Stories or Expositive Messages? Comparing Their Effectiveness in Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

Abstract

In the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication, we explore whether consumer perceptions and responses differ when the message content is based on storytelling or exposition. The conceptual model that we propose in the article includes five attributes of CSR message content (i.e., issue importance, CSR impact, CSR motives, CSR fit, and CSR commitment) and their relationships to two types of consumer responses (i.e., purchase and advocacy). We collected data from 444 participants who evaluated the website of a fictitious restaurant chain that included information about its CSR activities using (a) storytelling or (b) expositive CSR messages. The findings suggest that the use of storytelling notably improves perceptions of issue importance, CSR impact, CSR fit, and CSR commitment. On the contrary, the type of CSR message does not differentiate consumer perceptions of corporate CSR motives. The use of storytelling or an expositive CSR message also has a significant impact on the conceptual model, with consumers responding more or less intensively to each attribute of the CSR message content depending on the type of message they are exposed to.

Keywords

CSR message storytelling exposition purchase advocacy

Introduction

By engaging in and communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, companies can generate favorable consumer attitudes and better support behaviors while, in the long run, they can also build corporate image and strengthen their relationship with consumers (Du et al., 2010; García de los Salmones & Pérez, 2018). Although the communication of CSR has become a mainstream management function (Chaudhri, 2016), it is perceived to be a controversial and extremely complex task; CSR goes beyond the traditional fields of responsibility that companies are accustomed to and which they are comfortable communicating (Schmeltz, 2014). Therefore, it is imperative for managers to have a deeper understanding of the key issues related to CSR communication. One of these issues is the question of what to communicate, that is, the message content (Du et al., 2010). Persuasiveness of a communication can be increased easily and dramatically by paying attention to message content (Darley & Smith, 1993). The way that companies design the content of their CSR messages is crucial for the success of CSR communication (Du & Vieira, 2012; Pomering et al., 2013) and research should focus on this issue to provide companies with useful insight to design their CSR messages and communication strategies more effectively.

For instance, recent literature has focused on exploring the advantages and disadvantages of designing message content based on storytelling (narrative messages) as compared to expositive (semantic, rational, or nonnarrative) messages (Janssen et al., 2012; Lewis & Sznitman, 2017; Woodside, 2010). Based on narrative paradigm theory (NPT; Fisher, 1985), scholars have suggested that human memory is story-based, which means that people usually think narratively rather than semantically or paradigmatically (Woodside, 2010). In this regard, stories make topics much more real to the audience than expositive messages do because they reframe arguments in an easy-to-grasp format anyone can relate to. In doing so, stories are more easily remembered (Lundqvist et al., 2013), more effective, and more convincing when compared with rational arguments, statistics, or facts (Kaufman, 2003). Therefore, research suggests that storytelling plays a relevant role in persuasion and that the best way to persuade someone is by telling a compelling story (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016). Based on these ideas, scholars have argued that companies should not primarily aim to be remembered through semantic memory (i.e., in terms of facts, numbers and names) but rather through narrative memory, as stories give more exciting opportunities for internal and external corporate purposes (Janssen et al., 2012; McAdams, 2006).

Nonetheless, recent studies have also identified a gap between the theory and practice of storytelling, with companies missing opportunities to maximize the effectiveness of this communication strategy, especially in the online context (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016). More precisely, storytelling is a relatively unpopular form of communication within company websites, as it is used by very few companies and brands (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016). The scarcity of stories in corporate communication is especially evident in the context of CSR communication, where companies have only recently started to transmit messages through storytelling (Gill, 2015) and where little literature exists regarding the impact of this type of CSR message on consumer responses to companies (Wehmeier & Schultz, 2011; Wille et al., 2014). Therefore, further research is required to understand whether and how the use of storytelling can help make CSR communication more effective.

Based on this idea, the research goal of the present article is to explore whether the use of storytelling or expositive messages affects consumer perceptions of and responses to message content. The conceptual model includes five attributes of CSR message content (i.e., issue importance, CSR impact, CSR motives, CSR fit, and CSR commitment) and their relationships to two types of consumer responses (i.e., purchase and advocacy; Du et al., 2010). Basing our arguments on NPT (Fisher, 1985), our main hypothesis is that a discourse based on storytelling is a more effective way to communicate CSR activities and to engage consumers with a company than an expositive discourse, thus improving consumer perceptions of all the variables related to CSR message content and improving their impact on consumer responses.

We structure the article as follows. First, we discuss the storytelling concept, we relate it to CSR communication and we compare it with the expositive strategy to build our conceptual model and propose our research hypotheses. Second, we describe the research method, paying special attention to its design, sample and measurement scales. Third, we describe the main findings of the paper and we discuss them in the light of previous literature. We conclude by presenting the most relevant implications, limitations, and future lines of research derived from the study.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

The Power of Stories

A story is “an exchange between two or more persons during which past or anticipated experience was being referenced, recounted, interpreted or challenged” (Boje, 1991). The exchange can be oral or written and the experience can imply an event, knowledge, culture or wisdom. In this context, storytelling refers to the art of telling stories, that is, a “narration that tells of particular acts, occurrences or events presented in the form of text or art and has the ability to transcend age-groups, cultures and genders, and captures the imagination and attention of listeners regardless of background” (Gill, 2015, p. 3).

In these definitions, capturing the imagination and the attention of the listener or reader are both undoubtedly the key to storytelling, which is used to develop trust and commitment and to generate an emotional bond with the receiver of the story (Sole & Wilson, 2002). Consisting of a sequence (telling, understanding, shared meaning; Kaye & Jacobson, 1999), storytelling, as materialized in a compelling story, gains access to the mind and sensations of those who are listening or watching, “enriched in their learning and feelings” (Kaye & Jacobson, 1999). Because, for instance, who does not remember the moral of the stories learnt in childhood? Also, stories “provoke learning, promote discovery, encourage exploration, fuel re-imagination, and help in subsequent learning” (Ellington, 2018, p. 229) which, in turn, can even change our selfhood over time (Aldama, 2015). In addition to creating emotional bonds, stories can also change the receiver’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Aldama, 2015; Ellington, 2018; Zak, 2014). In this regard, Zak (2014) explains how the neurochemical oxytocin, produced by the brain when a narrative is heard or seen, promotes empathy and, therefore, allows the receiver to understand and be sensitive to the experience of others, which develops into better attitudes and allows him/her to form relationships and engage with others more easily (Zak, 2013).

Corporate Storytelling and CSR

Based on the cognitive and attitudinal benefits that are associated with stories and storytelling, companies have started to pay attention to this form of communication as a strategic management tool in their organizations (Sinclair, 2005). In this regard, corporate storytelling emerges as the “practice of using narration from within the organization relating to its people, practices, policies and visions to effectively engage with staff (or external stakeholders)” (Gill, 2011, p. 1). When telling stories, companies focus on enhancing their communication strategies and improving relationships with internal and external stakeholders (Gill, 2011; Woodside et al., 2008) by sharing knowledge, strengthening the brand connection and brand experience, enhancing corporate reputation, increasing engagement and loyalty and influencing behavior (Chiu et al., 2012; Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016; Gill, 2015; Lundqvist et al., 2013; Woodside et al., 2008). For these purposes, corporate stories mainly convey the mission and vision of the company, its origins, the personal background of the promoter of the organization, shared experiences of stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers), or issues related to products and services (Baraibar-Diez et al., 2017; Sinclair, 2005).

The benefits associated with corporate storytelling also make it a perfect tool to complement the communication of social causes and CSR activities (Gill, 2015). However, companies have only recently begun to take advantage of the benefits of stories to communicate CSR (Wille et al., 2014) and there are still few companies that use storytelling for transmitting CSR stories (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016). Therefore, there is not yet a significant body of literature that focuses on CSR storytelling; the majority of existing work focuses on descriptive or exploratory issues that are not related to the goal of our research (Wehmeier & Schultz, 2011; Wille et al., 2014). For instance, existing literature has mainly presented case studies on the use of CSR storytelling (Baraibar-Diez et al., 2017; Jones & Comfort, 2018), analyzed the content of CSR stories (Araujo & Kollat, 2018) or explored the use of CSR as a form of corporate self-storying (i.e., the stories a company tells of itself; Johansen & Nielsen, 2012). Although studies exist that provide experiments comparing the effects of narrative versus nonnarrative messages in other research contexts (Lewis & Sznitman, 2017; Murphy et al., 2013), previous literature in the CSR field has neglected the study of whether cognitive and attitudinal consumer responses to CSR messages may differ when the message is based on storytelling or exposition. Nonetheless, this study is still relevant because CSR stories present constructions of reality that differ from other stories significantly, mainly because of their normative or moralistic character (Wehmeier & Schultz, 2011). Therefore, exploring CSR storytelling through empirical research that compares its effects with expositive CSR messages represents an interesting contribution to previous literature, which increases the relevance of our study.

Storytelling and Expositive Messages in CSR Communication

Expositive (semantic, rational, or nonnarrative) perspectives on communication include “self-evident propositions, demonstrations, proofs, and verbal expressions of certain and probable knowing” (Weick & Browning, 1986, p. 246). Thus, exposition is mainly based on the description (Rodden, 2008) of rational arguments, statistics, numbers, names, and facts (Kaufman, 2003). Expositive messages do not go any deeper into the reality behind those numbers and they avoid emotional connotations as much as possible (Lewis & Sznitman, 2017). On the contrary, the narrative rationality behind storytelling implies that “facts need some narrative to bind them together to enhance their intelligibility” (Weick & Browning, 1986, p. 250). The theoretical foundation of storytelling, narrative theory paradigm (Fisher, 1985), explains this idea.

Within NPT it is posited that “discourse will always tell a story and insofar as it invites an audience to believe it or to act on it, the narrative paradigm and its attendant logic, narrative rationality, are available for (better) interpretation and assessment” (Fisher, 1989, p. 56). In turn, this process enhances persuasion (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016). In this regard, “well-designed, well-told stories (can) convey both information and emotion, both the explicit and the tacit, both the core and context” (Sole & Wilson, 2002, p. 3). Therefore, CSR stories have an ameliorative effect, enhancing the ability of recipients to exist more meaningfully and to improve the mental models of others and themselves (Aldama, 2015; Zak, 2013). On the contrary, expositive data about CSR can inform consumers, but it may not inspire them to act, since “if we don’t experience the emotion we are less involved in the story; we attend less to the story, or reject it altogether” (Aldama, 2015, p. 85). Thus, NPT argues that storytelling plays a significant role in persuasion (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016), providing more exciting opportunities for companies to be successful in their CSR communication (Janssen et al., 2012; McAdams, 2006). Based on these ideas, we anticipate that a CSR message transmitted through a CSR story will provoke better consumer perceptions of the attributes of the message content than an expositive message and, at the same time, it will induce stronger consumer responses to the CSR message itself.

On the one hand, corporate storytelling has notable impacts on consumers in terms of critical and narrative thoughts and beliefs concerning the message and the company (Brakus et al., 2009; van Laer et al., 2014). In this regard, corporate storytelling offers benefits in knowledge transfer by helping people organize, remember, and understand information about the company, as people are likely to relate the story to experiences already in their memory (Spear & Roper, 2013; Woodside, 2010). For instance, CSR stories make social causes much more real to the audience because they reframe arguments in an easy-to-grasp (Lundqvist et al., 2013) and easy-to-remember format (Woodside, 2010). Thus, storytelling can help companies stress the importance of the social cause much more easily than expositive messages (Spear & Roper, 2013) and, in so doing, it makes the messages more convincing and memorable in multiple ways (visually, factually, and emotionally; Escalas, 2004).

On the other hand, corporate storytelling generates an emotional connection between consumers and companies (Escalas, 2004; Herskovitz & Crystal, 2010) and, consequently, it intensifies positive consumer attitudes and responses to CSR messages, such as purchase intentions (Chiu et al., 2012; van Laer et al., 2014). In this regard, when companies tell a CSR story related to the origins of the collaboration with the social cause, or the background behind the promotion of its CSR activities, they associate CSR to their corporate identity, which improves corporate associations and, thus, consumer responses (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016; Lundqvist et al., 2013). Specifically, corporate storytelling has been proven to add favorable and unique associations to companies because it can better embrace the core corporate values as compared with traditional forms of marketing communication (Herskovitz & Crystal, 2010). CSR storytelling also creates a more extraordinary corporate experience (Mossberg, 2008) that, in the end, strengthens emotional connections to companies (Escalas, 2004; Herskovitz & Crystal, 2010) and has positive effects on attitudes and purchase intentions (Chiu et al., 2012).

Consumer Perceptions of CSR Messages

With respect to the attributes of the CSR message and the idea that consumer responses can be improved by using storytelling instead of an expositive message, we propose a conceptual model based on the original proposal of Du et al. (2010). In this regard, Du et al. (2010) elaborated a theoretical framework of CSR communication according to which one key dimension within the CSR message content influences consumer external responses to CSR communication (i.e., purchase and advocacy responses); this frequently includes references to issue importance, CSR impact, CSR motives, CSR fit, and CSR commitment.

Issue Importance

Issue importance refers to the relevance of the social cause on a global scale. When companies include information about issue importance in the CSR message, they increase consumer awareness of the cause, which will improve message diagnosticity, allow consumers to effectively process CSR appeals and, consequently, improve consumer responses to the CSR message (Menon & Kahn, 2003; Pomering & Johnson, 2009).

CSR Impact

CSR impact reflects the results of the collaboration between the company and the social cause, that is, the impact the company has had on the social cause over the time that they have collaborated. Mentioning CSR impact gives the message an objective charge, it enhances its credibility and it lets consumers evaluate the true level of a company’s CSR involvement and commitment to the social cause, which can lead to positive communication outcomes (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Du et al., 2010).

CSR Motives

It is generally agreed that the perception of a company’s intrinsic (altruistic) motives in collaborating with a social cause increases perceived sincerity and positive emotions, whereas a behavior attributed only to extrinsic (egoistic) motives is perceived as dishonest, opportunistic and misleading for the consumer, arousing negative feelings (García de los Salmones & Pérez, 2018; Parguel et al., 2011). Research has also suggested that perceptions of corporate altruistic motives lead consumers to understand the company’s commitment to the social cause as more lasting and stable over time (van Rekom et al., 2006) because it derives from the company’s value system directly (Maignan & Ralston, 2002).

CSR Fit

CSR fit refers to the congruence between the social cause and the company’s core business. Previous literature coincides in pointing out that high-fit collaborations reinforce the positive impacts of CSR communication for companies (Benoit-Moreau & Parguel, 2011). This is because a good company-cause fit may minimize consumer judgments about the company, which enhances the generation of altruistic attributions (Rifon et al., 2004) and, therefore, leads to better communication outcomes (Du et al., 2010). On the contrary, a low perceived fit between the company and the social cause is likely to increase cognitive elaboration and make extrinsic motives more salient, arousing negative feelings toward CSR messages (Bigné et al., 2010).

CSR Commitment

Finally, CSR commitment relates to the company’s long-term commitment to the social cause. CSR commitment improves consumer responses because a long-term commitment (vs. a reactive, shorter term CSR action) provides more time for consumers to learn about a company-cause collaboration (Du et al., 2010). It also reflects a genuine concern for increasing community welfare and, consequently, it improves purchase and advocacy responses (Pomering & Johnson, 2009).

Based on all the arguments discussed above, this study tests the following research hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Consumer perceptions of (a) issue importance, (b) CSR impact, (c) CSR motives, (d) CSR fit, and (e) CSR commitment will be higher for a storytelling message than for an expositive message.

Hypothesis 2: A storytelling message will generate stronger direct relationships between consumer perceptions of the CSR message content (i.e., issue importance, impact, motives, fit, and commitment) and consumer external responses (i.e., purchase and advocacy) than an expositive message.

Method

Research Design

To test the research hypotheses, we used a single-factor experimental design consisting of two treatment levels (i.e., storytelling vs. expositive message). The experimental factor was the website of a fictitious restaurant chain (i.e., Ecofood) that presented information on the CSR activities implemented by the company over the last year, which were especially focused on the fight against childhood leukemia. We selected a restaurant chain for the study because numerous researchers have frequently used this industry in the context of CSR communication with no significant problems arising in the empirical analyses (Andreu et al., 2015).

We focused on the website for a number of reasons. From the point of view of companies, corporate websites are among the most common and important tools to communicate CSR principles and practices to different stakeholders (Tang et al., 2015). In fact, websites have been considered the best medium available for companies to convey socially responsible information (Guimarães-Costa & Pina e Cunha, 2008). Among their advantages are the richness of argumentation and the opportunities for interactivity they provide (Parguel et al., 2011). Furthermore, they allow companies to publicize detailed, up-to-date information that remains permanently available on the web (Wanderley et al., 2008). Finally, this channel provides a highly accessible but inexpensive medium to avoid accusations of spending more on communication than on the CSR activities themselves (Parguel et al., 2011). On the part of the public, corporate websites tend to serve audiences that are more active in how they seek and process information than the more passive public who are reached via traditional mass media (Esrock & Leichty, 1998). With regard to this, Morsing and Schultz (2006) found that among the diverse CSR communication channels, public preference toward advertising and press releases decreased over time, whereas preference for minimal releases through annual reports and websites increased. Along these lines, and according to S. Kim and Ferguson (2014), the consumer public place corporate websites as their second preferred communication channel for obtaining CSR information.

We purposely used a fictitious stimulus to control for participant knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions concerning real companies, therefore avoiding their influence on the conceptual model proposed in this study (Y. Kim, 2014). We chose childhood leukemia as the social cause of our study based on previous studies that had considered health as a critical issue for CSR assessment (Nan & Heo, 2007).

Scenarios

To generate the experimental conditions, we manipulated the information available to respondents on the company’s CSR activities by creating two versions (i.e., treatments) of the website (see the appendix). In both treatments, information about key characteristics of the focal company and its CSR activities (e.g., numbers, figures) were kept constant to avoid potential confounding effects (Alniacik et al., 2011). As can be observed from the figures in the appendix (Figure 1), the message conveyed that Ecofood was committed to the fight against childhood leukemia. More precisely, the company had invested x amount of money to collaborate with the cause and it had achieved x results because of the collaboration during the last year. Taking into account the purpose of the research, the only difference between treatment one and two is how the company chose to relate this information, that is, the type of discourse applied to the CSR message. In the storytelling treatment, the company’s CSR activities were described through an emotional story that involved a company employee’s son suffering from childhood leukemia. In the expositive treatment, the same information was described, although this time it was presented more objectively and rationally, with bullet points, only using facts, figures and statistics, and without referring to the employee’s son.

Sample

We collected data between April and July 2018, after we had properly trained research assistants for the task. Respondents were contacted in a northern city of Spain (+150,000 inhabitants). The participants were approached in places that were familiar to them (e.g., their houses, workplaces, local cafés) and they were only surveyed if they confirmed that they had enough spare time to devote to the task. In doing so, the goal was to allow them to feel comfortable, respond as freely as possible (without pressure) and spend as much time as needed in paying attention to all the details in the scenario created for them. Respondents were asked to read the website at their own pace. After reading it, they had to complete posttest measures and manipulation checks.

We used a nonprobabilistic sampling procedure to design the sample. To guarantee a more-accurate representation of the data, we used multistage sampling by quotas based on participant age and gender. The response rate was 73.2% and, after data collection and processing, 444 valid surveys remained. A total of 226 participants evaluated the storytelling scenario and 218 participants evaluated the expositive scenario. The sample was composed of 51% women and 49% men. Participant age ranged from 18 to 90. Of these, 25% of participants were younger than 34 years, 35% were between 35 and 54 years, and 40% were older than 54 years. Sampling quotas were very similar in the two scenarios. Respondents who evaluated the storytelling condition were 50% women and 50% men, whereas in the expositive condition there were 52% women and 48% men. According to their age, participants were distributed as follows in the storytelling scenario: 24% were younger than 34 years, 37% were between 35 and 54 years, and 39% were older than 54 years. In the expositive scenario, 26% of the participants were younger than 34 years, 33% were between 35 and 54 years, and 41% were older than 54 years.

Measurement Scales

The research instrument was a paper questionnaire, which had the website on one side, and the relevant questions on the other side. The questionnaire included 14 closed questions. Seven-point Likert-type and semantic differential scales were used to measure all the constructs in the conceptual model, where 1 represented the participant’s total disagreement with the proposed statement and 7 indicated a total agreement with it.

We evaluated issue importance (IMPO1 to IMPO3) by asking the respondents to “Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements,” which were taken from Russell and Russell (2010). To measure CSR impact (IMPA1 to IMPA5), the respondents had to complete the sentence “The information presented in the website is . . . ” by selecting one of two opposite concepts in a list of five alternatives taken from Connors et al. (2017). Similarly, to rate the CSR motives (MOTI1 to MOTI3), the participants had to complete the sentence “The motivations of the company to support the cause are . . . ” and select between the opposite concepts proposed by Becker-Olsen et al. (2006). For CSR fit (FIT1 to FIT5) and CSR commitment (COMM1 to COMM5), the respondents had to “Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements,” which were adapted from the original propositions of Speed and Thompson (2000) and Skard and Thorbjørnsen (2014), and Walton (2014), respectively. To evaluate purchase (PURC1 to PURC3), we asked “If the company existed, how likely would it be that you would purchase its services?” The items were taken from Groza et al. (2011). To rate advocacy (ADVO1 to ADVO3), respondents were asked to “Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements,” which were taken from Romani et al. (2013). Finally, for manipulation check purposes, we followed the proposal of Alniacik et al. (2011) by asking the respondents to provide their overall assessment of the company’s level of CSR (i.e., CSR image) and their overall attitude toward the company. For CSR image, the respondents were asked to “Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements”: “the company is a socially responsible company,” “it is concerned to improve the well-being of society,” and “it follows high ethical standards.” For attitude toward the company, the respondents were asked to complete the sentence “My general attitude toward the company is . . . ” with the following options: unfavorable/favorable, bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant, and negative/positive. In both scales, the items were taken from Wagner et al. (2009).

To guarantee that common method variance was not an issue in our research, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test. The results corroborated that none of the scale items were concentrated in any one general factor. Therefore, they confirmed that the correlation among variables was not influenced by their common source.

Findings

Manipulation Checks

We performed two independent-sample t tests on the manipulation check questions to verify if the respondents rated CSR image and their overall attitude towards the company differently in the alternative experimental conditions. The mean rating of CSR image in the storytelling condition was 5.44 (SD = 1.01) whereas it was 5.20 (SD = 1.28) in the expositive condition. As expected, there was a significant difference between the ratings (t = 2.25, p < .05). The mean rating of the overall attitude toward the company in the storytelling scenario was 5.70 (SD = 1.09), whereas it was 5.43 (SD = 1.33) in the expositive condition. There was also a significant difference between the ratings of this manipulation check (t = 2.32, p < .05). Therefore, the results indicate that the experimental manipulation was successful.

Evaluation of the Measurement Scales

Table 1 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that we performed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the measurement scales in each experimental condition. In all cases, the comparative fit indexes (CFI) were very close or exceeded the recommended value of .90, thus corroborating the goodness of fit of the measurement model (normed fit index = .83, nonnormed fit index = .90, CFI = .92, incremental fit index = .92, in the storytelling scenario; normed fit index = .88, nonnormed fit index = .94, CFI = .95, incremental fit index = .95, in the expositive scenario). Also, in both scenarios, the root mean square error of approximation value was below the maximum limit of .08 recommended in the literature (root mean square error of approximation = .06 in the storytelling and expositive scenarios).

Table 1.

First-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Factors	Items	Storytelling				Expositive
Factors	Items	λ	R ²	α	AVE	λ	R ²	α	AVE
Issue importance	IMPO1: The company transmits that this is an important cause	.79	.62	.88	.71	.75	.56	.85	.65
	IMPO2: The company transmits it is vital to tackle this cause	.86	.74			.88	.78
	IMPO3: The company transmits that companies have a responsibility to address this cause	.87	.75			.78	.60
CSR impact	IMPA1: Abstract/concrete	.77	.59	.83	.49	.88	.78	.90	.65
	IMPA2: Ambiguous/clear	.78	.61			.90	.82
	IMPA3: Not descriptive/descriptive	.69	.48			.76	.58
	IMPA4: Not vivid/vivid	.63	.39			.64	.41
	IMPA5: Not easy to imagine/easy to imagine	.63	.39			.82	.67
CSR motives	MOTI1: Self-interested/community interested	.69	.48	.86	.68	.88	.78	.93	.81
	MOTI2: Firm-focused/customer-focused	.83	.69			.87	.76
	MOTI3: Profit-motivated/socially motivated	.94	.88			.94	.88
CSR fit	FIT1: The image of the cause and the image of the company are similar	.81	.66	.91	.68	.85	.73	.92	.69
	FIT2: The company and the cause fit together well	.86	.74			.86	.74
	FIT3: The company and the cause stand for similar things	.86	.74			.89	.78
	FIT4: It makes sense to me that the company sponsors this cause	.77	.59			.75	.56
	FIT5: There is a logical connection between the cause and the company	.81	.66			.78	.60
CSR commitment	COMM1: The company seems to feel strongly about helping the cause	.65	.42	.83	.49	.83	.69	.91	.66
	COMM2: The company demonstrates a real interest in making an impact to help the cause	.70	.49			.82	.67
	COMM3: The company is capable of long-lasting beneficial effects towards the cause	.65	.42			.77	.60
	COMM4: The company seems like they will support the cause for a long period of time	.74	.54			.84	.71
	COMM5: The company will more than likely make a large impact toward helping the cause	.75	.56			.80	.64
Purchase	PURC1: Very unlikely/very likely	.85	.73	.92	.79	.93	.87	.96	.88
	PURC2: Improbable/probable	.95	.90			.95	.91
	PURC3: Impossible/possible	.87	.76			.93	.86
Advocacy	ADVO1: I intend to say positive things about the company to friends, relatives and other people	.93	.87	.94	.84	.96	.92	.95	.87
	ADVO2: I intend to mention favorable things about the company with my friends, relatives, or other people	.94	.88			.96	.93
	ADVO3: I intend to recommend to purchase products of the company to my friends, relatives, and other people	.88	.77			.88	.77

Note. AVE = average variance extracted. Goodness-of-fit indexes (storytelling message): Satorra–Bentler χ²(299) = 534.27 (p < .01); normed fit index = .83; nonnormed fit index = .90; comparative fit index = .92; incremental fit index = .92; root mean square error of approximation = .06.

Goodness-of-fit indexes (expositive message): Satorra–Bentler χ²(299) = 527.60 (p < .01); normed fit index = .88; normed fit index = .94; comparative fit index = .95; incremental fit index = .95; root mean square error of approximation = .06.

For all the constructs in the model, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) and the average variance extracted were over or very close to the recommended values of .70 and .50, respectively. The convergent validity of the scales was also corroborated because the t value revealed that all the items were significant at the confidence level of 95% and their standardized lambda coefficients (λ) were higher than .50. The results also verified the discriminant validity of the constructs because, when compared in pairs, the average variance extracted estimates of the constructs under scrutiny always exceeded the squared correlation between them.

Hypotheses Testing

Analysis of Variance Results

We implemented an analysis of variance analysis to determine whether significant differences existed in the way that the participants evaluated the constructs that measured perceptions of the message content depending on the type of message that they had evaluated (Table 2).

Table 2.

Analysis of Variance Results.

Hypotheses	Construct	Storytelling		Expositive		Dif.	t	Contrast
Hypotheses	Construct	M	SD	M	SD	Dif.	t	Contrast
Hypothesis 1a	Issue importance	5.41	1.12	5.15	1.26	.26	**2.31	Supported
Hypothesis 1b	CSR impact	5.20	0.90	4.91	1.27	.29	**2.82	Supported
Hypothesis 1c	CSR motives	4.98	1.19	4.79	1.52	.19	1.49	Not supported
Hypothesis 1d	CSR fit	5.26	1.16	4.99	1.24	.27	**2.37	Supported
Hypothesis 1e	CSR commitment	5.28	0.93	5.09	1.26	.19	*1.83	Supported

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility; Dif. = differences

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The findings showed that significant differences existed in the way that participants evaluated issue importance (Mean_storytelling = 5.41 vs. Mean_expositive = 5.15, p < .05), CSR impact (Mean_storytelling = 5.20 vs. Mean_expositive = 4.91, p < .05), CSR fit (Mean_storytelling = 5.26 vs. Mean_expositive = 4.99, p < .05), and CSR commitment (Mean_storytelling = 5.28 vs. Mean_expositive = 5.09, p < .05). In all the cases, the participants who evaluated the storytelling message rated these constructs better than the participants who evaluated the expositive message. Therefore, these findings supported Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1d, and 1e. As far as CSR motives were concerned, the participants in the storytelling scenario also perceived more altruistic motives for the restaurant chain to collaborate with the social cause. Nevertheless, the difference with the participants in the expositive scenario was not significant (Mean_storytelling = 4.98 vs. Mean_expositive = 4.79, p > .10) and, therefore, this finding did not support Hypothesis 1c.

Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Results

To test for differences in the effect of each attribute of the CSR message content on consumer purchase and advocacy depending on the type of message evaluated, we implemented a multi-group SEM comparison using multisampling analysis (Table 3).

Table 3.

Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling Results.

Hypothesis	Direct relationship	λ (storytelling)	λ (expositive)	Dif. χ²(1)	Contrast
Hypothesis 2	Issue importance → Purchase	n.s.	***.29	—	Not supported
	CSR impact → Purchase	n.s.	**.11	—
	CSR motives → Purchase	***.46	***.39	n.s.
	CSR fit → Purchase	***.31	n.s.	—
	CSR commitment → Purchase	n.s.	***.30	—
	Issue importance → Advocacy	n.s.	***.32	—
	CSR impact → Advocacy	n.s.	**.10	—
	CSR motives → Advocacy	***.36	***.44	n.s.
	CSR fit → Advocacy	***.53	n.s.	—
	CSR commitment → Advocacy	n.s.	**.20	—

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility. Goodness-of-fit indexes (storytelling message): Satorra–Bentler χ²(66) = 130.85 (p < .01); normed fit index = .93; nonnormed fit index = .95; comparative fit index = .96; incremental fit index = .96; root mean square error of approximation = .07.

Goodness-of-fit indexes (expositive message): Satorra–Bentler χ²(192) = 490.59 (p < .01); normed fit index =.87; nonnormed fit index =.90; comparative fit index = .91; incremental fit index = .91; root mean square error of approximation = .08.

T-statistic: *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

In this regard, the findings showed that the type of message affected the model significantly (Dif. Satorra–Bentler χ²(2) = 34.48, p < .05). Nonetheless, the results of the SEM estimation in each scenario showed that most of the relationships between the five attributes of the CSR message content and consumer purchase and advocacy were significantly stronger for consumers who evaluated the expositive message than for consumers who evaluated the storytelling message. Therefore, the findings did not support Hypothesis 2.

On the one hand, the purchase and advocacy responses of the participants who evaluated the expositive message were directly and significantly affected by their perceptions of issue importance (β_purchase=.29, p < .01; β_advocacy = .32, p < .01), CSR impact (β_purchase = .11, p < .05; β_advocacy = .10, p < .05), CSR motives (β_purchase = .39, p < .01; β_advocacy = .44, p < .01), and CSR commitment (β_purchase = .30, p < .01; β_advocacy =.20, p < .05), whereas CSR fit did not present any significant direct effect on either purchase or advocacy. On the contrary, the participants who evaluated the storytelling message only responded significantly to their perceptions of CSR fit (β_purchase = .31, p < .01; β_advocacy = .53, p < .01) and CSR motives (β_purchase = .46, p < .01; β_advocacy = .36, p < .01). Therefore, CSR fit was the only attribute of the CSR message that had significantly stronger direct effects on consumer purchase and advocacy in the storytelling scenario than in the expositive scenario, whereas CSR motives were the only construct that consistently affected consumer purchase and advocacy in both treatments. Indeed, when comparing the intensity of the effect of CSR motives on purchase and advocacy in both scenarios, the findings of the multigroup SEM comparison indicated that there were no significant differences across samples.

Discussion

The first interesting finding of this paper is that a CSR message that is designed following a storytelling strategy generates better consumer perceptions of virtually all the attributes of the CSR message, including issue importance, CSR impact, CSR fit, and CSR commitment. Therefore, the findings align with NPT (Fisher, 1985), as they corroborate that corporate stories activate narrative rationality, making the information contained in the CSR message more salient, accessible and intelligible for consumers to interpret and assess (Weick & Browning, 1986). This is because well-designed and well-told stories not only convey information but they also convey emotion (Sole & Wilson, 2002), which enhances the potential of the CSR message to make the social cause more real to consumers, easier to remember, and more convincing (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016; Kaufman, 2003).

Only in the case of CSR motives were there no significant differences in consumer perceptions when we compared both types of messages. This finding may be explained by the fact that CSR motives are also the lowest rated attribute of the CSR message content in the two scenarios of this study. Thus, even though consumers believe that the two types of CSR messages evaluated in the study cover most of the expected content attributes nicely, they still do not transmit enough altruism on the part of the company to collaborate in the specific leukemia cause. This finding reinforces the arguments of scholars who have suggested that consumers are highly skeptical of companies and their CSR activities (Forehand & Grier, 2003), which undermines the effectiveness of CSR communication to transmit altruistic motives for the company-cause collaboration even if the company relies on affective messages to communicate CSR activities through storytelling.

As for the relationships between the attributes of the CSR message content and consumer purchase and advocacy responses, the findings of the study show that the higher perceptions of the attributes of the CSR message content in the storytelling scenario do not necessarily transfer into stronger consumer purchase and advocacy. On the contrary, the findings of the study mostly suggest the opposite, that is, that most of the attributes of the CSR message content have stronger direct effects on purchase and advocacy responses when the message design is based on exposition instead of storytelling. For instance, the findings corroborate that consumer perceptions of issue importance, CSR impact, CSR motives, and CSR commitment have direct and positive effects on consumer purchase and advocacy intentions in the expositive scenario. Conversely, consumers who evaluate a storytelling message only respond directly and significantly to their perceptions of CSR fit and CSR motives, whereas issue importance, CSR impact and CSR commitment are irrelevant in determining their purchase and advocacy responses.

Although these findings are contrary to our previous expectations, they still find support in NPT. In this regard, NPT defends the narrative transportation mechanism in storytelling (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016), which occurs when consumers are transported by, absorbed or immersed in the story told and, as a consequence, they map incoming stories onto stories already stored in their memory (Escalas, 2004). When this is the case, narrative processing predominates over analytical processing. This narrative processing results in less critical analysis of message arguments, fewer negative thoughts, and greater responses compared with analytical processing, which in turn enhances persuasion (Green & Brock, 2002). As defined by van Laer et al. (2014), narrative transportation is a mental state that produces enduring persuasive effects without careful evaluation of arguments. In persuasion research, NPT is closely associated with other dual-process models of persuasion, especially the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980).

Along these lines, the findings of the study corroborate that storytelling generates a favorable general context for CSR communication, as shown by how consumers rate most of the attributes of the CSR message significantly better when evaluating a CSR story than an expositive message. This favorable context may compel consumers to use simpler processes to evaluate messages, focusing on fewer attributes to build their responses to the company (Bigné et al., 2010). Thus, the favorable general attitude promoted by storytelling may compel consumers to process information through narrative or heuristic processing, which does not require much thinking effort (Chaiken, 1980). Heuristic processing allows consumers to use simple inferential rules, schemata and cognitive heuristics to evaluate and make a decision (Chaiken et al., 1989). Specifically, heuristic processing is based on previous experience and stored memories that are easily activated and highly accessible for people when processing information. This may be the case when evaluating an emotional CSR story, which consumers can easily process because of its affective content that is enriched in their learning and feelings (Kaye & Jacobson, 1999).

Because of the lack of this favorable general context when evaluating expositive messages, it makes sense that the relationships between the CSR message content and consumer external responses are more intense in this scenario, for which consumers pay more attention to most of the attributes of the CSR message content. Our conceptual model fits remarkably better in the scenario of expositive messages, in which the findings even corroborate several relationships that were not corroborated for storytelling. In this regard, and contrary to storytelling, it seems that an expositive message stimulates consumer systematic processing of information (Chaiken, 1980), which is a comprehensive, analytic orientation in which consumers access and scrutinize all information input for its relevance and importance to their judgment task, and integrate all useful information in forming their judgements (Bigné et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, the findings of the study corroborate that, whereas consumers respond unevenly to most of the attributes of the CSR message content depending on the type of message they are exposed to, CSR motives is the only attribute that affects consumer purchase and advocacy responses consistently in the storytelling and expositive scenarios. Along with the previously defended idea that consumers are highly skeptical of corporate collaborations with social causes, this finding reinforces the value of always enhancing consumer altruistic motivations in CSR communication. In so doing, consumers can infer corporate transparency and sincerity more easily, which are highly appreciated when buying products or recommending companies to other people (Parguel et al., 2011).

Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Lines of Research

Although research from diverse disciplines has long defended that storytelling is more persuasive than exposition, scholars have scarcely explored this idea in the CSR context, where a significant gap exists between the theory and practice of storytelling. This scarcity of previous literature highlights the contribution of the preliminary study presented in our article.

The findings of the article demonstrate that, as compared with expositive messages, storytelling improves consumer perceptions of diverse attributes of the CSR message content, such as issue importance, CSR impact, CSR fit, and CSR commitment. Thus, storytelling generates a favorable context to evaluate the message and respond to it more positively than when companies use expositive CSR messages. This favorable general context simplifies the route that consumers take to process CSR information through narrative processing, encouraging them to focus on CSR fit and CSR motives more specifically. In contrast, expositive messages lead consumers to process information through a systematic route, in which they pay attention to more attributes of the CSR message content, which implies that Du’s et al. (2010) framework adjusts better to this scenario than to storytelling.

Based on these findings, we highlight some managerial implications that could help companies improve the effectiveness of their CSR activities and CSR communication. In this regard, the most significant implication of the study relates to the benefits that companies can gain by presenting CSR through attractive and compelling stories. Storytelling allows consumers to relate to the CSR message and learn about the company easily because it minimizes the effort they have to put into processing information. Therefore, we recommend that companies design CSR information based on storytelling instead of using expositive messages that lack an emotional base to engage consumers. In doing so, companies can also rely on simpler message designs to achieve their communication goals. For instance, companies must focus their CSR stories on providing convincing reasoning for their motives in engaging with social causes. In previous research, consumers have demonstrated that they are highly skeptical of corporate motives in relating to social causes; they have a natural tendency to perceive egoism behind company-cause connections (Bigné et al., 2009; Bigné et al., 2010). Therefore, CSR stories should clearly state the reasons why companies get involved in CSR activities, which should be as altruistic as possible to reduce consumer skepticism and improve their support responses. CSR stories should also focus on demonstrating the congruence between the social cause and the company’s core business (i.e., CSR fit), which is another relevant attribute of the message content that minimizes consumer judgments and generates altruistic attributions for companies to collaborate in CSR activities.

On the contrary, if companies still prefer to design their CSR messages based on exposition instead of storytelling, they need to elaborate on the message further. At least, they should include more information concerning other attributes of their CSR activities than in a CSR story because consumers will require it to understand the company-cause collaboration properly. The CSR message should certainly include information about the reasons why the company engages in the social cause (i.e., CSR motives). It should also focus on the relevance of the social cause (i.e., issue importance), the impact the company can have on the social cause (i.e., CSR impact), and the extent to which the company is determined to collaborate with the social cause in the long run (i.e., CSR commitment). Overall, companies must acknowledge that CSR communication is not a straightforward task as, at least, it depends on the type of message that they use to promote their activities.

Finally, this preliminary study is not without limitations which future research should consider to improve our knowledge of CSR communication. First, we used a convenience sample collected among Spanish consumers exclusively. This may represent a limitation in terms of how the findings can be generalized to larger populations and other cultural contexts. Thus, future studies could benefit from using larger samples collected in different country settings, where customer expectations, affective reactions and trust may vary depending on the national culture, influencing the development of relationships with stakeholders (Assouad & Overby, 2016; Huff & Kelley, 2005). Additionally, the use of a fictitious company and a fictitious CSR message can also limit the generalization of our findings. To avoid biases and corroborate the conceptual model, it would be interesting for future studies to complement the use of fictitious data with real stories and messages taken from a variety of real companies and sectors (Yoon et al., 2006). Also, any future studies using real data would need to consider moderating variables, such as prior corporate reputation, competence, or CSR positioning (Chen et al., 2018; Du et al., 2007). Along these lines, natural consumer skepticism toward CSR communication (Bigné et al., 2009) may especially affect the effectiveness of storytelling when compared to expositive messages. More precisely, naturally skeptical consumers may demand rational arguments, statistics, and facts more often than emotional stories to reduce their uncertainty about corporate motives and contribution to CSR causes. This could be one case when communicating CSR with storytelling may even backfire on company communication goals. Therefore, it would be interesting for future researchers to pretest participants regarding their views on CSR to find out whether they are skeptical and to find out how the results of this study would be changed if sceptics were compared with “regular” participants. We suggest that future research takes into consideration the role of those corporate and consumer attributes that may moderate our conceptual model and also the effectiveness of storytelling for CSR communication. Together with these issues, the selection of a corporate website as the communication channel could be also a limitation. Therefore, future research should consider other sources, for example social media that allows user interaction, or even independent channels such as media news. Finally, as suggested by Du et al. (2010), it would also be interesting for future research to explore the role of the type of CSR message on internal consumer responses which have not been explored in this article.

Footnotes

Appendix

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.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID iDs

Andrea Pérez

Author Biographies

Andrea Pérez, is an associate professor in marketing at the University of Cantabria (Spain). Her current research interests include corporate social responsibility, business communications, and consumer behavior. Her works have been published in international prestigious journals such as Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Journal of Business Ethics, European Journal of Marketing, Psychology & Marketing, Business Ethics: A European Review, and so on.

Elisa Baraibar-Diez is an associate professor in business administration at the University of Cantabria (Spain). Her research interests include corporate transparency, social responsibility, and entrepreneurship. Her works have been published in international prestigious journals such as Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management and Business Strategy and the Environment.

María del Mar García de los Salmones, is an associate professor in marketing at the University of Cantabria (Spain). Her current research interests include corporate social responsibility, brand management, and communication. Her works have been published in international prestigious journals such as International Journal of Advertising, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Risk Research, and International Journal of Bank Marketing.

References

Aldama

F. L.

(2015). The science of storytelling: Perspectives from cognitive science, neuroscience, and the humanities. Projections, 9(1), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2015.090106

Alniacik

Genc

(2011). How corporate social responsibility information influences stakeholders’ intentions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(4), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.245

Andreu

Casado-Díaz

A. B.

Mattila

A. S.

(2015). Effects of message appeal and service type in CSR communication strategies. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1488-1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.039

Araujo

Kollat

(2018). Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter: The power of engaging strategies and storytelling elements. Internet Research, 28(2), 419-431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2017-0172

Assouad

Overby

(2016). The impact of culture on customer expectations. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 17(2), 19-32. http://www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/AssouadA_Web17_2_.pdf

Baraibar-Diez

Odriozola

M. D.

Fernández-Sánchez

J. L.

(2017). Storytelling about CSR: Engaging stakeholders through storytelling about CSR. In CSR 2.0 and the new era of corporate citizenship (pp. 209-230). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1842-6.ch011

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

Benoit-Moreau

Parguel

(2011). Building brand equity with environmental communication: An empirical investigation in France. EuroMed Journal of Business, 6(1), 100-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/14502191111130334

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Korschun

Sen

(2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(Suppl. 2), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3

10.

Bigné

Chumpitaz

Currás

(2010). Alliances between brands and social causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0461-x

11.

Bigné

Currás

Sánchez

(2009). Brand credibility in cause-related marketing: The moderating role of consumer values. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(6), 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420910989758

12.

Boje

D. M.

(1991). Consulting and change in the storytelling organisation. Journal of Organization Change Management, 4(3), 7-17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235316289_Consulting_and_Change_in_the_Storytelling_Organisation

13.

Brakus

J. J.

Schmitt

B. H.

Zarantonello

(2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52

14.

Chaiken

(1980). Heuristic versus systemic information processing and the use of source versus message clues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

15.

Chaiken

Liberman

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman

J. S.

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). Guilford Press.

16.

Chaudhri

(2016). Corporate social responsibility and the communication imperative: Perspectives from CSR managers. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(4), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525469

17.

Chen

Huang

Yang

Dube

(2018). CSR types and the moderating role of corporate competence. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7-8), 1358-1386. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0702

18.

Chiu

H.-C.

Hsieh

Y.-C.

Kuo

Y.-C.

(2012). How to align your brand stories with your products. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 262-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.02.001

19.

Connors

Anderson-MacDonald

Thomson

(2017). Overcoming the “window dressing” effect: Mitigating the negative effects of inherent skepticism towards corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 599-621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2858-z

20.

Darley

W. K.

Smith

R. E.

(1993). Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 100-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700408

21.

Delgado-Ballester

Fernández-Sabiote

(2016). Once upon a brand: Storytelling practices by Spanish brands. Spanish Journal of Marketing—ESIC, 20(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjme.2016.06.001

22.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001

23.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

24.

Vieira

E. T.

(2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1490-4

25.

Ellington

(2018). Transformative learning and the power of storytelling. In Critical theory and transformative learning (pp. 229-242). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6086-9.ch016

26.

Escalas

J. E.

(2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 168-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_19

27.

Esrock

S. L.

Leichty

G. B.

(1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3), 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80142-8

28.

Fisher

W. R.

(1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs, 52(4), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376117

29.

Fisher

W. R.

(1989). Clarifying the narrative paradigm. Communication Monographs, 56(1), 55-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390249

30.

Forehand

M. R.

Grier

(2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_15

31.

García de los Salmones

M. M.

Pérez

(2018). Effectiveness of CSR advertising: The role of reputation, consumer attributions, and emotions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(2), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1453

32.

Gill

(2011). An integrative review of storytelling: Using corporate stories to strengthen employee engagement and internal and external reputation. PRism, 8(1), 1-16. https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/9ad3a44c-d5fe-43d0-ba77-8eee1c9416da/1/PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf

33.

Gill

(2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 662-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.012

34.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In Green

M. C.

Strange

J. J.

Brock

T. C.

(Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315-341). Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Groza

M. D.

Pronschinske

M. R.

Walker

(2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0834-9

36.

Guimarães-Costa

Pina

Cunha

(2008). The Atrium effect of website openness on the communication of corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.128

37.

Herskovitz

Crystal

(2010). The essential brand persona: Storytelling and branding. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(3), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756661011036673

38.

Huff

Kelley

(2005). Is collectivism a liability? The impact of culture on organizational trust and customer orientation: A seven-nation study. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00478-2

39.

Janssen

van Dalfsen

C. K. A.

van Hoof

J. J.

van Vuuren

(2012). Balancing uniqueness and similarity: A content analysis of textual characteristics in Dutch corporate stories. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.025

40.

Johansen

T. S.

Nielsen

A. E.

(2012). CSR in corporate self-storying: Legitimacy as a question of differentiation and conformity. Corporate Communications, 17(4), 434-448. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281211274130

41.

Jones

Comfort

(2018). Storytelling and sustainability reporting: An exploratory study of leading US retailers. Athens Journal of Business and Economics, 4(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajbe.4.2.2

42.

Kaufman

(2003). Stories that sell, stories that tell. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(April), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660310508155

43.

Kaye

Jacobson

(1999). True tales and tall tales. The power of organizational storytelling. Training & Development, 53(3), 45-50.

44.

Kim

Ferguson

M. A. T.

(2014). Public expectations of CSR communication: What and how to communicate CSR. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 1-22.

45.

Kim

(2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 838-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.005

46.

Lewis

Sznitman

S. R.

(2017). You brought it on yourself: The joint effects of message type, stigma, and responsibility attribution on attitudes toward medical cannabis. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12287

47.

Lundqvist

Liljander

Gummerus

van Riel

(2013). The impact of storytelling on the consumer brand experience: The case of a firm-originated story. Journal of Brand Management, 20(4), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.15

48.

Maignan

Ralston

D. A.

(2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of Inernational Business Studies, 33(3), 497-514. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028

49.

McAdams

D. P.

(2006). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195176933.001.0001

50.

Menon

Kahn

(2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316-327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_12

51.

Morsing

Schultz

(2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics, 15(4), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

52.

Mossberg

(2008). Extraordinary experiences through storytelling. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(3), 195-2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250802532443

53.

Murphy

S. T.

Frank

L. B.

Chatterjee

J. S.

Baezconde-Garbanati

(2013). Narrative versus nonnarrative: The role of identification, transportation and emotion in reducing health disparities. Journal of Communication, 63(1), 116-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12007

54.

Nan

Heo

(2007). Consumer responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360204

55.

Parguel

Benoit-Moreau

Larceneux

(2011). How sustainability ratings might deter “greenwashing”: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2

56.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1

57.

Pomering

Johnson

L. W.

(2009). Advertising corporate social responsibility initiatives to communicate corporate image: Inhibiting scepticism to enhance persuasion. Corporate Communications, 14(4), 420-439. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280910998763

58.

Pomering

Johnson

L. W.

Noble

(2013). Advertising corporate social responsibility: Results from an experimental manipulation of key message variables. Corporate Communications, 18(2), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319517

59.

Rifon

N. J.

Choi

S. M.

Trimble

C. S.

(2004). Congruence effect in sponsorship: The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639151

60.

Rodden

(2008). How do stories convince us? Notes towards a rhetoric of narrative. College Literature, 35(1), 148-173. https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2008.0007

61.

Romani

Grappi

Bagozzi

R. P.

(2013). Explaining consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: The role of gratitude and altruistic values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1337-z

62.

Russell

D. W.

Russell

C. A.

(2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9082-5

63.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525439

64.

Sinclair

(2005). The Impact of stories. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 53-64.

65.

Skard

Thorbjørnsen

(2014). Is publicity always better than advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1863-3

66.

Sole

Wilson

D. G.

(2002). Storytelling in organizations: The power and traps of using stories to share knowledge in organizations. LILA, Harvard, Graduate School of Education.

67.

Spear

Roper

(2013). Using corporate stories to build the corporate brand: An impression management perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7), 491-501. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0387

68.

Speed

Thompson

(2000). Determinants of sport sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282004

69.

Tang

Gallagher

C. C.

Bie

(2015). Corporate social responsibility communication through corporate websites: A comparison of leading corporations in the United States and China. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(2), 205-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525443

70.

van Laer

de Ruyter

Visconti

L. M.

Wetzels

. (2014). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1086/673383

71.

van Rekom

van Riel

C. B. M.

Wierenga

. (2006). A methodology for assessing organizational core values. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00587.x

72.

Wagner

Lutz

R. J.

Weitz

B. A.

(2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77

73.

Walton

M. R.

(2014). The PR in CSR: Assessing perceptions of partnerships versus donations in corporate social responsibility initiatives. Texas A&M University.

74.

Wanderley

L. S. O.

Lucian

Farache

De Sousa Filho

J. M.

(2008). CSR information disclosure on the web: A context-based approach analysing the influence of country of origin and industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9892-z

75.

Wehmeier

Schultz

(2011). Communication and corporate social responsibility: A storytelling perspective. In Ihlen

Bartlett

J. L.

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (1st ed., pp. 467-488). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118083246.ch23

76.

Weick

K. E.

Browning

L. D.

(1986). Argument and narration in organizational communication. Journal of Management, 12(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200207

77.

Wille

Finster

Balke

W. T.

(2014). A model for interactive CSR campaigns using storytelling [Conference paper]. ICMR 2014 SoMuS Workshop, Glasgow, UK. http://www.ifis.cs.tu-bs.de/sites/default/files/A-Model-for-Interactive-CSR-Campaigns-using-Storytelling.pdf

78.

Woodside

A. G.

(2010). Brand-consumer storytelling theory and research: Introduction to a Psychology & Marketing speciall issue. Psychology & Marketing, 27(6), 531-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20342

79.

Woodside

A. G.

Sood

Miller

K. E.

(2008). When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97-145. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20203

80.

Yoon

Gürhan-Canli

Schwarz

(2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377-390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9

81.

Zak

P. J.

(2013, December 17). How stories change the brain. Greater Good Magazine. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_stories_change_brain

82.

Zak

P. J.

(2014). Why your brain loves good storytelling. Harvard Business Publishing.