Article

Journal of International Marketing

2022, Vol. 30(3) 72-82
Impact of Global Brand Chief Marketing © American Marketing Association 2022
Article reuse guidelines:

Officers’ Corporate Social Responsibility and sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1069031X221104077
journals.sagepub.com/home/jig
Sociopolitical Activism Communication on
Twitter

Peren Özturan and Amir Grinstein

Abstract
Chief marketing officers (CMOs) engage with their stakeholders on social media platforms to create a digital impact. CMO com-
munication on societal issues is understudied despite heightened global attention to brands’ social practices. This poses three
research questions: (1) How central is corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sociopolitical activism in the communication
of global brands’ CMOs?, (2) Does CMOs’ communication about CSR or sociopolitical activism have a digital impact?, and (3)
How do brand origin (i.e., geographic location of headquarters) and CMO nationality (U.S. vs. non-U.S.) moderate the CSR/socio-
political activism–digital communication impact? Drawing on expectancy violation theory, this research (Ntweets = 17,468 over
NCMOs = 81) finds that CMOs rarely publish CSR or sociopolitical activism communication on Twitter (5.3% and 3.2%) and dem-
onstrates a higher digital impact of retweets for CSR and a lower impact for sociopolitical activism tweets than regular commu-
nication. Furthermore, non-U.S. headquarters and CMO nationality strengthen the positive effect of CSR communication and
weaken the negative effect of sociopolitical activism communication.

Keywords
corporate social responsibility, CSR, sociopolitical activism, CMO, social media, global brands
Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X221104077

Two central trends have significantly affected global firms in operating overseas (Gielens and Steenkamp 2019; Katsikeas,
recent years: brands’ engagement in societal issues and digital- Leonidou, and Zeriti 2020).
ization. First, organizations have increasingly engaged in soci- In addition, these trends bring new opportunities, especially
etal issues such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), taking for leaders such as chief marketing officers (CMOs). Social
stakeholder1 expectations into account while enhancing the media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn
triple bottom line (i.e., economic, social, and environmental enable top managers in general to engage with stakeholders
performance; Kang, Germann, and Grewal 2016), and corpo- with the intention to create a digital impact, with a potential
rate sociopolitical activism (i.e., explicitly supporting or oppos- link to their brands (Babić Rosario et al. 2016; Okazaki et al.
ing one side of a partisan sociopolitical issue; Bhagwat et al. 2020). CMOs in particular are critical, given their centrality
2020). Second, the digital world, with its constant interaction to communication with external stakeholders (Germann,
between brands and various stakeholders on social media plat- Ebbes, and Grewal 2015; Nath and Mahajan 2011), especially
forms, has accelerated the international spread and impact of around societal issues (Benett and Welch 2009; Mishra and
brands, making it easier to know what a brand is doing Modi 2016). CMOs need “to consistently understand and
around the globe (Sheth 2020). This has enabled firms to connect to the brand they represent” (Dietz 2020), “align
engage in international marketing activity despite geographic
and psychological distance, the typical impediments of
Peren Özturan is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business, Özyeğ in
University, Turkey (email: [email protected]). Amir Grinstein is
1
A stakeholder-based view of CSR mainly acknowledges the community, Associate Professor of Marketing, D’Amore-McKim School of Business,
natural environment, employees, suppliers, customers, and shareholders as Northeastern University, USA, and Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty
key CSR targets (El Akremi et al. 2018), and in this study, we assume that of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
CMOs’ followers in a social network are linked to these stakeholder groups. (email: [email protected]).
Özturan and Grinstein 73

[their] external identity to match [their] brand,” and “engage analyzing communication and its digital impact at the level
authentically with [their] community” (Douillet Guzmán of global brand CMOs, and distinguishing between origins
2020), underscoring their critical role in societal and digital of global brands or their CMOs, which is crucial for adopting
trends. an international marketing perspective.
The effect of CMO communications in the social media
space is an understudied but worthwhile topic, according to
research in marketing examining top management teams and Hypothesis Development
applying upper echelons theory (e.g., Whitler et al. 2021). A
key reason is that communication can either help or hinder A plausible theory to guide CMOs’ networks’ responses to their
the marketing organization’s ability to attract and retain cus- CSR and sociopolitical activism communication is expectancy
tomers, employees, and partners (Moorman 2020). The topic violation theory (Burgoon and Hale 1988; Burgoon and Le
of CMO communication on societal issues is also understudied Poire 1993). This theory suggests that a deviation from one’s
despite heightened global attention to brands’ social practices expectations will result in cognitive arousal and heightened
(Özturan and Grinstein 2017). The topic also has practical attention, which will lead to reevaluation of the focal actor—
implications. CMOs prioritize being on social media here, the marketer’s communication (Afifi and Metts 1998;
(Gesenhues 2015; Neustar 2015) for sense giving, impression Yang, Saffer, and Li 2020). The larger the gap between expec-
management, and networking (Heavey et al. 2020). That is, tations of behavior and actual behavior, the greater is the effect
CMOs dedicate considerable work time to networking activities on downstream evaluations and actions, such as engagement
to enhance their social capital and influence (Engelen, (Burgoon and Hale 1988). This is consistent with the perspec-
Lackhoff, and Schmidt 2013) and report social media as a tive that customer satisfaction requires a (positive) gap
source for gaining insights, due to the authenticity of the between customer expectations and the actual service delivered
content and users (Hostelley 2021). (Oliver 1980; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988). We
Given this background, the current research intends to offer apply this theoretical framework to our first set of hypotheses
two contributions. First, this research examines the aforemen- (H1 and H2) to explain how, compared with regular communi-
tioned novel trends in tandem with a focus on global brand cation, CMOs’ CSR and sociopolitical activism communica-
CMOs. In doing so, it sheds light on the degree to which tions are less expected, and we determine a CMO network’s
global brand CMOs’ CSR- and sociopolitical activism– reaction to these types of communication. Note that we define
related communications on social media (i.e., Twitter) have “regular communication” as any communication that is not
digital impact (i.e., retweets). Postmodern consumer culture related to CSR or sociopolitical activism (for examples, see
has traditionally granted marketing leaders cultural authority, the Web Appendix). We then apply expectancy violation
with marketers portrayed “as cultural engineers, organizing theory to our second set of hypotheses (H3 and H4) to explain
how people think and feel through branded commercial prod- how, compared with the United States, the CSR and sociopolit-
ucts” (Holt 2002, p. 71). This mission still applies (Moorman ical activism communications of CMOs in other countries are
2020) and is becoming more prominent on new social media less expected, and we determine a CMO network’s reaction
platforms, as CMOs can directly voice issues important to to these types of communication.
society and swiftly receive responses to distinguish them- CSR and sociopolitical activism differ in multiple ways,
selves from their peers in the industry. Second, from an inter- though both are driven by stakeholder demand. CSR typically
national marketing perspective, this research, to the best of our entails generally accepted, nondivisive, prosocial issues
knowledge, is the first to compare the impact of CSR commu- (Bhagwat et al. 2020), such as support of education or disaster
nication and sociopolitical activism communication in light of relief. According to this view, firms hold power and responsi-
two factors: global brands’ origin (i.e., geographic location of bility to contribute to the world in which they operate by
their headquarters [HQ]) and CMOs’ nationality. A sizable taking into account their stakeholders and society at large
percentage of marketing leaders report that they personally (Smith, Drumwright, and Gentile 2010). Furthermore, CSR
believe it is appropriate for executives to communicate on is often part of a company’s strategic plan, and as a result,
societal issues; yet this varies substantially across CMOs many CSR efforts and communications are unlikely to elicit
and their brands (Moorman 2020). We therefore examine a negative response from stakeholders (Mukherjee and
these two factors and categorize them according to whether Althuizen 2020).2 Studies on the impact of CSR have demon-
the global brand’s HQ is in, or the CMO is from, the United strated that CSR activities typically provide the firm with mul-
States or elsewhere, because this distinction may explain tiple benefits in terms of the stock market, customer
some of that variance. satisfaction and loyalty, and employee satisfaction, to name
With these contributions, we build on recent advancements a few (e.g., Mishra and Modi 2016; Sen, Bhattacharya, and
in the literature and address research gaps. Specifically, Korschun 2006).
Okazaki et al. (2020) investigate CSR communication and 2
A minority stream in the CSR literature examines some conditions under
analyze its content for global brands without distinguishing which stakeholders are more suspicious of the brand’s CSR efforts and
cross-country variations. We extend such work by examining motive, which can lead to a negative reaction (e.g., Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, and
both CSR and sociopolitical activism communication, Schwarz 2006).
74 Journal of International Marketing 30(3)

Conversely, sociopolitical activism addresses controversial violation theory can explain these differences. In the context
and divisive topics, such as gun control or LGBTQ+ rights. of CSR, the theory proposes potential returns through the crea-
Such issues are perceived differently across and within coun- tion of positive deviations in expectations compared with
tries and may have unplanned spillover effects (Lee and Tao regular content of a digital message, especially when it is less
2021; Vredenburg et al. 2020). When a firm engages in socio- expected. CSR trends, which originated in the United States,
political activism, it can, on the one hand, drive social change have gradually globalized (Becker-Olsen et al. 2011;
(Key et al. 2021) and benefit the brand by demonstrating its Eteokleous, Leonidou, and Katsikeas 2016). Furthermore,
values and satisfying some consumer segments and employees U.S. firms are ahead of firms from other countries in terms of
(Gaines-Ross 2017). On the other hand, given the divisive their CSR activities and reporting these to the public (Forte
nature of sociopolitical activism practices, firms are likely to 2013; KPMG 2020; Maignan and Ralston 2002). Although
create a polarized response across stakeholders (Bhagwat et al. CSR communication is not often communicated by CMOs, as
2020; Gürhan-Canli, Sarial-Abi, and Hayran 2018; Hambrick we noted previously, given CSR’s U.S. origins and relatively
and Wowak 2021). Anecdotal examples highlight the mixed longer history, it should be more expected by the network of
views of stakeholders on global brands that take a stand on a con- U.S. brands and CMOs than the network of non-U.S. brands
troversial sociopolitical issue (e.g., reactions to the Gillette, Nike, and CMOs. For the latter, CSR practices and communication
and Chick-fil-A campaigns; Vredenburg et al. 2020), and recent are newer, more exciting, and less expected by their network.
empirical studies reveal a negative effect on consumers Therefore, we expect the network of U.S. brands and CMOs
(Klostermann, Hydock, and Decker 2021; Mukherjee and to be more used to CSR than the network of non-U.S. brands
Althuizen 2020) and investors (Bhagwat et al. 2020). and CMOs, which will result in the former being less intrigued
Guided by the logic of expectancy violation theory, we by and therefore less engaged with CSR communication.
propose that both CSR and sociopolitical activism communica- Conversely, sociopolitical activism is likely to cause potential
tions are less common and less expected than regular communi- losses by creating negative deviations in expectations compared
cation (i.e., non-CSR, nonsociopolitical; Cortado and Chalmeta with a regular digital message, despite growing expectations
2016; Özturan and Grinstein 2017). Transferring the aforemen- from multiple stakeholders for brands to take a stand on sociopo-
tioned brand-/firm-level findings to the CMO level, we argue litical issues (Gaines-Ross 2017; Yang, Saffer, and Li 2020). In
that global brand CMOs’ social media communication on less our empirical case, and as also evident from the literature and
expected CSR topics is likely to be a pleasant surprise to commu- media, brands’ sociopolitical activism and issues are concen-
nication receivers, which will result in higher engagement within trated mostly in the United States (Branicki et al. 2021;
CMOs’ network than communication with regular content. At Hambrick and Wowak 2021; Yang, Saffer, and Li 2020).
the same time, sociopolitical activism communication, which is U.S. firms invest substantially in lobbying efforts in the
also less expected than regular communication but is likely to form of corporate political advocacy (Vadakkepatt et al.
be a less pleasant surprise to communication receivers given its 2022), and to fill the void in U.S. citizens’ trust in the govern-
divisive nature, will likely result in lower engagement within ment, firms take a stance in leadership to align their brands
CMOs’ network than communication with regular content. with social causes (Key et al. 2021). Thus, the network of
Thus, we hypothesize the following: U.S. brands and CMOs will expect sociopolitical activism
communication more than the network of non-U.S. brands
H1: Global brand CMOs’ CSR communication has a and CMOs, resulting in the latter being less intrigued by and
greater digital impact than regular communication. engaged with sociopolitical activism communication.
Formally, we hypothesize the following:

H2: Global brand CMOs’ sociopolitical activism commu- H3: Compared with regular communication, the greater
nication has a lesser digital impact than regular digital impact of global brand CMOs’ CSR communica-
communication. tion is stronger for (a) non-U.S. brands and (b) non-U.S.
CMOs than their U.S. counterparts.
Structural and dispositional factors can affect CMOs’ commu-
nication effectiveness, similar to that of chief executive officers
H4: Compared with regular communication, the lesser
and top management teams (Whitler et al. 2018). We focus on
digital impact of global brand CMOs’ sociopolitical activ-
two key marketing- and internationalization-related moderating
ism communication is weaker for (a) non-U.S. brands and
variables: brand origin and CMO nationality. Brand origin
(b) non-U.S. CMOs than their U.S. counterparts.
refers to the geographic location of the HQ, and CMO nation-
ality refers to the brand CMO’s national background. Of partic-
ular interest is the distinction between the United States and
other countries, given the way CSR and sociopolitical activism Empirical Study
have evolved and are still evolving globally. The study is based on an examination of Twitter data (Ntweets =
The U.S. and non-U.S. networks may respond differently to 17,468 by CMOs of top global brands). We aim to determine
CSR and sociopolitical activism communication. Expectancy how ubiquitous digital CSR and sociopolitical activism
Özturan and Grinstein 75

communications by CMOs of global brands are, what the digital stronger indication of digital impact than other metrics
impact of this communication (retweets) is, and what the mod- (Guerra et al. 2017; Vargo 2016; see also Encore 2015).
erating factors are (i.e., brand origin and CMO nationality). Regarding our focal independent variables, we coded a
tweet as a CSR communication (CSR dummy = 1, M =
5.3%) or a sociopolitical activism communication (activism
Sample dummy = 1, M = 3.2%) if it contained terms from a designated
list. Building on prior work, the CSR list (Okazaki et al. 2020;
Data came from publicly available Twitter feeds of CMOs
Peloza and Shang 2011) included terms such as “cause-related
leading the marketing function among the top global brands
marketing,” “conservation,” “corporate social responsibility,”
(Brand Finance 2016; Interbrand 2016). We checked corporate
and “environmental,” while the sociopolitical activism dic-
web pages, LinkedIn profiles, and the internet to identify the
tionary (i.e., Bhagwat et al. 2020; Milfeld and Flint 2021;
related brands’ global (or, if nonexistent, the U.S.) head of mar-
Moorman 2020; Nalick et al. 2016; Vredenburg et al. 2020)
keting function with titles such as CMO and vice president of
included keywords such as “politics,” “immigration,”
marketing, following prior work (e.g., Germann, Ebbes, and
“LGBT,” and “gun control.” The full lists are available in
Grewal 2015). The initial data set comprised 214 global
the Web Appendix.3
brands whose CMOs were more readily identifiable on the
A research assistant checked firms’ and CMOs’ websites
internet. We focused on the personal Twitter accounts of
and LinkedIn profiles to identify our moderating variables.
these executives (N = 109). Anecdotal examples from our
We measured brand origin by the geographic location of the
data reveal that some of the CMOs’ tweets directly relate to
HQ of the firm that owns the brand (Samiee 2011).
the brand they represent, whereas others reflect their own per-
Following previous research (Stremersch and Verhoef
sonal views (for example tweets, see the Web Appendix),
2005), we used country of undergraduate studies to designate
which we ultimately control for in our models. We identified
CMOs’ country of origin. Of the 81 global brands, 15% were
CMOs who actively tweeted at least once during the data col-
headquartered outside the United States, and 27% had
lection period, making it possible to source communications
non-American CMOs. We standardized the CSR and sociopo-
of a subsample (N = 81). For both the independent and depen-
litical activism variables and the moderating brand origin and
dent variables, we tracked the Twitter activity of these CMOs
CMO nationality dummy variables (for both, 1 indicates
for a two-year period between November 2015 and
non-U.S.) to reduce multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen, and
November 2017, which is a longer period and covers a larger
West 2003). We controlled for valence (measured through
sample than similar recent work (e.g., Okazaki et al. 2020). A
the widely used TextBlob sentiment analysis, which rates a
research assistant identified the CMOs, another used a Python
tweet from negative [−1] to positive [+1]; M = .21), length
code to extract the Twitter data, and one of the authors
of tweet (M = 93.15; log-transformed in models to avoid
checked the results of the coding (i.e., ensuring that the
skewness), use of video (a dummy variable coded as 1 for a
search indeed referred to CSR and sociopolitical activism com-
tweet including a video; M = .02), use of images (a dummy
munication rather than a mere word mismatch; e.g., CRM in the
variable coded as 1 for a tweet including a photo or a
context of customer relationship management and not
picture; M = .21), and brand relatedness (a dummy variable
cause-related marketing). Table 1 provides descriptive statis-
coded as 1 for a tweet including the brand name; M = .18).
tics, and the raw data with the Python code are available on
request.
3
We checked the validity of our categorization with five academic and industry
experts in the areas of marketing, communication, and public relations who have
Measures studied or practiced CSR and/or sociopolitical activism and have an average
We measured digital impact with total retweets (M = 5.74), log- experience of 18.6 years in the field. The keywords in our categorization and
transformed to overcome skewness (before log-transformation, grouping identified by these experts achieved an intercoder reliability of 79%,
which we deemed acceptable (Rust and Cooil 1994). Furthermore, we
1 is added to avoid missing values in the estimations). Rather approached CSR and sociopolitical activism as reflecting a continuum, as
than an inside-out measure capturing endorsements such as research indicates that consumers view these topics on a spectrum (see
likes, views, or follows, retweets—a form of electronic word Chatterji and Toffel’s [2019, p. 60] exhibit “Is it appropriate to take a stand?
of mouth—diffuse the message to new audiences and thereby What consumers think”). Also noteworthy in our data set is that some tweets
(N = 32) included both CSR and activism content (e.g., “So proud to work
capture an outside-in perspective (Glozer and Hibbert 2018).
@Accenture—we have a strong commitment to inclusion and diversity for
The degree of interactivity can alternatively be measured by all. #PrideMonth”), and some tweets included more than one keyword from
analyzing the use of @ signs (e.g., Etter 2013); yet such per- either category in its content. For example, “Trump rally speaker fantasizes
sonal conversations do not appear in the followers’ timelines. about death of Hillary Clinton via @POLITICO for iOS” has three keywords
By contrast, electronic word of mouth reflects participation in with activism content and “You don’t have to give millions—volunteering in
your own community makes our world better #UN #CharityDay” has three key-
a broader conversation (Akpinar 2018). That is, coconstructing
words with CSR content. The reported results are robust if we include a differ-
messages is possible with retweets (see Boyd, Golder, and ence variable (nCSR − nSPA) that varies from −3 and 3, where 0 means neutral
Lotan 2010), thus creating dialogues and exemplifying the (i.e., for tweets with both types of content), −3 means highly sociopolitical
engagement role of social media. Overall, retweets are a activism related, and 3 means highly CSR related.
76 Journal of International Marketing 30(3)

As omitted variables could determine retweets that are poten-

1.000
Notes: Correlations larger than .015 and smaller than −.015 are significant at p < .05 (N = 17,468). Information for both time-variant and time-invariant variables is based on all-time CMO tweet observations
14
tially correlated with the CSR and sociopolitical activism tweet
variables, we decided to endogenize this communication vari-

1.000
.064
13

able. Specifically, we regressed the CSR and sociopolitical activ-

ism tweet dummies on several variables, including a CMO’s
number of followers (M = 7,060; log-transformed in models),

.132
.182
1.000
12

gender (a dummy variable coded as 1 for female; M = .43), the

type of degree earned (a dummy variable coded as 1 for business

1.000
.007
−.028
−.004
and economics and 0 for the rest; M = .81), and the highest
11

degree earned (a dummy variable coded as 1 for graduate and

0 for undergraduate; M = .53).4 We provide the measurement
1.000
.164
.019
−.018
.024
10

of all variables entered in the models in the Web Appendix.

1.000
.011
−.161
−.082
−.018
−.038
9

Analysis and Results

1.000
−.036
−.019
−.135
.177
.026
.006

In our analysis, we used simultaneous regressions based on full

8

information maximum likelihood estimators to test our hypothe-

ses in MPlus 7.4. As some unobserved variables may affect the
.569
−.139
.019
−.190
.056
.051
.043
1.000
7

three endogenized variables, we freed the error terms in their

equations to correlate, similar to seemingly unrelated regressions:
1.000
.100
−.173
.222
.034
−.138
−.033
.031
−.023

R = αR + β1 CSR + β2 ACT + β3 BO + β4 CMON + β5 CSR

6

× BO + β6 CSR × CMON + β7 ACT × BO + β8 ACT

1.000
−.295
.068
.414
−.067
.021
−.059
.037
−.017
.084
5

× CMON + β9 VIDEO + β10 PHOTO + β11 LEN

.324
−.093
.305
.358
−.197
.011
−.034
.094
.007
.112
1.000

+ β12 VAL + β13 BR + eR ,

4

CSR = αCSR + β14 GEN + β15 BUS + β16 LEV + β17 FOL + eCSR ,
1.000
.008
−.028
−.058
−.081
−.061
−.097
−.007
−.017
.077
−.054
−.020
3

and
.003
.002
−.022
−.014
.093
.084
.012
.000
−.055
.160
.006
.058
1.000

ACT = αACT + β18 GEN + β19 BUS + β20 LEV + β21 FOL + eACT ,
2

where R are retweets, CSR is CSR content, ACT is sociopolitical

1.000
.070
−.012
.051
.066

.254
.047
.060
.117

.036
−.031
.328
.075
.200

activism content, BO is brand origin, CMON is CMO national-

1

ity, VIDEO is dummy video, PHOTO is dummy photo, LEN

is length of tweet, VAL is valence of tweet, BR is brand related-
1.379
5.249
.225
.177
.290
.394
.500
.497
.499

.129
.409
.523
.320
.380
SD

ness of tweet, GEN is gender of CMO, BUS is highest degree of

CMO (business), LEV is highest degree of CMO (graduate), and
Table 1. Descriptive Information About the Measures.

.053
.032
.093
.192
.516
.555
.468
8.661
.017
.212

.212
.175
−4.153

4.424

FOL is the number of the CMO’s followers on Twitter. In addi-

M

tion, β1−2 represent the main effects and β5−8 the interaction
effects. The model as a whole is statistically significant (χ2(53)
= 11,951.3, p < .001), and R-square values served as fit measures
Log-transformed
Log-transformed

Log-transformed

(Table 2). The R-square of retweets was .134.5 These results

Scale

Dummy
Dummy
Dummy
Dummy

Dummy
Dummy
Dummy

Dummy
Dummy

Dummy

4
Because CMOs’ communications may correlate with organizational engage-
(–1,1)

(i.e., the whole data set; N = 17,468).

ment in CSR- or sociopolitical-related topics (Maak, Pless, and Voegtlin

2016) and this may vary across industries (Campbell 2007), we also included
the brand’s perceived social responsibility (assessed with a separate study in
7. Highest major business

Amazon Mechanical Turk, N = 190) and firms’ main line of business

8. Highest degree level

14. Brand relatedness

(business-to-business vs. business-to-consumer) and goods versus services

5. CMO nationality

dummy variables in our models. The reported results are robust with the inclu-
3. Activism tweet

11. Use of photo

10. Use of video

sion of these variables.

4. Brand origin

9. N followers
2. CSR tweet

5
When we analyzed the effects of the CSR tweet and sociopolitical activism
1. Retweets
Construct

13. Valence
12. Length
6. Gender

tweet variables on the probability of retweets (i.e., incidence, rather than the
current log-transformed variable that captures magnitude) by running a probit
regression, the results remained similar. The R-square of the retweet incidence
was .249.

76
Özturan and Grinstein 77

suggest that the CSR content shared by CMOs has higher retweets strategies. First, CMOs need to be cognizant of the difference
than regular content (β = .013, p = .040). Moreover, the sociopolit- in responses to digital CSR and sociopolitical activism commu-
ical activism content shared by CMOs has lower retweets (β = nications. On the one hand, CMOs may want to consider
–.024, p = .001). These results lend support to both H1 and H2. including CSR topics in more than 5.3% of their communica-
Next, we report the interaction effects of our focal communica- tions (as we have found) to increase their digital impact. On
tion variables and international factors on digital impact, presented the other hand, CMOs need to handle sociopolitical activism
in Table 2. While brand origin has a positive effect on CSR content tweets with caution, as these engender mixed opinions and
and retweets (β = .012, p = .052), CMO nationality does not exert polarization to such a degree that they have a negative associa-
a significant moderation effect (β = –.001, p > .100). Thus, H3 is tion with the likelihood to be retweeted. CMO attention to
partially supported. Regarding the moderation of the digital social media communications is essential, as marketers are
impact of sociopolitical communication by global brand CMOs, central in external communication and marketing is responsible
we find that the negative relationship is not weakened for for identifying leading trends in the global environment (Benett
non-U.S. brands (β = .006, p > .100) but is for non-U.S. CMOs and Welch 2009; Jaworski 2011; Rooney 2019). Moreover,
(β = .038, p < .001). Thus, H4 is partially supported.6 In line with CMO support (or lack thereof) of societal issues may influence
our theoretical arguments, non-U.S. brands have a greater digital the core of corporate strategy (Moorman 2020), in line with pre-
CSR communication impact, while U.S. CMOs have a lesser dictions in upper echelons literature in marketing (e.g., Whitler
digital sociopolitical activism communication impact. Figure 1 dis- et al. 2021) that top managers’ values are consequential for
plays the interaction effects, using standard simple slopes proce- organizational choices and activities.
dures (Cohen, Cohen, and West 2003). Second, country of origin influences consumer response to
CSR and sociopolitical activism communications. The brands
we studied operate across the globe and cater to consumers
Discussion and Implications across many countries. The finding that CMOs’ communica-
tions have a differential digital impact on their network when
Our key finding is that, on average, global brand CMOs are they or their brand is from the United States or elsewhere indi-
involved in communicating about CSR and sociopolitical activism cates that CMOs should take into account the expectations of
practices to a limited degree; yet, when they do so, their commu- their network, as network members may interpret and react to
nication of CSR content has a greater impact and communication similar content differently depending on who the CMO is and
of sociopolitical activism content a lesser impact than regular which brand they represent. That said, the overall reaction of
tweets. These findings can be explained by expectancy violation CMO networks is critical and suggests that social and sustain-
theory, which shows that, compared with regular communication, able issues are still not salient but based on the priorities of
both CSR and sociopolitical activism communications deviate many stakeholders, especially consumers (Malter et al. 2020).
from CMOs’ networks’ expectations, in either a positive way This highlights an emergent global socially consciousness
(CSR) or a negative way (sociopolitical activism). segment that marketers should pay attention to; marketers
Furthermore, the moderation analysis suggests that the effec- should also determine whether social media and word of
tiveness is more positive for CSR content when the brand is mouth constitute a topic of “prime interest in understanding
international (non-U.S.) and less negative for sociopolitical marketing effects in a digital era” (Oh et al. 2020, p. 156).
activism content when the CMO is international (non-U.S.). Third, our research relies on text analysis (Balducci and
In this case, expectancy violation theory again shows that net- Marinova 2018; Berger et al. 2020); the method enabled us to
works expect CSR and sociopolitical activism communications tackle a multidisciplinary topic in marketing that cuts across
more, and thus they are less excited and engaged in the United sociopolitical engagement, digital impact, and the role of mar-
States than in other locations where such practices are newer. keting leadership by integrating different sources of information
Overall, considering the message content in relation to brand (i.e., Twitter, LinkedIn, and firm websites). Our study show-
origin and CMOs’ nationality has a more nuanced impact cases an application of this methodology for future international
than a mere CSR or sociopolitical activism communication marketing researchers to generate insights (e.g., Okazaki et al.
with no linkage to the global brand or CMO. 2020, 2021). In the midst of a global digital transformation
This research has three implications for marketers of global due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Deloitte 2020), managers’
firms, for global brands, and for international marketing direct communications with stakeholders, including customers
6 (Steimer 2020), and combined use of traditional and social
All variance inflation factors are below 2, suggesting that the results are not
affected by multicollinearity. The findings reported here are consistent when
media (Hoekstra and Leeflang 2020) further heighten the
we test for endogeneity following Wooldridge (2009), using a two-stage least importance of digital communication channels’ text analysis
squares analysis with auxiliary regressions on the CSR and sociopolitical activ- as a tool in global branding research and practice.
ism variables. The predicted values of CSR and sociopolitical activism tweet
variables from the auxiliary regressions represent appropriate instruments (as
they correlate significantly with the original regressors while being unrelated Limitations and Future Research Directions
to the error term). The Hausman test indicates that endogeneity is in effect
for retweets; that is, a joint test of statistical significance based on the change Our work has several limitations that may inspire future
in the R-square was significant (F(2, 17,450) = 939.65, p < .001). research. First, our empirical work focused on an informal
78 Journal of International Marketing 30(3)

Table 2. Impact of CMO’s Digital CSR and Sociopolitical Activism Communications on Twitter.

CSR Tweets Activism Tweets Retweets

β SE p-Value β SE p-Value β SE p-Value

Gender −.021 .008 .011 −.034 .008 <.001

Highest major business .077 .010 <.001 −.073 .010 <.001
Highest degree level .038 .010 <.001 −.028 .010 .005
N followers .027 .008 .001 −.099 .008 <.001
CSR tweet .013 .007 .040
Activism tweet −.024 .007 .001
Brand origin −.011 .008 .150
CMO nationality .046 .008 <.001
CSR × Brand origin .012 .008 .052
CSR × CMO nationality −.001 .008 .858
Activism × Brand origin .006 .009 .493
Activism × CMO nationality .038 .009 <.001
Use of video .032 .007 <.001
Use of photo −.036 .007 <.001
Length .299 .007 <.001
Valence .025 .007 <.001
Brand relatedness .136 .007 <.001
Notes: p-values are two-tailed, except for hypothesized paths.

communication channel of global brand CMOs, not a formal Fourth, we did not distinguish between CMOs’ original
brand channel. Future research could specifically examine tweets and retweets of an issue. Such a comparison may
how CMOs’ CSR and sociopolitical activism communications enhance understanding of CMOs’ digital activity, as the
compare with more formal brand communication in the former may imply clearer credits to the original sender of the
context of online engagement. This would help determine message, leading to greater trust than the latter (Akpinar
whether and to what extent global brand outcomes corroborate 2018; Boyd, Golder, and Lotan 2010). It is also essential to con-
with and can be predicted by managerial communications and sider the extent and content of conversations following up on a
impact. Whereas upper echelons theory suggests that organiza- leader’s communication to fully understand its digital impact
tional outcomes are shaped by top managers’ characteristics and (i.e., network effects). In the context of networks, the nature
behaviors (Hambrick and Wowak 2021), this notion can also be and diversity of CMO networks may moderate the effects we
argued against, as such engagement is, for some organizations, find.
beyond marketers’ primary role and instead is a nonmarketing A fifth critical point worth noting is that managers are not
task (for a recent debate, see Whitler [2022]). equally integrated into their professional roles. That is, some
Second, comparing expectancy violation in terms of CSR managers may segment personal and professional domains,
versus sociopolitical activism communications would be of while others may prefer to integrate the two, which is more ben-
value. Our predictions were based on these communications’ eficial for managing workplace identity and relationships
impact compared with that of regular communication. A related (Dumas and Sanchez-Burks 2015). This manager-level charac-
idea for future research is to distinguish CMOs’ CSR and sociopo- teristic may moderate our key findings; that is, the interactions
litical activism communication from that of other executives across and engagement reported herein may be much higher for some
functions and leadership roles. For some global brands (e.g., CMOs and lower for others. Examining this moderator warrants
Unilever), other executives and functions lead CSR communica- future research. Relatedly, whether societal communications
tion (Weed 2016) or are engaged in calculated sociopolitical activ- have an impact on CMO turnover or compensation beyond
ism strategies to sway public policy outcomes (Maks-Solomon building a social media presence because they hold certain
2020). risks and benefits is an avenue for future research.
Third, our data set covered tweets from the 2015–2017 period. Sixth, the underlying mechanism driving an executive’s
Future work could explore more recent data to determine whether communication as well as receivers’ (e.g., employees, consum-
the frequency and impact of CSR and sociopolitical activism ers) behavior in response to the communication is worth study-
tweets are changing over time. Note, however, that the keywords ing. One mechanism might be related to the attention–
in the Web Appendix may then be limited, as these terms represent engagement link (Yadav, Prabhu, and Chandy 2007), while
concepts at one point in time (2015–2017) and therefore may need others might be linked to the audience’s background (e.g.,
updating. Language evolves, and some terms may become (dis) country of origin, culture). Whereas we provided arguments
associated with CSR and sociopolitical activism over time, consis- drawing on expectancy violation theory, future research could
tent with issue evolution. test for these mediational explanations in experimental work.
Özturan and Grinstein 79

Figure 1. International factors moderate the relationship between CMOs’ digital communication and impact.
Notes: Interaction effects were not significant for CSR communication and CMO nationality in Panel A and sociopolitical activism communication and brand
origin in Panel B (both ps > .10); we depict them for comparison.

Finally, our research focused on global brands headquartered shape and define the new boundaries and roles of global
mostly in the United States and on Twitter data with audiences brands, their marketing leadership, and the channels used for
of no geographical focus. Future work would benefit from their communications on CSR and sociopolitical activism issues.
including global brands from various other geographic areas,
testing other social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Associate Editor
LinkedIn), and assessing the impact on the nondigital space Petra Riefler
in the short and long run (e.g., stock price, sales; Babić
Rosario et al. 2016; Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009). Of Declaration of Conflicting Interests
further interest is the way consumers in specific geographic The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
locations (to overcome potential confounds in this study) and dif- the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ferent markets (e.g., developed vs. developing) react to market-
ers’ digital CSR and sociopolitical activism communications, Funding
which would be an invaluable pursuit as “research in interna- The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
tional marketing mainly covered the developed parts of the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was
world (especially large and powerful economies), but neglected supported by the Marketing Science Institute, (grant number 4000057).
emerging economies and less-developed countries”
(Eteokleous, Leonidou, and Katsikeas 2016, p. 599). We hope ORCID iD
our work sparks more attention to the opportunities that can Peren Özturan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3633-6361
80 Journal of International Marketing 30(3)

References Deloitte (2020), “2021 Global Marketing Trends,” research report,

Afifi, Walid A. and Sandra Metts (1998), “Characteristics and (accessed December 27, 2020), https://www2.deloitte.com/
Consequences of Expectation Violations in Close Relationships,” content/dam/insights/us/articles/6963_global-marketing-trends/DI_
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15 (3), 365–92. 2021-Global-Marketing-Trends_US.pdf.
Akpinar, Ezgi (2018), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Word of Dietz, Nadine (2020), “The World’s Top CMOs on the Role of
Mouth: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Literature,” in Marketing in the Future,” Adweek (June 23), https://www.
Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility in the Digital adweek.com/brand-marketing/what-the-worlds-top-cmos-think-of-
Era, Adam Lindgreen, Joëlle Vanhamme, François Maon, and the-role-of-marketing-in-the-future/.
Rebecca Mardon, eds. New York: Routledge, 245–73. Douillet Guzmán, Liana (2020), “Now Is the Time for Brands to
Balducci, Bitty and Detelina Marinova (2018), “Unstructured Data in Reflect: How CMOs Can Lead,” Forbes (July 31), https://www.
Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (4), forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2020/07/31/now-is-the-
557–90. time-for-brands-to-reflect-how-cmos-can-lead/?sh=697704da4e9c.
Becker-Olsen, Karen L., Charles R. Taylor, Ronald Paul Hill, and Dumas, Tracy L. and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks (2015), “The
Goksel Yalcinkaya (2011), “A Cross-Cultural Examination of Professional, the Personal, and the Ideal Worker: Pressures and
Corporate Social Responsibility Marketing Communications in Objectives Shaping the Boundary Between Life Domains,”
Mexico and the United States: Strategies for Global Brands,” Academy of Management Annals, 9 (1), 803–43.
Journal of International Marketing, 19 (2), 30–44. El Akremi, Assâad, Jean-Pascal Gond, Valérie Swaen, Kenneth De
Benett, Andrew and Greg Welch (2009), “How CMOs Can Also Be Chief Roeck, and Jacques Igalens (2018), “How do Employees
Responsibility Officers,” Ad Age (December 8), http://adage.com/article/ Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation
cmo-strategy/marketing-cmos-chief-responsibility-officers/140950/. of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility
Scale,” Journal of Management, 44 (2), 619–57.
Berger, Jonah, Ashlee Humphreys, Stephan Ludwig, Wendy W. Moe,
Encore (2015), “Favorites vs. Retweets (and Why One Is More
Oded Netzer, and David A. Schweidel (2020), “Uniting the Tribes:
Important Than the Other),” Medium (June 4), https://medium.
Using Text for Marketing Insight,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (1), 1–25.
com/@Encore/favorites-vs-retweets-and-why-one-is-more-impor-
Bhagwat, Yashoda, Nooshin L. Warren, Joshua T. Beck, and George
tant-than-the-other-ba12ee20e9ba.
F. Watson IV (2020), “Corporate Sociopolitical Activism and
Engelen, Andreas, Fritz Lackhoff, and Susanne Schmidt (2013), “How
Firm Value,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (5), 1–21.
Can Chief Marketing Officers Strengthen Their Influence? A Social
Boyd, Danah, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan (2010), “Tweet, Tweet,
Capital Perspective Across Six Country Groups,” Journal of
Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter,”
International Marketing, 21 (4), 88–109.
paper presented at 43rd Hawaii International Conference on
Eteokleous, Pantelitsa P., Leonidas C. Leonidou, and Constantine
System Sciences, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5428313.
S. Katsikeas (2016), “Corporate Social Responsibility in
Brand Finance (2016), “Global 500 2016 Ranking,” (accessed October 31,
International Marketing: Review, Assessment, and Future
2017), http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2016.
Research,” International Marketing Review, 33 (4), 580–624.
Branicki, Layla, Stephen Brammer, Alison Pullen, and Carl Rhodes
Etter, Michael (2013), “Reasons for Low Levels of Interactivity: (Non-)
(2021), “The Morality of ‘New’ CEO Activism,” Journal of
Interactive CSR Communication in Twitter,” Public Relations
Business Ethics, 170 (2), 269–85.
Review, 39 (5), 606–08.
Burgoon, Judee K. and Jerold L. Hale (1988), “Nonverbal Expectancy Forte, Almerinda (2013), “Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Violations: Model Elaboration and Application to Immediacy United States and Europe: How Important Is It? The Future of
Behaviors,” Communication Monographs, 55 (1), 58–79. Corporate Social Responsibility,” International Business &
Burgoon, Judee K. and Beth A. Le Poire (1993), “Effects of Economics Research Journal, 12 (7), 815–24.
Communication Expectancies, Actual Communication, and Gaines-Ross, Leslie (2017), “What CEOs Should Know About
Expectancy Disconfirmation on Evaluations of Communicators Speaking Up on Political Issues,” Harvard Business Review
and Their Communication Behavior,” Human Communication (February 17), https://hbr.org/2017/02/what-ceos-should-know-
Research, 20 (1), 67–96. about-speaking-up-on-political-issues.
Campbell, John L. (2007), “Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Germann, Frank, Peter Ebbes, and Rajdeep Grewal (2015), “The Chief
Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Marketing Officer Matters!” Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 1–22.
Responsibility,” Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 946–67. Gesenhues, Amy (2015), “CMOs on Twitter: What They Share, How
Chatterji, Aaron K. and Michael W. Toffel (2019), “The New CEO They Share It & The People They Retweet Most,” MarTech (March
Activists,” in HBR’s 10 Must Reads. Boston: Harvard Business 20), https://martech.org/cmos-on-twitter-what-they-share-how-they-
Review Press, 47–65. share-it-the-people-they-retweet-most-report/.
Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, and Stephen G. West (2003), Applied Gielens, Katrijn and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2019), “Branding
Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral in the Era of Digital (Dis)Intermediation,” International Journal of
Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Research in Marketing, 36 (3), 367–84.
Cortado, Francisco-Javier and Ricardo Chalmeta (2016), “Use of Glozer, Sarah and Sally Hibbert (2018), “CSR Engagement via Social
Social Networks as a CSR Communication Tool,” Cogent Media in Theory and Practice,” in Communicating Corporate
Business & Management, 3 (1), 1187783. Social Responsibility in the Digital Era, Adam Lindgreen,
Özturan and Grinstein 81

Joëlle Vanhamme, François Maon, and Rebecca Mardon, eds. Maak, Thomas, Nicola M. Pless, and Christian Voegtlin (2016),
New York: Routledge, 3–16. “Business Statesman or Shareholder Advocate? CEO Responsible
Guerra, Pedro Calais, Roberto C.S.N.P. Souza, Renato M. Assuncao, Leadership Styles and the Micro-Foundations of Political CSR,”
and Wagner Meira Jr. (2017), “Antagonism Also Flows Through Journal of Management Studies, 53 (3), 463–93.
Retweets: The Impact of Out-of-Context Quotes in Opinion Maignan, Isabelle and David A. Ralston (2002), “Corporate Social
Polarization Analysis,” Proceedings of the International AAAI Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’
Conference on Web and Social Media, 11 (1), 536–39. Self-Presentations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 33,
Gürhan-Canli, Zeynep, Gülen Sarial-Abi, and Ceren Hayran (2018), 497–514.
“Consumers and Brands Across the Globe: Research Synthesis Maks-Solomon, Cory (2020), “Corporate Activism Is More Than a
and New Directions,” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (1), Marketing Gimmick,” The Conversation (July 8), https://
96–117. theconversation.com/corporate-activism-is-more-than-a-marketing-
Hambrick, Donald C. and Adam J. Wowak (2021), “CEO gimmick-141570.
Sociopolitical Activism: A Stakeholder Alignment Model,” Malter, Maayan S., Morris B. Holbrook, Barbara E. Kahn, Jeffrey
Academy of Management Review, 46 (1), 33–59. R. Parker, and Donald R. Lehmann (2020), “The Past, Present,
Heavey, Ciaran, Zeki Simsek, Christina Kyprianou, and Marten Risius and Future of Consumer Research,” Marketing Letters, 31, 137–49.
(2020), “How Do Strategic Leaders Engage with Social Media? A Milfeld, Tyler and Daniel J. Flint (2021), “When Brands Take a Stand:
Theoretical Framework for Research and Practice,” Strategic The Nature of Consumers’ Polarized Reactions to Social Narrative
Management Journal, 41 (8), 1490–1527. Videos,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30 (4), 532–48.
Hoekstra, Janny C. and Peter S.H. Leeflang (2020), “Marketing in the Mishra, Saurabh and Sachin B. Modi (2016), “Corporate Social
Era of COVID-19,” Italian Journal of Marketing, 2020 (4), 249–60. Responsibility and Shareholder Wealth: The Role of Marketing
Holt, Douglas B. (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Capability,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (1), 26–46.
Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,” Journal Moorman, Christine (2020), “Commentary: Brand Activism in a Political
of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70–90. World,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39 (4), 388–92.
Hostelley, Carter (2021), “Executives: Should You Be Active on Mukherjee, Sourjo and Niek Althuizen (2020), “Brand Activism: Does
Social Media?” CMSWire (May 11), https://www.cmswire.com/ Courting Controversy Help or Hurt a Brand?” International
digital-marketing/executives-should-you-be-active-on-social- Journal of Research in Marketing, 37 (4), 772–88.
media/. Nalick, Michael, Matthew Josefy, Asghar Zardkoohi, and
Interbrand (2016), “Best Global Brands Top 100 List 2016,” (accessed Leonard Bierman (2016), “Corporate Sociopolitical Involvement:
December 31, 2016), http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best- A Reflection of Whose Preferences?” Academy of Management
global-brands/2016/ranking/. Perspectives, 30 (4), 384–403.
Jaworski, Bernard J. (2011), “On Managerial Relevance,” Journal of Nath, Pravin and Vijay Mahajan (2011), “Marketing Influence in the
Marketing, 75 (4), 211–24. C-Suite: A Study of Chief Marketing Officer Power in Firms’
Kang, Charles, Frank Germann, and Rajdeep Grewal (2016), Top Management Teams,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 60–77.
“Washing Away Your Sins? Corporate Social Responsibility, Neustar (2015), “Social Insights Report: CMO Edition,” research report
Corporate Social Irresponsibility, and Firm Performance,” (March 19), https://www.home.neustar/resources/whitepapers/social-
Journal of Marketing, 80 (2), 59–79. insights-cmo-edition.
Katsikeas, Constantine, Leonidas Leonidou, and Athina Zeriti (2020), Oh, Travis Tae, Kevin Lane Keller, Scott A. Neslin, David
“Revisiting International Marketing Strategy in a Digital Era,” J. Reibstein, and Donald R. Lehmann (2020), “The Past, Present,
International Marketing Review, 37 (3), 405–24. and Future of Brand Research,” Marketing Letters, 31, 151–62.
Key, Thomas Martin, Astrid L. Keel, Andrew J. Czaplewski, and Eric Okazaki, Shintaro, Kirk Plangger, Thomas Roulet, and Héctor
M. Olson (2021), “Brand Activism Change Agents: Strategic D. Menéndez (2021), “Assessing Stakeholder Network
Storytelling for Impact and Authenticity,” Journal of Strategic Engagement,” European Journal of Marketing, 55 (5), 1359–84.
Marketing (published online August 19), https://doi.org/10.1080/ Okazaki, Shintaro, Kirk Plangger, Douglas West, and Héctor
0965254X.2021.1904435. D. Menéndez (2020), “Exploring Digital Corporate Social
Klostermann, Jan, Chris Hydock, and Reinhold Decker (2021), “The Responsibility Communications on Twitter,” Journal of Business
Effect of Corporate Political Advocacy on Brand Perception: An Research, 117, 675–82.
Event Study Analysis,” Journal of Product & Brand Oliver, Richard L. (1980), “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and
Management (published online November 12), https://doi.org/ Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions,” Journal of Marketing
10.1108/JPBM-03-2021-3404. Research, 17 (4), 460–69.
KPMG (2020), “The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting Özturan, Peren and Amir Grinstein (2017), “The Socially Responsible
2020,” KPMG Impact (December), https://assets.kpmg/content/ CMO,” Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, 17-110,
dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf. http://www.msi.org/reports/the-socially-responsible-cmo/.
Lee, Yeunjae and Weiting Tao (2021), “Does Perceived Morality of Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard
CEO Activism Matter? Understanding Employees’ Responses to L. Berry (1988), “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
CEO Actions on Sociopolitical Issues,” Management Decision, Measuring Consumer Perception of Service Quality,” Journal of
59 (10), 2329–54. Retailing, 64 (1), 12–40.
82 Journal of International Marketing 30(3)

Peloza, John and Jingzhi Shang (2011), “How Can Corporate Social Vadakkepatt, Gautham G., Sandeep Arora, Kelly D. Martin, and
Responsibility Activities Create Value for Stakeholders? A Neeru Paharia (2022), “Shedding Light on the Dark Side of Firm
Systematic Review,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Lobbying: A Customer Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (3),
Science, 39 (1), 117–35. 79–97.
Rooney, Jenny (2019), “Activism Has Gone Mainstream, and That Has Vargo, Chris J. (2016), “Toward a Tweet Typology: Contributory
Big Implications for CMOs: Study,” Forbes (December 10), https:// Consumer Engagement with Brand Messages by Content Type,”
www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferrooney/2019/12/10/activism-has-gone- Journal of Interactive Advertising, 16 (2), 157–68.
mainstream-and-that-has-big-implications-for-cmos-study/?sh= Vredenburg, Jessica, Sommer Kapitan, Amanda Spry, and Joya A. Kemper
128872f25d31. (2020), “Brands Taking a Stand: Authentic Brand Activism or Woke
Rosario, Babić , Francesca Sotgiu Ana, Kristine De Valck, and Tammo Washing?” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39 (4), 444–60.
H.A. Bijmolt (2016), “The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Weed, Keith (2016), “Forget Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing
Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform, Product, and Metric Good Should Be a Core Part of Your Business,” World Economic
Factors,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (3), 297–318. Forum (accessed December 27, 2020), https://www.weforum.org/
Rust, Roland T. and Bruce Cooil (1994), “Reliability Measures for agenda/2016/08/forget-corporate-social-responsibility-doing-good-
Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Marketing should-be-a-core-part-of-your-business-model/.
Research, 31 (1), 1–14. Whitler, Kimberly A. (2022), “Coca-Cola, Nelson Peltz, M&M’s, and
Samiee, Saeed (2011), “Resolving the Impasse Regarding Research on Unilever: Thoughts About Corporate Sociopolitical Activism,”
the Origins of Products and Brands,” International Marketing LinkedIn (January 30), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/coca-cola-
Review, 28 (5), 473–85. nelson-peltz-mms-unilever-thoughts-activism-whitler.
Sen, Sankar, Chitrabhan Bhattacharya, and Daniel Korschun (2006), Whitler, Kimberly A., Ben Lee, Ryan Krause, and Neil A. Lehmann
“The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening (2018), “When and How Board Members with Marketing Experience
Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment,” Facilitate Firm Growth,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (5), 86–105.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 158–66. Whitler, Kimberly A., Ben Lee, Ryan Krause, and Neil A. Morgan
Sheth, Jagdish N. (2020), “Borderless Media: Rethinking International (2021), “Upper Echelons Research in Marketing,” Journal of the
Marketing,” Journal of International Marketing, 28 (1), 3–12. Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (1), 198–219.
Smith, N. Craig, Minette E. Drumwright, and Mary C. Gentile (2010), Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. (2009), Introductory Econometrics: A Modern
“The New Marketing Myopia,” Journal of Public Policy & Approach. Mason, OH: South-Western.
Marketing, 29 (1), 4–11. Yadav, Manjit S., Jaideep C. Prabhu, and Rajesh K. Chandy (2007),
Steimer, Sarah (2020), “How Marketers Are Working During the “Managing the Future: CEO Attention and Innovation Outcomes,”
Pandemic,” Marketing News (Spring), https://www.ama.org/ Journal of Marketing, 71 (4), 84–101.
marketing-news/how-marketers-are-working-during-the-pandemic/. Yang, Aimei, Adam Saffer, and Yiqi Li (2020), “Managing Stakeholder
Stremersch, Stefan and Peter C. Verhoef (2005), “Globalization of Expectations in a Politically Polarized Society: An Expectation
Authorship in the Marketing Discipline: Does It Help or Hinder Violation Theory Approach,” Journal of International Crisis and
the Field?” Marketing Science, 24 (4), 585–94. Risk Communication Research, 3 (2), 275–300.
Trusov, Michael, Randolph E. Bucklin, and Koen Pauwels (2009), Yoon, Yeosun, Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, and Norbert Schwarz (2006),
“Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities
Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site,” Journal on Companies with Bad Reputations,” Journal of Consumer
of Marketing, 73 (5), 90–102. Psychology, 16 (4), 377–90.