What are fake news, propaganda, alternative facts, and post-truths? How does fake news impact the social evaluations of businesses? What can businesses do when their reputation is threatened by fake news? In this e-conversation, I (Sarah Stephen) posed these questions to the Editors of a Special Issue at Business & Society on “Unbelievable! How fake news affects the relationship between business and society”.

Read on to get deeper insights from the Special Issue Editors, Naomi Gardberg (City University of New York), Mike Barnett (Rutgers), Elanor Colleoni (IULM University Milan), & Kathleen Rehbein (Marquette) on fake news, how these motivated them to draft this Call for Proposals, the need for academic scholarship on this topic, and their wealth of pointers if you are interested in submitting a paper!

Sarah: What motivated this Call for Papers?

Elanor: I believe that fake news poses a serious threat to society as it is strategically used to manipulate public perceptions and opinions. While fake news has so far been mainly investigated in the political field, there is mounting evidence of its role in shaping business social evaluations. I was particularly impressed by an NBC article on how Americans changed perceptions on self-driving cars after the diffusion of several fake videos of self-driving cars running over pedestrians. The article claimed that the fake videos were intended to scare American consumers so as to reduce the competitive advantage that USA currently has in this nascent market.  While there is no proof of that, we can all agree that fake news represents a powerful tool for unfair competition. However, to date, we know very little about business related fake news.

Mike: Being alive in the Fox News and Trump eras.

Naomi: In recent years, the volume and dissemination of fake news have surged. A 2018 MIT study found that false news stories on Twitter spread to a larger audience than true stories did. Fake news also spread more rapidly than real news. Fake news and rumors undermined government attempts to control the COVID-19 crisis with devastating economic and health consequences. Yet, we know little about how fake news may affect business and society, or how to mitigate potential damages.

Sarah: What differentiates fake news from propaganda, alternative facts, and post-truths?

Naomi: Fake news is intertwined with the concept of disinformation, alternative facts, and propaganda. Communications scholars define fake news as a deliberate intent to spread misleading or biased contents about an object or event. In contrast to misinformation, which can be conceptualized as false contents spread without any prior deliberate intent, disinformation hides specific nefarious motivations. Scholars also point to the mimicry of authentic or real news in terms of framing and appearance.

Mike: I encourage you to write a paper that addresses this, because I’m not especially clear on the boundaries. Clearly there’s interdependence. We’re interested in both intentionality, error, and even in differences of opinion. We’re also interested in how the aggregate influence of all of this affects the mechanisms of reputation. If we can’t believe our own eyes and ears, then how to assess firms? How do we effectively govern firms through market mechanisms, when we are getting questionable information about their behaviors?

Elanor: The main difference I would make is between alternative facts/post-truths and fake news/propaganda. The latter focuses more on the macro level phenomenon and on the economic and societal aspects that either drive or affect society. Fake news and propaganda are intentionally spread disinformation. There are macro-level actors that have an interest in disseminating this info to gain some advantages.  Instead, alternative facts and post-truths refer more to micro-level dynamics in which individuals are so polarized and unwilling to engage with others’ viewpoints to the point of building their own “alternative truth”. Both these phenomena are interesting and impact on business & society in different ways. In our special issue, we are open to papers exploring both aspects.

Sarah: How does this virulence of fake news impact the social evaluations of businesses?

Mike: You’re asking excellent questions! This is at the core of what we hope papers for the special issue will answer. Seriously – if you’re getting two completing contrasting “facts” about the same firm, as a stakeholder, how do you make sense of it? Do you decide to work there? To buy the firm’s products? To boycott it? You’ll have to make decisions about the veracity and validity and volume of the information you see – if you even see it in your bubble. You can no longer take it as a given – even if you directly see it, given “deep fakes”, or directly read it, given greenwashing etc. So if the standard reputation mechanism is broken (is it? Please submit a paper on this, too!), is the market mechanism broken, too? How do we govern formally and informally, market and nonmarket, in this setting?

Sarah: What can businesses do when their reputation is threatened by fake news? 

Naomi: Prior research has identified several different communication strategies for responding to crises, including accommodation, apologizing, denial, and scapegoating. It is not clear which response strategy will be most effective for businesses trying to protect their reputations. We hope that authors submit papers to our special issue that can shed light on how to effectively prepare for, and respond to, fake news.

Mike: Exactly, Naomi – you’re all going to have to tell us. There’s no shortage of existing literature on how to handle crises, and most of it boils down to getting out in front of a story. Admit it, apologize, and try to move on. But nowadays, can you safely ignore a Twitterstorm, because it’s so fleeting? Is it tempting, and largely successful, to deny and just post misinformation to counter it? We need to update our crisis management models – but exactly when and how is what we hope authors will help to sort out.

Elanor: Preliminary research shows that there are specific conditions that drive companies’ responses. Of course, the virality of the fake news is the primary driver of response. However, other conditions might be relevant too. For instance, when a fake news keeps resurfacing, companies are forced to answer, and they tend to do so by carefully explaining why the news is fake in an accommodative style. An example is Redbull and the fake news that Taurine comes from bull’s testicles. This fake news has been around forever and keeps resurfacing in different formats. This forced RedBull to directly address it on its website in the Q&A section like: “Is taurine made from bull’s testicles? No. The taurine in Red Bull is not derived from animals. It is produced synthetically by pharmaceutical companies, which guarantees high quality standards.” We hope to receive high quality papers that address the efficacy of these responses!

Sarah: To what extent do contextual conditions matter when evaluating the external validity of research on social evaluations?

Naomi: Contextual conditions at the industry and national will be important characteristics to examine. Some industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, have been targets of disinformation campaigns for decades. Recently, some politicians have shared misinformation about some legacy news sources (traditional pre-web sources such as the Der Spiegel, BBC, Le Figaro, and the New York Times) to discredit them. Laws and regulations, such as slander laws or media protections, vary across countries.

Mike: They surely matter quite a lot, across all levels, to include individuals, organizations, industries, and countries. Further insights into which matter more or less across different settings would be valuable.

Elanor: I believe that macro-level factors are, of course, extremely relevant, as pointed out by Naomi and Mike. I would also stress the relevance of the meso-level, i.e., group and network level dynamics that are becoming increasingly important in shaping the perceptions of individuals, and on which little research has been carried out so far.

Sarah: How can this reassessment and extension of research on social evaluations contribute to a better understanding of fake news and its impact on business and society?

Naomi: Research on social evaluations provides theories and tools at multiple levels of analysis to tease out how fake news is disseminated and how it affects business and society. In this way, it examines the processes by which social evaluations are shaped by organizations and individuals.  In addition, this special issue may provide insight into how fake news affect the theoretical mechanisms underlying social evaluations.

Mike: Such research is critical to understanding the relationship between business and society. Many markets have substantially deregulated in recent decades, and business and society scholarship has helped further this deregulation under the notion that stakeholders are empowered to vary their support of firms in accordance with how well these firms behave. In short, the notion that firms have clear incentive to be good, because they know that it pays to be good, dominates. But if stakeholders can’t really assess how firms are doing, then isn’t this largely bullshit? Can stakeholders really police firm? And by extension, do market mechanisms then fall apart? What’s the role for formal government regulation here? So no biggie – this just challenges current notions of how the world works.

Sarah: To what extent does this proposed reassessment of social evaluation constructs require the insights of multiple disciplines?

Mike: It’s not required, but understanding organizations is inherently multidisciplinary. We encourage submissions to bridge disciplines in ways that bring novel insight to this complex issue. Fortunately, business and society scholars tend to be inherently multidisciplinary.

Elanor: There is no doubt that information technologies and digital media play a key role in the creation and diffusion of fake news, and a clear understanding of how fake news is made credible or visible via digital media and ICT is key to fully comprehend how social evaluations are shaped by fake news. Disciplines such as computer science, digital and political communications have already developed a large amount of knowledge on the topic of fake news, for instance, on the technical and human elements that make fake news content spread. We encourage submissions that leverage on this knowledge to advance our field.

Sarah: What are your hopes for this special issue – for theory and practice?

Mike: Well, if we could change the world and whatnot, that would be nice. We’d seriously like to develop the insights to make stakeholders – and so reputational and market mechanisms – more effective in doling out rewards for good corporate behavior and punishments for bad. We’d be happy to settle for at least sorting out the boundaries of these mechanisms in this era of fake news and identifying the gaps.

Elanor: In the last 5 to 10 years, social evaluations research has focused greatly on micro-level dynamics, and very little on macro-level phenomena. I see now, with all the dramatic and extreme changes we are facing in society, a diffused need for a new wave of macro-level/societal level analysis. I do hope that our special issue contributes to address this need.

Naomi: Agreed. I hope that our special issue provides new insights for scholars and managers and becomes a foundation for future research on this dynamic phenomenon. At a minimum, I wish that we inspire research and discussion.

Sarah: Any pointers for interested authors who might have good ideas on contributing to this call?

Naomi: Authors should ensure that their submission demonstrates construct validity and distinguishes fake news from other types of misinformation. In addition, submissions need to make a contribution to the area of business and society.

Mike: Read the call for papers closely! And consider Venmoing me a large sum of US$.

Sarah: Any final comments on that video of “Jeff Bezos” kicking the Amazon delivery driver and stealing $20 from him?

Naomi: Satire is protected speech in the U.S., and a staple of Anglo cultures because it allows us to reflect and laugh at ourselves.

Mike: I can’t say anything more, as I rely on Amazon Prime and am fond of much of the programming on Amazon Prime Video. BTW, can I borrow $20?