Brands are important in transitioning consumer habits and, consequently, making our society a more sustainable one. Sustainability has become an important consideration when consumers and other stakeholders award their votes (e.g., through consumption and employment) to brands. However, brands may experience difficulties when implementing new features, such as sustainability, into their brand image. Brand incongruence can emerge when new information deviates from consumers' expectations. How sustainability may lead to such incongruence is the focus of this study, which investigates the potential (in)congruence of sustainability for brands based on the concept of brand personality. The results of the quantitative survey (n=11,110) illustrate that all five brand personalities (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness) have the potential to embed sustainability into their brand image. The findings of this study lay the groundwork for further research on the critical issue of sustainability and branding and may encourage brand leaders to embed sustainability into brand strategies without fear of brand incongruence.

Despite the widespread belief that inclusion in prominent rankings benefits firms, emerging research suggests that marginal inclusion may at times have unintended negative consequences. Replicating and extending Lewis and Carlos (2023), who document negative effects for firms barely included in the 100 Best Corporate Citizens list, we examine how marginal inclusion in the Fortune 500 ranking influences evaluations by key stakeholders. Through a quasi-replication of the Lewis and Carlos (2023) study, we find supporting evidence that firms ranked near the bottom of the list experienced negative external evaluations, not only from investors but also from industry peers. We develop a theoretical explanation for these effects, emphasizing changes in evaluators’ comparison sets and the conflation of ranking criteria with overall quality. Our study also contributes to research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) by showing how recognition in rankings may shape stakeholder perceptions of firms’ social and financial performance.

The voluntary carbon market has emerged as a promising mechanism for organizations to offset emissions through purchasing carbon credits from dedicated emission reduction projects. However, media investigations have exposed pervasive quality issues with certain carbon credit projects. While negative media scrutiny has contributed to stark decline in demand for carbon credits, the effect on carbon credit supply remains less understood. This paper examines how media scrutiny on specific carbon credit projects in the forestry sector, verified by Verra – the largest carbon credit registry – spilled over to the supply decisions of other carbon credit projects. We conceptualize carbon credit projects’ decisions to increase or decrease carbon credit supply as navigating the tension between stigmatization and competition-induced substitution effects. Using a ten-year panel dataset of over 10,000 carbon credit projects, we investigate spillover effects across two categories: the registry and the sector. We find that Verra-verified forestry projects reduced supply, while forestry projects in other registries increased supply. Non-forestry projects, even those verified by Verra, were largely unaffected. This study contributes to the literature on voluntary carbon markets and spillover effects by highlighting the heterogeneous supply-side responses to public scrutiny.

This study examines how organizations respond to conflicting evaluations from multiple intermediaries. While prior research suggests that conflicting assessments might dilute the influence of any single system, we argue they can intensify reactivity by creating reputational dissonance—uncertainty stemming from inconsistent evaluations. Organizations facing such dissonance are more likely to act to reduce discrepancies, driven by concerns about stakeholder confidence in their positive reputation. This effect is stronger for organizations (a) dependent on intermediary audiences for key resources and (b) when peers receive consistently positive ratings, increasing reputational contrast. Our empirical setting focuses on ESG ratings, examining the early interaction between KLD and Innovest. Results show that firms with favorable prior KLD ratings reduce toxic emissions more significantly in response to unfavorable Innovest ratings. This effect is amplified for firms dependent on financial investors, Innovest’s key audience, and when peers receive favorable Innovest ratings. These findings contribute to the literature on reactivity, highlight how new intermediaries gain traction by challenging established reputations, and raise concerns about the proliferation of ESG ratings diluting their collective influence.