Consumer perceived authenticity of organizational corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements: a test of attribution theory

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to explore how consumers judge corporate social responsibility (CSR) authenticity. Kelley’s covariation attribution theory (Kelley, 1973) was deployed to explain information consumers use that leads to either a substantive or symbolic attribution.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 101 consumers were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions and responded to an online survey: an organization whose CSR practices were unique (low consensus), across their business (low distinctiveness) and over time (high consistency), practiced CSR like competitors (high consensus), in few areas if their business (high distinctiveness) and just initiated their CSR activities (low consistency) or no relevant CSR information (control). The dependent variables were consumer’s substantive attribution, symbolic attribution and the extent that consumers’ reported that consensus, distinctiveness and consistency were important in judging CSR authenticity in general. ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc tests were conducted as appropriate.

Findings

Consumers in the first experimental condition ascribed greater substantive attribution than consumers in the control group and marginality more than the second experimental condition. On the other hand, these same consumers also ascribed greater symbolic attribution than did the control group. After consumers were shown an organization whose CSR activities were unique, practiced across their business and for a long time reported that distinctiveness and consistency were more important in judging authenticity in general.

Research limitations/implications

The survey respondents constituted a convenience sample; however, they were randomly assigned to conditions. This randomization enabled an experimental design capable of making causal statements. The Linkedin platform is mainly used by white-collar individuals and does not incorporate the entire spectrum of airline passengers from other industries, and therefore, may limit generalizability to other industrial sector populations. The sample age was somewhat young and may not be representative of older individuals and young teenagers. Like all online surveys, individuals without internet access did not have an opportunity to participate. Future research should deploy larger sample sizes and greater demographic diversity (e.g. age, country and income).

Practical implications

Executives must lead and engage stakeholders in their organizations’ CSR initiatives. Managers must implement efficiently, using CSR audits that assess the extent that unique initiatives are implemented throughout the business and over time. The findings also suggest that marketing should then effectively communicate CSR in consensus, distinctiveness and consistency terms.

Social implications

Multiple stakeholders urge organizations to be socially responsible. Consumers incorporate social responsibility into buying and investment decisions, and therefore, expect to demand CSR transparency and authenticity. Unfortunately, little is known about how consumers assess CSR authenticity, which is the aim of this research.

Originality/value

This is among the first studies that generalize Kelley’s covariation attribution theory from the micro-level of individual perception and social psychology to the macro organizational level and the first to empirically test the theory at the macro organizational level. This study used an experimental design to test attribution theory as a theoretic explanation of how consumers judge CSR authenticity and the first study to explore whether exposure to CSR information influences the extent that such information is believed to be important in judging authenticity.

Citation

Moehl, S. and Friedman, B.A. (2022), "Consumer perceived authenticity of organizational corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements: a test of attribution theory", Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 875-893. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2020-0296