PurposeThis study conceptualizes participatory corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a consumer empowerment strategy and examines the effect of participatory CSR on consumer responses in a social media setting.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a 2 (type of CSR campaign) × 4 (tone of consumer comments) between-subjects experimental design. The sample comprises college students and nonstudent participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk.FindingsData indicate that the participatory CSR program leads to higher levels of perceived self-efficacy and social worth, which subsequently results in stronger intentions to spread positive word of mouth about the company’s CSR efforts. The findings suggest that participatory CSR has the power to boost a company’s reputation as an “admired” company through consumer empowerment.Originality/valueThis study advances the scholarship of CSR by explicating participatory CSR communication as a consumer empowerment strategy and providing empirical evidence for the effect of participatory CSR on public responses. The overall findings support the notion that CSR communication as an important function of public relations can generate public engagement with the organization and further co-create meaning with publics for mutual benefit.

PurposeThis study aims to explore consumers' perceptions of stealing thunder and to investigate significant factors for maximizing its effect.Design/methodology/approachThis study used a mixed-methods approach. First, qualitative responses from 286 Korean participants were collected and analyzed (Study 1). Second, the experiment employed a randomized 2 (crisis communication timing: stealing thunder vs thunder) × 2 (transparent vs nontransparent communication) × 2 (follow-up actions: good vs poor) between-subjects experimental design with 426 Korean participants to investigate and confirm the results of Study 1.FindingsQualitative data showed that the participants' evaluation of corporations' stealing thunder strategy is complicated. Some do not perceive corporate use of stealing thunder at face value, but rather view it as yet another hopeless, selfish and irresponsible crisis communication strategy, distrusting it based on strong cynicism toward all corporations. An experiment confirmed that stealing thunder was significantly more effective in eliciting consumers' ethical judgment (EJ) and word-of-mouth (WOM) on corporations than the thunder strategy. Significant two-way interaction effects between crisis timing and follow-up actions showed that the stealing thunder strategy should be accompanied by follow-up actions to increase consumers' credibility and WOM intentions.Originality/valueThis study investigated how consumers evaluate stealing thunder by adopting both a qualitative and quantitative approach to explore how they make meaning out of this phenomenon.