CSR Motive Attributions: The Roles of Executive Leadership Ethics and Consumer Cynicism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumers expect organizations to be socially responsible but, at the same time, have been shown to be skeptical of the motives behind corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. This is because some organizations engage in CSR simply for the positive financial benefits (i.e., instrumental motive), rather than a genuine concern for society (i.e., moral motive). This has led to increased public scrutiny of the ethics of corporate executives. In this paper, we developed a theoretical model that links morally questionable CEO leadership ethics to consumer support of a firm’s CSR through the mediating effects of consumer CSR motive attributions and cynicism respectively. We proposed that media exposure to morally questionable CEO ethics encourages higher consumer attributions of instrumental motives and lower attributions of moral motives. In turn, these attributions affect consumer CSR financial donations, volunteering, and purchase intentions through the mediating effect of cynicism. In an experimental study of consumer media exposure to three types of CEOs (i.e., morally questionable, ethical, and ethics-unknown), we found empirical support for our model. The findings demonstrate that consumers consider CEO ethics in determining the sincerity of a CSR initiative and will shun an organization’s CSR if they perceive it to be purely instrumentally motivated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it