Corporate Social Responsibility on Twitter: A Review of Topics and Digital Communication Strategies’ Success Factors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Digital CSR Communication-Strategies and Stakeholder-Management
3. Material and Method
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Data Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Sample Descriptives
4.2. CSR Topics
4.2.1. Social, Environmental and Economic CSR Topics
4.2.2. Reasons for and Shift of CSR-Topic Disclosure
4.3. CSR Communication Strategies
4.3.1. Communication-Strategy Choice
4.3.2. Success Factors of CSR Communication Strategies
5. Implications, Limitations, and Conclusions
5.1. Implications
5.2. Limitations and Future Studies
5.3. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- O’Riordan, L.; Fairbrass, J. Managing CSR stakeholder engagement: A new conceptual framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Halkos, G.E.; Nomikos, S.N. Reviewing the status of corporate social responsibility (CSR) legal framework. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2021, 32, 700–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nekhili, M.; Nagati, H.; Chtioui, T.; Rebolledo, C. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and market value: Family versus nonfamily firms. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 77, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantrell, J.E.; Kyriazis, E.; Noble, G. Developing CSR giving as a dynamic capability for salient stakeholder management. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 130, 403–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freeman, R.E.; McVea, J. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. Blackwell Handb. Strateg. Manag. 2005, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, J.B.; Fernández, M.L.; Fernández, P.M.R. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution through institutional and stakeholder perspectives. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2016, 25, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiu, T.-K.; Wang, Y.-H. Determinants of social disclosure quality in Taiwan: An application of stakeholder theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 129, 379–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Huang, Y. Communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR) on social media: How do message source and types of CSR messages influence stakeholders’ perceptions? Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2018, 23, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busser, J.A.; Shulga, L.V. Involvement in consumer-generated advertising: Effects of organizational transparency and brand authenticity on loyalty and trust. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1763–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, H.; Luo, Y. Crafting employee trust: From authenticity, transparency to engagement. J. Commun. Manag. 2018, 22, 138–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Men, L.R.; Tsai, W.-H.S. Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014, 26, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Jansen, B.J.; Chowdhury, A. Business engagement on Twitter: A path analysis. Electron. Mark. 2011, 21, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maiorescu-Murphy, R.D. Business-centered versus socially responsible corporate diversity communication. An assessment of stakeholder (dis) agreement on Twitter. Public Relat. Rev. 2022, 48, 102138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollat, J.; Farache, F. Achieving consumer trust on Twitter via CSR communication. J. Consum. Mark. 2017, 34, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, M.T.; Rajić, A.; Greig, J.D.; Sargeant, J.M.; Papadopoulos, A.; McEwen, S.A. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res. Synth. Methods 2014, 5, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chae, B.; Park, E. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A survey of topics and trends using twitter data and topic modeling. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B.L.; De Colle, S. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hentze, J.; Thies, B. Stakeholder-Management und Nachhaltigkeits-Reporting; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rappaport, A. Creating Shareholder Value: A Guide for Managers and Investors; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Schumpeter, J. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In Joseph Alois Schumpeter; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 5–59. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, M.E. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 25–40. [Google Scholar]
- Deegan, C. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2002, 15, 282–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manetti, G.; Bellucci, M.; Bagnoli, L. Stakeholder engagement and public information through social media: A study of Canadian and American public transportation agencies. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2017, 47, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rybalko, S.; Seltzer, T. Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relat. Rev. 2010, 36, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etter, M. Broadcasting, reacting, engaging-three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. J. Commun. Manag. Int. J. 2014, 18, 322–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morsing, M.; Schultz, M. Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2006, 15, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortado, F.-J.; Chalmeta, R. Use of social networks as a CSR communication tool. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2016, 3, 1187783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Etter, M. Reasons for low levels of interactivity:(Non-) interactive CSR communication in Twitter. Public Relat. Rev. 2013, 39, 606–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, S.; Soboleva, A.; Daellenbach, K.; Basil, D.Z.; Beckman, T.; Deshpande, S. Helping those who help us: Co-branded and co-created Twitter promotion in CSR partnerships. J. Brand Manag. Int. J. 2017, 24, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, Y.N.; Park, H. Mapping networks in corporate social responsibility communication on social media: A new approach to exploring the influence of communication tactics on public responses. Public Relat. Rev. 2022, 48, 102143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxton, G.D.; Guo, C. Social media capital: Conceptualizing the nature, acquisition, and expenditure of social media-based organizational resources. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2020, 36, 100443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxton, G.D.; Guo, C. Online stakeholder targeting and the acquisition of social media capital. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2014, 19, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Zúñiga, H.G.; Barnidge, M.; Scherman, A. Social media social capital, offline social capital, and citizenship: Exploring asymmetrical social capital effects. Political Commun. 2017, 34, 44–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Gupta, S.; Sun, W.; Zou, Y. How social-media-enabled co-creation between customers and the firm drives business value? The perspective of organizational learning and social Capital. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J.S.; Greenwood, C.A. Communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR): Stakeholder responsiveness and engagement strategy to achieve CSR goals. Public Relat. Rev. 2017, 43, 768–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duthler, G.; Dhanesh, G.S. The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and internal CSR communication in predicting employee engagement: Perspectives from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Public Relat. Rev. 2018, 44, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branco, M.C.; Rodrigues, L.L. Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 69, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turker, D. How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chae, M.-J. Driving consumer engagement through diverse calls to action in corporate social responsibility messages on social media. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huete-Alcocer, N. A literature review of word of mouth and electronic word of mouth: Implications for consumer behavior. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alboqami, H.; Al-Karaghouli, W.; Baeshen, Y.; Erkan, I.; Evans, C.; Ghoneim, A. Electronic word of mouth in social media: The common characteristics of retweeted and favourited marketer-generated content posted on Twitter. Int. J. Internet Mark. Advert. 2015, 9, 338–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Brien, I.M.; Jarvis, W.; Soutar, G.; Ouschan, R. Co-creating a CSR strategy with customers to deliver greater value. In Disciplining the Undisciplined? Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 89–107. [Google Scholar]
- Iglesias, O.; Markovic, S.; Bagherzadeh, M.; Singh, J.J. Co-creation: A key link between corporate social responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 163, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez, A.; del Bosque, I.R. The stakeholder management theory of CSR: A multidimensional approach in understanding customer identification and satisfaction. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016, 34, 731–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkmans, C.; Kerkhof, P.; Beukeboom, C.J. A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Uzunoğlu, E.; Türkel, S.; Akyar, B.Y. Engaging consumers through corporate social responsibility messages on social media: An experimental study. Public Relat. Rev. 2017, 43, 989–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, E.; Lazarsfeld, P.F. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications; Routledge: Abingdon, VA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, S.-C.; Sung, Y. Using a consumer socialization framework to understand electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) group membership among brand followers on Twitter. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markovic, S.; Iglesias, O.; Qiu, Y.; Bagherzadeh, M. The CSR imperative: How CSR influences word-of-mouth considering the roles of authenticity and alternative attractiveness. Bus. Soc. 2021, 00076503211053021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, P.; Chalmeta, R. Analysis of the use of Twitter as a tool for the management and communication of the CSR of leading European firms. Int. J. Web Based Communities 2020, 16, 180–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endenich, C.; Trapp, R. Ethical implications of management accounting and control: A systematic review of the contributions from the Journal of Business Ethics. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 163, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, T.; Elbanna, S. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) implementation: A review and a research agenda towards an integrative framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Folke, C.; Biggs, R.; Norström, A.V.; Reyers, B.; Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tomislav, K. The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ. Bus. 2018, 21, 67–94. [Google Scholar]
- Caiado, R.G.G.; Leal Filho, W.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; de Mattos Nascimento, D.L.; Ávila, L.V. A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1276–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sethi, S.P. Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1975, 17, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, M.S.; Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Bus. Ethics Q. 2003, 13, 503–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grover, P.; Kar, A.K.; Ilavarasan, P.V. Impact of corporate social responsibility on reputation—Insights from tweets on sustainable development goals by CEOs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 48, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krippendorff, K. Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha-Reliability; University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Duarte, A.; Gomes, D.; das Neves, J.G. Tell me your socially responsible practices, I will tell you how attractive for recruitment you are! The impact of perceived CSR on organizational attractiveness. Tékhne 2014, 12, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, H. New Directions in the Investment and Control of Pension Funds; Investor Responsibility Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Tsalis, T.A.; Malamateniou, K.E.; Koulouriotis, D.; Nikolaou, I.E. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1617–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimon, D.; Tyan, J.; Sroufe, R. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with un sustainable development goals. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2020, 14, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz-Torres, M.J.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á.; Rivera-Lirio, J.M.; Ferrero-Ferrero, I.; Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Gisbert-Navarro, J.V.; Marullo, M.C. An assessment tool to integrate sustainability principles into the global supply chain. Sustainability 2018, 10, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Villiers, C.; La Torre, M.; Molinari, M. The Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) past, present and future: Critical reflections and a research agenda on sustainability reporting (standard-setting). Pac. Account. Rev. 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patuelli, A.; Caldarelli, G.; Lattanzi, N.; Saracco, F. Firms’ challenges and social responsibilities during COVID-19: A twitter analysis. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2103.06705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S. Comparative analysis of Chinese and Japanese corporate communication on Facebook and Twitter. Chin. J. Commun. 2019, 12, 224–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, M.H.; Mohamed, E.K.; Elragal, A. CSR disclosure on Twitter: Evidence from the UK. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2021, 40, 100500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esposito, B.; Sessa, M.R.; Sica, D.; Malandrino, O. Corporate social responsibility engagement through social media. Evidence from the University of Salerno. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Zhang, X. The impact of sustainable supplier management practices on buyer-supplier performance: An empirical study in China. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2017, 27, 112–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okazaki, S.; Plangger, K.; West, D.C.; Menéndez, H.D. Exploring digital corporate social responsibility communications on Twitter. J. Bus. Res. JBR 2020, 117, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reilly, A.H.; Larya, N. External communication about sustainability: Corporate social responsibility reports and social media activity. Environ. Commun. 2018, 12, 621–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suárez-Rico, Y.M.; Gómez-Villegas, M.; García-Benau, M.A. Exploring Twitter for CSR disclosure: Influence of CEO and firm characteristics in latin american companies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pons, A.; Vintrò, C.; Rius, J.; Vilaplana, J. Impact of corporate social responsibility in mining industries. Resour. Policy 2021, 72, 102117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fröhlich, R.; Knobloch, A.S. “Are they allowed to do that?” Content and typology of corporate socio-political positioning on TWITTER. A study of DAX-30 companies in Germany. Public Relat. Rev. 2021, 47, 102113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, D. How do businesses help during natural disasters? A content analysis of corporate disaster aid on Twitter. Int. J. Strateg. Commun. 2020, 14, 348–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamic, L.I.; Almaraz, I.A. How the larger corporations engage with stakeholders through Twitter. Int. J. Mark. Res. JMRS 2013, 55, 851–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaul, A.; Chaudhri, V. Communicating CSR on Twitter: Impact on Rank and Reputation. In Proceedings of the CSR Communication Conference, 2019, Stockholm, Sweden, 18–20 September 2019; p. 125. [Google Scholar]
- Saxton, G.D.; Ren, C.; Guo, C. Responding to diffused stakeholders on social media: Connective power and firm reactions to CSR-related Twitter messages. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 172, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, C.; Rim, H. Exploring nonprofit-business partnerships on Twitter from a network perspective. Public Relat. Rev. 2019, 45, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.; Oh, W.-Y.; Kim, N. Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis of Fortune 500’s Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 791–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baboukardos, D.; Gaia, S.; She, C. Social performance and social media activity in times of pandemic: Evidence from COVID-19-related Twitter activity. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2021, 21, 1271–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodd, M.D.; Supa, D. Testing the viability of corporate social advocacy as a predictor of purchase intention. Commun. Res. Rep. 2015, 32, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillman, A.J.; Hitt, M.A. Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 825–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holiday, S.; Hayes, J.L.; Britt, B.C.; Lyu, Y. The cause effect: The impact of corporate social responsibility advertising on cause consumer engagement behavior after brand affiliation ceases. Int. J. Advert. 2021, 40, 199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxton, G.D.; Gomez, L.; Ngoh, Z.; Lin, Y.-P.; Dietrich, S. Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 155, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Overton, H.; Kim, J.K.; Zhang, N.; Huang, S. Examining consumer attitudes toward CSR and CSA messages. Public Relat. Rev. 2021, 47, 102095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacomini, D.; Martini, M.; Sancino, A.; Zola, P.; Cavenago, D. Corporate social responsibility actions and organizational legitimacy at the peak of COVID-19: A sentiment analysis. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2021, 21, 1043–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vo, T.T.; Xiao, X.; Ho, S.Y. How does corporate social responsibility engagement influence word of mouth on Twitter? Evidence from the airline industry. J. Bus. Ethics JOBE 2019, 157, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, W.; Harstad, R.M. A framing effect observed in a market game. In Game Equilibrium Models II; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; pp. 308–336. [Google Scholar]
- O’Shea, B.; Watson, D.G.; Brown, G.D. Measuring implicit attitudes: A positive framing bias flaw in the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Psychol. Assess. 2016, 28, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Joo, J.; Lee, Y.-J.; Yoon, H.J. Interdependent self-construal and number of Twitter followers: Consumer responses to alcohol industry corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaign on Twitter. Int. J. Advert. 2021, 41, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-J.; O’Donnell, N.H.; Hust, S.J.T. Interaction effects of system-generated information and consumer skepticism: An evaluation of issue support behavior in CSR Twitter campaigns. J. Interact. Advert. 2019, 19, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Yoon, H.J.; O’Donnell, N.H. The effect of number of follower cues and organization type on perceived social norm responses to CSR campaigns on social media: A gender comparison. J. Interact. Advert. 2020, 20, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talib, Y.Y.A.; Saat, R.M. Social Proof in Social Media Shopping: An Experimental Design Research; SHS Web of Conferences, 2017; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2017; p. 02005. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, T.K.; Kim, Y.; Coe, K. When social media become hostile media: An experimental examination of news sharing, partisanship, and follower count. Mass Commun. Soc. 2018, 21, 450–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.W.; Saxton, G.D. Does stakeholder engagement pay off on social media? A social capital perspective. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. J. Assoc. Res. Nonprofit Organ. Volunt. Action 2019, 48, 28–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publication Year | No. | Stakeholder | Companies | Industry/Sector | Names Disclosed | Sample Selection Criteria | Sample Size | Sample Tweet Number | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consumer/Twitter user/Citizen | NPOs | CEOs | Brands | Firms/Corporations | Twitter Accounts | Tweets/Retweets/Replies | |||||
2022 | 15 | ✓ | ✓ | CR Magazine’ 100 best Cz | 71 | 22.951 | |||||
23 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Diversity Inc Top 50 | 5 | 2.217 | |||||
42 | ✓ | ✓ | Container Shipping | ✓ | not disclosed | 8 | 6.566 | ||||
2021 | 1 | ✓ | FTSE 350 | not disclosed | 67.908 | ||||||
2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Listed in Major Global Stock (15 SE listed) | 483 | 4.484 | |||||
7 | ✓ | ✓ | Education | ✓ | individual systematic | 1 | not disclosed | ||||
10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | DAX 30 | 36 | 154.770 | |||||
11 | ✓ | ✓ | News Media | ✓ | individual systematic | 6 | 6.666 | ||||
12 | ✓ | ✓ | Banking | ✓ | individual systematic | 41 | 2.816 | ||||
14 | ✓ | ✓ | Consumer Brands | ✓ | individual systematic | 3.093 | 44.432 | ||||
16 | ✓ ** | Alcohol | n.a. | n.a. | 175 ** | n.a. | |||||
26 | ✓ ** | n.a. | n.a. | 219 ** | n.a. | ||||||
27 | ✓ | ✓ | AIDA | 417 | 917.864 | ||||||
29 | ✓ | Mining | n.a. | n.a. | not disclosed | 2.000.000 | |||||
33 | ✓ | ✓ * | ✓ | Fortune 200 | 42 | 163.402 | |||||
2020 | 21 | ✓ ** | Alcohol | n.a. | n.a. | 839 ** | n.a. | ||||
25 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | individual systematic | 8 | 428.000 | |||||
31 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Blue Chip Companies (EuroStock 50) | 50 | 127.811 | |||||
34 | ✓ | ✓ | Fortune 150 | 41 | 1.079 | ||||||
2019 | 13 | ✓ | ✓ | Fortune 200, Hootsuite | 93 | 194.644 | |||||
17 | ✓ | ✓ | National CSR Ranking by IIM Udaipur (India) | 34 | 4.091 | ||||||
20 | ✓ ** | Alcohol | n.a. | n.a. | 177 ** | n.a. | |||||
22 | ✓ | Alcohol | ✓ | not disclosed | 6 | 1.805 | |||||
28 | ✓ | n.a. | n.a. | 223.476 | 414.926 | ||||||
32 | ✓ | ✓ * | ✓ | Fortune 500 | 38 | 1.125 | |||||
38 | ✓ | ✓ | Airline | ✓ | individual systematic | 6 | not disclosed | ||||
39 | ✓ | Tobacco | ✓ | individual systematic | 4 | 3.301 | |||||
40 | ✓ | ✓ | Council on Foundation List on Website | 198 | not disclosed | ||||||
41 | ✓ | ✓ | Forbes Ranking of 2000 Largest Corporations | 30 + 54 FB accounts | 2.672 | ||||||
2018 | 4 | ✓ | n.a. | n.a. | not disclosed | 178.908 | |||||
6 | ✓ | ✓ | Cone Non-Profit Power Brand 100 | 65 | 5.859 | ||||||
30 | ✓ | ✓ | Consumer Apparel | ✓ | Newsweek’s Greenest Companies Rankings | 11 | 187.177 | ||||
35 | ✓ | ✓ | Banking | ✓ | individual systematic | 2 | 2.719 | ||||
36 | ✓ | ✓ | MERCO Ranking | 93 | 1.657 | ||||||
2017 | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | individual systematic | 63 | 32.641 | ||||
18 | ✓ ** | n.a. | n.a. | 507 ** | n.a. | ||||||
37 | ✓ ** | n.a. | n.a. | 253 ** | n.a. | ||||||
2016 | 5 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | IBEX 35 | 20 | 5.106 + 416 FB postings | ||||
2014 | 9 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | CR Magazine’ 100 best Cz | 30 | 41.864 | ||||
2013 | 8 | ✓ | ✓ | CR Magazine’ 100 best Cz | 30 | 41.864 | |||||
19 | ✓ | ✓ | Fortune 500 | 222 | not disclosed | ||||||
24 | ✓ | ✓ | IBEX 35 | 35 | 5.352 | ||||||
Total | 42 | 32 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 27 | 21 | 228.682 | 5.051.509 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pilgrim, K.; Bohnet-Joschko, S. Corporate Social Responsibility on Twitter: A Review of Topics and Digital Communication Strategies’ Success Factors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416769
Pilgrim K, Bohnet-Joschko S. Corporate Social Responsibility on Twitter: A Review of Topics and Digital Communication Strategies’ Success Factors. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416769
Chicago/Turabian StylePilgrim, Katharina, and Sabine Bohnet-Joschko. 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility on Twitter: A Review of Topics and Digital Communication Strategies’ Success Factors" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416769
APA StylePilgrim, K., & Bohnet-Joschko, S. (2022). Corporate Social Responsibility on Twitter: A Review of Topics and Digital Communication Strategies’ Success Factors. Sustainability, 14(24), 16769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416769