As good as you get: consumer boycotts and the occurrence of misleading information-led corporate social irresponsibility

As corporate social responsibility (CSR) is still a developing area within many businesses, it is no wonder that there have been several scandals and mishaps along the way. Environmental and social concerns are not new; however, the emphasis on who is responsible for tackling these issues has shifted. While organisations escaped much of the blame for a long period of time, as their contributions to these crises became more apparent, various stakeholders began to hold them accountable. It is not an easy fix, as many of these issues have been around for many years with little to no intervention. The complexity involved as well makes it difficult to propose plans and strategies that can tackle these problems more decisively. While organisations are becoming more involved in CSR activities, it has still been a learning curve. Challenges such as unethical decision-making, false reporting and greenwashing have also grown. These all contribute to the occurrence of corporate social irresponsibility (CSI). Once this happens, it can lead to unmet stakeholder expectations and even loss of brand image and reputation. This is not an ideal situation for any business to be in, and therefore organisations are gearing towards how to resolve CSI to regain the trust that has been lost. It can be a near impossible situation to restore this trust; however, businesses might put in the effort otherwise their bottom lines would be affected. Zhong and Kim (2025) investigated the impact of misleading information-led CSI on consumer boycotts.When organisations engage in CSI, it can either be intentional or unintentional. Needless to say, it can be easier to recover from when it is unintentional. However, this does not mean that there will be no losses. Regardless of the cause of deception, once this has occurred, there is a reasonable loss of trust and sense of betrayal. In these situations even loyal consumers will waver. Managing the relationship between the organisation and consumers is all about trust. If this is lost, then consumers can easily find alternatives. It is easier for them to do so than to rebuild a broken relationship. The consumer–organisation relationship is like any other relationship; it needs to be well nurtured and mutually beneficial to thrive. Additionally, there are also emotions that can get tangled in these transactions. Consumers may have specific environmental or social concerns that they would like organisations to deal with. When their expectations are not met, then it calls to question the benefit of the relationship. This is how boycott intentions or behaviours can arise, especially with causes that individuals are passionate about. This is also why it is so important to limit the possibility of CSI. As consumers weigh the various business relationships they have, it is crucial that the outcome be favourable. Negative impressions can smear the reputation of a business to even irreparable lengths. The saving grace is that many consumers are becoming more critical thinkers and seek to understand the situation before reacting right away.When CSI is unintentional, limited resources or competencies may be to blame. A common element is when organisations rely on inaccurate information to make decisions. Proper knowledge management systems can combat this, and organisations can avoid being misled. For example, some greenwashing cases arise because businesses were not aware of the practices undertaken along the supply chain. In these instances, they were blindsided as well. It does not lessen their responsibility in the matter, but it does provide them a basis for improvement and growth. Living in the information era, where individuals have abundant access to information, can make it difficult to judge which is credible or not. This is where the trust built can help push the scale towards the favourable end. It is easier for consumers to trust that they were not intentionally misled when they have good history and outlook on the organisation. Conversely, if an organisation is known for certain behaviours, then even if untrue, it can impact how consumers perceive them.Consumer boycotts have become more common and have also affected large organisations that were previously viewed as untouchable in terms of brand reputation. In today’s era, there is little recognition of past prestige when it comes to misconduct. Organisations can no longer rely on their reputation to get away with CSI. They are being judged on a more even scale. Boycotts are a common outcome, especially when consumers want to make a significant impact. The magnitude of the boycott can sometimes dictate the organisation response. Even large organisations have been forced to cave in to demands for more socially responsible behaviour due to boycotts. The collective impact can be major, depending on the issue at hand. Boycotts may have been less common previously, as many stakeholders were unaware of actual organisational activities and impacts. As awareness of these matters grew, people could no longer stand idly by as the general environment continued to deteriorate. They also realised that they could impact business decisions by taking a stand and shifting their purchasing behaviours. This is the step needed to promote CSR within organisations.This review is based on “When are global fashion companies socially irresponsible? Relations among misleading information, brand betrayal and saving face in consumer boycotts” by Ping Zhong and Changju Kim, published in the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management.