Previous research indicates that consumers may resist negative publicity when they perceive a firm to be socially responsible (Klein & Dawar, 2004; Chernev & Blair,2015). However, other research shows corporate social responsibility (CSR) may boomerang the damage of negative publicity (Sohn & Lariscy,2012). Firms may participate in CSR and it is important for market practitioners and researchers to understand the role of different types of CSR in minimizing the impact of negative publicity. This research aims to examine the moderating role of two types of CSR in the effect of negative publicity on consumer responses. An experiment with a 2 (negative publicity type: ability-related vs. morality-related) x 2 (CSR type: philanthropic donation vs. employee wellbeing) between-subjects factorial design was conducted in a major city of China. In the morality-related negative publicity and employee wellbeing condition, the participants were shown with employee wellbeing materials and a morality-related negatively publicized article about a fictitious hotel. Similar arrangements were setup for other different conditions. Then, consumer responses such as firm evaluation and patronage intention were measured. Results of two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect. The findings indicate that consumers’ patronage intention is lower when a morality-related negative publicity has happened to a firm having “philanthropic donation” type of CSR, and also when an ability-related negative publicity has happened to a firm having “employee wellbeing” type of CSR. Managerial

• Teng Gao(Sun Yat-Sen Business School, Sun Yat-Sen University, China)
• Lishan Xie(Sun Yat-Sen Business School, Sun Yat-Sen University, China)
• Patrick Poon(Department of Marketing and IB, Lingnan University, Hong Kong)