its crisis communication as a means to counter negative publicity. The use of CSR claims in crisis communication is more effective for companies with a long CSR history than for those with a short CSR history, and consumer skepticism about claims lies at the heart of this phenomenon.


crisis communication CSR history negative publicity skepticism reputation 


  1. Ashforth B. E., Gibbs B. W. 1990, The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron R. M., Kenny D. A. 1986, The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton L. 1993 Crisis in Organizations: Managing and Communicating in the Heat of Chaos. College Divisions South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister R. F., Scher S. J. 1988, Self-Defeating Behavior Patterns Among Normal Individuals: Review and Analysis of Common Self-Destructive Tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit W. L. 1997, Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen, A.: 2004, ‹The Rise and Rise of Non-Financial Reporting: How to Use Research to Measure Your Reputation’, MORI White Paper, January, available at
  7. Brown T. J., Dacin P. A. 1997, The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell M. C., Kirmani A. 2000, Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chumpitaz R., Vanhamme J. 2003, Les Processus Modérateurs et Médiateurs: Distinction Conceptuelle, Aspects Analytiques et Illustrations, Recherches et Applications en Marketing, 18(2), 67–100Google Scholar
  10. Cone Corporate Citizenship Study: 2004, available at
  11. Coombs W. T. 1995, Choosing the Right Words: The Development of Guidelines for the Selection of ‹Appropriate’ Crisis-Response Strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coombs W. T., Holladay S. J. 1996, Communication and Attributions in a Crisis: An Experimental Study of Crisis Communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(2), 279–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawar N., Pillutla M. M. 2000, Impact of Product-Harm Crises on Brand Equity: The Moderating Role of Consumer Expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dean D. H. 2004, Consumer Reaction to Negative Publicity: Effects of Corporate Reputation, Response, and Responsibility for a Crisis Event. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2), 192–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Raaf, D. I.: 2000, Protecting Brands: How to Respond on Adverse Brand Publicity. Van Spaenendonck Drukkerij B.V, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  16. The Economist: 2005, ‹The Good Company: A Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility’, January 22, 3–8Google Scholar
  17. Eisend M. 2004. Is It Still Worth to be Credible? A Meta-Analysis of Temporal Patterns of Source Credibility Effects in Marketing, in B. E. Kahn, M. F. Luce (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 31 Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA, pp. 352–357Google Scholar
  18. Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A. and Webb, D. J.: 2002. ‹Pure or Mixed Motives: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Pro-Social Marketing Programs’, in Punam Anand Keller and Dennis W. Rook (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA), pp. 322–324. Full paper obtained from the authorsGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliot R., Eccles S., Hodgson M. 1993, Re-Coding Gender Representations: Women, Cleaning Products, and Advertising’s ‹New Man’. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(3), 311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Firat, A. F., Venkatesh A. 1995, Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 239–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forehand M. R., Grier S. 2003, When is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friestad M., Wright P. 1994, The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurviez P., Korchia M. 2002, Proposition d’une Echelle de Mesure Multidimensionnelle de la Confiance dans la Marque. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 17(3), 41–62Google Scholar
  24. Handelman J. M., Arnold S. T. 1999, The Role of Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heath, R.: 1998, Crisis Management for Managers and Executives: Business Crises – the Definitive Handbook to Reduction, Readiness, Responses and Recovery (Financial Times Professional Limited, London)Google Scholar
  26. Holt D. B. 2002, Why do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones E. E., Pitman T. S. 1982. Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation, in J. Suls (ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self, vol. 1. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 231–262Google Scholar
  28. Klein J., Dawar N. 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumers’ Attributions and Brand Evaluations in a Product-Harm Crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lafferty B. A., Goldsmith R. E. 1999, Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High Versus Low Credibility Endorser is Used in the Ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maignan I., Ferrell O. C., Hult G. T. 1999, Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business Benefits. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGuire W. J. 1985. Attitudes and Attitude Change, in G. Lindsey, E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 3 ed., vol. 2. Random House, New York, pp. 233–246Google Scholar
  32. Mitroff, I. I.: 2001, Managing Crises Before They Happen: What Every Executive and Manager Needs to Know About Crisis Management (Amacom, New York)Google Scholar
  33. Mohr L. A., Webb D. J., Harris K. E. 2001, Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72Google Scholar
  34. MORI CSR Research: 2002, available at
  35. Neilsen, E. H. and M. V. H. Rao: 1987, ‹The Strategy-Legitimacy Nexus: A Thick Description’, The Academy of Management Review 12(3), 523–533Google Scholar
  36. Petty R. E., Ciacoppo J. T. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, in H. A. M. Wilke (ed.), Oriëntatie in de Sociale Psychologie, vol. 6 Bohn, Stafleu, van Loghum, Houten, pp. 135–140Google Scholar
  37. Obermiller C., Spangenberg E. R. 1998, Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 72(2), 159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riezebos H. J. 1996, Merkenmanagement Wolters-Noordhof, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  39. Rossiter J. R., Percy L.: 1998, Advertising Communications and Promotion Management, 2 ed. McGraw-Hill, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  40. Sen S., Bhattacharya C. B. 2001, Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sturges D. L. 1994, Communicating Through Crisis: A Strategy for Organizational Survival. Management Communication Quarterly, 7(3), 297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suchman, M. C.: 1995, ‹Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches’, Academy of Management Review 20(July), 571–610Google Scholar
  43. Swaen, V. and Vanhamme, J.: 2004, ‹See How Good We are: The Dangers of Using Corporate Social Activities in Communication Campaigns’, in B. Kahn and M. F. Luce (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31 (Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA), pp. 302–303Google Scholar
  44. Varadarajan P. R., Menon A. 1988, Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vonk R. 1998, Impression Formation and Impression Management: Motives, Traits, and Likeability Inferred from Self-Promoting and Self-Depreciating Behavior. Social Cognition, 17(4), 390–412Google Scholar
  46. Vonk R. 1999, The Slime Effect: Suspicion and Dislike of Likeable Behavior Towards Superiors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 849–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webb D. J., Mohr L. A. 1998, A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226–238Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MarketingErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations