The hypocrisy‐sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision making

Abstract

PurposeThe disconnect between the corporate social responsibility (CSR) rhetoric and the practical reality experienced within companies calls for improved CSR evaluation systems that take into account the hypocrisy content of the firm's communication. The aim of this article is to contribute to the conceptual underpinning of a sincerity/hypocrisy index that positions an organization on a continuum from idealism to cynicism.Design/methodology/approachStarting with the analysis of the reasons for the dissonance between message and reality, the drivers of ethical corporate behavior, the intention of the actors and the intensity of effort and of corporate communication were analysed.FindingsThe analysis of the reasons for dissonance between message and reality sheds light on the role of communication in the perception of hypocrisy. An underlying model of a sincerity/hypocrisy index is proposed to position the firm on a continuum from idealism to hypocrisy in function of the degree of congruence or dissonance between communication and reality.Practical implicationsThis concept of sincerity index could form a valuable basis for the development of new evaluation instruments for rating agencies, screening institutions and other evaluation bodies.Originality/valueThe instrument can help management to concentrate on the essence of CSR: the effective implementation of a corporate culture with attention for values and responsible business practices.

CSR-Washing is Rare: A Conceptual Framework, Literature Review, and Critique

“…There is supporting evidence, for example, for the Carbon Disclosure Project (Kolk et al 2008), Global Reporting Initiative (Adams 2004), Global Compact (Deva 2006), Equator Principles (Haack et al 2012), Fair Labor Association (Bloomfield 1999), SA 8000 (La Rosa and Franco 2000), and ISO 14001 (Boiral 2007). However, the literature suggests also that decoupling is not binary, but a continuous and highly contingent outcome (Bromley et al 2012;Fassin and Buelens 2011;Fiss and Zajac 2006). More specifically, an increasingly common argument in the academic literature is that the degree of decoupling varies widely and systematically according to each initiative's membership requirements.…”

How Does It Fit? Exploring the Congruence Between Organizations and Their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities

“…Experimental studies into the effects of CSR expose participants to CSR information and measure the effects of this exposure, but in real life, consumers may only incidentally expose themselves to such information. A second problem is the risk of skepticism and cynicism among consumers when they are informed about the CSR involvement of organizations (Brønn and Vrioni 2001;Fassin and Buelens 2011;Skarmeas and Leonidou 2013;Skarmeas et al 2014;Webb and Mohr 1998). Organizations have to operate in an environment in which 'greenwashing' and variations thereof are increasingly prevalent (Chen et al 2014;Elving and Van Vuuren 2011;Nyilasy et al 2014), which may at the very least make people vigilant when they are confronted with CSR information.…”

Corporate Hypocrisy and Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model of Organizational Identification and Perceived Importance of CSR

“…Few researchers have considered hypocrisy as a necessary choice when corporations must satisfy different and conflicting needs, such as those from shareholders or the rest of society [36]. More scholars consider corporate hypocrisy as the pursuit of short-term benefits, as the only thing that truly matters is increased sales (e.g., [7,13,15,16]). However, corporate hypocrisy can actually become troubling when corporations are caught in a dilemma where this contradiction becomes apparent to the society at large [37], such as the example of Volkswagen mentioned above.…”

“…Most existing studies have been rooted in the positive outcomes of CSR strategy; however, the hidden side of hypocrisy should also be paid attention to. Despite research in recent years contributing to our understanding of the perception of corporate hypocrisy (e.g., [7,13,15,16]), few studies have examined the consequences of corporate hypocrisy on stakeholders, such as employees. Ford and Richardson [17] pointed out that situational factors often exert influences on an individual's ethical or unethical decision behavior.…”