Corporate Environmental Responsibility

Communication: Implications from CSR

and Green Advertising Research

Patrick Hartmann, Vanessa Apaolaza, Clare D’Souza, Jose M. Barrutia,

and Carmen Echebarria

Abstract Even though environmental topics are among the main themes addressed
in CSR communication (CSRC), research on specific environmental themed CSRC
has been scarce so far. This paper discusses the lessons that can be learned from
previous CSR communication and green advertising research for corporate envi-
ronmental responsibility communication (CERC) aims, channel selection and mes-
sage strategy. The review of relevant literature reveals that, while stakeholders
seemingly demand that companies engage in environmental initiatives, CERC
potentially can backfire. If adequately implemented, CERC can have beneficial
effects on corporate image, brand equity, stakeholder attitudes and consumer
purchase intentions. Key factors of CERC success are discussed.

1 Introduction

Stakeholders such as consumers, investors, employees and the public are increas-
ingly demanding that companies operate in a socially and environmentally respon-
sible manner, beyond their primary economic interests and legal requirements.
With corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, companies engage in activ-
ities aimed at improving the social good in a way that is desired by stakeholders
(Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Dawkins & Lewis, 2003; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2001; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Sprinkle &

P. Hartmann (*) • V. Apaolaza

Department of Management and Marketing, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU,
Bilbao, Spain
e-mail: patrick.hartmann@ehu.eus; vanessa.apaolaza@ehu.eus
C. D’Souza
Department of Management and Marketing, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: c.d’souza@latrobe.edu.au
J.M. Barrutia • C. Echebarria
Institute of Applied Business Economics, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU,
Bilbao, Spain
e-mail: josemaria.barrutia@ehu.eus; carmen.etxebarria@ehu.eus

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 377

S. Diehl et al. (eds.), Handbook of Integrated CSR Communication, CSR,
Sustainability, Ethics & Governance, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44700-1_21
378 P. Hartmann et al.

Maines, 2010). CSR can have multiple benefits for firms, including improving
corporate image, stakeholder attitudes, market value of the firm, as well as
employee and customer relationships (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Du, Bhattacharya,
& Sen, 2010; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). For many firms, corporate environmental
responsibility (CER) is currently one of the most important subdomains of CSR,
reflecting the need to reduce their environmental impact in response to environ-
mental issues such as global warming (Milliman, Ferguson, & Sylvester, 2008;
Öberseder et al., 2013; Perks, Farache, Shukla, & Berry, 2013; Schwartz & Carroll,
2003). There is also some evidence that CSR in the environmental domain may
have a more positive impact on corporate image and purchase intention than other
CSR domains more closely related to philanthropy (Mohr & Webb, 2005; see also
Choi & Ng, 2011). Since stakeholders’ awareness of CSR activities is generally
low, adequate CSR communication (thereafter CSRC) is a critical factor for CSR
success (Du et al., 2010). CSRC employs a variety of channels to communicate
messages related to the social performance of the corporation to different stake-
holders. According to Taylor’s (2014) review of CSRC, current research has
focused on executional factors and effectiveness of CSR messages, on message
source effects, fit between CSRC initiatives and the sponsoring corporation, or on
the impact of CSRC on corporate reputation.
Environmental topics (for instance, waste management, reduction of energy
consumption and emissions, efficient use of resources, creation of innovative
products and production processes for environmentally friendly production) are
among the main themes addressed in CSRC (Perks et al., 2013). If adequately
communicated, corporate environmental performance may deliver significant ben-
efits to companies (Grimmer & Bingham, 2013). However, since the review of
relevant literature turned out little research on specific environmental CSR com-
munication, the approach here has been to extract implications from both previous
CSRC and green advertising research. The specific environmental subdomain of
CSRC, on which this chapter is focused, will be termed ‘corporate environmental
responsibility communication’ (thereafter CERC) in the present context. In this
chapter, CERC is understood as corporate communication, which, by using differ-
ent communication channels, communicates messages related to the environmental
impact of the company to its stakeholders. Compared to CSRC the focus of CERC
is only on environmental corporate responsibility, not on wider CSR. Yet, most of
CSRC research seems to be applicable to CERC, for corporate environmental
responsibility (CER) issues are the most frequently addressed in CSRC (Perks
et al., 2013). Another reason for the environmental focus of CSR research in general
and communication efforts in particular is the “genesis” of CSR research, coming
mainly from environmental and sustainability science.
On the other hand, green advertising research has been more focused on product
and brand advertising than on corporate issues. CERC refers to a wider array of
recipient groups, and is less centered on advertising as a channel in particular. Still,
important lessons for CERC effectiveness may also be learned from green adver-
tising. The following sections discuss the implications of previous CSRC and green
advertising research for CERC aims, channel selection and message strategy.
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 379

2 CERC Aims and Effects: Awareness, Impression

Management and Green Corporate Image

As with CSRC, improving corporate image can be considered one of the principal
objectives of CERC. In the specific case of CERC this pertains to the particular
environmental dimension of company image. With consumers being increasingly
sensitive about environmental issues and scrutinizing the environmental impact of
companies, improving or maintaining the environmental image of a corporation
constitutes a relevant marketing objective (Perks et al., 2013). One of the most
significant impediments of the positive impact of CSR activities on company image
is the low extent to which stakeholders are actually aware of the CSR record of
corporations, highlighting the need for companies to communicate their CSR more
effectively (Du et al., 2010; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Consequently, one of the
most important aims of CERC, and a critical prerequisite for its positive impact on
corporate image, is achieving awareness for the company’s pro-environmental
efforts.
Research indicates that consumer attitudes toward the communication of CSR
activities are largely positive (Webb & Mohr, 1998) and that consumers generally
indeed perceive companies communicating their engagement in CSR activities as
more socially responsible (Ross, Patterson, & Stutts, 1992). Those effects are also
to be expected for specific environmental activities. If adequately implemented,
CERC activities may have a positive effect not only on the evaluation of the
company by improving the environmental dimension of its corporate image, but
also on attitude towards its products (Nan & Heo, 2007; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001;
Smith & Alcorn, 1991). There is furthermore evidence of a significant influence of a
company’s perceived environmental performance on consumer’s purchase inten-
tions (Grimmer & Bingham, 2013). Cross-national research has also confirmed
CSRC effectiveness in an international context (Becker-Olsen, Taylor, Hill, &
Yalcinkaya, 2011). Adapting Perks et al.’s (2013) classification scheme of CSR
image management strategies to the specific case of CERC, a number of approaches
to environmental image management can be identified. One option is to provide
substantial environmental information to stakeholders, indicating environmental
investment, outcomes and other information about the corporate environmental
program. Another strategy, environmental legitimization, can be based on
(i) informing stakeholders about the intentions of the organization to improve its
environmental performance; (ii) attempting to change the perception of stake-
holders regarding the corporations’ environmental impact without changing corpo-
rate environmental behavior; and/or (iii) diverting attention from environmental
problems by focusing on unrelated positive activities (environmental or other).
Green impression management can rely on either proactive environmental strate-
gies (e.g., green self-promotion) or defensive environmental tactics (e.g., excuses
and justifications accounts, environmental disclaimers, apologies, or restitution of
environmental damages). A further CERC strategy may utilize third-party
380 P. Hartmann et al.

association, that is, associating the company with third-party endorsements (e.g.,
environmental NGOs, environmental government agencies, etc.).

3 CERC Recipients and Channels

3.1 Environmental Stakeholders

Potential recipients of CERC are all environmental stakeholders of the corporation

in the widest sense, and, in particular, key stakeholders such as consumers,
employees, investors, and influencers of key stakeholders, comprising the public
at large (through positive or negative word of mouth), as well as environmental
organizations and pressure groups. Based on Dawkins (2004) classification of CSR
stakeholders, environmental stakeholders can be classified into environmental
opinion-leader audiences, for instance the business press, investors (both main-
stream institutional investors and especially environmentally conscious investors
and investment funds), and environmental NGOs on the one hand, and the general
public on the other (consumers and local communities). According to Dawkins,
environmental opinion leader audiences have a more proactive approach to envi-
ronmental related information and seek the company’s environmental report for
evidence on its environmental impact in terms of environmental indicators, bench-
marks and trends. Mainstream investors are more likely to be interested in the
business impact of environmental activities and should be provided with informa-
tion on how environmental activities impact business indicators such as customer
equity and employee retention. In contrast, the approach of the general public to
environmental information, such as consumers or local communities, is much more
passive. These stakeholders in most cases do not proactively seek information on
corporative environmental activities, even if issues are concerned, which they
consider of importance.

3.2 Stakeholder Skepticism

Stakeholders’ skepticism toward CER initiatives may have an important influence

on CERC effectiveness. Recipients’ skepticism has been extensively addressed
from both CSRC and green advertising perspectives. In the CSR literature it is
generally assumed that stakeholders are skeptical of CSR activities and communi-
cations and that they are increasingly so, paradoxically, at the same time that CSR
communications are increasingly employed to improve CSR perceptions (Becker-
Olsen et al., 2006). Stakeholders may also be particularly distrustful of CER
activities and communications, particularly, in the case of environmentally hazard-
ous industries. Source credibility and reliability are considered as major
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 381

requirements for CSR message acceptance and communications effectiveness

(Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009) and highly skeptical stakeholders have been found to
respond less positively to CSR than less skeptical ones (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001;
Mohr, Eroglu, & Ellen, 1998). In particular, CSR skepticism has been shown to hurt
corporate equity, lead to rejecting CSR claims, decrease resistance to negative
information about the company, stimulate unfavorable word of mouth, and affect
purchasing behavior (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). The suggested growing skep-
ticism toward CSRC in general and CERC in particular, has been attributed partly
to the observable proliferation of corporate ethical and green advertising claims,
especially those utilized by socially and environmentally noxious companies of the
so-called ‘sin industries’ category (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009; Pomering & Johnson,
2009). Stakeholders are typically suspicious of corporations in certain industries
related to health or environmental hazards, such as tobacco or oil, posing an
important challenge to their CSR communication (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Du
et al., 2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Yoon, G€urhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006).

3.3 Channel Selection

The choice of the CERC communication channel can affect message effectiveness
and credibility. A variety of communication channels is used by organizations to
disseminate their corporate environmental responsibility activities. Among these
channels, environmental reports (for instance as part of an annual corporate respon-
sibility report), web sites (as a dedicated section of the company’s official corporate
website) and advertising (TV commercials, magazine or billboard advertisements,
and product packaging) play a prominent role (Birth, Illia, Lurati, & Zamparini,
2008; Du et al., 2010; Farache & Perks, 2010; Perks et al., 2013). A further popular
communication instrument to improve stakeholders’ company image is corporate
sponsorship (Uhrich, Koenigstorfer, & Groeppel-Klein, 2014), which in the case of
CERC would be centered on environment related initiatives, activities, events or
organizations.
In addition to company controlled CERC, stakeholders will eventually also be
exposed to external communicators such as the media, word-of-mouth, environ-
mental monitoring groups and NGOs, or consumer forums and blogs. To exert
influence on such channels, in particular the media, press releases constitute a key
communication tool (Du et al., 2010). Message credibility will be affected by the
fact whether communication channels are controlled by the company or not.
Individuals are less skeptical about a company’s CSR activities, if messages
come from non-corporate, neutral sources (e.g., independent environmental orga-
nizations), since corporate sources have less credibility and are perceived to be
biased or self-interested (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Yoon et al., 2006).
Thus, companies should aim at getting favorable CER media coverage from
independent, unbiased sources (Du et al., 2010).
382 P. Hartmann et al.

Since different stakeholder groups will typically use specific communication

channels, the appropriate communication outlet should be selected depending on
respective stakeholder characteristics. According to Dawkins (2004), opinion
leader audiences such as the business press, investors and environmental pressure
groups, which are more likely to proactively seek out CER information, should best
be targeted via specific CSR and/or CER reports (for instance on corporate
websites, such as in the case of the BP corporate website). In contrast, the general
public, such as consumers or local communities, with a more passive predisposition
toward CER information, often only becomes aware of corporate CER initiatives
through advertising or independent channels (for instance, editorial press coverage;
Du et al., 2010, or environmental advertising such as the Iberdrola-Scottish Power
renewable energy campaigns).

4 Persuasion Strategy and Message Content

4.1 CERC Themes and Claims

Information provided in CSRC is typically different from corporate ability-related

information such as products or innovations. CSR information is centered on a
wider array of fundamental and enduring aspects of corporate identity, generally
related to sponsorship of social causes, employment policies or environmental
initiatives (Du et al., 2010). Indeed, it seems that environmental issues represent
the main themes addressed by organizations in CSR advertisements, focusing on
aspects such as waste management, reduction of energy consumption and emis-
sions, efficient use of resources, creation of innovative products and production
processes for environmentally friendly production, or reflecting the environmen-
tally concerned nature of their industry (Perks et al., 2013; Ziek, 2009). The
message content of environmental claims has also previously been studied from a
green advertising perspective. Carlson, Grove, and Kangun (1993) proposed clas-
sifying environmental claims as either substantive or associative. The former type
of claim presents a product or corporation as pro-environmental, providing infor-
mation on tangible environmental benefits. In contrast, associative environmental
claims expose simple environmental facts, merely linking the organization percep-
tually with some environmental cause, but without relationship to the actual
environmental impact of the product or company.

4.2 CERC Or Corporate Greenwashing?

In the case of some advertisers, the lack of a clear understanding of green claims by
recipients may indeed be the desired outcome. A number of studies analyzing the
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 383

information content of green advertising claims revealed vague or even misleading

advertising messages (e.g., Carlson et al., 1993; Iyer, Banerjee, & Gulas, 1994;
Kangun, Carlson, & Grove, 1991). In Banerjee, Gulas, and Iyer’s (1995) content
analysis, only a small minority of advertisements presented clear environmental
benefits of products or depicted concrete pro-environmental activities. Mostly,
advertisers used appealing pictures of the natural environment and addressed the
environmental implications of the product or company in an unspecific manner.
These authors identified as a typical example an advertisement by a major oil
company showing scenic pictures of pristine mountains and valleys underlined by
the copy ‘We care about the environment’. An ad-hoc review of more contemporary
green advertising campaigns shows that not much has changed in this regard in the
last two decades. Indeed, there is an ongoing discussion confronting such ‘social
irresponsibility’ strategy with genuine CSR (Murphy & Schlegelmilch, 2013).
Unspecific and potentially deceptive environmental advertising strategy has
been termed ‘greenwashing’ (Carlson et al., 1993; Kangun et al., 1991). Such
advertising may be detrimental to consumer’s trust in green claims and has been
suggested as a cause for a worldwide surge in skepticism toward green advertising
(Kangun & Polonsky, 1995; Kilbourne, 1995, 2004; Scammon & Mayer, 1995;
Zinkhan & Carlson, 1995). In the literature, the assumption has been widespread
that, due to the prevalence of misleading green advertising campaigns, consumers
are generally more skeptical toward environmental claims (Carlson, Grove,
Kangun, & Polonsky, 1996; Do Paço & Reis, 2012; Easterling, Kenworthy, &
Nemzoff, 1996; Fowler & Close, 2012). De Vries, Terwel, Ellemers, and Daamen
(2013) showed that communicating environmental policies and activities could
elicit positive reactions, but may also lead to accusations that companies deliber-
ately framed their activities as environmentally friendly in order to look more
environmentally responsible. Consequently, advertisers have been advised to
avoid alienating consumers, in particular environmentally conscious consumers,
with non-defensible, inaccurate or even misleading green advertising messages.

4.3 Improving Message Credibility and Minimizing

Stakeholder Skepticism

Minimizing stakeholder skepticism of CERC messages, avoiding suspicions of

greenwashing and enhancing message credibility constitute key challenges of a
successful CER strategy. For this purpose, some indications from previous CSR
research may be useful, in particular those based on attribution theory addressing
the underlying motives of CSRC. Stakeholders’ attributions of CSR motives seem
to be crucial, and positive inferences are unlikely, if ulterior, self-serving motives
are suspected (Fein & Hilton, 1994). Attributions of values-driven motives appear
to inhibit skepticism toward CSR, whereas egoistic motives elicit consumer skep-
ticism (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Similarly, attribution of extrinsic CSR
384 P. Hartmann et al.

motives, aimed at increasing company profits, will lead to less favorable stake-
holder attitudes and behaviors toward the company than intrinsic motives, seen as
genuine social or environmental concern (Du et al., 2010; Forehand & Grier, 2003;
Yoon et al., 2006). The aim should be to minimize stakeholder skepticism by
conveying intrinsic CSR motives (Du et al., 2010). On the other hand, stakeholders
may not respond so much to extrinsic motives per se, than to any manipulative or
deceptive initiative. Skepticism and impression of deception may be caused by the
discrepancy between perceived motives and publicly stated CSR motives (Fore-
hand & Grier, 2003). Yoon et al. (2006) showed that only when consumers attribute
sincere motives, CSRC indeed enhances corporate image, but that such initiatives
are ineffective when motives are perceived as ambiguous. When motives are
perceived as insincere, CSRC can even have detrimental image effects. Another
approach to improving perceived credibility may be related to the durability of
support for a cause, as it can be used as a cue for judging corporate motives,
according to Webb and Mohr (1998), who found that short-term campaigns were
more likely perceived as exploiting a cause for image reasons, whereas long-term
commitment was perceived as more related to authentic social concern. Further-
more, acknowledging both intrinsic and extrinsic motives in CSR messages has also
been shown to decrease skepticism and enhance credibility (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr,
2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006). In the
CERC subdomain, this condition can be complied with by acknowledging, for
instance, cost savings achieved by pro-environmental measures (such as recycling,
energy saving, etc.).

4.4 Substantial Information and Informative CERC

Research into particular behavioral effects of exposure to CERC claims has been
rather scarce so far. As a general increase in environmental consciousness has been
observed, it is not surprising that most authors recommend cognitive persuasion
strategies, that is employing informative claims, in green advertisements (Carlson
et al., 1996; Cope & Winward, 1991; Swenson & Wells, 1997). Particularly for
CSRC the use of substantial, factual information is indicated, avoiding especially
the impression of ‘bragging’ (Du et al., 2010; Polonsky & Jevons, 2009; Sen, Du, &
Bhattacharya, 2009). Hartmann and Apaolaza (2009) showed that exposure to
information on a specific environmental product feature can improve brand attitude.
The framing of information content can also have a significant influence on
environmental attitudes and behaviors. Differentiating between communication
framing in terms of the definition of the problem (gains and losses) and the target
(current and future generations), Davis (1995) showed that messages reflecting
losses to the current generation were the most effective with regard to intentions
regarding pro-environmental behavior. Overall, consumers seem to value accurate
and detailed environmental information, and they are not necessarily skeptical
toward green advertisements, which comply with this condition. For
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 385

environmentally conscious individuals, information utility of green claims seems to

decrease skepticism of green advertising (Matthes & Wonneberger, 2014).

4.5 Emotional Claims in CERC

Emotional advertising can lead to an improvement of brand attitude and purchase

intention by associating emotions with the brand (Brown & Stayman, 1992; Burke
& Edell, 1989; Kim, Lim, & Bhargava, 1998). In CERC, emotional claims have
also been utilized extensively. One particular green claim with emotional qualities
is nature imagery. Pictures of nature are widely used in green advertising. Merten
(1993) identified three categories of green claims related directly to nature, of
which one was described as visual associations with scenic pictures of nature.
Hartmann and Apaolaza (2008, 2009, 2012) and Hartmann, Apaolaza, and Alija
(2013) showed that exposure to pleasant nature imagery can lead to the association
of specific emotional experiences with the brand. Such positive affective brand
associations, which they termed ‘virtual nature experiences’, albeit of the associa-
tive and vague claim type, can notwithstanding lead to an increase in brand attitude
and purchase intention of environmentally friendly products.
In addition, negative affect may also play a role in environmental persuasion. On
occasion, green advertising appeals are aimed at evoking negative emotions such as
fear and guilt. Environmental fear appeals have been addressed in a small number
of studies. The influence of fear arousal as a consequence of exposure to environ-
mental threat appeals on behavioral intentions has been confirmed by LaTour and
Tanner (2003) for the specific case of radon gas contamination and by Laros and
Steenkamp (2004) for genetically modified food. For green appeals related to
climate change threats, Hartmann, Apaolaza, D’Souza, Barrutia, and Echebarria
(2014) found that increases in fear arousal subsequent to the exposure to severe
threat appeals increased intentions to switch to green electricity and to support a tax
on carbon dioxide emissions. Less research attention has been directed at the
effectiveness of guilt appeals in green advertising. While there has been some
empirical evidence supporting the use of guilt appeals in such a context, research
has also shown that the effect of guilt on behavior is rather complex (Jiménez &
Yang, 2008). Overall, the literature supports the view that the use of emotional
appeals in CERC can be quite effective.

4.6 Message Fit

Another characteristic of the CERC message, which has been shown to affect its
effectiveness, is the fit between the CER initiative and the advertised corporation
(Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Nan & Heo, 2007). CSR-company fit refers to the
perceived congruence or logical connection between a corporation’s core activities
386 P. Hartmann et al.

and its CSR initiatives. Fit may relate to the product dimension (e.g., an energy
company sponsoring renewable energy projects), corporate image associations as a
result of past CSR activities (e.g., The Body Shop supporting environmental
initiatives), or affinity with specific stakeholders, such as consumers (e.g.,
McDonald’s helping families of hospitalized children; Menon & Kahn, 2003). A
certain degree of such congruence seems to be expected by stakeholders. A low fit
of CSR activities and communications with the corporations’ business activities has
been suggested to increase cognitive elaboration and salience of extrinsic motives,
which in turn may induce negative reactions to CSRC (Du et al., 2010). Social
activities not aligned with corporate objectives may actually have a detrimental
effect on corporate image and become a liability. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) found
that low-fit CSRC had a negative effect on consumer beliefs, attitudes, and inten-
tions. However, they also found that high fit initiatives could have a negative impact
as well, when they were profit-motivated. Furthermore, Becker-Olsen et al.’s study
revealed that consumers considered the timing of the social initiative (proactive
versus reactive) as an informational cue, and that only simultaneously high-fit and
proactive CSRC improved corporate image. In a similar study by Nan and Heo
(2007), a positive effect of CSRC fit was only observed for individuals who were
high in brand consciousness. It is recommended that existing fit of CSR activities
should be highlighted in CSRC. In the case of low fit, CSRC messages should
elaborate on the rationale of the selection of the specific social initiative to enhance
fit perception (Du et al., 2010). For CERC, the implication is that companies should
seriously analyze the fit of their CER initiatives and communications with their core
corporate activities. For instance, it is questionable whether a much advertised 2003
campaign by BP Spain to protect the Iberian Lynx did indeed have an adequate fit
with the company’s environmentally hazardous activities.

5 Integrating CERC

Integrating CSRC strategy over multiple channels, and possibly on a global scale as
well, poses an important challenge to corporations. CERC, as a subdomain of
CSRC, does not follow an independent planning process, but must be considered
as embedded into the global CSR strategy. On the other hand, global CSRC strategy
must be consistent with CERC. In essence, this means that environmental aspects
across the whole company should be managed in a manner that is consistent with
CERC aims and messages. Or, expressed the other way around, CERC should not
communicate messages, which are inconsistent with the actual environmental
management and behavior of the corporation. Polonsky and Jevons (2009) have
proposed three areas of complexity that must be addressed for a successful strategic
integration of CSR activities and communications: issue (the range of social
responsibility issues), organizational (what the organizations actually do) and
communication (how to leverage those CSR actions). They recognize that partic-
ularly for global organizations, leveraging a corporate brand consistently for all
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 387

stakeholders is a complex task, since activities related with CSR should be aligned
considering these three areas of complexity. Global organizations will have to
address the highest stakeholder expectations on a global scale, since lower levels
in any national or regional scope may be perceived as insufficient for stakeholders
in other geographic or cultural environments. Another complication, in particular
for companies operating on an international level and following an integrated CSR
approach, may arise from the fact that some stakeholders may be alienated by some
CSR messages related to taking a stance on controversial social issues (Taylor,
2014). Multiple cultural contexts may give rise to cross-cultural issues complicat-
ing or even hindering a successful integrated CSR strategy. Environmental issues,
however, are less controversial than many other social topics such as those
suggested by Taylor, which may be more sensitive (e.g., gender issues, gay rights,
etc.). For CERC the problem of global integration will mostly be related to the
significant variation of moderators of CERC effects, such as environmental concern
and values in different international contexts or national cultural environments.
Receptiveness to CERC claims will vary consequently. Integration of CERC should
also not necessarily mean standardization. While overall CERC positioning should
be maintained constant across the globe, individual messages and executional
factors, while being consistent with the overall strategy, may be adapted to partic-
ular stakeholders.

6 Conclusions and Future Research

Corporate environmental responsibility communication is a delicate matter. Stake-

holders seemingly demand that companies engage in CER initiatives, and they want
to be informed about it. However, while CERC can improve corporate image, it
may potentially backfire. Stakeholders can easily become wary of CERC claims
when extrinsic motives are suspected (Du et al., 2010). Stakeholders initially may
already be skeptical toward CERC claims, and skepticism can easily arise in those
who are not. Credibility of CERC themes is a critical issue. Companies should
definitely avoid ‘bragging’ about their social and environmental initiatives (Sen
et al., 2009). In some situations, it may even be indicated to renounce
non-mandatory CERC altogether, in particular if advertising is concerned. This
may be the case for environmentally hazardous industries, such as oil and (conven-
tional fossil or nuclear) energy companies, as well as chemical companies. How-
ever, even for companies with a strong environmental performance, green corporate
advertising can result in more unfavorable brand attitudes than no advertising (see
Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2014; Parguel, Benoı̂t-Moreau, &
Larceneux, 2011).
Adequately implemented CERC can have beneficial effects on corporate image,
brand equity, stakeholder attitudes and consumer purchase intentions. An efficient
CERC program should take into consideration the specific stakeholder character-
istics and adapt messages and communication channels adequately. It is strongly
388 P. Hartmann et al.

recommended to utilize substantial green claims, that is, providing relevant infor-
mation regarding the corporation’s environmental performance. The degree of
detail of that information should be adapted to stakeholder groups. Information
included in environmental reports on corporate websites should be detailed,
whereas CER advertising directed mainly at consumers and the wider public should
concentrate on specific messages related to the corporation’s environmental posi-
tioning. Stakeholder perception of greenwashing will significantly hurt company
image and should be avoided. Besides informative messages, the use of emotional
claims can also be effective in enhancing corporate image and brand equity.
Overall, it seems that CER can be a profitable communication instrument. Many
consumers seem to accept a ‘win-win’ perspective on such corporate initiatives in
which the environment and the company both benefit.
There are still, however, significant gaps in understanding CERC effects, which
open important avenues for future research. It is not yet clear for which stake-
holders, which message contents and frames will work. The role of emotional
claims in CERC, for instance, has not been addressed in sufficient detail so far.
May some stakeholders react adversely to such message framing? Are nature
images favorable or can they lead to negative reactions? What is the role of message
fit in specific CERC messages? Clearly, more research is still needed to address
many remaining questions.

7 Exercise and Reflective Questions

1. The 2015 webpages dedicated to environmental information on BP’s corporate

website hardly show any images of pleasant natural environments. The two
pictures of this kind that can be seen (a snow owl and a lake with some leafless
trees) do not contain any green colors. Discuss the implications of this rather
untypical visual framing of CERC, as well as probable reasons and aims of the
company, and effects on recipients.
2. The “Shell Let’s go” CSR advertising campaign, depicting social and environ-
mental achievements of the company, has given rise to parody advertisements
from institutions such as the Arcticready initiative. Discuss the reasons and
implications of such counteractions from environmental organizations.
3. Would you recommend that an organic food producer and retailer such as
ALNATURA should use nature imagery in its CERC? (http://www.alnatura.de)

References

Banerjee, S., Gulas, C. S., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of
environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21–31.
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(1), 46–53.
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 389

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Taylor, C. R., Hill, R. P., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2011). A cross cultural look at
corporate social responsibility marketing communications in Mexico and the United States:
Strategies for global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 30–44.
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.
Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., & Zamparini, A. (2008). Communicating CSR: Practices among
Switzerland’s top 300 companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13
(2), 182–196.
Bronn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing:
An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207–222.
Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34–51.
Burke, M. C., & Edell, J. A. (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognition.
Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 69–83.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising
claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 27–39.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., Kangun, N., & Polonsky, M. J. (1996). An international comparison of
environmental advertising: Substantive versus associative claims. Journal of Macromarketing,
16(2), 57–68.
Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price
effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269–282.
Cope, D., & Winward, J. (1991). Information failures in green consumerism. Consumer Policy
Review, 1(2), 83–86.
Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285–299.
Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Commu-
nication Challenge, 9, 108–119.
Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholder expectations: And their implication for
company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 185–193.
De Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. (2013). Sustainability or profitability?
How communicated motives for environmental policy affect public perceptions of corporate
greenwashing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. doi:10.1002/
csr.1327.
Do Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R. (2012). Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising.
Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 147–155.
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.
Easterling, D., Kenworthy, A., & Nemzoff, R. (1996). The greening of advertising: A twenty-five
year look at environmental advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 4(1),
20–34.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer
attributions for corporate socially responsible program. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(2), 147–157.
Farache, F., & Perks, K. J. (2010). CSR advertisements: a legitimacy tool? Corporate Communi-
cations: An International Journal, 15(3), 235–248.
Fein, S., & Hilton, J. L. (1994). Judging others in the shadow of suspicion. Motivation and
Emotion, 18(2), 167–198.
Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated
company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356.
Fowler, A. R., III, & Close, A. G. (2012). It ain’t easy being green: Macro, meso, and micro green
advertising agendas. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 119–132.
390 P. Hartmann et al.

Grimmer, M., & Bingham, T. (2013). Company environmental performance and consumer
purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1945–1953.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza, V. (2008). Virtual nature experiences as emotional benefits in green
product consumption: The moderating role of environmental attitudes. Environment and
Behavior, 40(6), 818–842.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza, V. (2009). Green advertising revisited conditioning virtual nature
experiences. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 715–739.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green
energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of
Business Research, 65(9), 1254–1263.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., & Alija, P. (2013). Nature imagery in advertising: Attention resto-
ration and memory effects. International Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 183–210.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., D’Souza, C., Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2014). Environmental
threat appeals in green advertising: The role of fear arousal and coping efficacy. International
Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 741–765.
Iyer, E., Banerjee, B., & Gulas, C. S. (1994). An expose’ on Green Television Ads. Advances in
Consumer Research, 21, 292–298.
Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility
(CSR): Marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1),
103–113.
Jiménez, M., & Yang, K. C. (2008). How guilt level affects green advertising effectiveness?
Journal of Creative Communications, 33, 231–254.
Kangun, N., & Polonsky, M. J. (1995). Regulation of environmental marketing claims: A com-
parative perspective. International Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 1–11.
Kangun, N., Carlson, L., & Grove, S. J. (1991). Environmental advertising claims: A preliminary
investigation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10(2), 47–58.
Kilbourne, W. E. (1995). Green advertising: Salvation or oxymoron? Journal of Advertising, 24
(2), 7–20.
Kilbourne, W. E. (2004). Sustainable communication and the dominant social paradigm: Can they
be integrated? Marketing Theory, 4(3), 187–208.
Kim, J., Lim, J. S., & Bhargava, M. (1998). The role of affect in attitude formation: A classical
conditioning approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 143–152.
Laros, F. J., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2004). Importance of fear in the case of genetically modified
food. Psychology and Marketing, 21(11), 889–908.
LaTour, M. S., & Tanner, J. F. (2003). Radon: Appealing to our fears. Psychology and Marketing,
20(5), 377–394.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and
market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Matthes, J., & Wonneberger, A. (2014). The skeptical green consumer revisited: Testing the
relationship between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Adver-
tising, 43(2), 115–127.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do
they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316–327.
Merten, K. (1993). Markenwerbung mit dem Thema Umwelt. Markenartikel, 1, 39–40.
Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., & Sylvester, K. (2008). Implementation of Michael Porter’s strategic
corporate social responsibility model. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 29–33.
Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on
consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.
Corporate Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR. . . 391

Mohr, L. A., Eroglu, D., & Ellen, S. P. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of
skepticism toward environment claims in the marketers’ communications. Journal of Con-
sumers Affairs, 32(1), 30–55.
Murphy, P. E., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and corporate social
irresponsibility: Introduction to a special topic section. Journal of Business Research, 66(10),
1807–1813.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initia-
tives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising,
36(2), 63–74.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The interactive
effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR practices and consumer
perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1839–1851.
Parguel, B., Benoı̂t-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter
‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics,
102(1), 15–28.
Perks, K. J., Farache, F., Shukla, P., & Berry, A. (2013). Communicating responsibility-practicing
irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1881–1888.
Polonsky, M., & Jevons, C. (2009). Global branding and strategic CSR: An overview of three types
of complexity. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 327–347.
Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementa-
tion: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285–301.
Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2009). Constructing a corporate social responsibility reputation
using corporate image advertising. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 17(2), 106–114.
Ross, J. K., Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that
use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 20(1), 93–97.
Scammon, D. L., & Mayer, R. N. (1995). Agency review of environmental marketing claims:
Case-by-case decomposition of the issues. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 33–43.
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain
approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.
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(2), 225–243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in
strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.
Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). Building relationships through corporate social
responsibility. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand
relationships (pp. 195–211). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social
sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154–169.
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR
skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838.
Smith, S. M., & Alcorn, D. S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of
corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(3), 19–35.
Sprinkle, G. B., & Maines, L. A. (2010). The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility.
Business Horizons, 53(5), 445–453.
Swenson, M. R., & Wells, W. D. (1997). Useful correlates of pro-environmental behavior. In M. E.
Goldberg, M. Fishbein, & S. E. Middlestadt (Eds.), Social marketing, theoretical and practical
perspectives (pp. 91–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taylor, C. R. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and advertising. Does it extend to taking
stances on social issues? International Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 11–15.
392 P. Hartmann et al.

Uhrich, S., Koenigstorfer, J., & Groeppel-Klein, A. (2014). Leveraging sponsorship with corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2023–2029.
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause related marketing:
From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.
Yoon, Y., G€urhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),
377–390.
Ziek, P. (2009). Making sense of CSR communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 16(3), 137–145.
Zinkhan, G. M., & Carlson, L. (1995). Green advertising and the reluctant consumer. Journal of
Advertising, 24(2), 1–6.