When CSR backfires: understanding stakeholders’ negative responses to corporate social responsibility

This book chapter provides a discussion of when CSR ‘backfires’, that is, ‘when an organisation’s CSR practices elicit negative reactions from its stakeholders, rather than the intended or anticipated positive reactions’. Focusing on micro-level phenomena, from an organisational psychology-based perspective, Willness stresses the need for further investigation into how key stakeholders may have negative reactions to an organisation’s CSR, and why this might occur. Willness points out that CSR is complex, and that the varying foci of CSR practices may be in conflict, e.g. environmental versus social dimensions. These conflicts may drive negative stakeholder reaction to genuine CSR actions. The potentially negative effects of this complexity may be particularly disconcerting for researchers concerned with promoting and supporting genuine CSR actions. The goals of the chapter include providing a review of extant organisational psychologybased research on positive stakeholder response, describing recent conceptual work, expanding work conducted from the psychological perspective, and addressing the gap in ‘microlevel’ research. This gap is created by the need for more research on negative reactions by important stakeholders, who, for Willness’ purposes in the chapter, are employees and job seekers. To this end, the chapter reviews studies of consumers, employees, and job seekers. Noting that the vast majority of CSR research has been conducted in a consumer context, Willness examines the dominant constructs that emerge, and contemplates their application to the lesser examined employee and job seeker micro-levels. Amongst negative consumer reactions, a recurring construct is ‘stakeholder cynicism’ resulting from the disingenuous claims made by organisations employing merely symbolic CSR strategies. The inundation of ‘greenwashing’ and other dubious practices and reporting, such as misleading certifications, claims, and endorsements is creating a palpable backlash amongst consumers. Delineating this notion further, in consideration of its application to employees and job seekers, Willness separates cynicism from its related construct of skepticism. Although the terms have often appeared interchangeably in the consumer literature, whereas cynicism is a ‘ . stable individual characteristic of general disillusionment or apathy toward CSR across contexts’, skepticism is less general, as it is directed towards a specific organisation and its ‘specific CSR practice or its overall CSR’. Skepticism is therefore conceptually distinct from cynicism. SEAJ readers might be interested in how the results of the chapter’s review are applicable to stakeholders whomake use of the reporting that describes an organisation’s CSR practices. Two of the most fruitful suggestions from the chapter are for further research into negative stakeholder responses to inherently socially responsible practices, such as sustainable production, and for the benefits of a qualitative approach to explore the ‘whether, how and why’ of these reactions. In accounting research, that there will be a potentially positive response to CSR reporting is an implicit assumption in studies investigating the success of symbolic and