Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp 227–242 | Cite as

The Harm of Symbolic Actions and Green-Washing: Corporate Actions and Communications on Environmental Performance and Their Financial Implications

  • Kent WalkerEmail author
  • Fang Wan


We examine over 100 top performing Canadian firms in visibly polluting industries as we seek to answer four research questions: What specific environmental issues are firms addressing? How do these issues differ between industries? Are both symbolic and substantive actions financially beneficial? Does green-washing, measured as the difference between symbolic and substantive action, and/or green-highlighting, measured as the combined effect of symbolic and substantive actions, pay? We find that substantive actions of environmental issues (green walk) neither harm nor benefit firms financially, but symbolic actions (green talk) are negatively related to financial performance. We also find that green-washing (discrepancy between green talk and green walk) has a negative effect on financial performance and green-highlighting (concentrated efforts of the talk and walk) has no effect on financial performance. In this article, we provide explanations of our findings and put forth future research directions.


Corporate environmental performance Corporate websites Green-highlighting Green-washing Substantive actions Symbolic actions 


  1. Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 645–670.Google Scholar
  3. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arevalo, J. A. (2010). Critical reflective organizations: An empirical observation of global active citizenship and green politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal, P., & Bogner, W. C. (2002). Deciding on ISO 14001: Economics, institutions, and context. Long Range Planning, 35(3), 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bansal, P., & Gao, J. (2006). Building the future by looking at the past: Examining published research in organizations and environment. Organization and Environment, 19(4), 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgements or organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. The Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brenner, L., Rottenstreich, Y., Sood, S., & Bilgin, B. (2007). On the psychology of loss aversion: Possession, valence, and reversals of the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castelló, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, Y. S., Lai, S. B., & Wen, C. T. (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 863–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clelland, I. J., Douglas, T. J., & Henderson, D. A. (2006). Testing resource-based and industry factors in a multi-level model of competitive advantage creation. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 5(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  20. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dean, T. J., & Brown, R. L. (1995). Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: Initial evidence and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 288–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Are conglomerates less environmentally responsible? An empirical examination of diversification strategy and subsidiary pollution in the U.S. chemical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dou, W., & Krishnamurthy, S. (2007). Using brand websites to build brands online: A product versus service brand comparison. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(2), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Douglas, T. J., & Judge, W. Q. Jr. 1995. Integrating the natural environment into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Academy of Management Journal, 00014273, 475–479.Google Scholar
  27. Esrock, S. I., Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate Web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faucheux, S., Nicolai, I., & O’Connor, M. (1998). Globalization, competitiveness, governance and environment: What prospects for a sustainable development? In S. Faucheux, J. Gowdy, & I. Nicola (Eds.), Sustainability and firms, technological change and the changing regulatory environment. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Feldman, S. J., Soyka, P. A., & Ameer, P. (1997). Does improving a firm’s environmental management system and environmental performance result in a higher stock price? Journal of Investing, 6(4), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity re-examined: A baseline analysis of early business Web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(Fall), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., & Schwartz, C. (2011). Different talks with different folks: A comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton, J. T. (1995). Pollution as news: Media and stock market reactions to the toxics release inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hargadon, A., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.Google Scholar
  35. Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2011). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 128–134.Google Scholar
  37. Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  38. Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825–842.Google Scholar
  39. Kahneman, D., & Taversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahneman, D., & Taversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Korten, D. C. (1995). When corporations rule the world. San Francisco: Kumarian Press Inc./Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  45. Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate green-washing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee, S. Y., & Rhee, S.-K. (2007). The change in corporate environmental strategies: A longitudinal empirical study. Management Decision, 45(2), 196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lopez-Gamero, M. D., Claver-Cortes, E., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2008). Complementary resources and capabilities for an ethical and environmental management: A qual/quan study. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 701–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lovgren, S. (2006). Al Gore’s “Inconvenient truth” movie: Fact or hype? National Geographic News.
  49. Macias, W., & Lewis, L. S. (2004). A content analysis of direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug web sites. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 43–56.Google Scholar
  50. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving target: The challenge of applying content analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, K. D., & Leiblein, M. J. (1996). Corporate risk-return relations: Returns variability versus downside risk. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  57. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), 968–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  60. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of green-washing? Business and Society, 44(4), 377–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rao, H. (2002). Tests tell: Institutional activists, constitutive legitimacy and consumer acceptance in the American automobile industry, 1895–1912. In P. Ingram & B. Silverman (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, Vol. 19: The new institutionalism in strategic management. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of a good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automotive industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rooney, C. (1993). Economics of pollution prevention: How waste reduction pays. Pollution Prevention Review, 3(Summer), 261–276.Google Scholar
  65. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. (2005). Organizational design and environmental performance clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 582–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schuler, D. A. (1996). Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: The case of the steel industry. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stevens, J. M., Steensma, H. K., Harrison, D. A., & Cochran, P. L. (2005). Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives’ decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  71. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35–67.Google Scholar
  72. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wassmuth, B., & Thompson, D. R. (1999). Banner ads in online newspapers: Are they specific? Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising annual conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  75. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 127–153.Google Scholar
  78. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly Douglas and Judge is from the best paper proceedings, 00014273 Google Scholar
  79. Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1995). Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation: Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Odette School of BusinessUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada
  2. 2.I.H. Asper School of BusinessUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations