BUSINESS INFORM JOURNAL.

УКР

ENG

Search:

REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE

KV #19905-9705 PR dated 02.04.2013.

FOUNDERS

RESEARCH CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS of NAS of Ukraine (KHARKIV, UKRAINE)

ROR

EDRPOU 05481984

According to the decision No. 802 of the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine dated 14.03.2024, is registered as a subject in the field of print media.
ID R30-03156

PUBLISHER

Liburkina L. M.

CATALOG

Walk the Talk and Talk the Walk: Effective Communication of CSR Performance
Nashchekina O. M., Tymoshenkov I. V.

Nashchekina, Olga M., and Tymoshenkov, Ihor V. (2026) “Walk the Talk and Talk the Walk: Effective Communication of CSR Performance.” Business Inform 3:620–633.
https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2026-3-620-633

Section: Management and Marketing

Article is written in English
Downloads/views: 0

Download article (pdf) -

UDC 65.011.1:659.44

Abstract:
The benefits a company can derive from CSR depend not only on its actual CSR performance but also on how this performance is perceived by stakeholders. The effectiveness of CSR communication, therefore, plays a critical role in determining stakeholder responses. This article aims to clarify the connection between a company’s CSR performance, the communication of that performance, and stakeholders’ perceptions, while also examining the various factors that influence the effectiveness of CSR communication. The analysis focuses specifically on corporate disclosures. We propose a model linking actual CSR performance, communicated CSR performance, and perceived CSR performance, and identify two potential gaps that may emerge within this framework: the authenticity gap, reflecting a disconnection between actual and communicated CSR performance, and the credibility gap, reflecting a divergence between communicated and perceived CSR performance. Each element of the model is examined in detail. We show that actual CSR performance is shaped by a variety of internal and external factors, including corporate values, governance structures, resources, industry context, and legal requirements. The way CSR performance is communicated is influenced by communication objectives and can be characterized in terms of content, presentation format, quantity, and quality of disclosures, which can be further translated into specific disclosure characteristics. Stakeholders’ perceptions of CSR performance are affected by moderating factors such as the company’s reputation, company size, industry characteristics, socio-political background, and stakeholders’ personal values. These factors may influence the extent of stakeholders’ distrust and skepticism, which in turn affect how CSR disclosures are evaluated and interpreted. We show that the authenticity gap, often described as CSR-washing, lies fully on the company’s side and may result from data inaccuracies, selective omissions, or deliberate misrepresentation using a range of manipulation strategies. The credibility gap, in contrast, lies on the stakeholders’ side and is shaped by their perceptions of the company’s trustworthiness and the context in which disclosures are interpreted. To enhance the effectiveness of CSR communication, we propose practices across three domains: organizational arrangements, disclosure characteristics, and credibility- and reputation-building practices, all aimed at aligning actual, communicated, and perceived CSR performance and reducing both the authenticity and the credibility gaps.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility (CSR); CSR performance; CSR communication; effectiveness of CSR communication; CSR disclosure; stakeholders’ perception of CSR performance; stakeholder skepticism.

Fig.: 1. Tabl.: 2. Bibl.: 35.

Nashchekina Olga M. – Candidate of Sciences (Physics and Mathematics), Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Management, National Technical University «Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute» (2 Kyrpychova Str., Kharkіv, 61002, Ukraine)
Email: [email protected]
Tymoshenkov Ihor V. – Candidate of Science (Economics), associate professor, professor of the Department of Economic Theory and Law of Kharkov University of Humanities «People’s Ukrainian Academy»

List of references in article

Al-Tuwaijri S. A., Christensen T. E. & Hughes K. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5–6(29), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00032-1
Ashforth B. E. & Gibbs B. W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation. Organization Science, 2(1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
Bacha S. & Ajina A. (2020). CSR performance and annual report readability: evidence from France. Corporate Governance, 2(20), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2019-0060
Boiral O., Heras-Saizarbitoria I. & Brotherton M. C. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(155), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4
Boiral O. & Henri J.-F. (2015). Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Business & Society, 2(56), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315576134
Brennan M. N. & Merkl-Davies D. M. (2022). Discretionary accounting narratives in contemporary corporate reporting: review and framework. Accounting and Management Review | Revista de Contabilidade e Gestao, 1(26). https://doi.org/10.55486/amrrcg.v26i.8a
Cho C. H., Laine M., Roberts R. W. & Rodrigue M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational facades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
Christensen L. T., Morsing M. & Thyssen O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 3(20), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310
Delmas M. A. & Burbano V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 1(54), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
Eisenegger M. & Schranz M. (2011). Reputation management and corporate social responsibility. Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 128–146). John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118083246.ch7
Elving W. J. L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(19), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.631569
Garcia-Sanchez I. M. & Araujo-Bernardo C. A. (2020). What colour is the corporate social responsibility report? Structural visual rhetoric, impression management strategies, and stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1117–1142(27), 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1869
Garriga E. & Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34
globalreporting.org. The Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/
Green T. & Peloza J. (2014). How do consumers infer corporate social responsibility? The role of organisation size. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(13), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1466
iso.org. (2010). ISO26000:2010. Social responsibility. Standards. https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html
Jarolimek S. (2014). Being good, doing good... and telling people how good you are. A definitional construct as a basis for comparative studies. Humanities and Social Sciences: Latvia, 22, 14–32. https://www.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/apgads/PDF/Hum_Soc-scienc-2014_2_.pdf
Koh K., Li H. & Tong Y. H. (2023). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and stakeholder engagement: Evidence from the quantity and quality of CSR disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2(30), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2370
Lee K. H. (2017). Does Size Matter? Evaluating corporate environmental disclosure in the Australian mining and metal industry: a combined approach of quantity and quality measurement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2(26), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1910
Lock I. & Schulz-Knappe C. (2019). Credible corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication predicts legitimacy: Evidence from an experimental study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 1(24), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2018-0071
Merkl-Davies D. M. & Brennan N. M. (2007). Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate narratives: incremental information or impression management? Open Access publications. Research Repository, University College Dublin.
Morsing M. & Schultz M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 4(15), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
Morsing M., Schultz M. & Nielsen K. U. (2008). The “Catch 22” of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2(14), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608
Nashchekina O. M. & Tymoshenkov I. V. (2025). How CSR influences consumer behavior: mechanisms and moderating variables. Biznes Inform, 6, 456–468. https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2025-6-456-468
Nashchekina O. M., Koptieva H. M. & Tymoshenkov I. V. (2023). The impact of CSR on financial performance: controversial empirical evidence and reasons behind it. Visnyk NTU «KhPI». Seriia «Ekonomichni nauky», 1, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.20998/2519-4461.2023.1.73
Nazari J. A., Hrazdil K. & Mahmoudian F. (2017). Assessing social and environmental performance through narrative complexity in CSR reports. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 2(13), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2017.05.002
Nielsen E. A. & Thomsen C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: a legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(23), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0042
Pope S. & W?raas A. (2016). CSR-washing is rare: a conceptual framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(13), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2546-z
Perez A. (2019). Building a theoretical framework of message authenticity in CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 2(24), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0051
Schmeltz L. (2014). Introducing value-based framing as a strategy for communicating CSR. Social Responsibility Journal, 1(10), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2012-0065
Schmeltz L. (2017). Getting CSR communication fit: A study of strategically fitting cause, consumers and company in corporate CSR communication. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(6), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X16666731
Skarmeas D. & Leonidou C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 10(66), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
Social Accountability International. (2026). SA8000:2026 Standard. https://sa-intl.org/resources/sa8000-standard/
Viererbl B. & Koch T. (2022). The paradoxical effects of communicating CSR activities: Why CSR communication has both positive and negative effects on the perception of a company’s social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 1(48), Art. 102134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102134
Wang Z., Hsieh T. S. & Sarkis J. (2018). CSR performance and the readability of CSR reports: too good to be true? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1(25), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1440