Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality môn Principle of Management | Trường Đại học Quốc tế, Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh

Journal of Business Ethics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04755-x ORIGINAL PAPER
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate
Commitment toGender Equality
YvetteSterbenk1· SaraChamplin2· KaseyWindels3· SummerShelton4
Received: 6 November 2019 / Accepted: 20 January 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract
This study examined the potential for a new area of corporate social responsibility (CSR) washing: gender equality. Com-
panies are increasingly recognized for advertisements promoting gender equality, termed “femvertisements.” However, it
is unclear whether companies that win femvertising awards actually support women with an institutionalized approach to
gender equality. A quantitative content analysis was performed assessing company leadership team listings, annual reports,
CSR reports, and CSR websites of 61 US-based companies (31 award winners and 30 non-winning competitors) to com-
pare the prevalence of internal and external gender-equality CSR activities of companies that have (versus have not) won
femvertising awards. When controlling for number of employees and annual revenue, award-winning companies committed
to more internal efforts that support women than non-award-winning companies. However, no significant differences were
found in the number of external efforts or representation in female leadership between companies with and without award-
winning femvertisements. Overall, a majority of award-winning companies (81%) engaged in less than ten of the possible
23 gender-equality CSR activities, suggesting these companies’ female empowerment commercials were often not in line
with their broader CSR activities. While more research is needed in this area, we propose the term “fempower-washing” to
describe CSR-washing in the context of gender equality.
Keywords Femvertising· Corporate social responsibility· CSR advertising· Corporate hypocrisy· CSR-washing
An emerging area of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
As socially conscious consumers, employees, and inves-
is activism, wherein companies take stances on some-
tors increasingly pressure companies to address social
times controversial social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, issues (Castaldo etal. ;
2009 Cone Communications 2015;
race relations, or gender equality (Chatterji and Toffel Dodd and Supa ; 2014 Edelman ; 2017 Varghese and Kumar
2016; Dodd and Supa 2014; Madrigal and Boush 2008).
2020a), many firms respond by attempting to tackle these
complicated topics through CSR advertising (Pomering etal.
2013). Short videos, 30-second commercials, or experiential
brand activations allow companies to reach large audiences * Yvette Sterbenk ysterbenk@ithaca.edu
with simple, feel-good messages that connect their brands Sara Champlin
to social causes in positive ways (Browning etal. 2018). sara.champlin@unt.edu
However, stakeholders often question whether companies Kasey Windels
engaged in and recognized for their pro-social advertising kwindels@ufl.edu
concurrently back their messages with corporate actions Summer Shelton (Wired staff ; 2018 Jones ) 2019 . shelsumm@isu.edu
Companies whose pro-social advertisements are incon-
sistent with their corporate actions are engaging in CSR-
washing, defined by Pope and Waeraas ( ) 2015 as “the suc- 1
Roy H. Park School ofCommunications, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, USA
cessful use of a false CSR claim to improve a company’s 2
Mayborn School ofJournalism, The University ofNorth
competitive standing” (p. 175). The practice of CSR-wash- Texas, Denton, TX, USA
ing is risky. If discovered, it can have a negative impact 3
University ofFlorida, Gainesville, FL, USA
on corporate reputation and stakeholder trust (Wagner etal. 4
Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, USA 1 3 Vol.:(0123456789) Y.Sterbenk et al.
2009; Kim etal. 2015; Yoon etal. ) 2006 . Thus, it is impor-
In the sections that follow, we outline the relevant litera-
tant that companies support their advertising with measur-
ture on CSR advertising, femvertising, and CSR-washing.
able internal and external corporate actions that are clearly
We then delineate research questions regarding CSR-wash-
communicated through other corporate channels.
ing in the context of gender equality initiatives and describe
The concept of CSR-washing has been commonly
the process and results from this research. Implications for
applied to environmental practices (Delmas and Burbano
research and practice are then discussed.
2011; Nyilasy etal. 2014; Siano etal. 2017), also known
as “greenwashing.” Limited research also exists regarding
CSR-washing of other social issues, such as LGBTQ+ sup- Literature Review
port and racial inequities (Mitchell and Ward ; 2010 Sobande
2019). With the tremendous growth in brand activism and
The Importance ofBacking CSR Advertising
the promotion of social justice in corporate advertising withAction (Pomering etal. )
2013 , it is critical that researchers examine
the emergence of CSR-washing in other domains, beyond
CSR advertising and other communications that address environmental contexts.
socio-political issues outside of a company’s core business
This study explores CSR-washing as it relates to compa-
focus are increasing (Dodd and Supa ; 2014 Chatterji and
nies promoting gender equality through “femvertisements,”
Toffel 2016; Pomering etal. )
2013 . With increased pressure
or advertisements that communicate about issues related to
for corporations to speak out on social issues (Castaldo etal.
female empowerment (Zeisler 2016). Gender equality is an
2009; Cone Communications 2015; Dodd and Supa 2014;
issue consumers want brands to support (Cone Communica-
Edelman 2017; Varghese and Kumar 2020a), CSR advertis-
tions 2017) and, since 2015, several industry organizations
ing is often the easiest way to educate (or convince) consum-
have created categories to recognize femvertisments in their
ers about a firm’s socially responsible activities or view-
award programs. Femvertising awards, and the popular fem-
points, as it creates a positive association between a specific
vertisements themselves, are shared broadly on social media, cause and the company (Sheikh and Beise-Zee ) 2011 .
resulting in women positively associating these award-win-
Consumers’ perceptions of CSR-focused advertising are
ning brands with female empowerment (Think with Google
formed in the context of their understanding of the com- 2017; Abitbol and Sternadori ) 2019 . However, a number of
pany’s reputation and social commitment, as well as their
companies that have won prestigious femvertising awards
understanding of the social issue itself (Pomering etal.
have simultaneously received negative media coverage for
2013; Skard and Thorbjornsen 2014; Yoon etal. 2006).
lack of female representation at the leadership level (Stor-
Recent research suggests that a majority of consumers,
beck 2017), allegations of sexism (Hsu ) 2018b , and, in the
especially young adults, will engage in information seeking
case of some conglomerates, conflicting messages about
to evaluate the authenticity of a company’s CSR advertis-
body image in ads for other products (Blay ) 2016 . Ulti-
ing and other initiatives (Cone Communications ) 2017 . It
mately, this calls into question whether femvertising is sim-
is important that companies be aware of this, as consum-
ply a newly-emerged form of CSR-washing.
ers may use large-scale communication platforms, such as
This study adds a new perspective to recent literature that
social media, to challenge corporate motives behind CSR
examines consumer responses to femvertising and the ways advertising.
in which gender empowerment is framed in advertisements
A company’s advertising messages also impact employ- (Abitbol and Sternadori ;
2019 Feng etal. 2019; Sobande
ees’ opinions of the brand, wherein employees’ positive con-
2019; Windels etal. 2020). We draw upon CSR-washing
nection with the brand increases when the company’s CSR
and corporate hypocrisy literature (Pope and Waerass 2015;
advertising is backed by similar internal communications Wagner etal. )
2009 to examine whether companies have
(Hughes 2013; Donia and Tetrault Sirsly ) 2016 . Employees’
invested in internal and external CSR work other than the
perceptions of a company’s CSR commitment are important
feel-good messages of their award-winning ads. Beyond
because industry research shows that the Millennial gen-
greenwashing, few studies have explored other forms
eration (currently the largest generation in the workforce)
of CSR-washing and no studies have examined the issue
evaluates and prioritizes CSR commitment when making
of female empowerment and femvertising as it relates to
job decisions (Cone Communications ) 2016 .
CSR-washing, despite this being a rapidly growing area of
CSR advertising is considered “promotional CSR,” which
research and practice. By extending CSR-washing to the
is often more easily understood by stakeholders than “insti-
previously unexamined area of female empowerment, this
tutionalized CSR.” Institutionalized CSR is a comprehen-
paper provides a new category against which to compare
sive program that integrates socially responsible actions
greenwashing and other types of CSR messaging.
into the operations across a company (Pirsch etal. 2007),
touching multiple areas such as employee training, hiring 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
practices, supply chain commitments, and NGO partner-
(Glass: The Lion for Change, n.d.). Companies and agen-
ships. However, consumers are suspicious of promotional
cies that win awards for their femvertisements proac-
CSR and of advertising, both of which they perceive as self-
tively submit their work for consideration, implying pride serving (Pomering and Johnson ;
2009 Webb and Mohr 1998; and confidence in the message they are associating with Obermiller and Spangenberg ;
1998 Obermiller etal. 2005).
their brand. Further, the industry professionals judging
In comparison, institutionalized CSR is more effective at
these competitions award companies as leaders in female
improving loyalty and decreasing consumer skepticism empowerment.
(Pirsch etal. 2007). Thus, a company’s promotional CSR
Reception ofFemvertising
efforts will be most successful if supported by institution-
alized CSR actions. In the case of this study, we explore
There is considerable literature showing that advertising
whether companies recognized for their female empower-
continues to incorporate gender stereotypes, though the use
ment advertisements (promotional CSR) are supporting
has decreased over time (Eisend ; 2010 Wolin ) 2003 . Emerg-
those messages with a comprehensive set of actions such
ing research suggests that femvertisements resonate with
as measurable quotas, increased training and promotional
women because advertisements with female empowerment
opportunities for female employees, and support for external
messages can actually counter these historical and existing
causes that support gender equality (institutionalized CSR).
gender stereotypes and create positive self-views for women Femvertising
(Abitbol and Sternadori 2019; Varghese and Kumar 2020a). Varghese and Kumar ( )
2020b argue that the increasing prev-
The Rise ofFemvertising
alence of femvertising can be attributed, in part, to women’s
demand for more accurate representation, especially regard-
The success of Dove’s 2004 Campaign for Real Beauty
ing gender roles and stereotyping. Indeed, empirical research
inspired tremendous growth in advertisements that address
supports this supposition, wherein traditional depictions of women’s issues (Bahadur )
2014 . Additionally, the #MeToo
women—as hypersexualized and with “perfect” or “flaw-
movement increased the number of women working in
less” bodies—elicited greater psychological reactance when
advertising and marketing agency leadership roles. This
compared to femvertisements, thus decreasing attitudes
furthered the charge for improved representations of women
toward the brand and advertisement (Akestam etal. ) 2017 .
in advertising and acknowledgement of female consumers’
In a study conducted by SHE Media, 52% of women indi-
spending power (Hsu 2018a; Wojcicki ; 2016 Varghese and
cated that they purchased a product because they liked how
Kumar 2020b). Brands that engage in female empower-
the company’s advertisements depicted women. Nearly half
ment campaigns are often rewarded with commercial suc-
said that the purchase made them feel good about support- cess (Becker-Olsen etal. )
2006 . Data show that a majority
ing the brand. A majority of the women also believed that
of Americans (84%) support companies taking a stand for
femvertisements dismantled gender barriers (Castillo 2014).
women’s rights (Cone Communications 2017), and many
While female consumers exhibit generally positive responses
women feel that gender equality is a human rights issue
to femvertisements, it is unclear how aware consumers are
(Castillo 2014). In response, companies from L’Oreal to
of corporate practices when viewing these advertisements.
Ram Trucks now address women’s issues and experiences
For example, Abitbol and Stenadori ( ) 2019 found that con-
in their advertising by producing femvertisements: advertis-
sumers’ responses to the femvertisements of Google and
ing and marketing campaigns that focus on women’s issues,
Microsoft were positive, even though the companies were
celebrate women, and seek to reduce gender stereotypes
experiencing public lawsuits about harassment and discrimi-
(Zeisler 2016). One example of this is a commercial from
nation at the time of the research.
Bud Light, which shows two celebrities (Amy Schumer and
Other companies that create femvertisements, however,
Seth Rogan) drinking beer at a bar, discussing the concept
have experienced increased scrutiny of their own gender- of equal pay.
equality practices. For instance, State Street Global Advi-
In 2014, SHE Media coined the term “femvertising”
sors, as a result of its “Fearless Girl” campaign featuring
at Advertising Week to describe the growing number of
a sculpture of a young girl boldly confronting the bull in
ads that address issues of gender equality, specifically
the Wall Street area of New York City, attracted media
women’s empowerment (Femvertising, n.d.). Since 2015,
attention for its own pay inequities, facing such headlines
SHE Media has recognized companies with Femvertis-
as “Bank behind Fearless Girl Statue Settles Gender Pay
ing Awards for “challenging gender norms” (Femvertising Dispute” (Holman )
2017 . While femvertising is a grow-
Awards, n.d.), and Cannes has awarded Glass Lions to
ing phenomenon in industry practice, research has not yet
advertising that “demonstrates ideas intended to change
examined the extent to which companies that tout female
the world; work which sets out to positively impact
empowerment through promotional CSR support the social
ingrained gender inequality, imbalance or injustice” issue institutionally. 1 3 Y.Sterbenk et al. CSR‑Washing
“woke-washing” is used to describe brands that take on
social issues in their marketing with little action behind
Research shows that stakeholders, especially consumers their messages.
and employees, expect a company to show authentic and
CSR-washing can harm companies that do not support
long-term commitment to the causes it supports (Madrigal
their socially responsible advertising with comparable and Boush ; 2008 Dawkins ; 2004 Hughes ; 2013 Donia and
internal and external corporate initiatives (Wagner etal.
Tetrault Sirsly 2016). Positive associations result when
2009; Kim etal. 2015; Yoon etal. ) 2006 . However, some
consumers and employees feel a company’s motives are
research suggests companies that engage in CSR-washing
sincere. Neutral or negative associations result when
through advertising actually enjoy the same financial and
motives are unclear or insincere, or when CSR messag-
reputational benefits as those that are authentic in their
ing and actions are inconsistent with each other (Wagner
CSR efforts, because consumers take CSR ad messages at etal. 2009; Dawkins ; 2004 Yoon etal. ; 2006 Donia and face value (Pope and Wareass ; 2015 Abitbol and Sternadori
Tetrault Sirsly 2016). Wagner and colleagues (2009) apply
2019). Some scholars (Wagner etal. ) 2009 even suggest
the term “corporate hypocrisy” when company statements
that companies should make their CSR statements more
are inconsistent with observed behaviors, and Pope and
abstract, because failure to live up to company statements
Wareass (2015) define this deliberate use of false claims can be damaging.
to improve competitive standing as “CSR-washing.”
Literature on CSR-washing, greenwashing, and corpo-
The best-known form of CSR-washing is greenwashing,
rate hypocrisy provides helpful definitions and frameworks
which is characterized by decoupling behavior: making
that can be applied to companies engaging in femvertising.
positive statements or distributing advertisements about a
Though the effects of greenwashing are well-documented,
company’s environmental responsibility in an attempt to
there exists limited research on other forms of CSR-washing
satisfy stakeholders. Greenwashing occurs when advertis-
and none related to gender-equality issues. The present study
ing claims are not supported with operational practices and
makes an important contribution to this literature.
thus mislead consumers about a company’s environmental practices (Delmas and Burbano ; 2011 Nyilasy etal. 2014; Research Questions Siano etal. ; 2017 Walker and Wan ) 2012 . Walker and Wan ( )
2012 analyzed company websites and CSR reports
Existing literature on femvertising has primarily focused on
to measure companies’ substantive environmental actions
consumer response to the advertisements themselves (Feng
(“green walk”) versus symbolic environmental actions
etal. 2019) or the framing of the messages (Sobande 2019;
(“green talk”). Overall, the presence of more symbolic Champlin etal. )
2019 . However, no research to date has
actions (or “talk”) had a negative financial impact on the
explored whether companies that engage in femvertising
company. Walker and Wan suggest “that organizations
have committed to the cause in their overall CSR program,
are only able to deal with certain areas at a time. Indeed,
a factor that can impact long-term reputation and loyalty
it would be extremely difficult for a single firm to per- (Pirsch etal. )
2007 . As noted, companies that win femvertis-
form well in all environmental categories that we iden-
ing awards proactively submit their work for consideration,
tified, and no firm in our sample was able to do so” (p.
implying confidence in the association of their brand with
237). It is important to note that not all greenwashing is
female empowerment. Those companies are then recognized
based on outright “lies’’ about a company’s actions. Most
as leaders in female empowerment messaging by industry
greenwashed ads instead feature vague statements or use
professionals, and their ads are shared widely on social
imagery and colors that positively associate a brand with
media by consumers. Given that today’s consumers want
good environmental behavior (Kangun etal. 1991; Parguel
companies to take a stand on social issues and will scrutinize etal. ) 2015 .
the authenticity of these initiatives (Cone Communications
While greenwashing is the most common and most
2017), it is possible that companies recognized for their
researched form of CSR-washing, there are other forms
female empowerment advertising messages also support
such as rainbow-washing, in which organizations use
gender equality in meaningful ways. Still, this research is
rainbow patterns and symbols to appear aligned with the
in its infancy and no work has previously examined CSR-
LGBTQ + community (Mitchell and Ward ) 2010 . Pink-
washing of female empowerment. Thus, this study sought
washing, a term used to describe companies that borrow to explore the following:
breast cancer imagery and symbols to appear aligned
with support of breast cancer awareness efforts, often
RQ1 Are femvertising award-winning companies more
without meaningful support is another form of CSR-
likely than non-award-winning companies to commit to (a) washing (Carter )
2015 . Additionally, in academic and
internal and (b) external efforts that support women? popular literature (Sobande ; 2019 Mahdawi 2018) the term 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
Members of the ad industry have called for companies
messages watched by women on YouTube (2016–2017),
to go beyond female empowerment messaging and hire
and advertisements from three lists curated by Ads of the
women on their boards (Diaz and Zmuda 2014). Not only
World: (4) Girl Power in Advertising, (5) Gender Equality
does representation at the leadership level signify a corpo-
in Advertising (2013–2017), and (6) International Women’s
rate commitment to empowering and recognizing the value
Day (2018–2020). Two hundred and fifty-seven femvertise-
of female employees, research suggests it may also correlate
ments were identified, including print, video, experiential,
to a higher level of overall corporate responsibility activity
and other platforms. To maintain consistency in material
(Cook and Glass 2018; Setó‐Pamies ; 2015 Macaulay etal.
type, we focused on companies that won awards for video
2018), as well as to a higher number of female employees
and experiential campaigns. Additionally, these types of
in a company (Modiba and Ngwakwe ; 2017 Skaggs etal.
advertisements were selected as they were more likely to
2012). As a result, we pose the following question: have been shared broadly.
Since regulations about gender-equality requirements
RQ2 Do femvertising award-winning companies and non-
for companies vary from country to country, we excluded
award-winning companies differ in their female representa-
brands whose parent companies are not currently headquar-
tion in the leadership of their company including the (a)
tered in the United States. One company (P&G) represented
percent of women on the board and (b) percent of women in
multiple brands recognized for their individual femvertise- leadership positions?
ments. Companies were removed from the list if they did
not have enough materials to adequately review CSR and
There are numerous internal and external CSR activities
leadership activities. The resulting list consisted of a total
in which companies might choose to engage to show their
of 31 femvertising award-winning companies from 2015 to
support for gender equality, including employee resource 2019 (n = 31).
groups, hiring commitments, and company-wide trainings
The researchers then developed a comparative list of US-
(internal), as well as partnerships with non-profits, help-
based competitors of the award-winning companies that had
ing members of a community, connecting with consumers
not received awards for video or experiential femvertise-
and others (external). To further understand the extent to
ments. Using Owler.com, we identified the top competi-
which CSR-washing occurs in this context, it is also impor-
tive US-based company in the same industry that offered a
tant to examine the types of activities supported most and
similar product/service focus, was closest to the size of the
least often by these companies. These findings will shed
award-winning company, and, finally, which offered enough
light on the areas of opportunity that companies, especially
material for review. Some of the companies had the same
those with award-winning femvertisements, might consider
competitors, thus the final list consisted of 30 unique compa-
engaging in further to justify their public displays of gender nies (
n = 30). While some of the companies on the compara- equality.
tive list may have had female empowerment advertisements,
they were not award-winning and thus had not received the
RQ3 Which types of gender-equality CSR activities are
recognition and press for their efforts in this area. The final
engaged in most often and least often by femvertising award
list of all 61 US-based companies (N = 61) can be found in winners and non-award winners?
Table1. This sample size provided sufficient data to address
the research questions proposed and exceeds that utilized
in similar research (e.g., de Jong and van der Meer 2015, Method
(N = 6); Fischer 2020, (N = 7)). Compiling Data Profiles Materials Selection
Companies typically communicate their CSR activities
Generating Company Lists
through annual reports, CSR reports, and websites, and these
sources are the most widely used for analyzing and profiling
Two lists of companies were developed for the present study; CSR actions (Arvidsson ; 2010 Begum ; 2018 de Jong and
one consisted of companies that had received an award van Der Meer ; 2015 Waller and Lanis ; 2009 Walker and
for their femvertising and another list consisted of simi- Wan 2012). In fact, Zerbini ( )
2017 notes that CSR reports in
lar, competitor companies that had not received an award
particular provide insight into corporate priorities because
for female empowerment advertising. We first compiled a
they are voluntary disclosures, and “the disclosure of private
master list of award-winning femvertisements including
information” helps us to “embrace the implications linked
(1) ads that won #Femvertising Awards from SHE Media
to the motivations that led the sender to reveal such infor-
(2015–2019), (2) the Cannes’s Glass Lion for Change
mation” (p. 9). We compiled these materials from the most
(2015–2018), (3) the most viral ads with empowering
recent year that were available for each company. Because 1 3 Y.Sterbenk et al. Table 1 Companies and
industries Award-Winning Companies
Non-Award-Winning Companies Anheiser Busch (Beverage) AT&T (Telecommunications) Apple (Technology) BlackRock (Financial)
Ascena Retail (Clothing Retail)
The Boston Beer Company (Beverage) Coca-Cola Company (Beverage)
Campbells (Consumer Packaged Goods) Coty (Beauty)
Colgate Palmolive (Consumer Packaged Goods)
Dick’s Sporting Goods (Retail)
Columbia Sportswear (Clothing Retail) Facebook (Technology) Comcast (Media)
General Mills (Consumer Packaged Goods) Dell (Technology)
Georgia Pacific (Consumer Packaged Goods) Ford Motor Company (Auto) GM (Auto) Google (Technology)
Hormel (Consumer Packaged Goods) Harley Davidson (Auto)
Kimberly-Clark (Consumer Packaged Goods) Hasbro (Toy)
Levi Strauss & Co (Clothing Retail)
Hershey (Consumer Packaged Goods) Mattel Inc. (Toy)
International Paper (Consumer Packaged Goods) McDonalds (Restaurant) Johnson & Johnson (Beauty) Microsoft (Software)
Kellogg Company (Consumer Packaged Goods)
Mondelez (Consumer Packaged Goods) Keurig Dr. Pepper (Beverage) Nike (Clothing Retail)
Kraft Heinz (Consumer Packaged Goods)
P&G (Consumer Packaged Goods) L.L. Bean (Clothing Retail)
Pepsico/Frito Lay (Consumer Packaged Goods) MoneyGram (Financial) Polaris (Auto) New Balance (Clothing Retail) REI (Clothing Retail) Oracle (Software)
SC Johnson (Consumer Packaged Goods) PVH (Clothing Retail)
State Street Global Advisors (Financial) Revlon (Beauty) T-Mobile (Telecommunications) Sprint (Telecommunications) UnderArmour (Clothing Retail)
Tivity Health/Nutrisystem (Health) Verizon (Telecommunications) TJX (Clothing Retail) VF (Clothing Retail)
Tyson (Consumer Packaged Goods) Walt Disney Company (Media) Walmart (Retail) Weight Watchers (Health) Yum Brands (Restaurant) Western Union (Financial)
some research suggests that firm size may correlate with
team, we first went to the company’s website looking for
increased philanthropic activity (Brammer and Millington
self-reported information in the “About Us/Leadership” sec-
2006; Udayasankar 2008), we also solicited the company’s
tions. For the rare companies where this information was
current number of employees and annual revenue, using
not available, we used the public data source Bloomberg Gale Business Insights. (Holder-Webb etal. ) 2009 .
A coding guide was compiled that offered a comprehen-
Coding Schema andAnalysis
sive list of the kinds of corporate activities that companies
may engage in to address issues of gender equality and
Six researchers examined the collected materials and created
female empowerment. The list of activities can be found in
profiles for each company, compiling stated CSR activities
Table2. One researcher developed profiles for a sample of
that related to gender equality and women’s empowerment
10 companies in similar industries and of similar sizes to
(Waller and Lanis 2009; Leech and Onwuegbuzie ; 2008 de
some of the companies in the final dataset. These 10 profiles Jong and van der Meer )
2015 . de Jong and van der Meer
were used to train coders and acquaint them with the coding
(2015) used the following criteria to build CSR profiles for
guide. Four researchers reviewed the training profiles, dis-
analysis: “the activity must be performed voluntarily; the
cussed their findings, and then met to update and clarify the
activity must not be obligated by law; the activity must be
coding guide. The researchers carried out multiple rounds
concrete (the text made clear what the activity involved)”
of training, coding, and discussion. Following the coding
(p. 76). We used these same criteria, with the addition that
training, two rounds of coding were performed to improve
the activity addressed women’s empowerment in some way.
reliability scores. Two of the researchers coded 40% (n = 20)
Each company profile was created and edited by at least two
of the test sample data to establish reliability. A majority
different coders to ensure accuracy of the compilation. Also,
of the Krippendorff’s Alpha reliability values ranged from
one researcher compiled the number of women on each com-
0.70 (external: scholarships) to 1.00. Three categories had
pany’s board (when applicable) and in senior leadership, as
low reliability values, ranging from 0.61 (external: programs
well as the total revenue of each company. Because compa-
for women) to 0.63 (internal: internal events). Further, two
nies differ in how they define who sits on a senior leadership
of the external efforts (product lines and conversing with 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
Table 2 CSR activities in coding guide Diversity reporting
Does the organization publish the numbers of women in the organization in a diversity report, in its CSR report, or on its website? Internal Programs + Actions
Building an internal talent pipeline for women leaders
•Women in leadership pipeline initiatives—i.e., specific training or mentoring programs
•Measurable goals to increase female representation on board or at leadership/management level
•Measurable goals to increase female representation at lower levels of the company
•Programs focused on recruiting female workers, specifically
•Internal events focused on gender issues and empowerment
Benefits and Human Resource Support
•HR Benefits + Policy changes aimed at gender equality
•Signing a public commitment to gender equality inside the company
•Pay equality initiatives or commitments
•The company states or changes their policy on hiring process
Employee Engagement in Ensuring Gender Equality
•Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), affinity groups, mentoring or networking Groups for female employees
•A committee, employee, or department formally coordinating gender diversity and inclusion for the company Operations
•Initiatives to work with other businesses, suppliers and partners that are gender- inclusive
•Sourcing from Women-Owned Businesses
•Support programs for women in the supply chain Training
•Gender bias training that goes beyond sexual harassment training External Programs + Actions Cause-Related Marketing
•Support for non-profit women’s organizations, NGOs, or non-profits that focus on gender or women’s issues
•Company scholarships and grants program (given directly to women)
•Company programs that benefit women in the community
•Company programs that benefit girls in the community Marketing communications
•Producing advertising and marketing campaigns that celebrate women or work to reduce gender stereotypes (beyond the current femvertise- ment) Product
•Diversifying or rethinking product lines aimed at expanding gender reach or addressing gender stereotypes (i.e., dual gender clothing)
•Conversing with female consumers to meet their needs, specifically Industry
•Initiatives that encourage their industry or help other businesses to address gender equality
female consumers) had very low reliability values (0.46 and Results
0, respectively), but this can be attributed to the smaller sam-
ple size. For example, conversing with female consumers
Research Questions 1 and2
had a Krippendorf’s Alpha value of 0; however, the percent
agreement was 95%, indicating only one disagreement in the
The first research question asked whether femvertising
dataset. Given that the percent agreement was still extremely
award-winning companies were more likely to commit to
high among coders (80–95% in these cases), these categories (a) internal and (b) external efforts that support women. It
were retained for analysis. Once agreement was reached,
was also important to determine whether certain aspects of a
one coder coded the remaining companies identified in the
company might influence its engagement in gender-equality final dataset.
initiatives, as this might begin to explain differences in the
types of companies that are more or less likely to engage in
efforts toward gender equality. As such, the second research 1 3 Y.Sterbenk et al.
Table 3 Percentage of women Company Received award Percent of women on Percent of women in
on the board and percentage of the board leadership positions women in leadership positions (%) (%) Anheiser Busch Yes 33 6 Apple Yes 29 25 Ascena Retail Yes 58 57 AT&T No 25 20 BlackRock No 22 16 Boston Beer Company No 29 25 Campbells No 36 20 Coca-Cola Company Yes 31 30 Colgate Palmolive No 40 40 Columbia Sportswear No 36 21 Comcast No 30 33 Coty Yes 22 30 Dell No – 10 Dicks Sporting Goods Yes 20 23 Facebook Yes 33 28 Ford Motor Company No 21 18 General Mills Yes 46 25 Georgia Pacific Yes – 31 GM Yes 55 19 Google No 27 0 Harley Davidson No 20 25 Hasbro No 38 13 Hershey No 42 25 Hormel Ye s 22 17 International Paper No 27 20 Johnson & Johnson No 30 27 Kellogg Company No 42 42 Keurig Dr. Pepper No 25 17 Kimberly-Clark Yes 36 20 Kraft Heinz No 9 30 Levi Strauss & Co Ye s 27 44 L.L. Bean No – 0 Mattel Yes 30 14 McDonalds Yes 23 42 Microsoft Ye s 22 20 Mondelez Yes 23 9 MoneyGram No 11 29 New Balance No – – Nike Yes 21 20 Oracle No 27 33 P&G Yes 36 41 Pepsico/Frito Lay Yes 23 26 Polaris Ye s 30 7 PVH No 36 25 REI Yes 42 44 Revlon No 42 69 SC Johnson Ye s 43 – Sprint No 10 25 State Street Global Advisors Yes 25 25 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
Table 3 (continued) Company Received award Percent of women on Percent of women in the board leadership positions (%) (%) T-Mobile Yes 27 33 Tivity Health/Nutrisystem No 45 17 TJX No 8 18 Tyson No 25 31 UnderArmour Yes 20 13 Verizon Ye s 30 31 VF Yes 30 20 Walmart No 36 21 Walt Disney Company Ye s 40 30 Weight Watchers Yes 30 50 Western Union Yes 30 20 Yum Brands No 27 21
question asked whether femvertising award-winning com-
initiatives), with 14 out of 15 internal initiatives present.
panies were more likely to have (a) more women on their
Kelloggs (non-award winning) and REI (award-winning)
board and (b) more women in leadership positions. These
had the greatest number of external initiatives, with seven
frequencies are reported in Table . O 3 f the 61 companies
out of eight possible efforts. Additionally, a majority of the
analyzed, two (Ascena Retail and GM) had boards with at
organizations (61%) reported the number of women within
least 50% women. Three companies (Ascena Retail, Rev- the organization.
lon, and Weight Watchers) had at least 50% women in their
Some significant differences were found between award leadership positions.
winners and non-award winners across the various types of
A multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was per-
internal and external CSR activities. Pearson Chi-square and
formed with four dependent variables (internal efforts, exter-
crosstabulation analyses revealed that award-winning com-
nal efforts, women on the board, and women in leadership)
panies were more likely to have internal efforts regarding a
while controlling for the number of employees at a company
signed public agreement to gender equality within the com-
and annual revenue. While the omnibus test was not signifi-
pany and gender-equality trainings beyond those standard
cant for the effect of having won an award, F(4, 47) = 1.61,
for sexual harassment, p < 0.05. Award-winning companies
p = 0.19, the univariate test for the number of internal efforts were also more likely to engage in the external initiative of
was statistically significant, F(1, 50) = 6.56, p < 0.05, indi-
supporting or partnering with a non-profit, p = 0.05.
cating that companies that won an award had more inter-
nal efforts dedicated to supporting women (M = 5.04, Internal Activities
SD = 2.83) than companies that had not won a femvertising
award (M = 3.67, SD = 3.21). No other significant differences Among the internal CSR programs and actions, the most
emerged for the number of external efforts, women on the
popular activity was having employee resource groups
board, or women in leadership positions. Twenty five of the
(ERGs) for women, including affinity, mentoring, and net-
award-winning companies (81%) engaged in less than ten of
working groups, which 62% of the organizations utilized.
the possible 23 female empowerment activities. Four were
Next, 43% of the organizations had support programs for
engaged in 10 to 12 actions, and only two (GM and P&G)
women in the supply chain, such as Hershey’s “Cocoa for
engaged in more than half of the identified actions, with 13
Good” program which provides training and financial sup- and 15 actions, respectively.
port for cocoa farmers with a goal to economically empower Research Question 3
women in the supply chain. Many companies (39%) also had
programs focused on recruiting female workers.
RQ3 explored which types of CSR activities were engaged
Among the internal CSR programs and actions, the least
in most and least often by award-winners, non-award win-
popular actions were setting measurable goals to increase
ners, and overall in the entire sample (see Table ) 4 . Of the
female representation at lower levels of the company (10%),
internal and external efforts included in the current study,
and initiatives to work with other businesses, suppliers, and
no company was found to engage in every possible ini-
partners that are gender-inclusive (7%). Changes of policy in
tiative. Walmart, a non-award-winning company, had the
the hiring process (12%) were also reported by few organiza-
most gender-equality initiatives in total (18 out of 23 total
tions. Companies were slightly more likely to set goals for 1 3 Y.Sterbenk et al.
Table 4 Frequencies of each CSR activity CSR activity Total companies Femvertising Non-award Chi-square value
engaging in activities award winners winners (%) (%) (%) Diversity reporting 61 52 70 2.16 Internal
Women in leadership pipeline initiatives 34 32 37 0.13
Measurable goals to increase female representation on board or 15 19 10 1.06 leadership
Measurable goals to increase female representation at lower levels 10 13 7 0.67
Programs focused on recruiting female workers 39 48 30 2.16
Internal events focused on gender issues and empowerment 34 32 37 0.13
HR Benefits + Policy changes aimed at gender equality 31 42 20 3.42
Signing a public commitment to gender equality inside the company 23 36 10 5.60*
Pay equality initiatives or commitments 25 26 23 0.05
Company states of changes their policy on hiring process 12 16 7 1.34
Employee Resource Groups, affinity groups, mentoring or networking 62 58 67 0.48 groups for women
Committee, employee or department formally coordinating gender 21 26 17 0.76 diversity and inclusion
Initiatives to work with other businesses, suppliers, partners that are 7 7 7 < 0.01 gender-inclusive
Sourcing from women-owned businesses 28 29 27 0.42
Support programs for women in the supply chain 43 45 40 0.17
Gender bias training that goes beyond sexual harassment training 30 42 17 4.68* External
Support for non-profit women’s organizations, NGOs, non-profits that 43 55 30 3.85*
focus on gender or women’s issues
Company scholarships and grants program (given directly to women) 28 29 27 0.04
Company programs that benefit women in the community 39 42 37 0.18
Company programs that benefit girls in the community 41 45 37 0.46
Producing advertising/marketing to celebrate women or work to 18 26 10 2.58
reduce gender stereotypes (beyond current femvertisement)
Diversifying or rethinking product lines aimed at expanding gender 10 13 7 0.67
reach or addressing gender stereotypes
Conversing with female consumers to meet their needs, specifically 10 3 17 3.11
Initiatives that encourage their industry or help other businesses to 13 10 17 0.65 address gender equality *p ≤ 0.05
gender representation in leadership and board positions, with companies. For example, Coca-Cola partnered with UN 15% reporting that goal.
Women to build technical knowledge among women farm-
ers, and it partnered with the UK Department for Interna- External Activities
tional Development to develop a program called “Educat-
ing Nigerian Girls in New Enterprises,” which improves
In terms of external CSR programs and actions, 43%
girls’ educational opportunities and potential for future
of organizations engaged in support for non-profits and success.
NGOs that focus on gender or women’s issues. For exam-
The least utilized external CSR programs and actions
ple, Kimberly-Clark partnered with Catalyst, a global
were conversing with female consumers to meet their
non-profit helping to build workplaces that work for
needs, which only 10% of the companies reported. Also,
women. Company programs that benefit girls (41%) and
only 10% of the companies in the sample diversified or
women (39%) in the community were also used by many
rethought their product lines to address gender stereotypes 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
or expand their gender reach. Few companies engaged in
did they have greater female representation on their boards
efforts to encourage the industry or other businesses to
or in leadership positions. Wagner and colleagues (2009) address gender equality (13%).
argue that corporate hypocrisy happens when company
statements are inconsistent with observed behaviors, which
appears to be the case for many of award-winning compa- Discussion
nies. While more research is needed in this area, we pose
the term “fempower-washing” to describe CSR-washing in
The purpose of this study was to examine the presence of
the context of gender equality. Akin to greenwashing, it is
CSR-washing among companies that have and have not
important that researchers continue to monitor the use of
been recognized for their female empowerment adver-
fempower-washing in industry practice and award compe-
tisements (“femvertisements”). While limited by a small
titions before companies begin to inundate consumers with
sample size, award-winning companies exhibited external
false perceptions. While many female consumers report
CSR commitment, as well as female leadership, similar
enjoying these advertisements (such as the Fearless Girl
to companies that had not received a femvertising award.
statue), companies can quickly come under fire with the
Given the increased level of consumer scrutiny that can
public when their lack of internal and external CSR activi-
follow CSR advertising (Madrigal and Boush ; 2008 Dawk-
ties to support women are discovered (i.e., the subsequent
ins 2004; Yoon etal. 2006; Cone Communications 2017),
backlash State Street Global Advisors encountered after
it was surprising to observe few differences between the
commissioning the Fearless Girl, due to multiple issues
two groups of companies. Firms must choose to submit
within the organization related to gender equality).
their ads for award consideration, which suggests they feel
For only one of these initiatives (supporting a non-
confident in their message. In some cases, non-award-win-
profit) did award-winning companies engage in signifi-
ning companies engaged in more types of gender-equality
cantly more external efforts than non-award-winning com-
actions than companies receiving an award. However,
panies. It is worth noting that award-winning companies
when controlling for the number of employees at a given
committed to more external activities in six of the eight
company and annual revenue, femvertising award win-
categories; however, these were not significantly different.
ners committed to more internal efforts devoted to gender
These companies may experience backlash from female equality.
consumers, who may not be privy to a company’s internal
efforts and programs for women. It may be invaluable for
Award‑Winning Companies Do More Internally
companies with many internal programs to better com-
municate these efforts through public-facing channels such
When looking at companies of roughly the same size (num- as their website.
ber of employees) and financial resources (annual revenue),
Greenwashing has been found to occur most often
those that won a femvertising award were indeed more com-
through the use of vague statements and symbolic imagery
mitted to supporting women in meaningful ways, at least
in advertising that suggest positive environmental associa-
internally. It may be that award-winning companies are more tions (Kangun etal ; 1991 Parguel etal ) 2015 , and a similar
likely to produce femvertisements that are high caliber, and
case may be made for many of the award-winning femver-
thus win awards, because they have more internal efforts
tisements. Ultimately, however, the public holds companies
and programs that focus on women and perhaps have a bet-
accountable for the statements made in their advertisements
ter understanding of women’s experiences. This coincides
and avidly uses social media to discuss brands and their with findings from Hughes ( ) 2013 , which suggested that
decisions to communicate about social issues (Passifiume
advertisements are more effective with employees when
2019). Companies take a risk by “talking” about women’s
they are also backed by internal company communications
empowerment in their advertisements, but not “walking the
and actions. In this study, it appears the reverse may be
walk” by investing in a breadth of programs or other efforts
true—internal efforts can perhaps make for better (award-
dedicated to supporting women. Previous research suggests
winning) advertisements; however, research is needed to test
that this can have a negative impact on reputation and on this proposition.
stakeholder trust (Wagner etal. ; 2009 Kim etal. ; 2015 Yoon
etal. 2006). However, findings from this study suggest that
Emerging Evidence ofCSR‑Washing
consumers and industry leaders alike continue to award com-
panies for their advertisements, giving less or little attention
Despite having an award-winning external effort (femver-
to the programs and other initiatives that work to actually
tisement), companies who won an award for femvertis-
move the needle for gender equality. This supports recent
ing did not engage in significantly more types of external
work by Abitbol and Sternadori ( ) 2019 who found that par-
efforts (in total) than non-award-winning companies, nor
ticipants had positive responses to femvertisements, even for 1 3 Y.Sterbenk et al.
companies who were currently experiencing public lawsuits
that the two measurable goals examined in this study were
related to gender equality. Consumers say they will research
among the lowest used CSR activities. Only 15% of compa-
companies to evaluate their CSR initiatives (Cone Commu-
nies had measurable goals for women in board or leadership nications 2017), but do they?
positions, and only 10% had measurable goals for women’s
Based on previous research that shows companies with
representation at lower levels in the organization. Companies
more women in leadership roles tend to exhibit greater cor-
were more likely to adopt looser activities for building the
porate responsibility activity (Cook and Glass ; 2018 Setó‐
pipeline, such as internal events focused on gender issues
Pamies 2015; Macaulay etal. 2018) and focus on gender
and empowerment (34%) and programs focused on recruit-
equality, we assumed that having more women in leadership ing female workers (39%).
at the company would result in more programs for women,
Upon examination of the most and least popular exter-
but this was not the case. This is an important takeaway
nal initiatives, the most popular seem to be those which
as it suggests that companies may be tokenizing women in
are designed to support NGOs and non-profits that support
higher management and leadership positions. Women might
women (43%) or those programs that benefit girls (41%) and
be given these opportunities as a way for the company to
women (39%) in the community. These initiatives are tailor
appear equitable, while still lacking a deep commitment to
made for publicity about doing good for women in the com-
gender-equality motives. Future research could address bar-
munity, as they lend themselves to feel-good stories, news
riers perceived by upper-management female leaders to add
releases, and annual report fodder. These kinds of initiatives
additional clarity to these findings.
are more likely to address stakeholder interests, and thus fall
into the category of “promotional CSR” (Pirsch etal. 2007).
Level ofCommitment andGoals fortheFuture
They also take a paternalistic view, in which the organization
is in the position of power supporting women and girls in
In exploring greenwashing, Walker and Wan ( ) 2012 sug-
the community. Meanwhile, two of the least popular external
gested that it would be “extremely difficult” for firms to
initiatives concerned listening to female consumers to assess
engage in all categories of environmental action (p. 237).
their needs (10%) and rethinking product lines to overcome
Based on the results of this study, this could be true for
gender stereotypes (10%), both which require recognition
female empowerment as well. In reviewing the most com-
of women and their perspectives. Initiatives to partner with
mon kinds of internal actions taken by companies in our
other businesses to address gender equality (13%) were also
femvertising sample, it is clear that many have committed
rarely seen in the sample. These three unpopular external
to more easily implemented activities such as forming net-
initiatives would more closely symbolize “institutionalized
working groups for female employees or increasing efforts to CSR,” which requires operationalized institutional commit-
recruit women. In contrast, fewer companies showed exist-
ment to the cause (Pirsch etal. ) 2007 .
ing commitments toward critical—and harder—aspects of
This study builds on the limited research on CSR-washing
gender equality, such as supporting women at lower levels
and corporate hypocrisy (Pope and Waeraas ; 2015 Wagner
in the company or fostering female representation in board
etal. 2009) and applies the concept in a new context: gen-
and leadership positions. While many companies are willing
der equality. There exists a great deal of research regarding
to report current gender numbers, fewer have publicly com-
green advertising and greenwashing claims and the impact
mitted to measurable objectives for gender diversity. This
of greenwashing on reputation (e.g., Nyilasy etal ; 2014 Ber-
demonstrates Argenti’s (2016) argument that, regarding CSR rone etal. )
2017 . However, it is important to address these
programs overall, more companies “tend to rely on lagging
practices within the growing body of research and practice
indicators (which reflect changes and confirm long-term
related to femvertising messages and reception (Abitbol and
changes) when evaluating the effects of their businesses on Sternadori 2019; Feng etal ; 2019 Sobande ; 2019 Champlin
social and environmental issues, failing to consider lead-
etal. 2019). Several of the companies included in the present
ing indicators (which predict or signal future events)” (p.
study target mostly women, such as award-winning Coty (the
334). He encourages the use of both lagging and leading
parent company of CoverGirl, OPI, Rimmel, and other cos-
indicators, as together they provide a clearer picture of the
metics brands) and non-award-winning Revlon. These com-
way corporate activity impacts results. In fact, specific,
panies have an opportunity to lead the charge in supporting
measurable goals are generally thought to be a best practice
gender equality. Yet, through the present study, both of these
for strategic communication (e.g., Moriarty 1996; Schultz
companies were found to have only minimal gender-equality and Barnes )
1995 , because they suggest a goal has been set
efforts (Coty had four internal efforts and Revlon had one;
against which strategy can be developed and efforts can be
neither had any external female empowerment activities).
measured. Thus, we might assume the presence of measur-
able objectives toward gender equality is a strong signal that
an organization is serious about equality. It is noteworthy 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
Limitations andFuture Research
impact of their actions can also provide a fuller picture of corporate commitment.
This study opens up paths for future research. First, this
research examined US-based companies, and could thus be
expanded to provide an international view. Social norms and
Conclusion andImplications
policies related to rights for women in the workplace differ
across countries and could thus play a role in the CSR efforts Previous research suggests that CSR-washing is not all that
observed. More globally-based research is certainly needed. common (Pope and Waeraas ) 2015 . Moreover, a majority
Additionally, with the growth in the number of brands hop-
of the literature on CSR-washing focuses on the topic of
ing to align themselves with social issues, it is critical that
greenwashing, while other forms of CSR-washing have not
additional research be conducted to see how CSR-washing
been given similar attention. Companies who develop fem-
applies to other social issues addressed in advertising, such
vertisements face increased scrutiny from critics over their
as race, disability, and LGBTQ+ rights.
commitment to gender equality, yet also they are rewarded
This project implemented an existing framework to build
and applauded through industry awards, and their videos are
and analyze profiles of CSR activities (de Jong and van der
shared by consumers. This study takes a first step in examin-
Meer 2015). Similar to that work, the present study is limited ing whether there exists a relationship between a company’s
in that the focus was on CSR reports provided by the com-
commitment to gender equality and their tendency to use
panies themselves. de Jong and van der Meer (2015) suggest
femvertisements to promote their connection to the cause
also including stakeholder interviews from the correspond-
of female empowerment. Based on the information avail-
ing companies. Furthermore, the current project examined
able, a majority of the award-winning companies engaged
and implemented all of the existing lists of award-winning
in corporate hypocrisy, because, beyond their ad campaigns,
femvertisements. No other lists were available to draw from;
they did little to contribute to gender equality within their
however, the study remains limited in sample size. Regard-
company. Just as companies engaged in greenwashing ads
less of sample size, the means for award-winning and non-
due to consumer trends in environmentalism, so have com-
award-winning companies for all four dependent variables
panies engaged in femvertising due to trends for equality.
were nearly identical between the two groups.
This study represents an initial examination of companies’
Because this study focused on evidence of the types of
commitment, which can provide guidance for future research
gender-related activities included in the companies’ self-
and for companies who wish to commit more fully.
reporting, it was difficult to distinguish the depth of each
company’s commitment across the CSR activities. For
instance, some companies, like P&G, engaged deeply in
Compliance with Ethical Standards
a multitude of actions that help women in the community,
while others only employed one or two efforts. Future
Conflict of interest The authors of this paper have no conflicts of inter-
ests to disclose, and are in compliance with ethical standards.
research could report on the total number of activities
reported by each company to assess its commitment to gen-
der equality. It would also be useful to examine the language References
used to communicate gender-related CSR actions to gauge
the true sentiment and commitment of the companies to the
Abitbol, A., & Sternadori, M. (2019). Championing women’s empow-
cause as it aligns with the companies’ stated values.
erment as a catalyst for purchase intentions: Testing the mediat-
Finally, this study also only examined self-reported data
ing roles of OPRs and brand loyalty in the context of femvertising.
from the most recent year available. It is likely that compa-
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(1), 22–41.
Akestam, N., Rosengren, S., & Dahlen, M. (2017). Advertising “like
nies are engaged in additional or other activities that are not
a girl”: Toward a better understanding of “femvertising” and its
highlighted in these reports. Bouten etal. ( ) 2011 suggest that
effects. Psychology & Marketing, 34, 795–806.
the most comprehensive picture of CSR can be seen through
Argenti, P. A. (2016). Corporate responsibility. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
self-reporting of vision and goals, management approaches, Publications Ltd.
Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibil-
and performance indicators, and Hopkins ( ) 2005 says CSR
ity: A study of the views of management teams in large companies.
is measured by looking at a company’s principles of social
Journal of Business Ethics, 96 (3), 339–354.
responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and
Bahadur, Nina. (2014). “Dove ‘Real Beauty’ Campaign Turns 10: How
outcomes of social responsibility. Some of the companies
a Brand Tried to Change the Conversation About Female Beauty.”
Huffington Post. Retrieved from https ://www.huffi ngton post.
included measurable goals related to gender representation,
com/2014/01/21/dove-real-beaut y-campa ign-turns -10_n_45759
as well as impact data from current and ongoing activities. 40.html.
Examining whether and how companies are measuring the 1 3 Y.Sterbenk et al.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact
on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8(3).
of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior.
Retrieved January 2019: http://www.prsa.org/Intel ligen ce/PRJou
Journal of Business Research, 59, 46–53. rnal/Vol8/No3/
Begum, M. I. A. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and gender com- Donia, M., & Tetrault Sirsly, C. (2016). Determinants and consequences
mitments of commercial banks in Bangladesh. Journal of Interna-
of employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as sub-
tional Women’s Studies, 19(6), 87.
stantive or symbolic. (Report). European Management Journal.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2017). Does greenwashing pay
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.004.
off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions
Edelman (2017). 2017 Edelman earned brand study: Beyond no brand’s
and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2),
land. Retrieved from https ://www.edelm an.com/earne d-brand 363–379.
Eisend, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of gender roles in advertising. Journal
Blay, Z. (2016, June 23). Axe and Dove parent company promises no
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(4), 418–440.
more sexist ads after bleak report. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
Femvertising (n.d.), Femvertising Awards. Retrieved from https ://www.
https ://www.huffi ngton post.com/entry /axe-and-dove-par e n t-compa femve rtisi ngawa rds.com/.
ny-promi ses-no-more-sexis t-ads_us_576bf 003e4 b0b48 9bb0c 85c7.Feng, Y., Chen, H., & He, L. (2019). Consumer responses to femvertis-
Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L., & Christiaens,
ing: A data-mining case of Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty”
J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility reporting: a comprehensive
on YouTube. Journal of Advertising, (
48 3), 292–301. https ://doi.
picture? Accounting Forum, 35(3), 187–204.
org/10.1080/00913 367.2019.16028 58.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational vis-
Fischer, D. (2020). The three dimensions of sustainability: A delicate
ibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business
balancing act for entrepreneurs made more complex by stakeholder
Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 6–18. https ://doi.org/10.111
expectations. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(1), 87–106. https :// 1/j.1467-8608.2006.00424 .x.
doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-018-4012-1.
Browning, N., Gogo, O., & Kimmel, M. (2018). Comprehending CSR
Glass: The Lion for Change. (n.d.). Retrieved from Cannes Lions: https
messages: Applying the elaboration likelihood model. Corporate
://www.canne slion s.com/enter /award s/good/glass -the-lion-f or-chang Communications, 23 (1), 17–34. e#/
Carter, M. (2015). Backlash against “pinkwashing” of breast cancer
Holder-webb, L., Cohen, J., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of
awareness campaigns. (Report). British Medical Journal, 351(8029).
corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Jour-
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The missing
nal of Business Ethics, 84 (4), 497–527.
link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: The Holman, J. (2017, Oct 05). Bank behind fearless girl statue settles gender
case of fair trade products. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15. 64,
pay dispute. Bloomberg Wire Service. Retrieved from https ://www.
Castillo, M. (2014). These stats prove femvertising works. AdWeek,
bloom berg.com/ne ws/artic les/2017-10-05/bank-behin d-fearl ess-girl-
Retrieved from https ://www.adwee k.com/digit al/these -stats -prove
statu e-settl es-u-s-gende r-pay-dispu te
-femve rtisi ng-works -16070 4/
Hopkins, M. (2005). Measurement of corporate social responsibility.
Champlin, S., Sterbenk, Y., Windels, K., & Poteet, M. (2019). How brand-
International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 6(3–4),
cause fit shapes real world advertising messages: A qualitative explo- 213–231.
ration of “femvertising”. International Journal of Advertising, 38(8), Hsu, C. (2018a). Femvertising: State of the Art. Journal of Brand Strat-
1240–1263. https ://doi.org/10.1080/02650 487.2019.16152 94.
egy, 7(1), 28–47.
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2016, April 3). The power of C.E.O.
Hsu, T. (2018b, August 10). Ex-employees sue Nike, alleging gender
activism. New York Times, p. SR10. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from
discrimination. New York Times. Retrieved from https ://www.nytim
https ://www.nytim es.com/2016/04/03/opini on/sunda y/the-po wer -of-
es.com/2018/08/10/busin ess/nike-discr imina tion-class -actio n-law su ceo-activ ism.html it.html
Cone Communications. (2015). New Cone Communications research
Hughes, D. (2013). This ad’s for you: The indirect effect of advertising
confirms Millennials as America’s most ardent CSR supporter,
perceptions on salesperson effort and performance. Journal of the
but marked differences revealed among this diverse generation.
Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 1–18. https ://doi.or g/10.1007/
Retrieved from: http://www.conec omm.com/news-blog/new-cone- s1174 7-011-0293-y.
commu nicat ions-resea rch-confi rms-mille nnial s-as-ameri cas-most-Jones, O. (2019, May 23). Woke-washing: how brands are cashing in arden t-csr-suppo rters
on the culture wars. The Guardian. https ://www.thegu ardia n.com/
Cone Communications. (2016). 2016 Millennial Employee Engagement
media /2019/may/23/woke-washi ng-Brand s-cashi ng-in-on-cultu
Study. Retrieved from: http://mille nnial emplo yeeen gagem ent.com/ re-wars-owen-jones
Cone Communications. (2017). Brands & Social Activism: What Do You Kangun, C., Carlson, L., & Grove, S. (1991). Environmental advertis-
Stand Up For? Retrieved from: https ://stati c1.squar espac e.com/stati
ing claims: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Public Policy
c/56b4a 7472b 8dde3 df5b7 013f/t/5947d bcf4f 14bc4 eadcd 025d/14978 & Marketing, 10
(2), 47–58. https ://doi.org/10.1177/07439 15691
81572 759/CSRIn fogra phic+FINAL 2.jpg 01000 203.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2018). Women on corporate boards: Do they
Kim, H., Hur, W., & Yeo, J. (2015). Corporate brand trust as a mediator
advance corporate social responsibility? Human Relations, 71(7),
in the relationship between consumer perception of CSR, corporate
897–924. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00187 26717 72920 7.
hypocrisy, and corporate reputation. Sustainability (Basel, Switzer-
Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication chal-
land), 7(4), 3683–3694. https ://doi.org/10.3390/su704 3683.
lenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 108–119.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis:
de Jong, M., & van Der Meer, M. (2015). How does it fit? exploring the
A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for
congruence between organizations and their corporate social respon-
school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quar-
sibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, ( 143 1), 71–83.
terly, 23(4), 587.
Delmas, M., & Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. Cali-
Madrigal, R., & Boush, D. M. (2008). Social responsibility as a unique
fornia Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.
dimension of brand personality and consumers’ willingness to
Diaz, A. C., & Zmuda, N. (2014). Less talk, more women at the top.
reward. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 538–564.
Advertising Age, 85(18), 17.
Macaulay, C. D., Richard, O. C., Peng, M. W., & Hasenhuttl, M. (2018).
Dodd, M. D. & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring
Alliance network centrality, board composition, and corporate social
“corporate social advocacy” communication: examining the impact
performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 997–1008. 1 3
Is Femvertising theNew Greenwashing? Examining Corporate Commitment toGender Equality
Mahdawi, A. (2018, August 10). Woke-washing brands cash in on social Sobande, F. (2019). Woke-washing: “intersectional” femvertising and
justice. It’s lazy and hypocritical. The Guardian. https ://www.thegu
branding “woke” bravery. European Journal of Marketing. https ://
ardia n.com/comme ntisf ree/2018/aug/10/fello w-kids-woke-washi ng-
doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0134.
cynic al-align ment-worth y-cause s
Storbeck, O. (2017, February 6). Audi’s gender equality plea lacks horse-
Mitchell, A. & Ward, R. (2010). Rainbow washing schools: Are primary
power. Reuters. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from https ://www.reute
schools ready for same-sex attracted parents and students? Gay and
rs.com/artic le/uk-super -bowl-audi-break ingvi ews-idUSK BN15L
Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 6(2), 103–106. Retrieved 17C
from http://searc h.proqu est.com/docvi ew/85961 3952/
Think with Google. What women watch: Trends toward entrepreneurship,
Modiba, E., & Ngwakwe, C. (2017). Women on the corporate board of
education, and empowerment on YouTube. (2017, March). Retrieved
directors and corporate sustainability disclosure. Corporate Board:
May 7, 2020, from https ://www.t hink wit hg oogle .com/consu mer-
Role, 13(2), 32–37.
insig hts/marke ting-to-women -empow ering -ads/
Moriarty, S. E. (1996). Effectiveness, objectives and the EFFIE awards.
Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size.
Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 54.
Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 167–175. https ://doi.org/10.1007/
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived green- s1055 1-007-9609-8.
washing: The interactive effects of green advertising and corporate
Varghese, N., & Kumar, N. (2020). Femvertising as a media strategy
environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Busi-
to increase self-esteem of adolescents: An experiment in India. ness Ethics, 125 (4), 693–707.
Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 104965. https ://doi.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. (1998). Development of a scale to
org/10.1016/j.child youth .2020.10496 5.
measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Con-
Varghese, N., & Kumar, N. (2020). Feminism in advertising: irony or
sumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186.
revolution? A critical review of femvertising. Feminist Media Stud-
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005, Fall).
ies. https ://doi.org/10.1080/14680 777.2020.18255 10.
Ad skepticism: the consequences of disbelief. Journal of Adver-
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy:
tising, 34(3), 7. Retrieved from https ://link-galeg roup-com.ezpro
Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility
xy.ithac a.edu/apps/doc/A1378 61176 /AONE?u=nysl_sc_ithac
perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73, 77–91.
a&sid=AONE&xid=87541 58a
Waller, D. S., & Lanis, R. (2009). Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., & Russell, C. (2015). Can evoking nature
disclosure of advertising agencies. Journal of Advertising, 38(1),
in advertising mislead consumers? The power of “executional green- 109–121.
washing.” International Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 107–134.
Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-
https ://doi.org/10.1080/02650 487.2014.99611 6.
washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental
Passifiume, B. (2019, January 17). Backlash to Gillette ’toxic masculinity’
performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business
ad spreads on social media. Toronto Sun. Retrieved Oct. 29, 2019, Ethics, 109 (2), 227–242.
from https ://toron tosun .com/news/world /onlin e-backl ash-to-gille Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to
tte-toxic -mascu linit y-ad-sprea ds-on-socia l-media
cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Jour-
Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Grau, S. (2007). A framework for understand-
nal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.
ing corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An
Windels, K., Champlin, S., Shelton, S., Sterbenk, Y., & Poteet, M. (2020).
exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, ( 70 2), 125–140.
Selling feminism: How female empowerment campaigns employ
Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. (2009). Constructing a corporate social
postfeminist discourses. Journal of Advertising, 49(1), 18–33. https
responsibility reputation using corporate image advertising. Aus-
://doi.org/10.1080/00913 367.2019.16810 35.
tralasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 17(2), 106–114.
Wired staff. (2018, June 21). The Problem With the ’Rainbow-Washing’
Pomering, A., Johnson, L., & Noble, G. (2013). Advertising corporate
of LGBTQ+ Pride. Wired.com. https ://www.wired .com/story /lgbtq
social responsibility. Corporate Communications, 18(2), 249–263. -pride -consu meris m/
Pope, S., & Waeraas, A. (2015). CSR-washing is rare: A conceptual
Wojcicki, S. (2016, April 24). Ads that empower women don’t just break
framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Eth-
stereotypes—They’re also effective. Adweek. Retrieved April 23, ics, 137 (1), 173–193.
2020, from https ://www.adwee k.com/brand -marke ting/ads-empow
Schultz, D. E., & Barnes, B. E. (1995). Strategic advertising campaigns
er-women -don-t-jus t-break -stere otype s-they-re-also-effec tive-17095
(4th ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. 3/
Setó-Pamies, D. (2015). The relationship between women directors
Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertising: An oversight synthesis
and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibil-
of research: 1970–2002. Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (1),
ity and Environmental Management, 22(6), 334–345. https ://doi. 111–129. org/10.1002/csr.1349.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corpo-
Sheikh, S., & Beise-Zee, R. (2011). Corporate social responsibility or
rate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad
cause-related marketing? The role of cause specificity of CSR. The
reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 27–39.
Zeisler, A. (2016). We were feminists once: from riot Grrl to CoverGirl,
Siano, A., Vollero, A., Conte, F., & Amabile, S. (2017). “More than
the buying & selling of a political movement. New York, NY: Public
words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volk- Affairs.
swagen scandal. Journal of Business Research, 71, 27–37.
Zerbini, F. (2017). CSR initiatives as market signals: A review and
Skaggs, S., Stainback, K., & Duncan, P. (2012). Shaking things up or
research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 1–23.
business as usual? The influence of female corporate executives and Zmuda, N., & Diaz, A. C. (2014). Marketers go soft on feminism.
board of directors on women’s managerial representation. Social Advertising Age, 85 (18), 16. Science Research, 41 (4), 936–948.
Skard, S., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2014). Is publicity always better than
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
advertising? The role of brand reputation in communicating cor-
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
porate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 149–160. 1 3
JournalofBusinessEthicsisacopyrightofSpringer,2021.AllRightsReserved.