Greenwashing is a phenomenon that is linked to scandals that often occur at the supply-chain level. Nevertheless, research on this subject remains in its infancy; much more is needed to advance our understanding of stakeholders’ reactions to greenwashing. We propose here a new typology of greenwashing, based on the locus of discrepancy, i.e. the point along the supply-chain where the discrepancy between ‘responsible words’ and ‘irresponsible walks’ occurs. With three experiments, we tested how the different forms of greenwashing affect stakeholders’ (...) reactions, from both ethical and business perspectives. We developed our hypotheses by building on attribution theory, which seeks to account for how observers construct perceptions about events. We had anticipated that the more internal, controllable and intentional the discrepancy is, the greater the blame attributed to a company is, and the lower the intention to invest will be. When greenwashing occurs at a company level, this results in a higher level of blame attribution, while the intention to invest falls. Indirect greenwashing refers to a misbehaviour perpetrated by a supplier who claims to be sustainable, and which results in a less negative impact on a supplied company. We also propose the vicarious greenwashing, which occurs when the behaviour of a supplier is in breach of a company’s claims of sustainability. This type of greenwashing is nevertheless detrimental to investment. The findings here advance our understanding of how greenwashing shapes stakeholders’ reactions, and highlight the need for the careful management of the supply-chain. (shrink)

The volume of fake news in the digital media landscape is increasing, creating a new threat to organizations’ reputations. At the same time, individuals are more aware of the existence of fake news. It thus remains unclear how fake news affects evaluators’ reputation judgments. In this article, we draw on the distinction between first-order judgments (i.e., an individual evaluator’s reputation judgment) and second-order judgments (i.e., an individual evaluator’s belief about the reputation judgments of other evaluators). We integrate this distinction with (...) insights from communication research and social psychology to theorize how fake news affects reputation judgments and behavioral intentions. Through three experimental studies, we show that the negative effect of fake news is larger for second-order reputation judgments and that this effect is greater for organizations with a positive reputation. Furthermore, our results indicate that although fake news has a smaller effect on first-order judgments, the latter adapt to second-order judgments and thereby affect behavioral intentions. This article contributes, first, to the micro-cognitive perspective on reputation formation by taking the first step in developing a comprehensive understanding of the intricate impact of fake news on reputation and behavioral intentions. Second, this article contributes to our understanding of the role of a good prior reputation as a buffer or a burden. (shrink)

This research investigates how contextual factors affect unethicality assessment of products. The research is conducted in the context of gifts and compares interpersonal gifts and self-gifts by examining individuals’ reactions in front of unethical gifts. Five experiments investigate how individuals assess product unethicality differently, depending on the source of the gift, being the Self or a gifter. This research employs attribution theory to explain the differences between IGs and SGs and identify psychological distance as a boundary condition for the effect.