Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Companies increasingly face societal pressure to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Not discounting that world betterment is a factor in the decision-making process, it goes without saying that companies meet calls for sustainability (economic, environmental, social and so on) in the hope that their efforts are met with corporate success. 

Academic research has devoted many an article to the impact of CSR and how it may be harnessed. An important factor is company-cause fit, or: the (perceived) relatedness between a social issue and a company’s core operations. A fairly straightforward relationship, you say? It’s actually not without its controversies. 

Intuitively, you might argue that what is called a ‘high-fit’ is most beneficial to a company’s performance, because the CSR-activity is closely related to what the company does, whereas a ‘low-fit’ CSR-activity is unrelated to the company and of less influence. However, this may not hold true. 

Do-gooders doing good? 

In 2017, Public Relations Review published an article [1] on consumer response to contradictory CSR-activities in socially stigmatised industries, comprised of companies who champion social issues that their operations have a direct, negative impact on. Researchers Austin and Gaither found that a high company-cause fit in socially stigmatised industries elicited a negative consumer response, as consumers found the CSR-activity to be self-serving as opposed to doing greater good. 

Delving further [2], they found that companies in these industries engage in contradicting CSR-activities to mitigate the negative effects of their operations, which is more limiting than engaging in CSR-activities that add value. In doing so, however, companies underestimate the public, which may backfire. The study also found that consumer scepticism is constant, regardless of companies’ efforts to ensure the public of their good intentions.  

Lying is bad

The Dutch banking sector recently provided an example of the counter-intuitiveness of company-cause fit in practice. Last year, Rabobank ran a ‘Growing a better world together’ campaign in which they committed to solving the world’s food problem. Ironically, a quick Google-search will tell you that Rabobank has invested in companies whose operations add to unsustainable food practices. 

It isn’t surprising that the commercial won them a “Liegebeest” award (which roughly translates to, well, liar). This is a prime example of a high-fit with a negative contribution. In other words, solving the world’s food problem while having ties with controversial businesses may lead to bad case practice. Following Austin and Gaither’s recommendations, low-fit CSR-activities could have saved Rabobank the bad press coverage (— if there even is such a thing).  

Takeaways

• Within certain industries low-fit CSR-activities have the potential to yield better results.
• It does not do to champion good causes when you are publicly known for controversial relationships; society pays more attention to what happens behind the scenes than you think.
• Consumers are sceptical of business interests, so make sure that your CSR-activities are purposeful.  

             

[1] Austin, L., & Gaither, B. M. (2017). Perceived motivations for corporate social responsibility initiatives in socially stigmatised industries. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 840-849.

[2] Gaither, B. M., Austin, L., & Schulz, M. (2018). Delineating CSR and social change: Querying corporations as actors for social good. Public Relations Inquiry, 7(1), 45-61. 

            

Fairouz Kasri is a Persuasive Communication Master’s Student at the University of Amsterdam. She plays various roles in the management of projects at SWOCC, the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research on Brands and Brand Communication. She’s passionate about ABBA, politics, pop-culture, women’s rights, and youth leadership development.