Evaluating the Role of Virtual Influencers as CSR Ambassadors: Impact of Human-Likeness on Environmental Advocacy

Abstract

Given the rapid technological advances, organizations are increasingly adopting technologies to reach their audiences. Virtual influencers—computer-generated characters that mimic real human beings—have emerged as AI-driven communication tools on social media. Grounded in social presence theory, this study explores how their visual and mental human-likeness influence audience responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) messages on environmental issues. An online survey of 502 U.S. social media users revealed that virtual influencers’ lifelike appearance and cognition enhance perceived expertise and issue-influencer congruence. These perceptions, in turn, increase CSR message acceptance. The study offers theoretical and practical implications for adopting virtual influencers.

Keywords

virtual influencers human-likeness environmental issue-influencer congruence corporate social responsibility sustainability communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alboqami

(2023). Trust me, I’m an influencer! – Causal recipes for customer trust in artificial intelligence influencers in the retail industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 72, Article 103242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103242

Alhouti

Johnson

C. M.

Holloway

B. B.

(2016). Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1242–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.007

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Appel

Weber

Krause

Mara

(2016). On the eeriness of service robots with emotional capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 411–412). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451781

Areni

C. S.

(2002). The proposition-probability model of argument structure and message acceptance. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/341569

Atanasov

Chipriyanova

Krasteva-Hristova

(2023). Integration of digital technologies in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(8), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16080373

Baxter (2023). Making a meaning difference: Corporate responsibility report. https://www.baxter.com/sites/g/files/ebysai3896/files/2024-07/2023_Baxter_Corporate_Responsibility_Report.pdf

Blut

Wang

Wünderlich

N. V.

Brock

(2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y

Boerman

S. C.

Meijers

M. H. C.

Zwart

(2022). The importance of influencer-message congruence when employing greenfluencers to promote pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 16(7), 920–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2115525

10.

Broadbent

(2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958

11.

Browning

Lee

Park

Y. E.

Kim

Collins

(2020). Muting or meddling? Advocacy as a relational communication strategy affecting organization–public relationships and stakeholder response. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1026–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020916810

12.

Byun

K. J.

Ahn

S. J.

(2023). A systematic review of virtual influencers: Similarities and differences between human and virtual influencers in interactive advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 23(4), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2236102

13.

Chen

Y.-R. R.

Hung-Baesecke

C.-J. F.

Cheng

(2023). When non-CSR-themed social media influencers endorse corporate CSR initiatives: Effects of publics’ perceived influencer characteristics and leadership. Public Relations Review, 49(1), Article 102288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102288

14.

Cheng

Chen

Y. R. R.

Hung-Baesecke

C. J. F.

(2021). Social media influencers in CSR endorsement: The effect of consumer mimicry on CSR behaviors and consumer relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 39(4), 744–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320987184

15.

Chon

M. G.

Kim

(2021). Megaphoning effects of skepticism, cynicism, and situational motivation on an environmental CSR activity. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102082.

16.

Christis

Wang

(2021). Communicating environmental CSR towards consumers: The impact of message content, message style and praise tactics. Sustainability, 13(7), Article 3981. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073981

17.

Cui

Lockee

Meng

(2013). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 661–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1

18.

Cummings

J. J.

Wertz

(2018, July). Technological predictors of social presence: A foundation for a meta-analytic review and empirical concept explication. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (Prague).

19.

Deivanayagam

T. A.

English

Hickel

Bonifacio

Guinto

R. R.

Hill

K. X.

Huq

Issa

Mulindwa

Nagginda

H. P.

de Morais Sato

Selvarajah

Sharma

Devakumar

(2023). Envisioning environmental equity: Climate change, health, and racial justice. The Lancet (British Edition), 402(10395), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00919-4

20.

Dimock

(2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

21.

Dong

Sun

Lee

(2024). Linking interacting/engaging environmental CSR communication strategy and employees’ pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs): Mediating roles of communal relationship and employee empowerment. Corporate Communications, 29(3), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-05-2023-0068

22.

Rui

J. R.

(2023). How parasocial relationship and influencer-product congruence shape audience’s attitude towards product placement in online videos: The mediation role of reactance. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 1315–1329. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S406558

23.

Duong

H. L.

Tran

M. T.

(2024). Virtual voices for sustainable values: Exploring content themes and advocacy strategies in the sustainability promotion of virtual influencers. Communication Today, 15(1), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.34135/communicationtoday.2024.Vol.15.No.1.8

24.

Duong

H. L.

Tran

M. T.

T. K. O.

Tran

T. K. C.

(2025). The role of virtual influencers in environmental messaging: A case study of Noonoouri. Environmental Sociology, 11(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2024.2408702

25.

Fernandez

Hartmann

Apaolaza

(2022). What drives CSR communication effectiveness on social media? A process-based theoretical framework and research agenda. International Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 385-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1947016

26.

Gerrath

M. H.

Olya

Shah

(2024). Virtual influencers and pro-environmental causes: the roles of message warmth and trust in experts. Journal of Business Research, 175, 114520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114520

27.

Ghazali

E. M.

Mutum

D. S.

Chong

J. H.

Nguyen

(2018). Do consumers want mobile commerce? A closer look at M-shopping and technology adoption in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(4), 1064-1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-05-2017-0093

28.

Gray

H. M.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619-619.

29.

Hovland

C. I.

Janis

I. L.

Kelley

H. H.

(1953). Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press.

30.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

31.

Javed

Rashidin

M. S.

Jian

(2024). Effects of heuristic and systematic cues on perceived content credibility of Sina Weibo influencers: The moderating role of involvement. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), Article 1635. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04107-w

32.

Jiang

Y. (Nicole)

Cheng

Wang

(2025). Leveraging AI in CSR: How social-oriented chatbots influence Chinese consumers’ supportive actions via dialogic communication. Public Relations Review, 51(1), Article 102541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102541

33.

Jin

S. V.

Ryu

Muqaddam

(2021). I trust what she’s #endorsing on Instagram: Moderating effects of parasocial interaction and social presence in fashion influencer marketing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 25(4), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-04-2020-0059

34.

Kim

(2024). Fake human but real influencer: the interplay of authenticity and humanlikeness in Virtual Influencer communication? Fashion and Textiles, 11(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-024-00380-0

35.

Kim

D. Y.

Kim

H. Y.

(2021). Trust me, trust me not: A nuanced view of influencer marketing on social media. Journal of Business Research, 134, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.024

36.

Kim

(2022). Keeping up with influencers: Exploring the impact of social presence and parasocial interactions on Instagram. International Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1886477

37.

Kim

(2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6

38.

Kim

Yoon

H. J.

(2024). The effectiveness of influencer endorsements for smart technology products: The role of follower number, expertise domain and trust propensity. The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 33(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2023-4376

39.

Kim

T. H.

(2026). Mental and physical humanlikeness in artificial intelligence influencers: Effects on humanness, eeriness, and consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 25(1), 102-117.

40.

Lee

S. Y.

Chung

(2018). Effects of emotional visuals and company–cause fit on memory of CSR information. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.001

41.

Lee

Tao

(2020). Employees as information influencers of organization’s CSR practices: The impacts of employee words on public perceptions of CSR. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101887

42.

Lee

Y.-J.

Cho

(2022). Socially stigmatized company’s CSR efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic: The effects of CSR fit and perceived motives. Public Relations Review, 48(2), Article 102180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102180

43.

(2024). Virtual influencers in advertisements: Examining the role of authenticity and identification. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 24(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2270478

44.

Liu

Wang

(2025). Fostering parasocial relationships with virtual influencers in the uncanny valley: Anthropomorphism, autonomy, and a multigroup comparison. Journal of Business Research, 186, Article 115024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115024

45.

Lou

Kiew

S. T. J.

Chen

Lee

T. Y. M.

Ong

J. E. C.

Phua

(2023). Authentically fake? How consumers respond to the influence of virtual influencers. Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2149641

46.

Lou

Yuan

(2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501

47.

Men

L. R.

Zhou

Jin

Thelen

(2023). Shaping corporate character via chatbot social conversation: Impact on organization-public relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 49(5), Article 102385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102385

48.

Moustakas

Lamba

Mahmoud

Ranganathan

(2020). Blurring lines between fiction and reality: Perspectives of experts on marketing effectiveness of virtual influencers. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CyberSecurity49315.2020.9138861

49.

Munnukka

Maity

Reinikainen

Luoma-aho

. (2019). “Thanks for watching”. The effectiveness of YouTube vlogendorsements. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.014

50.

Ocean Conservancy. (2024, January). Plastic bottles & lids among top 10 most commonly found items at cleanups. https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2025/01/15/plastic-bottles-lids-most-commonly-found-cleanups/

51.

Olbermann

Nagl

(2025). Reputation through artificial intelligence? On the effectiveness of virtual influencers as spokespersons in corporate crisis communication. Frontiers in Communication, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1509682

52.

Olbermann

Reis

(2025). It’s a match: The impact of influencer-message congruence and recipients identity on perceptions of rainbowwashing. Journal of Promotion Management, 31(1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2024.2422877

53.

Oudah

Makovi

Gray

Battu

Rahwan

(2024). Perception of experience influences altruism and perception of agency influences trust in human–machine interactions. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 12410. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63360-w

54.

Park

Lee

J. M.

Xiong

V. Y.

Septianto

Seo

(2021). David and Goliath: When and why micro-influencers are more persuasive than mega-influencers. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1980470

55.

Park

S. (Steven)

Wei

Lee

(2024). Revisiting the elaboration likelihood model in the context of a virtual influencer: A comparison between high- and low-involvement products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(4), 1638–1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2290

56.

Park

Sung

(2023). The interplay between human likeness and agency on virtual influencer credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(10), 764–771. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0060

57.

Pradhan

Kuanr

Anupurba Pahi

Akram

M. S.

(2023). Influencer marketing: When and why gen Z consumers avoid influencers and endorsed brands. Psychology & Marketing, 40(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21749

58.

Quach

Cheah

Thaichon

(2024). The power of flattery: Enhancing prosocial behavior through virtual influencers. Psychology & Marketing, 41(7), 1629–1648. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22001

59.

Rim

Kim

(2016). Dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) skepticism and their impacts on public evaluations toward CSR. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(5–6), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2016.1261702

60.

Sands

Ferraro

Demsar

Chandler

. (2022). False idols: Unpacking the opportunities and challenges of falsity in the context of virtual influencers. Business Horizons, 65(6), 777-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2022.08.002

61.

Short

Williams

Christie

(1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.

62.

Sparkman

Attari

S. Z.

(2020). Credibility, communication, and climate change: How lifestyle inconsistency and do-gooder derogation impact decarbonization advocacy. Energy Research & Social Science, 59, 101290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101290

63.

Stein

J. P.

Linda Breves

Anders

(2024). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: The role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media & Society, 26(6), 3433–3453. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221102900

64.

Stein

J. P.

Ohler

(2017). Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind—The influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition, 160, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.010

65.

Stevens

J. P.

(1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

66.

Teichmann

F. M. J.

Wittmann

Sergi

B. S. S.

(2023). What are the consequences of corporate greenwashing? A look into the consequences of greenwashing in consumer and financial markets. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society (Online), 21(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2022-0090

67.

Tsai

W. H. S.

Liu

Chuan

C. H.

(2021). How chatbots’ social presence communication enhances consumer engagement: the mediating role of parasocial interaction and dialogue. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 460-482. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2019-0200

68.

C. H.

(2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1006/jnca.1999.0099

69.

Tung

T. M.

Lan

D. H.

(2024). Cultivating conservation connections: A look at virtual influencers in promoting environmental awareness on social media. Journal of Media and Communication Research, 16(3), 79-95.

70.

Wang

Huang

(2018). Communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR) on social media: How do message source and types of CSR messages influence stakeholders’ perceptions? Corporate Communications, 23(3), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2017-0067

71.

Wang

S. W.

Scheinbaum

A. C.

(2018). Enhancing brand credibility via celebrity endorsement: Trustworthiness trumps attractiveness and expertise. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2017-042

72.

S. W.

Chiang

P. Y.

(2023). Exploring the mediating effects of the theory of planned behavior on the relationships between environmental awareness, green advocacy, and green self-efficacy on the green word-of-mouth intention. Sustainability, 15(16), Article 12127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612127

73.

Yang

Chuenterawong

Lee

Chock

T. M.

(2023). Anthropomorphism in CSR endorsement: A comparative study on humanlike vs. cartoonlike virtual influencers’ climate change messaging. Journal of Promotion Management, 29(5), 705–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2022.2163041

74.

Yin

Wang

Guo

Shao

(2023). More than appearance: The uncanny valley effect changes with a robot’s mental capacity. Current Psychology, 42(12), 9867–9878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02298-y

75.

Dickinger

K. K. F.

Egger

(2024). Artificial intelligence-generated virtual influencer: Examining the effects of emotional display on user engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, Article 103560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103560

76.

Yue

C. A.

Men

L. R.

Mitson

Davis

D. Z.

Zhou

(2024). Artificial intelligence for internal communication: Strategies, challenges, and implications. Public Relations Review, 50(5), Article 102515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102515

77.

Zhang

Sun

Zhou

Ren

(2025). How visual and mental human-likeness of virtual influencers affects customer–brand relationship on E-commerce platform. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(3), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20030200

78.

Zhang

Jiang

Kim

(2024). Human vs. AI influencer activism: Exploring self-branding and issue advocacy effectiveness through social influence processes. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 24(4), 382–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2024.2407776