CSR, CSA, or CPA? Examining Corporate Climate Change Communication Strategies, Motives, and Effects on Consumer Outcomes

Abstract

In response to the current social–political landscape, consumers’ expectations are changing. There is an increased need for companies to communicate about social issues such as climate change. This study is among the first to examine the differentiated and mediated effects of three messaging strategies: corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social advocacy (CSA), and corporate political activism (CPA), in the context of corporations communicating about climate change, which currently lacks scholarly attention. An online-survey experiment (N = 1048) compared the messaging strategies’ effects on three consumer responses: perceived credibility, perceived reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention. Results from a structural equation model indicate that the type of corporate climate change communication (CCCC) has a differential effect on consumer responses. The differences are magnified by the mediation of consumers’ attribution of corporate climate motives in the relationship between the climate change message and consumer responses. This study advances scholarship on CSR, CSA, and CPA, and provides theoretical and practical implications for how a corporation communicates about climate change using different communication and engagement strategies.

1. Introduction

Research asserts that human-caused climate change is one of the most critical issues our society is currently facing [1] and has been described as “the most urgent problem of the century” [2] (p. 5). In recent years, awareness of the climate crisis has gained momentum with a number of influential global events and examples such as the release of Pope Francis’ Encyclical in 2015, the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, the People’s Climate March in 2017, the IPCC 1.5-degree report in 2018, Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future youth climate strikes in 2018, COP 25 in 2019, and the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) in 2020. In addition to these events, corporations are appearing on the forefront as potential leaders to address global climate change [3,4].

A 2019 study by Yale Climate Opinion Maps revealed that 69% percent of Americans believe corporations should do more to address climate change [5]. Similarly, a 2017 study by Cone Communications revealed that 70% of Americans believe corporations should champion for social issues, even if the issue does not pertain to their business operations [6]. This report also indicated that a majority of consumers expect companies to get involved in many controversial issues such as immigration (78%), climate change (76%), gun control (65%), and LGBTQ rights (64%). In 2018, the CEO Activism report [7] cited similar results and reported an increase in CEOs taking public stands on controversial social, political, and environmental issues such as gender pay equality, gun control, and climate change [8].

Corporations are particularly interesting entities to examine in the context of climate change because of their large carbon footprints, relationships with environmental nonprofits, vast capital and resources to make an impact, prior involvement in social issues, and their public relations (PR) influence with many stakeholders [9,10]. With the increasing importance of climate change on the rise, corporations are weighing their decision to become involved in the conversation and be an influencer or agent of change. In fact, taking action on climate change is starting to have greater implications in terms of a company’s brand reputation, stakeholder image, investor confidence, and strategic operations [11]. Furthermore, because climate change is a highly polarized social issue, discussing it can be referred to as a form of controversial communication, an area that has been noted as an important (but vastly understudied) part of an organization’s overall communications strategy [12]. The corporate voice is an important part of PR history that helped companies shape their brand image, sell products, manage crises, communicate with their stakeholders, and influence public opinion [13]. In addition, one of PR’s greatest strengths is its ability to drive social change. As other scholars have noted, PR is at its best when it works to serve both the interests of the organization and society [8,14].

This new reality raises the following research questions: (1) Are corporations perceived as credible climate leaders? (2) What would be the impact on a corporation that took a stance on a highly polarized issue such as climate change? (3) Would knowing a company’s motivations influence consumers’ responses to a corporate climate message?

This study explores a phenomenon that will be referred to as corporate climate change communication (CCCC) by examining how a corporation communicates about climate change using varying degrees of stakeholder engagement and communication strategies denoting varying levels of corporate commitment and influence, and the effects on consumer outcomes. Specifically, this study attempted to be among the first to conceptualize corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social advocacy (CSA), and corporate political activism (CPA) as distinct communication and engagement strategies. For example, in the lowest level of influence, companies usually share information about their sustainability efforts in their annual CSR reports or websites [11]. However, with the increased need for transparency and accountability, corporate leaders are moving beyond the minimum standards of compliance and using higher levels of corporate commitment and influence to be visible advocates and activists for climate change. As consumers’ expectations of corporations shift and the number of companies taking a stance on controversial issues increases, there is a need to further study companies that intentionally pursue controversial communication efforts [12].

Specifically, this study examined how the type of CCCC may affect consumer responses to perceived reputation, perceived credibility, and positive word-of-mouth intention. Additionally, this study examined how different communication strategies may indirectly influence consumer outcomes through consumers’ attributions of the corporation’s motivations for communicating about climate change. Results from this study can help corporations better understand the impact of using different types of CCCC. More importantly, this study can offer new insight for how companies can navigate evolving societal expectations for communicating about social–political issues and the role of public relations in managing different communication and engagement strategies (CSR, CSA, CPA) effectively.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Climate Change Communication

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing our world [4]. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most politically polarizing issues in the US public sphere that continues to divide the country and paralyzes policy action [15,16,17]. As environmental issues and global climate change are rising in importance on the public’s agenda, the partisan divide is wider than ever with 78% of Democrats and 21% of Republicans viewing climate change as a top priority [15]. For decades, scientists have been working to raise public awareness of the causes and consequences of climate change and how people should act to mitigate climate change [18]. However, with political polarization and the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation [19,20,21], it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the public to understand why climate change is important or what to do about it [22].

A 2017 Gallup survey reports that 71% of Americans believe climate change is occurring; 68% believe climate change is caused by human activities; 62% believe the effects of climate change have already begun. In fact, scientific research asserts that human action is causing global warming [23,24]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “the continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” [25] (p. 8).

As previous research indicates, individual pro-environmental actions will not suffice; there is a need to ignite collective consumer action to fight climate change [26]. Consumers are looking to corporations to take the lead in driving social change in the absence of federal government action [27]. The climate change crisis provides all types of organizations (especially corporations) with an opportunity to shift their mindsets and communication strategies from a corporate social responsibility perspective to a more active and influential role [4]. Whether this action manifests in speaking out, lobbying, meeting with policy makers, cutting ties with fossil fuel companies, or no longer producing or selling certain products, is a key point as consumers are increasingly taking notice.

With its increasing importance around the globe, the climate crisis presents both a timely and relevant context through which to examine CCCC through three communication and engagement strategies denoting different levels of corporate commitment and influence: CSR, CSA, and CPA.

2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to a company’s voluntary pledge to responsibly use resources without depleting those for future generations and to improve society [28]. While CSR is not a new phenomenon, it has evolved over the last 50 years [29] as more companies appreciate the importance of integrating goodwill and ethical practices into their corporate culture [30] to benefit the company’s bottom line. It has been known that companies demonstrate their legitimacy by engaging in social good initiatives [31].

Previous research indicates CSR communication has mainly been used as an instrument to engage in minimal communication that can achieve good corporate citizen results [32,33]. Additionally, corporations with CSR initiatives engage in non-controversial issues that are aligned with their mission and create positive outcomes for the company’s image, reputation, and bottom line [34,35,36,37]. Other scholars have noted the impact of CSR communications on trust, word-of-mouth, and stakeholder relationships [38]. Climate change issues, due to the fact of their highly polarized and political nature, have been considered controversial and often excluded in corporate CSR initiatives. In fact, some companies have omitted the use of climate change verbiage when communicating about their environmental and sustainability initiatives for fear of isolating certain stakeholder groups. Instead, these companies discussed their environmental stewardship using more politically neutral terms, such as sustainability to imply environmental or climate leadership, in their annual CSR report [11].

While CSR initiatives can positively impact local and global stakeholders through good corporate citizen works, driving social change and influencing societal norms was not the ultimate goal [39]. The idea of using a corporate brand to bring visibility (and potential change) to an important societal issue that may or may not be aligned with the company’s business brought forth the concept of corporate social advocacy.

2.3. Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA)

As CSR has evolved to CSA, so has society’s expectations of corporations to deliver beyond the minimum standards that were once solely sufficient [40]. CSA is “taking a public stance on a controversial social–political issue by corporations, most often in the form of a CEO statement” [35] (p. 287). In order to be considered CSA, the initiative must be outside of the company’s core business, involve a controversial issue, and focus on financial and social outcomes [35]. Previous research has indicated that CSA and CSR are conceptually distinct in that the latter focuses on generating societal good whereas the former is focused on stance taking [31]. For instance, if a retail company specializes in women’s clothing, a CSR initiative could be to offer a women’s college scholarship program (non-controversial), whereas if the company CEO spoke out (in favor or against) immigration, gay marriage, abortion, or racial inequity (all controversial social issues), it would be considered a CSA initiative.

According to the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, societal expectations of corporations have shifted and as many as 76% of the public want CEOs to take the lead on social change [41]. In fact, there is an increasing expectation for corporations to take a stance (in favor or against) on controversial issues [12]. For example, Ben & Jerry’s CEO spoke out in support of Black Lives Matter; DICK’s Sporting Goods CEO spoke out in favor of gun control; Apple’s CEO spoke out against immigration policies. These examples (among others) demonstrate that remaining silent in the face of serious societal issues is becoming increasingly difficult. Instead, corporations are choosing to take a more purpose-driven approach and taking an active stance on issues over what may be most beneficial to their bottom lines [31,35,42].

Previous research indicates the use of CSA can have a positive effect on consumer behavior and positively influence a brand’s image [35]. Therefore, corporations (and oftentimes their CEOs) are willing to not only risk speaking out on important and controversial social issues, but also take the next step and lead with action.

2.4. Corporate Political Activism (CPA)

Corporate political activism (CPA) is defined as “when a company acts in response to controversial political [and social] topics” [43] (p. 13). As previously discussed, CSR usually involves issues that are united or non-controversial in nature (e.g., Coca-Cola addressing water shortages, Walmart empowering employees, or Patagonia promoting sustainable clothing), whereas CSA involves controversial social–political issues that are often polarized in society (e.g., abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, gun control, racial inequality, climate change) and can alienate some stakeholders [44]. The media also provides countless examples of controversial social–political issues, such as Chobani on refugee and immigrant rights; DICK’s Sporting Goods on gun control; Ben & Jerry’s on racial inequality; Netflix on women’s reproductive rights; Proctor & Gamble on LGBTQ rights; Amazon on climate change; and Costco on requiring mask mandates due to COVID-19.

In an effort to expand upon the slight distinction between CSA and CPA as [45] pointed out, this study conceptualizes each construct as distinct. For example, CSA is illustrated when DICK’s Sporting Goods CEO spoke out in favor of gun reform in response to the Parkland High School gun shootings. In contrast, CPA is illustrated by the CEO’s controversial decision to stop selling assault rifles to consumers under age 21, which received significant consumer backlash [45]. This critical action step was noted as a potential differentiator between advocacy and activism. Therefore, unlike CSA, CPA can move the needle beyond merely speaking out on behalf of an issue to being on the forefront taking direct action on behalf of the issue. Other scholars such as [46] have described CPA as more altruistic than CSR or CSA because of company’s emphasis on social justice issues rather than financial outcomes. In this case, corporations are aware that they may risk alienating certain consumer groups, but their dedication to the social cause is stronger [47].

This type of action also ties back to the role of PR in corporations as not only sharing timely and relevant information, but also acknowledging and engaging with different stakeholders to minimize risks and creating opportunities for CCCC and leadership [8].

2.5. Consumer Responses

Past research indicates that taking a public stance on a social issue can bring repercussions to the corporation in terms of consumer feedback regarding corporate credibility, corporate reputation, and word-of-mouth intention [48]. Though each of these consumer outcomes have been studied in separate research endeavors, they have not been investigated as a receptacle of corporate initiatives, such as climate change communication [12,45]. Thus, the study examines three types of consumer outcomes in response to corporate climate messaging: perceived corporate credibility, perceived corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention.

Perceived corporate credibility. Consumers are more likely to perceive a company as credible when it pursues an initiative outside its interest or core business [49]. If a company is involved in a corporate initiative outside its core business, people may perceive it as more credible because the company is taking a risk by pursuing actions that may or may not align with the business or may not be perceived as controversial. Source credibility, which refers to a communicator’s unique characteristic to influences the receiver’s acceptance of the message [50], can also influence consumers’ perceptions and reactions that may impact brand attitudes [51].

Public relations professionals have an opportunity to work on behalf of corporations to provide the public with accurate scientific information and credible sources [52]. For instance, corporate messaging that is based on science (not pseudoscience or greenwashing tactics) can positively influence how science is reported in the media and in the public sphere [53]. In other words, there is a noted difference between being socially responsible and “selling the science” in a manipulative or misleading way [54] (p. 118), [55]. For example, previous research shows corporations’ tainted history of manipulating science for personal gain, even orchestrating and funding science denial campaigns [21,56]. There were also attempts of greenwashing by manipulating a corporate image to appear environmentally responsible [57]. All these actions have negatively affected perceived corporate credibility and as a result, people tend to view company promises of positive change with much skepticism. Nonetheless, in recent years, companies have stepped up in place of government’s inaction in addressing social issues and received favorable responses from the public [6]. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

All types of corporate climate change messaging (CSR, CSA, and CPA) will have a significant and positive effect on consumers’ perceived corporate credibility.

Perceived corporate reputation. Corporate reputation is the collective assessment of the company’s products, services, characteristics, behaviors, and history stored in the consumer’s mind [32,58]. Closely connected to corporate credibility [59], corporate reputation is a key asset of a company and is built over time on the basis of the company’s ability to fulfill stakeholders’ expectations [48].

CSR engagement in non-controversial social issues contributed to a company’s positive reputation and influenced purchase intentions [37]. In turn, when a company established a positive reputation, it is much more likely that its CSR initiative will be perceived as genuine; whereas if the company has a negative reputation, its CSR initiative may be perceived with skepticism or hypocrisy [58,60]. Past studies have also indicated that companies involved in CSR initiatives have received positive financial returns in terms of purchase intention, since the company is pursuing a corporate-sponsored, non-controversial issue that is beneficial to the company and its stakeholders [35]. Unlike CSR, CSA, and CPA presents the potential to isolate stakeholder groups, which can be a risky move and create a negative backlash (e.g., brand reputation and financial impact) for many companies [61]. Indeed, many companies consider it imperative to achieve a good corporate reputation because of the numerous benefits they can receive in terms of brand perception, consumer loyalty, and financial returns [59].

Therefore, in an effort to better understand the impact of different messaging strategies on corporate reputation, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

All types of corporate climate change messaging (CSR, CSA, and CPA) will have a significant and positive effect on consumers’ perceived corporate reputation.

Positive Word-of-Mouth Intention. Among other consumer outcomes reflecting consumers’ intention to influence others is the intention to use positive word-of-mouth, which refers to consumer’s willingness to share positive reviews and recommend a company’s products or services to others, such as family members, friends, or work colleagues [37]. On the contrary, companies strive to avoid negative word-of-mouth which may result from consumers’ dissatisfaction and their subsequent decision to share negative feedback with others [62]. This study focuses on positive word-of-mouth as an important consumer outcome of corporate climate messaging. Research indicates that an individual’s willingness to share positive information with others is highly based on the person’s identification with the company [37,63]. In turn, when consumers have loyalty toward a company (influenced through reputation), they are more likely to share those positive feelings with others [64]. This domino effect of sharing information through word-of-mouth supports previous literature indicating that people who are willing to share information with friends and family, can be persuasive [65], as they tend to trust people with whom they share values and speak a common language. Nowadays, with the increased use of social media, word-of-mouth is further amplified. Thus, the following hypothesis is propositioned:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

All types of corporate climate change messaging (CSR, CSA, and CPA) will have a significant and positive effect on consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intention.

2.6. Attribution Theory

This study employs attribution theory to elucidate the motives of CCCC. Attribution refers to the public’s perceptions of a company’s motives. Attribution refers to the “causal reasoning” consumers use when understanding why a company engages in a particular program or initiative [37] (p. 14). Because consumers are unable to know the sincerity of a company’s motives with full certainty, they are left to infer about a company’s underlying motives and may respond positively or negatively [66]. Attributions can also explain why some stakeholders may have skepticism when it comes to the corporation’s good intentions and perceive it as either self-serving or public serving [34]. Previous research explains that the publics’ skepticism regarding a corporation’s CSR initiative is often linked to their perception of the company’s motives. If consumers perceive the company’s CSR program to be self-serving (vs. public-serving), they are more likely to have suspicions or perceive the CSR program as hypocritical [67]. In fact, consumers can decide whether or not to engage in a CSR activity based on their perceived motives of the corporation. If they perceive the corporation is sincerely interested in serving the publics’ interests, they are more likely to have positive attitudes. However, if they perceive the corporation as motivated by self-interests only, they are likely to develop negative attitudes.

The reason why consumers’ attributions of CSR initiatives is important is because it is an important indicator of consumer responses and contributes to the overall success of the program [66]. While perceived motives for CSR have been previously explored [68,69], there is a lack of studies examining perceived motives in CSA or CPA [61].

By applying attribution theory to a climate change context, this study examines attribution of CCCC motives as a mediator to understand the indirect effect they may have on consumer outcomes. This process will provide insights into if and how attribution is affected by the different types of climate messaging and shed light on the importance and role of attribution in evaluating a company’s corporate climate change motives.

The study assumes that the attribution of corporate motives makes corporate political activism to be seen more as effective than corporate social advocacy, and corporate social advocacy to be seen as more effective than corporate social responsibility, in the way companies communicate messages and its effects on consumer attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 4a (H4a).

Corporate social advocacy (CSA) will be seen more effective than corporate social responsibility (CSR) when the attribution of corporate motives is taken into account.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b).

Corporate political activism (CPA) will be seen more effective than corporate social advocacy (CSA) when the attribution of corporate motives is taken into account.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection

To examine the hypotheses, a between-subjects experiment was conducted using an online Qualtrics survey on 7 April 2020. TurkPrime was used to recruit a large and diverse U.S. sample. In comparison to Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), TurkPrime is a more versatile data acquisition resource that provides flexibility, saves time, and improves data quality [70]. Due to the politically polarizing nature of the topic of climate change, quota sampling was used to collect a sample that was half Democrat and Republican. From the initial sample of 1,120 participants, 72 participants were excluded from data analysis for not answering the attention check question correctly. A total final sample (N = 1048) of survey responses from U.S. adults were analyzed. Male participants accounted for nearly 52% and females made up 48%. The majority (45%) were college graduates with a bachelor’s degree, followed by participants who had completed graduate work (16.3%). The majority of participants identified as White and non-Hispanic (77%), followed by Black (9.5%), Asian (7.2%) and Hispanic (4.6%). As expected, based on the sampling technique, 49.9% indicated a preference to vote for Democrat candidate, while 47.7% indicated a preference to vote for a Republican candidate. The full questionnaire consisted of 36 questions and the average completion time was 10 min (SD = 47.2).

3.2. Experimental Stimuli

This study drew inspiration from the real-world case in January 2020 when Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella announced an official climate pledge to eliminate all carbon emissions by 2050 [71]. For the purpose of the experimental design, different levels of CCCC were operationalized as CSR, CSA, and CPA to reflect the different types of communication and engagement strategies. Each experimental condition was then compared to the control message, which was a corporate message unrelated to climate change. After reviewing the consent form and agreeing to participate in this study, participants were randomly assigned (and evenly distributed) to view one of the four messages said to be from Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella: CSR = 24.5% (n = 257), CSA = 24.7% (n = 259), CPA = 25.3% (n = 265), and the control = 25.5% (n = 267).

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) message read as follows:

“Today we are making the commitment that by 2030 Microsoft will be carbon neutral and focus on corporate sustainability. As noted in our CSR report, we’ve invested $50 million to support new sustainability projects and be good stewards of our social, economic, and environmental resources.”

The corporate social advocacy (CSA) message read as follows:

“Today we are making the commitment that by 2030 Microsoft will be carbon negative and focus on our climate pledge. We will reduce our carbon footprint not just across our direct emissions, but across our supply chain too. This is an important issue affecting everyone and we cannot afford to be silent anymore. We must work together and act now.”

The corporate political activist (CPA) message read as follows:

“Today we are making the commitment that by 2030 Microsoft will be carbon negative and focus on our climate pledge. We will reduce our carbon footprint not just across our direct emissions, but across our supply chain too. As part of this pledge, we are no longer providing our IT services or selling products to fossil-fuel companies unless they have a similar plan to reduce their carbon footprint as well.”

The control group message read as follows:

“There has never been a greater need for corporations to deliver innovative products and services than there is in today’s growing marketplace. We hope you will join us on this journey because each of us must commit to do more in order for us to collectively achieve more. We are proud to be among the top corporate leaders in the U.S. and excited for the future.”

After viewing the stimuli, participants responded to a series of questions to evaluate their perceived corporate credibility, perceived corporate reputation, positive word-of-mouth intention, and their perceptions of the corporation’s motivations to communicate about climate change.

3.3. Measurement

To measure consumers’ perceptions of corporate credibility, four items developed by [72] were adapted. Sample items are: “The company is a credible source for information”, “The company is trustworthy”, “The company is a competent source for information”, and “The company is honest about its stance”. Participants were asked to respond using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores were averaged to create an index reflecting perceptions of positive (higher values) or negative (lower values) perceived corporate credibility (M = 3.84, SD= 0.73, median = 4.00). The internal consistency test (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) was above the minimum threshold of 0.7.

Perceptions of corporate reputation were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) using six statements from the Reputation Quotient of 20 attributes developed by [59]. Sample items are: “I admire and respect the company,” “The company offers high quality products and services”, “The company has excellent leadership”, “The company looks like a good place to work”, “The company is environmentally responsible”, and “The company appears to have strong prospects for future growth”. These statements reflect the following traits attributed to corporate reputation: emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, workplace environment, social and environmental responsibility, and financial performance. Scores were averaged to create an index to reflect perceptions of positive (higher values) or negative (lower values) corporate reputation (M = 3.97, SD = 0.64, median = 4.00). The internal consistency test (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) was above the required threshold of 0.7.

Consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) adapting five items developed by [63,73]. Sample items are: “I would encourage friends to buy products from the company”, “I would encourage family members to buy products from this company”, “I would recommend this company’s products to someone who asked my advice”, “I would say positive things about this company and its products to other people”, and “I would encourage others to learn more about this company”. Scores were averaged to create an index reflecting higher or lower levels of positive word-of-mouth intentions (M = 3.71, SD = 0.84, median = 4.00). The internal consistency test (Cronbach’s α = 0.93) was above the required threshold of 0.7.

Consumer attributions (or perceived motives) of communicating climate change was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with four adapted items developed by [74], which reflect a mix of public-serving vs. self-serving motives. Sample items are: “The company is being true to its values and mission”, “The company feels its consumers expect it to be involved in an issue like climate change”, “The company will get more consumers by being involved in the issue of climate change”, and “The company wants to be involved in the issue of climate change to improve or repair its brand image”. Scores were averaged to create an index indicating positive or negative attributions (M = 3.74, SD = 0.65, median = 3.75). The internal consistency result (Cronbach’s α = 0.67) was slightly below the required threshold of 0.7 for reflective constructs [75].

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Fit

AMOS results were used to validate all the constructs (perceived corporate reputation, perceived corporate credibility, positive word-of-mouth intention, consumers’ attribution) and assess the goodness of fit of the model, as shown in

Table 1. AMOS results: standardized total effects and goodness of fit of all constructs (pooled sample).

Latent Variable	Indicator Variable	Factor Loadings
Corporate Reputation	λ Reputation_R1	0.787
	λ Reputation_R2	0.679
	λ Reputation_R3	0.790
	λ Reputation_R4	0.729
	λ Reputation_R5	0.660
	λ Reputation_R6	0.656
Corporate Credibility	λ Credibility_C1	0.826
	λ Credibility_C2	0.832
	λ Credibility_C3	0.833
	λ Credibility_C4	0.740
Positive Word-of-Mouth Intention	λ Word of Mouth_WM1	0.869
	λ Word of Mouth_WM2	0.897
	λ Word of Mouth_WM3	0.861
	λ Word of Mouth_WM4	0.866
	λ Word of Mouth_WM5	0.757
Attribution	λ Atribution_A1	0.714
	λ Atribution_A2	0.412
	λ Atribution_A3	0.611
	λ Atribution_A4	0.268

. All loadings are above the minimum threshold required [75]. The ascertained goodness-of-fit measures indicating how well the specified model structure reproduces the covariance matrix among the items assigned to each construct are well suited. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.937, the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) was 0.922, and the normed fit index (NFI) was 0.925, all above the acceptable threshold of 0.90 (Hair et al., 2019) [75]. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), which reflects how well a model fits a population, was 0.065, which was below the advisable value of 95 percent confidence of 0.08. Overall, the estimated model appeared to be very close to the observed phenomenon being studied.

4.2. Structural Model Results

ANOVA results were obtained to examine the effect of the experimental manipulation (independent variable) on consumer responses (dependent variables), as well as on attribution (mediating variable). Correlation coefficients were employed to examine all relationships and R squared was used to examine the single effects of each message type (CSR, CSA, CPA) on the dependent variables, and to examine the interaction effects of the type of message and the mediating variable on the dependent variables.

Table 2. ANOVA results: direct effects of corporate climate change messages (experimental and control) on consumer responses.

Consumer Responses	M	SD	F	p	Cronbach’s α	R2
Corporate Credibility	3.84	0.73	2.72	0.044	0.89	0.300
Corporate Reputation	3.97	0.64	7.10	0.000	0.86	0.414
Positive Word-of-Mouth	3.71	0.84	3.46	0.016	0.93	0.259

reveals an overall experimental effect. Supporting H1, H2, and H3, follow-up tests showed that the message that was read (experimental versus control), influenced participants’ perceptions of corporate credibility (p = 0.044, α = 0.89, R² = 0.300), perceptions of corporate reputation (p < 0.001, α = 0.86, R² = 0.414), and positive word-of-mouth intention (p = 0.016, α = 0.93, R² = 0.259).

In addition, post hoc tests, which were Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons, suggested the following. Regarding participants’ attributions, each of the experimental conditions differed significantly from the control condition (all ps < 0.001). However, the differences between the experimental conditions were not as significant.

Table 3. ANOVA results: mediated effects of corporate climate change messages on consumer responses.

Structural Relationships	F	p	R2	∆R2
CSR → Attribution → Credibility CSA → Attribution → Credibility CPA → Attribution → Credibility	61.06	0.000	0.189	0.000
	99.91	0.000	0.274	0.085
	112.16	0.000	0.293	0.019
CSR → Attribution → Reputation CSA → Attribution → Reputation CPA → Attribution → Reputation	101.16	0.000	0.279	0.000
	149.69	0.000	0.361	0.082
	169.02	0.000	0.385	0.024
CSR → Attribution → Word-of-Mouth CSA → Attribution → Word-of-Mouth CPA → Attribution → Word-of-Mouth	62.77	0.000	0.193	0.000
	109.87	0.000	0.293	0.100
	132.56	0.000	0.329	0.036

CSR = corporate social responsibility; CSA = corporate social advocacy; CPA = corporate political activism.

exhibits regression results explaining consumer perceptions of corporate credibility, corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention. For example, corporate reputation scores were higher for CPA (0.385) than for CSA (0.361), and those for CSA were higher than for CSR (0.279), which shows a net increase of 0.082 and 0.024 points, respectively. Similarly, CPA messages were more impactful to consumer perceptions of corporate credibility and positive word-of-mouth intentions than the CSA and CSR messages, in line with the hypothesized effects (H4a and H4b).

5. Discussion

Despite the continued growth of studies in CSR, CSA, and CPA on various social issues, there has been little research focused on the role and effect of corporations communicating about controversial social issues, such as climate change, on consumers’ behavior. In an effort to address this gap, this study provides one of the first experimental studies of the direct and indirect effects of three types of corporate climate change communication (CCCC) on consumers’ responses.

First, the results demonstrate significant differences between the direct effects of the three conditions (i.e., CSR, CSA, and CPA) and the control condition on consumers’ responses. The CSR, CSA, and CPA messages significantly and positively influenced three consumers’ responses (perceived corporate credibility, perceived corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention) more than the control message, in support of hypothesis 1, 2, and 3. The empirical results also indicate non-significant differences among each experimental condition (i.e., CSR, CSA, and CPA). Respondents did not perceive distinct differences between the levels of influence that a corporation can exercise when communicating about climate change. This perceived lack of distinction may be attributed to many possible factors such as consumers’ lack of awareness or literacy about CSR, CSA, and CPA or consumers’ perceived cynicism about corporate climate message strategies (e.g., it did not matter what the company says, nothing will change). These findings also confirm the need to further explore these concepts as distinct and examine how companies are using these different communication strategies [31].

Second, the inclusion of consumers’ attribution of CCCC motives enhanced the empirical study by illustrating the mediating role of attribution in the relationship between the types of corporate messaging and consumers’ responses. In other words, this study provided valuable insight into consumers’ perception of a corporation’s motives for engaging in this controversial issue of climate change. As the results show, the three experimental conditions have a significant indirect effect (through attribution) on all consumer responses, in support of hypothesis 4a and 4b. Thus, attribution is positively associated with each type of corporate climate change message, thereby indicating that perceived corporate motives are an important consumer consideration when evaluating climate messaging. In other words, people want to know and understand the company’s motives for engaging in social–political issues, especially when it appears to be contrary to company core interests [49]. While attribution of corporate motives has been researched in the context of CSR, it has not been studied as much in CSA and CPA research [61]; therefore, this study contributes to expanding the literature. As previously indicated, consumers are more willing to accept a company’s political stance when a company is perceived to be values-driven (positive), as opposed to market-driven (negative) [44]. However, as other scholars have pointed out, it is less likely to find companies who are purely portrayed as values-driven or market-driven [74]. Instead, it is more acceptable by consumers for companies to publicly portray themselves as both as long as they are being genuine and consistent. In line with previous literature, each experimental condition in this study positively influenced attribution for Microsoft’s corporate credibility, corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention. In other words, consumer perceptions of the company’s motives for climate change were significantly positive indicating the importance of being perceived in a consistent and authentic lens, especially when communicating about social–political issues.

6. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This research contributes a valuable discovery in that CCCC is better understood when discerning the corporation’s motives for engaging in the issue. Alternatively, consumers’ knowledge of corporate motives for actions or words, can guide consumers to an advantageous appreciation of corporate messaging regarding climate change. The inclusion of consumers’ attribution of CCCC motives as a mediator of the relationship between the types of corporate messaging and consumers’ responses heightened the study and its ability to better explain the linkage. The results show that the three experimental conditions have a significant indirect effect (through attribution) on all three consumer outcomes. The role of a company’s motives is documented in the context of CSR research [61], but scarcely studied in the context of CSA and CPA research when examined as separate and distinct constructs. For instance, attribution was noted as being most positive in the CPA condition meaning that when Microsoft engaged in action (as opposed to CSR or CSA), it was perceived to have greater degrees of corporate credibility, corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention. As one of the most admired companies in the U.S. and with a record of sustainability for over 20 years [76], there is a greater expectation on companies like Microsoft to take a leadership role and do what they preach. Often referred to as the triple bottom line, sustainability management is becoming more prevalent as companies see the need to proactively address environmental, social, and economic issues [77,78]. This raises practical implications in terms of how important it is for companies to not only be aware of how they are positioning themselves, but also being consistent and authentic in their communication strategies to avoid perceptions of hypocrisy and possible consumer backlash.

In terms of theoretical implications, scholars have suggested the literature needs additional research on controversial social issues examining other companies and other industries [12,45,79], as well the need to add empirical and theoretical contributions to public relations as it pertains to societal change [46]. Additionally, this study advances research in conceptualizing and operationalizing CSR, CSA, and CPA as distinct communication and engagement strategies with varying levels of corporate commitment that can influence consumer attitudes and behaviors.

7. Limitations and Future Research

Despite new contributions, this study encountered some limitations. Opting for a realistic (as opposed to a fictional) approach, the study is based on an actual company’s message that is already positioned in the mind of many consumers as a familiar brand (Microsoft) and that allowed for adaptations reflecting three types of messaging (i.e., CSR, CSA, and CPA) and an additional version for the control message. However, it is possible that what was gained with the familiarity of the chosen company’s message was lost with responses involving potential biases. Future studies should consider using messages from different companies within the same industry or across industries, as well as consider examining the role of pre-existing attitudes of the company, as well as climate change attitudes based on the Six America’s audience segmentations [80,81].

A second limitation reveals that the measurement of attribution can be reconsidered to obtain more solid results. The study adapted a scale that included four categories (values-driven, stakeholder-driven, strategic driven, and egoistic-driven) [74]. Only one item from each category was used in the study, enough to build a contrast with a positive and a negative score. Future research can include the complete set of questions from the original scale to explore potential differences between the four categories.

As a third limitation, consumers were the only stakeholder involved in the responses to the various messaging. Other stakeholders can also be studied, in particular employees, who are considered the company’s number one brand ambassador. This inclusion may open a window to explore the role of organizational listening in controversial or polarizing issues such as climate change, and the consequences of not listening to employee groups and ignoring online employee activism (e.g., Microsoft Workers 4 Good, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, and Googlers for Climate Action).

Finally, future studies can explore more in-depth understanding of the different messaging strategies by using qualitative methods. For instance, in-depth interviews can be used to further scrutinize new strategies, challenges, or motivations of PR leaders deciding which messaging strategy (CSR, CSA, or CPA) to use when communicating a company’s position or level of engagement with controversial global issues, such as climate change.

8. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate corporate climate change communication (CCCC) through the eyes of a real-world company and examine messages that differ in degrees of influence (i.e., CSR, CSA, and CPA). The results provide valuable insight for companies who are evaluating whether or not to engage in corporate climate strategies, and what kind of consumer responses can result from using different influence levels of communication. By advocating for science-based climate action, corporations can use their voice to shape public opinion and influence policy-makers to take action. For instance, some companies (mainly from the oil industry) are among the most powerful entities in the world and often the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Therefore, more research is needed to closely scrutinize not only their stances on climate change, but also how they communicate their position and call for action.

Due to the increased polarization and political divide in the U.S., there is a rise of corporations either speaking out or taking action on social issues. Consumers are looking to companies to be drivers of change. As more and more companies take on this role and communicate about controversial social issues, it will be important to see how corporate communication roles evolve and integrate controversial communications (examining social–political issues), stakeholder engagement, and communication strategies into their strategic planning and how this affects individuals’ perceptions of the corporation, based on the company’s issue involvement, as well as the message strategy used. These results provide some of the first insights into the phenomenon of corporate climate change communication (CCCC) that can vary by CSR, CSA, and CPA levels, but much remains unexplored not only in the climate change realm but also in additional social–political issues.