Green washing vs. Genuine CSR: Measuring Authenticity in ESG Communication
Keywords:
CSR authenticity, green washing, organizational decoupling, legitimacy theory, institutional complexity, necessary condition analysis and ESG disclosureAbstract
The question of CSR decoupling (misalignment between the language and practice of a company in relation to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues) remains problematic and this study aims to tackle this issue. The main goal is to develop and test a multidimensional CSR Authenticity (CA) Index that can consistently differentiate between costly Substantive Legitimation Strategies and low-cost Symbolic Legitimation Strategies. The framework is based on three complementary theoretical lenses Legitimacy Theory, Attribution Theory and Neo-Institutional Theory and brings together a micro-level explanation of motive attribution by stakeholders and a macro-level explanation of the drivers of symbolic behavior in institutions. It is based on a multi-country, multi-year panel created from World Bank World Development Indicators, Worldwide Governance Indicators, and Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) ratings, with the addition of multi-item survey based constructs of perceived authenticity and motive attribution (2015–2024). Five hypotheses are tested by applying fixed effects panel regression analysis with Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) that cover aspects of legitimacy formation, motive attribution, and institutional complexity. The results validate the necessity of the attribution of Value-Driven Motives for high CA but demonstrate that it is not sufficient, and also show that the higher the Administrative Hierarchical Distance, the higher the Outcome-Communication Decoupling, although this relationship is moderated by higher institutional and economic development scores in more developed areas. This study makes a contribution of a validated instrument for ethical legitimacy management in the literature and gives regulators an empirical basis for focusing their oversight on administratively complex jurisdictions.
References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2017). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 363–379.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.
Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071.
Bowen, F. (2014). After greenwashing: Symbolic corporate environmentalism and society. Cambridge University Press.
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530.
Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 467–480.
Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.
Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2014). CSR disclosure: The more things change...? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(1), 14–35.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393.
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.
Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. T. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448.
Dahlmann, F., & Grosvold, J. (2017). Environmental managers and institutional work. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 263–291.
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.
Dul, J. (2016). Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Logic and methodology of "necessary but not sufficient" causality. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 10–52.
Dul, J., Van der Laan, E., & Kuik, R. (2020). A statistical significance test for necessary condition analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 23(2), 385–395.
Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011). The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision making. Management Decision, 49(4), 586–600.
Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.
Font, X., Elgammal, I., & Lamond, I. (2017). Greenhushing: The deliberate under communicating of sustainability practices by tourism businesses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 1007–1023.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative.
Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.
Guidry, R. P., & Patten, D. M. (2010). Market reactions to the first-time issuance of corporate sustainability reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1(1), 33–50.
Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2016). Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2569–2588.
Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1–2), 55–68.
Ihlen, Ø., & Roper, J. (2014). Corporate reports on sustainability and sustainable development: 'We have arrived'. Sustainable Development, 22(1), 42–51.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246.
Kim, E. H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015). Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3), 705–723.
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41.
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148.
Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Pope, S., & Wæraas, A. (2016). CSR-washing is rare: A conceptual framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 173–193.
Sandberg, M., & Holmlund, M. (2015). Impression management tactics in sustainability reporting. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 677–689.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications.
Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Talbot, D., & Boiral, O. (2018). GHG reporting and impression management: An assessment of sustainability reports from the energy sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 367–383.
Testa, F., Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R., & Frey, M. (2018). Does it pay to be a greenwasher or a brownwasher? Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 1104–1116.
Vishwanathan, P., van Oosterhout, H., Heugens, P. P., Duran, P., & Van Essen, M. (2020). Strategic CSR: A concept building meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 314–350.
Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227–242.
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534–544.
Wijen, F. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 302–323.
World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators. World Bank Group. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with JEFIS retain copyright and grant JEFIS the right of first publication. The work is simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which allows others to share and adapt the work with appropriate credit given to the original publication.
Authors may post their work in institutional repositories or personal websites, provided proper acknowledgement of original publication in JEFIS is included.
How to Cite
Article metrics
- Abstract views3
- PDF downloads0
- HTML views0
