Abstract
Corporate social advocacy (CSA) can be sometimes successful—and sometimes unsuccessful—for corporations. These conflicting outcomes of CSA place corporations and their managers in a difficult position: When a corporation engages in CSA, how will the corporation and its managers know if the CSA is going to be successful or unsuccessful? To answer this dilemma, the purpose of this article is to provide a theoretical basis for what leads to CSA being more or less successful. The article looks at how an individual is likely to react to a corporation’s CSA by combining moral foundations theory, balance theory, and CSA authenticity. The main contribution of the theory of CSA success is that it discovers and maps out the first routes by which CSA can be done successfully, as well as provides guidance on how to identify where the CSA went off course if the CSA is determined to be unsuccessful.
If—in just 2 months—a company loses nearly 30 billion dollars in market value, one might expect related news headlines to be about the company’s massive corruption, a large scandal, or significant insider trading. Surely the company did not lose almost 30 billion dollars because of its social advocacy? But this is indeed what happened to Anheuser-Busch InBev, a company that owns Bud Light. In April 2023, CNN reported, “Anti-trans backlash hit Bud Light following an April 1 Instagram post from [Dylan] Mulvaney promoting the beer, in which she showed a custom can that Bud Light sent to her as a gift to mark a milestone in her transition. Mulvaney’s timeline shows one previous post that is also marked as a Bud Light partnership” (Wiener-Bronner, 2023, para. 7). Less than 2 months later, NBC News reported, “Sales of Bud Light continue to plummet” (Wile, 2023, para. 1). On June 2, 2023, the New York Post reported that “Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch InBev has lost a whopping $27 billion in market value in the wake of its star-crossed partnership with Dylan Mulvaney” (Thaler, 2023, para. 1).
This Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light example is used in this article for illustration purposes only, in an effort to provide a concrete example of when a corporation’s social advocacy can turn out to be unsuccessful for the corporation. Corporate social advocacy (CSA) is when a corporation takes a stand on an issue that typically contains three characteristics: The issue is (1) contemporary, (2) controversial, and (3) not clearly linked to the corporation’s business (Parcha, 2023; see also Dodd & Supa, 2014; Hydock et al., 2019). And “[w]hile CSA research has blossomed over the last decade, many aspects of CSA and approaches to understanding . . . remain under examined” (Gaither & Austin, 2022, p. 187). One less understood and opaque part of CSA is knowing when the CSA will be successful and when it will be unsuccessful.
Previous research on CSA has revealed that sometimes CSA can be successful for a corporation—and sometimes it can be unsuccessful for a corporation. One the one hand, CSA contains positive benefits for a corporation because CSA can be viewed as desirable and helpful (Parcha, 2022), it can be persuasive (DiRusso et al., 2022; Parcha & Westerman, 2020), it is sometimes “a strong indicator for potential financial success” (Dodd & Supa, 2015, p. 292; see also findings of Gaither et al., 2018), and “[d]espite some instances of public backlash to CSA . . . recent survey research demonstrates emerging insights that stakeholders generally support corporations that engage in social issues in a purposeful way” (Gaither & Austin, 2022, p. 183). On the other hand, CSA can be a negative for a corporation. Citing specific articles for support (i.e., Burbano, 2021; Kim et al., 2020; Vredenburg et al., 2020; Wettstein & Baur, 2016), Lim and Young (2021) argued that some potential “negative outcomes” of CSA include “stakeholder alienation,” “facing backlash for woke washing,” “demotivating employee morale,” and “NWOM” (negative word-of-mouth) (p. 8).
These mixed understandings of CSA place corporations and their managers in a difficult position because it is unclear whether a corporation’s CSA will turn out to be a success for the corporation or end up being—as the Bud Light example demonstrated—a negative for the corporation. Additionally, studies of CSA have often looked at specific and narrow outcomes of CSA, such as purchase intentions (Dodd & Supa, 2015) or attitude change (Parcha & Westerman, 2020). Although these studies are beneficial, they only tell managers—who want to implement or modify their CSA—that CSA may or may not work in very particular and constrained settings. What is missing from the discussion of CSA is a more general understanding of when CSA is predicted to be successful for a corporation compared to when CSA is predicted to be unsuccessful for a corporation.
The purpose of this article is thus to provide a foundational understanding and theoretical basis for the following question: What makes a corporation’s engagement in CSA more or less likely to be successful for the corporation? This article’s main contribution is to—instead of getting lost in the mixed understandings of positive and negative CSA outcomes—provide clarity on how to navigate CSA toward success, as well as how to identify where the CSA went off course if the CSA is determined to be unsuccessful.
To accomplish this goal, this article will combine three distinct yet significant theories and/or literatures that are relevant for CSA: moral foundations theory (Graham et al., 2013), balance theory (Heider, 1946, 1958), and CSA authenticity (Lim & Young, 2021). Moral foundations theory (MFT) is often used to explain and predict effects of political and/or divisive issues (see Graham et al., 2013), and thus will be quite useful to understanding CSA because one of the defining characteristics of CSA is that CSA is “often politically charged and/or socially divisive” (Gaither & Austin, 2022, p. 179). Balance theory is then used to explain two other effects that have been identified as important in CSA literature (e.g., see Hong & Li, 2020; Rim et al., 2022): whether or not the individual likes the corporation and whether or not an individual agrees with the corporation’s CSA. Finally, CSA authenticity is used because CSA that is perceived to be ungenuine is likely to diminish the success of the CSA. When combined, these literatures provide a robust starting place from which practitioners and managers of CSA implementation can use to predict CSA success. These combined literatures also provide propositions and a conceptual model (see Figure 1) that can be tested by scholars in future research studies. Before beginning with MFT, this article first briefly discusses the distinction between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CSA, and then provides a definition of CSA success.
Conceptual model of the theory of CSA success using moral foundations, agreement with CSA stance, and perceived CSA authenticity.
CSR/CSA Distinction and CSA Success Definition
As mentioned previously, CSA is defined as a corporation’s stances on social issues that are contemporary, controversial, and generally unrelated to the corporation’s business (Parcha, 2023). An important distinction to make when discussing CSA is to note that CSA is not the same thing as corporate social responsibility (CSR). Although the two inform each other, “CSA moves beyond CSR in that it involves corporate support for—or opposition to—controversial social causes or movements, and thus, runs the risk of alienating some stakeholders” (Gaither & Austin, 2022, p. 177).
Corporate social advocacy success is defined as stakeholders’ aggregate favorability toward the CSA. Stated differently, the more favor stakeholders (in aggregate) have toward the CSA, the more successful the CSA. This is not to say that all stakeholders will end up with the same favorability toward the CSA; indeed, they will not. However, although Gaither and Austin (2022) argued that CSA is done “with the understanding that it will not likely be well-received by everyone” (p. 179), successful CSA maximizes favorability toward the CSA for all stakeholders, even for those who are not likely to be receptive toward the CSA. Thus, CSA success is not about all stakeholders arriving at the same favorability toward the CSA, but instead is about maximizing stakeholders’ overall favorability toward the CSA. The theory of CSA success shows how to maximize CSA favorability, depending on a number of conditions.
Dependency of CSA Success on Moral Foundations
Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a well-regarded theory that can be used to make predictions about how individuals—depending on their political leanings—will react to different types of CSA from corporations. The reason political leanings are thought to play a significant role in CSA interpretation is because—as mentioned previously—CSA is “often politically charged” (Gaither & Austin, 2022, p. 179) and is “inherently political” (DiRusso et al., 2022, p. 4). Moral foundations theory is well-suited to assist in making predictions based on political leanings because “[m]oral considerations underlie partisan and ideological identification along with a variety of political attitudes” (Clifford & Jerit, 2013, p. 659). Thus, MFT can help explain how underlying morality affects CSA interpretation.
The basic premise of MFT can be explained through a tongue analogy. Although all people have a tongue, not all people enjoy the same foods. The tongue has five taste receptors on it, yet these five taste receptors can enjoy spicy food for some people and cultures, whereas other people and cultures do not enjoy spicy food as much. This analogy of the tongue is used by MFT theorists (Graham et al., 2013; Haidt & Joseph, 2004) to illustrate a key argument in MFT: People develop different palates even though they all start with the same taste receptors, and MFT argues that people develop different moralities even though people start with the same moral foundations.
The tongue analogy is helpful to understand the basic premise of MFT, but for a more thorough understanding of MFT, the four main building blocks of MFT are now examined (see Graham et al., 2013). First, MFT claims that everyone has some form of morality provided by nature. Specifically, Graham et al. (2013) state that this initial morality “means organized in advance of experience” (p. 61; emphasis in original). Second, MFT argues that culture then influences and shapes this initial morality, providing people with different ways of viewing and enacting morality. Graham et al. explain that “MFT is a theory about the universal first draft of the moral mind and about how that draft gets revised in variable ways across cultures” (p. 65). Third, much of one’s moral evaluation on any number of particular issues happen immediately instead of through careful deliberation. Because of the rate in which moral evaluations are made, “[m]oral evaluation . . . is more of a product of the gut than the head” (Graham et al., 2013, p. 66). Fourth, MFT is a “pluralist” (Graham et al., 2013, p. 57) theory of morality, meaning that the theory posits there are multiple moral foundations, not just one. Whereas some theories of morality assert that all morality boils down to only one morality, and that morality is justice (Graham et al., 2013), MFT recognizes justice as only one part of multiple moral foundations.
As its name implies, MFT asserts there are at least five moral foundations—and probably more—which then lead to different enactments of morality dependent on the culture milieu acting on these foundations. The first foundation is care/harm. This foundation focuses morality on attenuating the suffering of others, and seeks to protect others from those who inflict harm. Graham et al. (2013) lists in a table the “relevant virtues” for each foundation (see p. 68), with the care/harm relevant virtues being caring and kindness.
The second foundation is fairness/cheating. This foundation focuses morality on “nonzero-sum exchanges and relationships” (Graham et al., 2013, p. 69)—the examples given by Graham et al. are cheating in relationships or not getting a soda when one puts a dollar in the vending machine. The relevant virtues of fairness/cheating are fairness, justice, and trustworthiness.
The third foundation is loyalty/betrayal. This foundation focuses morality on “cohesive coalitions” and “intergroup competition” (Graham et al., 2013, p. 70) that happens among groups of people—an example given by Graham et al. (2013) is sports fans. The relevant virtues of loyalty/betrayal are loyalty, patriotism, and self-sacrifice.
The fourth foundation is authority/subversion. This foundation deals with hierarchies in relationships, and the various ways that people perceive these hierarchies. For example, some cultures have much more respect for authorities than other cultures—one culture views respect for authority as a good thing, whereas the other culture views respect for authority as a potential liability (Graham et al., 2013). The relevant virtues of authority/subversion are obedience and deference.
The fifth foundation is sanctity/degradation. This foundation centers on the degree of disgust one has toward certain things (e.g., sexual promiscuity) and the degree to which certain things (e.g., saving sex for marriage) are considered sacrosanct (see Haidt, 2012; as Haidt stated, “because something is so hallowed, so sacred, that we want to protect it from desecration” [p. 173]). The relevant virtues of sanctity/degradation are temperance, chastity, piety, and cleanliness.
What MFT claims is that people all begin with the “first draft” of these moral foundations, but a number of things—such as one’s culture and experiences—could influence which foundations get priority as one develops into an adult. It is quite apparent that some people emphasize certain foundations differently than other people. Think about how holiday parties go with friends and family anytime politics is brought up; here, depending on which foundations are given more importance in discussion of politics could determine whether or not the holiday party will be enjoyed. Predicted by MFT, the importance given or not given to each foundation, as well as the selective combination of certain foundations, would be quite important to getting messages to resonate with certain individuals and rejected by other individuals.
Depending on which moral foundation is being elevated can be useful to predict the political leanings of an individual. Haidt (2012) gives several examples from bumper stickers to magazine advertisements. Without knowing anything about the individual, the bumper stickers and advertisements prioritize certain moral foundations over others, and thus lead one to predict the political affiliation of the car owner or the political affiliation targeted by the advertisement. One “basic pattern [that] has been found in many subsequent studies, using many different methods” is that conservative-leaning individuals prefer the loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations more than liberal-leaning individuals, and liberal-leaning individuals prefer the care and fairness foundations more than conservative-leaning individuals (Graham et al., 2013, p. 75).
Because this difference between liberal-leaning individuals and conservative-leaning individuals has been demonstrated in so many studies (e.g., Graham et al., 2009, 2011, 2012), CSA messages that emphasize loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations are likely to attract the favorability of conservative-leaning individuals, and CSA messages that emphasize care and fairness are likely to attract the favorability of liberal-leaning individuals. Going back to the Bud Light example, perhaps the sanctity foundation was violated in these individuals’ minds by Dylan Mulvaney’s Instagram post; and because the sanctity foundation is especially important to these individuals, this could explain why Bud Light experienced backlash from conservative-leaning individuals. CSA success (or failure) is thus predicted to be dependent on which moral foundations are emphasized.
Proposition 1: Moral foundations are predicted to be an important aspect for CSA success. Specifically, if there is a mismatch between the moral foundations emphasized in the CSA and the moral foundations important to the individual, the CSA is unlikely to be viewed with favor.
Proposition 2a and 2b: The success of CSA is dependent on which combination (or lack thereof) of moral foundations are emphasized. (a) Specifically, for CSA based on care and/or fairness, the CSA will be more successful for liberal-leaning individuals than for conservative-leaning individuals. (b) Conversely, for CSA based on loyalty, authority, and/or sanctity, the CSA will be more successful for conservative-leaning individuals than for liberal-leaning individuals.
Perhaps corporations should just balance their CSA across all five moral foundations, so as to appease both liberal-leaning individuals and conservative-leaning individuals. However, if corporations composed CSA messages that were balanced among all five moral foundations, it is predicted that this would be more favorable to conversative-leaning individuals than liberal-leaning individuals. Although the research patterns find that conservative-leaning individuals prefer the loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations more than liberal-leaning individuals, it can also be predicted that conservative-leaning individuals will tolerate the use of all five moral foundations more than liberal-leaning individuals. For example, Haidt (2012) claimed that “[i]t appears that the left relies primarily on the Care and Fairness foundations, whereas the right uses all five” (p. 21). Further, Graham et al. (2012) found that “liberals dramatically underestimated the Harm and Fairness concerns of conservatives” (p. 10). Additionally, Graham et al. (2009) found this: “Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally” (p. 1029). This means that CSA balanced among all five moral foundations is predicted to be more favorable with conversative-leaning individuals than liberal-leaning individuals.
Proposition 2c: For CSA based on the combination of all five moral foundations, the CSA will be more successful for conservative-leaning individuals than for liberal-leaning individuals.
In this section, MFT has been used to predict the success of CSA dependent on which moral foundation (or combination of moral foundations) was emphasized in the CSA. Whether the individual agrees with the CSA was not as important as whether or not the correct moral foundation is used. Feinberg and Willer (2013) “found that contemporary environmental discourse is based largely on moral concerns related to harm and care, which are more deeply held by liberals than by conservatives. However, we found that reframing proenvironmental rhetoric in terms of purity, a moral value resonating primarily among conservatives, largely eliminated the difference between liberals’ and conservatives’ environmental attitudes” (p. 56). This finding is important because it suggests that whether an individual agrees or disagrees with a corporation’s stance on a particular CSA issue may not be as important as the moral foundation(s) the CSA issue is couched within.
With the importance of moral foundations to the success of CSA established, the next section turns to two secondary considerations: whether the individual agrees or disagrees with the corporation’s stance on a particular CSA and whether or not the individual likes or dislikes the corporation. Balance theory will be used to help make these predictions. The theory will also be used to explain why these secondary considerations are important because certain combinations of these secondary considerations could produce something balance theory argues individuals want to avoid: dissonance.
Balance Theory: Liking or Disliking the Corporation and Its CSA Stance
Balance theory was originally developed to help explain interpersonal relationships from a social psychological perspective. First introduced by Heider (1946, 1958), balance theory can be quite involved (see Heider, 1958; Insko, 1984), but the central idea of balance theory is relatively simple and will be useful in this current theory article: People have connections to both things and other people, and sometimes people like those things and those other people, sometimes they do not, and sometimes people share the same opinion. The connections are called “cognitive units,” which are “when two separate entities are perceived as belonging together based on their relatedness or similar characteristics” (Rim et al., 2022, p. 112). The liking or disliking is called “sentiment.” And the “sharing of similar values and opinions about other persons or entities” (Carson et al., 1997, p. 102) is called “attitude.” There are numerous combinations that can arise based on these connections and their evaluations; for example, I could like another person, but I might find out that this person likes something (e.g., a political theory) I do not like. I could also dislike a different person, and then find out that this other person also likes the same political theory I do not like. With the former person, I would have some dissonance trying to accept my liking of the person with the person’s affinity toward the political theory; with the latter person, I would have less dissonance because this person likes the political theory, but I do not like the person. According to balance theory, “The arrangement of sentiment and cognitive units in social perceptions can result in two mental states: balanced and unbalanced. Generally, people would prefer to see the sentiments and cognitive [units] fit harmoniously, maintaining a ‘balanced state’” (Rim et al., 2022, p. 112).
Balance theory has been used in many scholarly articles, including those dealing with CSA. For example, Parcha (2023) used balance theory to predict the link between CSA and boycotts. Specifically, Parcha proposed that—as CSA increases—boycotts are likely to take place when individuals do not agree with the CSA of a corporation, “even if the individuals like the corporation.” Using cognitive dissonance theory—for which balance theory is related to because both are part of “the family of consistency theories” (Hong & Li, 2020, p. 163)—Hong and Li (2020) examined the “balance between the consumer’s self-identity/value/character, the company’s identity/value/character, and the value expressed through the company’s CSA activities” (p. 163). One finding from Hong and Li (2020) was that “all three congruence-related variables had a significant and positive impact on corporate reputation” (p. 172). Rim et al. (2022) relied on balance theory to study how the (in)congruence between an individual’s perspective about a company’s CSA stance and the individual’s perspective of the company affected the individual’s attitude toward the company and consumer-company identification (CCI). Rim et al. found that when there was balance—for example, when an individual did not like the company but also did not like the company’s CSA stance—there was no effect on attitude toward the company nor CCI; in contrast, Rim et al. did find that when there was imbalance—for example, when an individual did not like the company but liked the company’s CSA stance—there was an effect on attitude toward the company and CCI.
Balance theory is often used in triadic relationships (e.g., Carson et al., 1997; Hong & Li, 2020; Rim et al., 2022); for example, in Rim et al. (2022) and Hong and Li (2020), the company represents one triangle point, the consumer another triangle point, and the CSA issue the final triangle point. The three lines connecting these triangle points—what Carson et al. (1997) calls “bonds”—can either be positive (+) or negative (−).
According to Carson et al. (1997), balance can occur in four settings. The first is when all bonds are positive. For example, an individual likes the corporation, the corporation is favorable toward a particular CSA issue, and the individual also is favorable toward the CSA issue. The other three ways in which balance can occur is when “two of the three bonds are negative” (Carson et al., 1997, p. 104). For example, an individual likes the corporation, the corporation is unfavorable toward a particular CSA issue, and the individual is also unfavorable toward the CSA issue. Here, the only positive bond is the individual–corporation bond, whereas the corporation–CSA issue bond and individual–CSA issue bond are negative.
Imbalance “can occur when one of the three relationships is negative and the other two are positive” (Carson et al., 1997, p. 104). For example, an individual might like a corporation, but the CSA issue the corporation is in favor of is an issue the individual is unfavorable toward. Here, there would be tension because the individual likes the corporation but does not like how the corporation is communicating about the CSA issue. It is also argued here that imbalance can occur when all three bonds are negative (supported also by the first figure in Rim et al., 2022). For example, an individual dislikes a corporation, the corporation is unfavorable toward a CSA issue, and the individual is also unfavorable toward the CSA issue. The tension here is that although the corporation and the individual agree about the CSA issue (both are unfavorable toward it), the individual does not like the corporation; thus, the individual dislikes the corporation but likes how the corporation is communicating about the CSA issue, and the individual would need to reconcile this incongruency to get back to balance.
Using Rim et al. (2022) as a guide, this article relies on balance theory to outline four “states” (Heider, 1946, p. 107) for which the success of CSA will increase or decrease (see Table 1). The first state is called like/agree, which refers to when an individual likes a corporation and agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance. In this state, all the triadic bonds would be positive (+), or the individual–corporation bond would be positive (+) and the other two bonds (individual–CSA issue and corporation–CSA issue) would be negative (−).
Predicted Outcome to CSA Success Based on Balance Theory.
Note. CSA = corporate social advocacy.
The success of CSA will increase when the triadic bonds follow the like/agree categorization. The individual likes the corporation and agrees with their stance on the CSA, so it seems likely that the CSA will be viewed with favor by the individual.
Proposition 3a: The success of CSA will increase when the individual likes the corporation and agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance.
The second state is called dislike/disagree, which refers to when an individual dislikes the corporation and disagrees with the corporation’s CSA stance. In this state, the individual–corporation bond is always negative (−). Each of the remaining bonds (individual–CSA issue and corporation–CSA issue) are either positive (+) or negative (−), but they cannot be the same valence. If the individual–CSA issue is positive (+), the corporation–CSA issue is negative (−), and vice versa.
The success of CSA will decrease when the triadic bonds follow the dislike/disagree categorization. The individual does not like the corporation and does not agree with their stance on the CSA issue, so it seems likely that this CSA stance will be less successful for these types of individuals. In this state, the corporation does not have anything working in their favor: The individual does not like the corporation, and the individual does not like the CSA stance. This double negative is additive, and thus will compound the likelihood that the CSA will fail.
Proposition 3b: The success of CSA will decrease when the individual dislikes the corporation and disagrees with the corporation’s CSA stance.
The third state is called like/disagree, which refers to when an individual likes the corporation but disagrees with the corporation’s CSA stance. In this state, the individual–corporation bond is always positive (+). The remaining bonds (individual–CSA issue and corporation–CSA issue) cannot be of the same valence, but either can be positive (+) or negative (–; Table 2).
Description of Balanced or Imbalanced States and Their Corresponding Bond Valences.
The success of CSA will decrease when the triadic bonds follow the like/disagree categorization. Although the individuals like the corporation, the corporation is supporting a CSA issue that the individuals do not agree with. Thus, the individuals will be experiencing tension, and to resolve this tension, something will have to change. The individuals could change how they view the corporation (start viewing the corporation less positively), or they could change how they view the CSA issue (start agreeing with the corporation’s stance). While both options seem to be viable for the individuals, based off the findings of Rim et al. (2022), it is predicted here that the individuals will start viewing the corporation more negatively. A key finding from Rim et al. was this: When individuals like a corporation yet the “company supported the values they opposed (i.e., issue stance incongruence), their CCI and a company attitude were changed in a negative direction” (p. 127). Thus, because the individuals are going to start viewing the corporation more negatively than in the past, the success of the corporation’s CSA is thought to decrease for these individuals.
Proposition 3c: The success of CSA will decrease when the individual likes the corporation yet disagrees with the corporation’s CSA stance.
The fourth and final state is called dislike/agree, which refers to when an individual dislikes the corporation but agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance. In this state, all the triadic bonds would be negative (−), or the individual–corporation bond would be negative (−) and the other two bonds (individual–CSA issue and corporation–CSA issue) would be positive (+).
The success of CSA will increase when the triadic bonds follow the dislike/agree categorization. If an individual does not like a corporation, but agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance, will the corporation’s CSA stance be successful for this individual? The findings of Rim et al. (2022) again provide insight: “By contrast, for participants in the imbalanced state with a disliked company, which happens when a company and a person supported the same issue, their attitudes were changed in a positive direction” (p. 127). The individual agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance, so the individual is likely to start viewing the corporation more positively than in the past. Having the individual view the corporation more positively than in the past seems to bode well for the success of the corporation’s CSA.
Proposition 3d: The success of CSA will increase when the individual dislikes the corporation yet agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance.
In summary, based on balance theory, the like/agree and dislike/agree states are likely to increase the success of CSA, whereas the dislike/disagree and like/disagree states are likely to decrease the success of CSA. This means that the predictions made here are dependent not on whether an individual likes a corporation, but instead are dependent on whether an individual agrees with the corporation’s CSA. This prediction is likely the case in the Bud Light example: What seemed to matter to individuals was not whether they liked or disliked Bud Light, but whether they liked or disliked the CSA engaged in by Bud Light.
Proposition 4: The success of CSA is dependent more on whether or not the individual agrees with the CSA than on whether or not the individual likes the corporation.
Thus far, this article has argued for emphasizing the correct moral foundation as a primary consideration to the success of CSA, followed by this section on the secondary importance of the (dis)agreement between the individual and the corporation’s CSA stance. The article now turns to the third and final consideration that is argued to contribute to the success of CSA: how authentic the CSA is perceived to be.
CSA Authenticity and Its Effect on CSA Success
It is not uncommon to be suspicious of others (Fein, 1996). Fein (1996) gives several everyday examples of suspicion, including parents who are suspicious of their children being overly and unusually nice before asking the parents for something; here, parents may question the motives of their child’s behavior because the parents think that the child is only engaging in the nice behavior to gain the parent’s favor before making the request.
A self-described “working definition of suspicion” (p. 1165) was provided by Fein (1996), and this definition will be useful in this article for understanding how individuals perceive the genuineness of CSA. Fein defines suspicion as “a dynamic state in which the individual actively entertains multiple, plausibly rival hypotheses about the motives or genuineness of a person’s behavior” (p. 1165). Fein goes on to argue that “suspicion implies that the perceiver entertains the notion that the target is attempting to hide something that, if it were known, would discredit the meaning of the target’s behavior” (p. 1165). Going back to the parent-child example, when a child is unusually nice, the parent may start thinking the child is hiding something: Why is the child being unusually nice? Then, when the child makes a request (in Fein’s example, it is for car keys), the parent’s suspicion is confirmed. The child was trying to hide their request in the nice behavior, and once the parent knows this, the nice behavior of the child loses some of its value.
Trying to perceive the genuineness of an action is not limited to just interpersonal relationships. The genuineness of corporate behavior has been extensively examined. For example, when corporations engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR), are they doing so because they genuinely care about their social responsibility, or because of some other reason, such as making a profit? Many studies and articles have examined this or similarly related questions (e.g., Lynn, 2021; Ngai & Singh, 2021; Waddock & Googins, 2014).
In addition to examining the genuineness of CSR, the genuineness of CSA has also been examined. For example, Parcha (2023) predicted that—dependent on certain types of “legitimacy gaps” (Yim, 2021, p. 69)—CSA will be viewed skeptically. Zhou and Dong (2022) looked to see if an (in)congruency between the CSA communication of a corporation and what a corporation actually does regarding CSA affects negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) and boycott intention; Zhou and Dong argued their “finding confirmed our argument that congruence between CSA words and action plays an important role in predicting consumers’ negative reactions” (p. 178).
In a useful study for the current article, Lim and Young (2021) argued that just as some individuals do not view CSR favorably, “it is not surprising that consumers have a skeptical or suspicious view on a company’s taking a stand on a social-political issue that has great potential to stir controversy” (p. 5). If the social responsibility of corporations is sometimes viewed with suspicion, the more controversial social advocacy of corporations is also likely to be viewed with suspicion (see Parcha, 2023). Considering this, Lim and Young (2021) argued that one important aspect of CSA is its perceived authenticity.
CSA authenticity is defined “as the genuineness and consistency of the firm’s commitment to the advocated issue reflecting the organizational true identity. We argue that these three dimensions of genuineness, consistency, and reflection of true identity are important to establish a high level of CSA authenticity” (Lim & Young, 2021, p. 5). Lim and Young (2021) found that perceived CSA authenticity positively predicted corporate reputation. In another study that examined a version of perceived CSA authenticity—what the authors called perceived corporate political advocacy (CPA) authenticity—a key finding was that “[a]t the individual level . . . low authenticity mitigates the positive effects of aligned CPA on identification and choice . . . but that it does not mitigate the negative effects of misaligned CPA” (Hydock et al., 2020, p. 1148). Both the Lim and Young study and the Hydock et al. (2020) study suggest that the success of CSA is at least partially dependent on perceived CSA authenticity, where higher perceived CSA authenticity will lead to successful CSA compared to lower perceived CSA authenticity.
The thinking that increasing perceived CSA authenticity will lead to a better chance at success of CSA also makes intuitive sense. If a corporation’s engagement in CSA is perceived to be inauthentic, it is not likely that this will help the CSA be successful. Going back to the definition of CSA authenticity provided by Lim and Young (2021), CSA that is viewed as inauthentic would be perceived to be not genuine, inconsistent, and not a true reflection of the corporation’s identity—all of these are negative, and will likely lead to individuals viewing the corporation unfavorably. In contrast, if a corporation’s CSA is viewed as genuine, consistent, and a true reflection of the corporation’s identity, this is unlikely to harm the success of the corporation’s CSA, and instead is likely to help the success of the corporation’s CSA.
Proposition 5a and 5b: Viewing CSA with suspicion is harmful to the success of CSA because it makes one question the authenticity of the CSA. (a) If a corporation’s CSA is viewed as authentic, this will increase the likelihood that the corporation’s CSA is successful. (b) Conversely, if a corporation’s CSA is viewed as inauthentic, this will decrease the likelihood that the corporation’s CSA is successful.
As Figure 1 visualizes, the theory of CSA success predicts when CSA will be most successful compared to when CSA will be least successful. Combining the specific impacts of moral foundations theory, balance theory, and CSA authenticity provides a robust and three-stranded approach to predict with confidence CSA success; the robust and three-stranded approach also provides confidence that these predictions will remain strong even in the presence of other factors that could influence CSA success. Specifically, if the CSA has the correct moral foundations emphasized and the individual agrees with the CSA and the CSA is perceived as authentic, the CSA is highly likely to be successful; the success is predicted to hold steady independent of any other factors that could affect the CSA success. Conversely, if the CSA has the incorrect moral foundations emphasized and the individual disagrees with the CSA and the CSA is perceived as inauthentic, the CSA is highly likely to be unsuccessful; the unsuccess is predicted to hold steady independent of any other factors that could affect the CSA success.
Proposition 6a: CSA will be most successful when the correct moral foundations are emphasized, the individual agrees with the CSA stance, and the corporation’s CSA is viewed as authentic.
Proposition 6b: CSA will be least successful when the incorrect moral foundations are emphasized, the individual disagrees with the CSA stance, and the corporation’s CSA is viewed as inauthentic.
Discussion
Corporate social advocacy has permeated the corporate landscape and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. Despite its widespread use, the scholarly literature offers conflicting and constrained accounts of when CSA is successful or unsuccessful for corporations and their managers. The theory of CSA success combines two established theories—moral foundations theory and balance theory—and one literature—CSA authenticity—to predict when CSA will more or less successful for corporations and their managers. Dong et al. (2023) argued that “there is scant research examining how CSA communication may be directly linked to morality” (p. 141), and the theory of CSA success helps fill this void by arguing for how one’s moral foundations will play an important role in how CSA in interpreted. The theory of CSA success also accounts for the relationship between the individual and the corporation, the congruence between the individual and the corporation’s CSA, and the perceived authenticity of the corporation’s CSA. In combination, the theory of CSA success provides a robust rampart against the potential downsides to CSA engagement, a way to diagnosis and course correct CSA that becomes unsuccessful, and the first routes that corporations and their managers can take to help increase their chances of successful CSA.
Theoretical Contributions
The main theoretical contribution the theory of CSA success makes is providing clarity to the mixed understanding regarding whether CSA will be favorable or unfavorable for corporations and their managers. Previous articles have argued that CSA can be sometimes favorable—and sometimes unfavorable—for a corporation, which leaves corporations and their managers at a loss when trying to decide if (and how) to implement CSA. The theory of CSA success provides clarity to this conundrum because it discovers and maps out routes by which CSA can be done successfully for different types of stakeholders. The theory of CSA success may not outline the only routes to CSA success, as other routes to CSA success may be discovered later, but the end goal will remain the same: successful CSA. Additionally, the political and divisive nature of CSA makes navigating CSA a dangerous proposition, with ample opportunity for failure, and so the theory of CSA success behaves as a general guide on how to avoid the pitfalls of CSA and how to see where the corporation went off course should the CSA become unsuccessful.
The theory of CSA success also helps understand CSA not just in terms of specific and narrow outcomes of CSA, but instead simply in terms of whether or not the CSA will be viewed with favor. Recall that CSA success is defined as stakeholders’ aggregate favorability toward the CSA. Instead of looking at how CSA affects a particular outcome—such as purchase intentions, corporate profitability, corporate reputation, positive attitude change toward the corporations’ position on the CSA issue, and so forth—the theory of CSA success looks at how CSA is (or is not) viewed with favor, and the ways in which to maximize this favorability. It seems reasonable to speculate that successful CSA will lead to more positive outcomes for a corporation (e.g., higher profitability) than unsuccessful CSA, but this is only speculative and not a process the theory of CSA success seeks to explain. Thus, the theory of CSA success explains the ways to achieve favorable CSA, but it does not overtheorize by seeking to explain what happens based on this favorability.
The theory of CSA success also explains how—and why—CSA does not have to be understood as a zero-sum activity by a corporation, in which some of its stakeholders will like the CSA and some will dislike the CSA, effectively cancelling each other out. Instead, CSA can be done successful by both “addressing a social issue or concern among certain stakeholders” (Gaither & Austin, 2022, p. 179) and by seeking to maximize the favorability among other stakeholders who may not share the concern or agree with the CSA stance. Instead of viewing CSA as a zero- or negative-sum activity, CSA can be viewed as a positive-sum activity in which the favorability of the CSA is maximized. In this way, the CSA allows for corporations to take stands on issues they believe they should, while at the same time not being dismissive toward unreceptive stakeholders.
The theory of CSA success enhances CSA theorizing because it makes a necessary and fundamental connection to one’s moral foundations—a connection that is largely missing from CSA research (see Dong et al., 2023, for a rare exception). Without accounting for people’s moral foundations, understanding the effects of CSA messages will be inadequate because perceptions of these controversial social issues are undergirded by one’s moral foundations. What MFT does is help explain why people process political and divisive messages differently, and because a hallmark of CSA is its political and divisive characteristic, MFT is a theory that should be increasingly integrated with CSA research. Theorizing and researching CSA must include both (a) an understanding that CSA is morally laden and (b) a way in which this morally-laden nature of CSA can be taken into account.
A contribution of the theory of CSA success is thus providing a course correction for CSA research, arguing that moral foundations are a necessary navigation tool that will allow CSA research to converge in understanding the antecedents and outcomes of CSA. The current landscape of CSA research is quite divergent, and this research needs underlying theorizing from which to build toward consensus. It is argued here that the empirical research of CSA has gone too far ahead of the theory of CSA, and consequentially may require some resetting and redoing of the CSA scholarship. The empirical studies of CSA are becoming abundant, yet they are largely missing the foundational morality dimension that may call into question—or change the interpretation of—these studies’ findings.
The theory of CSA success also contributes to understandings about balance theory. Rim et al. (2022) argued that “[c]ompanies that initially do not enjoy a positive prior attitude could have more opportunities to develop new, positive relationships with publics if they fit their issue stances” (p. 129). Stated differently, the theory of CSA success also agrees with this counterintuitive perspective: Sometimes imbalance is better than balance. Recall from balance theory, “Generally, the parties involved will want to make the easiest change possible to restore balance” (Carson et al., 1997, p. 105). However, as argued in Proposition 3d, imbalance will be better for the success of a corporation’s CSA when the individual agrees with the corporation’s CSA stance yet does not like the corporation. In this case, the individual likes the corporation’s CSA, and because of this, the individual is predicted to begin to like the corporation more than the individual did before, and in the process restore balance. The theoretical contribution here is that—in the context of CSA—imbalance is better than balance for the corporation only when the individual already does not like the corporation. Of course, restoring balance is still desired, but—going back to the Carson et al. (1997) quote—the “easiest change” for the corporation is to do nothing, and let the restoration of balance happen through the individual. In short, when an individual dislikes the corporation, imbalance is good for the corporation and its CSA success.
Besides these contributions, the theory of CSA success further helps extend CSA theorizing to a variety of cultures and contexts. Stating that CSA needs to be applied beyond “only one country or cultural context,” Gaither and Austin (2022) argued, “Future research is recommended to address CSA on an international scale to determine the effects of addressing social issues in these varying contexts” (p. 187). The most specific way in which the theory of CSA success cuts across cultural boundaries is its use of MFT because MFT can be applied to multiple cultures, not just Western cultures (e.g., see Graham et al., 2013, for examples). As Graham et al. (2013) argued, “The link between moral foundations and political orientation appears robust across cultures” (p. 93). By linking CSA with MFT, the theory of CSA success not only uses MFT to help explain the political and divisive nature of CSA, but MFT is also used to help answer Gaither and Austin’s call because MFT provides the opportunity and the guidance on how to understand CSA in many cultural settings. Additionally, Parcha (2023) argued that “CSA is not just confined to the United States,” and thus theories of CSA must also apply beyond the United States, which is what the theory of CSA success does.
Practical Contributions
To increase the likelihood of CSA success, the current theory proposes that corporations and their managers make sure a few guidelines are followed when implementing CSA. First, the correct moral foundation(s) must be emphasized in CSA messaging. What moral foundation(s) are emphasized in CSA messages will play a significant role in whether or not the CSA is successful. This will be a tricky thing for corporations and their managers to navigate because it is not as simple as emphasizing all five moral foundations in CSA. As discussed in the lead up to Proposition 2c, conservative-leaning individuals tend to be more receptive and open to all five moral foundations compared to liberal-leaning individuals. Thus, emphasizing all five moral foundations would be good CSA for conservative-leaning target groups, but would be less effective for liberal-leaning target groups. Because political leanings are tied to which moral foundations are prioritized, the practical suggestion for corporations and their managers when implementing CSA is to do one of two things: (1) Continually vary which moral foundation the CSA emphasizes; for example, sometimes frame the CSA according to the care foundation, and other times frame the same CSA according to the sanctity foundation. This can be done simultaneously, for example, in different ads marketed at the same time. As the study mentioned earlier from Feinberg and Willer (2013) demonstrated, just reframing messages according to different moral foundations can make a big difference in the interpretation of the messages. (2) Survey target audiences to discover their political leanings, and then tailor CSA accordingly. In areas that are more conservative-leaning than liberal-leaning, frame CSA in terms of loyalty, authority, and/or sanctity. In areas that are more liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning, frame CSA in terms of care and/or fairness.
Second, if the corporation and its managers know a large percentage of their stakeholders will disagree with the CSA, the CSA should be avoided until individual perceptions of the issue change. As argued in Proportion 3a through Proposition 4, CSA is more likely to be successful for individuals that agree with the CSA than for individuals that disagree with the CSA. For issues in which only a small percentage of the corporation’s target audience will disagree with the CSA, the CSA will be safer to engage in. For example, perhaps Bud Light had not realized that so many individuals would disagree with the CSA, which could be another reason why the CSA in the Bud Light example was unsuccessful. Additionally, if the corporation feels it has no choice but to engage in the CSA (perhaps because being silent could be viewed as taking a stand, or because the corporation believes it is the right thing to do), framing the CSA according to the correct moral foundations, as the previous practical suggestion mentioned, should help the success of the CSA even for target audiences that disagree with the CSA.
Third, corporations should make efforts to convince their stakeholders that their CSA is genuine. Just as ungenuine people are disliked, so too are ungenuine CSA initiatives. In the Bud Light example, the CSA may have been viewed—at least to some individuals—as inauthentic to the brand of Bud Light. To make sure CSA is authentic, Lim and Young (2021) argued, “Corporate public relations managers can achieve CSA authenticity through consistency in their firm’s CSA and its actions and delivery of authentic commitment to the advocated issue by eliminating the fake engagement perception” (p. 8). Thus, consistency and commitment to CSA are important components to help the CSA be viewed as authentic, and corporations and their managers should seek to implement those components.
Opportunities for Future Research
The first opportunity for future research is to test the propositions and model in this article. The propositions could be tested individually, or a few at a time, and the model could be tested section-by-section. Propositions could be tested individually, or a small number of select ones could be grouped together. For example, Proposition 1 could be tested in multiple studies to see if moral foundations are an important aspect for CSA success. Multiple competing factors—even those identified in this article, such as CSA authenticity—could be pitted against moral foundations to see which factors explain CSA success best. Other propositions could be grouped together and tested. For example, Propositions 2a to 2c could be tested in an experimental design study in which participants are randomly assigned to conditions that emphasize different combinations of moral foundations in the corporation’s CSA. Regardless of what proposition or part of the model future researchers examine, there are a few good starting places that can help in designing the studies. Graham et al. (2013) is a good place to look for example studies and measures of moral foundations, and Feinberg and Willer (2013) is a good study that demonstrates how to assign different moral foundations for different conditions. Rim et al. (2022) is a good article to see how to create balance and imbalanced conditions in the setting of CSA. Lim and Young (2021) offer a measure of CSA authenticity.
The second future research opportunity would be to examine if different types of corporations can engage in CSA with more success compared to other corporations. For example, Gaither and Austin (2022) pointed out that the way a corporation is perceived to be in its identity—for example, as “values-oriented,” “market-driven,” or “results-oriented,” (pp. 184, 185)—can influence how its CSA is viewed. Corporate identity, then, may be an important additional factor affecting CSA success that future research can take a look at.
Third, future research could also look for additional routes to CSA success. This article presents routes for which to achieve CSA success. However, just as summitting El Capitan in Yosemite National Park can be done via various routes, there may be other routes to achieve CSA success. Perhaps future routes will also use some of the routes in this article as a starting point—maybe the moral foundations part—and then diverge from there. Or maybe entire new routes are found. Some routes may be better than others, but the point is that future researchers should continue to provide theory and empirical evidence that maps out routes by which corporations can safely navigate the precarious nature of CSA.
Conclusion
According to mountaineer Reinhold Messner, “Mountains are not fair or unfair, they are just dangerous” (Climbing Staff, 2022). Who is to say whether CSA is fair or unfair, for perhaps it is a little of both, but one thing is for certain: CSA is sometimes dangerous. Although CSA can be rewarding, CSA can also be quite unsuccessful for corporations—potentially costing them billions of dollars, as the Bud Light example illustrated. Yet just like rock climbing, despite its dangers, there seems to be no end in sight for corporations and their managers engaging in CSA. Because corporations and their managers will continue their engagement in CSA, this article provides a way in which this engagement can be done with success. Certainly other routes—partially new routes or completely new routes—to the summit of CSA success will be discovered by future researchers. The goal of all these routes, including the routes outlined in this article, is to minimize the danger endemic to CSA and to maximize the likelihood of CSA success.
Footnotes
Author Note
The manuscript is original and is not under consideration or published elsewhere.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was supported by a Penn State Hazleton Research and Professional Development Grant.
