The impact of CSR on corporate reputation perceptions of the public—A configurational multi‐time, multi‐source perspective

Abstract

This study investigates the connection between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate reputation among the public using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). To examine complex processes underlying the reactions of this influential stakeholder group, hypotheses are drawn from the category diagnosticity approach. Thereby, a psychological model of perceived (im)morality is transferred to the CSR context. In line with these hypotheses, positive/negative CSR activities influence reputation in the expected directions (H1a, b), while the effects of specific configurations of CSR activities reveal an asymmetry suggesting a negativity bias (H2). Further analyses confirm that positive effects require a consistent positive performance regarding prior reputations (H3a) and the aggregated CSR activities of several previous years (H3b, c). Moreover, the relevant patterns vary between industries (H4). The present study thus contributes to CSR research by investigating a powerful but hitherto understudied stakeholder group through a category diagnosticity lens combined with a configurational approach to analysis.

Reporting as a booster of the corporate social performance effect on corporate reputation

“…Research supports the positive influence of CSP on corporate reputation (Aguilera‐Caracuel & Guerrero‐Villegas, ; Brammer & Pavelin, , ; Galbreath, ; Lai et al, ; Melo & Garrido‐Morgado, ; Pfau et al, ; Rothenhoefer, ; Stanaland et al, ; Surroca et al, ) and of each of the three dimensions of CSP: social (Brammer & Millington, ; Brammer & Pavelin, , ; Fombrun & Shanley, ; Melo & Garrido‐Morgado, ; Odriozola et al, ; Williams & Barrett, ), environmental (Brammer & Pavelin, ; Lin, Zeng, Wang, Zou, & Ma, ; Russo & Foust, 1997; Tang, Lai, & Cheng, ; Vergin & Qoronfleh, ), and economic (Dunbar & Schwalbach, ; Fombrun & Shanley, ; Hammond & Slocum, ; Roberts & Dowling, ; Rose & Thomsen, ). Therefore, we proposeHypothesis Good CSP positively affects corporate reputation .…”

How market value relates to corporate philanthropy and its assurance. The moderating effect of the business sector

“…On the other hand, the business sector in which a company operates could be a factor because it is associated with a request for corporate philanthropy assurance (Sierra et al, ) and how the question of assurance of corporate philanthropy is addressed (Sethi et al, ), which could in turn affect market value (Gautier & Pache, ; Rothenhoefer, ). The effect of assurance mechanisms on financial performance could differ among sectors (Bartkus, Morris, & Seifert, ).…”

“…In this context, philanthropy would be viewed as a marketing tool, useful for promoting and reinforcing the company's image (Peterson & Su, 2017). On the other hand, the philanthropic decisions of industrial companies tend to be more integrated into their activities (Peterson & Su, 2017) and more stable over time, which facilitates the achievement of tangible social goals (Rothenhoefer, 2019).…”

“…In the case of industrial companies, the expected result is that the sector moderates positively when corporate philanthropy is managed through foundations and, conversely, in the case of commercial companies, sector moderation is expected to be positive when channelled through donations. Therefore, the following two hypotheses are proposed: On the other hand, the business sector in which a company operates could be a factor because it is associated with a request for corporate philanthropy assurance (Sierra et al, 2013) and how the question of assurance of corporate philanthropy is addressed (Sethi et al, 2017a), which could in turn affect market value (Gautier & Pache, 2015;Rothenhoefer, 2019). The effect of assurance mechanisms on financial performance could differ among sectors (Bartkus, Morris, & Seifert, 2002).…”

The effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible leadership

“…Therefore, Highhouse, Brooks, and Gregarus () defined reputation as an “evaluative judgment of multiple constituencies about a firm” (p. 1482). Firms' decision to engage or abstain from CSR activities makes a difference to corporate reputation (Aqueveque, Rodrigo, & Duran, ; Rothenhoefer, ). Bhattacharya and Sen () pointed out that listening to stakeholders, engaging them in process, and reaching mutually beneficial decisions provides organization with legitimacy and trust.…”