719835

research-article2017
JOBXXX10.1177/2329488417719835International Journal of Business CommunicationRim

Original Research
International Journal of
Business Communication
Proactive Versus Reactive 1­–24
© The Author(s) 2017
CSR in a Crisis: An Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Impression Management DOI: 10.1177/2329488417719835
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417719835
journals.sagepub.com/home/job
Perspective

Hyejoon Rim1 and Mary Ann T. Ferguson2

Abstract
This study investigates the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices on
protecting and restoring company reputation in crisis situations. The results suggest
the ability of proactive CSR to counter potential damage to corporate reputation
caused by a crisis but not to serve as a remedy after a crisis. The findings further
indicate a significant interaction effect between crisis type and the fit of reactive CSR
for a company without proactive CSR. For a preventable crisis, a company is better
off choosing low-fit reactive CSR than not engaging in reactive CSR at all. In a victim
crisis, low-fit reactive CSR is more effective in improving company reputation than
high-fit reactive CSR. When a company has been previously engaged in proactive
CSR, the impact of fit across crisis types disappears. The mediating role of perceived
altruism suggests the importance of sincerity in CSR.

Keywords
corporate social responsibility, crisis communication, impression management, CSR-
crisis fit

Companies have competing motives for engaging in socially responsible practices,

from purely philanthropic to strategic considerations of their bottom-line benefits such
as increasing revenue, generating favorable corporate images, and enhancing corpo-
rate reputation (Brønn & Vidaver-Cohen, 2009). When a company communicates its
corporate social responsibility (CSR), people tend to speculate about the underlying

1University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

2University of Florida, Florida, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Hyejoon Rim, Assistant Professor, Hubbard School of Journalism & Mass Communication. , University of
Minnesota, 206 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Email: hrim@umn.edu
2 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

motivations (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Yoon, Gurhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006).
Research has documented that suspicion regarding a company’s motives rises if the
companies are perceived to be too focused on their image only for the promotional
benefits of their contributions, which may reduce CSR effectiveness (Bae & Cameron,
2006; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Yoon et al., 2006).
Communicating a CSR campaign after a crisis is a delicate task. Recall British
Petroleum’s crisis in 2010, the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history. Ironically, since
2000, the company had made efforts to change its image to that of a sustainable and
environment-friendly company by launching a $200 million branding campaign, and
introduced a new logo representing the company’s new initiatives (Landman, 2010).
Due to the crisis, however, the company suffered from criticism for the discrepancy
between what it said and how it behaved. After the crisis, to restore its damaged repu-
tation, the company actively launched CSR campaigns, but a selection of CSR domains
(i.e., a cause perceptually related to the crisis event or one that has no relation to the
crisis) remained controversial to public relations practitioners and scholars.
The British Petroleum example raises the following questions: First, how did the
company’s prior efforts to use CSR influence the public’s evaluation of the company
after the crisis? And how did this evaluation interact with the type of crisis? Second, in
terms of postcrisis reactive CSR, should the company have chosen an environment-
related domain or would another CSR approach have worked better? And how did the
public’s evaluation of the company interact with the type of crisis? Third, with those who
already had established CSR associations for the company, did the relevance of the CSR
domain influence the public’s evaluations of the company and perceived motivation?
To this end, the study examines the effects of proactive and reactive CSR on pro-
tecting and restoring corporate reputation in crisis situations. Applying Wagner, Lutz,
and Weitz’s (2009) conceptualization, proactive CSR refers to a promotional method
of reputation management strategy when the company voluntarily engages in CSR
practices prior to a potential crisis. Reactive CSR, in contrast, reflects a defensive
method of reputation improvement in which the company engages in CSR practices in
response to or after a crisis (Groza, Pronschinske, & Walker, 2011). As research exam-
ining proactive CSR and reactive CSR simultaneously has been limited (Wagner et al.,
2009), the current research attempts to examine how effectiveness varies depending
on when the company communicates CSR (i.e., whether it is proactive, reactive, or
both). In addition, the study examines the effectiveness of reactive CSR fit (i.e., high-
fit, low-fit, no reactive CSR) in the postcrisis phase to provide insight into strategic
management of CSR.

Linking Impression Management, CSR, and Crisis Communications

Impression management provides a framework for conceptualizing the link between
CSR and crisis communications. Impression management is a goal-oriented process
intended to create or protect a desired perceived image (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Like
individuals, organizations strive to influence perceptions by creating desirable images
and avoiding undesirable ones (Staw, 1991). Organizational impression management is
Rim and Ferguson 3

defined as “any action that is intentionally designed and carried out to influence an
audience’s perceptions of the organization” (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Cilstrap,
2008, p. 1095). The motivation to manage impressions is to maximize rewards and
minimize punishment (Schlenker, 1980).
In the organizational setting, there are two self-presentation motives for corpora-
tions: desire for approval and desire for status (Highhouse, Brooks, & Gregarus, 2009).
Research has confirmed that organizations use impression management strategies to
restore legitimacy after crisis, to increase acceptance of controversial decisions or
practices, to create a desirable corporate image, and to influence the perceptions of key
stakeholders (Groza et al., 2011). The impressions that a company manages ultimately
constitute the public’s perception of the company and contribute to the company’s
reputation, which is defined as a stakeholder’s cognitive evaluation of a company
determined by its past behaviors over time (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001).
The prominence of CSR reflects stakeholders’ demands for businesses to have a
sense of social responsibility and concern for public interests. Beyond the normative
stance of CSR rooted in morality, companies adopt CSR for strategic purposes to
enhance their competitive advantage, including their image (Lee, 2008). To maximize
CSR effectiveness, corporate managers take strategic approaches to CSR governance
and put effort into determining how to best demonstrate the links between CSR initia-
tives, corporate reputation, and social outcomes (Rangan, Chase, & Karim, 2015).
From an impression management point of view, CSR practices are motivated by the
goal of social approval and/or status (Highhouse et al., 2009), and these motivations
are closely related to organizational legitimacy (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).
Meanwhile, impression management can also be applied to understand crisis com-
munication given it concerns strategically influencing the public’s perceptions to off-
set or repair a damaged organizational image. Corporate crisis broadly refers to an
unexpected event that generates a threat to or challenges an organization’s legitimacy
(Dean, 2004). Because of its potential impact on the organization’s reputation, public
relations scholars have paid great attention to the effects of crisis communication on
diminishing negative perceptions of organizations (Coombs & Holladay, 2008) and
repairing their images (Benoit, 1997). Crisis communications include the collection,
processing, and dissemination of information to people inside and outside of the orga-
nization to address a crisis situation (Coombs & Holladay, 2008).
Focusing on “message options,” it emphasizes the importance of communication.
When stakeholders question whether the organization meets normative expectations,
the organization should strategically communicate and respond to the stakeholders,
and this may shape stakeholders’ views of an organization (Benoit, 1997). In a similar
vein, Coombs (1995) lists three objectives of crisis response strategies in terms of
protecting reputation: shape attributions of the crisis, change perceptions of the orga-
nization in the crisis, and reduce the negative influences generated by the crisis. These
objectives are aligned with the organization’s impression management. Research has
confirmed that organizations use impression management strategies to restore legiti-
macy after crisis, to create desired corporate images, and to influence the perception of
key publics (Highhouse et al., 2009).
4 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Public’s Attribution to Proactive and Reactive CSR

While impression management can link between CSR and crisis communication, attri-
bution theory provides a theoretical guide to understand the public’s response to these
public relations practices. Attribution theory explains how people interpret events,
how they evaluate the underlying motives of others, and how causal inferences influ-
ence their attitudes and behaviors (Forehand & Grier, 2003; Kelley, 1967, 1973). In
the CSR context, the theory explains how the public attributes a company’s CSR mes-
sages and why perceived motivations for a company’s engagement in CSR matter. It
further explains why the public’s attribution may differ depending on the timing of the
message delivery.
In the current study, proactive CSR occurs when companies convey CSR-related
information consistently to create a picture of being socially responsible before reports
of negative behavior (Wagner et al., 2009). A reactive CSR occurs when, to protect its
image, a company announces its CSR after reports of negative behavior, such as after
a corporate crisis (Wagner et al., 2009). It is important to note that the timing of CSR
communication would influence the public’s attribution of CSR motives and thus the
CSR evaluation (Yoon et al., 2006).
Studies have also shown that companies’ CSR efforts generally increase positive
company evaluation (e.g., Hong & Rim, 2010; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). However,
several studies have claimed that CSR can backfire on a company’s reputation, high-
lighting the importance of the public’s attribution of CSR motives (Becker-Olsen,
Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Yoon et al., 2006). That is, when there is a reason to suspect
the authenticity of the presented information, people engage in more complex message
processing. If the company has recently experienced a crisis or bad publicity, the pub-
lic may see the nature of CSR as reactive—an effort to restore the company’s image
rather than a benevolent effort (Dean, 2004; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).
Given that message, recipients of reactive CSR tend to speculate about the underly-
ing motivations of CSR. As a result, it is less likely to generate positive results than
proactive CSR (Groza et al., 2011). Specifically, comparing proactive and reactive
CSR, Groza et al. (2011) found that proactive CSR is perceived as more strategic- and
value-driven than reactive CSR. Based on previous research findings, the study pre-
dicts that proactive CSR communication leads to a higher degree of perceived altruism
and positive company reputation than reactive communication.

Interaction Effects Between Proactive CSR and Crisis Type

This study suggests that crisis types may influence the effectiveness of proactive and
reactive CSR communication. Regarding the effects of proactive CSR, past studies
generally suggest the company’s CSR engagement can buffer reputation damage in
time of crisis (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). The company’s CSR efforts influence
what people know about the company (Brown & Dacin, 1997; S. Kim, 2011). Brown
and Dacin (1997) emphasized the importance of CSR associations, suggesting that a
negative CSR association negatively affects overall product evaluation, while positive
Rim and Ferguson 5

CSR association positively influences product evaluation. However, the degree of

benefits elicited by proactive CSR may vary depending on the type of crisis.
Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT; Coombs, 2007) explains how peo-
ple perceive the causes for an event. Primarily focusing on protecting organizational
reputation during a crisis, SCCT offers a framework to understand the dynamics of
crisis situations that may influence public attributions of crisis responsibility, and ulti-
mately influence attitudinal and behavioral intentions toward an organization (Coombs,
2007). According to SCCT, crisis situations vary depending on how the public assigns
responsibility.
This study adopts two dimensions that clearly contrast the responsibility of the
organization: victim and preventable clusters. The victim cluster includes crises such
as natural disasters, where the company is a victim of the crisis as well (Coombs,
2006). In this case, there is low or no perceived responsibility for the crisis event. In
contrast, the preventable cluster includes crises such as organizational misdeeds,
where the company has responsibility for the crisis event (Coombs, 2006). Based on
SCCT, the study predicts that a victim crisis leads to a higher degree of perceived
altruism and company reputation than a preventable crisis.
SCCT theory suggests that in addition to the crisis type impact, the reputational
threat can be intensified by crisis history or relational history. Considering the benefits
of CSR discussed in the earlier section, the present study suggests that proactive CSR
will help a company recover from reputational damage. CSR association will decrease
the perceived attribution of crisis responsibility for the company and help protect it
from public blame. The study also assumes that the proactive CSR impact will be
greater when a company experiences a preventable crisis rather than a victim crisis.
Because the victim crisis itself does not trigger company blame, there should be no
significant difference between the public’s judgment of a company with proactive
CSR and one without. With a preventable crisis, however, CSR helps decrease the
degree of blame for crisis responsibility, whereas absence of CSR can increase blame
for crisis responsibility. In other words, the effects of CSR on the perceptions of a
company’s altruistic motives for protecting company reputation will be greater when
the company experiences a preventable crisis versus a victim crisis.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The impact of previous CSR presence will be greater with a
preventable crisis than with a victim crisis. That is, the difference between proac-
tive CSR and reactive CSR on (a) perceived altruism and (b) company reputation
will be greater in the case of a preventable crisis versus a victim crisis.

Reactive CSR: Interplay Among Crisis Type, Crisis-Reactive CSR Fit, and
Proactive CSR
Crisis communication concerns strategically influencing the public’s perceptions to
offset or repair a damaged reputation. Due to its potential impact on the organization’s
reputation, public relations scholars have paid close attention to the effects of crisis
communication on diminishing negative perceptions of organizations and repairing
6 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

their images (Benoit, 1997; Coombs & Holladay, 2008). Reactive CSR is one of the
popular strategies that many organizations adopt after a crisis to recover their damaged
reputation.
Companies promoting CSR after a crisis event, however, are faced with added chal-
lenges. Due to the inconsistency or discrepancy, message recipients tend to speculate
on underlying motivations. Therefore, reactive CSR is less likely to generate positive
results than proactive CSR (Groza et al., 2011). Such messages may result in suspicion
and mistrust toward the organization’s messages and behavior (Vanhamme & Grobben,
2009). To understand the public’s evaluation of CSR, particularly in the case of reac-
tive CSR, the study suggests further investigation of the interplay among the perceived
fit between a crisis event and a company’s reactive CSR initiative, and how proactive
CSR interacts with it.
Congruence or fit has been used to indicate public perception of similarity, when
both the brand and social cause share a similar value (Lafferty, 2007). The current
study uses fit to refer to the perceived connection or similarity between the company’s
crisis event and the domain of reactive CSR following a crisis. Perceived fit is a criti-
cal factor influencing the public’s evaluation of the CSR campaign (Becker-Olsen
et al., 2006; Lafferty, 2007). In general, scholars suggest that a close match between a
company’s core business and a cause is likely to lead consumers to perceive them as
experts in the field and to transfer positive feelings about the cause to the company
(Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001).
The effects of CSR fit, however, require more scrutiny. Past CSR fit research has
documented inconsistent findings, and there is a general consensus that “fit” effects
are contingent on certain situations where the company engages and communicates
with the public. Some scholars argue that a company is better off choosing the cause
that is not perceptually related to the business in order to avoid customers’ cynical
reactions (Drumwright, 1996), which can be applied to a reactive CSR campaign. Y.
Kim and Ferguson (2010) demonstrated empirically that if the company has a negative
prior reputation, a high fit between the company and the cause generates negative
attitudes toward the company. That is, if there are any negative attributes that can be
transferred, supporting a cause that does not associate to the company’s existing attri-
butes can be a better strategy.
In contrast, people are less suspicious of intent if the message or behavior is consistent
with previous behavior (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). By proactively engaging in CSR
in a consistent manner, the company can accentuate its commitment to socially responsi-
ble practices and its concern for society (Brown & Dacin, 1997; S. Kim, 2011).
Furthermore, it should be easier for the company to use a bolstering strategy (i.e., address-
ing good aspects of the company to offset negative perceptions caused by the crisis), and
the public should be less sensitive to reactive CSR strategies, including CSR-crisis fit.
Given that the effects of reactive CSR fit can be different depending on the pres-
ence of proactive CSR and crisis type, the study predicts a three-way interaction effect
among proactive CSR, crisis type, and reactive CSR fit on (a) perceived altruism and
(b) company reputation. This study predicts that when a company has positive attri-
bute associations prior to communicating reactive CSR, a high fit can lead to a more
Rim and Ferguson 7

positive CSR impact than a low fit. The study suggests the interaction effects of reac-
tive CSR fit and crisis type, and proactive CSR, respectively, as follows:

H2: With a victim crisis, high-fit reactive CSR will lead to a higher degree of (a)
perceived altruism and (b) company reputation than low-fit or no reactive CSR,
whereas, in the case of a preventable crisis, low-fit reactive CSR will lead to a
higher degree of (a) perceived altruism and (b) company reputation than high-fit or
no reactive CSR.
H3: When a company is engaged in proactive CSR, a high-fit reactive CSR will
lead to a higher degree of (a) perceived altruism and (b) company reputation than
low-fit or no reactive CSR, while without the presence of proactive CSR, a low-fit
reactive CSR will lead to a higher degree of (a) perceived altruism and (b) company
reputation than high-fit or no reactive CSR.

This study also predicts a three-way interaction effect among proactive CSR, crisis
type, and reactive CSR. As discussed, the effects of reactive CSR fit can be different
depending on the presence of proactive CSR and crisis type. As theoretical grounds for
this inquiry are less strong than previous hypotheses and resulted in inconclusive find-
ings, the following research question is provided:

Research Question 1: How does the presence of proactive CSR moderate the
interaction effects between crisis type and fit (i.e., high-fit, low-fit, no reactive
CSR) on (a) perceived altruism and (b) company reputation?

Perceived Altruistic Motivation of CSR as a Mediator

CSR activities are consistent with the belief that socially responsible behaviors may
generate favorable corporate reputation, but it has been observed that the public does
not take CSR messages at face value. How the public perceives a company’s motiva-
tion for engaging in CSR activities is particularly important because it may alter CSR
effectiveness. Applying attribution theory, CSR studies have documented the factors
that influence the public’s attribution of companies’ CSR messages and demonstrated
that perceived motivation ultimately influences the public’s evaluation of CSR (Ellen,
Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). Such studies have found a mediating
role of perceived CSR between CSR attributes and the public’s responses to a firm
(Bae & Cameron, 2006; Ellen et al. 2006). Research also suggests that there are criti-
cal moderating influences that determine whether such strategies achieve their intended
effects or backfire (Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulou, & Avramidis, 2009). This
study focuses on the role of perceived altruism and suggests that the degree of per-
ceived altruistic CSR motives can stimulate a positive evaluation of the company.

H4: Perceived altruistic motives for CSR will mediate the relationship between
CSR and company reputation. The more participants perceive CSR motives as
altruistic, the more they will positively evaluate the company’s reputation.
8 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Method
The study employed an experiment to examine the effects of proactive and reactive
CSR on perceived altruism of CSR and company reputation using a 2 (proactive CSR:
CSR vs. no CSR) × 2 (crisis type: preventable vs. victim) × 3 (reactive CSR fit: high
CSR-crisis fit vs. low CSR-crisis fit vs. no CSR) between-subject design. Prior to the
main experiment, a series of pretests were administered with both college students and
general consumers to develop stimuli materials and to confirm the manipulations.

Participants
The research participants were drawn from a consumer panel managed by the market-
ing research firm USamp. The sample consisted of randomly selected U.S.-based con-
sumers, who received monetary incentives for their participation. The final 371
qualified respondents were used for the analysis. Of the participants, 62% were female
and 38% were male. With respect to age, about 28% of participants were 18 to 29
years, 24% were 30 to 39 years, 18% were 40 to 49 years, 16% were 50 to 59 years,
9% were 60 to 69 years, and 3.5% were 70 years or older. About 80% of the partici-
pants were Caucasian, while 8% and 6% were African Americans and Hispanic,
respectively. About 50% of participants reported an annual family income greater than
$40,000.

Pretests and Stimuli Development

Industry and Reactive CSR Domain Selection. Prior to creating stimuli, a pretest was
conducted to select the industry and the reactive CSR domain. A total of 31 college
students participated in this pretest. Criteria for selecting an industry were that there
were neutral attitudes toward the industry to rule out potential effects from existing
perceptions of a certain industry, but that the industry ranked high in CSR impact on
its reputation. As the main purpose of this study was to examine the influence of CSR
pre- and postcrisis, the industry’s sensibility to CSR was an important criterion for
industry selection.
The pretest initially included nine industries1 that often experience crises and mea-
sured participants’ attitudes toward each industry and the perceived importance of CSR
in each industry. In the end, a pharmaceutical company was selected as it satisfied the
abovementioned criteria: neutral attitudes with high variance and high CSR impact on
reputation. The pretest also helped select the domains of CSR (i.e., causes) that vary in
fit. In high-fit reactive CSR conditions, the cause that the company supports should be
highly related to the crisis or business, whereas in the low-fit condition, the cause should
not be related to the company’s crisis or business. While the causes vary in level of fit,
the causes themselves should be evaluated similarly in terms of perceived importance
and personal relevance to rule out potential confounding effects.
Based on documentation that listed areas of CSR domains (e.g., Cone
Communictions, 2010; United Nation Global Compact, 2006), 13 CSR domains2 were
Rim and Ferguson 9

included in the pretest, and the participants evaluated perceived social value and per-
sonal value for each. Three CSR domains were similarly evaluated on a scale of 1 to
7: health (M = 6.1, SD = 1.05), education (M = 6.5, SD = 0.68), and diversity (M =
6.03, SD = 1.11). Because the study’s crisis case was related to a vaccine recall due to
product tampering, the causes would need to be related to either health (i.e., high-fit)
or nonhealth (i.e., low-fit). Therefore, a health-related CSR strategy was selected for
the high-fit condition, whereas an education-related CSR was selected for the low-fit
condition.

Stimuli Development. After determining the industry (i.e., pharmaceutical), crisis case
(i.e., vaccine recall), and the domain of reactive CSR (i.e., health vs. education), stim-
uli materials were created: (1) company profiles, (2) crisis scenarios, and (3) reactive
CSR scenarios. The study used a fictitious company name to reduce variations poten-
tially caused by participants’ previous experiences with known organizations. Adopted
from previous experimental studies on CSR associations (e.g., Brown & Dacin, 1997;
S. Kim, 2011), the company profile for the proactive CSR condition contained the
company’s history of CSR and community involvement by emphasizing the discre-
tionary aspects of the company’s CSR practices.
For the no–proactive CSR condition, general company information was used
that included descriptions about the company’s recent financial performance and
product lines with a neutral tone. Both company profiles were similar in length and
organization. Likewise, short descriptions of product-related crises history were
developed to manipulate attribution of responsibility. Both conditions used the
same crisis case but varied in crisis responsibility. The company-responsible treat-
ment used a preventable type of crisis, focusing on the transgressions of the com-
pany, whereas the company-not-responsible treatment described the company as
victim of the crisis.
Finally, information regarding the company’s reactive CSR campaign was created.
Based on the pretest, in the high-fit condition, the company announced a mass vacci-
nation campaign in Africa, which is perceptually related to the company’s recent cri-
sis. In the low-fit condition, the company’s plan to support IT skill training in Africa
was described. In both conditions, the scenarios were presented in a press release for-
mat, and all information was identical except the cause itself.
The scenarios were evaluated similarly in terms of readability and believability for
the crisis scenario based on the work of Jean-Charles, Gelinas-Chebat, and Hombourger
(2003) and Zeynep and Maheswaran (2000). A total of 38 students recruited from a
southeastern university participated in the pretest. Extra credits were offered for com-
pleting the survey. The company profiles showed no differences for their readability,
t(36) = 1.59, p = .12. The readability of both high-fit and low-fit reactive CSR sce-
narios was evaluated similarly, t(36) = 0.78, p = .44. For crisis scenarios, believability
was also checked, followed by readability. A t test revealed that there was no differ-
ence in readability between the victim and preventable conditions, t(36) = −1.74,
p = .10 as well as believability, t(36) = 0.77, p = .44.
10 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Manipulation Checks. Another set of pretests was conducted with general consumers to
confirm the success of the manipulation. Participants were recruited via Amazon
Mechanical Turk with a cash incentive ($1), and a total of 54 respondents completed
the online survey. With respect to the manipulation of proactive CSR, participants who
were assigned to the presence of proactive CSR (M = 5.95, SD = 0.97) reported signifi-
cantly more socially responsible attributes of the company on a 1 to 7 scale than those
in the no presence of CSR condition (M = 2.99, SD = 1.46), t(52) = 8.76, p < .001. For
crisis type, participants in the victim condition were more likely to attribute crisis
responsibility to the circumstances (M = 5.78, SD = 1.15) than those in the preventable
condition (M = 3.10, SD = 1.60), t(52) = −8.08, p < .001). Finally, participants in the
high-fit condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.32) were more likely to evaluate the relevance of
the CSR campaign and the crisis event higher than those who were exposed to a low-
fit condition (M = 3.54, SD = 1.75), t(52) = −2.42, p < .05, confirming the success of
the manipulation.

Procedures
An e-mail invitation with a link directed to the experiment protocols in Qualtrics was
sent to subjects who were then randomly assigned to one of the 12 conditions. Each
condition had an average of 30 respondents. Once they began the experiment, partici-
pants were asked to read the company information. Then, a short statement describing
the company’s recent crisis was presented. Participants were then asked to read about
the company’s reactive CSR campaign, which varied by perceived CSR-crisis fit (high
vs. low fit). One group did not receive any reactive CSR information (the no–reactive
CSR condition). After reading three types of stories (i.e., proactive CSR message, the
crisis situation, and the reactive CSR campaign), participants were asked to evaluate
the perceived company’s reputation and the perceived altruism of its CSR practices.
Then, a set of questions about manipulation checks was provided. Last, participants
answered the demographic questions.

Measurement Items
Manipulation Check. In the study, proactive CSR is operationalized as the degree to
which the public perceives a company’s CSR embedded in its business. Adopted and
modified previous research measuring perceived CSR (e.g., Menon & Kahn, 2003),
the manipulation of proactive CSR was evaluated with three items (α = .94). Perceived
CSR-crisis fit is operationalized as the extent to which the participants cognitively
perceive the relevance of the CSR initiative to the company’s crisis and was measured
on a 7-point scale adopted from past research on fit (e.g., Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; α
= .93). Crisis type is operationalized as leading to the attribution of responsibility for
a company’s crisis, which has two levels—victim and preventable. Based on previous
literature (Griffin, Barbin, & Darden, 1992), attribution of crisis responsibility was
measured with three items (α = .89).
Rim and Ferguson 11

Dependent Variables. Perceived altruistic motives were operationalized as the degree

of the public’s understanding of a company’s CSR engagement as public-serving.
This perception was measured by Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li’s (2004) scale with
three items (α = .95). The perceived company reputation was measured based on the
Reputation Quotient (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Sever, 2000) with 20 items (α = .96).
All items were measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Appendix A presents measurement items used in the
study.

Results
Consistent with pretest results, manipulation checks were successful in the main
study. Participants in the proactive condition perceived the company to be more
socially responsible (M = 5.75, SD = 0.99) than those in the without-CSR condition
(M = 2.95, SD = 1.40), t(331) = 22.30, p < .001; participants in the victim crisis
group (M = 5.28, SD = 1.43) were more likely to attribute crisis responsibility to
external factors than those exposed to the preventable crisis (M = 2.73, SD = 1.43),
t(369) = 22.32, p < .001; and participants in the high-fit condition (M = 4.25, SD =
1.90) were more likely to perceive the connection between the crisis and reactive
CSR than those who were exposed to the low-fit condition (M = 2.97, SD = 1.64,
t(247) = 5.71, p < .001).
To test the hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was con-
ducted. Additionally, mediation analysis was used to confirm the direct and indirect
effects of perceived altruism on these relationships. The dependent variables (i.e., per-
ceived altruism and corporate reputation) were highly correlated (r = .80, p < .001),
suggesting the appropriateness of a MANOVA. The results showed significant overall
main effects of proactive CSR, Wilks’s λ = .70, F(2, 359) = 77.93, p < .001, η2p = .30;
and crisis type, Wilks’s λ = .73, F(2, 359) = 65.50, p < .001, η2p = .27, on the combined
dependent variables, but the main effect of reactive CSR strategy was nonsignificant.
However, a two-way interaction effect was obtained between proactive CSR strat-
egy and crisis type, Wilks’s λ = .93, F(2, 118) = 4.13, p < .05, η2p = .07.3 No further
two-way interaction effects between proactive CSR and reactive CSR strategy of fit,
or crisis type and reactive CSR strategy of fit were found. A three-way interaction
among proactive CSR, crisis type, and reactive CSR strategy was found, Wilks’s λ =
.96, F(4, 716) = 3.32, p < .01, η2p = .02. Table 1 presents the summary of the multivari-
ate results for combined dependent variables.

Hypotheses Testing
As a follow-up test to MANOVA in the general linear model, univariate tests were
conducted on each dependent variable in order to test the hypotheses. Prior to examin-
ing interaction effects, the main effects of reactive strategies of fit were tested. Our
data showed no significant main effects of reactive CSR strategy on perceived altru-
ism. The Bonferroni post hoc test indicated that there were no significant mean
12 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Table 1. Multivariate Analysis of Variance on Combined Dependent Variables.

Independent variable Wilks’s λ df Error df F η2p

Proactive CSR (ProCSR) .697 2 358 77.93*** .30

Crisis type (Crisis) .732 2 358 65.50*** .27
Reactive CSR strategy (Fit) .991 4 716 0.521 .00
ProCSR × Crisisa .934 2 117 4.13* .32
ProCSR × Fit .985 4 716 1.35 .01
Crisis × Fit .991 4 716 0.85 .01
ProCSR × Crisis × Fit .964 4 716 3.32** .02

Note. df = degrees of freedom; CSR = corporate social responsibility.

aTo avoid the potential of confounded effects caused by the exposure to reactive CSR, participants who

were not exposed to any reactive CSR information were included for analysis.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

differences between each combination of high-fit, low-fit, and no CSR on perceived

altruism and company reputation (see Table 2).

Interaction Between Proactive CSR and Crisis Type. H1a and H1b predicted that the differ-
ence between proactive CSR and no proactive CSR on perceived altruism and com-
pany reputation would be greater when a preventable crisis was compared to a victim
crisis. The results showed no significant interaction on altruism. However, a signifi-
cant interaction effect was found for proactive CSR and crisis type on company repu-
2
tation, F(1, 118) = 8.24, p < .01, ηp = .07. That is, in the case of preventable crisis, the
mean difference between the presence of CSR (M = 4.51, SD = 1.01) and no presence
of CSR (M = 2.72, SD = 0.82) on company reputation is greater than the mean differ-
ences showed in victim crisis between the presence of CSR (M = 5.26, SD = 0.93) and
no presence of CSR (M = 4.42, SD = 0.90). The planned pairwise comparisons con-
firmed that the differences between the presence of CSR and no presence of CSR were
larger in a preventable condition, Mdiffer = 1.79, F(1, 118) = 57.36, p < .001; than in a
victim condition, Mdiffer = 0.84, F(1, 118) = 13.03, p < .001. Therefore, H1b was sup-
ported (see Table 3 and Figure 1).

Interactions Between Reactive CSR Strategies of Fit and Crisis Type. The results showed
that there were no interaction effects between reactive fit strategy and crisis type on
perceived altruism and company reputation, indicating no effects of reactive CSR fit
in both crisis types. H2a and H2b were not supported.

Interactions Between Proactive CSR and Reactive CSR Strategies of Fit. The results showed
that there was no significant interaction effect between the proactive CSR versus reac-
tive CSR strategy on perceived altruism and company reputation. A pairwise compari-
son of the proactive CSR condition with the reactive CSR strategies condition was
nonsignificant. Therefore, H3a and H3b were not supported.
Rim and Ferguson 13

Table 2. Main Effect of Proactive CSR, Crisis Type, and Reactive CSR Fit on Dependent
Variables.a
No proactive
Dependent variable Proactive CSR, M (SE) CSR, M (SE) F df η2p

Perceived altruism 5.37 (0.09) 3.84 (0.09) 134.41*** 1 .27

Company reputation 4.82 (0.07) 3.68 (0.07) 129.93*** 1 .27
Preventable
Victim crisis, M (SE) crisis, M (SE) F df η2p

Perceived altruism 5.15 (0.09) 4.05 (0.09) 69.87*** 1 .16

Company reputation 4.82 (0.07) 3.68 (.07) 130.99*** 1 .27
No CSR, M
H-fit, M (SE) L-fit, M (SE) (SE) F df η2p

Perceived altruism 4.51 (0.11) 4.65 (0.11) 4.65 (0.11) 0.48 (ns) 2 .00
Company reputation 4.18 (0.09) 4.35 (0.08) 4.23 (0.08) 1.06 (ns) 2 .01

Note. df = degrees of freedom; CSR = corporate social responsibility; H-fit = high fit; L-fit = low fit.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Pairwise Comparisons for Interaction Effects of Proactive CSR and Crisis Type on
Dependent Variablesa.

Victim crisis Preventable crisis

ProCSR, NoCSR, ProCSR, NoCSR,

Dependent variable M (SE) M (SE) M (SE) M (SE) F df η2p

Perceived altruism 5.95 (0.23) 4.73 (0.23) 4.96 (0.23) 2.97 (0.24) 2.81 1 .02
Company reputation 5.26 (0.17) 4.42 (0.17) 4.51 (0.17) 2.72 (0.17) 8.24** 1 .07

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility; df = degrees of freedom.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Three-Way Interactions Among Proactive CSR, Crisis Type, and Reactive CSR Fit. Research
Question 1 asked to examine the interaction effects among proactive CSR, crisis type,
and reactive CSR fit. Our results showed that there was no significant interaction on
perceived motivation, but it did show significant interaction effects on company repu-
2
tation, F(2, 359) = 4.52, p < .01, ηp = .03. To determine which means yielded statisti-
cally significant differences, pairwise comparisons were further performed that aided
in specifying which treatment contributed to the significant omnibus test. When a
company did not engage in proactive CSR and experienced a preventable crisis, there
was a significant difference between low-fit CSR (M = 3.31, SE = 0.17) and no reac-
tive CSR (M = 2.71, SE = 0.18) on company reputation. Low-fit CSR led to a signifi-
cantly higher company reputation than no reactive CSR, Mdiffer = 0.60, SE = 0.25,
p = .02. In the victim crisis condition, the results revealed that low-fit CSR (M = 4.54,
SE = 0.17) led to a significantly better company reputation than high-fit reactive CSR
14 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Figure 1. Interaction effects of proactive CSR and preventable crisis on company reputation.
Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

Figure 2. Three-way interaction effects of proactive CSR, crisis type, and reactive CSR
strategies, and of fit on company reputation.
Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

strategy (M = 4.01, SE = 0.17), Mdiffer = 0.53, SE = 0.24, p = .03. However, for a com-
pany with proactive CSR, regardless of crisis type, there were no statistically signifi-
cant differences among fit strategies, which indicated a diminished impact of reactive
fit strategy on company reputation. Only marginal, nonsignificant differences were
obtained between high-fit CSR (M = 4.06, SE = 0.18) and no reactive CSR, (M = 4.51,
SE = 0.17), Mdiffer = 0.45, SE = 0.25, p = .07, when the company went through a pre-
ventable crisis (see Figure 2 and Table 4).

Mediating Effects of Perceived Altruism. H4 predicted a mediation role of perceived

altruism on the relationship between CSR conditions and company reputation. To test
Rim and Ferguson 15

Table 4. Pairwise Comparisons Among Proactive CSR, Crisis Type, and Reactive CSR
Strategy on Perceived Altruism and Company Reputation.a
Reactive Perceived altruism Company reputation
Proactive CSR
CSR Crisis type strategy M (SE) F df M (SE) F df

Proactive Victim H-fit 5.95 (0.23) 5.52 (0.17)

CSR L-fit 5.65 (0.23) 5.16 (0.17)
No CSR 5.95 (0.23) 5.26 (0.17)
0.58 2, 359 1.18 2, 359
Preventable H-fit 4.83 (0.23) 4.06 (0.18)
L-fit 4.87 (0.22) 4.38 (0.17)
No CSR 4.96 (0.23) 4.51 (0.17)
0.08 2, 359 1.77 2, 359
No proactive Victim H-fit 4.19 (0.23) 4.01 (0.17)* Mdiffer(Low-High) = 0.53,
CSR L-fit 4.46 (0.22) 4.54 (0.17)* p = .03
No CSR 4.73 (0.22) 4.42 (0.17)
1.45 2, 359 2.64* 2, 359
Preventable H-fit 3.08 (0.23) 3.11 (0.18) Mdiffer(Low-NoCSR) = 0.60,
L-fit 3.61 (0.23) 3.31 (0.18)* p = .02
No CSR 2.97 (0.24) 2.71 (0.18)*
2.26 2, 359 2.96* 2, 359

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility; df = degrees of freedom; H-fit = high fit; L-fit = low fit.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the mediating effects, the study followed Hayes and Preacher’s (2013) mediation anal-
ysis, which allows us to calculate direct and indirect effects for multiple and multicat-
egorical independent variables simultaneously. The results revealed that perceived
altruism, a proposed mediator, met the above-mentioned conditions and significantly
mediated the relationship between CSR conditions (i.e., proactive CSR and crisis
type) and company reputation. As Figure 3 illustrates, proactive CSR (coefficient =
1.04, SE = 0.09, p < .001) and crisis type (coefficient = 1.13, SE = .10, p < .001) had a
significant influence on company reputation, satisfying the first condition. In addition,
proactive CSR (coefficient = 1.40, SE = 0.12, p < .001) and crisis type (coefficient =
1.09, SE = 0.13, p < .001) had a significant influence on perceived altruism, which is
the proposed mediator, satisfying the second condition. Then, perceived altruism
showed a significant influence on company reputation (coefficient = 0.53, SE = 0.03,
p < .001), satisfying the third condition; finally, the effects of proactive CSR (coeffi-
cient = 0.30, SE = 0.08, p < .001) and crisis type (coefficient = 0.55, SE = 0.08, p <
.001) on company reputation remained significant but at a weakened level when con-
trolling for perceived altruism, satisfying the fourth condition. Table 5 presents results
of the mediation analysis.
Furthermore, the analysis found significant indirect effects of both proactive
CSR (indirect effect = .74; 95% bootstrapped confidence interval [CI; .60, .90]) and
crisis type (indirect effect = .58; 95% bootstrapped CI [.43, .74]) on company repu-
tation through perceived motivation. Finally, although the results indicated no
direct or indirect effects of reactive CSR strategies, when CSR communication
conditions (i.e., proactive CSR, crisis type, reactive CSR) were taken together as
16 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Figure 3. Regression coefficients for the relationship between CSR condition (i.e., proactive
CSR, crisis type) and company reputation as mediated by perceived altruism.
Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility. Regression coefficient in italics presents crisis type. The
coefficient between CSR condition and company reputation controlling for perceived altruism is in
parentheses.

Table 5. Mediation Effects of Perceived Altruism on Company Reputation.

Mediation Model Coefficient SE t

Overall model: Company reputation R2 = .69 F = 204.52***
Constant 1.33 0.13 10.45***
Proactive CSR 0.30 0.08 3.79***
Crisis type 0.55 0.08 6.94***
Reactive CSR 0.07 0.08 0.90
Perceived altruism 0.53 0.03 18.52***
Partial model: Perceived altruism R2 = .34 F = 65.74
Constant 3.39 0.15 22.83***
Proactive CSR 1.40 0.12 11.43***
Crisis type 1.09 0.13 8.27***
Reactive CSR −0.09 0.14 −0.64
Total effects model: Company reputation R2 = 40 F = 81.99
Constant 3.13 0.11 27.58***
Proactive CSR 1.04 0.09 11.13
Crisis type 1.13 0.10 11.19
Reactive CSR 0.02 0.11 0.21

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

predictors, perceived altruism significantly mediated the main effects of CSR com-
munication on company reputation, F(4, 366) = 204.52, p < .001. Findings thus
Rim and Ferguson 17

supported the mediating role of perceived altruism on company reputation.

Therefore, H4 was supported.

Discussion
Major Findings and Implications
Prior to examining the interaction effects between variables, which was the primary
focus of the current study, the findings of the main effects should be noted to under-
stand the baseline of proactive and reactive CSR communication. First, the present
study offers empirical evidence of the benefit of proactive CSR communication on
enhanced perceived altruism and company reputation. In terms of the main effect of
crisis type, the study confirms SCCT, suggesting that a victim crisis has a less negative
impact on company reputation than a preventable crisis.
Regarding interaction effects between proactive CSR and crisis type (H1), the
findings suggested that the presence of proactive CSR may buffer the company’s
reputational damage regardless of crisis type. Supporting H1b, the degree of the
influence of proactive CSR on company reputation is greater when a company has
a preventable crisis versus a victim crisis. This finding is particularly meaningful
for communication managers in that it provides evidence of CSR as insurance for
protecting company reputation, especially in the event of a preventable crisis. The
crisis type itself is not changeable once it occurs; therefore, determining an appro-
priate crisis response depending on crisis type is a critical task for communication
managers.
From a theoretical perspective, SCCT generally suggests that a company
employ an accommodative response strategy when there are serious reputational
threats to the company (Coombs, 2007). SCCT also documents crisis history and
relationship history as intensifiers of reputational threat. The current study sug-
gests that communication managers should assess a company’s existing CSR
image as well, because the public’s positive CSR associations can be used to mini-
mize reputational damages. In summary, the study not only demonstrates the value
of the presence of CSR for protecting company reputation in a preventable crisis
but also suggests the potential of using a bolstering response strategy, which
involves “reminding people of past good works by the organization,” even in the
event of a preventable crisis.
It should be noted that due to skepticism about CSR motivation, employing a
bolstering strategy can be challenging, especially when the crisis responsibility lies
with the organization. This could be one of the reasons that no interaction effect
was found on perceived altruism (H1a). Even though a company engages in proac-
tive CSR, when it experiences a preventable crisis, which is known as one of the
critical variables that determines the public’s attribution of crisis responsibility, the
presence of CSR does not help a company increase perceived altruistic motives.
While the study findings support the use of bolstering to minimize reputational
18 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

damage, some research suggests that it can backfire if used inappropriately by

amplifying anger. For example, Vanhamme and Grobben (2009) pointed out that
CSR engagement could defend a company’s reputation only when it has a long his-
tory of CSR. To avoid potential backfire effects caused by a bolstering response, a
communication manager should consider other factors that influence the effective-
ness of a bolstering strategy, such as the length of CSR history. Also, future research
should be conducted on this subject.
The study investigated how the effects of reactive CSR fit can vary by presence of
proactive CSR and crisis type. Specifically, H2 anticipated that when a company has
engaged in proactive CSR, high-fit reactive CSR would be perceived to be more altru-
istic and lead to higher company reputation than low-fit CSR, whereas without the
presence of proactive CSR, low-fit CSR would lead to better evaluation. However, the
interaction effect was not found in the study.
Likewise, H3 predicted that in the case of a victim crisis, high-fit reactive CSR
would lead to higher perceived altruism and company reputation than low-fit CSR,
whereas in the case of a preventable crisis, low-fit CSR would lead to better evalu-
ation. The interaction effect between crisis type and reactive CSR fit was not
found.
It should be noted that our results show no significant differences across the
reactive CSR strategies of fit: high-fit, low-fit, and no CSR. Previous literature has
documented inconsistent effects of fit (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Y. Kim &
Ferguson, 2010). Indeed, Lafferty (2007) provided some evidence of no effect of
fit on consumers’ attitudes or purchase intensions in the context of cause-brand
alliance. These inconsistent findings imply that fit might not directly influence the
public’s attribution of CSR and company reputation, but the effects of CSR and fit
can be moderated by various factors such as the public’s level of involvement in
the issue (Barone, Norman, & Miyazaki, 2007) and brand consciousness (Nan &
Heo, 2007). Additionally, as many companies engage in a variety of CSR practices
from the environment to diversity, CSR practices are not limited to supporting one
single cause that is closely related to the company’s core business. The public has
been exposed to diverse CSR, so their evaluation of CSR practices is not simply
influenced by fit with a company’s business or crisis event, and thus, fit may not
be a critical factor in CSR effectiveness.
Interestingly, some significant interaction effects were obtained from the three-way
interactions among proactive CSR, crisis type, and reactive CSR strategies of fit on
company reputation (Research Question 1). Our findings show that there was a signifi-
cant interaction effect between crisis type and reactive fit for a company without pro-
active CSR, whereas no interaction was found for a company with proactive CSR.
Specifically, the results suggest that when a company previously engaged in proactive
CSR, the reactive CSR campaign’s fit strategy does not influence the public’s per-
ceived altruism and company reputation. This result may support a social judgment
theory, which advocates that previous expectations influence the public’s perception
Rim and Ferguson 19

of the company. For a company that has already formed the public’s CSR association,
reactive CSR messages may not necessarily be evaluated or influenced by specific
strategies such as fit.
However, when a company had not engaged in CSR prior to the crisis event,
depending on crisis type, the fit strategy should be applied with caution, as it influ-
ences company reputation. The findings suggest that when a company has not engaged
in proactive CSR and experiences a preventable crisis, a low-fit CSR strategy leads to
a significantly better company reputation than no reactive CSR. In a victim crisis, low-
fit CSR led to a significantly better company reputation than a high-fit reactive CSR
strategy. The results indicate that, doing CSR after a crisis may help a company
enhance its reputation, but the reactive CSR should not be cognitively associated with
the crisis.
The mixed findings of the effects of fit can be considered in the context of postcrisis
communication. Scholars have suggested a “discourse of renewal” following a crisis
event (e.g., Ulmer, Seegar, & Sellnow, 2007) and maintained that the organization
should attempt a renewal discourse, which is a leader-based form of communication
with provisional and prospective orientation. The renewal discourse should concern
“what will happen and how the organization will move forward” (Ulmer et al., 2007,
p. 131) by stating how the crisis provided opportunities for the organization to revive
itself. Considering the idea of postcrisis communication of renewal, a follow-up study
may need to examine whether the renewal discourse can alter the effects of reactive
CSR fit. By communicating postcrisis renewal discourse followed by a reactive CSR
campaign, reactive CSR strategy can be more effective in enhancing company reputa-
tion and perceived altruism.
The current study also confirmed the mediation effects of perceived altruistic
motives on company reputation, supporting H4. This finding supports past studies that
suggested that the success of CSR varies depending on perceived motivation (e.g., Bae
& Cameron, 2006; Groza et al., 2011; Yoon et al., 2006) and underscores the impor-
tance of sincerity in messages. As more and more companies adopt and promote their
CSR activities, the public does not simply take CSR at face value, and acknowledges
the use of CSR as a marketing strategy. Given that perceived altruism mediates the
relationships between CSR communication conditions and perceived company reputa-
tion, more work is necessary to understand the factors that enhance perceived corpo-
rate altruistic motives.
In summary, proactive CSR helps a company enhance its perceived altruism and
company reputation, and the effects of proactive CSR are greater when a company
experiences a preventable crisis versus a victim crisis. Considering the negative impact
caused by preventable crisis due to greater crisis responsibility, the potential of proac-
tive CSR to act as a buffer to reputational damage is noteworthy for public relations
practitioners who are often faced with the challenge of demonstrating the value of
CSR investment. In terms of reactive CSR, the study suggests that communicating
CSR after a crisis event has no impact on perceived motivation and company reputa-
tion. While the public’s evaluation of CSR does not seem to be directly influenced by
20 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

reactive CSR fit, a low-fit CSR strategy seems more effective than a high-fit CSR
strategy (in the case of victim crisis) or no reactive CSR (in the case of preventable
crisis) when the company did not embrace CSR prior to the crisis. The interaction
effects between crisis type and reactive CSR strategies of fit disappear when the com-
pany previously engaged in CSR. Moreover, the findings of the study suggest that
CSR can counter potential reputational damage caused by crisis but does not play a
role as a remedy after crisis. Finally, the mediating role of perceived altruism suggests
the importance of sincerity in CSR messages embedded with the value of proactive,
voluntary, and consistent commitment.
The study adds empirical evidence of CSR communication as a promotional method
of impression management. However, when CSR communication was employed with
a defensive purpose, the study found no significant impact on company reputation.
Adopting a SCCT model, future studies should confirm whether CSR history would fit
in the model as the variable that can be added as an intensifier of attribution of crisis
responsibility. Public relations practitioners who face the pressure of demonstrating
the financial value of CSR investment may argue that proactive CSR not only can help
a company enhance perceived altruistic motives and company reputation but also may
help the company minimize reputational damage, especially when it deals with a pre-
ventable crisis.

Limitations and Future Study

The experimental methodology is appropriate in testing causal relationships of
controlled communication messages, but only a limited set of variables can be
tested; thus, the findings are restricted to the conditions tested in this study.
Considering the complexity of CSR and crisis communication in shaping public
perception, the effects can be contingent on various factors. For example, compa-
nies are exposed to diverse crises, such as workplace violence and natural disas-
ters. How the public evaluates the presence of CSR might differ depending on the
crisis context. Due to the scope of the study, the severity of crisis was limited to
the same level in both crisis types, but severity can play a critical role in determin-
ing the impact of CSR on protecting reputation in a crisis situation. Further
research is necessary to understand the degree to which crisis severity may trigger
suspicion about a company’s motives in pursuing CSR activities and affect subse-
quent company evaluation.
The findings of this study did not support the effects of fit. As noted earlier, it would
be noteworthy to apply a postcrisis discourse framework when it comes to providing
reactive CSR information. Future studies may consider providing a crisis-related
renewal response first (e.g., what will happen and how the company will rebuild and
overcome) followed by reactive CSR information. Last, a fictitious company was used
in the experimental setting to exclude potential influence caused by previous experi-
ence with a known company, but this may threaten external validity. Future studies
need to apply the findings to a real company.
Rim and Ferguson 21

Appendix
Appendix A. Measurement Items.

Variable Items Sources

Company I have a good feeling about the company Fombrun,
reputation I admire and respect the company Gardberg, and
I trust this company Sever (2000)
Stands behind its products and services
Develops innovative products and services and service
Offers high-quality products and services
Offers products and services that are good value for
money
Has excellent leadership
Has a clear vision for its future
Recognizes and takes advantage of market opportunities
Is well managed
Looks like a good company to work for talented people
Looks like a company that would have good employees
Supports good causes
Is an environmentally responsible company
Maintains a high standard in the way it treats people
Has a strong record of profitability
Looks like a low-risk investment
Tends to outperform its competitors
Looks like a company with strong prospects for future
growth
Perceived The company launched the campaign because it truly cares Rifon, Choi,
altruism about the public Trimble, and Li
The company has a genuine concern for the welfare of (2004)
their consumers
The company really cares about providing healthier
environment to their customers
Proactive This company believes in social commitment Menon and Kahn
CSR This company is highly involved in corporate social (2003)
responsibility activities
This company is genuinely concerned about public welfare
Reactive CSR The theme of company’s corporate social responsibility Becker-Olsen
strategy initiative and the issue of company’s recent crisis et al. (2006);
of fit seem “consistent/not consistent; complementary/not Forehand and
complementary; related/not related all” Grier (2003)
Crisis type Circumstances, not the organization, are responsible for Griffin, Barbin,
the crisis and Darden
The blame for the crisis lies with the organization (reverse (1992)
coded)
The blame for the crisis lies in the circumstances, not the
organization
22 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. The nine industries used for the pretest included grocery stores, cruise lines, beer manufac-
turing, pharmaceutical, mobile phone services, amusement parks, water, oil, and fast-food
industries. The pharmaceutical industry showed neutral attitudes compared to other indus-
tries (M = 4.60, SD = 1.35, variance = 1.83, n = 31) and high CSR impact (M = 6.18, SD =
1.01, variance = 1.03, n = 31).
2. The 13 CSR domains included in the pretest are as follows: health, hunger, education,
water conservation, environment, homeless, crime, diversity, animals, art, economy devel-
opment, labor, and anticorruption.
3. To avoid the potential of confounded effects caused by exposure to reactive CSR, partici-
pants who were not exposed to any reactive CSR information were included for analysis.

References
Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of cor-
porate giving. Public Relations Review, 32, 144-150.
Barone, M., Norman, A., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer use of cause-
related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83, 437-445.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate
social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46-53.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23, 177-180.
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Cilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of
impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080-1109.
Brønn, P. S., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy,
sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 91-109.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selec-
tion of the “appropriate” crisis response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly,
8, 447-476.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputa-
tional assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12, 241-260.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development
and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review,
10, 163-177
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response
strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 34, 252-257.
Rim and Ferguson 23

Cone Communications. (2010). The 2010 cause evolution study. Retrieved from http://www.
conecomm.com/research-blog/2010-cause-evolution-study
Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation,
response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2),
192-211.
Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneco-
nomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71-87.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attri-
butions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 147-157.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multistakeholder
measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 241-255.
Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When honesty is the best policy? The effect of stated
company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349-356.
Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate
Communications, 6, 24-30.
Griffin, M., Barbin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility for
product-related injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings, and promotional policies.
Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 870-877.
Groza, M. D., Pronschinske, M. R., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives
and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102,
639-652.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com
Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., & Gregarus, B. (2009). An organizational impression manage-
ment perspective on the formation of corporate reputation. Journal of Management, 35,
1481-1493.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal market-
ing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78-89.
Hong, S. Y., & Rim, H. (2010). The influence of customer use of corporate websites: Corporate
social responsibility, trust, and word-of-mouth communication. Public Relations Review,
36, 389-391.
Jean-Charles, C., Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Hombourger, S. (2003). Testing consumers’ motivation
and linguistic ability as moderators of advertising readability. Psychology & Marketing, 20,
599-624
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp.192-240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 73, 107-128.
Kim, S. (2011). Transferring effects of CSR strategy on consumer responses: The synergistic
model of corporate communication strategy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23,
218-241.
Kim, Y., & Ferguson, M. A. (2010, June). Impact of perceived motives and prior reputation
on effects of fit of CSR programs. Paper presented to the International Communication
Association, Singapore.
Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate
corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 70, 447-453.
Landman, A. (2010). BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign losing its sheen. Retrieved from
http://www.prwatch.org/node/9038
24 International Journal of Business Communication 00(0)

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-
component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
Lee, M.-D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolution-
ary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 53-73.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do
they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 316-327.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer response to corporate social responsibility (CSR) ini-
tiative: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of
Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
Rangan, K., Chase, L., & Karim, S. (2015). The truth about CSR. Harvard Business Review,
January-February, 40-49.
Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. R. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship:
The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive.
Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225-243.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Staw, B. M. (1991). Dressing up like an organization: When psychological theories can explain
organizational action. Journal of Management, 7, 805-819.
Ulmer, R. R., Seegar, M. W., & Sellnow, T. L. (2007). Post-crisis communication and renewal:
Expanding the parameters of post-crisis discourse. Public Relations Review, 33, 130-134.
United Nation Global Compact. (2006). The ten principles of UN Global Compact. Retrieved
from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/aboutthegc/thetenprinciples/index.html
Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!” The effectiveness of CSR history
in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 273-283.
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulou, A. P., & Avramidis, P. A. (2009). Corporate
social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170-180.
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat
of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6),
77-91.
Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16,
377-390.
Zeynep, G.-C., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 96-108.

Author Biographies
Hyejoon Rim, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass
Communication at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on corporate social
responsibility, consumer skepticism, and crisis communication.
Mary Ann T. Ferguson, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Public Relations, in the
College of Journalism and Communication at the University of Florida. She teaches public rela-
tions methods at the undergraduate and graduate level, and her research interest focuses on
ethics and corporate social responsibility.