CSR, CSA, or CPA? Examining Corporate Climate Change Communication Strategies, Motives, and Effects on Consumer Outcomes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study explores the corporate climate change communication (CCCC) by examining how corporations communicate about climate change using varying degrees of stakeholder engagement and communication strategies. In particular, the study conceptualizes corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social advocacy (CSA), and corporate political activism (CPA) as distinct communication and engagement strategies. Accordingly, the study examines three types of consumer outcomes in response to corporate climate messaging: perceived corporate credibility, perceived corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention. On the above aspects, the literature review is articulated in several sections, namely Climate Change Communication, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Advocacy, Corporate Political Activism, Consumer Responses, and Attribution Theory.
Concerning the considered types of consumer outcomes, five hypotheses are formulated. The first three hypotheses concern the significant and positive effect of all types of corporate climate change messaging (CSR, CSA, CPA) on perceived corporate credibility, corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth intention. The last two hypotheses investigate the greater effectiveness of CSA than CSR, and of CPA than CSA.
To examine the hypotheses, a between-subjects online experiment was conducted using Qualtrics survey. Quota sampling was used to collect a sample that was 50% Democrat and 50% Republican. A total final sample of 1,048 of survey responses from U.S. adults was analyzed. Experimental stimuli were used, which were inspired from a Microsoft real-world case. For the experimental design, different levels of CCCC were operationalized as CSR, CSA, and CPA to reflect the different types of communication and engagement strategies. Thus, participants were randomly assigned to view one of the four stimuli (CSR, CSA, CPA, control group message).
Participants responded to a series of questions to evaluate their perceived corporate credibility, perceived corporate reputation, positive word-of-mouth intention, and perceptions of the corporation’s motivations to communicate about climate change. To measure these perceptions, items adapted from the literature were used. The measurements were carried out by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Averages and internal consistency tests were assessed.
The AMOS results were used to validate all the constructs. All loadings were above the minimum threshold required. The goodness-of-fit measures were well suited.
The ANOVA results highlighted that the experimental message influenced participants’ perceptions of corporate credibility, perceptions of corporate reputation, and positive word-of-mouth, compared to the control message. However, the differences between the experimental conditions were not significant.
The study results revealed significant differences between the direct effects of CSR, CSA, CPA and the control condition on consumers’ responses. These results support the first three hypotheses and underscore the importance of involving an explicit purpose in corporate messages aimed at climate change. In contrast, the differences in the direct relationship among each experimental condition (CSR, CSA, CPA) are negligible. The author explains this outcome by consumers’ lack of awareness or literacy to fully understand CSR, CSA, or CPA communication strategies.
Overall, the study is well carried out and well written. The theoretical framework is of current interest and the literary review is well articulated and rich. No weakness characterizes the methodological approach. The results are coherent with the research hypotheses and contribute to shed light on the theorical and empirical knowledge. Thus, I suggest the publication of the manuscript in the present form.
Just one consideration: how many responses were analyzed? 1,120-72-36=1,012 (not 1,048). Please rectify this probable typo (line 314; lines 327-328).
Author Response
Thank you for your observation. The final sample is correct as 1,048 and I have revised the content to provide more clarity (see lines 322-332).
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting and meaningful article. Several suggestions for revision are for reference:
(1) The introduction needs further strengthening. The present introduction reflects the importance of the research, but the marginal contribution of the research is not clear and needs to be further clarified.
(2) Figure 1 needs further beautification. It is suggested to show the specific path of H1-H4 and correspond with relevant parts of the text.
(3) There should be a general paragraph in the summary section, and it is recommended to add it to the first paragraph of the review, followed by a specific review section.
(4) Sampling needs to be described in more detail. How to ensure that the current sample is a good representative of the population, some necessary safeguards need to be clarified.
(5) The study lacks conclusions. It is recommended to add short conclusions as appropriate.
Author Response
Thank you! I appreciate the support and kind words about the article. I have addressed each of your well-stated points below.
1) I have strengthened the introduction to more clearly explain the contribution of this research (see lines 34-36, 63-66, and 82-91).
2) Figure 1 clearly shows the specific paths of H1-H4 concurring with the text.
3) While I thank the reviewer for their feedback, I do not see a summary section in this manuscript, so I cannot make any revisions to address this point. However, if the reviewer is referring to a section of the conclusion, please note that I have provided additional content (see lines 566-588).
4) I have added additional content (see lines 322-332) to explain the sampling in more detail and provide details about ensuring a good representation of the population.
5) I agree with the reviewer’s feedback. As such, I’ve added a brief conclusion at the end (see lines 566-588).
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The paper was well written, just minor errors, please correct them.
It's a particular theme, very interesting and very well explained.
Very well structured, correct methodology used.
Great discussion.
Best Regards
Author Response
Thank you for these positive comments. Minor errors have been corrected. I’m grateful for the perspective and glad to hear that the rationale is clear.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to read the text of the article.
However, there are a few issues that need to be corrected or completed. Abstract should be supplemented with information on when the research was conducted, on which sample. What statistical methods were used in compiling the results.
Line 29-36. I would change. Putting influencers, scientists, celebrities and young people on the same level does not appeal to me. You cannot write "such" in general. It should be specifically written who the authors are referring to.
The Intorduction section should be supplemented with research questions or hypotheses that helped to achieve the set goal.
Discussions need to be redone. Discussion is a place to confront your results with those of other authors. This is not in the presented work. The authors go straight to the future research and limitations subsection, yes, these points are also important - but not at the expense of the discussion, which is one of the most important parts of the research article.
The Conclusion section is also missing.
I would propose to refer to the research of the following authors on the topic in question: Kobyłka A., Shao J., Villanueva-Villar M., Russo-Garrido S.
Line 510 - error reference, must be in [position number], not Ellen et al. (2006). In general, please check the adequacy of the cited items with the references in the references to see if the authors have left anything behind. I do not understand the validity of giving a specific page from the article (selectively), it is required when citing a monograph.
Author Response
Thank you! I appreciate the support and specific feedback. I have addressed each of your well-stated points below.
1) I agree with the reviewer’s feedback. As such, I’ve added language to strengthen the abstract (see lines 14 & 16). Additionally, I’ve added a paragraph to the methods section (see lines 322-332) to further describe the sample and explain how this was conducted.
2) This is well stated. I’ve edited lines 34-36 to be more specific to corporations. In addition, I have strengthened the introduction by including research questions (see lines 63-66 and 82-91). The hypotheses are included in sections 2.5 and 2.6, respectively.
3) I agree that the discussion can and should be stated more clearly and explained in a bit more detail. As such, I’ve rewritten the discussion to enlighten key issues and confront the results with those of other authors (see lines 461-506). Additionally, I have added a conclusion section (see lines 566-588).
4) I appreciate the recommendation to review these authors’ works. I have used the contribution of two of these authors to supplement the discussion section (see lines 524-526).
5) Thank you for noting this reference error in the manuscript. I have made that correction (see line 499) and thoroughly checked the reference list to make sure all included authors are properly cited (see lines 746-749).
I believe that all of these recommendations strengthen the paper and help to clarify the process and findings. Thank you!
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion, the article is improved and now looks better.
However, I hope that the author will now look at my opinion and in the future, when writing answers to the questions, the reviewer will first mention the point to which he answers. It is not very convenient for a reviewer to check in one tab what the allegation was, and then to look in the answers.
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
