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

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12207
• Author: Lisa Maria Rothenhoefer
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• Date: 01 April 2019

Business Ethic s: A Eur Rev. 2019;28:1 41–15 5.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer  

|

 141

© 2018 John Wiley & So ns Ltd

1 | INTRODUCTION

By accepting acco untability tow ard society, compan ies may show

corporate soci al responsibili ty (CSR; Car roll & Shabana, 2 010),

“demonstratin g the inclusion of so cial and environm ental concerns

in business ope rations and in inte ractions wit h stakeholder s” (van

Marrewijk, 20 03, p. 102). At the same time, many co mpanies are in‐

volved in irresp onsible behavio rs, that is, negat ive CSR‐related ac‐

tivities, th at may cause conside rable damage (e.g ., Kang, Germa nn,

& Grewal, 2015; Lenz , Wetzel, & Hammerschmidt, 2017) . However,

little is known a bout the combined effect s of positive and negative

CSR‐related activities on the evaluations of stakeholders, since, es‐

pecially with re gard to the psycholo gical effect s, research has to da te

focused on posit ive activities (Volioti s, Vlachos, & Epitropak i, 2016).

Recent research c alls for empirical inves tigations into how the inter‐

play between ac tively doing good (or fail ing to do so) and eschewing

bad behavior (or fa iling to do so) affects co rporate reputatio n (Lin‐Hi

& Blumberg, 2016; Li n‐Hi & Müller, 2013). The present stu dy, there‐

fore, aims to clari fy how such activities shap e corporate reputation

among the publi c, a particular ly relevant stakeho lder group due to its

comprehensiveness and power.

Crucially, O’Mar a‐Shimek, Guill én, and Bañón Go mis (2015)

argue that repu tations are infl uenced by a company ’s perceived

ethical quali ty rather tha n its actual ap proach to CSR . Indeed,

Bhattacha rya, Korschu n, and Sen (200 9) point out that “sta ke‐

holder evaluat ions are […] often entire ly distinct fr om[,] the ab‐

solute level of CS R activity” (p. 9). Instea d, observers’ react ions to

CSR‐related activities are the result of psychological mechanisms

and boundar y conditions, w hich have received lit tle attentio n

in research (Bau man & Skitka, 2012 ; Gond, El Akrem i, Swaen, &

Babu, 2017).

A psychologic al model that may be highly appl icable in this con‐

text is the catego ry diagnosticity app roach (Skowronski & Carlston ,

1987, 1989), which proposes t hat, in the eyes of an o bserver,

Received:23Dec ember2016 

|

  Revised:7June2 018 

|

  Accepted:22Aug ust2018

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12207

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The impact of CSR on corporate reputation perceptions of the

public—A configurational multi‐time, multi‐source perspective

Lisa Maria Rothenhoefer

University of Mannheim, Mannheim,

Germany

Correspondence

Lisa Maria Rot henhoefer, Universit y of

Mannheim, Schloss, 68131 Mannheim,

Germ any.

Email: lisa.rothenhoefer@hotmail.com

Abstract

This study investig ates the connection betwee n corporate social responsibilit y (CSR)

and corporate repu tation among the pub lic using fuzzy set q ualitative comparat ive

analysis (fsQCA). To examine co mplex processes und erlying the reactions of this in‐

fluential stakeholder group, hypotheses are drawn from the category diagnosticity

approach. There by, a psychological mod el of perceived (im)morality is trans ferred to

the CSR context . In line with these hyp otheses, positive/negati ve CSR activiti es in‐

fluence reputat ion in the expected d irections (H1a, b), while the ef fects of speci fic

configurations of CSR activities reveal an asymmetry suggesting a negativity bias

(H2). Further analyse s confirm that positive effect s require a consistent positive per‐

formance regarding p rior reputations (H3a) and the agg regated CSR activities of sev‐

eral previous year s (H3b, c). Moreover, the relevant patterns var y between industries

(H4). The present stud y thus contributes to CSR resear ch by investigating a powerful

but hitherto understudied stakeholder group through a category diagnosticity lens

combined with a config urational approach to analysis.

KEYWORDS

configurations, corporate social irresponsibility, corporate social responsibilit y, fuzzy set

qualitative comparative analysis, reputation, stakeholder evaluations