Can CEO Activism Be Good for the Organization? The Importance of Authenticity,Morality,and Timeliness

Abstract

This research presents a model connecting the perceived morality, authenticity, and timeliness (MAT) of CEO activism to consumer trust and supportive behaviors (e.g., consumer advocacy and intention to work) toward the CEO’s organization. The results show that perceived MAT of CEO activism are positively associated with Millennial and Gen-Z consumers’ trust toward the CEO’s organization. There was a strong and positive association between consumer trust and consumers’ supportive behaviors. This model will advance theoretical understanding of how CEO activism can effectively contribute to younger consumer outcomes.

Keywords

CEO activism morality authenticity timeliness consumer outcomes

Today’s Millennials and Generation Z place greater value on company and CEO engagement with issues like lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ), equality, gun control, immigration, and climate change (Morning Consult, 2020). In response to this expectation, corporate leaders now proactively speak out on contentious environmental, social, and political issues, either as a result of their personal beliefs or due to their desire to please customers and employees (Hambrick & Wowak, 2021). This behavior generates a type of activism that may not be directly aligned with the company’s core business and may create adversaries out of organizational stakeholders who disagree with the CEO’s stance. Limited research on CEO activism suggests that CEOs’ statements regarding contested issues can shape public opinions about government policies, boost positive consumer attitudes toward the CEO’s company, attract media attention, and promote employee engagement and behaviors (Chatterji & Toffel, 2019; Y. Lee & Tao, 2021). However, a CEO who is actively involved in these issues may also encounter unexpected outcomes for the organization. For example, Brown et al. (2020) found that when employees disagree with the CEO’s stance, CEO activism is associated with high employee turnover intentions and workplace deviance (i.e., employee activism).

Nonetheless, in the polarized, contemporary environment, it is difficult for businesses to avoid public expectations regarding their participation in practices that have significant social and political implications (Mayer, 2017). Given that consumers are increasingly and intentionally buying products and services from companies that support the social causes they care about (Weber Shandwick, 2016), CEOs cannot overlook consumer expectations, especially in terms of younger consumers. Despite the growing purchasing power of young consumers, few efforts have examined the mechanism through which the stance of CEOs on controversial social issues addresses young consumers’ call for social good. Therefore, this study focuses on this under-researched group of Millennials and Gen Z individuals (18-40 years old), as young consumers, residing in the United States. For these consumers, social realities, such as the election, the pandemic, and the Black Lives Matter movement are reshaping public expectations of American companies and CEO engagement (Morning Consult, 2020).

As so-called ethical generations, Millennials and Gen-Z are distinct from their previous generations in how they feel about corporate socially responsible behaviors (Cone Communications, 2008). For example, Millennials underscore the morality of corporate socially responsible behaviors regarding the well-being of people, sustainability, ethical development of products and service, and so on (Chatzopoulou & de Kiewiet, 2021). They also naturally hold skeptical attitudes toward the motives of corporate non-market activities and actively look for cues of authenticity and originality in corporate actions (Chatzopoulou & de Kiewiet, 2021). Moreover, prevalent real-time interactions on social media have raised expectations among Millennials and Gen-Z consumers that companies will respond in a timely and informative manner (Cox, 2018). Corporations’ always-on and informative communication on important social issues can not only make corporations pioneers on leading social change but also demonstrate organizational commitment to accountability to the public (Gupta, 2011).

Drawing upon previous research in attribution and signaling theories, the purpose of this article explores how attributes of CEO activism are connected with younger consumers’ trust in the CEO’s organization; in addition, this study considers the willingness of younger consumers to support or work for the organization. Trust receives broad agreement among scholars as a key driver of quality long-term organization–public relationships and organizational effectiveness (Bozic, 2017). Although people have lost trust in the government as a facilitator for social good, there is a burgeoning belief among younger generations that CEOs and their represented organizations should take a stance for social issues (Allen & VandeHei, 2021). Moreover, when used properly, CEO activism can be the most effective way to engage belief-driven consumers like Millennials and Gen-Z, who can then become committed and faithful advocates and even potential applicants for the CEO’s organizations (Bloomgarden, 2019). To that end, this article presents a conceptual model that connects perceived morality, authenticity, and timeliness (MAT) of CEO activism to consumer trust and supportive behaviors (e.g., consumer advocacy and intention to work) toward the CEO’s organization.

Literature Review

Rooted in attribution and signaling theories, the current study provides a theoretical framework to interpret how CEO activism may boost trust and supportive behaviors among young consumers. Attribution theory suggests that consumers attribute motives for corporate activities and allow this attribution to influence their subsequent attitudes and behaviors (Ruiz de Maya et al., 2016). For example, when consumers attribute corporate initiative to altruistic motives, consumers tend to evaluate corporate image as socially responsible and thus respond positively to the organization (Pérez, 2019). Signaling theory also suggests that receivers may engage in a decoding process to assess the signal’s attributes and content before deciding how to respond to the signaler (Busser & Shulga, 2019). Previous findings suggest that individuals tend to hold more favorable attitudes toward the signal sender when there is a perceived value-fit, credibility, or genuineness in a signal (K. Park & Jiang, 2020). Thus, through engagement in activism activities, the CEO and their respective organization not only demonstrate their values on an important social issue, but also convey relevant attributes to young consumers, which may contribute in attracting young consumers and eliciting positive reactions about the organization.

Conceptualizing CEO Activism

CEO activism is worthy of special attention within current corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity scholarship because of the innate connections between the CEO and their organization. When awry, CEO activism risks alienating organizational stakeholders who disagree with the CEO’s stance on the controversial social issues, thereby potentially increasing financial risk (Chatterji & Toffel, 2019). In addition, CEO activism is distinct from “traditional” social activism (Branicki et al., 2021). CEOs have a visible platform and can bring about broader and significant change through their top-down influence rather than through bottom-up protestations. In the current study, CEO activism is defined as the CEO’s public statements or actions supporting or opposing one side of a disputed social issue. Furthermore, while CEO activism may be a planned effort, it usually lacks a connection with the corporate core business (Gaither et al., 2018). Concepts like corporate social advocacy (CSA) and corporate activism are used interchangeably in popular media and extant literature (Mayer, 2017).

However, several scholars have illuminated subtle distinctions between activism and advocacy. First, whereas advocacy-related activities typically have a more positive-leaning connotation, such as expressing support for a cause, activism-related activities seek to create social change through a more direct and negative-leaning approach, such as protests (Fuller & McCauley, 2016; Gaither et al., 2018). Second, activism is conceptually multifaceted, thus extending the CEO’s communicative behaviors on controversial issues to the CEO’s participation in activism actions at different levels, such as signing a petition supporting social issues (Teorell et al., 2007). Finally, compared to the more material CSA or political activity, such as lobbying, with high investment costs, CEO activism usually entails lower costs and is considered symbolic (Branicki et al., 2021).

Attributes of CEO Activism: MAT

The morality of CEO activism

This study defines the morality of CEO activism as the publics’ perception of the CEO’s activism to be ethical, just, and morally right. Although both morality and ethics that entail doing something good and right can be used to describe CEO activism, the perceived morality of CEO activism emphasizes the expression of the CEO’s personal or individual moral actions (Branicki et al., 2021), whereas ethics refers to the standards of doing good normally determined by the community or the social setting (Di Lorenzo, 2007). Thus, CEO activism can be positioned as an ethical act in which CEOs take a public, moral stand, and justify direct intervention based on ethics and genuinely held values (Branicki et al., 2021). Given that morals are often connected with doing good, the perceived morality of a CEO’s actions is an essential predictor of the public’s attitudes, behaviors, and relationship with the represented organization (Chen et al., 2020; Lindenmeier et al., 2012). Branicki et al. (2021) also found that the moral intensity of issues where the CEO takes an activist stance is being closely examined by consumers.

The authenticity of CEO activism

In the psychology literature, the theoretical origin of authenticity as a social and context-dependent construct, is generally connected with frankness, genuineness, dependability, and moral courage (Sheldon et al., 1997). In addition, leadership literature considers the core of authenticity as being true and consistent to oneself (Molleda, 2010). Building on previous research, this study defines perceived authenticity of CEO activism as the degree to which a CEO’s advocacy engagement is considered genuine and original. Specifically, genuineness means that the CEO is legitimate and truthful to what they communicate through their actions. Given that the essence of CEO activism is to be truthful, transparent, and consistent both on the inside and outside (Yim, 2019), authenticity is key to how CEO activism may be perceived by the public (Vredenburg et al., 2020).

Timeliness of CEO activism

Timeliness of CEO activism refers to the promptness in which the CEO delivers their sociopolitical claims or responds to public inquiries. Timeliness, in consideration of issue life cycles, may be an essential attribute of CEO activism as the timing of CEOs taking a stance on the social issue reflects whether a CEO’s activism is proactive or reactive (Branicki et al., 2021). Specifically, CEOs proactively respond to controversial problems promptly to help deliver their stance to the public or decision-makers before the power to influence the public’s perceptions or decision-making processes is lost (Abbas et al., 2020). The accurate and timely information flows can reflect a CEO’s responsiveness to sociopolitical issues, which indicates their CEOs’ commitment to the advocated issue and their accountability (Perry & Towers, 2009). Receiving timely and updated information can inspire the public’s beliefs that the delivered messages are credible and contain less interference (Abbas et al., 2020).

Consumer Trust

Organizational trust is essentially an evaluation of the organization’s integrity, dependability, and benevolence (Hon & Grunig, 1999), whereas distrust may be induced when consumers perceive the organization to have ulterior motives in their interactions (Y. E. Park & Kang, 2020). In a society wrought with increased skepticism, extreme views, and polarized issues, trust has become a scarce resource that organizations attempt to develop and maintain (Sinclair & Irani, 2005). For instance, consumers today are less likely to believe that a CSR initiative or corporate advocacy messages is genuine unless they experience substantial evidence of organizational trustworthiness and see how an organization’s actions can influence social causes (Y. J. Lee et al., 2013). Organizations that behave in ways that are perceived to be pandering to current public opinion or the beliefs of their stakeholders may even be accused of “woke washing,” evoking consumer distrust long term (Vredenburg et al., 2020). Likewise, if the organization fails to deliver on its commitments truly and consistently, its socially responsible practices can hardly elicit consumer trust in the organization’s integrity and ethical intentions for the benefit of society (Wettstein & Baur, 2016).

Given the resource-based power and social influence of CEOs, consumer trust may be connected with perceptions of the CEO who typically sets corporate norms, rules, and images (Perry & Towers, 2009). In an era of trust erosion on a global scale, CEOs are expected to achieve business success and take the responsibility to meet the implicit needs of society (Chatterji & Toffel, 2019; Y. Lee & Tao, 2021). CEOs conveying a caring stance on public issues are more likely to generate the belief among younger generations that the organization represented by the CEO is trustworthy and socially responsible (Serrano Archimi et al., 2018). Consequently, this study examines explicitly how attributes of CEO activism (i.e., MAT) are associated with consumer trust toward the organization.

Attributes of CEO activism and consumer trust

Previous studies have shown that the perceived morality of corporate behaviors can be positively associated with both internal and external stakeholders’ attitudes toward the organization (Y. Lee & Tao, 2021; Serrano Archimi et al., 2018). Moreover, the perceived morality of CEO activism primarily reflects the attributes of the organization (Branicki et al., 2021). For example, employees who perceive their CEO as being morally responsive to social issues are more likely to feel proud of and identify themselves with the organization (Hambrick & Wowak, 2021; Lin, 2010). Thus, consumer perceptions about a CEO taking a moral position on social issues can significantly stimulate their trust toward the organization. Moral CEO activism reflects the ethics, social responsibility, and positive intentions of the organization regarding public welfare; as a result, this inspires consumers to reciprocate by cultivating greater trust with the organization. This particularly applies to Millennials and Gen-Z who actively question privilege and oppression in examining universal and structural social inequalities (Clemons, 2018). The perceived morality of CEO activism may encourage the public, especially those young consumers, to build a favorable relationship with the represented organization that they believe is ethically aware and socially responsible (Atchison, 2019). This is because younger generations, such as Gen-Z have been found to believe that authenticity is a value in their personal brand, and therefore expect it in the organizations they interact with (Vițelar, 2019). For Millennials, authenticity has been found to legitimize a brand, for both emerging and established brands. (Pattuglia & Mingione, 2017). Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H1: Perceived morality of CEO activism will be positively related to young consumers’ trust toward the organization.

Honest and genuine communication is another determining factor in building and maintaining trust. Authenticity in corporate decisions is a greater point of emphasis for Millennials and Gen-Z (Francis & Hoefel, 2018). Millennials and Gen-Z are the most educated generation and have grown up in the digital world who are eager to seek identity and authenticity in the digitally mediated society (Frontify, n.d.). Young consumers tend to deal with an organization that is consistent and has established a true identity throughout everything they do (Dalessandro, 2018). To maximize the positive influence of CEO activism, CEOs should ensure their actions are authentic, genuine, and consistent, all of which have been emphasized in previous CSR and CSA research (e.g., Wettstein & Baur, 2016). The perceived authenticity of a CEO is built upon consistent behavior demonstrated over a sustained period of time. Young consumers are more likely to distrust the organization and view all future actions as manipulated if the CEO’s activism is perceived to be fake or disingenuous (cf. Huy & Shipilov, 2012). As a result of the literature, this study proposes the hypothesis:

H2: Perceived authenticity of CEO activism will be positively related to young consumers’ trust toward the organization.

Among various communication variables that can contribute to the cultivation of organizational trust, timeliness is also significant (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Sharing timely and valuable information is an essential predictor of trust in organization–public relationships (Perry & Towers, 2009). When consumers believe CEOs provide information related to activism in a timely manner, they are able to remain well informed about the CEO activism and as a result, are more likely to develop greater trust in the organization (U. Singh & Srivastava, 2016). With the ease of finding information via the internet, CEOs providing Millennials and Gen-Z with timely and updated information about their activism initiatives and actions becomes more critical (Hendriyani & Chan, 2018). Furthermore, if a CEO is perceived as the first official from the organization to speak out about a social issue before it turns into a trending topic, it further maximizes visibility about the issue and strengthens the influence of their leadership in shaping or swaying public opinion (Wingfield & Blankenbaker, 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: Perceived timeliness of CEO activism will be positively related to young consumers’ trust toward the organization.

Consumer Trust and Consumer Supportive Behaviors

Stakeholder advocacy can be linked to overarching organizational efforts (Sriramesh, 1992). One way that stakeholders may demonstrate their advocacy of an organization is through consumer supportive behaviors. When external stakeholders align themselves with an organization through their behavior, this is referred to as consumer advocacy. In addition to positive word-of-mouth ambassadorship, consumer advocacy behaviors also include purchasing the organization’s goods or services and being resistant to negative opinions regarding the organization (Thelen, 2020). Scholars have also noted that a strong relationship with an organization’s consumers can positively impact employment intention and subsequent behavior, such as those that align with the brand expressing a desire to work for the organization through applying for relevant job postings (Ambler & Barrow, 1996).

Consumer supportive behaviors are imperative to the growth and sustained livelihood of organizations. When consumers are aligned with an organization and display that alignment through their behaviors, many behaviors that negatively impact the organization are avoided. For organizations to garner, maintain, and encourage consumer supportive behaviors, it stands to reason stakeholders must feel confident that they can trust the organization to behave in accordance with their alignment and therefore be representative of the three facets of organizational trust (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Competence, dependability, and integrity reflect both what the organization stands for and how it communicates with its stakeholders. Maintaining the trust of the younger generation is even more important for businesses, because if young people distrust an organization, they will stop supporting it and even act as activists against the organization (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). Considering this relationship, the following hypothesis is posed:

H4: Young consumers’ trust toward the organization will be positively related to their supportive behaviors (i.e., consumer advocacy and intention to work).

CEO Activism and Consumer Supportive Behaviors

CEO activism is another way in which an organization’s leader, and by extension an organization, may assert their moral alignment to stakeholders, thereby influencing public perception (Branicki et al., 2021). When stakeholders, specifically consumers, perceive a CEO’s behavior, exhibited through activism, to be morally right, scholars have found that consumers may support the CEO’s stance through subsequent supportive consumer behaviors, such as positive word-of-mouth, or verbal promotion of their employing organization (Men, 2021). This can be extended to CEO activism, as CEOs are understood to be an extension or symbol of the organization (Liu et al., 2018). Millennials maintain an expectation that the organizations they support and work for are morally ethical, and the CEOs of these organizations will speak out regarding important issues (Knights, 2018). When stakeholder expectations are met, they are likely to reward the organization with positive motivational and behavioral responses (Cheng et al., 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed:

H5: Perceived morality of CEO activism will be positively related to young consumers’ supportive behaviors.

In addition, perceived morality and authenticity are inextricably linked. As Sheldon et al. (1997) asserted, authenticity is understood in proximity to moral courage, taking one’s moral alignment and making that alignment known. This study further relies on previous literature (Lim & Young, 2021; Molleda, 2010; Yim, 2019) and conceptualizes authenticity as CEO activism as the degree to which a CEO’s advocacy engagement is considered genuine and original. If stakeholders find a CEO’s activist behavior to be motivated by unsavory or insincere (the opposite of genuine) origins, it is more difficult for stakeholders to ascertain that they are in moral alignment with the CEO and, by extension, the organization. This is particularly true with younger generations, such as Millennials who value authenticity from organizations over time (Pattuglia & Mingione, 2017) and Gen-Z, who want to align themselves with organizations that they perceive to be authentic (Safeer et al., 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed:

H6: Perceived authenticity of CEO activism will be positively related to young consumers’ supportive behaviors.

Timing plays an important role in CSR and the tenets of CEO activism. CSR researchers have found that timeliness (e.g., whether an organization is proactive versus reactive) is an informative cue, with proactive behaviors indicating a stronger tendency on consumer beliefs about the organization and their subsequent behavioral intentions (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). CEOs who speak out in a timely manner have been found to be perceived as committed and accountable (Perry & Towers, 2009). This is particularly true for younger generations, such as Gen-Z, who grew up with instantaneous access to technology and information, and therefore expects prompt communication from the organizations they interact with (Z. Yang et al., 2020). Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed:

H7: Timeliness of CEO activism will be positively related to young consumers’ supportive behaviors.

The Mediating Role of Consumer Trust Toward the Organization

Throughout these concepts and in examining the hypothesized relationships between CEO activism and consumer behaviors, consumer trust in the organization is paramount. First, the perception of a CEO and the perception the organization he or she leads are inextricable because the CEO exists as a symbol of the organization (Rudy & Cavich, 2020). Second, the conceptualized tenets of CEO activism consist of the good faith behaviors of MAT of the CEO only function if the consumer trusts that these behaviors were conducted in good faith (Chatterji & Toffel, 2018), and that good faith is a result of being willing to trust in the actions of the CEO and the organization. Therefore, this study proposes that consumer trust toward the organization acts as a mediator between these relationships, influencing how positively each preceding concept is related to consumer supportive behaviors, and the following full-model hypothesis is posed:

H8: Organizational trust will mediate a positive relationship between (a) morality of CEO activism, (b) authenticity of CEO activism, and (c) timeliness of CEO activism and young consumers’ supportive behaviors.

The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The hypothesized model of attributes of CEO activism, consumer trust toward the organization, and consumer supportive behaviors.

Method

An online survey was conducted to test the hypothesized model (Figure 1). The participants were recruited via MTurk. Studies suggest MTurkers can be as or more attentive to instructions when compared to traditional subject pool samples (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016). Data collection for this study occurred over a 1-week period in May 2021. After data cleaning, a final sample of 373 was obtained. From those participants, 63.8% (n = 238) were male and 34.9% (n = 130) were female. The average age of the participants was 28.33 (SD = 5.68) with 65.4% being Millennials and 34.6% being Gen-Z. Sixty-six percent of the participants (n = 246) were White or European American, 16.4% (n = 61) were Black or African American, and 11.8% (n = 44) were Asian or Asian American. When participants recalled a recent issue that a CEO took a stance on, they reported the following categories: racial discrimination (23.86%), public health (19.3%), climate change (16.62%), lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) (16.35%), gender discrimination (9.65%), income fairness (5.36%), immigration (2.68%), gun control (2.68%), and others (3.48%).

Survey Procedure and Measures

The survey included four screening questions to ensure that respondents met the study sample criteria: (a) the participant was between 18 and 40 years of age; (b) the participant was able to recall and specify the name of a CEO who had taken a stance on any social issue; (c) the participant was able to recall and specify the name of the CEO’s organization; and (d) the participant was able to identify the issue this CEO has taken a stand on. Subsequently, the participants were asked to consider this CEO and their stance and use it as a context to answer questions measuring the perceived MAT of CEO activism, consumer trust, and supportive behavior (e.g., consumer advocacy and willingness to work) toward the CEO’s organization. More detailed information about the CEOs is reported in Table 3 of the Online Supplements Materials section.

All measurement items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) or a semantic differential scale. All measurement items of key constructs were adopted from previous literature and modified for the current study. Specifically, morality of CEO activism was measured by three items developed by Lindenmeier et al. (2012) (e.g., “I consider this CEO’s actions to be ethical,” α = .96). Perceived authenticity of CEO activism was measured via nine items adapted from the perceived brand authenticity scale (Akbar & Wymer, 2017). Among the nine items, three items measured originality (e.g., “insincere-sincere,” α = .89) and six items measured genuineness (e.g., “follower-pioneer,” α = .93). The timeliness of CEO activism was assessed with three items adapted from Men et al. (2021) (e.g., “this CEO communicates about their stance on this social issue in a timely fashion to the public,” α =.84). The scale of consumer organizational trust comprises six items adopted from Hon and Grunig (1999) (e.g., “this organization treats people like me fairly and justly,” α = .93). Consumer advocacy was measure by seven items (Thelen, 2020; Tsarenko et al., 2018) (e.g., “I recommend this organization’s brands, products, and services to others,” α = .94). Finally, intention to work was measured with three items (e.g., “I aspire to work for this organization,” α = .93). Detailed descriptions of measurement items are reported in the Online Supplement Materials section of the Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly homepage (see Table 4).

Results

Preliminary Data Analysis

As shown in Table 1, respondents rated their overall perceptions of attributes of CEO activism (MAT) as slightly higher levels of morality (M = 5.37, SD = 1.76), authenticity (M = 5.04, SD = 1.51), and timeliness (M = 5.43, SD = 1.12). Overall, respondents tended to perceive a relatively high level of trust toward their organization (M = 5.05, SD = 1.39). They demonstrated medium-to-high levels of consumer advocacy (M = 4.64, SD = 1.63) and intention to work for the organization (M = 4.80, SD = 1.70). A series of t-test and regression analysis were conducted to examine the relationships between socio-demographic variables and the focal variables in the model. The t-test results showed that there was a significant difference in the consumer trust for Millennial (M = 5.18, SD = 1.30) and Gen-Z consumers (M = 4.81, SD = 1.51); t (371) = 2.47, p < .05). Similarly, Millennial consumers (M = 4.81, SD = 1.58) reported higher intention to engage in advocacy than Gen-Z consumers (M = 4.33, SD = 1.67), t (371) = 2.74, p < .01. When young consumers felt their stance on an issue is similar to the stance of the CEO on this issue, they were more likely to perceive the CEO’s organization as trustworthy (β = .77, t = 22.92, p < .001), and want to advocate (β = .80, t = 25.60, p < .001) and work for the CEO’s organization (β = .73, t = 20.65, p < .001). Younger consumers who were more familiar with the CEO reported higher level of trust toward the CEO’s organization (β =.26, t = 5.26, p < .001), consumer advocative behaviors (β = .25, t = 4.98, p < .001), and intention to work for the CEO’s organization (β = .21, t = 4.15, p < .001). Similarly, consumers who were more familiar with the CEO’s organization reported higher level of trust toward the organization (β = .30, t = 5.97, p < .001), consumer advocacy (β = .18, t = 3.51, p = .001), and intention to work (β = .21, t = 4.06, p < .001). Therefore, consumers’ age, perceived issue value alignment, familiarity with the CEO, and familiarity with the CEO’s organization were controlled in subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Morality of CEO activism	5.37	1.76	—
2. Perceived authenticity of CEO activism	5.04	1.51	.72**	—
3. Timeliness of CEO activism	5.43	1.12	.56**	.51**	—
4. Organizational trust	5.05	1.39	.77**	.75**	.60**	—
5. Consumer advocacy	4.64	1.63	.73**	.67**	.54**	.84**	—
6. Intention to work	4.80	1.70	.69**	.66**	.51**	.81**	.83**	—
7. Age^a	28.33	5.68	.12*	.10	.05	.13*	.14**	.10	—
8. Familiarity with the CEO	5.59	1.12	.17**	.20**	.34**	.26**	.25**	.21**	.05	—
9. Familiarity with the organization	5.94	1.10	.19**	.22**	.29**	.30**	.21**	.18**	−.02	.58**	—

Age level was measured using a two-level category system with 1 = born after 1996, 2 = born between 1981 and 1996.

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

Analysis of SEM

Two-step SEM analysis was used to test the hypothesized models using AMOS 26. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a cutoff value close to .95 for comparative fit index (i.e., CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (i.e., TLI); a cutoff value close to .08 for standardized root mean square residual (i.e., SRMR); and a cutoff value close to .06 for root mean square error of approximation (i.e., RMSEA) indicates a good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. In addition, according to Hu and Bentler’s joint cutoff criteria, an SEM model with CFI, TLI ≥ .95, and SRMR <.10 suggests that the fit between the data and the proposed model is tenable. Therefore, the test of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated an acceptable fit to the data: χ² (9) = 71.04, p < .001, χ²/df = 7.89, TLI = .93, CFI = .98, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .14 (90% CI = .11, .17), and the standardized factor loadings from intention to work and consumer advocacy to consumer supportive behaviors were .89 and .93, respectively, suggesting a good construct validity for consumer supportive behaviors. A second-step evaluation of the structural model with age types, perceived issue value alignment, familiarity with the CEO and the CEO’s organization controlled also yielded a satisfactory fit to the data: χ² (15) = 77.59, p < .001, χ²/df = 5.17, TLI = .92, CFI = .98, SRMR = .02, RMSEA = .11 (90% CI = .08, .13), and was thus retained as the final model to interpret the paths (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Results of the hypothesized model.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses 1 to 3 predicted that perceived morality of CEO activism (H1), perceived authenticity of CEO activism (H2), and timeliness of CEO activism (H3) were positively related to young consumers’ trust toward the organization (see Table 2). Results support all three hypotheses. Specifically, young consumers’ perception of morality of CEO activism is positively associated with their organizational trust (β = .19, p = .001). Young consumers’ perception of the authenticity of CEO activism was strongly and positively related to consumer trust in the organization (β = .44, p < .001). Young consumers’ perception of timeliness of CEO activism demonstrated a moderate positive association with their trust toward the organization (β = .12, p = .001).

Table 2.

The Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of Attributes of CEO Activism (Morality, Authenticity, and Timeliness) on Younger Consumers’ Supportive Behaviors.

	Perceived morality of CEO activism	Perceived authenticity of CEO activism	Timeliness of CEO activism
Direct effect on younger consumers’ supportive behaviors	.28	N.S.	N.S.
Indirect effect on younger consumers’ supportive behaviors	.17	.55	.13
Total effect on younger consumers’ supportive behaviors	.45	.55	.13

Note. N.S. = not supported.

Hypothesis 4 examined whether young consumers’ trust toward the organization is positively associated with their supportive behaviors (i.e., consumer advocacy and intention to work). Results indicated a significantly positive association between young consumers’ trust and supportive behaviors toward the organization (β = .66, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Hypotheses 5 to 7 suggested that perceived morality of CEO activism (H5), perceived authenticity of CEO activism (H6), and timeliness of CEO activism (H7) were positively related to young consumers’ supportive behaviors. The results failed to support all three hypotheses. Specifically, young consumers’ perception of morality (β = –.01, p = .92), authenticity (β = –.05, p = .43), and timeliness (β = –.01, p = .76) of CEO activism showed non-significant direct relationship with their supportive behaviors toward the CEO’s organization.

Mediation effects

A formal test of mediation effects using a bootstrap procedure (n = 5,000 samples) was conducted to test H8. Results suggested that the indirect effects in paths from perceived morality of CEO activism (β = .11, p < .05 [95% CI: .04; .19]), perceived authenticity of CEO activism (β = .44, p < .001 [95% CI: .29; .67]), and timeliness of CEO activism (β = .11, p < .01 [95% CI: .04; .19]) to consumer supportive behaviors through organizational trust were all significant and positive. In other words, organizational trust significantly mediates the positive relationship between attributes of CEO activism (MAT) and consumer supportive behaviors. Therefore, H8 was supported.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the influence of CEO activism attributes on young consumers’ attitude and behaviors. Specifically, this study found that the perceived morality of CEO activism was required for young consumers to make the decision to trust. This is expected as consumers understand those that abide by ethical behaviors to be honest, reliable, and trustworthy (J. J. Singh et al., 2012). Young, modern consumers are attracted to ethical missions, products, and services (Hancock, 2017). As the most visible organizational ideology and performance, the CEO’s ethical behaviors are the first to receive attention when younger consumers are concerned about contested social issues (Van Quaquebeke et al., 2019). Moreover, this study found that authentic CEO activism characterized by sincerity, uniqueness, consistency, and realness led to a higher level of trust in the organization among younger consumers. This advances previous research that the assessment of leadership actions being authentic can serve as a primary motivator generating consumer trust (Champy, 2009). Trust is a result of perceived risk and uncertainties, and the perception of an authentic organization can effectively help consumers reduce uncertainty and insecurity about an organizational decision (Portal et al., 2019). When an organization delivers on its promises, consumers develop an emotional connection to the integrity, reliability, and uniqueness of the organization and become less skeptical of the organization’s message (cf. Huang & Guo, 2021). Similarly, today’s consumers seek to determine the authenticity of activism actions by evaluating whether a stance remains consistent with the corporation’s core mission and values and whether the CEO plays a leading role in social change and progress (Vredenburg et al., 2020). Subsequently, the perceived genuineness, continuity, originality, and reliability in the CEO’s activism actions can serve as meaningful cues to garner higher consumer trust (J. Yang et al., 2021).

Furthermore, this study also found that consumers reported a higher level of trust toward the organization when the CEO provides timely communication regarding their stance and promptly responds to associated public inquiries. Previous studies have demonstrated that proactive and responsive communication is a fundamental expectation consumers hold for online interactions (Stevens et al., 2018). In fact, the timeliness of the CEO activism justifies CEO decisiveness and subsequently, further enhancing consumer trust in the organization (Outlaw et al., 2019).

In addition, this study demonstrates the important role of organizational trust in the context of CEO activism and consumer supportive behaviors by explaining how CEO activism is associated with consumer supportive behaviors via organizational trust. While it is surprising there was no significant direct association between perceived MAT of CEO activism and consumers’ supportive behaviors, this study revealed that such relationships were fully mediated via consumer trust toward the organization. This, in fact, highlights the critical role of consumer trust for organizations in an era of trust erosion (Zachara, 2020), especially among the Millennial and Gen-Z generations. This finding supports prior research in this arena (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014; Serrano Archimi et al., 2018).

Specifically, if a consumer’s organizational trust is fulfilled via leadership’s moral, authentic, and timely activism during the pandemic, the individual is more likely to intend to engage in consumer supportive behaviors, such as consumer advocacy and intention to work at the organization. Although previous research has demonstrated the importance of CEOs as reflective and symbolic of the organization (Men, 2021), as well as impactful on external relationships with the organization (Tsai & Men, 2017), this study extends this understanding yet further by showing the role of organization trust as mediating the link between a CEO’s activism and subsequent positive intention toward consumer supportive behaviors.

Implications

This study has made several, distinct theoretical and practical contributions. First, this study advances leadership communication scholarship by illustrating the communicative function of CEO approaches to activism. The role of the CEO continues to rapidly expand, and this study reinforces that CEO activism now has greater strategic implications. Research to date has largely treated CEO activism as controversial activity based on risk–reward calculus; however, this current study offers one of the first conceptual models to advance understanding in how CEOs’ activism actions effectively and positively relate with attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in younger consumers. Despite the worsening trust deficit in government and media, trust in business institutions as social change agents is growing, further highlighting the importance of CEO activism (Edelman, 2021). As there are increased expectations and responsibilities tied to corporations, CEOs should have a more deliberate and discrete decision-making process when weighing in on social/political issues. To further examine this trend, this study integrated theoretical frameworks and scales to extend their application in how they address attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in younger generations. As a result, this study moves beyond anecdotal evidence to pursue a scientific, rigorous examination of CEO activism and its important role in shaping stakeholder perceptions.

Practically, this study acts as a cautionary tale for organizational leaders in terms of best practices and behaviors. Specifically, it helps highlight that CEOs must consider themselves as not to be individual or independent from the organization in which they lead, particularly in their activism. Perceptions of CEO activism (e.g., in terms of MAT) are closely related to the trust that young consumers have in the organization, and that will generate supportive consumer behaviors. In a competitive hiring landscape, understanding this impact on talent acquisition is crucial, particularly considering that Millennial and Gen-Z generations place a high value on moral alignment with their employer (Parker & Igielnik, 2020).

All of this points to the continually re-affirmed value of public relations practice at all levels of the organization. Public relations efforts enacted by organizations must consider that younger consumers value authentic corporate communication and expect organizations and their CEOs to act as moral leaders within the consumer market. Specifically, the morality, realness, and uniqueness of CEOs’ prior behaviors should play a role in the hiring and qualifications of a CEO. In addition, current CEOs should be evaluated by the organization or board for their ability to communicate with publics in a timely and responsive manner, especially in today’s business environment where leaders are increasingly demanded to speak out.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

As a pioneer study focused on exploration, this research has several limitations necessary to acknowledge in future research. First, this study examined only a limited number of attributes of CEO activism. Other potential attributes, such as the CEO’s involvement level in activism activities, can be further investigated in future. For the most part, CEO activism today is symbolic, but to be perceived as genuine and have long-lasting impact, corporations and CEOs are expected to do more than making statements. Consistency of corporate promises and actions, which is associated with a positive view of organizational and leader integrity, will help dispel the suspicion surrounding CEO activism (Goswami et al., 2018). Future study can look at if the involvement level of CEO activism will influence consumers’ perception of authenticity of CEO activism. Second, while authenticity and morality of CEO activism are fundamentally subjective assessments, it might be hard for participants to recall the timeliness of a specific CEO activism accurately. Therefore, the timeliness of CEO activism in this study is limited to consumers’ perception of whether CEOs communicate their positions on a stance in a timely manner. Third, this study used SEM analysis to test the priori theoretical model; however, causality between predictor and outcome variables could not be established via a cross-sectional design. Thus, future studies can use experimental and longitudinal designs to test the relationship between attributes of CEO activism (MAT), organizational trust, and consumer supportive behaviors. Moreover, the cross-sectional survey design with self-selected CEO activism as a survey context may bias overall results. Participants could have more favorable perception of the CEO, the represented organization, or the advocated issue, thus having a strong opinion regarding the CEO’s stance. While participants’ familiarity with the CEO and the corresponding organization were controlled in the analysis, future study could add more control variables, such as the consumers’ attitudes toward issues or level of issue involvement on which the CEO took a position. Furthermore, several social issues are relatively low-risk stances (e.g., income inequality), while others present more high-risk stances (e.g., immigration). To offer more context-specific insights regarding CEO activism, future research can compare whether CEOs taking a stance on different types of social issues leads to different outcomes. Finally, the study focused on Millennial and Gen-Z consumers between the ages of 18 and 40. Future research could examine how the model holds in consumers in other age groups.

In summary, we believe that CEO activism is an important communicative action increasingly affected by the sociopolitical landscape. While the trend of CEO activism is still in its earlier stage, the polarized political environment, erosion of public trust, intertwined with shifts in expectations and attitudes toward the role of business participation in social issues, highlight the significant role of CEOs in broader social movements. We encourage future researchers to further integrate leadership and public relations theories to advance the theoretical understanding of CEOs’ communicative roles in today’s increasingly complex and versatile business environment.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jmq-10.1177_10776990221116377 – Supplemental material for Can CEO Activism Be Good for the Organization? The Importance of Authenticity, Morality, and Timeliness

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jmq-10.1177_10776990221116377 for Can CEO Activism Be Good for the Organization? The Importance of Authenticity, Morality, and Timeliness by Jie Jin, Renee Mitson, Yufan Sunny Qin, Marc Vielledent and Linjuan Rita Men in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Jie Jin

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Jie Jin is a PhD student in the Department of Public Relations at the University of Florida. Her main research interests focus on activism, employee communication, and leadership communication. She is also a Research Editor at the Institute for Public Relations’ Organizational Communication Research Center.

Renee Mitson is a PhD student in the Department of Public Relations at the University of Florida. She is primarily interested in leadership communication, emerging technology in the workplace, and internal public relations. She is currently a Research Editor at the Institute for Public Relations’ Organizational Communication Research Center. In the future, she hopes to produce research that aids supporting and providing best practices for future female leaders as well as other underrepresented leadership groups.

Yufan Sunny Qin is an assistant professor in the School of Communication Studies at James Madison University. Her research interests include internal communication, employee engagement, leadership communication, corporate purpose, and corporate social advocacy. She serves as the Research Editor of the Digital Media Research Center at the Institute for Public Relations.

Marc Vielledent is a Goodpaster Scholar and U.S. Army strategist currently completing his doctoral degree in Mass Communication at the University is Florida. His research focuses on leadership communication, social media, and risk perceptions. Marc holds a bachelor’s degree in pre-law from the United States Military Academy at West Point and a master’s degree in strategic public relations from the University of Southern California, where he served as an Annenberg Fellow for the Milken Institute. His publications have appeared in Oxford University Press, The Strategy Bridge, Computers and Human Behavior, Telematics and Information, and Leadership Communication Quarterly, among others.

Linjuan Rita Men, PhD, APR, is a professor of public relations at the University of Florida. Her research interests include internal communication, leadership communication, emerging technologies, and entrepreneurial communications. She has published three books and over 80 articles in refereed journals and as book chapters. She earned her PhD in Communication from the University of Miami, and holds an M. Phil in Communication from Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, and a BA in Communication from Zhejiang University, China.

References

Abbas

D. S.

Eksandy

Hidayat

(2020). The effect of corporate social responsibility, voluntary disclosure, leverage, and timeliness on earnings response coefficient. Journal of Business Management Review, 1(6), 413–424.

Akbar

M. M.

Wymer

(2017). Refining the conceptualization of brand authenticity. Journal of Brand Management, 24(1), 14–32.

Allen

VandeHei

(2021, April 9). The CEO job now includes political activism. AXIOS. https://www.axios.com/ceo-political-activism-03b148a0-d921-4ebb-9700-48998532870b.html

Ambler

Barrow

(1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.1996.42

Atchison

(2019, August 30). How to use ethical marketing to attract the right audience. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2019/08/30/how-to-use-ethical-marketing-to-attract-the-right-audience/?sh=5c1f2b5d3e04

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001

Bloomgarden

(2019, February 21). CEOs as activists: Should leaders speak up about social causes? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/3-reasons-why-we-need-ceo-activists/

Bozic

(2017). Consumer trust repair: A critical literature review. European Management Journal, 35(4), 538–547.

Branicki

Brammer

Pullen

Rhodes

(2021). The morality of “new” CEO activism. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(2), 269–285.

10.

Brown

L. W.

Manegold

J. G.

Marquardt

D. J.

(2020). The effects of CEO activism on employees person-organization ideological misfit: A conceptual model and research agenda. Business and Society Review, 125(1), 119–141.

11.

Busser

J. A.

Shulga

L. V.

(2019). Involvement in consumer-generated advertising: Effects of organizational transparency and brand authenticity on loyalty and trust. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31, 1763–1784.

12.

Champy

(2009). Authentic leadership. Leader to Leader, 2009(54), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.363

13.

Chatterji

A. K.

Toffel

M. W.

(2018, January 1). The new CEO activists. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-new-ceo-activists

14.

Chatterji

A. K.

Toffel

M. W.

(2019). Assessing the impact of CEO activism. Organization & Environment, 32(2), 159–185.

15.

Chatzopoulou

de Kiewiet

(2021). Millennials’ evaluation of corporate social responsibility: The wants and needs of the largest and most ethical generation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(3), 521–534.

16.

Chen

Y. R. R.

Hung-Baesecke

C. J. F.

Bowen

S. A.

Zerfass

Stacks

D. W.

Boyd

(2020). The role of leadership in shared value creation from the public’s perspective: A multi-continental study. Public Relations Review, 46(1), Article 101749.

17.

Cheng

Chen

Y.-R. R.

Jin

Hung-Baesecke

(2019). When CSR meets mobile SNA users in mainland China: An examination of gratifications sought, CSR motives, and relational outcomes in natural disasters. International Journal of Communication, 13, 319–341. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10169

18.

Clemons

R. L. F.

(2018). Agents of change: Youth development & social justice activism [Doctoral dissertation]. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1727&context=oa_diss

19.

Cone Communications. (2008). Civic-minded Millennials prepared to reward or punish companies based on commitment to social causes. CSRWire. https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/19346-civic-minded-millennials-prepared-to-reward-or-punish-companies-based-on-commitment-to-social-causes

20.

Cox

T. A.

(2018). How social media is transforming pr and the consumer-business relationship. Clutch. https://clutch.co/pr-firms/resources/how-social-media-transforming-pr-consumer-business-relationship

21.

Dalessandro

(2018). Internet intimacy: Authenticity and longing in the relationships of millennial young adults. Sociological Perspectives, 61(4), 626–641.

22.

Di Lorenzo

(2007). Business ethics: Law as a determinant of business conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 275–299.

23.

Edelman. (2021). Edelman trust barometer. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-03/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer.pdf

24.

Francis

Hoefel

(2018). True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company.

25.

Frontify. (n.d.). The age of authenticity: Why brands need to get real. https://www.frontify.com/en/blog/the-age-of-authenticity-why-brands-need-to-get-real/

26.

Fuller

McCauley

(2016). Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and advocacy. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 1–8.

27.

Gaither

B. M.

Austin

Collins

(2018). Examining the case of DICK’s sporting goods: Realignment of stakeholders through corporate social advocacy. The Journal of Public Interest Communications, 2(2), 176–176.

28.

Goswami

Ha-Brookshire

Bonifay

(2018). Measuring perceived corporate hypocrisy: Scale development in the context of US retail employees. Sustainability, 10(12), 4756.

29.

Gupta

(2011). Consumer stakeholder view of corporate social responsibility: A comparative analysis from USA and India. Social Responsibility Journal, 7, 363–380.

30.

Hambrick

D. C.

Wowak

A. J.

(2021). CEO sociopolitical activism: A stakeholder alignment model. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 33–59.

31.

Hancock

(2017, December 22). Younger consumers drive shift to ethical products. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/8b08bf4c-e5a0-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

32.

Hauser

D. J.

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.

33.

Hendriyani

Chan

(2018). Understanding the new millennial customer path in the era of Omni-channel marketing in Indonesia. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 7, 359–367.

34.

Hon

L. C.

Grunig

J. E.

(1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.

35.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

36.

Huang

Guo

(2021). The effect of a green brand story on perceived brand authenticity and brand trust: The role of narrative rhetoric. Journal of Brand Management, 28(1), 60–76.

37.

Huy

Shipilov

(2012). The key to social media success within organizations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(1), 73–81.

38.

Joseph

E. E.

Winston

B. E.

(2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 6–22.

39.

Kang

Hustvedt

(2014). Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 253–265.

40.

Knights

(2018, March). Do Millennials and ethics make good business? CEO Today. https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2018/03/do-millennials-and-ethics-make-good-business/

41.

Lee

Tao

(2021). Does perceived morality of CEO activism matter? Understanding employees’ responses to CEO actions on sociopolitical issues. Management Decision, 59, 2329–2354. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2020-0498

42.

Lee

Y. J.

Haley

Yang

(2013). The mediating role of attitude towards values advocacy ads in evaluating issue support behaviour and purchase intention. International Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 233–253.

43.

Lim

J. S.

Young

(2021). Effects of issue ownership, perceived fit, and authenticity in corporate social advocacy on corporate reputation. Public Relations Review, 47(4), Article 102071.

44.

Lin

C. P.

(2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517–531.

45.

Lindenmeier

Schleer

Pricl

(2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1364–1373.

46.

Liu

Fisher

Chen

(2018). CEO attributes and firm performance: A sequential mediation process model. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 789–816. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0031

47.

Mayer

(2017). The law and ethics of CEO social activism. Journal of Law, Business and Ethics, 23, 21–44.

48.

Men

L. R.

(2021). The impact of startup CEO communication on employee relational and behavioral outcomes: Responsiveness, assertiveness, and authenticity. Public Relations Review, 47(4), Article 102078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102078

49.

Men

L. R.

Heffron

E. R.

Fitzsimmons

A. N.

Qin

Y. S.

(2021). Exploring the impact of strategic CEO communication on employee trust during the COVID-19 pandemic: Introducing the TAEO framework [Paper presentation]. International Communication Association 72nd Annual Conference, Paris, France.

50.

Molleda

J. C.

(2010). Authenticity and the construct’s dimensions in public relations and communication research. Journal of Communication Management, 14, 223–236.

51.

Morning Consult. (2020). Great expectations: The evolving role of companies in a post-election world. https://go.morningconsult.com/2020-Q4-3140-Brands-and-Politics-Report-Download.html

52.

Outlaw

Colquitt

J. A.

Baer

M. D.

Sessions

(2019). How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness. Personnel Psychology, 72(3), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12309

53.

Park

Jiang

(2020). Signaling, verification, and identification: The way corporate social advocacy generates brand loyalty on social media. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420907121

54.

Park

Y. E.

Kang

(2020). When crowdsourcing in CSR leads to dialogic communication: The effects of trust and distrust. Public Relations Review, 46(1), Article 101867.

55.

Parker

Igielnik

(2020, May 14). What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/

56.

Pattuglia

Mingione

(2017). Towards a new understanding of brand authenticity: Seeing through the lens of Millennials. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 35, 35–55. https://doi.org/10.7433/s103.2017.03

57.

Pérez

(2019). Building a theoretical framework of message authenticity in CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24, 334–350.

58.

Perry

Towers

(2009). Determining the antecedents for a strategy of corporate social responsibility by small-and medium-sized enterprises in the UK fashion apparel industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(5), 377–385.

59.

Portal

Abratt

Bendixen

(2019). The role of brand authenticity in developing brand trust. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 27(8), 714–729.

60.

Rudy

B. C.

Cavich

(2020). Nonmarket signals: Investment in corporate political activity and the performance of initial public offerings. Business & Society, 59(3), 419–438.

61.

Ruiz de Maya

Lardín-Zambudio

López-López

(2016). I will do it if I enjoy it! the moderating effect of seeking sensory pleasure when exposed to participatory CSR campaigns. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1940.

62.

Safeer

A. A.

Lin

Abrar

Nawaz

(2021). Impact of perceived brand authenticity on consumer behavior: An evidence from generation Y in Asian perspective. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-09-2020-1128

63.

Serrano Archimi

Reynaud

Yasin

H. M.

Bhatti

Z. A.

(2018). How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 907–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3882-6

64.

Sheldon

K. M.

Ryan

R. M.

Rawsthorne

L. J.

Ilardi

(1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1380–1393.

65.

Sinclair

Irani

(2005). Advocacy advertising for biotechnology: The effect of public accountability on corporate trust and attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 59–73.

66.

Singh

J. J.

Iglesias

Batista-Foguet

J. M.

(2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 541–549.

67.

Singh

Srivastava

K. B.

(2016). Organizational trust and organizational citizenship behaviour. Global Business Review, 17(3), 594–609.

68.

Sriramesh

(1992). Societal culture and public relations: Ethnographic evidence from India. Public Relations Review, 18(2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(92)90010-V

69.

Stevens

J. L.

Spaid

B. I.

Breazeale

Esmark Jones

C. L.

(2018). Timeliness, transparency, and trust: A framework for managing online customer complaints. Business Horizons, 61(3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.007

70.

Teorell

Torcal

Montero

J. R.

(2007). Political participation. In van Deth

Montero

J. R.

Westholm

(Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (Vol. 17, pp. 334–357). Routledge.

71.

Thelen

P. D.

(2020). Internal communicators’ understanding of the definition and importance of employee advocacy. Public Relations Review, 46(4), Article 101946.

72.

Tsai

W.-H. S.

Men

L. R.

(2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1848–1867. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816643922

73.

Tsarenko

Leo

Herman

H. M.

(2018). When and why do social resources influence employee advocacy? The role of personal investment and perceived recognition. Journal of Business Research, 82, 260–268.

74.

Van Quaquebeke

Becker

J. U.

Goretzki

Barrot

(2019). Perceived ethical leadership affects customer purchasing intentions beyond ethical marketing in advertising due to moral identity self-congruence concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3577-4

75.

Vițelar

(2019). Like me: Generation Z and the use of social media for personal branding. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 7(2), 257–268.

76.

Vredenburg

Kapitan

Spry

Kemper

J. A.

(2020). Brands taking a stand: Authentic brand activism or woke washing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620947359

77.

Weber Shandwick. (2016). Battle of the wallets: The changing landscape of consumer activism. https://www.webershandwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Battle_of_the_Wallets.pdf

78.

Wettstein

Baur

(2016). “Why should we care about marriage equality?” Political advocacy as a part of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 199–213.

79.

Wingfield

Blankenbaker

(2021, June 11). 5 questions leaders must ask before addressing societal issues. Chief Executive. https://chiefexecutive.net/5-questions-leaders-must-ask-before-addressing-societal-issues/

80.

Yang

Teran

Battocchio

A. F.

Bertellotti

Wrzesinski

(2021). Building brand authenticity on social media: The impact of Instagram ad model genuineness and trustworthiness on perceived brand authenticity and consumer responses. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 21, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1860168

81.

Yang

Wang

Hwang

(2020). Generation Z in China: Implications for Global Brands. In Gentina

Parry

(Eds.), The new generation Z in Asia: Dynamics, differences, digitalisation (pp. 23–37). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-220-820201005

82.

Yim

M. C.

(2019). CEOs’ political tweets and perceived authenticity: Can expectancy violation be a pleasant surprise. Public Relations Review, 45(3), Article 101785.

83.

Zachara

(2020). The Millennial generation in the context of political power: A leadership gap? Leadership, 16(2), 241–258.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB