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
Items 101–200 of 385
When are organizations punished for organizational misconduct? A review and research agenda
McDonnell, M., & Nurmohamed, S. (2021) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2021.100150 · Cited by 32
Brandtner, C. (2021) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764021995240 · Cited by 31
“Similarly, Carlos and Lewis (2018) conclude from a study of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index that firms may choose to “strategically withhold their certifications status” regarding social performance under threats of being exposed as hypocritical (Carlos and Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundShareholder Value Effects of Ethical Sourcing: Comparing Reactive and Proactive Initiatives
Kim, S., & Chae, S. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04841-0 · Cited by 39
Li, M., Huang, M., Wang, D., & Li, X. (2023) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.12579 · Cited by 29
Carmagnac, L., Touboulic, A., & Carbone, V. (2022) · M n gement · doi:10.37725/mgmt.v25.4235 · Cited by 28
“The performative character of corporations’ sustainability discourses is well researched (Banerjee, 2018; Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Christensen et al., 2013; Glover & Touboulic, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialMichelin Is Coming to Town: Organizational Responses to Status Shocks
Favaron, S. D., Stefano, G. D., & Durand, R. (2022) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.4210 · Cited by 27
Corporate Governance and Corporate Political Responsibility
Ali, H., Adegbite, E. A., & Nguyen, T. (2023) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503231157725 · Cited by 27
“Hence, corporate executives may limit the release of potentially risky information about political expenditures to maintain the firm’s reputation (Carlos & Lewis, 2017; McDonnell & King, 2018).”
BackgroundBigus, J., Hua, K. P. M., & Raithel, S. (2023) · Accounting and Business Research · doi:10.1080/00014788.2022.2149458 · Cited by 30
Xiang, Y., Chen, L., Zhenya, Z., & Sun, X. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114793 · Cited by 29
Lucas, D. S., & Park, U. D. (2022) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106271 · Cited by 28
Hurst, R. (2023) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392231203008 · Cited by 32
“Silence on sociopolitical issues forestalls these accusations and affords latitude for actions that might otherwise be deemed hypocritical (Carlos and Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundPajuelo, M. L., Barroso‐Méndez, M. J., & Gallardo‐Vázquez, D. (2024) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3933 · Cited by 25
An integrated analysis of greenhush
Hilton, J. (2025) · Innovation and Green Development · doi:10.1016/j.igd.2025.100222 · Cited by 37
Park, S., Yang, D., Cha, H., & Pyeon, S. (2019) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026619858878 · Cited by 25
“Studies have suggested that external perceptions on environmental activities strongly shape firm performance and survival chance (Carlos & Lewis, 2017; Crilly et al., 2012; Kim & Lyon, 2014; Marquis et al., 2007; McDonnell & King, 2013).”
BackgroundDo third-party certifications work in a weak institutional environment?
Lamin, A., & Livanis, G. (2020) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2020.100742 · Cited by 24
Goldstein, A., & Eaton, C. (2021) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224211043223 · Cited by 23
The Status of Status Research: A Review of the Types, Functions, Levels, and Audiences
Prato, M., Ertug, G., Castellucci, F., & Zou, T.-J. (2024) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063241226918 · Cited by 22
“This behavior can be seen in companies listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index that do not publicize their certification to buffer themselves from potential backlash stemming from allegations of hypocrisy (Carlos & Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundJeon, D., & Jeong, J. (2024) · International journal of law, crime and justice · doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100703 · Cited by 25
Accounting for human rights: Evidence of due diligence in EU-listed firms’ reporting
Rogerson, M., Scarpa, F., & Snelson-Powell, A. C. (2024) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102716 · Cited by 25
When Does a Firm Fail to Walk the Talk? Decoupling in International Expansion
Xu, K., Shi, W., Zhao, J., & Chen, X. (2024) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.13089 · Cited by 24
Voice of the stars - exploring the outcomes of online celebrity activism
Jain, K., Sharma, I., & Behl, A. (2021) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2021.2006275 · Cited by 20
“Prior studies (Arli et al., 2017; Carlos & Lewis, 2018) have applied the concept of hypocrisy to brands, organizations, and corporate actions to establish that corporate hypocrisy may influence a firm’s image when consumers are not sure about the sincerity of the firm’s motives.”
Corporate social responsibility and chief executive officer wrongdoing: A fraud triangle perspective
Zhu, C., Zeng, R., Wang, R., et al. (2022) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2394 · Cited by 21
How Do Auditors Value Hypocrisy? Evidence from China
Du, X., Zhang, Y., Lai, S., & Tao, H. (2023) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-023-05465-2 · Cited by 23
“After that, hypocrisy is introduced into various disciplines such as business ethics, management and CSR (e.g. Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Du, 2015a, 2015b; Fassin & Buelens, 2011; Janney & Gove, 2011; Marín et al., 2016; Wagner et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2022).”
Environmental, social, and governance perfomance and default risk in the eurozone
Búa, M. V., Lado‐Sestayo, R., Salgueiro, A. M., & Díaz-Ballesteros, M. (2023) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-023-00702-4 · Cited by 22
“Internal stakeholders, e.g. employees, and external stakeholders, e.g. investors, may perceive dissonance between what the company claims to do in terms of sustainabil - ity and what it actually does (Carlos & Lewis, 2018 ).”
ESG ratings and firm performance: The moderating role of ESG rating disagreement
Liu, C., Wu, Q., & Lin, Y. (2025) · Borsa Istanbul Review · doi:10.1016/j.bir.2025.05.001 · Cited by 23
Board Network and CSR Decoupling: Evidence From China
Zhao, W., Zhong, M., Liao, X., Ye, C., & Deng, D. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815341 · Cited by 21
Double‐edged stars: Michelin stars, reactivity, and restaurant exits in New York City
Sands, D. B. (2024) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3651 · Cited by 19
“…internal insecurities (e.g., Favaron et al., 2022; Sauder & Espeland, 2009), while the visibility of even seemingly favorable third-party evaluations can also lead stakeholders to question the focus of a focal actor (e.g., Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Lanahan & Armanios, 2018; Lewis & Carlos, 2023).”
Corporate greenhushing and stock price crash risk: evidence from China
Cheng, H., Dong, D., & Feng, Y. (2024) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-024-04935-5 · Cited by 19
“Corporate greenhushing not only fails to reduce corporate financing costs (Testa et al., 2018) but also delays the overall green development process (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Ginder et al., 2019).”
InfluentialRamya, S. M., Shereen, A., & Baral, R. (2020) · Social Responsibility Journal · doi:10.1108/srj-11-2019-0376 · Cited by 18
Examining the Conflicting Consequences of CEO Public Responses to Social Activist Challenges
Neville, F. (2020) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650320963607 · Cited by 18
The Uneven Returns of Transparency in Voluntary Nonfinancial Disclosures
Andrus, J., Callery, P. J., & Grandy, J. B. (2022) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/10860266221083338 · Cited by 22
“Meanwhile, the null result for disclosure clarity and reputation risk is surprising in light of prior findings that nonmarket actors may hold higher expectations and subject firms to greater scrutiny when claims of performance are made clearer (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Marquis et al., 2016).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialGiuliani, E., Nieri, F., & Vezzulli, A. (2023) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503221144994 · Cited by 22
Penalty Zones in International Sustainability Standards: Where Improved Sustainability Doesn't Pay
Darnall, N., Iatridis, K., Kesidou, E., & Snelson-Powell, A. C. (2023) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12975 · Cited by 19
Managing Asymmetric Events With Anticipatory and Reactive Strategies
Short, C. E., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2023) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063231198174 · Cited by 22
When corporate silence is costly: Negative consumer responses to corporate silence on social issues
Qin, M. S., Luo, X., Schifeling, T., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3683 · Cited by 28
To Tell or Not to Tell? On the Under Communicating of Sustainability in Digital Environments
Guercini, S., Monteverde, G., Runfola, A., & Milanesi, M. (2025) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.70001 · Cited by 20
Yang, G., Wei, S., Chen, K., & Ren, Y. (2023) · China Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.cjar.2023.100306 · Cited by 19
Ong, M., Kim, Y. H., & Koopman, J. (2023) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12633 · Cited by 16
Rawhouser, H. N., Cummings, M. E., & Hiatt, S. R. (2019) · Academy of Management Discoveries · doi:10.5465/amd.2018.0160 · Cited by 16
Hajmohammad, S., Shevchenko, A., & Vachon, S. (2021) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-01-2021-0018 · Cited by 18
Confetto, M. G., Palazzo, M., Ferri, M. A., et al. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15076245 · Cited by 15
The impact of corporate sustainability performance on advertising efficiency
Weinmayer, K., Garaus, M., & Wagner, U. (2023) · OR Spectrum · doi:10.1007/s00291-023-00717-z · Cited by 16
“This particularly holds for large companies (Carlos and Lewis 2018), which might have been associated with greenwashing and environmental scandals.”
Greenwashing: A Broken Business Model
Pedersen, E. R. G., & Andersen, K. R. (2023) · Journal of Business Models · doi:10.54337/jbm.v11i2.7352 · Cited by 15
When (not) to talk politics in business: Experimental evidence
Bondi, T., Burbano, V., & Dell’Acqua, F. (2025) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3684 · Cited by 15
Faking It Is Hard to Do: Entrepreneurial Norm Enforcement and Suspicions of Deviance
Kim, M., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2017) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v4.a24 · Cited by 14
Can certification help incumbent firms?
Liu, B., & Wang, Q. (2019) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1007/s10490-018-9632-6 · Cited by 15
Can Sustainable Investing Save the World? Reviewing the Mechanisms of Investor ImpactPreprint
Koelbel, J., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., & Busch, T. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3289544 · Cited by 13
Commitment and impersonation: A reputation-based theory of principled behaviorPreprint
Singh, M., & Hoffman, M. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ua57r · Cited by 24
CSR Communication and the Polarization of Public Discourses: Introduction to the Special Issue
Schoeneborn, D., Golob, U., Trittin‐Ulbrich, H., Wenzel, M., & O’Connor, A. (2024) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08933189241268503 · Cited by 20
An Investigation of How and Why Organizations Enact Greenhushing
Khan, N., Nieto‐García, M., Acuti, D., & Viglia, G. (2025) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.1080/00218499.2025.2514889 · Cited by 21
Verhaal, J. C., Hahl, O., & Fandl, K. J. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1574 · Cited by 14
Tan, W., Liu, Y., Shen, M., Xu, C., & Sun, Y. (2025) · Journal of Accounting Literature · doi:10.1108/jal-07-2024-0166 · Cited by 15
Carlos, W. C., Sine, W., Lee, B., & Haveman, H. A. (2018) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s0742-332220180000038018 · Cited by 16
“Counter movement mobilization also threatens the reputation and profitability of firms in movement-supported markets (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; King & Soule, 2007; Vasi & King, 2012), and firms’ ability to attract resources (McDonnell & Werner, 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPan, X., Chen, X., Yang, M., & Chen, X. (2019) · Business Ethics A European Review · doi:10.1111/beer.12247 · Cited by 14
Cassar, L., & Meier, S. (2017) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w24109 · Cited by 13
Attia, E. F., Tobar, R., Farid, H., Eldeen, H. H. E., Chafai, A., & Khémiri, W. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152215931 · Cited by 19
Xiao, T., Chan, H., Ni, W.-B., & Tan, K. H. (2024) · Journal of business research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114792 · Cited by 12
Schupfer, H., & Soppe, B. (2024) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662716.2024.2379995 · Cited by 15
“…have been shown to avoid transformational change efforts and tend to decouple their pro-claimed purpose from what is translated into practice, a situation that can trigger perceptions of organisational hypocrisy and ‘greenwashing’ accusations (Carlos and Lewis 2018; Ferns and Amaeshi 2021).”
How B Corps Are Hybrid? Unpacking Hybridity in Social Enterprises
Boni, L., Fini, R., & Toschi, L. (2025) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.4187 · Cited by 12
Kiwi, D., Khanagha, S., & Alexiou, A. (2025) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2025.2476572 · Cited by 16
“Actions that would be considered very legitimate from an institutional perspective, for example, certifications, can be strategically silenced out for fear of being perceived as hypocritical (Carlos & Lewis, 2018).”
Tao, Z. (2024) · Business Strategy & Development · doi:10.1002/bsd2.401 · Cited by 15
Join In . . . and Drop Out? Firm Adoption of and Disengagement From Voluntary Environmental Programs
Callery, P. J. (2021) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/10860266211011233 · Cited by 16
“For example, a company may choose to keep its response private if it expects certain stakeholders will react negatively (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011) or otherwise develop unreasonable expectations for future firm performance (Carlos & Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundSupply chain concentration and corporate green innovation: Evidence from China
Qiao, D., Jiao, J., Khalid, N., et al. (2025) · Innovation and Green Development · doi:10.1016/j.igd.2024.100202 · Cited by 12
Dan, E.-L., & Shen, J. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14052714 · Cited by 11
Conditional Silence: Organizational Status and Under‐Communication of Environmental Performance
Huang, Y., Francœur, C., Zhang, S., & Brammer, S. J. (2025) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12900 · Cited by 11
Avoiding Corporate Greenwashing? Sustainability Silence Narratives in the Agri‐Food Industry
Boiral, O., Brotherton, M., Talbot, D., & Guillaumie, L. (2025) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.12847 · Cited by 11
Jung, W., Sharkey, A., & Tan, D. (2024) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3642 · Cited by 12
Standing for politics: What consequences for brands?
Grazzini, L., Acuti, D., Mazzoli, V., Petruzzellis, L., & Korschun, D. (2020) · Italian Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1007/s43039-020-00001-w · Cited by 11
China’s green watch program: beyond greenwashing
Miller, V. V., Su, Q., Perez-Batres, L. A., & Pisani, M. J. (2020) · Chinese Management Studies · doi:10.1108/cms-11-2018-0736 · Cited by 11
Litigate or let it go? Multi-market contact and IP infringement-litigation dynamics
Diestre, L., Lumineau, F., & Durand, R. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104784 · Cited by 11
Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains: Deeds Not Words
Görg, H., Hanley, A., & Šerić, A. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10103675 · Cited by 12
“Similarly, Carlos and Lewis [27], in their analysis of firms that are listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, explore the concept of ‘hypocrisy avoidance’ where firms deliberately downplay their environmental achievements to avoid inviting public scrutiny into these achievements.”
BackgroundInfluentialDoes Political Connection Stifle Corporate Hypocrisy? Evidence from Greenwashing
Chen, C., Li, W., Liu, R., & Shi, C. (2025) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-025-06191-7 · Cited by 11
“…the role of corporate hypocrisy in driving business outcomes, like consumer perception (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Marín et al., 2016), employee turnover (Scheidler et al., 2019), firm value (Carlos & Lewis, 2018), stakeholder behavior (Ha-Brook-shire, 2017), and firm reputation (Arli et al., 2017).”
Keep Your Eyes on the Prize: A goals-based approach to studying social movements in markets
Leitzinger, J. M., & Waeger, D. (2023) · Organization Theory · doi:10.1177/26317877231179232 · Cited by 10
“The dissonance between these firms’ profit orientation and their forays into corporate sustainability or responsibility can expose them to accusations of hypocrisy and greenwashing (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Hafen-brädl & Waeger, 2021).”
BackgroundGarcía-Blandón, J., Argilés-Bosch, J. M., & Ravenda, D. (2023) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2662 · Cited by 10
The influence of media scrutiny on firms' strategic eschewal of lobbying
Kim, J., Eleazar, M. J. W., & Lee, S. (2024) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3633 · Cited by 10
Westphal, J. D., Zhu, D. H., & Kunapuli, R. (2021) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/14761270211046870 · Cited by 11
“…how firms manage the impressions of external constituents in response to performance problems, crises, or scandals that threaten organizational legitimacy or that damage the reputation of the firm and its leaders (Carlos and Lewis, 2017; David et al., 2007; Elsbach, 1994; McDonnell and King, 2013).”
BackgroundWang, Z., Liu, X., Lei, Z., Wang, C., & Liu, R. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831197 · Cited by 10
“The concept of hypocrisy was gradually introduced into the fields of management, organizational behavior (Carlos and Lewis, 2018), and business theory (Marín et al.”
BackgroundHow corporate social responsibility and sustainable development functions impact the workplace
Gond, J., Augustine, G. L., Shin, H., Tirapani, A. N., & Mosonyi, S. (2022) · International Labour Office eBooks · doi:10.54394/rsez7942 · Cited by 10
Wang, K., Yu, Y., Wang, X., & Zheng, H. (2023) · Tourism Economics · doi:10.1177/13548166231220286 · Cited by 10
“Consistent with studies that measure CSR reputation with CSR performance ratings of the focal year (Carlos and Lewis, 2018), pre-COVID-19 CSR reputation was measured as a fi rm ’ s Hexun CSR rating of 2019.”
Understanding Frameworking for Smart and Sustainable City Development: A configurational approach
White, L., & Bürger, K. (2022) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/01708406221099694 · Cited by 10
“…future research on commensuration could focus on approaches that aim to strike a balance between using metrics as transparency signals of capability (Carlos & Lewis, 2018) and reactivity to rankings (Espeland & Stevens, 1998) that seeks to influence organizational behaviour (Mora et al., 2020).”
BackgroundBuilding a socially responsible global community? Communicating B Corps on social media
Lepkowska‐White, E., Parsons, A. L., Wong, B., & White, A. M. (2022) · Corporate Communications An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ccij-01-2022-0005 · Cited by 10
Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G. I., & Papagiannakis, G. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3169241 · Cited by 10
Giving a Little to Many or a Lot to a Few? The Returns to Variety in Corporate PhilanthropyPreprint
Seo, H., Luo, J., & Kaul, A. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3264902 · Cited by 10
Greenhush and greenwash: a signalling game analysis of strategic environmental disclosure
Hilton, J. (2025) · Environment and Development Economics · doi:10.1017/s1355770x25100211 · Cited by 9
Raha, A., & Kazemi, S. H. (2024) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.12717 · Cited by 13
Being Responsible in a Polarized World: From Dialogical to Partisan CSR
Gualtieri, G., & Lurati, F. (2024) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08933189241254096 · Cited by 11
“Carlos and Lewis (2018) showed how companies may decide to engage in strategic silence when confronted with potentially contrasting reactions to their behaviors.”
CSR awarding: A test of social reputation and impression management
Uyar, A., Gerged, A. M., Kuzey, C., Hamrouni, A., & Karaman, A. S. (2024) · International Review of Economics & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.iref.2024.103706 · Cited by 9
Thanetsunthorn, N., & Wuthisatian, R. (2024) · Social Responsibility Journal · doi:10.1108/srj-10-2023-0578 · Cited by 9
Sustainability reporting regulation: hypes, myths and reflections
Tullio, P. D., Torre, M. L., & Rea, M. A. (2025) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-10-2024-2462 · Cited by 9
Khessina, O. M., Verhaal, J. C., & Dobrev, S. D. (2022) · Strategy Science · doi:10.1287/stsc.2022.0178 · Cited by 9
Tan, C. S. L. (2023) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2023.2232791 · Cited by 10
“The concept is applied to brands and corporate actions, establishing that perceived hypocrisy affects the image of the firm (Carlos & Lewis, 2018) as moral integrity is questioned (Christensen et al., 2020) when brands are not seen to be walking the talk.”
Revitalizing Collegiality: Restoring Faculty Authority in Universities
Sahlin, K., & Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. (2023) · Research in the sociology of organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x202387 · Cited by 11
Chang-Zunino, M., & Grodal, S. (2024) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392241240319 · Cited by 9
“However, a growing literature suggests that contestation can also unfold through silence (Bird, 1996; Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Anteby, 2016; Carlos and Lewis, 2018; Arjalie`s and Durand, 2019).”
Wu, W., Shi, K., Wu, C., et al. (2021) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.20220701.oa2 · Cited by 9
“In anticipation of unfavorable effects, a manager may choose not to publish their certification results (Carlos & Lewis, 2018).”
InfluentialDiestre, L., Montauti, M., & de Sousa, H. P. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1612 · Cited by 8
Characterization of Sustainability Leaders and Laggards in the Global Food Industry
Pandey, V., Vidal, N., Panwar, R., & Nafees, L. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11185072 · Cited by 8
Carlos, W. C., & Hiatt, S. R. (2022) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20220000080009 · Cited by 9
Self-citationTaeuscher, K., & Lounsbury, M. D. (2024) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2023.0581 · Cited by 8
Do firms with more powerful CEOs and greater visibility have better social reputation?
Kuzey, C., Uyar, A., Al‐Shaer, H., & Karaman, A. S. (2025) · International Journal of Accounting and Information Management · doi:10.1108/ijaim-06-2024-0214 · Cited by 7
How Does ESG Performance Matter for Corporate Sustainability Performance? Evidence from China
Zhang, W., Wei, Z., Ge, L., Zhang, Y., & Xu, G. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17041684 · Cited by 10
“Carlos and Lewis (2018) [74] suggest that poor internal control can lead to unmet promises, dissatisfaction among stake-holders, and finally damage to the company’s reputation.”
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
