Skip to main content
Log in

When Aspirational Talk Backfires: The Role of Moral Judgements in Employees’ Hypocrisy Interpretation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) aspirations by companies have been identified as a motivating factor for active employee participation in CSR implementation. However, a failure to practise what one preaches can backfire and lead to attribution of hypocrisy. Drawing on a qualitative study of an award-winning sustainability pioneer in the cosmetics sector, we explore the role of moral judgement in how and when employees interpret word–deed misalignment in CSR implementation as hypocritical. First, our case reveals that high CSR aspirations by companies raise employees’ moral expectations. Second, we develop a framework that explains variations in employees’ hypocrisy interpretations based on consequentialist and deontological forms of moral judgement. Our research advances a contextual view of hypocrisy, not as an objective characteristic of an organisation, but as an outcome of interpretative processes of perceived motives and results in CSR implementation. Our framework thereby explains why even highly committed organisations may face accusations of hypocrisy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All names are fictional.

References

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Amaral Lauriano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical Approval

We hereby assure that we complied with all ethical standards from the COPE guidelines.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Data Sources

Appendix: Data Sources

Data sources

Specification of collected data

Use in the analysis

Interviews

From January/2018 to December/2019

Gather perceptions and examples of misalignments and hypocrisy

 

Number of interviews: 30

 
 

Subunits: 20

 
 

Roles:

Gather data from different subunits and hierarchical positions in the organisation

 

– Managerial: 5

 
 

– Coordination: 11

 
 

– Operational: 5

 
 

– Sellers: 8

 
 

Total:

 
 

23 h of interviews

 
 

From 30 to 100 min

 

Documents

From 2007 to 2017:

Triangulate and verify information from our respondents

 

– Sustainability report 2007: 43 pages

Gather data regarding specific sustainability objectives and indicators

 

– Sustainability report 2008: 99 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2009: 147 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2010: 114 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2011: 134 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2012: 189 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2013: 175 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2014: 84 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2015: 122 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2016: 150 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2017: 122 pages

 
 

– Sustainability report 2018: 125 pages

 
 

– Sustainability Vision (launched in 2015): 44 pages

 
 

Minutes from meetings on sustainability:

Understand the language and details in specific projects that came up in the interviews

 

Eight meetings from January to April 2019

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lauriano, L.A., Reinecke, J. & Etter, M. When Aspirational Talk Backfires: The Role of Moral Judgements in Employees’ Hypocrisy Interpretation. J Bus Ethics 181, 827–845 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04954-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04954-6

Keywords

Navigation