PurposeThe purpose of this experimental study is to examine the effects of climate change corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social advocacy (CSA) messages on public perceptions of companies and collective action intentions.Design/methodology/approachThis study employs a 2 (message type: CSA vs CSR) × 2 (environmental issue: single-use plastics vs renewable energy) × 2 (company: Target vs Walmart) plus control online experimental design.FindingsThere were no main effects of message type on outcomes; however, green consumer identity moderated the relationship between message type and green purchase intention as well as negative word-of-mouth.Originality/valueThis study responds to calls by scholars to empirically compare the effects of CSR and CSA messages. Additionally, we consider group-level processes, like ingroup identity, in influencing strategic communication outcomes.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess online corporate communication around commitments to sustainable development goal (SDG) 12, sustainable production and consumption.Design/methodology/approachGuided by legitimacy theory, a qualitative directed content analysis was conducted on 13 companies' webpages (81 webpages, 78,947 words).FindingsCompanies broadly failed to communicate about all 11 SDG 12 targets, neglected to consistently address multiple stakeholder groups, missed opportunities to provide concrete evidence of progress and relied on a mix of substantive and symbolic legitimation strategies.Originality/valueSDG 12 has been under-researched and this paper is one of the first to offer an in-depth analysis of corporate communication regarding SDG 12.

Managing climate risks often requires making hard decisions. While decision analysis can help, many analyses narrowly view what matters to people concerning decision outcomes. For instance, government policies may require projects to pass a cost-benefit analysis in which only easily monetized objectives are considered—incorporating a richer view of people's values means understanding those values and how they intersect with the problem formulations that drive outcomes. Here, we demonstrate an approach for assessing how values influence mental models. We used a case study of household flood adaptation decisions in riverine communities in Pennsylvania, USA. The approach included co-developing a shared mental model with local and academic experts. This mental model then guided interviews with 16 residents. The mental model analysis reveals the diverse values that participants consider when making mitigation decisions. Translating these values into objectives for decision analyses can help decision-makers (i) navigate more relevant tradeoffs and synergies between objectives and (ii) respond to risks in ways that are more consistent with their priorities.