How Corporate Social Responsibility Creates a Halo That Softens the Impact of Crises
In a time when organizations seem to move from one crisis to the next with barely a pause in between, understanding how reputations are shaped — and protected — has become more important than ever. A recent academic study by researchers from the University of Connecticut (UConn) takes a close look at how an organization’s behavior before a crisis can dramatically influence how people judge that organization during a crisis. The findings offer valuable insights into why some companies weather scandals better than others, even when the crisis itself is severe.
The research, conducted by Tyler Page and Carolyn Lin from UConn’s Department of Communication, was published in the journal Public Relations Review. At its core, the study examines how corporate social responsibility (CSR) shapes public perception when things go wrong — and whether goodwill truly acts as a reputational safety net.
Why Reputation Matters More Than Ever in Crisis Situations
Organizations today face crises of all kinds. Some are self-inflicted, such as product failures or ethical lapses, while others are external, including misinformation campaigns, political pressure, or public health emergencies. Regardless of the cause, the reputational damage from a crisis can be long-lasting.
According to the researchers, pre-existing attitudes toward an organization play a major role in how people interpret crisis events. In simple terms, if people already believe a company is “good,” they are more likely to judge its mistakes less harshly. This idea is not new, but the study helps clarify how and why this effect works.
Many organizations invest heavily in CSR initiatives — from employee welfare programs to environmental sustainability and community outreach — partly because these actions help build a positive public image. What this study shows is that CSR does more than make an organization look good in calm times; it actively reshapes how crises are evaluated.
The Halo Effect Versus the Carryover Effect
In crisis communication research, two major theories are often used to explain how reputation influences public reactions: the carryover effect and the halo effect.
The carryover effect treats reputation like a bank account. Organizations that have accumulated reputational “capital” can withdraw from that account during a crisis. The assumption is that companies with stronger reputations simply lose less credibility because they have more goodwill stored away.
The halo effect, however, works differently. Rather than acting like stored capital, a positive reputation actually changes how people perceive the crisis itself. If people already believe an organization is virtuous, they may see the crisis as less offensive or less morally troubling.
Page and Lin wanted to know which of these theories better explains how people respond to crises — and whether CSR plays a central role in activating either effect.
How the Researchers Designed the Study
To test these ideas, the researchers created a controlled experimental setting using a fictional pharmaceutical company. This allowed them to carefully isolate variables without interference from real-world brand loyalties.
A total of 406 participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk) platform. Each participant was introduced to the fictional company and then randomly assigned to one of three pre-crisis scenarios:
- A CSR success scenario, where the company was described as distributing COVID-19 vaccines to underserved communities
- A CSR failure scenario, involving groundwater contamination near a company facility
- A neutral scenario, with no notable positive or negative CSR activity
Participants first answered questions measuring their perceptions of the company. After this, all participants were exposed to the same crisis scenario: the company had sold baby powder containing cancer-causing ingredients for decades.
Using a custom-designed analytical model, the researchers measured how participants evaluated the crisis, the company’s character, and its overall reputation.
What the Study Found — and What It Didn’t
The results were striking. The researchers found clear evidence of the halo effect. Participants who had previously seen the company engage in positive CSR judged the crisis as less offensive, even though the crisis details were identical for everyone.
Importantly, this reduction in perceived offensiveness was mediated by perceived virtuousness. In other words, people believed the company was morally good, and that belief softened their reaction to the crisis.
What surprised the researchers was what they didn’t find. There was no evidence of a carryover effect. The idea that organizations simply draw down stored reputational capital during a crisis did not hold up under statistical analysis.
This distinction matters because it suggests reputation doesn’t just act as a buffer — it actively reshapes interpretation. People aren’t thinking, “This company has done good things before, so I’ll forgive them.” Instead, they are thinking, “This company is good, so this crisis must not be as bad as it seems.”
Why Perception and Bias Play Such a Big Role
One of the most important contributions of this study is its emphasis on individual perception. Page and Lin highlight that people interpret crises through their own experiences, beliefs, and biases.
This helps explain why the same crisis can provoke wildly different reactions across groups. In political crises, for example, supporters of a particular party may see misconduct as less severe than opponents do. The underlying mechanism is similar: pre-existing attitudes shape judgment.
The study’s analytical approach, which used structural equation modeling, allowed the researchers to identify perceived virtuousness as a key variable. Without this method, the importance of moral judgment in shaping crisis reactions might have remained hidden.
What This Means for Organizations and Society
From a practical standpoint, the findings reinforce a powerful message: doing the right thing before a crisis pays off. CSR is not just about optics or long-term brand value; it directly influences how stakeholders interpret negative events.
The research also challenges the idea that crisis management is only about choosing the right response strategy after something goes wrong. According to Lin, the real difference often lies in how those strategies are executed, and how audiences already feel about the organization.
There is also a reassuring takeaway. The study suggests that ethical behavior and financial incentives are not always at odds. In crisis communication, they often align. Organizations that invest in ethical practices are more likely to maintain trust — and ultimately protect their bottom line — when crises occur.
Expanding the Research Into New Crisis Types
The researchers are not stopping here. Page is currently working with UConn students to examine how false or exaggerated allegations influence future crisis situations. This line of inquiry is especially relevant in an era of social media amplification and rapid misinformation.
Lin also emphasizes that crisis communication is no longer an occasional challenge. It is a constant condition for both public and private institutions. With crises occurring more frequently and spreading faster than ever, understanding the psychology behind public reactions has never been more important.
Why This Research Stands Out
What makes this study particularly valuable is that it moves beyond simple questions of whether a strategy works. Instead, it explains why it works, and under what conditions. By separating halo effects from carryover effects, Page and Lin provide a clearer framework for understanding reputation, morality, and public judgment.
For organizations, policymakers, and communication professionals, the message is clear: reputation is not just what you’ve built — it’s how people think about you when things fall apart.
Research Reference:
Page, T. G., Lin, C. A., et al. (2025). A goodwill shield for crisis communication: Exploring the Halo Effect of CSR activities. Public Relations Review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102602
