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).”
BackgroundGodfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.750 · Cited by 3,282
Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests
Scott, W. R. (2008) · Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · Cited by 2,970
Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.57318391 · Cited by 2,929
Godfrey, P. C. (2005) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2005.18378878 · Cited by 2,839
Interorganizational Endorsements and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures
Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666998 · Cited by 2,751
(1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,621
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness
Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1630 · Cited by 2,534
Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources
Lounsbury, M. D., & Glynn, M. A. (2001) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.188 · Cited by 2,341
The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177 · Cited by 2,228
Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-5807 · Cited by 2,149
Flammer, C. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2038 · Cited by 1,949
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China: Symbol or Substance?
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0837 · Cited by 1,793
Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors
Flammer, C. (2013) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0744 · Cited by 1,744
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159562 · Cited by 1,717
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. M. S. D. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.35.3.zok455 · Cited by 1,701
DEEPHOUSE, D. L. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256722 · Cited by 1,697
Deephouse, D. L. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600602 · Cited by 1,691
Deephouse, D. L. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256722 · Cited by 1,685
Scrutiny, Norms, and Selective Disclosure: A Global Study of Greenwashing
Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.1039 · Cited by 1,680
From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.684462 · Cited by 1,656
Rindova, V., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.19573108 · Cited by 1,596
Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law
Edelman, L. B. (1992) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/229939 · Cited by 1,584
Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x · Cited by 1,569
The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues
Hoetker, G. (2007) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.582 · Cited by 1,519
Rao, H. (1994) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250150904 · Cited by 1,500
Festinger, L. (1962) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93 · Cited by 1,421
Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers
Chatterji, A., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2015) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2407 · Cited by 1,395
The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-3483 · Cited by 1,342
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77 · Cited by 1,339 · cited 3×
“…only if their CSR initiatives are consistent with their prior reputation (Schuler and Cording, 2006; Servaes and Tamayo, 2013) and suffer from negative consumer attitudes if their CSR claims are inconsistent with their actual behavior along those dimensions (Wagner, Lutz, and Weitz, 2009).”
BackgroundCorrecting for Endogeneity in Strategic Management Research
Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. (2003) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127003001001218 · Cited by 1,309
On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382 · Cited by 1,289
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256313 · Cited by 1,208
Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research
Bascle, G. (2008) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127008094339 · Cited by 1,133
Elsbach, K. D. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393494 · Cited by 1,125
Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies
Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.796 · Cited by 1,093
Pérez, M. V. L., Garcia, A., & Ariza, L. R. (2007) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8 · Cited by 1,052
Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-005-7443-4 · Cited by 984
Organizational Reputation: A Review
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310390963 · Cited by 960
Greenwash vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and Undue Modesty in Corporate Sustainability Disclosure
Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0949 · Cited by 932
The Rhetoric and Reality of Total Quality Management
Zbaracki, M. (1998) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393677 · Cited by 915
King, A. A., Lenox, M. J., & Terlaak, A. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.19573111 · Cited by 875
Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.54533222 · Cited by 869
The Symbolic Management of Stockholders: Corporate Governance Reforms and Shareholder Reactions
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1998) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393593 · Cited by 806
A Review of the Nonmarket Strategy Literature
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2015) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315617241 · Cited by 794
Substance and Symbolism in CEOs' Long-Term Incentive Plans
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393295 · Cited by 780
The Liability of Good Reputation: A Study of Product Recalls in the U.S. Automobile Industry
Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0175 · Cited by 743
Social Movements as Extra-Institutional Entrepreneurs: The Effect of Protests on Stock Price Returns
King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.52.3.413 · Cited by 731
Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure
Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. S. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2127 · Cited by 713
Self-citationA Political Mediation Model of Corporate Response to Social Movement Activism
King, B. G. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.395 · Cited by 673
(1990) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/0024-6301(90)90283-a · Cited by 650
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0608 · Cited by 646
The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms
Holder‐Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2008) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9721-4 · Cited by 645
Keeping up Appearances: Reputational Threat and Impression Management after Social Movement Boycotts
McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B. (2013) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839213500032 · Cited by 618
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508413478310 · Cited by 591
Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849200387.n3 · Cited by 581
Caveat Emptor: The Construction of Nonprofit Consumer Watchdog Organizations
Rao, H. (1998) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/231293 · Cited by 562
How firms respond to being rated
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.840 · Cited by 547
Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2180 · Cited by 546
Getting Counted: Markets, Media, and Reality
Kennedy, M. (2008) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240807300205 · Cited by 501
Lounsbury, M. D. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667042 · Cited by 501
A Corporate Social Performance–Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers
Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. (2006) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2006.21318916 · Cited by 493
The Burden of Celebrity: the Impact of Ceo Certification Contests on Ceo Pay and Performance
Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollock, T. G., & Graffin, S. D. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083021 · Cited by 488
Tweetjacked: The Impact of Social Media on Corporate Greenwash
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1958-x · Cited by 466
The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation
Barnett, M. L. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.001.0001 · Cited by 456
King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0443 · Cited by 454
Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle?
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0032110 · Cited by 430
Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0381 · Cited by 391
Doing good deeds in times of need: a strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations
Muller, A., & Kräussl, R. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.917 · Cited by 385
Nonmarket Strategy Performance: Evidence from U.S. Electric Utilities
Bonardi, J., Holburn, G. L. F., & Bergh, R. G. V. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.23478676 · Cited by 384
Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector
Sine, W. D., Haveman, H. A., & Tolbert, P. S. (2005) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.200 · Cited by 383
Hawn, O. V., Chatterji, A., & Mitchell, W. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2752 · Cited by 377
BURGOON, J. K., & Le POIRE, B. A. (1993) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00316.x · Cited by 359
Bartley, T. (2007) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.229 · Cited by 350
Rethinking the Relationship Between Reputation and Legitimacy: A Social Actor Conceptualization
King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008) · Corporate Reputation Review · doi:10.1057/crr.2008.16 · Cited by 343
Hawn, O., Chatterji, A., & Mitchell, W. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2418300 · Cited by 339
Briscoe, F., & Safford, S. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.460 · Cited by 335 · cited 6×
“…like other new practices, is socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and thus becomes useful as an impression management tool only after achieving legitimacy in the form of collective understanding and acceptance among audience members (Searle, 1995; Briscoe and Safford, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDelmas, M. A., Etzion, D., & Nairn-Birch, N. (2013) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0123 · Cited by 329
Strategic environmental disclosure: Evidence from the DOE's voluntary greenhouse gas registry
Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.001 · Cited by 322
Westphal, J. D., & Graebner, M. E. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.48036721 · Cited by 321
The impact of norm‐conforming behaviors on firm reputation
Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.919 · Cited by 312
McDonnell, M.-H., King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2015) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122415581335 · Cited by 307
Eco-Labeling Strategies and Price-Premium
Delmas, M. A., & Grant, L. (2010) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650310362254 · Cited by 297
Vasi, I. B., & King, B. G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412448796 · Cited by 286
ORGANIZATIONAL PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT
Elsbach, K. D. (2003) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25007-3 · Cited by 277
Trouble in Store: Probes, Protests, and Store Openings by Wal‐Mart, 1998–2007
Ingram, P., Yue, L. Q., & Rao, H. (2010) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/653596 · Cited by 268
Signaling Sustainability Leadership: Empirical Evidence of the Value of DJSI Membership
Robinson, M., Kleffner, A., & Bertels, S. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0735-y · Cited by 260 · cited 3×
“Several studies have found that 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).”
BackgroundInternational Encyclopedia of Organization Studies
Clegg, S. R., & Bailey, J. (2008) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412956246 · Cited by 257
ON LEGITIMACY, LEGITIMATION, AND ORGANIZATIONS: A CRITICAL REVIEW AND INTEGRATIVE THEORETICAL MODEL.
Hybels, R. C. (1995) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.1995.17536509 · Cited by 253
Do Stock Investors Value Corporate Sustainability? Evidence from an Event Study
Wai Kong Cheung, A. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0646-3 · Cited by 252
Janney, J. J., & Gove, S. (2011) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00984.x · Cited by 252 · cited 4×
“Although some scholars have suggested that engaging in hypocritical actions can be an effective strategy for organizations to deal with ‘‘several conflicting values simultaneously’’ (Brunsson, 2002: xiii), consumers and other audience members may detect such organizational acts of hypocrisy and view them with ire (Wag…”
BackgroundInfluentialSearcy, C., & Elkhawas, D. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.022 · Cited by 245
Dissonance, hypocrisy, and the self-concept.
Aronson, E. (2004) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10318-005 · Cited by 245
Madsen, P. M., & Rodgers, Z. J. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2246 · Cited by 244
(1995) · Cited by 241
Sine, W. D., David, R. J., & Mitsuhashi, H. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0300 · Cited by 241
Gehman, J., & Grimes, M. G. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0416 · Cited by 237
McDonnell, M., & Werner, T. (2016) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839216648953 · Cited by 205
The Impact of CEO Status Diffusion on the Economic Outcomes of Other Senior Managers
Graffin, S. D., Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., & McNamee, R. C. (2008) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0354 · Cited by 201
Letting People Off the Hook: When Do Good Deeds Excuse Transgressions?
Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167210385922 · Cited by 199
Movements, Markets and Fields: The Effects of Anti-Sweatshop Campaigns on U.S. Firms, 1993-2000
Bartley, T., & Child, C. (2011) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/sor010 · Cited by 185
Terlaak, A. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275685 · Cited by 184
Sustainability: How Stakeholder Perceptions Differ from Corporate Reality
Peloza, J. H., Loock, M., Cerruti, J., et al. (2012) · California Management Review · doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.55.1.74 · Cited by 183
Hiatt, S. R., & Park, S. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0128 · Cited by 182
Hiatt, S. R., Grandy, J. B., & Lee, B. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.1008 · Cited by 176
Lacy, P., & Hayward, R. (2011) · Corporate Governance · doi:10.1108/14720701111159208 · Cited by 168
Sharkey, A. (2014) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/675385 · Cited by 167
Werner, T. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2092 · Cited by 162
Reputation and Status: Expanding the Role of Social Evaluations in Management Research
George, G., Dahlander, L., Graffin, S. D., & Sim, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.4001 · Cited by 161
Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/00251741111126503 · Cited by 159
Certifications and Reputation: Determining the Standard of Desirability Amidst Uncertainty
Graffin, S. D., & Ward, A. J. (2010) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0400 · Cited by 158
Exploring the sociocultural determinants of de novo versus de alio entry in emerging industries
York, J. G., & Lenox, M. J. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2187 · Cited by 144
Social Activism and Practice Diffusion: How Activist Tactics Affect Non-targeted Organizations
Briscoe, F., Gupta, A., & Anner, M. S. (2015) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839215579235 · Cited by 137
(2011) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2011.58.4.491 · Cited by 129
The Coevolution of Industries, Social Movements, and Institutions: Wind Power in the United States
Pacheco, D. F., York, J. G., & Hargrave, T. J. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0918 · Cited by 128
Eesley, C. E., DeCelles, K. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2015) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2458 · Cited by 121
Explaining Differences in Firms' Responses to Activism
Waldron, T. L., Navis, C., & Fisher, G. (2012) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0466 · Cited by 118
Lee, M.-D. P., & Lounsbury, M. (2011) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650310394640 · Cited by 113
King, B. G., & McDonnell, M.-H. M. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316162354.013 · Cited by 107
The Infrastructure of Collective Action and Policy Content Diffusion in the Organic Food Industry
Lee, B. H. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.47084925 · Cited by 104
Jensen, M. C. (2008) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amr.2008.33665259 · Cited by 101
Under Construction: How Commensuration and Management Fashion Affect Corporate Reputation Rankings
Bermiss, Y. S., Zajac, E. J., & King, B. G. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0852 · Cited by 99
Meeting Expectations: A Role-Theoretic Perspective on Reputation
Jensen, M., Kim, H., & Kim, B. K. (2012) · Oxford Handbooks Online · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.013.0007 · Cited by 96
Ziegler, A., & Schröder, M. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.009 · Cited by 92
Wagner, T., Lutz, R., & Weitz, B. A. (2010) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e621072012-143 · Cited by 82
Hypocrisy by association: When organizational membership increases condemnation for wrongdoing
Effron, D. A., Lucas, B. J., & O’Connor, K. (2015) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.05.001 · Cited by 60
NONMARKET STRATEGY PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM U.S. ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
Bonardi, J., Holburn, G. L. F., & Bergh, R. G. V. (2006) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2006.22896791 · Cited by 49
Winning hearts and minds: Field theory and the three dimensions of strategy
King, B. G., & Walker, E. T. (2014) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127014529758 · Cited by 43
Entrepreneurial beacons: The Y ale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital
Bermiss, Y. S., Hallen, B. L., McDonald, R. M., & Pahnke, E. C. (2016) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2508 · Cited by 41
Contemporary Public Opinion: Issues and the News
McCombs, M. (1991) · Cited by 41
(2012) · Cited by 39
Ibsen, ideals, and the subornation of lies
March, J. G. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607079223 · Cited by 32
Corporate Citizenship in Australia
Birch, D. A. (2002) · Journal of Corporate Citizenship · doi:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2002.sp.00009 · Cited by 23
McDonnell, M., King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2432208 · Cited by 16
Griffin, R. A. (1993) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · Cited by 12
Sustainability discourse and capitalist variety: a comparative institutional analysis
Weber, K., & Soderstrom, S. B. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316162354.007 · Cited by 6
On the Trail of the Best Corporate Citizens
Waddock, S., Graves, S. P., Kelly, M., & New Mountain Media, L. (2000) · Business Ethics: The Magazine of Corporate Responsibility · doi:10.5840/bemag200014220 · Cited by 6
McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2373974 · Cited by 5
Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2601798 · Cited by 5
Self-citationHiatt, S. R., Grandy, J. B., & Lee, B. H. (2015) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2601797
20 Ibsen, Ideals, and the Subornation of Lies
March, J. G. (2008) · Explorations in Organizations · doi:10.1515/9781503627147-027
Responding to Public and Private Politics: Corporate Disclosure of Climate Change Strategies
Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2008) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1237982
Tweetjacked: The Impact of Social Media on Corporate Greenwash
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.10167abstract
Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/4134353
Getting Counted: Markets, Media, and Reality
Kennedy, M. T. (2008) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240807300609
Differential Effects of Collective Action on Firm Entry in the Emergent U.S. Biodiesel Sector
Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. (2015) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2015.268
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Beder S., 2002, Ecologist, 32, 24
- Hoffman A. J. 2001 From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Jensen M., 2012, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation: 140–159
- Oberholzer-Gee F., 2007, Harvard Business School Case, 707
- Searle J. R. 1995 The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.
- Waddock S., 2000, Business Ethics, 14, 17
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Correa, J. A. A., Marcus, A. A., & Vogel, D. J. (2019) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0014 · Cited by 489
“Participation has increased when firms—as opposed to governments, NGOs, and standard organizations—have been the main initiators of the voluntary schemes (Carlos & Lewis, 2018).”
BackgroundCan Sustainable Investing Save the World? Reviewing the Mechanisms of Investor Impact
Koelbel, J., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., & Busch, T. (2020) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026620919202 · Cited by 386
“Carlos and Lewis (2018) find that companies are more likely to remain silent about their index membership when they have a strong reputation for ESG performance already.”
BackgroundHawn, O., Chatterji, A., & Mitchell, W. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2418300 · Cited by 339
Hawn, O. V., Chatterji, A., & Mitchell, W. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2752 · Cited by 377
Li, J., & Wu, D. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3324 · Cited by 306
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
