Do strategy and content matter? Restaurant firms’ corporate social responsibility communication on Twitter: A social network theory perspective

Abstract

Social media allows restaurants practitioners to distribute corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related information to interested individuals. However, it is unclear which types of CSR activities or communication strategies are more effective in terms of influencing consumers’ behavioral and emotional responses, especially in the restaurant industry. To shorten this research gap, the current study collected 136 CSR-related posts alongside 3408 stakeholders’ replies from the U.S. green restaurants’ Twitter accounts. Content analysis, ANOVA, and sentiment analysis using R studio were conducted for data evaluation. It was found that CSR activities related to the local community and society were as important as the activities related to the environment. Moreover, the engagement CSR communication strategy had a stronger influence on customers’ behavioral responses, generating more positive sentiments than broadcasting or reactive strategies on Twitter. The research findings may help restaurant practitioners communicate CSR-related information more effectively on social media.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility social network theory communication strategy sentiment analysis behavioral responses emotional responses

Introduction

Customers increasingly seek companies with business ethics and prefer socially responsible corporations (Du et al., 2010). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) that incorporates business performance into a variety of social and environmental issues is an essential element of a brand reputation and affects numerous stakeholders (Bianchi et al., 2019). CSR communication refers to the “communication that is designed and distributed by the company itself about its CSR efforts” (Morsing and Schultz, 2006: 171), and recently, a growing number of restaurant companies use social network platforms for CSR communications (Kim & Kim, 2019; Ozdemir et al., 2020).

In the restaurant industry, social networking sites (SNS) became a critical tool for advertising and promotion, with 80% of restaurants actively using this channel to engage with customers (Kim et al., 2015). Customers typically use online reviews to acquire information when making restaurant reservations (Jeong & Jang, 2011) and share their experience on SNS (Kwok & Yu, 2013), which has a direct impact on their purchasing decisions (Kim et al., 2018a). As such, restaurants can boost businesses by communicating with customers through SNS, such as Twitter and Facebook, because customers consider online posts and comments as more trustworthy (Aydin, 2020; Sung et al., 2020).

Although restaurant companies like Starbucks, Burger King, and McDonald’s disseminate their CSR-related information via SNS and permit users to post reviews, this practice has received criticism for its lack of objective information and the ways that companies respond to users’ comments (Dwivedi et al., 2007). Failing to communicate with key stakeholders online can seriously diminish the company’s brand image, reputation, and financial performance (Kim & Chae, 2018), which is prominent in the restaurant industry (Bryson & Atwal, 2019). Thus, it is integral to carefully craft the strategy and content of online CSR communication, aiming to generate positive responses from customers (Zizka, 2017).

The interaction between a company and its customer on SNS is viewed as the “online engagement which is considered to have three elements -cognitive, affective, and behavioral” and it can be activated by stakeholders interacting with Twitter content (Aydin, 2020: 2). Acquiring favorable responses to Twitter messages is essential for making a positive influence on brand identity (Kim et al., 2014), brand value (Gruen et al., 2005), and customer–brand relationship quality (Hudson et al., 2016).

With the framework for CSR engagement, the Stakeholder Theory explains that CSR activities affect stakeholders differently and may be limited by stakeholders’ perceptions when communicating CSR activities in different industry contexts (Li et al., 2019). However, one of the weaknesses of the Stakeholder Theory is its inability to describe how social interactions between stakeholders, especially in online communication, influence behavioral and emotional engagement. In contrast, the Social Network Theory (SNT) explains how people engage in social networks for a wide range of economic, social, emotional, and psychological benefits, and it postulates that their degree of engagement is related to their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors (Granovetter, 1973). Therefore, adopting SNT appears to be appropriate to gain a deeper understanding of customer interactions through CSR and their impact on engagement behaviors.

On one hand, although communication strategies research has received considerable attention (Colleoni, 2013), a recent review in hospitality management literature showed that research in customer responses to CSR communications as a factor of engagement is insufficient (Serra-Cantallops et al., 2018). Only a few studies (e.g., Park et al., 2016) conducted Twitter analytics in the restaurant industry despite its growing importance of predicting trends and customer interests (Kim et al., 2015; Luo & Zhong, 2015). To our best knowledge, empirical research is yet lacking in terms of identifying which types of CSR activities and communication strategies are most effective in generating positive behavioral responses on Twitter in restaurant companies. On the other hand, customers’ sentiment is important for assessing the affective aspect of online engagement with CSR communication on Twitter because sentiments ultimately influence customer satisfaction and loyalty toward companies (Moniz & De Jong, 2014). However, little research has focused on how restaurant companies’ CSR communication strategies affect the stakeholders’ sentiment on Twitter.

To address the aforementioned gaps in the extant literature, the following research questions were developed to guide this study: How can restaurant companies strategically communicate online CSR-related messages to engage customers better? Which type of CSR-related message is more effective and emotionally influential on customers’ responses on social media? As such, the specific objectives are to: (1) determine the impact of CSR communication strategies on customers’ behavioral responses, (2) establish the relationship between different types of CSR activities and customers’ behavioral responses, and (3) prove the effect of different types of CSR communication strategies on the customers’ sentiment on Twitter.

This study contributes to the CSR literature by extending the SNT to further the understanding of CSR communication strategies. It provides new insights through empirical evidence by examining the relationship between the CSR communication strategies and the customers’ behavioral and emotional responses on Twitter. From practical perspective, the study identifies the effective CSR activities that can positively influence stakeholders’ behavioral responses on Twitter for restaurant companies. A discussion of the relevant literature, methods, findings, implications to theory and practice, and directions for future research will follow.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Theoretical foundation

According to the Stakeholder Theory, the company should consider not only the responsibility for the interests of shareholders but also the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and other groups (Li et al., 2019). The long-term value of a company, therefore, depends on its knowledge, capacity, and commitment to the relationships with various stakeholders. With an emphasis on the relationships and interactions between various social actors, the social network perspective enables researchers to study the attitudes and behaviors of individuals within a broad network of relationships (Brown et al., 2007). A network consists of a set of “nodes” (actors) and a set of “ties” (connecting the nodes). The nodes can be any type of entity that can have some relationships between them, such as people, organizations, industries, and ties can be various types of friendships, communication patterns, or exchanges between individuals and/or organizations (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010).

The Social Network Theory (SNT) is grounded on two assumptions. First, through exposure to information and ideas, social networks play an important role in determining an individual’s attributes and behavior, and also that the relationship network that includes an individual is more important than an individual’s unique attributes when explaining behavior (Granovetter, 1973). Based on the SNT, Brown et al. (2007) suggested the online social network framework. They reasoned that in the context of online consumer review, tie strength, similarity, and trust are the main components of engaging consumers in e-WOM (electronic word-of-mouth) communication.

Types of corporate social responsibility activities and behavioral responses on Twitter

Twitter is one of the most common SNS for online communication (Etter, 2014), allowing companies to distribute CSR-related information to interested individuals (i.e., followers), contact particular Twitter members directly, and answer their questions or comments (Schultz et al., 2013). Research has shown that various stakeholders (e.g., politicians, investors, journalists, activists, or consumers) who have an interest in CSR used Twitter as their main communication channel (Etter, 2014; Fortin et al., 2011). To engage stakeholders meaningfully through CSR messages on Twitter, companies need to establish trust and encourage stakeholders’ feedback through targeted messages for various stakeholder groups (Zizka, 2017). Since the degree of differentiation of a company’s products or services is ultimately decided by the stakeholder’s perception, discerning various CSR activities is essential for comprehending the differences resulting from diverse CSR activities (Li et al., 2019). Generally, customers represent a critical stakeholder group on Twitter (Li, 2015). From the customers’ perspective, Li et al. (2019) categorized companies’ CSR activities into four dimensions, including consumers, environment, employees, and local community and society.

To achieve positive responses among stakeholders toward Twitter messages, it is critical for companies to enhance their identification and trust (Kim et al., 2014). Specific behavioral responses to Twitter messages can be captured directly through the forms of “reply, like, or retweet” to the message (Hartmann et al., 2018). In Twitter-based CSR communication, “replies” from other social media users are a significant feature. Replies to CSR tweets greatly influence the behavioral response of the recipient of those tweets, especially in the study of the effectiveness of e-WOM (Hartmann et al., 2020).

A retweet can be more influential in augmenting a message because users repeat the message among groups of strongly connected users (Cha et al., 2010). Thus, Twitter users can retweet as a communication medium to identify and engage others (Kim et al., 2014). Unlike a retweet, the like feature displays consent for the content and allows Twitter users to view their favorite tweets (Perdana & Pinandito, 2018). Features such as “retweet,” “reply,” and “like” are some of the most widely used functionalities of behavioral approaches as a measure of engagement on Twitter (Araujo & Kollat, 2018; Vargo, 2016).

In the hospitality industry, companies tend to emphasize their CSR involvement in environmental issues (Dubois & Ceron, 2006; Levy & Park, 2011; Rhou & Singal, 2020). However, it is claimed that hospitality companies need to enhance their relationships with the community and engage with societal issues beyond environmental issues (Kasim, 2006). Porter and Kramer (2006) asserted that a company will have a greater impact on the community and meet the customers’ satisfaction through different CSR activities. For instance, in restaurant customers’ donation behavior research, community-involved CSR activities influence customers’ attitudes and feeling positively (Line et al., 2018) and enhance a sense of identity and connectedness with companies (Choi & La, 2013). Inoue and Lee (2011) examined the effects of five different dimensions of CSR activities in the restaurant industry and reported that only community-based CSR activity influenced corporate financial performance.

Environmental CSR issues have attracted substantial attention from researchers, but so far, it remains unclear which type of CSR activity is most effective in terms of producing restaurant customers’ positive behavioral responses on Twitter. Research shows that, within the SNT, relationship-driven social network analysis helps understand the behavior of those who engage in community development practices towards meaningful change (Ennis & West, 2013). In addition, interweaving the stakeholder approach that focuses on the interaction between business and society with the extant literature, this study focused on the impact of the “local community and society” based CSR activity on customers’ behavioral response on Twitter. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H1a:

Customers’ behavioral responses on Twitter significantly differ based on the types of CSR activities of restaurant companies.

H1b:

The local community and society-based CSR activity have a greater impact on customers’ behavioral responses on Twitter than employees related CSR activity of restaurant companies.

H1c:

The local community and society-based CSR activity have a greater impact on customers’ behavioral responses on Twitter than the “consumers related CSR activity” of restaurant companies.

Corporate social responsibility communication strategies and behavioral responses on Twitter

A company’s capability to establish conformity between social expectations and CSR agenda depends on how to communicate with various stakeholders and gain their support (Morsing et al., 2008). Consumers are likely to become skeptical if they think that a company only implemented a CSR initiative to improve its brand image, leading them to question the motives of that company (Elving, 2013). Therefore, it is critically important that the company communicate its efforts to the public so that they can understand and accept these changes (Ihlen et al., 2011). Thus, when the needs of stakeholders are resolved, and their opinions are admired, CSR activities are considered to be reliable and trustworthy (Ingenhoff & Sommer, 2011).

Drawing upon Morsing and Schultz’s (2006) model, Etter (2014) adapted communication strategies into the SNS context and differentiated three comparable strategies: broadcasting, reactive, and engagement. First, the broadcasting strategy describes one-way communication. Companies that apply broadcast strategies are not interested in interacting with CSR on Twitter, but seek to spread the information to stakeholders about CSR efforts. Second, the reactive strategy describes high responsiveness and involves weak proactive communicative behavior. Companies with this strategy commonly answer questions or comments related to CSR issues without directly contacting other Twitter users. Third, the engagement strategy actively answers questions and comments directed at other Twitter members. Company accounts that use this strategy are interested in distributing information to their target members and responding actively to stakeholders on Twitter (Kollat & Farache, 2017).

To get closer to their online stakeholders and live up to their expectations, CSR communication through SNS should engage customers in CSR conversations while effectively satisfying customer needs, as suggested by the engagement strategy (Schmeltz, 2014). Relative to online social networks, Brown et al. (2007) also argued that in online communities, a customer’s relationship with SNS itself had a greater effect on attitudes than a relationship with others. Thus, customers are more likely to utilize online reviews on SNS with which they have more intimate and strongly connected.

Araujo and Kollat (2018) found that engagement CSR strategy was more strongly affect content dissemination and approval than broadcasting or reactive approach in the food company. Furthermore, Kucukusta et al. (2019) asserted that hotel companies can meet stakeholders’ expectations by actively engaging them in deciding the key CSR issues on SNS. Although Araujo and Kollat (2018) showed meaningful results in terms of how CSR communication strategy can impact the message sharing behavior, research focusing on implementing CSR message issues and the practical implications of engaging with stakeholders on social media just began to sprout (Verk et al., 2019). Furthermore, very few studies have provided support to the influence of restaurant companies’ CSR communication strategies on customer’s behavioral responses on social media. Thus, building upon the aforementioned literature, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H2a:

Restaurant companies’ engagement CSR communication strategy has a stronger influence on customers’ behavioral responses than the broadcasting communication strategies on Twitter.

H2b:

Restaurant companies’ engagement CSR communication strategy has a stronger influence on customers’ behavioral responses than the reactive communication strategies on Twitter.

Corporate social responsibility communication strategies and emotional responses on Twitter

Twitter has the advantage of capturing real-time experiences and emotions from a wealth of authentic customers (Capriello et al., 2013). Therefore, many companies apply Twitter frequently for promotion, communications, and market research (Philander & Zhong, 2016). For example, Ben & Jerry proactively uses Twitter to engage their followers by posting Tweets with comments and questions to respond to. Several social issues such as sustainable sourcing, climate control, workers’ rights, fair trade, equality, have been shown to result in followers’ positive emotions (Ciszek & Logan, 2018). Statistics related to Ben & Jerry’s CSR show that when the company actively posted about socially responsible issues on Twitter, their following rose rapidly (Socialbackers, 2020).

Sentiment to a CSR tweet also influences customers’ behavioral responses on Twitter (Hartmann et al., 2018). Since “replies” relate to a user’s emotional perspective, the valence of sentiment from replies to a CSR tweet might influence responses such as “likes” (Hartmann et al., 2018). Sentiments refer to the attitudes, reflections, or discernment caused by emotions; sentiment analysis, also known as opinion mining, can aid in the study of people’s feelings about a particular subject (Fang & Zhan, 2015). Sentiment analysis is useful to show the emotional aspect of Twitter users on a CSR topic, ultimately influencing stakeholders’ satisfaction and loyalty toward firms (Moniz & De Jong, 2014).

According to the SNT, individuals are more likely to interact with people who share similar traits. Therefore, individuals with higher levels of interpersonal engagement and trust have higher levels of emotional attachment through online communication based on common interests (Brown et al., 2007). However, given the importance of customers’ sentiment that directly affects their engagement behaviors on Twitter (Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017), most studies to date have focused on evaluating the valence or quantity of Twitter’s functional responses rather than sentiment itself. Moreover, recent research in the restaurant industry has shown that understanding the emotional states of customers is paramount for successful online engagements (Bilro et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). Therefore, building upon the previous research, we hypothesized that:

H3a:

Restaurant companies’ engagement CSR communication strategy generates more positive sentiments than the broadcasting communication strategy on Twitter.

H3b:

Restaurant companies’ engagement CSR communication strategy generates more positive sentiments than the reactive communication strategy on Twitter.

Methods

Sample and procedure

The samples in the current study included Tweets from the following four restaurant companies, all located in the United States: (1) Starbucks Corp. (2) McDonald’s Corp. (3) Yum! Brands Inc., and (4) Darden Restaurants Inc. These four restaurant companies were selected based on the Newsweek “500 Green Rankings 2017” as these four companies were the only restaurant companies included in this index (e.g., #37: Starbucks Corp. #93: McDonald’s Corp. #162: Yum! Brands Inc. #312: Darden Restaurants Inc.; Top 10 Green Companies, 2018). Newsweek ranks the largest 500 U.S. companies on corporate sustainability and environmental impact and the “Green Rankings” have been announced annually since 2009 (Colleoni, 2013).

The first step of the data collection was to identify the corporate Twitter accounts for the four selected companies¹. The second step was to collect CSR-related posts from each of the four corporate Twitter accounts. After separating the posts about product-promotion (e.g., “Here’s to #NationalHotCocoaDay and future whipped cream mustached everywhere,” posted December 13, 2017), the researchers manually gathered the CSR-related posts according to the practice used in the previous research (Li et al., 2019; Öberseder et al., 2014), identifying four dimensions of CSR activities (i.e., Consumers, “protect consumer privacy”; Environment, “reduce and avoid pollution”; Employees, support and train employees”; Local community and society, “create jobs for people in region”). Because Starbucks only began publicizing posts on Twitter during the last 2 years, posts dated January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018 were selected, and the actual texts of the tweets were stored in a database for data analysis. The third and final step was to extract information from each post, such as the text of replies, the number of replies, the number of likes, and the number of retweets.

This study collected 136 CSR-related posts (i.e., Starbucks, 59; Macdonald, 36; Yum Brand, 26; Darden Restaurant, 19) and 3408 stakeholders’ replies to the CSR-related posts (i.e., Starbucks, 2175; Macdonald, 1132; Yum Brand, 16; Darden Restaurant, 85) from the selected companies’ Twitter accounts (Table 1). Two authors independently classified all tweets collected and reviewed all inconsistent classifications to determine the final coding. The Krippendorf’s alpha was calculated to establish inter-coder reliability. The intercoder reliability scores ranged from 0.93 to 1.00 on variables, with an average value at 0.97, indicating an acceptable level of agreement between the coders (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007).

Table 1.

Categorization of CSR-related activities and communication strategies in tweets.

	Starbucks	McDonald	Yum Brands	Darden	Accumulation
CSR activity
Consumers	0	3(8.3%)	2(8.6)	0	5(3.7%)
Environment	15(25.4%)	8(22.2%)	4(17.3%)	0	27(19.9)
Employees	11(18.6%)	18(50%)	10(43.4%)	14(77.7%)	53(39%)
Local community	33(55.9%)	7(19.4%)	7(30.4%)	4(22.2%)	51(37.5%)
Total	59(100%)	36(100%)	23(100%)	18(100%)	136(100%)
Communication strategy
Broadcasting	16(27.1%)	23(63.9%)	21(91.3%)	16(88.9%)	76(55.9)
Reactive	12(20.3%)	10(27.8%)	2(8.6)	1(5.6%)	25(18.4)
Engagement	31(52.5%)	3(8.3%)	0	1(5.6%)	35(25.7%)
Total	59(100%)	36(100%)	23(100%)	18(100%)	136(100%)

Data analysis

To identify different types of Twitter CSR activities and communication strategies, content analysis was conducted. Content analysis is a research technique used to ascertain the existence of a specific word or concept within a text (Sweeney & Coughlan, 2008). CSR activities in four dimensions were determined as the measurement indicators for identifying a company’s CSR activity on Twitter (Li et al., 2019). Each CSR-related tweet was categorized depending on whether it used engaging, reacting, or broadcasting strategy, as suggested by Etter (2014), to identify CSR communication strategy. Tweets that did not contain a company’s direct answer to stakeholders’ replies were grouped as the “broadcasting strategy.”

Tweets in which companies passively responded to other Twitter users’ questions or replies, and in which they did not approach the users proactively were categorized as using the “reactive strategy” (e.g., “We agree! We’re so grateful for the service of Military Families!”). Tweets in which companies actively responded to users’ questions and remarks, engaged the audience using pronouns (e.g., “you” and “your”), or asked questions were categorized as the “engagement strategy” (e.g., “I’m so sorry the grocery store ran out of the French Roast. Hopefully, they’ll get restocked soon. We’re always looking at our assortment of coffees to provide the best experience, but we still try to make some available through other channels so you can still enjoy them”) (Araujo & Kollat, 2018).

The total number of replies, likes, and retweets from the collected tweets was operationalized as the outcome variable (i.e., behavioral responses on Twitter) as suggested by prior research (Vargo, 2016). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using IBM SPSS 21.0 was conducted to analyze the differences in the types of CSR activities (i.e., consumers, environment, employees, local community, and society) and CSR communication strategies (i.e., broadcasting, reactive, and engaging) on stakeholders’ behavioral responses of corporate’s CSR activities on Twitter. To assess the result further, post hoc tests were conducted.

To assess the sentiment of Twitter replies to each CSR communication strategy, sentiment analysis via text mining in R Studio was applied in this study. R is one of the most widely used open-source programming languages for data science (Tomar, 2017). Text mining in R analyzes and processes significant amounts of unstructured text for extracting meaningful information that can be transformed into executable knowledge (Fan et al., 2006). Sentiment analysis uses algorithms that automatically extract text data and categorize it into emotion categories, including positive, negative, or neutral feelings (Philander & Zhong, 2016).

The process for sentiment analysis was as follows. First, 3408 replies from CSR-related tweets were categorized based on the three CSR communication strategies (Table 2), and each data file was imported into R studio. Second, data cleaning was conducted in R and the Sentiment Lexicon was downloaded to match the original text bag with negative and positive words (Sentiment Lexicon, 2019). Sentiment Lexicon is a list of positive and negative sentiment words containing around 6800 unique words (Hu & Liu, 2004). Finally, the sentiment score (i.e., the difference of positive score minus negative score) for each CSR communication strategy was calculated.

Table 2.

Replies to communication strategies in tweets.

	Starbucks	McDonald	Yum Brands	Darden	Accumulation
Broadcasting	287(13.2%)	477(42.1%)	12(75%)	75(88.2%)	851(25%)
Reactive	272(12.5%)	247(21.8%)	4(25%)	4(4.7%)	527(15.5%)
Engagement	1616(74.3%)	408(36%)	0	6(7.0%)	2030(59.6%)
Total	2175(100%)	1132(100%)	16(100%)	85(100%)	3408(100%)

Results

Analysis of variance

To test the different impact of CSR activities (H1) and communication strategies (H2) on behavioral responses on Twitter, we conducted a one-way ANOVA. The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied because the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were not met (Spurrier, 2003). Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the results.

Table 3.

Means and standard deviation of the results.

Dv: Behavioral responses on Twitter	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Types of CSR activities
Consumers	228.750	288.171	4
Environment	484.957	382.110	23
Employees	169.447	198.356	47
Local community and society	568.568	573.749	44
CSR communication strategies
Broadcasting	179.466	204.332	73
Reactive	431.810	305.329	21
Engagement	1096.889	683.175	27

According to Table 4, there is a significant difference in the effect of the types of CSR activities on stakeholders’ behavioral responses on Twitter (F (3114) = 7.810, p< .001). The Kruskal–Wallis test showed that the result was statistically significant (χ ² (3) = 21.054, p = .000), indicating that the effect of CSR activities on behavioral responses on Twitter is different for the types of CSR activities. Thus, H1a was supported. Because of the violation of ANOVA assumption, Dunnett T3 post hoc test was conducted and revealed that both types of CSR activity of local community and society (M = 568.568, SD = 573.749, p < .001) and environment (M = 484.957, SD = 382.110, p < .05) had greater influences on behavioral responses on Twitter than of employees-related CSR activity (M = 169.447, SD = 573.749). These results show that restaurant firms’ stakeholders are more active in behavioral responses on Twitter (e.g., reply, retweet, and like) to local community and society-related CSR posts than employee-related. Based on this result, H1b was supported. However, there was no significant difference between “CSR activity of local community and society” and “CSR activity of consumers” (M= 228.750, SD = 288.171, p > .05). Thus, H1c was not supported.

Table 4.

ANOVA tables for behavioral responses on Twitter.

IV: Types of CSR activities DV: Behavioral responses on Twitter
Source	SS	df	MS	F	P
Between	3992682.152	3	1330894.051	7.810	0.000
Within	19426252.119	114	170405.720
Total	23418934.271	117
IV: CSR communication strategiesDV: Behavioral responses on Twitter
Source	SS	df	MS	F	P
Between	16589594.856	2	8294797.428	57.557	0.000
Within	17005536.069	118	144114.712	—	—
Total	33595130.926	20	—	—	—

Table 4 also indicates that there was a significantly different impact of CSR communication strategy on stakeholders’ behavioral responses of corporate CSR activities on Twitter (F(2, 118) = 57.557, p< 0.001). The result of the Kruskal–Wallis test was statistically significant (χ ² (2)= 51.810, p = .000). The Dunnett T3 post hoc test showed that the mean score of the stakeholders’ behavioral responses on Twitter for “engagement CSR communication strategy” (M = 1096.889, SD = 683.175) was significantly greater than for the “reactive strategy” (M = 431.810, SD = 305.320, p < .05) or for the “broadcasting strategy” (M = 174.466, SD = 204.332, p < .001), supporting H2a and H2b. This result proves that when restaurant firms actively engage stakeholders in online communication through CSR activity, their behavioral responses are more prominent on Twitter.

Sentiment analysis

To test H3a and H3b, first, a sentiment analysis using R studio (version 1.1.463) was conducted. As shown in Table 5, the engagement strategy accounted for the most replies ( n =2030) and followed by broadcasting strategy (n = 851) and reactive strategy (n = 527), respectively. In general, there were much more positive sentiments than negative sentiments in the replies, as all communication strategies received positive sentiment scores and positive ratio scores. Specifically, the engagement CSR communication strategy yielded the highest sentiment score (794) and the ratio score (39.1%) with 1563 positive words and 769 negative words compared to the broadcasting strategies (e.g., the sentiment score; 120, the ratio score; 14.1%), and the reactive CSR communication strategy (e.g., sentiment score; 200, ratio score; 37.9%). This result reveals that restaurant firms’ engagement communication strategy through CSR activity on Twitter influences stakeholders to post more positive emotional replies, supporting H3a and H3b.

Table 5.

Sentiment analysis for CSR communication strategy (n = 3048).

CSR communication strategies	Total replies	Positive words	Negative words	Sentiment score (% per total)
Broadcasting	851	623	503	+120(14.1%)
Reactive	527	468	268	+200(37.9%)
Engagement	2030	1563	769	+794(39.1%)

Additionally, another ANOVA was conducted to test if sentiment scores of three types of communication strategies are significantly different from each other. Table 6 indicates that there was a significantly different impact of CSR communication strategy on stakeholders’ replies in tweets (F(2, 133) = 7.607, p < .05). The result of the Kruskal–Wallis test was statistically significant (χ² (2)= 33.362, p < .001). The Dunnett T post hoc test showed that the sentiment score of Twitter posts using the ‘engagement CSR communication strategy’ (M= 188.54, SD= 425.334) was significantly greater than the “reactive strategy” (M= 43.24, SD= 52.132, p < .05) or the “broadcasting strategy” (M= 17.61, SD= 25.260, p < .001, confirming H3a and H3b.

Table 6.

ANOVA table for sentiment score on Twitter.

IV: CSR communication strategies DV: Sentiment score
Source	SS	df	MS	F	P
Between	716519.626	2	358259.813	7.607	0.001
Within	6264003.404	133
Total	6980523.029	135	47097.770	—	—

Discussion

Theoretical implications

The current study yields several critical theoretical implications. First, drawing upon the Social Network Theory (SNT) and stakeholder approach of the relationship-oriented, different types of restaurant companies’ CSR activities (i.e., consumers, environment, employees, local community, and society) were assessed to identify the difference in customers’ behavioral responses on Twitter. Previous research showed that the “environmental issue” was most important in the hospitality industry in terms of generating positive customer engagement behavior (Ettinger et al., 2018; Levy & Park, 2011). However, our findings reveal that restaurant companies’ CSR activity of the “local community and society” is as much influential as of the “environment” on stakeholders’ behavioral responses on Twitter. This result is consistent with the previous findings that established the positive relationship between community-related CSR activity and customer’s attitudes (Choi & La, 2013; Line et al., 2018). Based on these results, local community and society-related CSR activities on Twitter can be understood as enabling stakeholders to actively utilize the functionalities of a behavioral approach on Twitter (reply, retweet, and like), which is a barometer of Twitter engagement (Vargo, 2016).

This finding is timely and meaningful given the relatively small number of studies focused on community and societal-related CSR issues (Rhou & Singal, 2020) and comparative studies identifying specific CSR practices in the current hospitality literature (Shin et al., 2021). Rhou and Singal (2020) also emphasize the importance of “the strategic advantage of CSR to the local community and broader society (strategic philanthropy)” (p. 5). They argue that philanthropic activities (e.g., donation of food and shelter during natural disasters) are widespread and valued by the local community and are critical to the success in the highly competitive hospitality industry (Rhou & Singal, 2020). In addition, the SNT explains that people use social networks to meet various social needs, and SNS serves as social entities, including people, organizations, and communities, who are connected as a set of socially meaningful relationships and interact with each other to share social values (Kwon & Wen, 2010). Our findings, therefore, contribute to the CSR communication literature by showing that “local community and society” CSR activities have a significant impact on behavioral responses of strongly connected online customers on Twitter, especially in the context of the restaurant industry.

Second, the study identified that the engagement CSR communication strategy influenced stakeholders’ behavioral responses more profoundly than the broadcasting or reactive strategies on Twitter. This finding means that restaurant firm’s active responding to user’s posting and efforts to engage the stakeholders using pronouns or their names lead them to interact more with firms on Twitter. This result confirms the previous finding that verifying the positive relationship between engagement CSR strategy and message sharing behavior on Twitter (Araujo & Kollat, 2018). Customer engagement behaviors on Twitter, such as reply, retweet, and like, can improve the eWOM, subsequently enhancing corporate brand identity and brand trust (Allsop et al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2012). Previous research showed that integrated behavioral response on Twitter was an essential feature of Twitter-based CSR communication (Hartmann et al., 2018). However, few studies have focused on how CSR communication strategies influence integrated customer’s behavioral responses on Twitter, which can be an indicator of online customer engagement behavior for corporate brand value (Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017). The SNT argues that communication patterns can be a type of “ties” between the nodes (individuals and organizations) that affect their attitudes and behaviors (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). Therefore, by applying the SNT, the results of this study contribute to deepening the understanding of CSR communication and its role as social “ties” that enhance customer’s behavioral responses within a broad network of relationships, such as Twitter.

Third, this study tested how CSR communication strategies affected customers’ sentiment on Twitter by conducting sentiment analysis using R. Our findings showed that online customers’ sentiments were mostly positive regarding CSR activity on Twitter when corporate communicates with the engagement strategy. This result is in line with the result of a previous study that individuals with high levels of interpersonal engagement have high levels of emotional attachment through online communication (Kim et al., 2018b). Previous research has demonstrated the positive impact of engaging in proper CSR strategy on corporate reputation (Dutot et al., 2016), brand image (Kent & Taylor, 2002), relationship building (Etter, 2014), and customers’ satisfaction (Lee et al., 2013). However customers’ sentiment towards companies’ CSR communication, a critical factor influencing brand value and relationship quality, is rarely discussed (Kim et al., 2014; Moniz & De Jong, 2014). Therefore, our findings contribute to the hospitality literature by empirically showing that restaurant firm’ strategic efforts to actively engage stakeholders in their CSR activity affects their emotional aspect on CSR topic more positively than passive responding (reactive) and no direct responding (broadcasting) strategies.

Practical implications

In addition to the theoretical merits, the research findings also provide pragmatic implications to industry professionals. First, marketers who desire to communicate and engage with customers by showcasing their companies’ CSR activities, may pay close attention to both the “environment” and the “local community and society” issues in online communications. The “local community and society” issues include topics such as charitable giving (unoccupied rooms and leftover food), employee volunteer programs, corporate involvement in community education, and well-being engagement (Rhou & Singal, 2020). In particular, given the significant challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the CSR engagement of hospitality companies needs to be designed and executed as strategic philanthropy towards the local community (Shin et al., 2021). For example, InterContinental Hotels group provided hotel rooms at discounted rates for the medical staff during the pandemic (Shin et al., 2021). Starbucks also donated $1.7 million to Feeding America in 2021 to promote equitable access to nutritious food in communities experiencing high rates of food insecurity (stories.starbucks.com, 2021). Because the restaurant industry is the second largest employer in the U.S. (Youn et al., 2016), the influence of the restaurant companies on the community and the society cannot and should not be overlooked.

Our findings indicated that restaurant marketers who are in charge of Twitter communication could actively utilize the “engagement CSR communication strategy.” When marketers aim to make their users voluntarily diffuse or endorse their CSR posts on Twitter, they should consider not only answer users’ questions but proactively add related questions or link the issues to other users. In the hospitality industry, customers’ sentiment strongly influences their satisfaction and online review activity, which consequently affects companies’ brand strategy (Xu & Li, 2016). Restaurant marketers, thus, need to understand that this dialogic engagement communication on social media can help customers to create positive emotions, and ultimately it may enhance stakeholders’ satisfaction toward restaurant firms (Rather et al., 2019).

Limitations and future research

While this study provides several insights into theory and practice, we would like to point out a few limitations that open doors for future research. This study selected the restaurant companies based on the Newsweek “500 Green Rankings 2017.” Future research may select samples according to other indices, such as Reputation Institute or Global Reporting Initiative that evaluate CSR performances with different standards. Moreover, this study focused on CSR communication on Twitter. As tweets mainly consist of texts and pictures, a growing number of restaurant companies nowadays increase the use of videos to promote their CSR endeavors. Future research may investigate the effect of online CSR communication on customers’ responses and their affection on video-based social media platforms, such as YouTube and TikTok.

The current study aims to identify customers’ behavioral responses on Twitter. The role of restaurant types (e.g., fast food, fast casual, fine dining) was not considered when assessing the impact of CSR activity types and communication strategies. In future studies, it will be interesting to classify CSR-related posts on social media according to restaurant types and compare how customers react to them. Finally, this study does not reflect the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, given the lack of CSR studies focusing on strategic philanthropy in the hospitality industry, it would be meaningful to comparatively study whether the pandemic affects restaurant companies’ CSR strategies towards the community in future studies.

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 iDs

Kyong Sik Sung

Chen-Wei (Willie) Tao

Note

Author Biographies

Kyong Sik Sung is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Spears School of Business, at Oklahoma State University. He had spent years of managing restaurant business and obtaining experience in the sales and marketing domain. His research focused on understanding chain restaurant's CSR communication strategy that influence customer's psychological implications and brand co-creation behaviors.

Dr. Willie Tao is an Assistant Professor in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Spears School of Business, at Oklahoma State University. His research focuses on foodservice management, social media research, and big data analytics. Besides research, he enjoys teaching and cultivating future leaders in our industry. Food is the language he speaks, and travel is his favorite exercise.

Dr. Lisa Slevitch is currently an Associate Professor at the School of Hospitality and Tourism in the Spears School of Business at Oklahoma State University. Her research interests are in the areas of hospitality marketing and management, particularly in the field of determinants of customer satisfaction, consumer behavior, and sustainability. Her articles have been published in the International Journal of Hospitality Management, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, and other reputable hospitality and tourism journals. Dr. Slevitch is an active member of professional and academic hospitality associations. Currently, she serves as a Treasurer on ICHRIE Board.

References

Allsop

Bassett

Hoskins

(2007) Word-of-mouth research: principles and applications. Journal of Advertising Research 47(4): 398–411.

Araujo

Kollat

(2018) Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter. Internet Research 28(2): 419–431.

Aydin

(2020) Social media engagement and organic post effectiveness: a roadmap for increasing the effectiveness of social media use in hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 29(1): 1–21.

Bianchi

Bruno

Sarabia-Sanchez

(2019) The impact of perceived CSR on corporate reputation and purchase intention. European Journal of Management and Business Economics 28(3): 206–221.

Bilro

Loureiro

SMC

Guerreiro

(2019) Exploring online customer engagement with hospitality products and its relationship with involvement, emotional states, experience and brand advocacy. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 28(2): 147–171.

Borgatti

Ofem

(2010) Social network theory and analysis. Social Network Theory and Educational Change: 17–29.

Brown

Broderick

Lee

(2007) Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(3): 2–20.

Bryson

Atwal

(2019) Brand hate: the case of Starbucks in France. British Food Journal 121(1): 172–182.

Capriello

Mason

Davis

, et al. (2013) Farm tourism experiences in travel reviews: a cross-comparison of three alternative methods for data analysis. Journal of Business Research 66(6): 778–785.

10.

Cha

Haddadi

Benevenuto

, et al. (2010) Measuring user influence in Twitter: the million follower fallacy. In: Fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 23–26 May 2010, Washington, DC.

11.

Choi

(2013) The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on the restoration of loyalty after service failure and recovery. Journal of Services Marketing 27(3): 223–233.

12.

Ciszek

Logan

(2018) Challenging the dialogic promise: how Ben & Jerry's support for Black Lives Matter fosters dissensus on social media. Journal of Public Relations Research 30(3): 115–127.

13.

Colleoni

(2013) CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18(2): 228–248.

14.

Dubois

Ceron

J-P

(2006) Tourism and climate change: proposals for a research agenda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(4): 399–415.

15.

Bhattacharya

Sen

(2010) Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 8–19.

16.

Dutot

Lacalle Galvez

Versailles

(2016) CSR communications strategies through social media and influence on e-reputation. Management Decision 54(2): 363–389.

17.

Dwivedi

Shibu

Venkatesh

(2007) Social software practices on the internet. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19(5): 415–426.

18.

Etter

(2014) Broadcasting, reacting, engaging - three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. Journal of Communication Management 18(4): 322–342.

19.

Ettinger

Grabner-Kräuter

Terlutter

(2018) Online CSR communication in the hotel industry: Evidence from small hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 68: 94–104.

20.

Elving

WJL

(2013) Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications 19(4): 277–292.

21.

Ennis

West

(2013) Using social network analysis in community development practice and research: a case study. Community Development Journal 48(1): 40–57.

22.

Fan

Wallace

Rich

, et al. (2006) Tapping the power of text mining. Communications of the ACM 49(9): 76–82. [Online] .

23.

Fang

Zhan

(2015) Sentiment analysis using product review data. Journal of Big Data 2(1): 5.

24.

Fortin

Uncles

Burton

, et al. (2011) Interactive or reactive? Marketing with Twitter. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28(7): 491–499.

25.

Granovetter

(1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.

26.

Gruen

Osmonbekov

Czaplewski

(2005) The impact of customer-to-customer travel-related know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research 59(4): 449–456.

27.

Hartmann

Fernández

Apaolaza

, et al. (2018) Emotional claims in CSR Tweets: the Moderating Role of CSR Message Fit. In: Advances in Advertising Research IX. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler, pp. 231–242.

28.

Hartmann

Fernández

Apaolaza

, et al. (2020) Explaining viral CSR message propagation in social media: the role of normative influences. Journal of Business Ethics: 1–21.

29.

Hayes

Krippendorff

(2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication methods and measures 1(1): 77–89.

30.

Liu

(2004) Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 22–25 August 2004, Seattle, WA, pp. 168–177. ACM.

31.

Hudson

Huang

Roth

, et al. (2016) The influence of social media interactions on consumer-brand relationships: a three-country study of brand perceptions and marketing behaviors. International Journal of Research in Marketing 33(1): 27–41.

32.

Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(eds), (2011). .The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

33.

Ingenhoff

Sommer

(2011) Corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2011(42): 73–91.

34.

Inoue

Lee

(2011) Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management 32(4): 790–804.

35.

Jeong

Jang

(2011) Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30(2): 356–366.

36.

Kasim

(2006) The need for business environmental and social responsibility in the tourism industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 7(1): 1–22.

37.

Kent

Taylor

(2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review 28(1): 21–37.

38.

Kim

Sung

Kang

(2014) Brand followers' retweeting behavior on Twitter: how brand relationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior 37: 18–25.

39.

Kim

Woo

Uysal

, et al. (2018a) The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee well-being in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30(3): 1584–1600.

40.

Kim

(2019) CSR and shareholder value in the restaurant industry: the roles of CSR communication through annual reports. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 60(1): 69–76.

41.

Kim

Kandampully

Bilgihan

(2018b) The influence of eWOM communications: an application of online social network framework. Computers in Human Behavior 80: 243–254.

42.

Kim

Koh

Cha

, et al. (2015) Effects of social media on firm value for U.S. restaurant companies. International Journal of Hospitality Management 49: 40–46.

43.

Kim

W-H

Chae

(2018) Understanding the relationship among resources, social media use and hotel performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30(9): 2888–2907.

44.

Kollat

Farache

(2017) Achieving consumer trust on Twitter via CSR communication. Journal of Consumer Marketing 34(6): 505–514.

45.

Kucukusta

Perelygina

Lam

W S

(2019) CSR communication strategies and stakeholder engagement of upscale hotels in social media. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(5): 2129–2148.

46.

Kwok

(2013) Spreading social media messages on Facebook. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(1): 84–94.

47.

Kwon

Wen

(2010) An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior 26(2): 254–263.

48.

Lee

W-Y

Kim

(2013) Social media for socially responsible firms: analysis of fortune 500's Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR Ratings. Journal of Business Ethics 118(4): 791–806.

49.

Levy

S E

Park

S-Y

(2011) An analysis of CSR activities in the lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 18(1): 147–154.

50.

Zhang

Sun

(2019) Building consumer-oriented CSR differentiation strategy. Sustainability 11(3): 664.

51.

(2015) Relationship maintenance on Twitter: implications from loyalty leaders. Journal of Communication Management 19(2): 184–202.

52.

Line

N D

Hanks

Zhang

(2018) Birds of a feather donate together: understanding the relationship between the social servicescape and CSR participation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, 102–110.

53.

Liu

Choi

Mattila

(2019) Love is in the menu: leveraging healthy restaurant brands with handwritten typeface. Journal of Business Research 98: 289–298.

54.

Luo

Zhong

(2015) Using social network analysis to explain communication characteristics of travel-related electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites. Tourism Management 46: 274–282.

55.

Moniz

de Jong

(2014) Sentiment analysis and the impact of employee satisfaction on firm earnings. In: European Conference on Information Retrieval. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 519–527.

56.

Morsing

Schultz

(2006) Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4): 323–338.

57.

Morsing

Schultz

Nielsen

(2008) The 'Catch 22' of communicating CSR: findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2): 97–111.

58.

Muñoz-Expósito

Oviedo-García

MÁ

Castellanos-Verdugo

(2017) How to measure engagement in Twitter: advancing a metric. Internet Research 27(5): 1122–1148.

59.

Öberseder

Schlegelmilch

Murphy

, et al. (2014) Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics 124(1): 101–115.

60.

Ozdemir

Erkmen

Kim

(2020) Corporate social responsibility and idiosyncratic risk in the restaurant industry: does brand diversification matter? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 32(9): 2925–2946.

61.

Park

Jang

(2016) Analyzing Twitter to explore perceptions of Asian restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 7(4): 405–422.

62.

Perdana

Pinandito

(2018) Combining likes-retweet analysis and naive bayes classifier within Twitter for sentiment analysis. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC) 10(1–8): 41–46.

63.

Philander

Zhong

(2016) Twitter sentiment analysis: Capturing sentiment from integrated resort tweets. International Journal of Hospitality Management 55: 16–24.

64.

Porter

Kramer

(2006) Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 78–163.

65.

Rather

Tehseen

Itoo

, et al. (2019) Customer brand identification, affective commitment, customer satisfaction, and brand trust as antecedents of customer behavioral intention of loyalty: an empirical study in the hospitality sector. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 29(2): 196–217.

66.

Rhou

Singal

(2020) A review of the business case for CSR in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 84: 102330.

67.

Schmeltz

(2014) Identical or just compatible? The utility of corporate identity values in communicating corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business Communication 51(3): 234–258.

68.

Schultz

Castelló

Morsing

(2013) The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: a communication view. Journal of Business Ethics 115(4): 681–692.

69.

Sentiment Lexicon (2019). Available at: https://www.cs.uic.edu/∼liub/FBS/sentiment-analysis.html#lexicon (accessed 10 May 2020).

70.

Serra-Cantallops

Peña-Miranda

D D

Ramón-Cardona

, et al. (2018) Progress in research on CSR and the hotel industry (2006-2015). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 59(1): 15–38.

71.

Shin

Sharma

Nicolau

, et al. (2021) The impact of hotel CSR for strategic philanthropy on booking behavior and hotel performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tourism Management 85: 104322.

72.

Socialbackers (2020) Ben & Jerry’s (@benandjerrys) Twitter Statistics. Available at https://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/twitter/profiles/detail/18949610-benandjerrys (accessed 15 June 2021).

73.

Spurrier

(2003) On the null distribution of the Kruskal-Wallis statistic. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics 15(6): 685–691.

74.

Stories.starbucks.com (2020) This food, it means a chance’: Meet four people on the journey of Starbucks FoodShare donations box. Available at: https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2021/follow-the-food-meet-four-people-along-starbucks-foodshare-journey/ (accessed 15 July 2021).

75.

Sung

Tao

C-W

Slevitch

(2020) Restaurant chain's corporate social responsibility messages on social networking sites: the role of social distance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 85: 102429.

76.

Sweeney

Coughlan

(2008) Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2): 113–124.

77.

Taylor

D G

Strutton

Thompson

(2012) Self-enhancement as a motivation for sharing online advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising 12(2): 13–28.

78.

Tomar

(2017) Text Mining in R: A Tutorial. Available at: https://www.springboard.com/blog/text-mining-in-r/ (accessed 22 May 2018).

79.

Top 10 Green Companies in the U.S. 2017 (2018). Available at: https://www.newsweek.com/green-rankings-2017-18 (accessed 15 May 2019).

80.

Vargo

C J

(2016) Toward a tweet typology: contributory consumer engagement with brand messages by content type. Journal of Interactive Advertising 16(2): 157–168.

81.

Verk

Golob

Podnar

(2019) A dynamic review of the emergence of corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Ethics: 1–25.

82.

(2016) The antecedents of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction toward various types of hotels: a text mining approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management 55: 57–69.

83.

Youn

Song

Lee

, et al. (2016) Does the restaurant type matter for investment in corporate social responsibility? International Journal of Hospitality Management 58: 24–33.

84.

Zizka

(2017) The (mis)use of social media to communicate CSR in hospitality. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 8(1): 73–86.