Twitter Presence and Experience Improve Corporate Social Responsibility Outcomes

Abstract

We investigate the role of social-media-triggered public pressure on corporate social responsibility (CSR) that includes expectations of transparency and accountability on the firm’s part, and participative/evaluative inputs on the public’s part. Using the date when S&P 500 firms established corporate Twitter accounts, we investigate the impact of corporate social media exposure on CSR outcomes. Results from baseline regressions indicate that firms with Twitter accounts significantly outperform industry peers in CSR rating, after controlling for firm and industry characteristics. To test potential reverse causality, we use a dynamic treatment effect model to explore within firm changes of CSR, and find that firms’ CSR rating improves in year one- and year two after establishing a Twitter account, while no difference emerged in similar comparisons with peers prior to the Twitter account establishment. Additionally, Granger causality tests results show that corporate Twitter presence improves CSR performance; it is also shown that CSR outcomes do not motivate corporations to establish a social media presence on Twitter. Finally, firms with more experience (number of years) on Twitter, and those with more followers, tweets or Twitter accounts are associated with improved CSR outcomes. We draw on two theories and qualitative interviews with senior CSR executives to explain why social media influences CSR firm behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Consider the example of Starbucks. On October 15th, 2017, the company posted a tweet about its donation to Northern California wildfire. A user named Iris Chrysopteron replied “Please do the same for Puerto Rico” due to the damage caused by the hurricane. Starbucks responded to state that they had donated $125,000 to a fund to aid recovery efforts in Puerto Rico. Similarly, on October 10th, 2017, Walmart tweeted about their donation to Puerto Rico on Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight show. A user named Cathy Peace posted a picture depicting a Walmart store in Puerto Rico with inadequate supplies and mentioned that “People aren’t getting the donations and your aisles are empty. They need supplies whether they buy them or are given to them through aid efforts.” At the same time, a Facebook post by Walmart claimed that people in the United States could buy groceries online for family and friends in Puerto Rico and have them use the grocery pick-up option at their local stores. In fact, the service did not work as advertised. This news went viral on social media prompting Walmart to release a statement correcting their erroneous post on Facebook.

  2. 2.

    A survey by Conference Board and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University suggests that 59% of companies in the survey use social media to interact with customers, 49% to advertise, and 35% to research customers. Approximately 30% use social media to research competitors, research new products and services, or communicate with employees and other stakeholders (Larcker et al. 2012).

  3. 3.

    Because of data limitations, the time period for number of followers is between 2012 and 2014.

  4. 4.

    Industry is defined using SIC code information shown in Panel B of Table 1.

  5. 5.

    We compare the two groups from 2007 because there is only one company in our database with a Twitter account in 2006.

  6. 6.

    In order to capture the dynamic effect, we extend our basic sample by 1 year.

References

  1. Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies,35(5), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albalawi, Y., & Sixsmith, J. (2015). Agenda setting for health promotion: Exploring an adapted model for the social media era. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.5014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Araujo, T., & Kollat, J. (2018). Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter: The power of engaging strategies and storytelling elements. Internet Research,28(2), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2017-0172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,42(5), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.2307/256972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics,69(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brower, J., & Mahajan, V. (2013). Driven to be good: A stakeholder theory perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics,117(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1523-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ceron, A., Curini, L., & Iacus, S. M. (2016). First- and second-level agenda setting in the Twittersphere: An application to the Italian political debate. Journal of Information Technology & Politics,13(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1160266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,18(1), 125–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chiang, K. C. H., Wachtel, G. J., & Zhou, X. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and growth opportunity: The case of real estate investment trusts. Journal of Business Ethics,155(2), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3535-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management,9(2), 108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deardorff, R. B. (2010, December). Countering violent extremism: The challenge and the opportunity. Defense Technical Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA536895

  15. Di Giuli, A., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics,111(1), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donia, M. B. L., Ronen, S., Tetrault Sirsly, C.-A., & Bonaccio, S. (2019). CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics,157(2), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3673-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Edelman. (2012). Executive Summary: 2012 Edelman goodpurpose® Study | Brand | Corporate Social Responsibility. Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/document/90411623/Executive-Summary-2012-Edelman-goodpurpose-Study. Accessed 25 December 2018

  18. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance,35(9), 2388–2406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Etter, M. (2014). Broadcasting, reacting, engaging: Three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. Journal of Communication Management,18(4), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2013-0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Farache, F., Tetchner, I., & Kollat, J. (2018). CSR communications on Twitter: An exploration into stakeholder reactions. In G. Grigore, A. Stancu, & D. McQueen (Eds.), Corporate responsibility and digital communities: An international perspective towards sustainability (pp. 145–163). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics,91(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0135-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Freeman, R. E. (2007). Managing for stakeholders. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1186402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica,37(3), 424–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Guo, L., & Vargo, C. (2015). The power of message networks: A big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication and Society,18(5), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hansen, C. B. (2007). Generalized least squares inference in panel and multilevel models with serial correlation and fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics,140(2), 670–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2006.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansen, L. K., Arvidsson, A., Nielsen, F. A., Colleoni, E., & Etter, M. (2011). Good friends, bad news: Affect and virality in Twitter. In J. J. Park, L. T. Yang, & C. Lee (Eds.), Future information technology (pp. 34–43). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hasan, I., Kobeissi, N., Liu, L., & Wang, H. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance: The mediating role of productivity. Journal of Business Ethics,149(3), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3066-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2018). Community social capital and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,152(3), 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3335-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hong, H., Kubik, J. D., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2012). Financial Constraints on Corporate Goodness. Working paper. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18476

  31. Hsu, A., Koh, K., Liu, S., & Tong, Y. H. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and corporate disclosures: An investigation of investors’ and analysts’ perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics,158(2), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3767-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ihlen, Ø., & Roper, J. (2014). Corporate reports on sustainability and sustainable development: ‘We have arrived’: Corporate reports. Sustainable Development,22(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics,88(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From homo economicus to homo dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review,42(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Laasch, O., & Conaway, R. N. (2015). Principles of responsible management: Global sustainability, responsibility, and ethics. Stamford: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Larcker, D. F., Larcker, S. M., & Tayan, B. (2012, October). 2012 Social Media Survey. Stanford Graduate School of Business. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/2012-social-media-survey. Accessed 2 March 2019

  37. Lee, K., Oh, W.-Y., & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: analysis of fortune 500’s Twitter Profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. Journal of Business Ethics,118(4), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1961-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee, Y.-J., O’Donnell, N. H., & Hust, S. J. T. (2019). Interaction effects of system-generated information and consumer skepticism: An evaluation of issue support behavior in CSR twitter campaigns. Journal of Interactive Advertising,19(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1507853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lippmann, W. (1949). Public opinion. New York: MacMilllan.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on corporate greenwash. Journal of Business Ethics,118(4), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1958-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Makni, R., Francoeur, C., & Bellavance, F. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics,89(3), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0007-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics,87(S1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9804-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin, G. W., Thomas, W. B., & Wieland, M. M. (2016). S&P 500 membership and managers’ supply of conservative financial reports: S&P 500 membership and managers’ supply. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting,43(5–6), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies,6(4), 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of management Journal,31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Meraz, S. (2009). Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,14(3), 682–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01458.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Meraz, S. (2011a). The fight for ‘how to think’: Traditional media, social networks, and issue interpretation. Journalism,12(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910385193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Meraz, S. (2011b). Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,88(1), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review,15(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications,14(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. MSCI ESG Research Inc. (2015). MSCI ESG KLD stats: 1991–2014 data sets (p. 75). MSCI ESG Research Inc.

  53. Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of-effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Business Research,38(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00061-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Natalia, A. (2017). The agenda setting hypothesis in the new media environment. Comunicación y Sociedad. https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v0i28.2929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nelling, E., & Webb, E. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The “virtuous circle” revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting,32(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-008-0090-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Neuman, W. R., Guggenheim, L., Jang, S. M., & Bae, S. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data: Dynamics of public attention. Journal of Communication,64(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Oh, H., Bae, J., & Kim, S.-J. (2017). Can sinful firms benefit from advertising their CSR Efforts? Adverse effect of advertising sinful firms’ CSR engagements on firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics,143(4), 643–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3072-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics,83(4), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9662-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Platikanova, P. (2016). S&P 500 index addition, liquidity management and Tobin’s Q. Accounting & Finance,56(2), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ranängen, H. (2017). Stakeholder management theory meets CSR practice in Swedish mining. Mineral Economics,30(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-016-0098-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Reilly, A. H., & Hynan, K. A. (2014). Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It’s not easy (really) being green. Business Horizons,57(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Reilly, A. H., & Larya, N. (2018). External communication about sustainability: Corporate social responsibility reports and social media activity. Environmental Communication,12(5), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1424009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Roberts, M. R., & Whited, T. M. (2013). Chapter 7: endogeneity in empirical corporate finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (pp. 493–572). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Saxton, G. D., Gomez, L., Ngoh, Z., Lin, Y.-P., & Dietrich, S. (2019). Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics,155(2), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3464-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2003). Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy. Journal of business ethics,45(3), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Shi, W., Pathak, S., Song, L. J., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2018). The adoption of chief diversity officers among S&P 500 firms: Institutional, resource dependence, and upper echelons accounts: The adoption of chief diversity officers. Human Resource Management,57(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sormanen, N., Lauk, E., & Uskali, T. (2017). Facebook’s ad hoc groups: A potential source of communicative power of networked citizens. Communication & Society,30(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.30.2.77-95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,21(3), 491. https://doi.org/10.1086/209413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Stohl, C., Etter, M., Banghart, S., & Woo, D. (2017). Social media policies: implications for contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,142(3), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2743-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Stohl, M., Stohl, C., & Townsley, N. C. (2007). A new generation of global corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics,155(2), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3497-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics,83(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9609-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Valenzuela, S., Puente, S., & Flores, P. M. (2017). Comparing disaster news on Twitter and television: An intermedia agenda setting perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,61(4), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1344673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Vo, T. T., Xiao, X., & Ho, S. Y. (2019). How does corporate social responsibility engagement influence word of mouth on Twitter? Evidence from the airline industry. Journal of Business Ethics,157(2), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3679-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Waddock, S. (2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & Environment,16(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026603256284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal,18(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303:AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wang, X., Cao, F., & Ye, K. (2018). Mandatory corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and financial reporting quality: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. Journal of Business Ethics,152(1), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3296-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wettstein, F. (2012). CSR and the debate on business and human rights: Bridging the great divide. Business Ethics Quarterly,22(4), 739–770. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,16(4), 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Yin, J., Feng, J., & Wang, Y. (2015). Social media and multinational corporations’ corporate social responsibility in China: The case of ConocoPhillips Oil Spill incident. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,58(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2015.2433071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiwei Fang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLS 6550 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Unpacked KLD measure analysis

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Innovative giving Clean energy Cash profit sharing Retirement benefit concern Promotion Product quality
Twittert−1 0.088*** 0.060*** 0.005* − 0.033*** 0.005* 0.052***
  (8.571) (5.113) (1.842) (− 2.910) (1.652) (11.857)
Assetst−1 0.065*** 0.090*** 0.010*** − 0.010* 0.027*** 0.014***
  (9.580) (14.996) (4.544) (− 1.727) (7.064) (8.332)
ROAt−1 0.130** − 0.254*** 0.002 − 0.133*** − 0.005 0.136***
  (2.092) (− 3.184) (0.083) (− 3.658) (− 0.267) (6.009)
Book-to-markett−1 0.015 0.007 0.007 0.038*** − 0.011* − 0.016***
  (0.977) (0.407) (1.607) (3.366) (− 1.909) (− 3.300)
Casht−1 0.135*** 0.222*** 0.097*** − 0.065** 0.011 − 0.099***
  (3.063) (4.392) (6.745) (− 2.060) (0.694) (− 8.445)
Dividendst−1 0.460* 1.342*** 0.135* − 0.076 0.143* 0.478***
  (1.698) (4.586) (1.819) (− 0.580) (1.824) (4.704)
Debtt−1 0.080** − 0.140*** − 0.021* 0.079** − 0.022 0.116***
  (2.002) (− 2.931) (− 1.690) (2.284) (− 1.525) (11.503)
Constant − 0.553*** − 0.732*** − 0.112*** 0.731*** − 0.244*** 0.022
  (− 3.010) (− 2.936) (− 5.054) (3.386) (− 6.632) (0.128)
Observations 3190 3565 3310 1733 2487 2861
Industry dummy Y Y Y Y Y Y
Year dummy Y Y Y Y Y Y

Appendix 2: Factor analysis

Panel A: Eigenvalue of three factors

Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative
Factor1 1.10007 1.22791 1.4347 1.4347
Factor2 − 0.12784 0.07761 − 0.1667 1.2679
Factor3 − 0.20545   − 0.2679 1

Panel B: Factor loadings

Variable Factor1
Log followers 0.6276
Log tweets 0.6424
Year experience 0.5417

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balasubramanian, S.K., Fang, Y. & Yang, Z. Twitter Presence and Experience Improve Corporate Social Responsibility Outcomes. J Bus Ethics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04537-x

Download citation

Keyword

  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Social media
  • Multiple regression analysis
  • Qualitative interviews