CEO gender and audience responses: the role of gender stereotypes in organization sustainability communication

As sustainability gains greater public attention, many companies employ various communication strategies to signal their sustainability initiatives (Andersen et al., 2013). Research on corporate communication has long recognized that the effectiveness of these organizational messages depends not only on message content and delivery channels but also on the messenger (Lasswell, 1948). However, the role of messenger attributes has received considerably less scholarly attention than message content and channels, particularly within the context of sustainability communication. This gap is consequential because even well-intentioned sustainability initiatives may fail to resonate with audiences if the messenger is perceived as lacking credibility or authenticity, regardless of message content. Within this landscape, the CEO occupies a uniquely influential position as an organizational messenger.

As the most visible representative of the firm, the CEO serves as both a symbolic embodiment of the organization and a credible authority on corporate strategy and commitments (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Love et al., 2017). Unlike other organizational spokespersons, CEOs possess unique legitimacy to articulate these strategic goals, making their communications particularly consequential for shaping stakeholder perceptions (Chatterji and Toffel, 2019). Audiences form their attitudes and perceptions of firms through both direct and indirect exposure to CEOs’ communications, such as speeches, interviews, official letters, and press releases (Delmas et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2020). As a result, assessments of corporate sustainability initiatives are fundamentally intertwined with evaluations of the CEO as an individual.

Moreover, when audiences evaluate CEO communications, they engage in a dual assessment; they judge both the message content and the messenger’s credibility, competence, and trustworthiness (Hovland and Weiss, 1951; Pornpitakpan, 2004). Source credibility theory suggests that even substantively identical messages can elicit divergent responses depending on audience perceptions of the communicator’s characteristics (Metzger et al., 2010). Indeed, while some CEO-led sustainability initiatives receive praise from the audience, others provoke criticism. For instance, Patagonia’s founder and former CEO, Yvon Chouinard, was widely acclaimed for championing environmentalism and aligning the company’s actions with its sustainability message, whereas BP’s “net zero ambition” was criticized by some as “greenwashing.” Furthermore, certain CEO-led sustainability efforts inspire audiences to take concrete supportive actions, such as supporting the brand, advocating for the initiatives, or seeking employment with the firm, whereas other efforts fail to provoke positive audience engagement. This raises a critical question for corporate sustainability communication: if stakeholders respond differently to the same message depending on who delivers it, which CEO characteristics systematically shape these differential responses?

Among observable CEO characteristics, gender presents a particularly intriguing puzzle for sustainability communications. Two competing theoretical frameworks suggest divergent predictions about how CEO gender should influence communication effectiveness in this domain. On the one hand, extensive research on leadership stereotypes shows that audiences consistently associate effective leadership with masculine rather than feminine traits, creating evaluative disadvantages for female leaders across organizational contexts (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012; Koenig et al., 2011). Role congruity theory and leadership categorization theory both predict that male CEOs should be perceived as more competent and credible communicators because their traits align better with prototypical leadership profiles (Lord, 1985; Lord and Maher, 2002; Rosette et al., 2008).

On the other hand, another stream of research suggests that female leaders are well-suited to domains such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and broader prosocial values. Feminine traits, stereotypically associated with caring, empathy, and communality, are viewed as aligning well with sustainability values (McCright, 2010; Zelezny et al., 2000). Research on CSR suggests that female leaders are perceived as qualified to manage environmental, social, and sustainability initiatives, and that women CEOs exhibit stronger CSR performance and disclosure (Dadanlar and Abebe, 2020; Yahya, 2025). This perspective suggests that female CEOs can be evaluated positively by audiences in the context of sustainability communication due to their domain-specific advantage, as their gender identity aligns well with the prosocial nature of the message content.

These competing theoretical frameworks create a fundamental tension: when female CEOs communicate their firms’ sustainability initiatives, will general leadership stereotypes (favoring males) override domain-specific gender associations (favoring females), or will the content domain benefit the female messenger? We address and empirically test this unresolved puzzle of whether sustainability represents a domain where female CEOs can overcome typical leadership disadvantages, or whether leadership stereotypes persist robustly in domains seemingly associated with feminine traits. Specifically, we investigate three interrelated questions. First, does CEO gender systematically affect how audiences perceive the CEO’s leadership quality and likability when communicating about sustainability initiatives? Second, do these gender-based perceptions influence audiences’ attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message and the firm’s initiatives? Third, do differential attitudes translate into behavioral intentions, including willingness to support the company as customers, shareholders, community members, or potential employees?

We conducted survey experiments utilizing an AI-generated CEO persona (i.e. CEO avatar) that systematically manipulated CEO gender while holding all other observable characteristics constant. This innovative methodological approach allowed us to isolate gender effects from confounding variables that often plague observational studies of CEO characteristics, while providing a realistic method for exploring how observable CEO characteristics shape audience reactions. Our empirical findings provide clear support for the general leadership stereotype perspective over the domain-specific advantage perspective. Across both studies, male CEOs received higher ratings on perceived leadership quality and likability compared to female CEOs delivering identical sustainability messages. These perception differences systematically predicted more favorable attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability initiatives and stronger behavioral intentions to support and engage with the firm. Our results provide empirical evidence of the robustness of gender-based general leadership stereotypes even in domains where female CEOs might enjoy advantages.

This study makes several important contributions. Theoretically, we extend the current understanding of gender stereotypes in leadership by examining the boundary conditions (or lack thereof) under which leadership prototypes override domain-specific associations. We show that the evaluative disadvantages that female leaders face persist even in domains where feminine traits might be perceived as advantageous, revealing the stickiness of leadership categorization processes and their broader impact on the social evaluation of the organization. Furthermore, we also contribute to the corporate sustainability communication literature by demonstrating the critical role of messenger characteristics in shaping the effectiveness of corporate sustainability initiatives. Lastly, our findings offer a practical contribution for firms striving to increase their sustainability communication effectiveness. When a firm is led by a CEO with atypical characteristics (e.g. gender, race, or background), it is advised to build communication strategies that can actively override stereotypical expectations (Jeong et al., 2024).

Corporate sustainability communication has become a central strategic imperative as firms face mounting pressures from various stakeholders to demonstrate environmental and social responsibility (Fatima and Elbanna, 2023; Grover et al., 2019). In response to these institutional demands, CEOs increasingly serve as the primary voice articulating their organizations’ sustainability initiatives (Chatterji and Toffel, 2019). These CEO-led communications can significantly strengthen corporate reputation and stakeholder trust by demonstrating the firm’s genuine commitment to ethical practices, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility—or conversely, can provoke skepticism and accusations of greenwashing if perceived as inauthentic or symbolic (Lyon and Montgomery, 2015). For example, in an interview with CNBC, Nissan CEO Makoto Uchida emphasized that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations now play a pivotal role in shaping the strategies and operations of automotive manufacturers (CNBC, 2021). Similarly, Apple CEO Tim Cook attracted media attention for highlighting that companies can remain profitable while embracing sustainability in an interview (CNBC, 2017). During this conversation, Cook emphasized Apple’s commitment to generating jobs in the United States and protecting the planet, explaining, “One of the things you do is give back. So how do you give back? We give back through our work in the environment, in running the company on renewable energy. We give back in job creation” (CNBC, 2017). These examples illustrate the growing prominence of CEO-led sustainability communications, yet they also raise questions about what makes such communications effective in shaping stakeholder perceptions.

The CEO occupies a uniquely important position in sustainability communication for two reasons. First, the CEO is often considered the face of a firm, possessing the authority and power to shape its strategic direction (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Love et al., 2017). Due to this symbolic importance and practical authority, a CEO’s communications carry greater weight than those of any other personnel within the firm, particularly regarding sustainability initiatives (Chatterji and Toffel, 2019). Given that a firm’s devotion to social and environmental initiatives requires non-negligible investments beyond legal mandates (Lee et al., 2023), audiences attend to CEO communications as a paramount signal. Second, audiences generally lack opportunities to directly interact with corporate leaders; they must evaluate the signals from the firm and its CEO to form their perception and attitudes toward the firm. As such, audiences rely heavily on the observable characteristics and biographical profiles of CEOs, such as race, gender, and educational or professional backgrounds (Jeong et al., 2024). Therefore, these two factors combine to make CEO sustainability communications a critical object of study in understanding the social evaluation of a firm.

Despite the significance of CEO sustainability communications, research has predominantly focused on what CEOs say (e.g. message content and framing) and how they say it (e.g. communication channels) while paying significantly less attention to who is saying it (e.g. messenger characteristics). Communication research has long identified message, medium, and messenger as the three fundamental elements of communications (Lasswell, 1948). However, sustainability communication research has examined the influence of the first two elements far more extensively than the third, exploring factors such as message framing (Christis and Wang, 2021), narrative strategies (Boukes and LaMarre, 2021), disclosure channels (Saxton et al., 2019), and timing (Vogler and Eisenegger, 2021). This represents a significant gap because source credibility theory suggests that identical messages can elicit divergent responses depending on audience perceptions of the communicator’s characteristics (Hovland and Weiss, 1951; Pornpitakpan, 2004).

Emerging research in management has examined how CEO and top management team characteristics influence organizational strategic choices (e.g. Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Shin et al., 2016). More recently, scholars have examined how observable CEO characteristics influence external stakeholder responses to corporate initiatives, finding that audiences respond differently based on CEO activism (Melloni et al., 2019; Wowak et al., 2022), political ideology (Briscoe et al., 2014), and demographic attributes such as race and gender (Gligor et al., 2021; Jeong et al., 2024). Building on this foundation, we focus specifically on the role of CEO gender as a consequential messenger characteristic in shaping audiences’ attitudes and behavioral intentions in response to CEOs’ sustainability initiatives. Gender represents a particularly compelling case for theoretical investigation because two well-established but competing streams of research generate divergent predictions about whether male or female CEOs will be perceived as more credible and effective sustainability messengers. This theoretical tension, between general leadership stereotypes that favor male leaders and domain-specific associations between feminine traits and prosocial and environmental values, has not been adequately examined empirically in the context of CEO sustainability communications.

Two well-established theoretical frameworks provide potentially competing perspectives regarding how CEO gender influences audience responses to sustainability communication. Will male CEOs receive more positive audience reactions than female CEOs, or vice versa? Alternatively, are audiences indifferent to CEO gender when shaping their responses to these initiatives? We develop both perspectives below before deriving competing hypotheses.

Role congruity theory and leadership categorization theory. Role congruity theory (RCT) and leadership categorization theory (LCT) provide the theoretical rationales for the mechanisms underlying gender-based audience perceptions. RCT is a social psychological theory describing how audience evaluations of a target person’s leadership capabilities are influenced by socially expected gender roles. According to RCT, women are expected to exhibit communal characteristics, while men are expected to display agentic (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Because corporate leadership roles are more readily associated with agentic than communal qualities (Koenig et al., 2011), female leaders are likely to receive less favorable evaluations than male leaders, regardless of the specific domain within a business context.

Similarly, LCT describes how audiences assess a leader’s capabilities based on the fit between the individual and the audience’s prototypes of effective leadership. Audiences evaluate leaders by comparing them to these prototypical leadership profiles, forming assessments based on how closely the target aligns with expected characteristics (Lord, 1985; Lord and Maher, 2002; Rosette et al., 2008). Because audiences tend to associate typical leadership traits–such as competence, charisma, assertiveness, and decisiveness–more readily with men rather than with women, female leaders often face an evaluative disadvantage. When audiences perceive a leader’s profile as atypical, they often evaluate both the leader and the organization they represent more negatively (Jeong et al., 2024).

Together, these theoretical perspectives suggest that the salience of CEO title compels audiences to rely heavily on general leadership prototypes, overriding considerations of the specific message domain. As Rosette and colleagues (2008) note, “evaluators compare a target person with already preexisting knowledge structures called leadership prototypes, which reflect the average characteristics of leaders in a given context” (p. 759). Thus, the CEO title provides a strong contextual cue that shifts evaluative criteria from a communal assessment (e.g. “Does this person care about sustainability?”) to an agentic, strategic assessment (e.g. “Can this person lead the organization in achieving the goals?”). Consequently, a robust body of empirical research consistently demonstrates that female leaders face lower social evaluations than male leaders, even when objective performance is equivalent (Eagly et al., 1992).

Furthermore, although women are generally stereotyped as warmer and more likable than men under the RCT framework, female leaders who exhibit agentic behaviors required of a CEO, such as driving corporate sustainability initiatives, create cognitive dissonance among audiences by violating traditional gender role expectations (Festinger, 1957; Rudman et al., 2012). Empirical evidence illustrates this “double bind”: female leaders described as successful and competent are frequently rated as less likable and more interpersonally hostile than identically described male leaders (Heilman et al., 2004). Based on these theoretical perspectives, which emphasize the primacy of general leadership stereotypes and the cognitive salience of the CEO role, we derive the following two competing hypotheses:

Domain-specific gender stereotypes. An alternative theoretical perspective suggests that domain-specific gender stereotypes may override general leadership prototypes when message content strongly aligns with gender-typed traits. Building on deeply ingrained cultural beliefs about gender, a robust body of research demonstrates that women are stereotypically associated with greater environmental concern, prosocial values, and communal orientations compared to men (Zelezny et al., 2000). Empirical research demonstrates that women exhibit higher levels of environmental concerns, greater support for environmental policies, and more frequent pro-environmental behaviors than men (McCright and Dunlap, 2011; Zelezny et al., 2000).

Within the organizational context, CSR research suggests that audiences perceive women as more committed to social and environmental issues than men (Bear et al., 2010; Post et al., 2011). Firms with greater female representation on boards exhibit stronger environmental and social performance (Liao et al., 2015), and the appointment of female executives is associated with enhanced CSR engagement and disclosure (Dadanlar and Abebe, 2020; Yahya, 2025). According to source credibility theory, messenger credibility is evaluated by the perceived congruence between the message content and messenger traits. Thus, when female CEOs communicate about sustainability, they may benefit from this perceived value alignment and authenticity from a signaling standpoint.

Furthermore, the stereotype content model (SCM) posits that warmth and competence are two fundamental dimensions of social perceptions (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2018). Perceived intentions, such as friendliness, trustworthiness, and sincerity, underlie warmth, while competence reflects the perceived ability to carry out those intentions. However, it is important to note that the relative importance of these dimensions may shift depending on social categories and contexts. Therefore, when communicating sustainability initiatives, the category and context of environmentalism may enable the salience of warmth over traditional competence indicators, granting more favorable social evaluations to female CEOs to male CEOs.

From this perspective, female CEOs should be perceived as possessing higher leadership quality in the domain of sustainability communication, even though general leadership prototypes may still be prevalent in other contexts. Similarly, because audiences perceive a higher level of value congruence and authenticity, female CEOs should be rated higher on likability in the domain of sustainability communication. Based on this perspective, we derive the following two competing hypotheses:

Regardless of whether general leadership stereotypes (H1a and H2a) or domain-specific stereotypes (H1b and H2b) dominate, we expect that audiences’ perceptions of CEO leadership quality and likability will shape their attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message. Even if the direction of the gender effect on audience perceptions may be contested, the relationship between these perceptions and subsequent attitudes should remain consistent. We adopt an integrated theoretical framework combining the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and Source Credibility Theory (SCT) to explain how audiences form attitudes toward a CEO’s sustainability initiatives.

The SCM posits that people evaluate individuals and social groups based on two fundamental dimensions: warmth and competence (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2018). Warmth is determined by perceived intent—whether a group or individual is viewed as friendly, trustworthy, and cooperative—while competence is tied to the ability to carry out these intentions, encompassing traits like intelligence, skill, and efficacy. These two dimensions underlie the emotional responses and social evaluations that guide social interactions.

Building on this, SCT argues that the persuasiveness of a speaker’s message is largely determined by the audience’s perceptions of the speaker’s expertise and trustworthiness (Hovland and Weiss, 1951; Metzger et al., 2010). In our context, a CEO’s leadership quality aligns with the competence dimension, while likability corresponds to warmth. This overlap suggests that when audiences perceive a CEO as both capable and likable, they are more likely to view the CEO as a credible source, thereby enhancing the persuasive impact of the message. In turn, sustainability initiatives promoted by such a CEO are more apt to elicit positive audience attitudes. Based on this integrated framework, we hypothesize:

Research demonstrates a strong relationship between attitude and behavioral intention, with behavioral intention serving as a significant predictor of actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Kim and Hunter, 1993). The more positive the attitude, the higher the behavioral intention, and the more likely the behavior will occur. Moreover, psychological theories suggest that individuals strive to behave in ways that maximize internal cognitive consistency, as cognitive inconsistencies cause discomfort (Abelson et al., 1968; Festinger, 1962). This implies that positive attitudes toward a CEO’s sustainability message should translate into intentions to support the organization the CEO represents.

In the context of sustainability and corporate social responsibility, positive attitudes toward a firm’s sustainability messages tend to influence audiences’ intentions to take actions aligned with the firm’s objectives (Stadlthanner et al., 2022). In particular, we examine two distinct forms of behavioral intentions. First, we analyze general stakeholder support intentions, including the willingness to buy the firm’s products, invest in the company’s stock, and participate in the firm’s customer community. These represent various ways audiences can support organizations whose sustainability initiatives they view favorably. Because the CEO serves as the critical messenger of the firm’s values and intentions, an audience’s attitude toward the CEO’s sustainability messages can significantly influence their subsequent behavioral intentions toward the organization.

Therefore, we hypothesize:

Second, we examine employment intentions as a distinct organizational outcome. Forming an employment relationship represents a qualitatively distinct and potentially stronger behavioral commitment than acting as a customer, shareholder, or community member. Given the CEO’s importance as the public face of the firm (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Love et al., 2017), prospective employees often deduce corporate values and culture through the CEO’s messages, which may affect their willingness to join the organization. This is particularly relevant for younger cohorts who place high importance on corporate sustainability and social responsibility when making employment decisions. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Figure 1 illustrates the relationships among the variables described in the proposed hypotheses.

Perceived leadership quality. This variable is operationally defined as an individual’s subjective assessment of the effectiveness and competence of a leader. The measurement was adapted from prior research on leadership categorization and leader perception (Lord et al., 1984; Rosette et al., 2008). Five items, including uncharismatic/charismatic, unassertive/assertive, unsupportive/supportive, unempathetic/empathetic, and indecisive/decisive, measured the variable with a 7-point semantic differential scale (1–7). The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.88 with M = 4.68, SD = 1.33.

Likability of the CEO. This study operationally defines this variable as the degree to which individuals perceive the CEO to be personable, approachable, and pleasant in interpersonal interactions. The instrument was adopted from Yue et al. (2021). A 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) measured how much an individual agreed that the CEO is friendly, attractive, and likable. The reliability of the three items was 0.88, M = 4.63, SD = 1.46.

Attitude toward the message. The researchers define this variable as an individual’s evaluative response toward the message delivered by the CEO. The instrument was adopted from MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). A 7-point semantic differential scale (1–7) measured this variable with three items, including bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant, and unfavorable/favorable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95, M = 4.85, SD = 1.71).

Intention to interact with the CEO’s company. This variable is an individual’s intention to engage with the CEO’s company. The instrument was adopted from Yue et al. (2021). A 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely; 7 = extremely likely) measured how likely an individual wants to become a customer, shareholder, and customer community member of the CEO’s company. The three items’ reliability was 0.96, with M = 3.49 and SD = 1.95.

The experimental stimuli consisted of two CEO speech videos that were identical in content but differed in the gender of the CEO avatar. To isolate the effect of CEO gender, all other aspects of stimuli were held constant across conditions. Both videos used the same script describing the company’s sustainability initiatives, the same background setting, and the same camera framing.

The CEO avatars are generated using an AI image generation tool, ChatGPT 4.0. To minimize potential confounds, the avatars were designed to appear as professional business leaders of similar apparent age, ethnicity, attire, and facial expression. Both avatars wore comparable professional clothing and were presented in a neutral office-style setting with consistent lighting and camera angle.

The speech script developed by the researchers was identical across the two conditions. The audio narration was generated using ElevenLabs text-to-speech technology. Male and female voices were selected to match a neutral, professional speaking style with a similar speech rate. The audio files were synchronized with the avatar images using the DID AI video generation platform to create two videos.  Appendices 1 and  2 show the screen-captured images of the CEOs’ videos and the speech script.

To confirm the effectiveness of the gender manipulation, a pretest was conducted with 37 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants viewed one of the two videos and were asked to identify the gender of the CEO presented in the video. The results indicated that participants correctly identified the male CEO as male in 95% of cases (19 out of 20) and the female CEO as female in 100% of cases (18 out of 18). These results confirm that the gender manipulation in the stimuli was clearly perceived by participants. The data from this pretest were used solely to verify the manipulation and were not included in the main analysis.

After the IRB approval, researchers distributed a Qualtrics questionnaire to participants recruited through Mtruk. In the Mtruk system, Mturk Masters achieved more than 98% for all requesters’ HITs, had more than 5,000 HITs approved, lived in the United States, and could participate in the survey experiment. Researchers prevented multiple submissions of the same participant and detected bots using Qualtrics functions. Each participant received monetary Amazon credit as compensation. The recruitment and research participation occurred in June and July 2024. The questionnaire randomly showed a male or a female CEO’s video to a participant after the participant agreed to the informed consent form placed at the beginning of the questionnaire. After that, participants answered the questions measuring perceived leadership quality, the likability of the CEO, attitude toward the CEO, and behavioral intentions. The total time of participation of an individual participant was approximately ten minutes.

A total of 196 people participated in the survey experiment. Their average age was 45.6 (SD = 13.3). Among them, 52% (n = 102) were males, while 46.4% (n = 91) were females. Caucasians were the most prevalent race (69.9%, n = 137), followed by Asians (15.82%, n = 31), African Americans (8.16%, n = 16), Hispanics (1.53%, n = 3), and American Indians (0.51%, n = 1). For the highest education degrees they earned, a Bachelor’s degree is the most (56.63%, n = 111), followed by high school (12.76%, n = 25), some college (no degree) (10.2%, n = 20), and Master’s degree (8.16%, n = 16).

H1 and H2 argue that audiences will rate a CEO’s perceived leadership quality and likability differently depending on the CEO's gender. Specifically, H1a and H2a predict that a male CEO is higher than a female CEO, while H1b and H2b do the opposite. An ANOVA showed that audiences rated significantly higher perceived leadership quality for the male CEO than for the female CEO, F(1,194) = 4.52, p < 0.05, M_male = 4.87, SD_male = 1.32, M_female = 4.47, SD_female = 1.31 (see Figure 2 and  Appendix 3). We also examined whether CEO gender affects audiences’ perception of CEO likability. The results from ANOVA showed that the likability of the male CEO was significantly greater than that of the female CEO, F(1,194) = 6.04, p < 0.05, M_male = 4.86, SD_male = 1.45, M_female = 4.36, SD_female = 1.44 (see Figure 2 and  Appendix 4). Thus, H1a and H2a were supported while H1b and H2b were not.

The third hypothesis proposes the positive associations of audiences’ perception of a CEO’s leadership quality and likability with their attitudes toward the CEO’s message. A multiple linear regression was conducted to examine the relationship between audiences’ perceived leadership quality and likability, and attitude toward the message. The overall model was significant, F(2, 193) = 127.5, p < 0.001, and explained approximately 56.9% of the variance in attitude toward the message, R² = 0.569. Both perceived leadership quality, B = 0.692, t(193) = 6.82, p < 0.001, and likability, B = 0.295, t(193) = 3.20, p < 0.01, were significant predictors of attitude toward the message (see Table 1). Thus, H3a and b were supported.

H4a expects a positive relationship between audiences’ attitudes toward the CEOs’ message and their behavioral intention toward the CEO’s company. A simple linear regression showed that audiences’ attitude toward the CEO’s message significantly predicted their behavioral intention, F(1, 194) = 83.98, p < 0.001, which accounted for approximately 30.2% of the variance in behavioral intention, R² = 0.302. Attitude toward the message was significantly associated with intention, B = 0.627, t(194) = 9.16, p < 0.001 (see Table 2). Thus, H4a was supported.

Study 1 explored how CEO gender influences audiences’ perceptions of leadership quality and likability in the context of sustainability communication and whether those perceptions shape audience attitudes toward the CEO’s message and subsequent behavioral intentions toward the company. The findings provide clear support for the general leadership stereotype perspective represented by role congruity theory (RCT) and leadership categorization theory (LCT), rather than the competing domain-specific stereotype perspective. Specifically, male CEOs were evaluated more favorably than female CEOs on both perceived leadership quality and likability, even though the message content, visual setting, and presentation format were held constant across conditions. These results suggest that, in the context of CEO-led sustainability communication, audiences rely strongly on gendered leadership prototypes when evaluating the messenger.

More specifically, the findings support H1a and H2a, while failing to support the competing hypotheses H1b and H2b. Although sustainability is often associated with communal, ethical, and prosocial values that may be viewed as more congruent with feminine stereotypes, these domain-specific associations did not outweigh general leadership stereotypes in Study 1. Instead, the CEO title itself appears to activate expectations tied to competence, authority, and strategic capability, attributes more strongly associated with male leaders in prior research (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Lord and Maher, 2002). In other words, when a CEO communicates sustainability initiatives, audiences may not primarily ask whether the speaker appears caring or value-congruent with sustainability, but rather whether the speaker appears capable of leading the organization and implementing the initiative effectively.

The findings also support H3a and H3b by showing that perceived leadership quality and likability were both positively associated with attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message. This result is theoretically important because it clarifies the mechanism through which CEO gender matters in sustainability communication. They indicate that gender cues shape audiences’ perceptions of leadership quality and likability, and these perceptions subsequently influence attitudes toward the sustainability message. This pattern is consistent with the integrated logic of the stereotype content model (SCM) and source credibility theory (SCT), in which audiences’ judgments of competence and warmth inform evaluations of source credibility and message persuasiveness.

In addition, the support for H4a demonstrates that attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message are positively associated with broader intentions to support the firm, including intentions related to consumption, investment, and community engagement. This finding indicates that when audiences respond positively to the CEO’s message, those favorable attitudes extend beyond message evaluation and translate into stronger support intentions toward the organization itself.

Study 2 adopted variables used in Study 1, perceived leadership quality, likability of the CEO, attitude toward the message, behavioral intention toward the CEO’s company, and an additional variable, willingness to work for the CEO’s company. Since the sample of Study 2 is college students who are interested in having a job after graduation in general, the variable was newly added. Study 2 used the same instruments in Study 1 to measure the variables adopted in both Studies 1 and 2. However, the measurement reliability (Cronbach alpha, a), central tendency (mean; M), and dispersion (standard deviation; SD) of the variables were different: perceived leadership quality (a = 0.84, M = 3.64, SD = 1.24), likability of the CEO (a = 0.79, M = 3.82, SD = 1.24), attitude toward the message (a = 0.92, M = 4.21, SD = 1.47), and behavioral intention toward the CEO’s company (a = 0.91, M = 2.85, SD = 1.36).

Willingness to work for the CEO’s company. This variable captures the extent to which individuals perceive a company as an attractive potential employer after being exposed to the CEO’s sustainability message. Because Study 2 uses a college student sample, this variable reflects recruitment-related behavioral intention among prospective employees. The researchers newly created this measurement. A 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) measured this variable with three items: “I would like to work for the CEO featured in the video,” “I would feel motivated to join a company led by the CEO shown in the video,” and “If given the opportunity, I would apply for a position at a company where the CEO in the video is in charge.” The reliability, mean, and standard deviation are 0.94, 2.98, and 1.46, respectively. Study 2 used the same stimuli that were used in Study 1.

One hundred ninety seven college students, comprising 110 males (55.8%) and 86 females (43.7%), participated in this study at a business school in a Midwestern US state. One student preferred not to say their gender. The mean age of the participants was 23.6 (SD = 5.17). The majority of them (87.31%, n = 172) were White, followed by Hispanic (3.05%, n = 6), Black (2.03%, n = 4), and Asian (1.52%, n = 3).

Students voluntarily participated in this survey experiment located in Qualtrics. The questionnaire was almost the same as that used in Study 1, except for the new variable, “willingness to work for the CEO’s company.” After completing the questionnaire, students were redirected to another survey to identify the participants’ information to grant the extra credit; thus, researchers could not match the study results with the participants’ personal information.

The use of a college student sample in Study 2 was intentional. While Study 1 examined audience reactions among a general adult population recruited through Mturk, Study 2 focuses on how CEO sustainability communication may influence potential job seekers’ perceptions of organizations. College students represent a relevant stakeholder group in this context because they are actively exploring employment opportunities and forming impressions of potential employers. Consequently, the measure of willingness to work for the company serves as a meaningful behavioral intention for this population, reflecting employer attractiveness and recruitment-related perceptions.

The relationship between CEO gender and leadership perceptions and likability were examined for the first two hypotheses. An ANOVA revealed that CEO gender significantly predicted leadership evaluations, F(1, 195) = 4.31, p < 0.05 (see Figure 3 and  Appendix 5). Specifically, male CEOs were rated higher in leadership (M = 3.83, SD = 1.25) than female CEOs (M = 3.46, SD = 1.22). Another ANOVA showed CEO gender marginally predicted likability, F(1, 195) = 3.16, p = 0.08 (see Figure 3 and  Appendix 6). Male CEOs were rated higher in likability (M = 3.98, SD = 1.25) than female CEOs (M = 3.67, SD = 1.22). Thus, H1a and H2a were both supported, while H1b and H2b were not.

A multiple linear regression was conducted to assess the relationship between leadership, likability, and message attitudes. The model significantly predicted attitudes toward the message, F(2, 194) = 48.56, p < 0.001, accounting for 33.4% of the variance in message attitudes, R² = 0.334. Likability significantly predicted message attitudes, B = 0.445, SE = 0.085, t(194) = 5.39, p < 0.001, while leadership significantly predicted message attitudes, B = 0.308, SE = 0.084, t(194) = 3.65, p < 0.001 (see Table 3). Thus, H3a and H3b were supported.

The relationship between message attitudes and behavioral intention was investigated using linear regression. Results indicated that message attitudes were a significant predictor of behavioral intention, R² = 0.150, B = 0.360, t(195) = 5.86, p < 0.001 (see Table 4). Thus, H4a was supported.

Finally, the relationship between message attitudes and willingness to act was examined using linear regression. The model significantly predicted the outcome variable, R² = 0.255, and attitudes toward the message were a significant predictor of willingness to work for the CEO’s company, B = 0.502, t(195) = 8.17, p < 0.001 (see Table 5). Thus, H4b was supported.

Study 2 extended the findings of Study 1 by examining the same theoretical relationships among a younger population of college students and by incorporating willingness to work for the CEO’s company as an additional recruitment-related outcome. Overall, the findings largely replicated the core pattern observed in Study 1, while also showing that the effects of CEO gender remained present in a sample of prospective job seekers. In particular, the results again favored the general leadership stereotype perspective over the competing domain-specific stereotype perspective.

First, the findings provide support for H1a and directional support for H2a. Male CEOs were evaluated significantly more favorably than female CEOs on perceived leadership quality, and they were also rated somewhat higher on likability, although the latter effect was only marginally significant. At the same time, the competing hypotheses H1b and H2b were not supported. These findings are theoretically important because they suggest that even among younger audiences, who may be assumed to hold less traditional gender-role attitudes, the CEO title continues to activate gendered leadership expectations.

Second, Study 2 supports both H3a and H3b by showing that perceived leadership quality and likability were positively associated with attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message. This result reinforces the mechanism identified in Study 1 and strengthens the broader theoretical argument of the paper. The findings suggest that CEO gender matters not because male CEOs are inherently more persuasive communicators, but because gender cues shape perceptions of leadership-related and interpersonal qualities that subsequently influence how audiences evaluate the message. In this sense, Study 2 again supports the integrated logic of the stereotype content model (SCM) and source credibility theory (SCT), showing that competence-related and warmth-related judgments both contribute to message evaluations (Cuddy et al., 2008).

Third, the findings support H4a by demonstrating that positive attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message were associated with stronger behavioral intentions toward the company. This result is notable because it suggests that the persuasive effects of CEO sustainability communication extend beyond immediate message evaluation and shape broader stakeholder responses even among younger respondents. Although college students may not yet be fully established as consumers or investors, their intentions still reflect meaningful organizational evaluations, indicating whether the firm is viewed as worthy of support and engagement.

Finally, Study 2 supports H4b by showing that more favorable attitudes toward the CEO’s sustainability message were significantly associated with stronger willingness to work for the company. This is an especially important finding because it extends the implications of CEO sustainability communication into the domain of employer attractiveness and recruitment. For younger audiences who are actively exploring future career opportunities, CEO-delivered sustainability communication may serve as a cue not only about the organization’s environmental and social commitments but also about its broader values and leadership culture. Thus, CEO sustainability communication appears to have implications not only for external stakeholder support, but also for talent attraction and employer branding.

This study makes several interconnected theoretical contributions. Fundamentally, we developed a competing hypothesis design based on the seemingly paradoxical predictions of established theoretical perspectives regarding how CEO gender influences sustainability communication effectiveness. This creates an interesting theoretical tension that previous research has not empirically examined. Our findings provide clear support for the general leadership stereotype perspective over the domain-specific stereotype perspective across both studies and samples.

First, our findings demonstrate that leadership prototypes and their associations with gender-based stereotypes are remarkably robust. While issues such as sustainability, business ethics, and broader CSR are often seen as areas where female CEOs might have an advantage due to their perceived alignment with communal and nurturing traits, general leadership characteristics favoring male leaders overrode these domain-specific expectations. This indicates the profound cognitive salience of the CEO role itself; audiences almost automatically assess the target leader based on their leadership categorization schema, consistent with LCT and RCT (Lord, 1985; Lord and Maher, 2002; Rosette et al., 2008). Our findings extend role congruity theory and LCT by demonstrating that gender-based stereotypes favoring agentic traits apply even in domains seemingly conducive to feminine traits.

Second, while previous research conducted at the organization level suggests that women possess advantages in the CSR and sustainability domains, our findings reveal that these advantages are not completely transferable to audience evaluations of their individual sustainability communications. Furthermore, this study illustrates how these biased audience perceptions shape attitudes toward the CEOs’ messages (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2018; Tonoyan and Strohmeyer, 2021) and influence subsequent behavioral intentions in response to sustainability initiatives (Ajzen, 1991; Kim and Hunter, 1993; Stadlthanner et al., 2022). This highlights the challenges many firms face in motivating audiences to engage with their initiatives, particularly when gender-based biases are at play.

Third, we contribute to the sustainability communication literature by showing the importance of messenger characteristics in shaping audience perceptions and subsequent communication effectiveness. Beyond prior studies’ focus on what CEOs say and how they say it, our findings indicate that who says it is a critical factor in determining audience perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. This reaffirms the central role of CEOs in corporate communications and underscores the significance of source characteristics in corporate communication research.

Lastly, methodologically, our use of AI-generated CEO personas contributes to research streams focusing on how audiences respond to observable CEO characteristics, such as gender. As the face of the firm, CEOs’ messages serve as critical signals to various stakeholders and audiences. For this reason, academic research has traditionally focused on the content of CEOs’ official communications, such as letters in annual reports or press releases. However, when researchers aim to measure the impact of observable CEO characteristics on audience responses, indicating a CEO’s gender in a script or hinting at it through a name can introduce demand characteristics, as audiences may detect the researcher’s intention. The use of AI-generated avatars offers advantages over traditional approaches by providing experimental control while maintaining realistic presentation and avoiding the confounds that plague observational studies or text-based manipulations. With advances in AI technology, AI-generated CEO personas offer a more realistic and unbiased way to measure audience reactions. Furthermore, this method can be applied to test message variations and subsequent audience reactions. For example, researchers could explore how audiences evaluate a CEO and their messages when the same CEO persona uses either narcissistic or humble language in their speeches.

This study offers practical recommendations, particularly for firms led by female CEOs seeking to maximize the effectiveness of sustainability communication. The findings reveal that male CEOs are perceived as having higher leadership qualities and likability than female CEOs, likely due to gender-based stereotypes that align traditional leadership traits more closely with male attributes. To address this perception gap, organizations with female CEOs may need to design communication strategies that actively counteract these stereotypes. These strategies could emphasize traits signaling strong leadership and execution capability, such as decisiveness, strategic vision, and assertiveness, while simultaneously highlighting traits that enhance warmth, such as empathy and community orientation. However, this strategy should be navigated carefully, as our findings suggest a competence-likability tradeoff may exist, and overly strong agency may reduce likability due to role incongruity.

This study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, to directly answer theoretical questions regarding the mechanisms of gender bias, future research must move beyond manipulating biological gender to explicitly measuring the psychological attributes audiences assign to leaders. While our experimental design directly manipulated CEO gender, we theorize that the resulting evaluations are driven by the underlying attribution of agentic versus communal traits. Future studies should include mediation analyses to confirm whether these specific perceived attributes drive the difference in communication effectiveness.

Second, our sample sizes provide adequate statistical power for detecting the medium-to-large effects we observed but may limit our ability to detect smaller effects or moderators, which may affect the generalizability of the results. Future research should replicate our findings with larger, more diverse samples. Additionally, participants for Study 1 were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk), which may introduce certain biases related to digital literacy. While Mturk is a widely used platform for experimental research, it may not fully represent the broader public or specific professional audiences who regularly engage with CEO communications in real-world settings. In follow-up studies, replicating the analyses with data obtained from diverse respondent pools can mitigate this limitation.

Third, while the AI-generated avatars and voices of the CEO persona provided experimental control, they may not fully capture the subtlety of human communication, such as facial expressions and voice inflections. Although using an AI-generated persona provides control and standardization, it may limit the ecological validity of the study. Furthermore, the uncanny valley (Mori et al., 2012), where people feel discomfort when interacting with robots or animated characters that appear almost human, may affect the results. Addressing these concerns will require further technological developments in AI and more sophisticated research designs considering human respondents’ emotional responses.

Fourth, this study focused exclusively on gender as the primary CEO characteristic affecting audience perceptions. However, intersectionality research demonstrates that race, age, ethnicity, and other identities interact in shaping social perceptions (Rosette et al., 2008). Furthermore, there may be interaction effects between these traits and gender on the CEO’s perceived competence and warmth. Future research should consider incorporating multiple dimensions of leadership identity.

Fifth, while we demonstrated that general leadership stereotypes override domain-specific stereotypes in sustainability communication, important boundary conditions remain unexplored. For example, feminine advantages may emerge and override general leadership stereotypes in certain subdomains of ESG reporting. In addition, female CEOs with a long track record and proven evidence of commitment to sustainability may be able to overcome gender-based biases. Future research can further investigate these questions.

Another limitation concerns the use of a student sample in Study 2. While college students represent a meaningful population for examining recruitment-related outcomes such as willingness to work for an organization, their responses may not fully generalize to broader stakeholder groups such as experienced employees, investors, or consumers. Future research should replicate these findings using more diverse samples to further assess the external validity of the observed relationships.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Today, I stand before you not just as the CEO of our esteemed manufacturing company but as a steward of the planet we all share. It is with a deep sense of responsibility and urgency that I address the environmental challenges our operations pose to our world. We are at a pivotal moment in history where the actions we take today will shape the legacy we leave for generations to come. Our company is acutely aware of the concerns raised by our community, stakeholders, and the environment at large. The footprint we leave on this planet is not just a matter of regulatory compliance but a testament to our commitment to future generations. We acknowledge the impact our operations have had and take full responsibility for contributing positively to the environmental solutions our world so desperately needs. In the face of these challenges, we are not passive. Our team is working tirelessly to innovate, transform, and lead in the reduction of CO2 emissions. While the specifics of our initiatives are vast and varied, our goal is singular: to significantly lessen our environmental impact. We are exploring every avenue, leveraging cutting-edge technologies, and rethinking our processes from the ground up to ensure our operations are as sustainable as they are efficient. This journey is neither simple nor immediate, but it is necessary. As a leader in the manufacturing sector, we have a unique opportunity—and indeed, a moral obligation—to pave the way for a more sustainable industry. Our commitment to this cause is unwavering, and we invite our employees, customers, and partners to join us in this crucial endeavor. To those who have voiced their concerns, we hear you. To our planet, we see the signs. To future generations, we owe you a world that thrives, not just survives. Our actions today are a promise for a greener, more sustainable tomorrow. Thank you for your continued trust and support as we navigate this journey together.