The DOI matches its Crossref record; 155 of the 155 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 114 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic
Open accessAbstract
We examine why organizations that obtain prominent certifications may at times elect not to publicize them. Drawing on the impression management literature, we argue and show that concerns about being perceived as hypocritical may cause organizations to strategically withhold their certification status. Using a longitudinal panel of corporations that were members of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, a prominent environmental certification, we show that in the face of reputational threats, organizations are less likely to publicize their certification status when the threat appears to directly contradict the claims implied by the certification. Our findings suggest that the threat of hypocrisy is amplified for firms with stronger reputations in the same domain as the certification and when audience members better understand and value the certification. Our findings delineate new boundary conditions under which firms will make prosocial claims and inspire reconsideration of long-held assumptions about the process of decoupling the implementation and communication of socially valued practices. This study also provides insights for scholars of nonmarket strategy on how corporations strategically communicate with external constituents about their sustainability initiatives.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 No full text of the sources · 31 Own interpretation · 31 Own result · 13 Sources not found · 13 Not checked yet · 9 No basis given · 2 Supported · 2 Supported so far · 2 Partly supported · 2 Not supported · 2 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“audiences must perceive a direct contradiction between claims and actions to recognize hypocrisy”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Effron and Monin, 2010 source
- Disputedcites Effron, Lucas, and O'Connor, 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Theoretical and applied implications section says that explicitly endorsing or promoting a value is not necessary for someone to be condemned as a hypocrite. The General discussion likewise says a person's actions need only be inconsistent with what their organization preaches, contrary to the claim that a direct contradiction between the person's own claims and actions is required. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we show that in the face of reputational threats, organizations are less likely to publicize their certification status when the threat appears to directly contradict the claims implied by the certification.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we observed several instances in which firms chose to withhold rather than publicize their membership status.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found several companies that appeared to remain silent about their DJSI membership, particularly when the risk of perceived hypocrisy was increased”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the negative moderating effects of environmental reputation were significantly stronger in magnitude for environmental shareholder activism (χ 2 = 2.58, p-value = .054)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“stakeholder activism (z-score = -2.22,p-value = .026)on subsequent DJSI publication”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that the degree of DJSI legitimacy negatively moderates the effect of shareholder activism”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a strong environmental reputation negatively moderates the effect of shareholder activism (z-score = -2.09,p-value = .036)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following this lawsuit, AMD did not publicize its membership for two years but resumed publication again in 2008”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the probability of publicizing DJSI membership decreases by 12.5 percentage points (p-value = .039)when a firm becomes the target of an environmental shareholder resolution”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 33
- Probably not a substantial claim. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“newly added firms experience positive abnormal returns upon inclusion, indicating that investors generally view inclusion as a positive signal (Cheung, 2011;Robinson, Kleffner, and Bertels, 2011;Hawn, Chatterji, and Mitchell, 2014)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cheung, 2011 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robinson, Kleffner, and Bertels, 2011 source
- Disputedcites Hawn, Chatterji, and Mitchell, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The event-study results (Table 2a, p. 17) report a statistically significant −0.25% abnormal return for firms added to the DJSI, not a positive return. The Empirical findings (p. 27) likewise say investors appear to punish added firms. Although returns became less negative over time, the later positive return for additions was not statistically significant (Table 2c, p. 19). (LLM, conf=0.94)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Perceptions of hypocrisy arise when actors make claims to which their own behavior does not conform”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > The Risks of Perceived Hypocrisy
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Effron, Lucas, and O'Connor, 2015 source
Section 1.1, “Judgments of hypocrisy” (page not provided), defines hypocrisy as claiming standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. The paper also discusses hypocrisy by association, but that broader finding does not undermine the cited statement. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Such selection could nevertheless bias our results if factors that predict the likelihood of becoming certified also influence the likelihood of publicizing the certification (Hamilton and Nickerson, 2003;Bascle, 2008).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Model Specification
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hamilton and Nickerson, 2003 source
The Introduction (p. 2) explains that omitted variables affecting both a choice and an outcome can bias estimates. The cited paper discusses strategy choice and performance, not certification specifically; the citing sentence applies that general self-selection principle to certification and publicity. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bascle, 2008 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“prior research has found company size to be positively correlated with the likelihood of environmental disclosure (Reid and Toffel, 2009;Lewis, Walls, and Dowell, 2014) and, more generally, the number of prosocial claims made by a firm (McDonnell and King, 2013)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Reid and Toffel, 2009 source
Reid and Toffel are cited for the environmental-disclosure part of the sentence; the separate claim about prosocial claims is attributed to McDonnell and King. In the Public disclosure table (p. 45), both log net sales and log employment have positive, statistically significant associations with whether a company responded publicly to the Carbon Disclosure Project. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Lewis, Walls, and Dowell, 2014 source
The Results section reports that larger firms were more likely to comply with CDP requests for environmental disclosure. Lewis et al. is cited for that part of the sentence; the separate claim about the number of prosocial claims is attributed to McDonnell and King, not Lewis et al. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDonnell and King, 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“organizations whose operations pose a greater risk to the environment are more likely to be heavily regulated and scrutinized by the state (Bansal and Roth, 2000;Reid and Toffel, 2009;Chatterji and Toffel, 2010) and will thus establish sophisticated reporting structures and processes aimed at increasing the transparency of their operations and impacts (Lyon and Maxwell, 2011).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bansal and Roth, 2000 source
- Partly supportedcites Reid and Toffel, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Extension: Environmentally sensitive industries' section (p. 26) describes firms in those industries as facing a heightened threat of regulatory scrutiny. That supports the scrutiny portion of the clause attributed to Reid and Toffel, but a threat of scrutiny does not establish that these firms are more likely to be heavily regulated. The later claim about reporting structures is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chatterji and Toffel, 2010 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“To avoid concerns about simultaneity or reverse causality, we lagged all independent and moderating variables by one year (Reid and Toffel, 2009;Lewis, Walls, and Dowell, 2014).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Model Specification
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Reid and Toffel, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Model specification (p. 21) says the authors lagged independent variables to avoid simultaneity concerns, but expressly identifies two exceptions to the one-year lag: shareholder action and toxic chemical emissions. It does not separately say that this procedure eliminates reverse-causality concerns or specify that all moderating variables were lagged one year. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Lewis, Walls, and Dowell, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Model specification section says the authors lagged control variables by one year to minimize simultaneity concerns. It also says CEO education and tenure were measured in the current year, so the paper does not support lagging all independent variables; it does not claim that lagging eliminates simultaneity or reverse-causality concerns. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Shareholder resolutions are proposals often put forth by socially minded investors who seek to influence corporate decision makers by generating internal debates about a firm's policies and practices (Reid and Toffel, 2009).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Independent Variables
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Reid and Toffel, 2009 source
The Private politics section (p. 8) describes shareholder resolutions as proposals used to influence corporate decision-making. The Shareholder resolutions and organizational change section (pp. 8–10) says activist resolutions challenge firms’ practices and prompt managers and boards to reconsider them, supporting the paraphrase about generating internal debate. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that the threat of hypocrisy is amplified for firms with stronger reputations in the same domain as the certification and when audience members better understand and value the certification.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the average publication rate over the panel was 59 percent (883/ 1,486)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Dependent Variable
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results strongly support the notion that the legitimacy of the DJSI increased over time.In 1999, the year the DJSI was introduced, we found only 20 articles that mentioned it.By the end of our study, the cumulative number of articles mentioning the DJSI exceeded 13,000.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Organizational reputation.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all specifications we find a negative and statistically significant coefficient for the inverse Mills ratio”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also find a strong positive main effect for the number of years on the DJSI but also a strong negative effect on the squared term.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such claims, however, are less likely to occur when the claim (e.g., publicizing a sustainability certification) falls in the same domain as the threat (e.g., environmental sustainability) and when the inconsistency between the claim and the threat is readily apparent to and understood by stakeholders.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Prosocial Claims as an Impression Management Strategy
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and 2.5 percentage points (p-value = .078)for every media article that mentions an environmental protest, boycott, or lawsuit.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These authoritative endorsements serve as signals of quality and provide assurance that an organization has substantively implemented practices or engaged in activities that meet the requirements outlined by the certifying agency.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a certification is new and not yet understood by audience members, an organization might believe that it could get away with making claims by touting the certification without being detected as a hypocrite.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Organizational reputation.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Prior research has shown that actors who make claims that are inconsistent with their actions are often perceived to lack credibility (Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma, 1971), which may lead audience members to view all other communications from them with skepticism (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, and Riordan, 1995).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > The Risks of Perceived Hypocrisy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma, 1971 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rosenfeld, Giacalone, and Riordan, 1995
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“By revealing information about organizational attributes that would otherwise be hidden from external audiences (King, Lenox, and Terlaak, 2005), certifications provide assurance that the organization is trustworthy and that its actions are aligned with socially prescribed values and actions (McDonnell and King, 2013).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > PUBLICIZING A CERTIFICATION AS AN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTIC
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“the reputation-enhancing benefits of certifications are derived from two primary factors: certifications provide assurance about an organization's level of performance in a given domain, and they represent a powerful signal of endorsement by other prominent and respected actors”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > PUBLICIZING A CERTIFICATION AS AN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTIC
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Organizations engage in various forms of impression management to promote positive audience perceptions.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > PUBLICIZING A CERTIFICATION AS AN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTIC
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inconsistency between an organization's claims and actions is a necessary condition for perceptions of hypocrisy to arise, but it is not likely to be sufficient.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > When Will Organizations Be Strategically Silent?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the DJSI was the first global index to identify and track the performance of sustainability-driven companies worldwide and is well regarded among the socially responsible investment community for its credibility and transparency”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sadowski, 2010b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“To defend their reputations, organizations will engage in impression management efforts to neutralize threats through rhetorical or symbolic actions that emphasize their positive attributes and socially valued activities”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > PUBLICIZING A CERTIFICATION AS AN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTIC
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Elsbach, 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given these potentially damaging consequences, organizations should want to avoid the reputational harm associated with being perceived as hypocritical.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > The Risks of Perceived Hypocrisy
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Negative media coverage and activism threaten organizations by generating negative public perceptions and increasing investor risk perception.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Organizations that have established strong generalized reputations are generally more visible than their peers and are disproportionately celebrated by the public”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Organizational reputation.
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“consumers and other audience members may detect such organizational acts of hypocrisy and view them with ire”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > The Risks of Perceived Hypocrisy
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Reputational threats can occur when stakeholders recognize organizational misdeeds and bring those actions to light in an effort to pressure the organization to rectify its actions or take responsibility for its transgressions”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > PUBLICIZING A CERTIFICATION AS AN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTIC
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“We also reported standard errors clustered by firm to accommodate potential serial correlation within firms (Marquis, Toffel, and Zhou, 2016).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Model Specification
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Marquis, Toffel, and Zhou, 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“hypocrisy avoidance is more likely to occur when the threat facing an organization is in the same domain as the claims associated with the certification”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Independent Variables
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The broad use of the DJSI evaluations suggests that its influence extends beyond investors.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the legitimacy of a certification increases, however, audience members would likely become more cognizant of the specific claims implied by the certification and be more capable of spotting contradictions in organizational behavior.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Organizational reputation.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“companies often express initial and continued inclusion on the index as a strategic goal, and for some CEOs it is a key performance indicator (Robinson, Kleffner, and Bertels, 2011)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robinson, Kleffner, and Bertels, 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Recent work has argued that positive organizational claims may be effectively used to deflect criticism or to direct attention away from a reputational threat”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“inclusion on the index can increase perceptions of legitimacy among socially conscious investors and enhance their brands or reputations more generally, all factors that can help to maintain or improve the firm's competitive position among its industry peers (Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Such resolutions often fail to receive enough support to change corporate policies, but they nevertheless serve as a form of ''disruptive activity'' and can thus threaten a firm's reputation (Lee and Lounsbury, 2011;McDonnell, King, and Soule, 2015).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Independent Variables
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“they have made significant investments in environmental initiatives and green products to differentiate themselves from their competitors and to signal to the general public that they are environmentally conscious corporate citizens”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vogel, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vasi and King, 2012 source
- Not matchedcites United Nations Global Compact, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“prior research suggests that organizations make positive claims to mitigate reputational threats.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“making a claim signifying leadership in environmentally sustainable activities would be more likely to be perceived as hypocritical for a firm experiencing activists' protests related to its environmental practices but could be an effective strategy for a firm trying to deflect attention away from its negative labor practices.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One recent study found the DJSI to be the most credible sustainability certification in the eyes of sustainability professionals (Sadowski, 2010b).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sadowski, 2010b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“publicizing a certification that falls in the same domain as the reputational threat would more likely be perceived as hypocritical because it would be directly contradicted by recent evidence of poor behavior or performance.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Because the interpretation of interaction effects when using probit regression is inherently difficult (Hoetker, 2007), we also interpret our results using average marginal effects and graphs.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hoetker, 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“to be viewed as hypocritical, it must lie in the same domain as the threat and thus represent incongruence between words and deeds.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceptions of organizational hypocrisy arise when organizations make claims that directly contradict their recent actions or performance and when these contradictions are well understood and recognized by constituents.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Independent Variables
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the application process is time-consuming, requiring a significant commitment to complete (Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The media and environmental activists have also increased their efforts to hold corporations accountable to their claims and have thus become vigilant observers, watching for evidence of environmental hypocrisy, often labeled as ''greenwashing''”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lyon and Maxwell, 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“corporate social and environmental initiatives often take a subordinate role to a firm's profitability goals (Margolis and Walsh, 2003)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Margolis and Walsh, 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Over the past several decades, corporations have faced increasing pressure to behave responsibly in regard to their impact on the natural environment”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hoffman, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Flammer, 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The DJSI is internationally recognized for its transparency and objectivity and is well regarded by the investment community (Cheung, 2011).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > METHOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cheung, 2011 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“attempts to make positive claims that are directly contradicted by recent negative events are more likely to be viewed as hypocritical (Godfrey, 2005) and when detected will likely wipe out the positive effects of prior good deeds (Effron and Monin, 2010).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Direct contradiction between threat and claims.
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the DJSI World Index is generally seen as the most prestigious of the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices because firms are essentially competing for recognition against their global peers rather than only national peers.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“firms may take advantage of strategic opportunities to bolster their image, particularly when they are perceived as socially irresponsible (Brammer and Millington, 2005;Muller and Kra ¨ussl, 2011).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These procedural and structural features can serve as a proxy for a firm's general willingness and capacity to collect and report on environmental initiatives (McDonnell, King, and Soule, 2015).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McDonnell, King, and Soule, 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Each firm is assigned to one of the 59 RobecoSAM peer groups, which are based on the Global Industrial Classification Standard (GICS) (RobecoSAM, 2013).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites RobecoSAM, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“arguably because a strong domain-specific reputation increases both the likelihood of being identified as a hypocrite and the associated cost of this negative social evaluation.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Prosocial Claims as an Impression Management Strategy
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“KLD rates a company's positive and negative CSR performance across several domains including community relations, diversity initiatives, employee relations, human rights initiatives, and socially controversial business practices(Vasi and King, 2012;Flammer, 2015).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Implicit in this operationalization is the notion that these environmental performance ratings are positively correlated with a firm's environmental reputation, or the degree to which a firm is known for strong environmental performance and practices(Lange, Lee, and Dai, 2011;Jensen, Kim, and Kim, 2012).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings contribute to this conversation by suggesting that organizations are aware of and concerned with the risk of being perceived as hypocritical and are less likely to engage in hypocritical actions when the likelihood of detection increases and when these inconsistencies represent salient departures from the organization's domain-specific reputation.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Prosocial Claims as an Impression Management Strategy
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such concerns could cause these key organizations to remain silent about their environmental accomplishments, thus hindering the diffusion of socially desirable activities.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both factors would increase the likelihood of hypocritical acts being detected and thus lead firms to remain silent about their DJSI membership.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“increased scrutiny by stakeholders and society at large can lead to moreaccurate (Marquis, Toffel, and Zhou, 2016), more-substantive (Marquis and Qian, 2014), or even overly modest disclosures (Kim and Lyon, 2015).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings thus lend strong empirical support to previous anecdotal assertions that managers are concerned about their organizations being labeled as hypocrites and will remain strategically silent about their environmentally positive activities if such communications may place the firm at risk of being targeted by activists.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that our results are likely to be influenced by selection bias, thus providing further support for our empirical strategy.”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the DJSI discloses the names of sector leaders, as well as the additions and deletions resulting from the annual review process (SustainAbility, 2013).”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites SustainAbility, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Prior research has found that the diffusion and eventual institutionalization of socially responsible practices is largely driven by the adoption of progressive policies by prominent organizations, in particular by those that have reputations for or histories of being resistant to activists' requests”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“proactive firms characterized by a progressive corporate culture (Vasi and King, 2012) often engage in socially responsible practices outside an environmental domain and may thus be less inclined to publicize their DJSI membership”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Control Variables
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vasi and King, 2012 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Negative media coverage and activism threaten organizations by generating negative public perceptions and increasing investor risk perception.
“Underlying each of these studies is an assumption that negative media coverage and activism can threaten an organization by generating negative perceptions among the general public and increasing the level of risk perceived by investors”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Organizations seek to avoid perceptions of hypocrisy.
“Assuming that organizations will seek to avoid perceptions of hypocrisy”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Media coverage reflects the accumulated discourse and cognitive legitimacy of a given practice or structure.
“Implicit in this approach is an assumption that media coverage reflects the accumulated discourse and cognitive legitimacy of a given practice or structure (Kennedy, 2008)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most firms likely seek to become certified with the intention of publicizing that certification to their stakeholders.
“Because most firms likely seek to become certified with the intention of publicizing that certification to their stakeholders, we used a two-stage Heckman probit model to control for selfselection.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Certifications are intended to provide verification of substantive implementation.
“Certifications, however, are unique in that they are intended to provide verification of substantive implementation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Firms that obtain certifications must actively communicate their certification status to relevant stakeholders.
“firms that obtain certifications must nevertheless actively communicate their certification status to relevant stakeholders.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The DJSI is a prominent sustainability certification.
“We tested our theory by examining whether corporations publicized their membership in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), a prominent sustainability certification.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Strategic Silence as a Nonmarket Strategy
“Wald test: Coefficient on (A) ≥ (B)? (H3a)”
§ Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic > Second-stage Prediction Models
“The Wald test displays a chi-squared statistic where the null hypothesis is that coefficients for reputational threats within a nonenvironmental domain are greater than or equal to coefficients for reputational threats within an environmental domain.”
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
External Control of Organizations: Resource Dependence Perspective
Miner, J. B. (2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315701967-54 · Cited by 14,229
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
(2013) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr · Cited by 6,965
Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556659 · Cited by 5,130
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL REALITY
(2018) · University of Iowa Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt20ks0rb.46 · Cited by 4,792
WHY COMPANIES GO GREEN: A MODEL OF ECOLOGICAL RESPONSIVENESS.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556363 · Cited by 4,020
The Institutional Logics Perspective
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W. C., & Lounsbury, M. D. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001 · Cited by 3,846
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011) · California Management Review · doi:10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64 · Cited by 3,441 · cited 1×
“Although many companies actively tout their environmental initiatives, others have been hesitant to disclose environmental information or call attention to their socially responsible endeavors (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Delmas and Burbano, 2011; Lyon and Maxwell, 2011).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Beder S., 2002, Ecologist, 32, 24
- Hoffman A. J. 2001 From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Jensen M., 2012, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation: 140–159
- Oberholzer-Gee F., 2007, Harvard Business School Case, 707
- Searle J. R. 1995 The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.
- Waddock S., 2000, Business Ethics, 14, 17
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Correa, J. A. A., Marcus, A. A., & Vogel, D. J. (2019) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0014 · Cited by 489
“Participation has increased when firms—as opposed to governments, NGOs, and standard organizations—have been the main initiators of the voluntary schemes (Carlos & Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundCan Sustainable Investing Save the World? Reviewing the Mechanisms of Investor Impact
Koelbel, J., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., & Busch, T. (2020) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026620919202 · Cited by 386
“Carlos and Lewis (2018) find that companies are more likely to remain silent about their index membership when they have a strong reputation for ESG performance already.”
BackgroundHawn, O., Chatterji, A., & Mitchell, W. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2418300 · Cited by 339
Hawn, O. V., Chatterji, A., & Mitchell, W. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2752 · Cited by 377
Li, J., & Wu, D. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3324 · Cited by 306
Franco, S., Caroli, M. G., Cappa, F., & Chiappa, G. D. (2019) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102395 · Cited by 295
Nonmonetary Incentives and the Implications of Work as a Source of Meaning
Cassar, L., & Meier, S. (2018) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.32.3.215 · Cited by 304
“…considerable attention to these issues; on the other side, these topics are covered only marginally, if at all, in textbooks about labor economics, contract theory, and organizational economics (for example, see Bolton and Dewatripont 2004; Gibbons and Roberts 2013; Cahuc and Zylberberg 2004).”
BackgroundPurpose in the For-Profit Firm: A Review and Framework for Management Research
George, G., Haas, M. R., McGahan, A. M., Schillebeeckx, S. J. D., & Tracey, P. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063211006450 · Cited by 286
Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G. I., & Papagiannakis, G. (2022) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05151-9 · Cited by 300
Does it pay to be a greenwasher or a brownwasher?
Testa, F., Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R., & Frey, M. (2018) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2058 · Cited by 256
Vedula, S., Doblinger, C., Pacheco, D. F., York, J. G., Bacq, S. C., Russo, M. V., & Dean, T. J. (2021) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2019.0143 · Cited by 253
DesJardine, M. R., Marti, E., & Durand, R. (2020) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2019.0238 · Cited by 240
No End in Sight? A Greenwash Review and Research Agenda
Montgomery, A. W., Lyon, T. P., & Barg, J. (2023) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/10860266231168905 · Cited by 321
“In this dynamic context, a firm’s decision to tout its sustainability credentials becomes but one decision in an interdependent series of environmental management decisions and interactions with stakeholders (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Montgomery & Robertson, 2022).”
BackgroundInfluentialPollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V., & Han, J. (2019) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2017.0086 · Cited by 244
Effects of Internal–External Congruence-Based CSR Positioning: An Attribution Theory Approach
Ginder, W., Kwon, W., & Byun, S. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04282-w · Cited by 234
Boulhaga, M., Bouri, A., Elamer, A. A., & Ibrahim, B. A. (2022) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2343 · Cited by 259
Anchors Aweigh: The Sources, Variety, and Challenges of Mission Drift
Grimes, M. G., Williams, T., & Zhao, E. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0254 · Cited by 185
“For example, concerns of authenticity can get introduced when organizations that claim to be environmentally responsible act in ways that are counter to those claims, leading to attributions of “greenwashing” (Carlos & Lewis, 2017; Chandler, 2014).”
BackgroundDoes Social Media Pressure Induce Corporate Hypocrisy? Evidence of ESG Greenwashing from China
Long, L., Wang, C., & Zhang, M. (2024) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-024-05747-3 · Cited by 238
“Prior literature on corporate hypocrisy examines the attribution of perceptions of corporate hypocrisy (Demasi & Voegtlin, 2023; Janney & Gove, 2011; Lauriano et al., 2022) and attempts to find corresponding avoidance strategies (Bellucci et al., 2021; Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Wagner et al., 2009).”
Eilert, M., & Cherup, A. N. (2020) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1177/0743915620947408 · Cited by 206
“However, research has shown that when facing the prospect of scrutiny—warranted or not— some companies underreport their activities even though their engagement is authentic (Carlos and Lewis 2018).”
BackgroundMarket Mediators and the Trade-offs of Legitimacy-Seeking Behaviors in a Nascent Category
Lee, B., Hiatt, S. R., & Lounsbury, M. D. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1126 · Cited by 192
Reluctant Disclosure and Transparency: Evidence from Environmental Disclosures
Fabrizio, K. R., & Kim, E. (2019) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2019.1298 · Cited by 177
Editors’ Comments: Is Research on Corporate Social Responsibility Undertheorized?
Wang, H. C., Gibson, C. B., & Zander, U. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0450 · Cited by 169
Walker, K., Zhang, Z., & Ni, N. (2018) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12271 · Cited by 158
“Carlos and Lewis (2017) found that corporations may strategically withhold environmental certification status in an attempt to manage stakeholders’ impressions of perceived organizational hypocrisy.”
BackgroundAdministrative environmental innovations, supply network structure, and environmental disclosure
Bellamy, M. A., Dhanorkar, S., & Subramanian, R. (2020) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.1114 · Cited by 172
Positively deviant: Identity work through B Corporation certification
Grimes, M. G., Gehman, J., & Cao, K. (2018) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.12.001 · Cited by 161
Category membership, identity control, and the reevaluation of prosocial opportunities
Conger, M., McMullen, J. S., Bergman, B. J., et al. (2017) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.11.004 · Cited by 134
From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation?
Effron, D. A., O'Connor, K. S., Leroy, H., & Lucas, B. J. (2018) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2018.10.003 · Cited by 143
“…negative stakeholder reactions to inconsistency, organizations may strategically conceal positive information about themselves, such as an environmental certification, that is directly misaligned with negative corporate actions, such as those that cause environmental damage (Carlos & Lewis, 2017).”
BackgroundNardella, G., Brammer, S. J., & Surdu, I. M. (2019) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12365 · Cited by 141
Deconstructing corporate hypocrisy: A delineation of its behavioral, moral, and attributional facets
Wagner, T., Korschun, D., & Troebs, C.-C. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.041 · Cited by 135
Hypocritical organizations: Implications for employee social responsibility
Babu, N., Roeck, K. D., & Raineri, N. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.034 · Cited by 125
Ettinger, A., Grabner‐Kräuter, S., Okazaki, S., & Terlutter, R. (2020) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287520930087 · Cited by 129
Modern slavery in supply chains: insights through strategic ambiguity
Meehan, J., & Pinnington, B. (2021) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-05-2020-0292 · Cited by 120
Fuadah, L. L., Mukhtaruddin, M., Andriana, I., et al. (2022) · Economies · doi:10.3390/economies10120314 · Cited by 107
“However, companies with poor corporate social responsibility practices may be penalized by external stakeholders, whose negative opinions of the company can adversely affect the company’s performance (Carlos and Lewis 2018).”
BackgroundClark, C. E., Riera, M., & Iborra, M. (2021) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211015911 · Cited by 119
“Likewise, managers should also be mindful that the threat of these types of misperceptions is amplified for firms with stronger reputations (Carlos & Lewis, 2018), perhaps counterintuitively.”
BackgroundHabermann, F., & Fischer, F. B. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04956-4 · Cited by 135
Relationship analysis between greenwashing and environmental performance
Zhang, K., Pan, Z., Janardhanan, M. N., & Patel, I. (2022) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02381-9 · Cited by 116
Peng, J., Song, Y., Tu, G., & Liu, Y. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126602 · Cited by 103
Baudot, L., Johnson, J. A., Roberts, A. E., & Roberts, R. W. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04227-3 · Cited by 100
Advancing on the analysis of causes and consequences of green skepticism
Farooq, Y., & Wicaksono, H. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128927 · Cited by 93
Sharkey, A., Kovács, B., & Hsu, G. (2022) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2021.0025 · Cited by 94
“Studying sustainability certifications issued by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Carlos & Lewis (2018) showed that organizations facing reputational threats regarding their environmental practices were less likely to publicize their sustainability certifications due to concerns with being perceived as hypocritical.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGood Deeds Done in Silence: Stakeholder Management and Quiet Giving by Chinese Firms
Wang, H. C., Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2020) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1385 · Cited by 103
Floodlight or Spotlight? Public Attention and the Selective Disclosure of Environmental Information
Pope, S. M., Peillex, J., Ouadghiri, I. E., & Gomes, M. (2023) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12920 · Cited by 98
Take a Stand or Keep Your Seat: Board Turnover after Social Movement Boycotts
McDonnell, M., & Cobb, J. A. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0890 · Cited by 97
Is your playing field unleveled? U.S. defense contracts and foreign firm lobbying
Kim, J. H. (2019) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3061 · Cited by 89
What drives and curbs brownwashing?
Huang, Y., Francœur, C., & Brammer, S. J. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3041 · Cited by 95
Faster, Hotter, and More Linked In: Managing Social Disapproval in the Social Media Era
Wang, X., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0375 · Cited by 88
Falchi, A., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2991 · Cited by 90
Business model innovation as a window into adaptive tensions: Five paths on the B Corp journey
Moroz, P. W., & Gamble, E. N. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.046 · Cited by 85
Chen, Z., Hang, H., Pavelin, S., & Porter, L. A. (2020) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2019.50 · Cited by 79
Hiatt, S. R., Carlos, W. C., & Sine, W. (2018) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1178 · Cited by 78
Self-citationMehta, N., Cunningham, E., Roy, D. R., Cathcart, A., Dempster, M., Berry, E., & Smyth, B. M. (2020) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.015 · Cited by 79
Du, S.-L., el Akremi, A., & Jia, M. (2022) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05297-6 · Cited by 71
“…advance current CSR knowledge or offer an original, dramatically new perspective on CSR-related phenomena (e.g., strategic silence on CSR communication; Carlos & Lewis, 2017; Wang et al., 2021a, 2021b), both of which become increasingly difficult as the body of CSR quantitative research expands.”
BackgroundAray, Y. N., Dikova, D., Garanina, T., et al. (2021) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101858 · Cited by 75
Lewis, B. W., & Carlos, W. C. (2022) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392221124916 · Cited by 77
Self-citationCappellaro, G., Compagni, A., & Vaara, E. (2020) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2017.1086 · Cited by 80
“…strategic ambiguity, may purposefully and temporarily relinquish part of it and disambiguate, revealing themselves with an identity (Scott, 2013a) that, even if partial, is instrumental to the exercise of power in the relationship with external audiences (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Kim & Lyon, 2011).”
BackgroundDoes More Certification Always Benefit a Venture?
Lanahan, L., & Armanios, D. E. (2018) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2018.1211 · Cited by 70
“In these instances, a venture may be better suited to not divulge such certifications (Carlos and Lewis 2018).”
Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2989 · Cited by 71
Self-citationGreen to Gone? Regional Institutional Logics and Firm Survival in Moral Markets
Vedula, S., York, J. G., Conger, M., & Embry, E. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1533 · Cited by 66
Westphal, J. D., & Park, S. H. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198792055.001.0001 · Cited by 74
Differential Firm Commitment to Industries Supported by Social Movement Organizations
Durand, R., & Georgallis, P. G. (2018) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1170 · Cited by 60
Jiang, H., Jia, N., Bai, T., & Bruton, G. D. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3315 · Cited by 59
“…proactively pursue new connections with the successors right after the downfall of corrupt officials with whom they were deeply involved, they may be viewed as “hypocritical” and “two-faced” and thus be despised and marginalized, both socially and politically (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Shain, 2010).”
BackgroundTailor-to-Target: Configuring Collaborative Shareholder Engagements on Climate Change
Slager, R. C., Chuah, K., Gond, J., Furnari, S., & Homanen, M. (2023) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.4806 · Cited by 59
Lynn, A. P. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0250 · Cited by 56
Giving a Little to Many or a Lot to a Few? The Returns to Variety in Corporate Philanthropy
Seo, H., Luo, J., & Kaul, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3309 · Cited by 64
Corporate hypocrisy and ESG rating divergence
He, R., Chen, H., & Zhu, X. (2024) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.3002 · Cited by 61
Frenemies: Overcoming Audiences’ Ideological Opposition to Firm–Activist Collaborations
Odziemkowska, K. (2021) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392211058206 · Cited by 57
The Past and Future of Corporate Sustainability Research
Burbano, V., Delmas, M. A., & Cobo, M. J. (2023) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/10860266231213105 · Cited by 65
“…performance (Mikkelson, 2021; Talbot & Boiral, 2018), and the drivers and determinants of communication about sustainability practices (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Giannarakis et al., 2018; Hawn & Ioannou, 2016; Lewis et al., 2014; Pucheta-Martínez & Gallego-Álvarez, 2020), and of firms’…”
Corporate social responsibility and firm performance
Khan, I., Jia, M., Lei, X., Niu, R., Khan, J., & Tong, Z. (2022) · Total Quality Management & Business Excellence · doi:10.1080/14783363.2022.2092467 · Cited by 60
“Firms withhold their certification status to avoid being accused of hypocrisy or receiving reputational threats (Carlos and Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialWalking the talk, but above all, talking the walk: Looking green for market stakeholder engagement
Amores‐Salvadó, J., de Castro, G. M., & Albertini, E. (2022) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2364 · Cited by 54
“As Carlos and Lewis (2018) point out, using the impression management logic, in order to avoid hypocritical dressing-window, large and established companies follow “ environmental strategic silence ” when they can evidence contradictions between their core business activities and environmental…”
InfluentialTalbot, D., Raineri, N., & Daou, A. (2020) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2033 · Cited by 51
Hypocrites! Social Media Reactions and Stakeholder Backlash to Conflicting CSR Information
Lewin, L. D., & Warren, D. E. (2024) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-024-05700-4 · Cited by 54
“To demonstrate the gap and its implications, we turn to a study by Carlos and Lewis (2018), which suggests firms do not always pub-licize third-party environmental certification for fear of stakeholder backlash if the firm were to experience a mis-step that contradicted the certification.”
Intentions for Doing Good Matter for Doing Well: The Negative Effects of Prosocial Incentives
Cassar, L., & Meier, S. (2020) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1093/ej/ueaa136 · Cited by 45
Minefee, I., McDonnell, M., & Werner, T. (2020) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3252 · Cited by 49
Keeping Up With the Joneses: Role of CSR Awards in Incentivizing Non-Winners’ CSR
Li, J., Yin, J., Shi, W., & Yi, X. (2020) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650320982271 · Cited by 46
“Email: yinjlin@mail.sysu.edu.cn 650 Business & Society 61(3) Corporate lists and awards that rank and recognize firms for superior social reputation have proliferated in recent years (Brammer et al., 2009; Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Dineen & Allen, 2016; Fombrun, 2007).”
BackgroundAmengual, M., & Bartley, T. (2022) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224221092340 · Cited by 44
Managing Legitimacy in Business‐Driven Social Change: The Role of Relational Work
Girschik, V. C. (2019) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12544 · Cited by 48
The Use of Strategic Noise in Reactive Impression Management: How Do Market Reactions Matter?
Jin, J., Li, H., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2021) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2018.1054 · Cited by 49
“Through managing their informational environment, firms influence the stakeholders’ perceptions of their images in a desirable way (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Porac, Wade, & Pollock, 1999).”
BackgroundInfluentialBrammer, S. J., Nardella, G., & Surdu, I. M. (2021) · Multinational Business Review · doi:10.1108/mbr-02-2021-0011 · Cited by 46
The Influence of Strategic Disclosure on Corporate Climate Performance Ratings
Callery, P. J. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503221115715 · Cited by 39
Zhang, T., Qin, H., & Xu, W. L. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191912539 · Cited by 42
“Relevant studies show that the banking [46], oil and gas [47], hospitality [2], tourism [32], ISO14001 certification [48], and other industries believe that the third-party label certification system should be adopted, with penalties implemented, if necessary, to limit greenwashing.”
BackgroundLewis, B. W., & Carlos, W. C. (2019) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3083 · Cited by 45
Self-citationThe business case for CSR: A trump card against hypocrisy?
Hafenbrädl, S., & Waeger, D. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.043 · Cited by 43
Institutional Intermediaries and Firm Choices in Response to Regulations
Liu, N. (2020) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0918 · Cited by 39
Vinoi, N., Shankar, A., Mehrotra, A., Kumar, J., & Azad, N. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103645 · Cited by 38
Paying for Legitimacy: Autocracy, Nonmarket Strategy, and the Liability of Foreignness
Kim, J. H., & Siegel, J. I. (2023) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392231217676 · Cited by 40
“Certification offers legitimacy to an organization by providing outside stakeholders with information about the organization not readily observable to others (King, Lenox, and Terlaak, 2005; Carlos and Lewis, 2018).”
Detecting False Accounts in Intermediated Voluntary Disclosure
Callery, P. J., & Perkins, J. L. (2020) · Academy of Management Discoveries · doi:10.5465/amd.2018.0229 · Cited by 41
Slager, R. C., & Gond, J. (2020) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840620964980 · Cited by 38
Zhou, Y., & Chen, L. (2024) · China Finance Review International · doi:10.1108/cfri-02-2024-0079 · Cited by 42
Debenedetti, A., Philippe, D., Chaney, D., & Humphreys, A. (2020) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.009 · Cited by 38
Lauriano, L. A., Reinecke, J., & Etter, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04954-6 · Cited by 46
Reactivity to Sustainability Metrics: A Configurational Study of Motivation and Capacity
Slager, R. C., Gond, J., & Crilly, D. (2020) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2020.20 · Cited by 34
Glover, J. L., & Touboulic, A. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.066 · Cited by 42
Bouten, L., Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Roberts, R. W. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3107182 · Cited by 37
Media Coverage of Firms in the Presence of Multiple Signals: A Configurational Approach
Bettinazzi, E. L. M., Jacqueminet, A., Neumann, K., & Snoeren, P. R. (2023) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2020.1791 · Cited by 36
Lie of the weak: Inconsistent corporate social responsibility activities of Chinese zombie firms
Han, S., Li, G., Lubrano, M., & Xun, Z. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119858 · Cited by 35
“Therefore, irresponsible companies often do not disclose their CSR information (Belal and Cooper, 2011; Fassin and Buelens, 2011) or selectively remain silent (Carlos and Lewis, 2018), such as not issuing the standalone CSR reports.”
BackgroundAdamska, A., & Dąbrowski, T. J. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126715 · Cited by 34
The consequences of self‐reporting biases: Evidence from the crash preventability program
Scott, A., & Balthrop, A. T. (2021) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.1149 · Cited by 35
Fini, R., Jourdan, J., Perkmann, M., & Toschi, L. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1610 · Cited by 37
Kim, C., Zang, Y., Wang, H. C., & Niu, K. (2023) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-023-05511-z · Cited by 39
“Prior studies, however, mostly focus on the role played by the aggregate level of CSR or a type of CSR in the context of a specific type of negative event (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Janney & Gove, 2011; Wernicke, 2016).”
InfluentialKougiannou, N. K., & Wallis, M. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.029 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W.
- Affiliations
- Brigham Young University (US)
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-02-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 130-169
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2588891407
- Semantic Scholar
- d0e93cfd309013e4e99b872394d3c9f29f82dac5
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 148
- Citations by year
- 2026: 79 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 53.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
- Keywords
- impression management, environmental certification, Dow Jones Sustainability Index, corporate reputation, sustainability communication, nonmarket strategy, reputational threats, corporate sustainability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
