The Routledge Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 1032019093, 9781032019093

Citation preview

“An impressive collection of leading thinkers in the CSR space address important topics in this book, including corporate advocacy, CSR crisis, stakeholder engagement, and transparency among a broad range of organization types. This volume is a ‘must-have’ reference for any scholar or student of CSR”. Denise Sevick Bortree, Director of the Arthur W. Page Center, The Pennsylvania State University, USA “This is a wonderful compendium of research on CSR communication featuring the world’s leading scholars in the field along with some of the best new voices emerging across the globe. If you only read one book on CSR this year, make it this one”. Andrew Crane, Director of the Centre for Business, Organisations and Society, University of Bath, UK “This Handbook brings together leading CSR communication scholars to offer a diverse range of perspectives and topical emphases that will guide and inspire research. The Handbook not only captures existing literature; it pushes past the boundaries of existing CSR scholarship to set an exciting agenda for the future”. Joshua B. Barbour, University of Texas at Austin, USA

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMUNICATION

This handbook is a resource for students, faculty, and researchers who are focused on understanding the role communication plays in the formation and execution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Bringing together authors who are thought-leaders and emerging scholars from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives, it examines the issues central to CSR communication including: theoretical underpinnings, form and content of CSR messaging, the boundaries of engagement, and the tensions associated with CSR communication. It offers a unique combination of functional and formative approaches to CSR communication designed to expose readers to a blend of approaches. With attention to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, this handbook also explicitly addresses recent societal changes and how those changes will impact CSR communication research and practices in the future. Offering both a strong introduction to topics for novices as well as a more advanced interrogation of CSR communication for more knowledgeable readers, the handbook is appropriate for advanced students and researchers in public relations, strategic communication, organizational communication, and allied fields. Amy O’Connor is an associate professor in the Hubbard School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. Her research explores what CSR means to corporations and stakeholders, how institutional level pressure determines CSR, and how CSR influences stakeholder-organization relationships. Her research is published in diverse disciplinary journals: Business & Society, Management Communication Quarterly, and Public Relations Review.

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES

The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication Edited by Derina Holtzhausen and Ansgar Zerfass The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric Edited by Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes The Routledge Handbook of Positive Communication Edited by José Antonio Muñiz Velázquez and Cristina M. Pulido The Routledge Handbook of Mass Media Ethics Edited by Lee Wilkins and Clifford G. Christians The Routledge Handbook of Comparative World Rhetorics: Studies in the History, Application, and Teaching of Rhetoric Beyond Traditional Greco-Roman Contexts Edited by Keith Lloyd The Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-Being: International Perspectives on Theory and Research on Positive Media Effects Edited by Leonard Reinecke and Mary Beth Oliver The Routledge Handbook of Queer Rhetoric Edited by Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes The Routledge Handbook of Nonprofit Communication Edited by Gisela Gonçalves and Evandro Oliveira The Routledge Handbook of Intercultural Mediation Edited by Dominic Busch The Routledge Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication Edited by Amy O’Connor For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbooks-inCommunication-Studies/book-series/RHCS

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMUNICATION

Edited by Amy O’Connor

Cover image: Irina Nazarova/Getty First published 2023 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Amy O’Connor; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Amy O’Connor to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-1-032-01909-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-02732-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-18491-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911 Typeset in Bembo by MPS Limited, Dehradun

CONTENTS

List of Contributors

xi

CSR Communication Research – Praxis and Promise Amy O’Connor

1

SECTION I

Mapping the Field of CSR Communication 1 CSR Communication from a Public Relations Perspective Sora Kim 2 Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility: Critical Perspectives and Reflections on the Public Good Steve May 3 CSR Communication from a Rhetorical and Semiotic Perspective Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen

9 11

21

34

4 Communicating CSR across Cultures: From Global and Local to Glocal Challenges Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai

46

5 Articulating the Value of an Institutional Perspective in CSR Communication Research Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers

60

vii

Contents

6 Constitutive Views on CSR Communication: The Communicative Constitution of Responsible Organization, Organizing, and Organizationality Dennis Schoeneborn, Sarah Glozer, and Hannah Trittin-Ulbrich 7 Toward a Multi-Dimensional Network Model of CSR Initiatives Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer 8 A Conversation about Three Key yet Underexplored Tensions in Contemporary Notions of CSR Communication Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl

73

85

101

SECTION II

Form and Content of CSR Communication 9 CSR Communication Message Effects Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao

113 115

10 Visual Strategies for CSR Communication Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung

128

11 CSR Communication and the Commodification of Compassion Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

139

12 CSR Communication and Social Media Hao Xu

152

13 CSR and Crisis Communication: Exploring the Research on CSR Crisis Communication W. Timothy Coombs 14 Corporate Social Advocacy Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin 15 A Conversation about Conceptual and Methodological Challenges in CSR Communication Research Amy O’Connor and Holly Overton

165

177

191

SECTION III

Exploring Organizational Influences on CSR Communication

197

16 CSR Communication in Stigmatized Industries Tae Ho Lee

199

viii

Contents

17 Toward a Relational CSR Model: CSR Communication of Global Fortune 100 during COVID-19 Pandemic Nur Uysal

209

18 Corporate Social Responsibility in Small- and Medium-Sized Fast-Growth Private Firms: How Is CSR Conceived, Enacted, and Communicated? Peggy Cunningham

228

19 Overcoming the Dark Side of CSR Communication and Employee Relations Ganga S. Dhanesh

240

20 CSR Communication and Organizational Leadership: How Does CSR Communication Contribute to Responsible Organizational Leadership? Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen

252

21 Organizational History and CSR Communication Claudia Janssen Danyi 22 A Conversation about the Communicative Constitution of CSR and Its Implications for Business and Society François Cooren and Michelle Shumate

263

275

SECTION IV

Exploring Social and Stakeholder Influences on CSR Communication

281

23 CSR Communication and Legitimacy Creation Holly Overton, Virginia Harrison, and Nicholas Eng

283

24 Understanding CSR Partnership Communication from a Portfolio Approach Chuqing Dong and Yiqi Li

296

25 The Collaboration Communication Conundrum: NGOs as CSR Actors, Beneficiaries, and Adversaries Jiawei Sophia Fu and Yoori Yang

310

26 CSR in the Community: Implications for Communication, Development, and Engagement Vidhi Chaudhri and Asha Kaul

323

27 Contesting the Meaning and Boundaries of “Safety” as CSR in the Mining Industry Amy O’Connor

333

ix

Contents

28 Controversial Corporate Social Responsibility: The Challenge Ahead? Wim J. L. Elving

346

29 A Conversation about the Future of CSR Communication Research Christen Buckley, Katie Haejung Kim, Nitzan Navick, and Bennet Schwoon

357

Index

367

x

CONTRIBUTORS

Lucinda Austin is an associate professor in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (USA). Austin’s research focuses on social media’s influence on strategic communication initiatives and explores publics’ perspectives in CSR and organization-public relationship building. Christen Buckley is a PhD candidate in mass communications at The Pennsylvania State University (USA). Buckley previously worked as a nonprofit marketing and fundraising professional. Buckley’s research interests are corporate advocacy and social responsibility, media ethics, and nonprofit communications. Andrea Catellani is a professor of communication at the Catholic University of Louvain (UCLouvain, Belgium). Catellani has published various scientific articles and books, notably on environmental communication and rhetoric, CSR communication, the semiotic approach to organizations, ethics in communication and the relationship between religion and communication. Vidhi Chaudhri is an associate professor of media and communication at Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands). Chaudhri researches CSR, social-mediated corporate communication, crisis management, and digital activism. Chaudhri is co-author of the book Corporate Communication through Social Media: Strategies for Managing Reputation. Sungwon Chung is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Strategic Communication at Ball State University (USA). Chung’s research interests include visual media and message strategies in corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication, especially focusing on their emotional and cognitive effects. W. Timothy Coombs is the George T. and Gladys H. Abell in Liberal Arts Professor at Texas A&M University (USA). Coombs’ primary research area is in crisis communication and the development and testing of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Coombs is an honorary professor in the Department of Business Communication at Aarhus University (Denmark) and the current editor for Corporation Communication: An International Journal.

xi

Contributors

François Cooren is a professor and chair of the Department of Communication at the Université de Montréal (Canada). Cooren is the author of multiple books, articles, and book chapters on organizational communication, language and social interaction, and communication theory. Cooren is also a past president and fellow of the International Communication Association (ICA). Peggy Cunningham is a professor in the Rowe School at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada). Cunningham previously served as director of the School and dean of the faculty. Cunningham teaches and researches in the areas of corporate social responsibility and marketing strategy and has received numerous teaching and research awards. Ganga S. Dhanesh is an associate professor at Zayed University (United Arab Emirates). Dhanesh has built on her background in employee relations to publish extensively in the areas of corporate social responsibility, internal relations and strategic communication. A recent bibliometric analysis published in Public Relations Review placed Dhanesh among the top two most productive scholars on CSR within public relations research. Chuqing Dong is an assistant professor at the ADPR Department, Michigan State University (USA). Dong’s research examines CSR communication from diverse stakeholder perspectives, such as consumers, nonprofit partners, and employees, and emphasizes relationship management and ethics in CSR communication. Anne Ellerup Nielsen is a professor in CSR & Sustainability Communication and Management at Aarhus University (Denmark), Department of Management. Ellerup Nielsen’s research focuses on CSR communication, stakeholder interaction, and community engagement. Ellerup Nielsen has published research in numerous international journals. Wim J. L. Elving is a professor of sustainable communication, part of the Centre of Expertise, Energy – EnTranCe, at the Hanze University in Groningen (Netherlands). Elving previously worked at ASCoR, has been editor in chief of Corporate Communications for ten years, and is co-chair of the CSR communication conferences. Nicholas Eng is a PhD candidate at The Pennsylvania State University (USA). Eng’s research explores how theory can help communicators better reach the public on issues relating to science, health, the environment, and risk. Jiawei Sophia Fu is an assistant professor at the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University (USA). Fu’s research interests center around hybrid organizing, social networks, digital technology, and entrepreneurship and innovation. Fu uses mixed methods to examine how organizations can more effectively address social challenges. Sarah Glozer is a senior lecturer in the Centre for Business, Organisations, and Society (CBOS) at the University of Bath (England). Glozer’s research focuses on how businesses responsibly communicate their social and environmental responsibilities. Glozer is particularly interested in communications that take place in a digital context. Urša Golob is a professor of marketing communication at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). Golob’s research interests are CSR and sustainability in the perspective of communication, consumer, and organizational behavior. Golob has published research in a number of international journals. xii

Contributors

Virginia Harrison is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Clemson University’s (USA) College of Behavioral, Social and Health Sciences. Harrison’s research examines how nonprofits and sports organizations can build better relationships with supporters. Øyvind Ihlen is a professor at the Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo (Norway). Ihlen has over 150 publications and has received numerous international awards. His primary research interest is the application of rhetorical and sociological approaches to public relations/strategic communication political issues. Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai is a part-time lecturer at Chulalongkorn University Language Institute and a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Communication Arts, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand). Itdhiamornkulchai’s research interests include sustainability communications and CSR communication as well as strategic communications and digital marketing. Claudia Janssen Danyi is an associate professor in strategic communication at Eastern Illinois University (USA). Janssen Danyi’s research focuses on organizational rhetoric, corporate historical responsibility, and crisis communication. Asha Kaul is a professor at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (India). Kaul’s research focuses on corporate reputation and communication, gender and influence. Kaul is the author of multiple books including Demystifying Leadership: Decoding the Mahabharata Code (2021). Katie Haejung Kim is a PhD candidate in the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota (USA). Kim’s research interests are in public relations, specifically internal communication, and CSR management. Kim worked as a public relations manager at Hyundai and Kia Motors group. Sora Kim is a professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong). Kim’s research focuses on corporate social responsibility/sustainability communication, public relations, and crisis communication. Kim has published her research in numerous international journals. John C. Lammers is a professor emeritus of communication at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (USA). Lammers’ research applies institutional theory to communication among health professionals and organizations. Lammers has published her research in numerous international journals. Sun Young Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland–College Park (USA). Lee’s research focuses on corporate social responsibility (CSR), including visual strategies, public participation strategies, and the effects of CSR strategies in a crisis context. Tae Ho Lee is an assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon (USA). Lee’s research focuses on the areas of strategic and organizational communication. Specifically, Lee has explored corporate social responsibility, organizational transparency, and stigmatized industries using institutional theory. Yiqi Li is an assistant professor at the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University (USA). Li’s research aims at understanding the communication, organizing, ecology, and evolution of online xiii

Contributors

communities of individuals and organizations. Li specializes in methods such as multilevel and longitudinal network analysis, big data analytics, and text analysis. Steve May is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA). May’s research interests include organizational ethics and corporate social responsibility, with a particular focus on ethical dilemmas, as well as ethical practices of dialogue, transparency, participation, courage, and accountability. Barbara Miller Gaither a professor of strategic communication at Elon University (USA). She researches on CSR, corporate social advocacy, issue advocacy, and environmental communication. Miller-Gaither has (co-)authored journal articles, book chapters and the book Generating Public Support for Business and Industry: Marketplace Advocacy Campaigns. Mette Morsing is head of PRME Principles of Responsible Management Education, UN Global Compact (New York, USA). She holds visiting professorships with Copenhagen Business School (Denmark) and Stockholm School of Economics (Sweden). Morsing’s research is positioned in research traditions of governance, management scholarship and communication/media studies in the context of CSR and sustainability. Nitzan Navick is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communication at University of California Santa Barbara (USA). Navick’s research interests include remote work, organizational technology, and the role of affordances in workplace communication. Amy O’Connor is an associate professor in the Hubbard School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota. O’Connor’s research explores what CSR means to corporations and stakeholders, the institutional level pressure determines CSR, and how CSR influences stakeholder-organization relationships. Holly Overton is an associate professor in the department of advertising/public relations and the director of research for the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication at The Pennsylvania State University (USA). Overton conducts public relations research in the areas of corporate social responsibility communication and corporate social advocacy. Hyejoon Rim is an associate professor in the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota (USA). Rim’s research explores how CSR contributes to society through leveraging public engagement and creating shared values. Rim’s research has identified barriers, motivators, and strategic factors that influence the effectiveness of CSR communication. Adam J. Saffer is an associate professor of strategic communication at the University of Minnesota’s Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication (USA). Saffer’s research revolves around a core interest in understanding the ways individuals, groups, and organizations use and are influenced by communication networks. Dennis Schoeneborn is a professor of communication, organization, and CSR at Copenhagen Business School (Denmark). Schoeneborn’s research explores the communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality in relation to corporate social responsibility, digital media, and new forms of organizing.

xiv

Contributors

Bennet Schwoon is a PhD candidate of business administration at the University of Zurich (Switzerland). Schwoon’s research interests include business ethics, CSR, and organization theory. Michelle Shumate is the Delaney Family University Research Professor at Northwestern University (USA). Shumate’s internationally recognized research focuses on how to design interorganizational networks to make the most social impact. Shumate is the author (with Katherine Cooper) of Networks for Social Impact (2022, Oxford University Press). Parichart Sthapitanonda is the vice president for Academic Affairs and Social Outreach at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok (Thailand). Sthapitanonda research focuses on communication and campaigns in various topics, ranging from commercial to noncommercial and political issues. Cynthia Stohl is distinguished professor of communication and past director of the Center for Information Technology and Society at University of California, Santa Barbara (USA). Stohl’s award-winning research focuses on collective action, and worker rights in corporate and nongovernmental global organizations. Stohl’s research is published in many international journals. Weiting Tao is an assistant professor in the Department of Strategic Communication at the University of Miami (USA). Tao’s primary research areas include corporate social responsibility and advocacy, and crisis communication and management. Christa Thomsen is a professor at the Department of Management at Aarhus University (Denmark). Thomsen’s research area is management and communication of CSR and sustainability with a particular focus on cross-sectoral collaboration, leadership, organizational change, and branding. Hannah Trittin-Ulbrich is a junior professor of business administration at Leuphana University Lüneburg (Germany). Trittin-Ulbrich’s research interests include corporate social responsibility (CSR), the role of communication in the context of CSR, corporate digital responsibility (CDR), new forms of work and organizing, and change agents for sustainability. Nur Uysal is an associate professor in the College of Communication at DePaul University (USA), where she teaches CSR and public relations. Uysal’s scholarship explores the societal and technological forces that influence the relational dynamics between organizations and stakeholders. Uysal’s research has appeared in communication and management journals as well as in edited books. Nataša Verk is a teaching assistant and a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). Verk’s research interests lie in corporate social responsibility, framing theory, and marketing communications. Hao Xu is a lecturer in marketing communications in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne (Australia). Xu’s research focuses on theoretical and managerial issues of corporate social responsibility communication, corporate social advocacy, and social media analytics.

xv

Contributors

Aimei Yang is an associate professor of public relations in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California (USA). Yang’s research is positioned at the intersection of strategic advocacy, social networks, and civil society research. Yoori Yang is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Baruch College, City University of New York (USA). Yoori’s research focuses on organizational communication among NGOs, multinational corporations and governmental organizations, and corporate social responsibility from institutional and global perspectives.

xvi

CSR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH – PRAXIS AND PROMISE Amy O’Connor

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) remains a ubiquitous yet contested and elusive practice in the creation, maintenance, and possible dissolution of business and society relationships. CSR may be considered ubiquitous based on the overwhelming number of companies that participate in CSR activities and communication (Stobierski, 2021) as well as market data research which indicates stakeholders want corporations to take action on social issues and view business as the most trusted institution in society (Edelman Trust Barometer 2022; Porter Novelli/Cone, 2019a, 2019b). CSR is contested in the sense that neither a shared definition nor dominant paradigm exists within the research (e.g., Okoye, 2009). To this point, CSR research crosses disciplinary boundaries with each discipline and sub-discipline giving primacy to different aspects of the business and society relationship. Finally, the term is also elusive because CSR practices and communication vary across industries and geographical locations thereby making it difficult to discern “what CSR means” across organizational boundaries and stakeholder expectations (Brammer et al., 2012, p. 8). The unsettled nature of the CSR phenomena offers scholars considerable latitude in their research pursuits. This handbook demonstrates the breadth of approaches researchers use to examine CSR communication thereby exposing the ways in which CSR is ubiquitous, contested, and elusive. Each chapter offers a pathway to understand how the boundaries of CSR practice are created and maintained through communication. Moreover, each chapter offers readers an opportunity to consider how the research context, theoretical lens, and methodological choices serve to foreground and background different aspects of CSR communication.

The Goals of the Handbook This project gives primacy to CSR communication research. As such, it follows in the footsteps of the Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility (Ihlen et al., 2011) and the Handbook of Integrated CSR Communication (Diehl et al., 2017). Both of these handbooks presented timely discussions of a myriad of approaches to CSR communication research. In the intervening years since the aforementioned handbooks were published, CSR communication research has continued to proliferate and expand. Thus, the time had come for a new handbook to be published, which would address the theoretical, methodological, and topical advancements in the field as well as offer space for emerging scholars to contribute to our scholarly conversation about CSR communication. The idea for this handbook came to life during several “walk and talk” conversations in the midst of the global pandemic. At that time, due to Zoom fatigue, I found it difficult to clear my head and DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-1

1

Amy O’Connor

imagine scholarly conversations. Thus, I began a weekly ritual of “walk and talk” with some of my favorite friends and scholars. We would talk about recent research we had read and CSR communication research more broadly as we went on long walks outdoors in our respective locations. We often found ourselves wondering about the different approaches and theories used in CSR research and the possibility of bringing the CSR communication sub-disciplines (management, organizational communication, and public relations) into conversation with one another. It was during these long walks that the handbook gained structure and ultimately came into being with the support and encouragement of Felisa Salvago-Keyes at Routledge/Taylor & Francis. I began with several goals for the handbook. First, I wanted to bring together an international and interdisciplinary group of scholars whose work I was familiar with but whose work rarely was presented in the same space. It has been noted that CSR communication researchers engage in “disparate conversations” (Crane & Glozer, 2016, p. 1226) and our research could be more impactful if our conversations were more interdisciplinary. To be sure, interdisciplinary research is difficult and requires intellectual agility to engage multiple epistemologies and ontologies. However, I concur with Crane and Glozer that in doing so our research will be richer. Within the chapters of this handbook, a wide range of theoretical and methodological positions are offered with the hope of facilitating interdisciplinary conversations and encourage scholars to expand their research and citation networks. Relatedly, I thought it was essential for the handbook to be inclusive of a range of perspectives, university affiliations, and positions within the academy. The authors are located in 15 different countries and represent 36 universities. Excitingly, the university affiliations are inclusive of public and private as well as large, midsize, and small universities. In addition, the authors represent a range of disciplines and hold appointments in colleges/schools of advertising/public relations, business, communication, management, and strategic communication. Further, the authors represent all professorial ranks. The breadth of contributors demonstrates that excellent CSR research is happening in departments and universities all across the world and remains an exciting line of research for scholars at various stages in their careers. Finally, I wanted the handbook to offer new ideas and move beyond the existing literature. To achieve this goal, I asked the contributors to push the boundaries of CSR communication research and advance research agendas that would undoubtedly spark conversation. Each chapter includes a section wherein the authors share their ideas for future research in the field of CSR communication. These sections offer exciting and bold new directions for our research and hint at what we may expect from these authors in the future. In addition, authors were asked to develop a set of provocative questions for readers to consider at the end of each chapter.

Structure of the Handbook The handbook contains four sections. Each section includes six to seven chapters and one conversation that are thematically related. New to this handbook is a series of conversations wherein scholars discuss key issues and tenets of CSR communication research. In the first conversation, Cynthia Stohl (University of California Santa Barbara) and Mette Morsing (PRME, UN Global Compact) share their thoughts about three key communication tensions embedded in contemporary notions of CSR. In the second conversation, Holly Overton (The Pennsylvania State University) and I discuss CSR communication and methods from a public relations and organizational communication perspective. In the third conversation, François Cooren (Université of Montréal) and Michelle Shumate (Northwestern University) consider the communicative constitution of CSR and its implications for business and society. And in the fourth conversation, four doctoral students Christen Buckley (The Pennsylvania State University), Katie Kim (University of Minnesota – Twin

2

CSR Communication Research

Cities), Nitzan Navick (University of California Santa Barbara), and Bennet Schwoon (University of Zurich) share their ideas about the future of CSR communication research.

Section I: Mapping the Field of CSR Communication The first section of the handbook seeks to broadly map the field of CSR communication research. The section focuses on subfields as well as theoretical, methodological, and paradigmatic orientations. The chapters in this section demonstrate the breadth of CSR communication research and advance our understanding of how CSR communication has evolved. Moreover, the chapters, when considered in full, expose the research tensions that emerge when the multiple ways of theorizing CSR communication (e.g., functional, social constructionist, constitutive, rhetorical and critical perspectives) are considered. The authors deftly identify the foundational assumptions of the terrain and map new directions for researchers. Different disciplinary approaches to CSR communication research are offered by Kim (Chapter 1), May (Chapter 2), Catellani and Ihlen (Chapter 3), and Sthapitanonda and Itdhiamornkulchai (Chapter 4). For Kim, public relations scholarship offers unique theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of CSR communication. Kim notes that public relations scholars are well poised to develop hybrid approaches to CSR that encompass instrumental, normative and ethical perspectives. The chapter emphasizes the importance of public relations’ dialogic approach to organization-stakeholder relationships. May picks up the ethical thread and critiques CSR research from an organizational communication perspective. He argues that organizational communication scholars should move towards research grounded in ethics and a critical perspective to explore both internal and external dimensions of CSR. The chapter concludes with a thoughtful reflection on “our role as scholars in the CSR enterprise”. Catellani and Ihlen highlight the foundational role of rhetoric and semiotics to CSR communication research. The authors aptly combine the two approaches to present a “rich toolbox for multimodal analysis” of CSR communication thereby bringing our attention to the interconnection of CSR discourses, symbols, and images. The chapter explicates their ideas with examples from the environmental CSR communication subfield. Finally, Sthapitanonda and Itdhiamornkulchai examine the cultural approach to CSR communication. They offer the term “glocal” as a way to incorporate cultural dimensions and local contexts into CSR research thereby moving beyond Western-centric CSR communication to a form of communication that respects and engages cultural differences. The chapter illustrates “glocal” CSR communication through a case study of Starbucks in Thailand. Beyond our disciplinary ways of understanding CSR communication, this section of the handbook outlines three meta-theoretical approaches that have utility across the disciplines outlined earlier. O’Connor and Lammers (Chapter 5) identify the tenets of institutional theory that are applicable to CSR communication research. In doing so, they highlight the explanatory power of institutional theory for CSR communication research. The chapter presents recent CSR communication research that is grounded in institutional theory. In Chapter 6, Schoeneborn, Glozer, and Trittin-Ulbrich provide an overview of CSR research using the “communication constitutes organization” (CCO) perspective. The authors offer a compelling case for how the three orientations of CCO open up new avenues for CSR communication research and pose a set of differentiated questions for scholars to consider. The chapter demonstrates how the three CCO orientations overlap and intersect with other areas of communication research. Finally, Yang and Saffer (Chapter 7) introduce a multidimensional network model grounded in the theoretical and methodological foundations of network theory. The authors argue that CSR initiatives operate in networked, evolving multidimensional spaces. Notably, they consider the long-term CSR impacts as well as an expansive list of organizational actors (business, NGOs, governments) and different types of CSR relationships (resource, values, interests) between actors in a network. 3

Amy O’Connor

The section concludes with a conversation between Stohl and Morsing about the three tensions embedded in contemporary notions of CSR: voluntary/regulatory, talk/action and transparency/ opacity. Their lively discussion explores how the tensions are (un)represented in CSR communication research. Stohl and Morsing bring their unique perspectives as researchers and teachers into the conversation thereby offering readers insights that are grounded in a wide variety of contexts.

Section II: Form and Content of CSR Communication The second section of the handbook examines the form and content of CSR communication. The goal of this section is to broadly examine CSR message effects research as well as focus on specific forms of CSR communication. In doing so, the section offers an expansive view of CSR communication to include corporate social advocacy (CSA) and crisis communication. When taken together, the chapters in this section offer thoughtful theoretical and methodological insights and critiques about the role of CSR communication in advancing the strategic goals of organizations, establishing dialogue with stakeholders, and influencing social issues. Rim and Tao’s chapter (Chapter 9) begins the section and offers a comprehensive review of the CSR communication message effects literature that delineates the theoretical and methodological approaches used by researchers. Their review includes a discussion of the contextual factors that influence CSR message effects. This discussion sets the stage for a compelling critique about the current message effects research including calls to expand the theoretical lenses used to study message effects, embrace computational methods, and conduct message effects research in non-Western contexts. The next three chapters examine several major forms of CSR communication. Lee and Chung (Chapter 10) interrogate the role visual strategies play in CSR communication. The authors offer a strong case for the ability of visual elements to overcome the obstacles faced by organizations and practitioners executing CSR communication. To make their case, the authors draw upon a body of interdisciplinary literature and apply those strategies to CSR communication. The chapter pushes beyond the effects of visual strategies on the organization to consider how visual strategies influence issue-related outcomes as well. In Chapter 11, Golob and Verk examine a controversial form of CSR communication: the commodification of compassion. The chapter highlights how CSR in this context is part and parcel of corporate branding which ultimately leads to an oversimplification of complex social issues. The authors articulate the business case that drives marketizing compassion while deftly noting the macro- and micro-level consequences of tying social issues to consumption choices. Finally, Xu (Chapter 12) identifies the theoretical frameworks that guide our research related to social media and CSR communication. The author highlights how CSR communication is influenced by the burgeoning and ever-present social media discourse, how social media provides a dialogic platform, and the characteristics of social media messaging that enhance CSR communication effectiveness. Xu includes a review of CSR communication in light of increased social media scrutiny which adds a complex layer to how corporations use social media to advance CSR agendas. As many chapters in this handbook note, CSR practice and communication is highly contextual and dynamic. Chapters 13 and 14 explore two of the dominant contexts in CSR research. In Chapter 13, Coombs brings together CSR and crisis communication research and identifies how the two areas of inquiry intersect. The author points out the challenges associated with the halo effects research and argues for a more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between CSR and risk and crisis management. The chapter concludes with an ambitious research agenda that includes examining CSR as a crisis risk. In Chapter 14, Austin and Miller Gaither articulate areas of convergence and divergence between corporate social advocacy (CSA) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Their approach traces the history of corporate advocacy and unpacks the evolution of 4

CSR Communication Research

traditional advocacy to incorporate social issues. The chapter concludes with a thoughtful discussion about three areas of inquiry: democratic dialogue, role of accountability and international and cultural contexts. The section concludes with a conversation about conceptual and methodological challenges in CSR communication research. Overton and O’Connor (Chapter 15) enter the conversation with a discussion about how their epistemological positions inform the conceptual and theoretical frameworks that undergird their research. The authors thoughtfully consider how these choices may inadvertently create parallel research programs and express hope for a more networked CSR communication research community. The conversation concludes with a dialogue about the methodological strengths and weaknesses of CSR communication research.

Section III: Exploring Organizational Influences on CSR Communication This section of the handbook moves from the form and content of CSR communication to interrogate how organizational characteristics influence CSR practice and communication. The premise of this section is that CSR communication cannot be divorced from the organization from which it originates and to understand CSR we need to understand the organization. The section begins at the industry level of analysis with chapters that examine the connection between organizational sector and size and CSR communication (Chapters 16, 17, and 18). In the subsequent chapters (Chapters 19 and 20) research into how organizational actors experience and influence CSR communication is presented. Chapter 21 draws our attention to organizational history as an important factor in CSR communication. The section concludes with a conversation about the communicative constitution of CSR. Lee (Chapter 16) articulates how the functional differences of organizations operating in stigmatized industries impact CSR practices and communication. The chapter invokes the stigma literature as a lens to understand the characteristics associated with these organizations and illuminate the similarities and differences between CSR communication in stigmatized and non-stigmatized industries. Uysal (Chapter 17) examines another organizational subset – Global Fortune 100 companies in the context of COVID-19. The chapter deftly identifies the power large, multinational corporations have as authoritative CSR actors and argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally altered the global-socio-economic landscape in a way that belies the categorical approach of the Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR model. The chapter crafts a strong case for a relational approach to CSR and offers evidence of the language corporations use to frame their roles and responsibilities to society during the pandemic. In contrast to the preceding chapter, Cunningham (Chapter 18) explores CSR communication from the perspective of small- and medium-sized (SME) private companies. Cunningham’s focus on private companies offers an important counterpoint to the CSR communication literature that is focused primarily on public corporations. Grounded in original research, the chapter carefully unpacks the structural distinctions of SMEs and identifies the CSR communication practices, e.g., increased word of mouth and narratives, that are highly authentic and frequently practiced by SMEs. The next chapters draw our attention more directly to the role of organizational actors in CSR communication. Dhanesh (Chapter 19) eschews the functionalist approach to employee focused CSR research and offers a persuasive account of the “dark side” of CSR communication and employee relations. The chapter unpacks the myriad of ways that CSR can be a form of employee control. In doing so, Dhanesh adopts a behavioral, micro, employee-centered approach to CSR to elevate consideration of the ethics of employee CSR. Nielsen and Thomsen (Chapter 20) turn our attention to how CSR serves to develop and maintain responsible organizational leadership. The authors contend that CSR communication acts as a mediator between external pressures and organizational leadership thereby highlighting the connection between an organization’s operating 5

Amy O’Connor

environment, CSR, and leadership. The chapter includes new frameworks aimed at analyzing and practicing CSR communication as a form of responsible organizational leadership. In Chapter 21, Janssen Danyi elaborates on the connection between CSR communication and organizational history. Through her review of the literature, Danyi identifies three tensions that come into play when CSR communication is considered from a functionalist or social constructionist perspective. The chapter implores us to consider whether CSR communication about organizational history is “A matter of self-defense or an invitation to meaningful reconciliatory dialogue?” Finally, Cooren and Shumate enter into a dialogue about the communicative constitution of CSR and its implications for organizations and society. In this conversation, the authors offer their perspectives on what CSR means, the transmission and dialogic model of CSR communication, and the various material conditions and actors that shape CSR communication. Through an engaging dialogue, the authors offer provocative ideas on how CSR communication might be co-authored with stakeholders and discuss the possibilities of “CSR 3.0” wherein corporations are but one actor in the vast CSR system.

Section IV: Exploring Social and Stakeholder Influences on CSR Communication The final section in the handbook examines the external factors that inform CSR communication. The chapters are grounded in the idea that stakeholder expectations influence CSR practices and communication, and each chapter explores different ways those expectations are manifested. Taken together, the chapters in this section draw our attention beyond organizational boundaries to consider how partnerships, geographical and issue context, as well stakeholders’ assessment of legitimacy, are shaped by CSR activities and communication. In Chapter 23, Overton, Harrison, and Eng interrogate one of the dominant concepts in CSR communication research: legitimacy. The chapter offers empirical evidence from a three condition experiment using non-fictitious CSR sports partnerships to advance a new scale to measure legitimacy. The significance of this chapter comes from the set of differentiated questions and assumptions the authors tackle when considering how and why CSR partnerships influence legitimacy perceptions. Complementing Overton, Harrison and Eng’s work are Chapters 24 and 25 that examine one of the dominant forms of CSR – corporate-NGO partnerships. Authors Dong and Li (Chapter 24) offer a network perspective as a way to understand CSR partnership portfolios. Their chapter highlights the multiple dimensions of CSR partnership portfolios including size, diversity, and relationships. Dong and Li note that the portfolio approach is relatively new in the CSR literature and argue that it is necessary to capture the diverse and complex social networks that comprise corporate-nonprofit CSR partnerships. Fu and Yang (Chapter 25) delve more deeply into CSR partnerships from the perspective of NGOs. They unpack the many challenges faced by NGOs in the CSR landscape from an institutional logics perspective and identify the different roles, strategies, and competing demands NGOs encounter in cross sector social partnerships. The chapter includes practical strategies that NGO leaders can use to maximize cross-sector partnership benefits. Chapters 26 and 27 take us beyond CSR partnerships to consider place as an important factor in CSR practice and communication. Chaudhri and Kaul (Chapter 26) offer a field case study to examine how CSR is practiced by a public sector enterprise in India. The chapter brings to the fore the local manifestations of CSR to highlight how dominant CSR perspectives (e.g., stakeholder theory) are inadequate in non-Anglo-American contexts. Using extensive quotations from their fieldwork, the authors demonstrate the CSR and community development efforts are rife with opportunities, tensions and contradictions that make CSR “best practices” illusive. Similarly, O’Connor explores how CSR is communicated and made sense of in a hyperlocal context 6

CSR Communication Research

(Chapter 27). In doing so, the chapter offers a glimpse into an understudied industry and community type: iron ore mining in the rural United States. The chapter compares CSR communication claims with the lived experiences of taconite miners to uncover the gaps between the praxis and promise of CSR. Elving (Chapter 28) focuses on CSR in the context of the climate crisis and offers compelling examples of current CSR initiatives as evidence that corporations can and should do more in the area of environmental CSR. Elving argues that corporations’ CSR responsibilities extend well beyond demonstrating a fit with society and the typical business case arguments. The chapter challenges readers with a series of questions that invoke the complexity and urgency of the climate crisis thereby highlighting how this area of CSR is rapidly evolving and corporations must respond with an urgency that is atypical of CSR engagement. The section ends with a conversation about the future of CSR communication research between four advanced doctoral students (Chapter 29). Buckley, Kim, Navick, and Schwoon draw on their different scholarly subdivisions (business management, organizational communication, and public relations) to identify critical challenges facing the next generation of CSR communication researchers. The authors traverse the broad and narrow theoretical and methodological avenues of CSR communication to demonstrate the importance and viability of CSR communication research.

Final Thoughts As I reflect upon the chapters in this handbook, I am reminded of what Henry David Thoreau wrote in an 1857 letter to his friend: “It is not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?” For me, this quotation reflects one of the most fundamental tensions of CSR: practice versus promise. The practice of CSR, as noted earlier, is nearly ubiquitous. The history of CSR dates back to the early 1900s when corporations sought to counter claims of “soullessness”, enhance legitimacy, and be more than “mere money making machines” (Marchand, 1998, p. 164–165). To achieve these goals, corporations embarked on extensive strategic communication campaigns buttressed by expanded employee and community benefit programs (Marchand, 1998). Thus, for over 100 years corporations have refined and expanded the practice of CSR and CSR communication. Today, as the chapters in this handbook demonstrate, CSR is practiced and communicated by large and small, public and private, stigmatized and beloved corporations across the globe. Each chapter offers a thorough and compelling explication of how CSR is communicated as well as identifying many of the antecedents and outcomes associated with CSR communication. When considered in sum, the handbook chapters demonstrate the industriousness of corporations in executing CSR and the industriousness of researchers who study the CSR phenomenon. Yet, CSR remains an elusive and contested concept for corporations, researchers, and stakeholders. One possibility is to allow ourselves to be guided by Thoreau’s writing and ask “what are corporations and researchers industrious about when engaging the CSR enterprise?” Such a move takes us beyond the ubiquitous nature of CSR to think carefully about what responsibilities corporations should have to the commons. For corporations, answering such a question may lead to more innovative, culturally aware CSR practices and communication. In addition, corporations may engage stakeholders more fully in the planning and execution of CSR. For researchers, the question prompts us to dive deeper into the elusive and contested nature of CSR to tease apart the intended and unintended consequences of CSR practice and communication. To do so, moves us beyond descriptive analysis of CSR communication and a corporate-centric approach to engage more fully with the ways in which CSR practice and communication advance or forestall the needs and aspirations of corporations and society. Finally, for stakeholders, Thoreau’s insight may lead to discussions about the rightful place of corporations in the commons and a critical analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of having corporations be responsible for solving important social issues. While most 7

Amy O’Connor

people believe corporations should tackle key social issues (Porter Novelli/Cone, 2019a, 2019b), it remains unclear how this broad sentiment is applied in different stakeholder and issue contexts. The handbook authors offer thoughtful considerations about what CSR communication research should “be industrious about” in the future directions section of each chapter. The authors illuminate the promise of CSR research moving forward including pathways to examine how substantive investments and communication about social issues can alter the issue lifecycle; partnerships are communicatively formed and sustained; internal policies and processes can be adapted to address organizational externalities and employee experiences; ethics must be infused into CSR communication practice and research; and CSR communication reflects and constructs social values and stakeholders expectations of corporations. Each of these directions provides a lens of possibility through which researchers can consider the forces that have propelled corporations deeper into the commons and how corporations and stakeholders are communicatively co-constructing what CSR means and does not mean. To conclude, I am deeply grateful to everyone who contributed to this project. A special thank you to the anonymous reviewers who generously donated their time to review early drafts of each chapter, Bugil Chang who helped me organize chapters in the fall of 2021, and the editorial team at Routledge for their support and guidance throughout the publishing process. My heartfelt thanks are extended to each author for their hard work and commitment to this project and for the trust they placed in me during the writing and editing process. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with each author. From our initial author Zoom meetings in the summer of 2021 to reading the final submissions, this project has been a joy. Lastly, I acknowledge the friends, mentors, and family that have supported me as a scholar and human. I would not have had the courage to follow this crazy dream if it hadn’t been for your support. Thank you.

References Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 3–28. 10.1093/ser/mwr030 Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010. 01386.x Diehl, S., Karmasin, M., Mueller, B., Terlutter, R., & Weder, F. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of integrated CSR communication. Springer International Publishing. Edelman Trust Barometer (2022). https://www.edelman.com/trust/2022-trust-barometer Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. John Wiley & Sons. Marchand, R. (1998). Creating the corporate soul: The rise of public relations and corporate imagery in American Big Business. University of California Press. Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627. Porter Novelli/Cone (2019a). Feeling purpose. 2019 Porter Novelli/cone 2019 purpose Biometrics study. https://www.conecomm.com/research-blog/purpose-biometrics Porter Novelli/Cone (2019b). Undivided: 2019 GenZ purpose study. https://www.conecomm.com/researchblog/cone-gen-z-purpose-study Stobierski, T. (2021). 15 eye-opening corporate social responsibility statistics. Harvard Business Insights. https:// online.hbs.edu/blog/post/corporate-social-responsibility-statistics Thoreau, H. D. (1857, November 16). Letter to HGO Blake. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_ Quotable_Thoreau\

8

SECTION I

Mapping the Field of CSR Communication

1 CSR COMMUNICATION FROM A PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSPECTIVE Sora Kim

Introduction Public relations is a strategic communication discipline that focuses on understanding and advising the relationships between organizations and their publics. The discipline emphasizes that a key to organizational success is to meet and exceed stakeholders’ and societal expectations in its relationship-building efforts through strategic communication, dialogue, and engagement. In terms of its conceptualization and emphasized objectives, public relations shares many similarities with corporate social responsibility (CSR). Edward Bernays (1923, 1975) –regarded as the father of modern public relations – argued that public relations focuses on “social good through accommodating public expectation” (Bartlett, 2011, p. 68) and is “the practice of social responsibility” (Clark, 2000, p. 368). Since that formulation, the concept of social responsibility or CSR has been continually emphasized throughout public relations history. Clark (2000) argued that both public relations and CSR stress the ethical responsibility of organizations and share a similar objective. It is to enhance the quality of an organization’s relationships with varying stakeholders, not just shareholders. Kelly (2001) also suggested that the notion of CSR is philosophically well aligned with that of public relations due to its shared focus on interdependence between organizations and publics and a shared theoretical root in systems theory. Due to these shared similarities, Ferguson (1984, 2018) strongly advocated for CSR being considered a promising public relations paradigm. This chapter will provide a road map on how public relations perspectives have contributed to CSR communication research. The chapter first defines CSR and CSR communication from a public relations perspective and provides an overview of CSR research trends, theoretical, and methodological frameworks adopted in the CSR research of public relations scholarship. The chapter sheds light on the current status of CSR research in public relations and the unique contributions of public relations to CSR communication research. Finally, the chapter addresses the challenges associated with the applications of public relations perspectives to CSR communication research and suggests directions for future research.

Definitions of CSR and CSR Communication in Public Relations CSR is defined in public relations literature as organizational practice addressing economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and societal responsibilities of an organization in its relationships with stakeholders and a larger society (Bartlett, 2011; Bortree, 2014; Carroll, 1979). This definition of CSR

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-3

11

Sora Kim

from a public relations perspective strays little from management perspectives. It basically adopts the well-established conceptualization of CSR put forth by Carroll (1979); that is, it consists of economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary responsibilities. As noted above, due to the similarities of public relations with CSR regarding its definitions and objectives (Clark, 2000), public relations scholars, when defining CSR, have emphasized the aspects of relationships and alignments between organizations, stakeholders, and the society (Bartlett, 2011; Ferguson, 1984, 2018). As such, CSR in public relations literature has been regarded as a multi-relational approach to social responsibility that deals with the relationships between organizations, key stakeholders, and the larger society (Bartlett, 2011; Kim, 2019). In addition, it is important to emphasize when defining CSR in public relations scholarship the inclusion of stakeholder expectations. Indeed, the focus shifts more to stakeholders or at least a balance is aimed for between organizations and stakeholders. With a greater emphasis on stakeholders’ and/or societal expectations, CSR can thus be defined as societal expectations of organizational practice addressing economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and societal responsibility of an organization in its relationships with stakeholders and a larger society. Here CSR appears to be socially constructed through interactions and building relationships between organizations and stakeholders based on stakeholder and societal expectations of corporate practices. In a similar vein, CSR communication can be defined from a public relations perspective as the exchange of meaning and information regarding societal expectations of organizational practice addressing economic, legal, ethical, environmental, and societal responsibility of an organization between the organization, its stakeholders, and a larger society.

Theoretical and Methodological Framework of CSR Communication Research in Public Relations Up until 2005, there was minimal growth in CSR communication research in public relations. Since the late 2000s, though, the growth has been tremendous. Lee (2017) carried out a quantitative study investigating 133 CSR articles from public relations perspectives published between 1980 and 2015. According to the study, up to 2005 only ten CSR-related articles had been published. Between 2006 and 2010, 50 articles were published, a 500% increase, and between 2011 and 2015, 73 articles were published, a 1,000% increase. Approximately 55% of articles were published between 2011 and 2015. Lee (2017) suggested that more than 90% of CSR research was published after 2006. Did this trend continue in recent years? To find out, we conducted a quick quantitative content analysis with 262 CSR articles from public relations perspectives published between 1980 and 2021. Our review confirms that this growth trajectory has continued in recent years. In this systematic review, more than half (56%) of the CSR research from public relations perspectives were published in the most recent years – i.e., between 2016 and 2021; the proportion of CSR articles published between 2011 and 2015 was less than half that (24.8%). Prior research on systematic reviews of CSR research can also provide useful insights into general research trends of CSR communication in the field of public relations. Goodwin and Bartlett (2008) investigated 40 CSR articles published between 1998 and 2007 in three public relations journals: Public Relations Review, Journal of Public Relations Research, and Journal of Communication Management. The authors identified three major research themes: (1) management function of CSR such as ethics- and professionalism-focused; (2) communication management function such as CSR reporting, discourse and dialogue, and new media technology focused; and (3) relationship management function of CSR such as building reputation, trust, and relationship focused. Given that both the number of studies being reviewed and the selected timespan are marginal in their research (i.e., only 40 and the 10-years period), readers should use caution when interpreting the research trends during this early stage of public relations-related CSR research. Later, with a much broader 12

Public Relations Perspective

timespan and journal selection, Lee (2017) investigated 133 CSR studies from public relations perspectives published between 1980 and 2015. His research identified four major CSR research themes in public relations during the selected time: (1) effects of CSR (e.g., effects of CSR types, fit, framing, and so forth); (2) systematic and descriptive examination of CSR practice and communication performed by organization or industry; (3) conceptual frameworks of CSR and roles of public relations; and (4) stakeholder perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of CSR. His review also suggests that a dominant research theme changes over time. In the earlier or initial stage of up until 2000, most CSR research focused on discussing the conceptual frameworks of CSR and the roles of public relations. In the second stage, from 2001 to 2010, the most prevalent research theme was the investigation of CSR and CSR communication practice and status. The most researched theme in the last stage – 2011 to 2015 – was the effect of CSR. This major theme change provides useful insights into how CSR research has advanced in the public relations field. During the initial stage, when a new concept of CSR was introduced, scholars tried to make sense of it by discussing conceptual links between CSR and public relations and conceptual frameworks of CSR (Bartlett, 2011; Clark, 2000). After that, to understand how CSR is currently practiced, researchers investigated how CSR initiatives and CSR communication were practiced in the market. Then public relations scholars have started to place more attention to the identification of antecedents, processes, and consequences that make CSR/CSR communication effective or meaningful for society. These efforts of examining antecedents, processes, and consequences can further facilitate CSR theorytesting, theory-developing/building, and theory-polishing processes. The top three theoretical frameworks adopted most often in CSR research of public relations are stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and attribution theory (T. Lee, 2017). Similarly, a bibliometric network analysis coving CSR research between 1980 and 2018 in the entire communication literature (not just public relations) identifies the same three theories as most frequently adopted frameworks in CSR research across the communication fields (Ji et al., 2021). Specifically, while attribution theory remains an all-time influential player in CSR research across the general communication literature, the influence of stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory has started to burgeon since 2000 and increased drastically after 2010 (Ji et al., 2021). This increased influence of stakeholder and legitimacy theories in CSR research in the general communication literature can be explained by the increased influence of CSR research from public relations perspectives. In Ji and colleagues’ (2021) research, for instance, the proportion of CSR research published in public relations journals (e.g., Public Relations Review) represents the largest in their sample of the general communication journals. Given that CSR research from public relations perspectives has in recent years most often adopted stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory, it is no surprise that these two theories are being adopted more in general communication literature (T. Lee, 2017). Indeed, the recent increase in the influence of stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory in the general communication literature may be explained by the drastic increase of CSR research from public relations perspectives (Ji et al., 2021; T. Lee, 2017). Another notable trend is an increase in the adoption of public relations theories in CSR research of the general communication literature in recent years (Ji et al., 2021). Those theoretical frameworks include dialogic theory (Kent & Taylor, 2002) and relationship management theory of organization-public relationship (OPR; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). In addition, the most central concepts identified in recent years for shaping CSR research in the general communication field are also highly related to public relations theories of dialogic theory and OPR such as the CSR concepts of commitment, trust, engagement, and transparency. In the current systematic review, a similar pattern is found in the most adopted theoretical frameworks in the CSR research from public relations perspectives. Up until 2015, the most adopted theories are stakeholder, legitimacy, and attribution theories. In more recent years, though, there has been a drastic increase (from 10.7% up to 26.9% during 2016–2021) in the adoption of 13

Sora Kim

public relations theories and concepts such as dialogic theory, OPR, dialogue, engagement, and trust concepts. At the same time, there has been a decrease in the adoption of stakeholder, legitimacy, and attribution theories in CSR research of public relations in more recent years. For instance, stakeholder theory adoption rate was 23% up until 2015, but decreased to 9% in the most recent period of 2016–2021, and the same pattern was found for legitimacy theory – a decrease from 16% until 2015 to 11% in the time of 2016–2021. These figures indicate that public relations theories and concepts have become more influential, while business and management theories and concepts have become less so in CSR research of public relations. As to methodological frameworks, up until 2015, research methods adopted for CSR research in public relations seemed to be balanced with a slight edge for quantitative methods (51.1%) over qualitative (42.1%) and mixed methods (T. Lee, 2017). To see if this balance in the employed research methods is consistently found in the current CSR research in public relations, we also looked into the methodological frameworks adopted in our systematic review of public relationsbased CSR studies published between 1980 and 2021. The current review found that quantitative research methods (64.4%) such as experiment (25.3%), survey (19.2%), and quantitative content analysis (13.4%) were adopted more frequently than qualitative research methods (31%) such as qualitative content analysis (11.8%), interview (6.1%), case study (5.4%), or mixed research methods (4.6%). This adoption of quantitative research methods only increased in recent years: 52.3% during 2011–2015 vs. 74.7% during 2016–2021. These numbers appear to indicate that, in the field of public relations, instrumental approaches to CSR are becoming more popular in CSR research. Similarly, according to another recent systematic review of 534 CSR studies across all different disciplines – from public relations to marketing and accounting (Tuan et al., 2019), quantitative research method (58.6%) is also identified as a clearly dominant method being employed in CSR research compared to qualitative (33.8%) or mixed method (7.4%). The instrumental approach of CSR based on the positivistic paradigm is found to be dominant in CSR communication research across all different fields (Tuan et al., 2019). Thus, this broad adoption of quantitative research methods might be expected. Another unique trend identified in the current systematic review is that in recent years, public relations scholars have tended to extend the publication outlets of their CSR research beyond public relations-focused journals (e.g., Public Relations Review) such as business journals (e.g., Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management and Journal of Business Ethics) and other more general communication journals (e.g., Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly). According to our review, the proportion of CSR articles published in public relations journals has decreased over time – from 85% (1980–2010) to 69.4% (2016–2021), although public relations journals are still the dominant publication outlets for CSR research from public relations perspectives. In contrast, the proportion of CSR articles published either in business journals (from 17% to 20.4%) or other communication journals (from 4% to 10.2%) has increased in recent years. A similar tendency is found when comparing our review to the previous research of Lee (2017). Although a direct comparison to Lee’s (2017) findings may invite some issues such as the differences in sample-selection procedures, we can still get a brief overview regarding the changes in the CSR research publication outlets over time. A majority of CSR articles (90%) included in Lee’s (2017) sample were published in public relations journals, while only 6% were published in business journals, and 4% in other communication journals. In our sample, however, the proportion of business journals (19.5%) and other communication journals (7.3%) grew compared to Lee (2017), while that of public relations journals shrank (73.3%). Given Lee’s review was done with CSR articles published up until 2015, there appears to have been in recent years a diversification in CSR publication outlets.

14

Public Relations Perspective

Unique Contributions of Public Relations to CSR Communication Research Over the past couple of decades, public relations scholarship has made several notable contributions to CSR communication research. Above all, public relations scholars have facilitated and accelerated the shift of a CSR communication research paradigm from organization/shareholder-centric to society/stakeholder-centric through following endeavors. First, public relations scholars have branched out to a unique instrumental approach to CSR communication research. (I would call it “a hybrid instrumental approach to CSR in public relations”.) This has been done through researchers’ embrace of and emphasis on original public relations concepts in CSR research of public relations. These concepts include, among others, the following: stakeholder feedback and dialogue (Kent & Taylor, 2016), public/stakeholder expectation and pressure (Kim, 2019), public trust, transparency, and engagement (Hung-Baesecke et al., 2016; Rim et al., 2019), and OPR outcomes (S. Y. Lee et al., 2019). Admittedly, CSR communication research in public relations has been largely affected by management perspectives such as instrumental approaches to CSR (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Instrumental approaches are largely based on business and management traditions and conceptualize CSR and CSR communication as a strategic tool to achieve optimal outcomes that can contribute to organizations’ economic gains such as direct and more tangible outcomes of financial returns (Chaudhri, 2016; Porter & Kramer, 2006). A good deal of CSR communication research in public relations has thus adopted instrumental approaches to CSR. Researchers have investigated the roles of CSR and CSR communication in improving public perceptions of corporate reputation (e.g., Kim, 2011) as well as its relationship with perceived CSR motive or fit, and still others (e.g., Aksak et al., 2016; Go & Bortree, 2017). Yet the instrumental approach to CSR in public relations has evolved. It is now a hybrid of instrumental approaches to CSR as it also takes on ethical and normative approaches to CSR (Garriga & Melé, 2004; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). Ethical and normative approaches to CSR have placed much more emphasis on the ethical and political roles of companies in creating shared societal norms and values through interacting with societal and public expectations and pressure (Kim, 2019). This hybrid instrumental approach seems natural, perhaps inevitable. After all, it is the nature of public relations to emphasize ethical concerns from normative perspectives and symmetrical communication for building relationships (e.g., Grunig, 2001). Thus, the hybrid instrumental approaches to CSR in public relations emphasize the importance of social pressure and public pressure as well as the importance of dialogue processes between organizations and societal expectations of stakeholders, while considering CSR communication as a strategic tool for achieving desirable outcomes. As a result, in defining or investigating the optimal outcomes of CSR, the hybrid instrumental approaches to CSR in public relations scholarship offer unique distinctions. The optimal outcomes of CSR do not necessarily promise financial gains through competitive advantages, as do the traditional instrumental approaches (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Instead, they refer to more enduring relationship-based public- or stakeholder-focused outcomes with much more emphasis on publics’ perceptions and expectations and societal pressure and expectations. As such, CSR research in public relations has investigated the roles of CSR and CSR communication with an increased emphasis on optimal outcomes from stakeholder-centric perspectives. These outcomes can encompass the following: stakeholder feedback and dialogue (Kent & Taylor, 2016), public/stakeholder expectation and pressure (Kim, 2019), public engagement (Hung-Baesecke et al., 2016), public trust and distrust (Park & Kang, 2020), organization-public relationships (S. Y. Lee et al., 2019), and still more. These optimal or desired outcomes of CSR are closely related to original public relations concepts and objectives such as building and enhancing the quality of an organization’s relationships with

15

Sora Kim

stakeholders and society through dialogue, two-way symmetric communication, trust building, and so forth (Ferguson, 1984, 2018; Kelly, 2001). Public relations scholarship has continually emphasized the strategic values of CSR and CSR communication. These values are manifested in protecting and enhancing corporate reputation through investigating its relationship with CSR motives, CSR fit, and/or CSR strategy (Bae & Cameron, 2006; David et al., 2005; Kim, 2011; S. Y. Lee, 2016). Nonetheless, public relations scholarship has contributed to CSR communication research by generating its own unique hybrid instrumental approaches to CSR communication. In doing so, public relations scholarship has widened the scope of emphasis to intangible and long-term public outcomes of organization-public relationships; such outcomes include stakeholder pressure and expectations, trust and engagement, stakeholder feedback and dialogue, and so forth (Hung-Baesecke et al., 2016; Kent & Taylor, 2016; Kim, 2019; S. Y. Lee et al., 2019). For instance, taking a hybrid approach to CSR, Kim (2019) argued that, in developing and testing the process model of CSR communication, her study was fundamentally based on the instrumental and strategic approach to CSR. At the same time, though, it emphasized the importance of social pressure or the pressure of public expectations of a business. Lee and colleagues (2019) have also taken a hybrid instrumental approach. They emphasized the quality of organization-public relationship (OPR) and held it up as an optimal CSR outcome. Second, another notable contribution of public relations scholarship to CSR research is the obvious increased influence of public relations theories and concepts on CSR scholarship. Public relations scholars have actively incorporated public relations theories and concepts into CSR research such as dialogic theory (Kent & Taylor, 2002), relationship management theory of OPR (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998), and engagement. A systematic review of CSR research in all of the communication subfields (Ji et al., 2021) finds that the most highly adopted theories in CSR research are from the public relations field when excluding theories originated from business and psychology (e.g., stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and attribution theory). These most highly adopted public relations theories include the relationship management theory of OPR, followed by dialogic theory and excellence theory. In addition, public relations journals such as Public Relations Review (#2) and Journal of Public Relations Research (#4) were identified as being among the five most-cited publication sources in CSR research. The other three most-cited publication outlets were all from business – Journal of Business Ethics, Academy of Management Review, and Journal of Marketing (Ji et al., 2020). Ji and her colleagues (2021) have also found that, to guide its studies, CSR research tends to adopt multiple theories and concepts from varying disciplines; these include business, psychology, and public relations theories and concepts. Among these varying theories and concepts, the authors report – based on betweenness centrality in their bibliometric network analysis – that public relations theories and concepts play a dominant role in guiding CSR research in the broader communication field. By bridging theories and concepts from multiple disciplines, it seems that public relations scholarship contributes to the interdisciplinary nature that characterizes CSR research. In other words, public relations scholarship has facilitated interdisciplinary theory-building in CSR research and contributed to bridging different though related CSR theories and concepts. Third, CSR research in the field of public relations has contributed to the extension of the CSR concept’s applicability beyond profit-organizations and consumer stakeholder groups. That is, by extending CSR contexts and concepts to non-profit organizations (e.g., Cho et al., 2021; Ott et al., 2016) and even to government organizations (e.g., Ji & Kim, 2019), public relations scholars have pointed out that non-profit and government organizations are not exempt from societal expectations of socially responsible practice and behavior. In addition, public relations research has paid attention to various stakeholder groups beyond just consumers such as community members, non-profit organization members, employees, activists, and so forth (Austin et al., 2020; Chen & HungBaesecke, 2014; de Bussy & Suprawan, 2012; Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018; Hall, 2006). This has certainly contributed to a broadening of the CSR research scope. 16

Public Relations Perspective

Challenges and Future Directions of CSR/CSR Communication Research in Public Relations The biggest challenge identified in CSR communication research is the lack of CSR-focused theoretical frameworks that can facilitate further theory-building and testing. Although a growing number of CSR studies from public relations perspectives have adopted multiple theories from different disciplines such as business, psychology, and public relations, there is still a lack of CSRspecific theoretical frameworks that can help us understand, explain, and predict the CSR phenomenon from stakeholder-centric perspectives. This lack of CSR-specific theories is an issue not only for public relations but also for many other disciplines. This may be partially due to the fact that CSR is multidisciplinary in nature and encompasses many realms of corporate practices and relevant sectors. Due to the complexity and extensiveness of the CSR concept, there might be no single macro- or micro-level CSR-focused theory that can cover and explain the multifaceted phenomena of CSR communication. To overcome this, scholars may need to classify the phenomena of CSR communication into various levels and focus more on developing meso-level theories that can connect macro and micro levels. Meso-level CSR communication theories may help us explain the characteristics of CSR communication at a meso level such as industry- or community-level, crisissituation- or non-crisis-situation-level, or stakeholder-level practices and feedbacks. This chapter calls for future research to focus more on meso-level CSR communication theory development and testing. Future research should focus on developing CSR-specific theory building to facilitate further empirical testing. Such CSR-specific theory-building efforts could start from actively adopting multiple theories from different disciplines and synthesizing relationships among core constructs at meso-levels. Another challenge that we need to overcome in CSR research of public relations is related to a lack of cultural consideration of CSR communication research. Although more studies have focused on comparative research in recent years (e.g., Rim et al., 2019) or CSR communication of nonWestern contexts (e.g., Kim, 2017), CSR research of public relations is still predominantly Western focused and can be found lacking in its cultural considerations. In this regard, I call for more comparative CSR research and non-Western-focused CSR research in the future in order to provide global and culturally sensitive perspectives to CSR research and facilitate both culturally general and specific theory building in the field. We have identified as a unique contribution of public relations a shift in the CSR research paradigm to a more stakeholder-centric one. Nevertheless, the shift is not complete. A decade ago, the dominance of organization-centric perspective was often identified as one of the major problems in CSR communication research, with too strong a focus on the interests of an organization and its success (Bartlett, 2011). However, we have observed that in recent CSR research more studies have tried to accommodate stakeholder-centric perspectives, focusing more on publics’ expectations, attitudes, and reactions rather than organizations’ CSR strategies or message strategies. Despite this stakeholder-centric paradigm shift, the research themes that focus on the description of CSR practices or CSR communication, effects of CSR (e.g., effects of CSR framing, priming, types of CSR message strategies) are still prevalent in the current knowledge of CSR research. Thus, I suggest that more emphasis be given to stakeholder-centric research themes such as investigating stakeholder’s perception, attitudes, expectations, engagement, trust, supportive behaviors, and so on. Lastly, CSR research in public relations has developed a unique approach to CSR – the hybrid instrumental approaches to CSR that encompass both strategic/instrumental, normative, and ethical approaches. And yet among the varying approaches, tension remains regarding their perspectives and adopted methodologies. Some may argue that varying approaches to CSR such as instrumental and political/constitutive approaches are mutually exclusive and cannot be integrated due to each paradigm’s ontological and epistemological differences. In a similar vein, a recent study argued that

17

Sora Kim

in order to overcome organization-centric perspectives in CSR communication research, more research should adopt normative and constitutive paradigms (Tuan et al., 2019). This argument seems to have a basic assumption that instrumental approaches are inherently organization-centric. However, I wonder if instrumental approaches to CSR – treating CSR communication as a strategic or persuasion tool – are de facto organization centric. I feel they are not. I argue that research with instrumental approaches to CSR can still be stakeholder centric, emphasizing the importance of dialogue or communication processes between organizations and stakeholders like normative or constitutive approaches. The public relations field has developed its own unique hybrid instrumental approaches to CSR due to its long-held emphasis on ethics and normative approaches such as twoway symmetric communication public relations (e.g., Grunig, 2001). In spite of this development, I argue that researchers should integrate more the varying approaches to CSR. Moreover, researchers should be more flexible regarding the methods they adopt in their different approaches to CSR.

Discussion Questions 1

2 3

What unique contributions has public relations scholarship made in advancing CSR and CSR communication research in terms of methodological and theoretical frameworks, research paradigm, and research scope? What is a unique approach to CSR (named as the hybrid instrumental approach in this chapter) developed by CSR research in public relations? How can this be further advanced? Identify limitations and challenges in CSR research of public relations and discuss potential research agendas to overcome such limitations and challenges.

References Aksak, E. O., Ferguson, M. A., & Duman, S. A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and CSR fit as predictors of corporate reputation: A global perspective. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 79–81. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2015.11.004 Austin, L., Overton, H., McKeever, B. W., & Bortree, D. (2020). Examining the rage donation trend: Applying the anger activism model to explore communication and donation behaviors. Public Relations Review, 46(5). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101981 Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of corporate giving. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 144–150. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.007 Bartlett, J. L. (2011). Public relations and corporate social responsibility. In O. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 67–86). Wiley Blackwell. Bernays, E. L. (1923). Crystallizing public opinion. Boni and Liveright. Bernays, E. L. (1975). Social responsibility of business. Public Relations Review, 1(3), 5–16. Bortree, D. S. (2014). The state of CSR communication research: A summary and future direction. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014BORTREE.pdf Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505. Chaudhri, V. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and the communication imperative: Perspectives from CSR managers. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(4), 419–442. 10.1177/2329488414525469 Chen, Y.-R., & Hung-Baesecke, C.-J. (2014). Examining the internal aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Leader behavior and employee CSR participation. Communication Research Reports, 31(2), 210–220. 10.1080/08824096.2014.907148 Cho, M., Park, S.-Y., & Kim, S. (2021). When an organization violates public expectations: A comparative analysis of sustainability communication for corporate and nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 101928. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101928 Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 363–380.

18

Public Relations Perspective David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291–313. de Bussy, N. M., & Suprawan, L. (2012). Most valuable stakeholders: The impact of employee orientation on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 280–287. Duthler, G., & Dhanesh, G. S. (2018). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and internal CSR communication in predicting employee engagement: Perspectives from the United arab emirates (UAE). Public Relations Review, 44(4), 453–462. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.001 Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August 5–8). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Florida, FL, United States. Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164–178. 10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810 Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. Go, E., & Bortree, D. S. (2017). What and how to communicate CSR? The role of CSR fit, modality interactivity, and message interactivity on social networking sites. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(5). 10.1080/10496491.2017.1297983 Goodwin, F., & Bartlett, J. L. (2008). Public relations and corporate social responsibility: A review of the literature. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15427/1/15427.pdf Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Sage. Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring relationshipbuilding results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1–21. 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1801_1 Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. Hung-Baesecke, C.-J. F., Chen, Y.-R. R., & Boyd, B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility, media source preference, trust, and public engagement: The informed public’s perspective. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 591–599. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.03.015 Ji, Y., & Kim, S. (2019). Communication-mediated psychological mechanisms of Chinese publics’ post-crisis corporate associations and government associations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27, 182–194. Ji, Y. G., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2020). Mapping corporate social responsibility research in communication: A network and bibliometric analysis. Public Relations Review, 46(5), 101963. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101963 Ji, Y. G., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2021). Theoretical insights of CSR research in communication from 1980 to 2018: A bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-021-04748-w Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In L. Robert & R. Heath (Eds.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279–289). Sage. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo Dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60–67. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.003 Kim, S. (2011). Transferring effects of CSR strategy on consumer responses: The synergistic model of corporate communication strategy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(2), 218–241. Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143–1159. 10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6 Kim, S., & Ji, Y. (2017). Chinese consumers’ expectations of corporate communication on CSR and sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 570–588. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65. Lee, S. Y. (2016). How can companies succeed in forming CSR reputation? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21(4), 435–449. Lee, S. Y., Zhang, W., & Abitbol, A. (2019). What makes CSR communication lead to CSR participation? Testing the mediating effects of CSR associations, CSR credibility, and organization–public relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 413–429. 10.1007/s10551-017-3609-0 Lee, T. (2017). The status of corporate social responsibility research in public relations: A content analysis of published articles in eleven scholarly journals from 1980 to 2015. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 211–218. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.001

19

Sora Kim Ott, H., Wang, R., & Bortree, D. (2016). Communicating sustainability online: An examination of corporate, nonprofit, and university websites. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5). 10.1080/15205436.2016.1204554 Park, Y. E., & Kang, M. (2020). When crowdsourcing in CSR leads to dialogic communication: The effects of trust and distrust. Public Relations Review, 46(1), N.PAG-N.PAG. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101867 Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92. Rim, H., Kim, J., & Dong, C. (2019). A cross-national comparison of transparency signaling in corporate social responsibility reporting: The United States, South Korea, and China cases. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1517–1529. 10.1002/csr.1766 Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120. Tuan, A., Dalli, D., Gandolfo, A., & Gravina, A. (2019). Theories and methods in CSRC research: A systematic literature review. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 212–231. 10.1108/ CCIJ-11-2017-0112

20

2 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES AND REFLECTIONS ON THE PUBLIC GOOD Steve May

Introduction The reach of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has expanded significantly in the last 20 years, not only in terms of the range, scope, and impact of corporate practices, but also in terms of scholarly research. The scope of CSR practices now includes corporate philanthropy, volunteerism programs, cause-based marketing, sustainability programs, and community-based initiatives to address local issues, among others. The range of CSR-related activities continues to expand, with little end in sight. Similarly, research about CSR activity has surged in recent years as scholars have been increasingly critical of corporate practices (Crane et al., 2008). Businesspersons, in turn, have begun to reconsider the nature of the business-society relationship and, in some cases, have even questioned taken-for-granted assumptions about the fundamental duties of business, such as the primacy of profitability (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Workers – both current and prospective – now expect their employers to foster ethical cultures that enable all members of the organization to flourish (May, 2008). Shareholders have begun to seek investment options that focus on good governance, as well as fair and responsible business practices (Sahut et al., 2019). Politicians across the world now view CSR (especially programs related to economic development and climate change, for example) as a central frame of reference for their policy-based decisionmaking (Reich, 2007). Leaders of advocacy organizations are increasingly likely to see corporations as partners to address societal problems rather than as adversaries (Grayson & Nelson, 2013). Consumers have also driven CSR as they seek products that are based on fair or free trade, sourced responsibly, and made by companies with integrity (Crane & Matten, 2010). Historically, scholars have viewed CSR with a healthy skepticism. Some see it as merely the latest business fad (see Zorn & Collins, 2007, for a discussion). Others view it as an emerging movement that enables corporations to play a more substantive role in social and economic development (Sahlin-Andersson, 2006). Still others see CSR as a public relations tool, or a form of “green washing”, to serve corporate self-interest (Ganesh, 2007). More recently, though, CSR has DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-4

21

Steve May

transitioned from a lofty ideal proposed mainly in academic circles and on the fringe of corporate operations, to a culturally embedded and diverse set of organizational practices that is increasingly seen as a common sense, accepted approach to business. Beyond the wide range of academic scholarship on CSR, the practical implications of the phenomenon have become more complex, as well. A global economy has produced an even wider set of stakeholders based in diverse cultures with competing interests, while simultaneously focusing on the local, as well. In addition to the diverse domains of life and the synthesis of the global and local, we have also seen a blurring between traditional boundaries of life (labor/leisure, public/ private, work/home) as well as a collaboration among, if not a convergence of, various institutions (non-profit/for-profit, governmental/non-governmental). Yet, the basic questions at the heart of CSR are as old as business itself, such as the fundamental role of business and its relationship to society (Carroll et al., 2012). Given the complicated practices of our global economy, in general, and the complex nature of scholarly research on CSR, specifically, this chapter focuses more narrowly on how organizational communication, as a field of study, might further our understanding of, and prospective impact, on CSR. Elsewhere (May & Roper, 2014; May et al., 2007), I have reviewed and critiqued the CSR research conducted in organizational communication. In this chapter, I seek to extend that work and propose a more specific direction for such scholarship that is grounded in ethics and a critical perspective on CSR. I will first argue that CSR must ultimately be based in ethics, more broadly, addressing a wider range of duty-based concerns than past research. I then suggest that a critical perspective affords the best opportunity for scholars to ask the key questions that are central to conceptions of responsibility as we move forward, both practically and theoretically, on our CSR work. I conclude the chapter with some thoughts about the future of CSR, from a critical perspective.

Ethics and the Public Good as the Foundation of CSR It is worth remembering that ethics is the primary theoretical and practical foundation for the study and application of CSR. CSR is, at its start, based on central questions regarding the ethical role of business in society. For example, how safe – and useful – is a particular product or service and how does it impact society? How should employees be hired, trained, and compensated? How should wealth be developed and distributed? What effect do corporations have upon social, political, economic, environmental, and technological disparities? How do they impact our families and our communities? Who has a stake and a voice in how ethics and responsibility are understood and practiced in an increasingly diverse, global economy? In general, how, if at all, do corporations contribute to the public good? Given these questions and others like them, I suggest that we need to view CSR as a subset of broader considerations of organizational ethics. In the formative, early years of organizational ethics, Charles Redding (1982) acknowledged the central role of ethics, noting that “the preponderance of everyday problems that plague all organizations are either problems that are patently ethical or moral in nature, or that they are problems in which deeply embedded ethical issues can be identified” (p. 2). He also warned scholars that ethics had been largely relegated to an obscure sub-area of organizational communication, describing the lack of attention to ethics as “wandering in a lonely desert”. But, at least at a practical level, business leaders have recently begun to rethink the businesssociety relationship as it relates to ethics and, in turn, CSR. Business leaders, for example, have launched ethics programs, mission-driven strategies, values initiatives, and cultural change efforts. In addition, companies have created ethics officers, high-level ethics committees, ethics ombudspersons, codes of ethics, and ethics task forces. Finally, companies have attempted to strengthen their relationships with various stakeholders, developing programs on the environment, human 22

Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility

rights, work-life balance, corporate volunteerism, community assistance, product safety, customer service, and philanthropy, among others. According to Paine (2003), such efforts are designed to manage risk, strengthen organizational functioning, improve market positioning, and solidify civic positioning. In the context of social movements related to a living wage, MeToo, and Black Lives Matter, businesses have also struggled to hold themselves accountable for their role in the wealth gap and the degree of diversity, equity, and inclusion afforded to their workers. Most recently, they have even begun to delve into political discussions (beyond traditional efforts to sway legislation, via lobbying), related to gun responsibility, abortion rights, and universal health care, among others. Finally, some companies, such as Facebook, have been criticized for their role in inciting violence and subverting democracy in the United States and abroad. In these examples and many others like them, the implications of corporate responsibility are quite high and are grounded, I believe, in how, if at all, corporate practices serve the public good. In short, scholarship on CSR should return its central attention to a series of broader, prevailing ethics-based questions: Responsibility to whom? Responsibility to what end? Responsibility in what ways? The first question addresses the central importance of corporate stakeholders, the second acknowledges the intended and unintended consequences of corporate actions, and the third considers processes for establishing and fostering the public good. Organizational communication scholars are well-positioned to address these fundamental questions about the role of business in society because they simultaneously consider the “internal” and “external” dimensions of organizational life. Internally, we have examined a range of workplace dynamics, including superior-subordinate relationships, socialization, leadership, teamwork, identification, difference and diversity, organizational change, innovation, networks, and culture, among others. Externally, we have examined globalization, social movements, and community engagement and organizing, to name just a few. But, we are also well-suited to consider the role of power, knowledge, and discourse that cuts across “inside” and “outside” to account for the interdependent and interpenetrating relationship regarding how work, for example, has been constituted both culturally, at a macro level, and in more specific micro-level practices, as well. Thus, organizational communication has also moved among macro and micro levels of analysis, enabling a range of methodological approaches in their own right and, at times, drawing upon mixed methods. Organizational communication scholars have used questionnaires, organizational texts, dyadic and group conversations, public documents, interviews and oral histories, and naturalistic observations to understand organizational life. Finally, we have also engaged in research that considers the role that both agency and structure play in organizing. Some scholars have acknowledged the autonomy of organizational actors to enable their own agency; other researchers have accounted for the institutional and cultural forces that constrain human action, and yet others have explored the symbiotic relationship between agency and structure. In each of these dimensions – internal/external, macro/micro, and agency/structure – a broad, encompassing view of ethics strengthens our understanding of organizations. Ethics-oriented scholarship both encompasses these realms and allows scholars to move among and between them. But, how, if at all, is ethics also relevant to the business-society relationship and CSR, more specifically, as one iteration of it? Notably, CSR is, fundamentally, a duty-based, deontological perspective on organizational ethics. From this ethical approach, CSR represents the sets of diverse and complex obligations that corporations have to the full range of stakeholders who are impacted by them. It includes the responsibilities they have toward the collective or, as I have noted earlier, the public good. Corporate actions would, thus, be based on “good will”, and be judged on the intrinsic character of such actions. Such an approach requires that ethics be conducted out of a sense of duty, despite self-inclination. That is, the responsibilities of a business must transcend self-interest and reflect universal principles that they could abide by when applied to the business itself, as well. Using workers as a means to the end of profitability, for example, would assume that consumers, 23

Steve May

investors, government regulatory agencies, suppliers, competitors, and other stakeholders would also view businesses as a means to their own self-interested ends. Principled, responsible CSR conduct, then, could rarely, if ever, be considered solely as self-interested or as discretionary. CSR, at its ethical base, is a foundational set of assumptions regarding what constitutes corporate responsibility not just for a single set of stakeholders, such as shareholders, but more so within a complex array of divergent and often conflicting interests. Although utilitarian, rights-based, virtue-based, and carebased ethics are salient, as well, CSR must be considered, first and foremost, as a duty to the social contract that corporations commit to as institutional members of society. Legally, these responsibilities have become, ironically, more well-established as corporations have sought the status of personhood, seeking a whole range of rights. But, with those rights that are provided by the collective must come with responsibilities that serve the community, as well. What, then, might we consider as the responsibilities of corporations, drawing upon organizational communication as a field of study and duty-based ethics as a philosophical foundation? Historically, CSR scholars have often focused on a range of practices, such as corporate philanthropy, volunteerism, cause-related marketing, cross-sector partnerships, and community-based initiatives to address both local and global problems. While such programs are a reasonable focus of CSR scholarship, many of these CSR-related activities have historically focused on mitigating risk and managing reputation. As a result, they tend to be strategic and corporate centric (Hanlon & Fleming, 2009). In intent, they tend to violate the very principle of responsible, obligatory practices that serve the public good, as ends in and of themselves. For example, philanthropy has a long history as a means for corporate entities to avoid or minimize taxes. Even volunteerism, the impulse to serve others, has been touted by corporate leaders as a means to employee recruitment, retention, and skill development. Cross-sector partnerships and community-based initiatives have been noted for their ability to promote political and community goodwill that can be “banked” for times of corporate crisis. Even given the growth of purpose-driven companies and “conscious capitalism”, it is still incredibly rare for executives to support CSR in its own right, beyond self-interest and ultimate ends toward profitability. Reframed differently, taking the broader conception of responsibility/duty seriously, both theoretically and practically, a very different sent of practices become more salient. Regardless of the nature of the CSR activity, basic duty-oriented, responsibility-driven, ethical expectations of corporations should include the following: (1) creating a decent product/service that provides a public good at a fair price; (2) establishing good and transparent governance that seeks to enable public benefits; (3) abiding by regulatory and compliance mechanisms to enable fair business practices and that holds those engaged in misconduct accountable; (4) paying a fair share of taxes that strengthens local and global infrastructure and enables opportunities for all; (5) supporting human rights for all people; (6) minimizing negative environmental impacts; (7) fostering fair, equitable, and inclusive treatment of employees that affords them safe working conditions, physical and mental well-being, a living wage, and opportunities for growth and development; (8) establishing fair treatment of customers, suppliers, and competitors; (9) using truthful advertising and marketing strategies; (10) facilitating a sense of responsibility to the local communities in which they operate; (11) enhancing our democratic potential as a country, while minimizing self-interested lobbying; (12) producing a reasonable return on investments, when appropriate, while minimizing the externalization of costs onto others. Although this list is not necessarily exhaustive, each of these responsibilities can certainly be studied by scholars in organizational communication, as well as in collaboration with researchers in other fields with related areas of expertise. Doing so, I believe, is likely to produce a different level of corporate dialogue, transparency, and accountability that goes beyond our standard analyses of CSR, for example.

24

Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility

Rethinking CSR Scholarship from a Critical Perspective If we begin with a broad, ethical approach to CSR that draws on deontology, reflecting a wellestablished philosophical understanding of responsibility, what then are the scholarly perspectives that are readily available to us? Elsewhere (see May & Roper, 2014), I answered this question by exploring a range of theoretical perspectives – normative, interpretive, dialogic, and critical – available to organizational communication scholars interested in CSR. In this chapter, I focus more narrowly on a critical perspective that, I believe, will better enable us to engage, critique, and, finally, create more ethical CSR practices. Of the four theoretical perspectives noted above, a critical approach is perhaps somewhat unique among them because it allows scholars to explore both internal and external dimensions of CSR, either in isolation or together. Similarly, a critical perspective can accommodate either micro- or macro-level analyses, or both. Finally, critical scholars have historically wrestled with the tension between agency and structure and, thus, have been able to account for both in their research. Most importantly, though, a critical approach comes closest to addressing the core ethical questions that I argue must ground the study and practice of CSR regarding direction (for whom?), intent (to what end?), and process (in what ways?). How then, might a critical perspective further inform our understanding of, and practices related to, CSR? To answer this question and those related to direction, intent, and process, I will first explore some of the key assumptions of a critical approach to CSR. Then, I use a critical perspective as a framework to rethink some of the more commonly accepted bodies of scholarship in CSR, such as shareholder value, corporate social performance, corporate citizenship, and stakeholder theory. While these are not the only theories that have been used to frame CSR scholarship, they have become widely accepted (see Mele, 2008, for a discussion). Because I have summarized their assumptions elsewhere (May, 2021), I will focus on how a critical perspective might inform our understanding of each. It is first helpful to remember that a critical perspective typically includes three interrelated goals: understanding, critique, and action (Deetz, 1982; Mumby, 2014). Together, these goals enable scholars to first deconstruct a phenomenon such as CSR and, in turn, to reconstruct it in a new form with, hopefully, more ethical intent, more just processes, and more responsible outcomes. With these overarching goals in mind, critical scholars would view CSR as an historical construction that is culturally embedded in practices that favor the interests of some over others. Second, CSR, from a critical approach, would be seen as the production of power forces that naturalize preferred interests and obscure the very construction of them. That is, the current status of CSR would be understood as taken for granted and common sensical, and, in time, would become reified. Third, scholars using a critical orientation toward CSR would seek to uncover unimagined, alternative possibilities that might empower and, ideally, emancipate those affected by corporations, in general, and CSR practices, specifically. With each of these critical dimensions in mind, scholars studying CSR would always engage in philosophical and methodological reflexivity (Fournier & Grey, 2000). They would consider the fundamental assumptions and knowledge claims that form the basis of CSR, but in a manner that promotes ethics toward the persons/organizations studied and a deeply pragmatic approach toward intervention (Spicer et al., 2009). Each of these principles, I believe, are consistent with a broader emphasis on ethics, bound in a strong sense of duty. Not surprisingly, then, critical scholars are more likely to be skeptical, if not cynical, of CSR when it comes to intent, processes, and outcomes. Because corporations are viewed as political entities characterized by power struggles whereby some groups dominate others, critical scholarship seeks to explore the unidentified interests and unmet needs of marginalized groups (Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). As a result, critically oriented researchers would expose and interrogate the unstated logics of CSR, while exploring the contradictions (e.g., profit/ethics) that are often overlooked in the

25

Steve May

processes of global capitalism, for example Banerjee, 2008). The ultimate goal, from this perspective, would be to consider whether CSR serves the public good and, if not, what processes enable the public to readily accept corporate practices that are inconsistent with their interests. For most critical scholars, this process of reproducing corporate power relations occurs when social formations are reified, when sectional interests are portrayed as universal, and when consent is marshalled to shape public knowledge, identities, and social relations to benefit dominant groups. With this general summary of a critical perspective on CSR, I now turn to several of the more common, widely accepted approaches to CSR and consider how a critical approach might introduce different scholarly questions about CSR. Shareholder value theory, now widely accepted by nearly all businesspersons and many academics alike, assumes that the sole responsibility of businesses is to make a profit for their shareholders. According to shareholder value, CSR activities would be appropriate if, and only if, they maximize shareholder’s return on investment. This focus on the presumed fiduciary responsibility of a corporation serves as a foundation for neoclassical economic theory, which emerged from the Chicago School of Economics in the 1970s. Later, scholars have argued for profit maximization by drawing on agency theory with its distinction between the responsibilities of owners and managers, albeit with managers seeking to align their economic interests with those of owners around a single objective (Jensen, 2002). This theory of the firm focuses on executive functions as the arbiter of responsible, profit-driven action. More recent extensions of shareholder value describe behavior that might serve the public good as “enlightened self-interest”. But, overall, this view of the corporation as mono-functional leads some scholars to reject CSR for its potential negative impact on the bottom line, unless arguments can be made that cause-related marketing (Smith & Higgins, 2000), corporate philanthropy (Porter & Kramer, 2003) and bottom of the pyramid economics (Prahalad, 2003) can be proven to drive profitability, for example. From an ethics-oriented critical perspective, the assumptions of shareholder value are the most problematic. The prevailing wisdom that shareholders “own” corporations and that the legal purpose of corporations is to “maximize shareholder value” is a myth (Stout, 2012). In fact, nearly all corporate legal charters and articles of incorporation are very broad and ambiguous, typically stating that the purpose of the corporation is to do anything “lawful”. Most state statutes, including Delaware where most corporations are incorporated, refuse to mandate shareholder primacy. Instead, they indicate that leaders of corporations may serve the interests not only of shareholders, but also other constituencies as well, such as employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, and the local community. When given the opportunity to narrow the focus of a corporation to profitability (as assumed in shareholder value), corporate directors have chosen not to do so. From a critical perspective, then, one task for scholars of CSR is to account for the historical development of a myth that pervades corporate governance and management. Doing so shifts the discursive frame of reference for CSR as an extension of corporate profitability. As a result, the purpose – and responsibility – of a corporation would expand significantly and include a much wider range of key stakeholder. If, in fact, shareholder value is a legal myth that is reproduced by corporations on a regular basis, we should then ask whose interests are served by believing it? What are the processes by which corporate responsibility has been diverted from a diverse set of stakeholders to a single group (yet one that is more diverse and less homogeneous than corporate leaders claim)? A second route for critical scholarship on CSR is to account for the practical outcomes of accepting the myth of shareholder value. A critical scholar with an eye toward ethics might argue, for example, that a belief in shareholder value causes leaders to focus myopically on the short-term at the expense of long-term performance, discouraging investment and innovation in ways that harm employees, customers, and communities. In such cases, how might CSR be used a means to appease criticism of the externalized costs of corporations? During the growth of wide-scale firings of employees in the 1980s, for example, job loss was discursively framed as “downsizing”, “rightsizing”, and “trimming 26

Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility

the fat”. Since that time, work precarity has largely been understood as a normal, natural part of our economy that is an inevitable feature of employment – rather than the responsibility of executives engaged in self-interested, ineffective decision-making and a lack of strategic planning. So, from a critical perspective, reframing responsibility raises questions regarding who will be held accountable for corporate actions that do harm to workers and produce costs on the collective (e.g., unemployment benefits, health care costs, lower tax contributions). Corporate social performance (CSP), another common approach for scholars, suggests that businesses have both economic and social responsibilities. Following Wood (1991) and others, authors from this point of view argue that firms must pay attention to societal expectations and, in particular, social needs at the time. Scholars focused on CSP note that corporations must mitigate the risks of violating legal mandates and social norms and, as a result, the focus is on corporate reputation (see Carroll, 2016; May, 2016). Such an approach contends that corporations require legitimacy from their publics in order to be allowed to do business. CSR, from this approach, tends to be responsive to reputational threats and is one means for corporations to manage issues (Sethi, 1975). Recent scholarship on corporate social performance has emphasized measurable outcomes in both economic and public realms, with some studies finding a positive link between CSR and profit (Orlitzky, 2008) while others have seen mixed results instead (Margolis & Walsh, 2001). From a critical perspective, guided by ethics, scholars might argue that a focus on CSP directs attention away from the internal corporate practices that impact workers and toward broader sets of publics. Critical scholars, for example, might want to understand how and why “the social” in CSR and CSP have been understood in fairly narrow terms. How have scholars of CSR come to accept the social as an externally directed dimension of corporations? Who benefits – and in what ways – when we pay more attention to CSR philanthropy and volunteerism programs rather than the physical, emotional, and economic well-being of workers? Similarly, critical scholars might also argue that CSP is merely a form of reaction or responsiveness. What does it mean that we might accept a corporation’s responsiveness to environmental degradation, for example, as a type of responsibility? As noted above, CSR is often directed at managing issues and/or addressing reputational threats. How does CSR, then, fit within processes to maintain corporate legitimacy? Whose interests are served when we, as scholars, attend not so much to harm done by corporations but, instead, to the means of recuperating credibility in response? To whom is public relations (or now, strategic communication, as a rebranding) directed, to what end, and with what consequences? Finally, critical scholars might also seek to understand how profitability and CSR have been linked. What logics and decisional premises are employed in order to rationalize CSR as a means to the bottom line? Corporate citizenship, another approach used by CSR scholars, includes a range of assumptions regarding the preferred nature of citizenship. Scholars from this perspective argue that corporations, like individuals, are citizens of their communities and, therefore, must attend to a diverse array of stakeholder interests, including a range of community problems (Eilbert & Parket, 1973). From this approach, corporations should engage in discretionary activities, beyond legal compliance and profit maximization, in order to promote human welfare, both locally and globally. Scholars who adhere to a corporate citizenship approach have been interested in the philanthropic activities of businesses in the community, including donations and volunteerism (Crane & Matten, 2005; Matten & Crane, 2005). This approach suggest that business interests should not necessarily be separated from social interests in a society (Moon et al., 2005) and that collaboration between business, government, and civil society would be appropriate (Vidaver-Cohen & Altman, 2000). Some scholars have even argued that, in extreme cases (e.g., in some developing countries), corporations might even serve as grantors of citizenship themselves in order to build institutional trust (Crane et al., 2008). While corporate citizenship is more likely to be palatable to critical scholars who study CSR, it still has several limitations. Because corporations have a long history of undue political influence, via 27

Steve May

lobbying in particular, the notion of corporations taking on the role of political entities is likely to be viewed as another form of corporate colonization, among critical scholars. But, for most advocates of corporate citizenship, corporate control of political structures – even (and maybe, especially) in developing countries – is an extreme extension of the concept of citizenship. More likely, proponents of this approach prefer to focus on stewardship as an overall orientation toward CSR. From a critical perspective, though, stewardship might be seen as an ideological construct that is overly vague and abstract to have much specific, practical impact on the public good. In most cases, notions of stewardship draw on public, corporate leaders who apparently model responsible citizenship through their foundations or other philanthropic activities. This type of responsibility, from a critical perspective, is a kind of corporate identity politics whereby individual executives are seen as exemplars of conscious capitalism, for example. From a critical perspective, then, we then might ask the following: How has CSR become associated with the perceived ethical actions of a few corporate leaders? What are the structural, institutional dimensions of ethical/unethical corporate behavior that are missed while scholars focus on CSR leadership? How might our understanding of CSR practices differ if we were to focus on ethical governance rather than stewardship? In what ways would a belief that “doing good” and “doing well” may be compatible, rather than contradictory, reorient business practices? Critical scholars would likely want to understand how social and political dimensions of life may have been “incorporated” into economic value assumptions and decisional premises. They would likely turn to concepts such as dialogue, voice, and dissent in order to better understand what CSR activities will be pursued by corporations. Stakeholder theory is an increasingly common approach that has been applied by CSR scholars from a wide variety of academic disciplines. In its early iterations, stakeholder theory was a new direction in strategic management, albeit still with a focus on long-term financial success (Freeman, 1984). In time, stakeholder theory evolved so that the responsibility of management was not only to protect the fiduciary health of the business but to also negotiate the multiple claims of conflicting stakeholders, such as shareholders, employees, regulatory agencies, customers, suppliers, and competitors, among others (Evan & Freeman, 1988). More recently, Freeman and Velamuri (2006) have suggested that the real responsibility of corporations is not so much to prioritize the management of a corporation’s most influential stakeholders but, instead, to create value for all stakeholders – producing a form of distributive justice. In its most progressive form, the theory focuses on stakeholder engagement, rather than management, and might enable partnerships across sectors (Andriof & Waddock, 2002) that allow for disagreement and dissensus (Deetz, 2007). Not surprisingly, stakeholder theory is the most likely approach, among those noted in this chapter, that critical scholars may use. CSR scholars’ more recent focus on engagement (versus management) of multiple stakeholders more closely approximates critical scholars’ interest in negotiating competing interests, enabling resistance, and creating more equitable power relations. But, historically, management-driven forms of engagement around CSR have often focused on strategies that strengthen worker loyalty and commitment rather than create substantive participation in CSR initiatives. Critical scholars, for example, might ask: Where is CSR located, functionally, in corporations and who has a seat at the table? For processes of decision-making, it matters whether CSR is located within public relations, marketing, legal counsel, or operations. When it comes to stakeholders, specifically, critical scholars would be interested in who is identified as a stakeholder by a corporation and how that process occurs. How, for example, do corporations decide what constitutes a relevant stakeholder and what persons/groups/institutions are excluded? What is the nature of the corporate relationship with stakeholders and how are shared/competing interests addressed? How transparent are corporate leaders about the potential consequences of their decisions on stakeholders? What, if any, recourse do stakeholders have if they believe that they have been harmed by corporate actions? In short, what groups are silenced and on what topics? As advocates of stakeholder theory have also turned their attention to the potential of cross-sector partnerships to 28

Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility

address some of these questions, critical scholars would want to understand the power dynamics in those relationships. Critical scholars might ask the following: How are cross-sector partnerships initiated and to what end? How, if at all, might corporate and non-profit interests be aligned? What are the value assumptions and decision-making processes in each organization and how are conflicts reconciled? Given the power inequities between corporate and non-profit organizations, critical scholars might question attempts by corporations to focus on shared goals, consensus, and finding common ground as opposed to diverse goals, dissensus, and contestation. Stakeholder relations, in general, might be oriented toward dialogue and deliberation that enable the democratic, participative potential of members who are a part of, and are impacted by, corporations.

The Future of CSR from a Critical Perspective From its most skeptical vantage point, a critical approach to CSR raises some vexing concerns for scholars. Fleming and Jones (2013) provide one of the most cogent and concise critiques of CSR from a critical perspective. From their point of view, CSR is at a crisis point and should, ideally, be reconsidered, if not rejected, when understood in the context of global capitalism. First, they argue, multinational capitalism prioritizes economic rationality to the exclusion of other dimensions, such as social, political, and environmental realms. They suggest that CSR practices are unlikely to shift the current focus on profit maximization. Second, the aspirational claims of CSR – designed to protect the environment, improve communities, and strengthen democracy – are ultimately incompatible with the practices of capitalism. Third, they note that the inherent contradictions between ethics and profitability, for example, are not aberrations but are, instead, evidence of systemic structural inequalities that are built into bottom line interests that can’t be overcome by CSR. Fourth, even when CSR programs seem to have an ethics orientation, Fleming and Jones view them as an empty gesture. Practices of CSR, they claim, produce few positive results and, in some cases, extend market-oriented logics to CSR (e.g., trading carbon emissions). In total, then, they tend to see CSR not as a step forward but, rather, as a retreat backward, reifying a neo-liberal logic that sees corporations as central institutions not just for our economies but now also for nearly all realms of life. For them, CSR has become an “external branding exercise to appease the consumer” while diverting workers’ attention from their concerns and “smoothing over any dissonance that could arise from participating in enterprises that harm the community” (Fleming & Jones, 2013, p. xv). When viewed from a critical perspective of suspicion, then, CSR has developed into a compelling corporate discourse that includes marketing, employee recruitment and commitment, governmental policy, and shifting consumer values – all in order to maintain legitimacy that minimizes regulatory oversight, legal accountability, worker resistance, and consumer boycotts. It is, undoubtedly, a harsh attack on those of us who study CSR, regardless of theoretical perspective. But, I believe that, if we are serious about the broader location of CSR within ethics, in general, and duty-based approaches, more specifically, we should seriously self-reflect upon our role as scholars in the CSR enterprise. Doing so requires us to rethink some of our taken-for-granted assumptions about who CSR is for, its intent, and its processes in order to reconsider some of our research priorities. As Kuhn and Deetz (2008) explain, for example, CSR scholars need to rethink how social concerns are affected by decisions related to corporate goodwill, government regulation and oversight, or consumer choices. Our approach to each of these practices has prevented a more complex understanding of CSR, either by ignoring – or evading – the role of values in such decisions. We have tended to accept corporate goodwill, for example, as a value-free process that assumes economic rationality and free markets. But, values are embedded in even the most mundane, standardized, and taken-for-granted corporate practices, such as accounting. Here, scholars interested in CSR would explore whose values are represented in corporate CSR decisions, how those 29

Steve May

values are enacted, and with what consequences for others. Second, it is helpful to rethink our approach to inter-organizational relationships, such as that between government and corporations. Both the enticements for responsible corporate behavior and the means to hold them accountable have been significantly limited in the last several decades. Further, given the overlapping membership between industry and regulatory agencies, premises of corporate-oriented values are regularly embedded in the decisions of regulatory agencies (at least in the United States). But, nevertheless, it would be valuable for scholars to increasingly focus on regulatory agencies as a key stakeholder of corporations and focus on their internal dynamics, as an important dimension of CSR. In addition, scholars should increasingly explore the role of advocacy organizations, particularly since they have gained increasing legitimacy among the public as a counterpoint to corporate power. Finally, an emerging realm of “oversight” includes the CSR audit agencies and management consultant firms who have developed CSR-oriented assessment criteria to, presumably, build corporate brand and reputation, while creating new financial opportunities for themselves. Finally, at the consumer level, it is difficult to overlook the growth of conscious consumption, with its focus on ethical sourcing, supply chain management, free and fair trade, and worker health and safety, among others. These practices are an important and relevant focus for scholars since some consumers have decided to “vote” with their feet or their money. But, at the least, such an approach can produce over-consumption and the reification of market-oriented values, even if they include “purpose-driven” companies. More commonly, it is likely that social concerns are translated into buying habits, citizenship is conflated with consumption, and democracy is subsumed by capitalism. Still, it would be helpful for CSR scholars to better understand the role of consumers in corporate initiatives to meet their expectations for integrity. The study of consumer attitudes, values, and buying habits will become increasingly important, I believe, if Millennials and Gen Z continue to focus on their impact as consumers – and as prospective employees, as well. Doing so requires us to not only explore the individual level of analysis, but also the broader cultural level, in terms of the discursive formations that are produced for and by consumers and that, in turn, animate their role. Although I share many of the same critically oriented concerns as Fleming and Jones and tend to accept the arguments by Kuhn and Deetz, my own preference is that we approach CSR with both a critical sense of suspicion and of hope. I have offered some insights about how the former might frame our research questions related to CSR. But, the latter, a sense of hope, requires a more direct connection to the field of ethics, from which CSR and more general questions of duty and responsibility emerge. Elsewhere (May, 2013), I refer to this emphasis as aspirational ethics – an orientation that is realist and pragmatic, yet directed toward more humane and responsible possibilities. Aspirational ethics requires ethical awareness and reflexivity, ethical judgment and discernment, and, ultimately, ethics-driven action and assessment. As one example in the CSR realm, Christensen and Cheney (2011) refer to aspirational talk as a constructive, responsible driver of CSR programs. They explain that, even in the midst of an ideology of CSR that can unduly benefit corporations at the expense of others, corporate aspirations can produce a collective “horizon” of CSR, whereby the full range of stakeholders impacted by corporations drive them to strengthen their ethical conduct – and hold them accountable when they do not. What corporations say about CSR, especially publicly and to broader audiences, sets the stage for new, expanded expectations. We have seen evidence of this constitutive process, for example, as workers have increasingly held their employers accountable for climate- and diversitybased initiatives that have fallen short of claims and expectations. More ethical and responsible corporate actions require, in effect, new sets of habits that become “incorporated” into day-to-day organizational life. If we accept the premise of critical scholarship, we also have to account for the fact that ethics and responsibility will always be open for corporate appropriation, refashioned to benefit corporate self-interest. As such, as scholars, we need to also understand how this process of recuperation, back to the economic, tends to occur communicatively. 30

Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility

One way to focus on aspirations and push the limits of corporate possibilities, though, is to further broaden the limits of what we consider responsible corporate behavior, in my view. As I noted earlier in the chapter, it means that scholars interested in CSR begin with basic ethical questions about whether a corporation creates a product or service that serves the public good. If not, it is our responsibility to call it out and offer constructive alternatives. Studying CSR also means that we should consider whether corporations engage in good governance in ways that enable public benefits. If not, they should be held accountable and new decision-making and leadership processes proposed. Responsible corporate behavior requires, at a minimum, compliance with the law and other regulatory agencies. If not, we should note it publicly and collaborate with colleagues in law and other related disciplines to effect change. Similarly, responsible citizens pay their fair share of taxes to benefit all. If corporate citizens do not, scholars should understand how and why in order to offer their insights. Countries with a strong history of human rights support it for all, regardless of personal identity. Corporations should be expected to do no less and should be critiqued if they cannot support the fundamental humanness of all. Corporations must minimize negative environmental consequences for the planet upon which we all depend for life. If not, we need to address both their role and that of governments who are not protecting our planet. From a workers’ perspective, we should determine whether corporations foster fair, equitable, and inclusive treatment of employees that affords them safe working conditions, physical and mental well-being, a living wage, and opportunities for growth and development. For organizational communication scholars, in particular, we should make our critiques and recommendations of corporate conduct toward workers known publicly and widely. We must also ask whether corporations engaged in truthful advertising, marketing, and public relations. Communication scholars, in general, are wellpositioned to hold corporations accountable for their lack of candor and transparency. Corporations should consider the impact of their actions on local communities and we should be studying those effects on the ground. Corporations should also enhance our democratic potential as a country. Although such a responsibility might have been a given in the past, we are increasingly dependent on them to support the rule of law and to refrain from exerting undue political influence. When they do not adhere to democratic expectations, it should be acknowledged by us. Finally, if all of these ethical responsibilities are met, then we can reasonably expect corporations to produce a reasonable return on investments for their shareholders. These are the principles of responsibility, I believe, that will enable us, as scholars, to pursue the aspirational goals of CSR. We play our part as scholars, I believe, as we project for corporate leaders and others not so much what is, but what might be. We need to simultaneously study current and historic CSR practices, while also imagining what might be beyond the horizon.

Discussion Questions 1 2

3

4

What do you consider to be the role of business in today’s society? What are the various responsibilities of corporations and how, if at all, might they be prioritized? How, if at all, does viewing CSR from an ethics orientation change our understanding of it? Are ethics and profitability incompatible? If so, why? If not, what CSR practices would enable both to co-exist? What are the strengths and limitations of studying CSR from a critical perspective? How does a critical perspective produce new insights and different sets of CSR practices? Does a critical approach inhibit us from understanding certain features of CSR? How might the form, content, and processes for communication about CSR change, when viewed from a critical perspective?

31

Steve May

References Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19–42). Greenleaf Publishing. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 74, 391–407. Carroll, A. B., Lipartito, K. J., Post, J. E., & Werhane, P. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: The American experience. Cambridge University Press. Carroll, C. E. (Ed.). (2016). The SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation, volumes 1 and 2. SAGE Publications. Christensen, L., & Cheney, G. (2011). Interrogating the communicative dimensions of corporate social responsibility. In O. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), Handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 491–504). Wiley-Blackwell. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Missing the point or missing the boat? A reply to van Oosterhout. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 681–684. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics. Oxford University Press. Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. S. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press. Deetz, S. (1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46(2), 131–149. Deetz, S. (2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267–278). Oxford University Press. Eilbert, H., & Parket, I. R. (1973). The practice of business: The current status of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 16(4), 5–14. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Prentice Hall. Fleming, P., & Jones, J. T. (2013). The end of corporate responsibility: Crisis and critique. SAGE Publications. Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7–32. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Freeman, R. E., & Velamuri, R. (2006). A new approach to CSR: Company stakeholder responsibility. In A. Kakabadse & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Reconciling aspirations with applications (pp. 9–23). Palgrave Macmillan. Ganesh, S. (2007). Sustainable development discourse and the global economy: Promoting responsibility, containing change. In May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (Eds), The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press. 379–390. Grayson, D., & Nelson, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility coalitions: The past, present, and future of alliances for sustainable capitalism. Stanford University Press. Hanlon, G., & Fleming, P. (2009). Updating the critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Sociology Compass, 3, 937–948. Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–247. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. John Wiley. Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 173–196). Oxford University Press. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits: The search for a link between company’s social and financial performance. Lawrence Erlbaum. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179. May, S. (2008). Reconsidering strategic corporate social responsibility: Public relations and ethical engagement of employees in a global economy. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 365–383). VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften. May, S. (Ed.). (2013). Case studies in organizational communication: Ethical perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. May, S. K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility. In C. Carroll (Ed.), SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation (pp. 217–221). SAGE Publications.

32

Organizational Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility May, S. K. (2021). Organizational ethics and corporate social responsibility. Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (Eds.). (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press. May, S. K., & Roper, J. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and ethics. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 767–789). SAGE. Mele, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 47–82). Oxford University Press. Moon, J., Crane, A. & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 429–453. Mumby, D. (2014). Critical theory and postmodernism. In L. Putman & D. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 101–125). SAGE Publications. Orlitzky, M. (2008). Corporate social performance and financial performance: A research synthesis. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 113–136). Oxford University Press. Paine, L. S. (2003) Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. McGraw-Hill. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2003). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. In Harvard business review on corporate social responsibility (pp. 27–64). Harvard Business School Publishing. Prahalad, C. K. (2003). Strategies for the bottom of the economic pyramid: India as a source of innovation. Reflections: The SOL Journal, 3(4), 6–18. Redding, C. W. (1982). Ethics and the study of organizational communication: When will we wake up? Lecture presented to The Center for the Study of Ethics in Society. Kalamazoo, MI, Western Michigan University. Reich, R. (2007). Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. Alfred A. Knopf. Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: A trend and a movement, but of what and for what? Corporate Governance 6(5), 595–608. Sahut, J. M., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Teulon, F. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and governance. Journal of Management Governance, 23, 901–912. Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58–64. Smith, W., & Higgins, M. (2000). Cause-related marketing: Ethics and the ecstatic. Business & Society, 39(3), 304–322. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4), 537–560. Stout, L. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Altman, B. W. (2000). Concluding remarks: Corporate citizenship in the new millennium: Foundation for an architecture of excellence. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 145–168. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718. Zorn, T., & Collins, E. (2007). Is sustainability sustainable? CSR, sustainable business, and management fashion. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 405–416). Oxford University Press.

33

3 CSR COMMUNICATION FROM A RHETORICAL AND SEMIOTIC PERSPECTIVE Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen

Introduction This chapter presents the contribution of rhetorical and semiotic approaches (RSAs) to the analysis of CSR communication. Persuasive discourse and communication are always inextricably linked to human and natural life and issues. Sustainability issues like climate crisis, plastic pollution and biodiversity loss are no exception. For instance, climate change has “moved from being a predominantly physical phenomenon to being simultaneously a political, social, and cultural phenomenon – and thus, a communication challenge” (Fløttum, 2018, p. 21). The most recent IPCC report makes no doubt concerning the critical situation of climate, and the urgency of policies of both mitigation and adaptation to climate change (IPCC, 2021, 2022). From a communication point of view, it is easy to identify “the inescapable role of media and communication in the mediation […] of more sustainable everyday cultures and practices designed to mitigate the effects of a warming planet” (Goodman et al., 2020, p. 2). RSAs to sustainable communication and CSR communication are called to deepen the understanding of how different actors, and in particular businesses, use symbols, images, and discourses to participate in the public debate on these issues, and how such actors try to support specific agendas and interests. We focus here on two specific (and interconnected) traditions concerning the analysis of CSR discourses, rhetoric analysis and semiotics, that can contribute to this effort. As Ihlen and Heath stated (2018, p. 4), “Rhetoric helps us to understand how knowledge is generated and socially constructed through communication”, based here on an ancient tradition starting with Greek philosophers and rhetoricians like Aristotle (2007). Concerning corporate discourses, “by accepting communication as the constitutive element of organizations and CSR, scholars are recognizing (albeit often tacitly) the central role held by rhetoric in our understanding of the corporate form in society” (O’Connor & Ihlen 2018, p. 401). Also, discourse is the place where what it means to be socially responsible is negotiated between corporations and stakeholders as a give-and-take process based on shared as well as unique experiences and expectations (Ihlen, 2011b). Semiotics, for its part, has developed since the end of the 19th century as a project focused on the analysis of different types of signs (verbal, visual, gestural, etc.) and of meaning structuration, production, and circulation. Ferdinand de Saussure expressed this project as the “analysis of the life of signs in the frame of the social life” (1959 [1916 for the first edition], p. 16).

34

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-5

Rhetoric and Semiotic

Combining these two traditions offers a rich toolbox for “multimodal analysis” (combining verbal language and other modes of communication, like images and videos) of CSR communication which is arguably a significant aspect of today’s communication landscape. As W. J. T. Mitchell (2005) has stated, all media are mixed media, and multimodal RSA can contribute to the intelligibility of contemporary signs and persuasive discourse production on vital issues like climate change and biodiversity loss. This chapter is divided into three parts focusing on three questions: The first part asks what this “thing” called RSA is. We introduce some references and notions useful to understand certain aspects of the theoretical foundations and toolbox of contributions from semiotic and rhetoric. The second section asks how this toolbox has been applied to CSR communication analysis. We present some contributions and results, with a focus on the environmental aspects of CSR as a specific subfield. The fourth and last section asks where we would like this research field to go, showing potential paths for future developments. The main goal is not to make a complete review of the literature, but to contextualize and highlight interesting contributions, and to pinpoint some needs for the future (Table 3.1).

Rhetoric and Semiotics Defined Roots in the Ancient Rhetoric Ihlen and Heath stated (2018, p. 3), quoting Oesterreich (2009), that human beings can be called homo rhetoricus, because they “use words to co‐create meaning, share ideas, and motivate actions, the building blocks of self‐governance”. More generally, human beings are homo or animal symbolicum, according to the philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1974, p. 26), because they build their life and culture through symbolic forms – and persuasion, as the essence of what rhetoric studies, is a central dimension of symbolic forms. Writing about rhetoric necessitates a reference to the ancient Western tradition from Greece (i.e., Aristotle, trans. 2007; see Herrick, 2020), even if much could be said also concerning non-Western approaches (e.g., Kennedy, 1998; Lloyd, 2020). The sophists and rhetoricians of the ancient Greek started developing suggestions and models for producing effective speeches around 500 years BC. They developed the five stages of the preparation of a speech (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery), and became the target of criticism by the philosopher Plato, who accused them of relying on the mere appearance of truth to fulfill their own interests (or the ones of their clients), in opposition to philosophical dialectic that is research of truth. Aristotle (2007) was a student of Plato but tried to create an original vision of reality and discourse, and developed a very influent rhetorical theory, with the famous distinction of logos (argumentation as the logical content of discourse), ethos (ethical appeal of the speaker, modified and built through the discourse) and pathos (emotional appeal developed through the discourse), and his focus on “probable truth” as an alternative to the opposition between absolute truth of dialectics and equal truth (so, the absence of truth) of sophists. He defined rhetoric as “an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, 2007, 1.2.1). Thanks to Aristotle, rhetoric appeared as the useful tool to deal with the uncertain, the contingent and probable (doxa, in opposition to the certain), and the device to make certainty appear. Aristotle systematized the study of “topoi” (common topics or loci communes, like definition, comparison, causal relationship, circumstance, testimony, and specific topics, internal to each subject) and rhetorical figures as common tools of persuasive discourse, still useful today. Other important authors, like Isocrates, Cicero, and Quintilian, contributed to the building of a long-standing tradition.

35

Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen Table 3.1 Synthesis of rhetorical and semiotic approaches Rhetorical approach

Semiotic approach

Main authors

Aristotle, Quintilian, K. Burke, C. Perelman, L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. F. Bitzer, Groupe µ

Some main ideas and concepts

Art and analysis of persuasive communication. Ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion. Focus on the uncertain. Study of topics and figures. Focus on verbal written and oral discourse, with recent opening to images and objects. Logos, ethos, pathos. Topics (topoi) and rhetorical figures. Five stages of the preparation of a speech. “Rhetorical situation”.

Main research questions

Aristotle, St. Augustin, J. Locke, C. S. Peirce, F. de Saussure, R. Barthes, J. Morris, A. J. Greimas, E. Landowski, J. Fontanille, J. M. Floch Analysis of different types of signs (verbal, visual) and of meaning production and circulation. Focus on all type of signs: verbal written and oral languages, paintings, photos, videos, digital, gestures, buildings, objects, etc. Sign: relation of a “signifier” and a “signified” (Saussure); relation of a “representamen”, an object and an “interpretant” (Peirce). Denotation and connotation, rhetoric of images (Barthes). Text as a combination of signs. “Generative path” of meaning (Greimas). Classes of signs (ex. icons, indexes, symbols: Peirce). How are signs organized in relation to specific meanings? How are meaning and texts related to each other? How are social and human relations and practices represented by and influenced by texts? How are texts interpreted by different publics?

How does persuasive communication work? How is knowledge generated and socially constructed through communication? How can persuasive communication build a better society (classical rhetorical approach)? How has persuasive communication a role in power production and in domination and injustice (critical rhetorical approach)? Old (ancient) rhetoric and new (20th Interpretative and cognitive semiotics century) rhetoric. (origin: Peirce); structuralist and postClassical and critical rhetorical structuralist semiotics (origin: Saussure, approaches to public relations and Greimas); social semiotics (origin: communication. M. Halliday) Farache and Perks (2010), Catellani Castelló and Lozano (2011), O’Connor (2015, 2019), Catellani and Errecart and Ihlen (2018), Ihlen (2009a, (2017), Yekini et al. (2021), Lång and 2009b, 2011a), Iivonen and Moisander (2014), Marais (2012), Ivanonva-Gongne (2019), Greenwood et al. (2019), Shao and Janssens (2021) Onkila (2016), Winkler et al. (2019) Focus on multimodal and material aspects of CSR communication. Integration of quantitative analysis. Integration of digital assistance and AI. Focus on “platformization”. Focus on interdiscursivity and intertextuality on CSR.

Some main schools and orientations

Exemplary studies on CSR

Directions for the future

36

Rhetoric and Semiotic

The New Rhetoric Some authors of the 20th century have revived and developed the study of rhetoric, and many have talked about a “rhetorical turn” that underlines the central place of rhetoric as the normal way of language use and the source of our knowledge of reality (Ihlen & Heath, 2018, p. 5). By some this has been dubbed as new rhetoric (e.g., Burke, 1945/1969, 1950/1969; Perelman & OlbrechtsTyteca, 1969/1971). Burke (1950/1969) defined rhetoric as symbolic action to accomplish “identification” among people and parts of reality, and this is done by working on symbols and words. Another influential notion is the one of “the rhetorical situation”, proposed by Bitzer (1968) as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence. (p. 6) This notion has been widely discussed but keeps its usefulness, for example, in the analysis of corporate discourses on environmental issues (Ihlen, 2011b). Later developments in the field direct attention to, for instance, feminism (Lunsford, 1995; Ryan et al., 2016), race and postcolonialism (e.g., Flores, 2016; Shome, 1996), as well as the role of the visual and materialism (e.g., Graham, 2020; Gries, 2015). In addition, rhetorical scholars have also taken to explore new methods, for instance, conducting in situ rhetorical studies (Middleton et al., 2011), as well as reception studies (Kjeldsen, 2017).

Semiotics and Its Plurality Semiotics, for its part, has had two different origins: one with the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce (1839–1914), and the other one with the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913). The first developed a global thinking of “signs” as the constituting elements of interpretation and meaning constructions by human beings (and also animals); his dynamic and triadic model of sign (made of a signifier or “representamen”, an object and an “interpretant”) is part of a long tradition of reflection on signs and language, starting (as for the Western world) with the ancient Greek philosophers, in particular Aristotle and the Stoics, and continuing with authors like St. Augustin of Hippo, the medieval scholastics, and John Locke. The writings of Peirce (the Collected Papers, 1931–1958) have been influential in integrating the analysis of different sign systems, preparing the analysis of cognitive aspects of interpretation and meaning production in cognitive and inferential semiotics (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003), in connection with linguistic pragmatics (see the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Austin, and John Searle). F. de Saussure, with his course on linguistics (1959 [1916]), founded a very influential tradition of structural analysis of language and other sign systems, that included authors like Roland Barthes and Algirdas J. Greimas. This last one, founder of the “Paris school” of semiotics (Greimas & Courtés, 1982), proposed in his books a structured toolbox for the analysis of “texts” (complex signs of all types, from books to supermarkets and recipes to works of art), articulating in a “generative path” different layers of structures, from the most superficial and sensible (discourse, enunciative, and sensible and emotional) to the “deepest” and most general (narrative and axiological, concerning basic values). Different scholars have discussed and developed this toolbox, like Eric Landowski (1989), Jacques Fontanille (2006, 2008), and Jean-Marie Floch (2000). Another branch of semiotics, called “social semiotics”, has developed on the basis of the works of the linguist Michael Halliday, focusing on the analysis of “semiotic resources” that are available

37

Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen

for meaning production (Van Leeuwen, 2005), and developing tools for multimodal analysis (Kress, 2010). From a formal point of view, semiotics should include rhetoric as a branch, because it is the study of all types of meaning production through signs and symbols, including strategic persuasive ones. But the two areas of research have mainly developed in parallel, with important contributions to many different fields of humanities and social sciences, and some forms of interpenetration, like in the case of the “rhetoric of images” of Roland Barthes (1977), for example, or the contributions on rhetoric and visual rhetoric of the Groupe µ (1981, 2011). The analysis of multimodal texts is a place for meeting between different authors and research tendencies coming from semiotics and rhetoric. In the following pages we do not conduct a complete literature review. Instead, we present some examples of explicit application to CSR communication of rhetoric and semiotic categories and tools.

Rhetoric, Semiotics, and CSR: Strands of Research Rhetorical Approaches: Trends and Examples Research on CSR communication is a branch of the larger field of the analysis of corporate discourse and communication, including public relations. As Ihlen and Heath observed (2018), rhetorical scholarship on corporate discourse is dispersed in different disciplines (public relations, organizational communication, marketing, advertising, organizational theory, management studies), in which the heritage of old and new rhetoric is exploited. A quite important distinction to operate is the one between a “classical” and a critical rhetorical approach to corporate discourse and public relations. The classical approach is based on a positive vision of public relations as “the good organization communicating well” (Heath, 2001, p. 39), in which rhetoric is an interactive dialogical and symmetrical process able to build good for all through discussion in the “free marketplace of ideas” (Ihlen, 2002). This vision is criticized by tenants of a critical approach, focused on issues of power, domination, and resources imbalance, with a link to traditions like the Frankfurt school, the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas (Ihlen, 2015). This opposition should not be seen as absolute, as forms of mediation and connection exist. A handful of scholars have explicitly been talking about CSR – mainly verbal – rhetoric, often with a critical approach (e.g., Castelló & Lozano, 2011; Ihlen, 2009b; Ihlen, 2011a; Iivonen & Moisander, 2014; Marais, 2012; O’Connor & Ihlen, 2018; Winkler et al., 2019). To this group, we can also add a slate of studies in the discourse analysis field that have focused on CSR-related issues like climate change without necessarily using the CSR-term or, for that matter, not using rhetorical theory as such (e.g., Hoffmann, 2018, and his focus on paradoxes; O’Connor & Gronewold, 2013; O’Connor & Shumate, 2010). We will focus here on some recent crucial contributions that have explicitly referred to rhetoric analysis. Castelló and Lozano (2011) propose a distinction of three categories of CSR rhetoric: the strategic, the institutional, and the dialectic one. Strategic CSR rhetoric is present when firms show an instrumental vision of CSR as a tool to maximize shareholders value (ibid., p. 17). Institutional CSR rhetoric is focused on proving the worthiness and legitimacy of the firm by evoking widespread constructs and formula (like CSR itself or “sustainability”). Finally, dialectic CSR rhetoric appears when there is a “rhetoric appeals to a political re-conceptualization of the role of firms” (p. 20). This means an opening to an improved relation to stakeholders, and a signal of the seeking of corporate legitimacy in society via the reference to notions like the common good and global standards (like GRI, ISAE 8000, etc.). O’Connor and Ihlen (2018) apply the notion of the rhetorical situation (Bitzer, 1968, see also Ihlen, 2011b) to the practice of CSR communication. This imply that corporate rhetoricians try to 38

Rhetoric and Semiotic

solve a problem in a context of rhetorical, cultural, and physical constraints – that are also possibilities for action – by trying to satisfy changing demands of audiences concerning corporate responsibility. It is the case for the Norwegian petroleum industry in the context of climate change (Ihlen, 2011a). Different communication strategies stem from these rhetorical efforts, and different researchers have tried to identify rhetorical forms based on – more or less – large corpuses of corporate discourses. For example, Ihlen (2009a) used among other tools the classical notion of topics (topoi, loci communes) to analyze corporate communication strategies concerning climate change communication. In another text, Ihlen (2009b) uses largely the category of ethos to understand the rhetorical strategies of some large corporations to build their image and prevent criticism, at the age of greenwashing and social activism. The author finds four main strategies or claims (framing messages) the three corporations use to affirm their citizenship: “The companies claim they improve the world, they state that they clean up their own act, they point to acclaim from others, and they try to pose as friendly and caring” (pp. 12–13). In a more recent study, on the Norwegian oil industry, the same author identifies three rhetoric strategies: “a strategic definition of sustainability, discrediting alternatives, and choosing objects for comparison that make the rhetor look good” (Ihlen, 2011a, p. 466). In his paper of 2015, Ihlen describes some basic rhetorical features in 76 CSR reports by major corporations: the use of strategic vagueness concerning “sustainability”; the metaphor of equilibrium between different interests; a “corporate-centric” vision of sustainability and “ecomodernism”; the topic of having always been “sustainable”. Iivonen and Moisander (2014) propose a critical approach of “narcissistic” and aggressive rhetorical strategies of businesses that try to defend their interests in conflict with the public good, based on the analysis of communication by the American Beverages Association in relation to the issue of obesity. CSR rhetoric in this case can be intense and defensive, in the sense of dismissing critics and their accounts – something like personal attacks to opinion leaders like Greta Thunberg or climatologists by climate skeptics – reframing issues and responsibility to forward own interests (implying logos) and bolstering and normalizing the industry and its accounts (again, focusing on ethos, their own one). Marais (2012) analyses from a rhetorical point of view discourses on CSR by corporate CEOs and identified two main strategies: the use of values rhetoric is used to develop moral legitimacy, and instrumental rhetoric to strengthen pragmatic legitimacy. A crucial aspect of this analysis is the link between specific types of stakeholders’ pressure and rhetoric strategies by CEOs. The interest of the work of Onkila (2016) is her analysis of employees’ view of the phenomenon of “corporate environmentalism”, and their use of rhetoric (logos and ethos elements) to construct different meanings concerning their business’ environmentalism. The analysis shows how employees articulate arguments to dissociate their employer from environmental issues, basing on logos (for example, a financial business would be not implied in environmental protection), or ethos and pathos (prior values of the sector would not be the environmental ones), or on the contrary to show the pertinence of them, also with logos and ethos-based arguments. The outcome of this research is the “need for managing corporate environmentalism processes in a way in which the focus is on finding the diverse meanings [produced by employees in connection with their daily working experience] instead of on promoting a single organization-wide meaning for corporate environmentalism” (p. 158). Aspirational talk on CSR is quite controversial among specialists concerning its effects on improving or hampering real sustainability. Winkler et al. (2019) treat this theme from a rhetorical point of view, and explore how rhetorical activity can lead to achievement or rejection of CSR. If vague but appealing discourses by leaders can attract interest and stimulate action, “adherence to this rhetoric, however, creates and perpetuates tensions that lead to a vicious circle of disengagement” (p. 98), while opening to a form of “agonistic rhetoric” (opening spaces in which dissent and plurality of voices can be expressed) can lead to a “virtuous circle” that transcend tensions. These 39

Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen

results are very similar to the ones of Onkila (2016), and in line with a large strand of normative research on how to propose the right forms of rhetoric in order to increase common good. As a conclusion on rhetorical contributions, The studies of rhetorical CSR strategies have investigated the topics in play and the use of different appeal forms, all the while exploiting the possibilities of the rhetorical situation, while at the same time being constrained by the same situation. Caring and respect are two motives often brought up, although aggressive methods are also found. (O’Connor & Ihlen, 2018, p. 409)

Semiotic Approaches: Trends and Examples The explicit contribution of semiotics to the analysis of CSR communication appears globally as less developed than the rhetorical one, or at least less structured and visible, even if an increase can be seen in recent years. Semiotic tools contribute to the development of multimodal analysis of different CSR supports. Farache and Perks (2010), for instance, explore examples of CSR corporate advertisements with a set of semiotic tools coming from Barthes (1977), like the distinction between denotative and connotative meaning, and the one between relay and anchorage concerning relations between text and image. Catellani (2015) observes the chronological evolution of visual aspects of CSR reports of Total, a big French oil company, focusing on textual aspects (like the opposition between continuous and discontinuous text) and visual ones (iconic, plastic, and enunciative dimensions of images). One result of the analysis is a typology of images, including illustrations, “ethos images” and “knowledge images” (images that contribute to the understanding of specific process and notions, and sometimes to cleaner representations of controversial processes like hydraulic fracturing). Errecart and Catellani (2017) analyzes CSR reports of three French corporations to identify specific forms of presence of external stakeholders inside corporate discourse, using – among other tools, of semiotic and discourse analysis origin – categories from the Greimas approach like the actantial model (subject, object, helper, opponent, sender, and receiver). Another recent and ambitious example of the application of Greimas’s approach to CSR communication is the analysis of Yekini et al. (2021). The authors propose an analysis of quality and reliability of 224 CSR reports by UK companies, using the Canonical Narrative Schema and the Semiotic Square of Veridiction of Greimas; they also offer a CSR Report Quality Model to policy makers and firms. This paper is an example of opening a traditionally qualitative approach, semiotics, to more quantitative perspectives, also exploiting the normative possibilities of semiotics. Getting out of the “genre” of CSR report, Catellani (2019) proposes the observation of a “stakeholder meeting” organized by a CSR consultancy on behalf of a business. He analyzes the interactive scene from the point of view of Greimas’s narrative model, and the model of “interaction regimes” proposed by Erik Landowski (2006). The results include the combination of manipulative behavior and “adjustment” (a more two-way symmetric model of interaction) that characterize the interactive attitudes of the consultant and other key participants to the meeting. The analysis by Lång and Ivanonva-Gongne (2019) illustrates the contribution of semiotic tools to CSR communication analysis from the perspective of business management. The authors identify specific “codes” of CSR communication and propose a “CSR communication platform” aimed at helping managers in charge of CSR communication. Roland Barthes is a strong source of inspiration still today, as illustrated by the article of Greenwood et al. (2019), in the field of organizational research. The writings of the French semiotician allow to create explicit bridges between rhetoric and semiotics. The authors of the article aim at offering “a methodology that organizational scholars can use to analyze, explain, and 40

Rhetoric and Semiotic

critically interpret the role of visual rhetoric in organizational communications” (p. 798). The methodology articulates three phases (categorical analysis, content analysis, rhetorical analysis based on Barthes) and is applied to “visual design of corporate reports”. Another example of crossing of different traditions is the article by Shao and Janssens (2021), which proposes a “critical semiotics multimodal analysis” to analyze CSR corporate videos. The results are the portrayal of the discursive constitution of the “responsible corporation” through verbal and visual modes of communication. The contribution proposes semiotic multimodal analysis as a way to discuss the contribution of multimodality to the masking of power and ideology reproduction, giving also guidelines for a renewed type of multimodal CSR communication. These examples show that semiotics-inspired contributions to the analysis of CSR communication are still rather sparse and dispersed in different research fields, inspired by different traditions. Authors often justify the reference to semiotics for its ability to add an “in-depth” dimension to text analysis and multimodal analysis. These contributions can be both critical and more “functional” to organization and CSR management.

Future Development This rapid overview of recent RSA contributions to CSR communication research allows us to indicate some paths for future development. Where would we like this research field to go? Rhetoric offers a well-established reservoir of ideas, categories, and analytical tools; semiotics has a shorter history as a discipline, but it offers a rich and varied toolbox too, given its articulation in different perspectives that are sometimes quite far from each other and even opposed (structuralist vs. interpretative and cognitivist, for example). We think researchers on CSR communication can continue to draw from these reservoirs, to improve in-depth strategies focusing specifically on discursive and multimodal analysis. In this regard, we single out specific paths for future improvement – two concerning methodologies and two concerning themes. These paths are suggested by main aspects of CSR communication today, and by other external main evolutions, like the growing importance of digital platforms, data, and artificial intelligence (AI) in our society and in science.

Multimodality, Quantitative Approaches, and AI The first path is quite evident. Given the multimodal essence of CSR communication (e.g., CSR reports, CSR communication on digital social media and websites, CSR videos) as a crucial aspect of corporate communication (Kjeldsen, 2018), multimodal analysis must have (and is having more and more, in our opinion) a central place. Semiotics and the heritage of visual rhetoric is indeed very well positioned to feed this approach, in different research areas (public relations, management, organizational studies, etc.). Non-linguistic and “material” aspects must be better integrated into analysis and evaluation. From this point of view, no theoretical element creates any obstacle to a deeper integration of rhetorical and semiotic contributions in the field of CSR communication analysis. A second methodological path concerns the relation between RSA and quantitative approaches. In many cases, RSAs develop in-depth analysis of small or very small corpus. Some examples (e.g., Yekini et al., 2021) show that RSAs can also have a more quantitative dimension. More mixed methods research, integrating RSAs, and other new forms of exploiting semiotic and rhetorical tools for analyzing large amounts of data and documents are welcome. Also, digital assistance and forms of AI support have still to be explored to improve RSAs (other areas of research, like discourse analysis, appear as already more open to this kind of contribution). Far from giving in to the ideology of (big) data, based on the idea that informatic data mining is the complete solution to methodological 41

Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen

problems of social sciences (van Dijck, 2014), it is a question of perfecting research and making it more efficient.

Platformization and Stakeholders’ Networks A specific thematic path for improvement concerns the contribution of RSA to the analysis of the impact on CSR communication of the “platformization” of society and economy (Nieborg & Poell, 2018). RSAs can be useful to focus attention on the discursive and semiotic aspect of platformization as a new “rhetorical situation”, including ideologies and discourses on CSR circulating inside platforms and concerning CSR of platforms. It is interesting to analyze how different actors (platform corporations, content and cultural producers, “prosumers”, activists, public institutions, etc.) interpret and articulate verbally and visually (in a multimodal way) CSR within this new environment, characterized by the centrality of platform economy and its influence on society, culture and everyday life. This means also that RSAs must take more into account (multimodal) CSR discourses circulating on digital social media, and their interaction with other semiotic and textual forms. A last, but crucial, path concerns RSA and stakeholders’ networks. We think that much more research must be dedicated to interdiscursivity and intertextuality concerning CSR. RSA must deal more with the intertextual nature of CSR discourses today, and the complex web of influences and interactions between different actors’ communication concerning sustainability and CSR in general. This implies also to develop the RSA potential for analysis of the interpretation and sense making of laypeople and “audiences”, the “reception” side of CSR communication – knowing that nonexpert consumers and citizens are also crucial stakeholders and not simple passive receivers (see also Kjeldsen, 2017, for a call for more audience research in rhetoric in general).

Conclusion How can RSAs contribute to improve CSR discourse and communication, in the era of new global and vital issues like climate change, plastic pollution, and loss of biodiversity (but also pandemics and conflicts)? The global and multidimensional nature of the issues at stake is a strong stimulus toward integration of different layers of analysis: textual, organizational, the one of networks of stakeholders, and the larger ones of the global cultural, political, and economic contexts – not forgetting the material and natural (non-human) environment. The notion of the rhetorical situation can adapt to this enlarged perspective. In this context, how can results of RSA analysis have an impact at the societal level? The question is destined to be an open one. The paths we indicated in this chapter can advance the contribution of RSAs to the scientific and societal levels too. But the ancient heritage of rhetoric, as well as more recent development in both rhetoric and semiotics, are called to participate to put CSR itself into discussion. From a constitutive point of view, RSA are crucial perspectives to define what CSR is and should be, and not only analytical tools.

Discussion Questions 1 2

What is your idea of rhetoric? Try and explicit what is in your mind, and which opinion you have concerning the art and discipline of persuasive discourse. After reading this chapter, find other resources on semiotics, and try to figure out which could be your theoretical position. Do you feel nearer to the interpretative and cognitive semiotics (derived from the thought of C. S. Peirce) or to the structuralist and post-structuralist tradition (derived from the “semiology” of F. de Saussure, and the work of A. J. Greimas)?

42

Rhetoric and Semiotic

3

4

5

Think of examples of CSR discourses and communication supports on websites, digital social media, and CSR reports. What do you think is the role of images? Which are their functions, their contribution to meaning construction? Take an example of business communication or campaign concerning CSR. Basing on the chapter and its bibliographical references, try to analyze it. What kind of verbal rhetoric is used? How are signs other than verbal mobilized? You will certainly need to use other sources, given the introductory nature of this chapter. Take the same, or a different, example of CSR communication by a firm. Try to apply the categories of Castelló and Lozano (2011). Is it an example of strategic, institutional, or dialectic CSR rhetoric? Try to identify the main tendency and justify it.

References Aristotle. (trans. 2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans., 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Barthes, R. (1977). Image‐music‐text. (S. Heath, trans.). The Noonday Press, NY. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1–14. Burke, K. (1945/1969). A grammar of motives. University of California Press. Burke, K. (1950/1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press. Cassirer, E. (1974). An essay on man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. Yale University Press. Castelló, I., & Lozano, J. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29. 10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8 Catellani, A. (2015). Visual aspects of CSR reports: A semiotic and chronological case analysis. CECS - Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade Universidade do Minho. https://www.academia.edu/13059606/ Organisational_and_Strategic_Communication_Research_European_Perspectives_II Catellani, A. (2019). L’entreprise responsable et ses parties prenantes: Entre « manipulation » et co-construction de sens. Actes Semiotiques, 122. 10.25965/as.5936 Catellani, A., & Errecart, A. (2017). Dialogism and Figure of the Other in “Corporate Social Responsibility” Reports: Discursive and Semiotic Exploration. Les langages du politique, (2), 57–75. Errecart, A., & Catellani, A. (2017). Dialogisme et figures de l’autre dans les rapports sur la « responsabilité sociétale des entreprises »: Exploration discursive et sémiotique. Mots: Les Langages Du Politique, 114. 10. 4000/mots.22782 Farache, F., & Perks, K. J. (2010). CSR advertisements: a legitimacy tool? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 235–248. Floch, J. M. (2000). Visual identities. Bloomsbury Academic. Flores, L. A. (2016). Between abundance and marginalization: The imperative of racial rhetorical criticism. Review of Communication, 16(1), 4–24. 10.1080/15358593.2016.1183871 Fløttum, K. (2018). Linguistic analysis in climate change communication. In M. Nisbet (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of climate science (pp. 21–38). Oxford University Press. Fontanille, J. (2006). The semiotics of discourse. Peter Lang. Fontanille, J. (2008). Pratiques sémiotiques. PUF. Goodman, M. K., Doyle, J., & Farrel, N. (2020). Practising everyday climate cultures: Understanding the cultural politics of climate change. Climatic Change, 163(1), 1–7. Graham, S. S. (2020). Where’s the rhetoric? Imagining a unified field. The Ohio State University Press. Greenwood, M., Jack, G., & Haylock, B. (2019). Toward a methodology for analyzing visual rhetoric in corporate reports. Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 798–827. Greimas, A. J., & Courtés, J. (1982). Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary. Indiana University Press. Gries, L. E. (2015). Still life with rhetoric: A new materialist approach for visual rhetorics. Utah State University Press. Groupe µ (1981, original French edition 1970). A general rhetoric. Johns Hopkins University Press. Groupe µ (2011). Toward a general rhetoric of visual statement: Interaction between plastic and iconic signs. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), Advances in visual semiotics. The Semiotic web, 1992–1993 (pp. 581–600). De Gruyter. Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 31–50). SAGE Publications. Herrick, J. A. (2020). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Routledge.

43

Andrea Catellani and Øyvind Ihlen Hoffmann, J. (2018). Talking into (non)existence: Denying or constituting paradoxes of corporate social responsibility. Human Relations, 71(5), 668–691. Ihlen, Ø. (2002). Rhetoric and resources: Notes for a new approach to public relations and issues management. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 259–269. Ihlen, Ø. (2009a). Business and climate change: The climate response of the world’s 30 largest corporations. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(2), 244–262. Ihlen, Ø. (2009b). Good environmental citizens? The green rhetoric of corporate social responsibility. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 360–374). Routledge. Ihlen, Ø. (2011a). Rhetoric and corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), Handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 147–166). Wiley Blackwell. Ihlen, Ø. (2011b). On barnyard scrambles: Toward a rhetoric of public relations. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 455–473. Ihlen, Ø. (2015). It is five minutes to midnight and all is quiet: Corporate rhetoric and sustainability. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 145–152. Ihlen, Ø., & Heath, R. L. (2018). Introduction: Organizational rhetoric. In Ø. Ihlen & R. L. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication. John Wiley & Sons. Iivonen, K., & Moisander, J. (2014). Rhetorical construction of narcissistic CSR orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 649–664. 10.1007/s10551-014-2298-1 IPCC. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. . [H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama (eds.)]. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction. Oxford University Press. Kjeldsen, J. E. (Ed.). (2017). Rhetorical audience studies and reception of rhetoric: Exploring audiences empirically. Palgrave Macmillan. Kjeldsen, J. E. (2018). Visual and multimodal rhetoric and argumentation in organizations and Organiational theory. In Ø. Ihlen & R. L. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication. John Wiley & Sons. Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Landowski, E. (1989). La société réfléchie - Essais de socio-sémiotique. Seuil. Landowski, E., & Fontanille, J. (2006). Les interactions risquées. Nouveaux actes sémiotiques, (Limoges), 107(47), 101–103. Lång, S., & Ivanova-Gongne, M. (2019). CSR communication in stakeholder networks: A semiotic perspective. Baltic Journal of Management, 14(3), 480–499. Leeuwen, T. V. (2005). Introducing social semiotics: An introductory textbook. Routledge. Lloyd, K. (Ed.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of comparative world rhetorics. Routledge. Lunsford, A. A. (Ed.). (1995). Reclaiming rhetorica: Women in the rhetorical tradition. University of Pittsburgh Press. Marais, M. (2012). CEO rhetorical strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Society and Business Review, 7(3), 223–243. 10.1108/17465681211271314 Middleton, M. K., Senda-Cook, S., & Endres, D. (2011). Articulating rhetorical field methods: Challenges and tensions. Western Journal of Communication, 75(4), 386–406. 10.1080/10570314.2011.586969 Mitchell, W. T. (2005). What do pictures want?: The lives and loves of images. University of Chicago Press. Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: The orizing the contingent cultural commodity. New media & society, 20(11), 4275–4292. O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 529–551. 10.1177/ 0893318909358747 O’Connor, A., & Gronewold, K. L. (2013). Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the petroleum industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 210–236. 10. 1177/0893318912465189

44

Rhetoric and Semiotic O’Connor, A., & Ihlen, Ø. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and rhetoric: Conceptualization, construction, and negotiation. Ø. Ihlen & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp.401–415). Wiley Blackwell. Oesterreich, P. L. (2009). Homo rhetoricus. In I. Strecker & S. Tyler (Eds.), Culture and rhetoric (pp. 49–58). Berghahn Books. Onkila, T. (2016). Employee rhetoric in the acceptance or rejection of corporate environmentalism. Organization & Environment. 10.1177/1086026616633270 Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969/1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). University of Notre Dame. Ryan, K., Myers, N., & Jones, R. (Eds.). (2016). Rethinking ethos: A feminist ecological approach to rhetoric. SIU Press. Saussure, F. de (1959, original French edition 1916). Course in general linguistics. Philosophical Library. Shao, K., & Janssens, M. (2021, September). Who is the responsible corporation? A multimodal analysis of power in CSR videos of multinational companies. Organization Studies. doi.org/10.1177/01708406211 044891 Shome, R. (1996). Postcolonial interventions in the rhetorical canon: An “other” view. Communication Theory, 6(1), 40–59. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. Winkler, P., Etter, M., & Castelló, I. (2019). Vicious and virtuous circles of aspirational talk: From selfpersuasive to agonistic CSR rhetoric. Business & Society, 59(1), 98–128. 10.1177/0007650319825758 Yekini, K. C., Omoteso, K., & Adegbite, E. (2021). CSR communication research: A theoretical-cummethodological perspective from semiotics. Business & Society, 60(4), 876–908.

45

4 COMMUNICATING CSR ACROSS CULTURES: FROM GLOBAL AND LOCAL TO GLOCAL CHALLENGES Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai

Definitions, Conceptualizations, Paradigms, and CSR Communication Contemporary definitions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication emphasize the integration of CSR practices into core business operations and the integrative exchange of stakeholders’ perceptions, expectations, and engagement into the two-way communication processes and include the societal, environmental, and financial dimensions of CSR. For instance, Nielsen and Thomsen (2018, p. 493) defined CSR communication as “a communicative practice, which corporations undertake to integrate [corporate social responsibility (CSR) areas of] social, environmental, ethical, human rights, and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders”. This definition is consistent with other recent studies that directly defined CSR communication (e.g., Heath & Waymer, 2017; Morsing & Spence, 2019; Tuan et al., 2019; White et al., 2017) as displayed in Table 4.1. In regards to collaboration with stakeholders, Crane and Glozer (2016) explained the major shift in CSR communication in the contemporary 21st century from one-way communication to two-way communication due to developments in information technology and digital media, especially the interactive features on websites and social media. Many systematic reviews (e.g., Crane & Glozer, 2016; Golob et al., 2013; Tuan et al., 2019; Verk et al., 2019) have found that CSR communication has become an emerging area of research that gain wide interest across various disciplines, such as management, corporate communications, public relations, and organizational studies, in both academic and business worlds. The roots of the conceptualization of CSR communication can be comprehended by examining definitions of the terms “corporate social responsibility (CSR)” and “communication”. Based on the definitions of CSR depicted in Table 4.2, it can be concluded that CSR refers to an organization’s strategies and implementations incorporated into the core business operations that provide tangible social, environmental, and financial benefits to stakeholders and the society. Regarding the term communication, most recent studies on CSR communication did not discuss the general definition of communication as a separate concept from CSR. Still, several studies discussed the comparison of functionalistic and constitutive approaches/paradigms of CSR communication (e.g., Crane & Glozer, 2016; Golob et al., 2013; Tuan et al., 2019). Crane and Glozer (2016) explain that these two paradigms have been widely used to define the term communication within CSR communication literature, and they were initially explained by Craig (1999). According to Craig (1999), the roots of the definition of communication have evolved from the

46

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-6

Communicating CSR across Cultures Table 4.1 Definitions of CSR communication Definitions of CSR communication

Author(s)

Time frame reviewed

“CSR communication is an umbrella concept integrating communication about social issues in public relations, marketing communication, management, and organizational communication. CSR communication has become increasingly important as a means of demonstrating and documenting that businesses not only talk about, but take action regarding CSR. Accordingly, there is growing scholarly attention to CSR communication activities including stakeholder engagement and dialog, CSR reporting, and participation in and adoption of international frameworks of CSR standardization practices including audits and codes of ethic” (Gray, 2001, 2006; Maignan & Ralston, 2002, as cited in White et al., 2017). The 2015 CSR conference (http://csr-com.org.) definition of CSR communication: “a process of anticipating stakeholder expectations, articulation of corporate social responsible policy and the managing of different communication tools designed to provide true and transparent information about a company or brand’s integration of its business operations, social and environmental concerns, and interactions with stakeholders” (as cited in Heath & Waymer, 2017). “CSR communication is defined in this study as a communicative practice, which corporations undertake to integrate [corporate social responsibility (CSR) areas of] social, environmental, ethical, human rights, and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders” ( Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018, p. 493). “CSRC, defined as ‘communication that is designed and distributed by the company itself about its CSR efforts’” (Morsing & Beckmann, 2006, p. 171, quoted in Tuan et al., 2019). “Taking CSR communication as our starting point, research has argued that communication is constitutive for action, and that CSR communication serves to stimulate improved social action” (Christensen et al., 2013, 2015, as cited in Morsing & Spence, 2019).

( White et al., 2017)

Anytime to 2015

( Heath & Waymer, 2017)

Not stated

( Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018)

2000–2017

( Tuan et al., 2019)

2000–2016

( Morsing & Spence, 2019)

Not stated

functionalist paradigm that views communication as a linear approach represented by a transmission model of sending and receiving messages to a constitutive paradigm that views communication as the production and reproduction of shared meanings.

Paradigms of CSR Communication Research Burrell and Morgan (1979) conceptualized four sociological paradigms: the functionalist paradigm, the interpretive paradigm, the radical humanist paradigm, and the radical structuralist paradigm. Specifically, the functionalist paradigm seeks to provide objective explanations of social phenomena 47

Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai Table 4.2 Definitions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) Definitions of CSR

Author(s)

Time frame reviewed

“CSR is a term whereby businesses actively incorporate social and environmental issues into their business operations and communicate with their stakeholders” ( Abdullah & Abdulrahaman, 2020, p. 600) “CSR has been defined as “a practice which corporations undertake to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders” (European Commission, 2011, p. 681, as cited in Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018). “CSR is a broad concept embracing issues ranging from legal compliance, philanthropy, and community investment, to environmental sustainability, workers’ rights and welfare, market relations, corruption, and corporate governance” (Blowfield & Murray, 2008, as cited in White et al., 2017). “There were three core ideas about CSR that stood out in the 1950s. These included the idea of the manager as public trustee, the balancing of competing claims to corporate resources, and corporate philanthropy – business support of good causes” (Frederick, 2008, as cited in Hishan et al., 2017) “CSR is based on the idea that corporations have obligations to society that extend beyond mere profitmaking activities” (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007, p. 87, as cited in Kent & Taylor, 2016).

( Abdullah & Abdulrahaman, 2020)

Not stated

( Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018)

2000–2017

( White et al., 2017)

Anytime to 2015

( Hishan et al., 2017)

2000–2015

( Kent & Taylor, 2016)

Not stated

from the positivist standpoint, observers’ perspectives, and pragmatic orientation “to provide practical solutions to practical problems” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 26), while the interpretive paradigm takes a subjective approach of shared meanings of participants in constructing social reality by exploring implicit individual consciousness and subjectivity (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). The first two paradigms, both of which focus on examining current structures, phenomena, and regulations without proposing radical changes, have been used to examine CSR communication research up to the present time. Several studies discussed the comparison of functionalistic and constitutive approaches/paradigms of CSR communication (e.g., Crane & Glozer, 2016; Golob et al., 2013; Sthapitanonda & Nueangjamnong, 2016; Tuan et al., 2019; Verk et al., 2019), in which Tuan et al. (2019) conceptualized that the constitutive approach corresponds to the interpretive paradigm of Burrell and Morgan (1979). Similar to the conceptualization of functionalistic and constitutive paradigms of communication by Craig (1999), scholars also defined these two paradigms of CSR communication based on the process: one-way for functionalistic vs. two-way for constitutive (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Golob et al., 2013). Crane and Glozer (2016) found that the functionalist paradigm has been the major paradigm in CSR communication research, especially CSR, corporate communication, marketing, and social accounting, while the constitutive paradigm has been an emerging minor paradigm mainly in organization studies and social accounting. While Golob et al. (2013) treated functionalistic and constitutive approaches to CSR communication as dichotomous, Crane and

48

Communicating CSR across Cultures

Glozer (2016) added the normative paradigm with a focus on the ethics of CSR communication and the occurrence of deception (i.e., greenwashing) rather than whether the CSR communication processes resemble functionalist or constitutive. Tuan et al. (2019) further conceptualized that the functionalist paradigm of CSR communication research can be classified into the instrumental approach and the normative approach based on the roles of CSR communication in CSR implementations in addition to the communication processes. The instrumental approach of Tuan et al. (2019) views CSR communication as publicity of CSR activities through linear communication, corresponding to the Thai conceptualization of CSRafter-process. Kasemsuk (2016) explained that CSR-after-process refers to community services that are separated from core business operations. Extending the conceptualization of the ethical focus of the normative tradition by Crane and Glozer (2016), the normative approach of Tuan et al. (2019) integrates CSR communication into the CSR implementation processes from creating shared norms and values to enabling stakeholder participation and ensuring fair practices of CSR implementations and communications, following the functionalistic paradigm simultaneously with having traits of the interpretive paradigm. Compared to Thai conceptualizations of types of CSR communication, the normative approach of Tuan et al. (2019) correspond to CSR-in-process, which Kasemsuk (2016) described as CSR implementations that are included in the core business operations or business processes with accountability for the impact on the society.

The Concept of Glocal CSR Communication We have advanced Jain and De Moya’s (2013) concept of glocal CSR in conceptualizing glocal CSR communication. According to Jain and De Moya (2013), glocal CSR is the approach of MNCs that comprises consistent overall business strategies at the global scale with adaptations to local contexts in terms of implementations and communications to achieve sustainable outcomes. By focusing on the implementation and communications, we review the concept of CSR communication and culture at the global and national levels. Then, we propose the idea of a “glocal” CSR communication as a need for MNCs to adapt the global business strategies to make an impressive meaning and to actively engage the stakeholders in the local contexts by using multiple communication tools and techniques.

CSR Communication Research across Cultures In CSR communication research, culture has been examined as an antecedent of CSR by identifying cultural differences in CSR communication on national and regional scales (Palazzo, 2019, as cited in Vollero et al., 2020). Since the concept of culture is a social construct, the conceptualization and scope of this set of phenomena have evolved based on the subjective interpretation of various scholars (Jahoda, 2012; Minkov, 2013). A commonly cited definition of culture is patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values. (Kluckhohn, 1951, p. 86, as cited in Minkov, 2013) This broad definition of culture comprises various collective attitudinal and behavioral aspects. Scholars tend to pragmatically specify more specific operational definitions of culture regarding the content and boundaries in each cross-cultural study (Minkov, 2013). For instance, Geert Hofstede, whose theoretical framework entitled Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions has been widely 49

Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai

used in cross-cultural studies on CSR communication research (e.g., Halkos & Skouloudis, 2017; Kang et al., 2016; Vollero et al., 2020; Woo & Jin, 2016), provided an operational definition of culture intended to be measured using self-administered scale questionnaires. Hofstede defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (as cited in Jahoda, 2012). Different scholars define distinctive scopes as to whether the level of wealth is included or excluded as a variable of culture (Minkov, 2013). A difference in conceptualization and operationalization of culture is whether culture is external, internal, or both (Jahoda, 2012).

Culture at the National Level Research endeavors on national culture are based on the assumption that people from different countries possess unique cultural characteristics. National culture has been examined as an antecedent of CSR. Many empirical studies on relationships between national culture and CSR utilized four of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to measure the independent variable of national culture, specifically (1) power distance, (2) individualism versus collectivism, (3) masculinity versus femininity, and (4) uncertainty avoidance. For instance, Ringov and Zollo (2007) used ordinary least square (OLS) regression to examine the effects of each of the four Hofstede cultural dimensions on the corporate responsibility of public companies, specifically social and environmental performance. Information about 1,100 firms in 34 countries across the globe was collected from investment ratings of Innovest Group, including the Intangible Value Assessment (IVA) score for their social and environmental performance. National cultural values were taken from the Hofstede (1980) and GLOBE studies of House et al. (2004), as cited in Ringov and Zollo (2007). In the GLOBE project, national culture dimensions that were similar to Hofstede’s were power distance, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, and uncertainty avoidance. The findings revealed significant positive effects of the lack of masculinity on firm social and environmental performance, while power distance had significant negative effects, and the other two dimensions were insignificant (Ringov & Zollo, 2007). Similar to Ringov and Zollo (2007), Ho et al. (2012) also obtained data from the composite Intangible Value Assessment (IVA) score from Innovest for the dependent variable of corporate social performance (CSP). The differences are the sources of data of other variables, the sample size of 3,680 observations with companies from 49 countries, and data analysis methods. For the independent variables, Ho et al. (2012) collected data from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of each country without using data from GLOBE, and data regarding the firms and industries were obtained from the COMPUSTAT database and the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). Correlations, ANOVA, and two-stage least square (2SLS) estimation were used. This study not only tested the relationships between each cultural dimension and CSP but also compared the levels of CSP ratings among firms in (1) Europe, (2) North America, (3) Asia, and (4) developing countries in general. The results showed that companies from European countries significantly had the highest CSP ratings, followed by firms in Asia and North America, respectively. Concurrently, companies in developing countries significantly had the lowest CSP ratings on average. Power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance were positively and significantly associated with CSP, while individualism was negative and significantly associated with CSP (Ho et al., 2012). Peng et al. (2012) conducted binary logistics regression to examine the relationship between each of these four cultural dimensions and CSR engagement of 1,189 firms, in which the dependent binary variable specifies whether a company is CSR or non-CSR. The researchers obtained data concerning (1) the independent variable of cultural scores of countries from Hofstede (1980, 2011, as cited in Peng et al., 2012), (2) the dependent variable of firms’ CSR engagement from the Dow

50

Communicating CSR across Cultures

Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) 2010, (3) controlled variables of other information about firms and their industries from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) as well as the S&P Global 1200 index of the Compustat Global Vantage database, and (4) controlled variables of information about countries from the CIA World Factbook web page. The study revealed significant positive influences of individualism and uncertainty avoidance on CSR engagement and significant negative influences of power distance and masculinity on CSR engagement. Kang et al. (2016) explored the effects of Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions of national culture on CSR activities of 365 observations of publicly traded companies in the hospitality industry, specifically 223 observations for restaurants, 94 observations for casinos, and 48 observations for lodging firms. Hofstede cultural dimensions of 63 countries were obtained from The Greet Hofstede & Gert Jan Hofstede website (www.geerthofstede.com), and CSR Data was collected from the CSR ratings of KLD STAT comprises approximately 90 indicators into three categories: (1) positive CSR score, (2) negative CSR score, and (3) total CSR score (Kang et al., 2016). Information about companies from specific countries was manually obtained from the companies’ annual reports (10Ks), and accounting data for control variables were derived from the Compustat database. The research findings indicate that only the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance has a significant positive effect on the total CSR score, while the other three dimensions have insignificant effects on the total CSR score. The study revealed that power distance positively and significantly affected both positive and negative CSR scores, whereas individualism negatively affects both positive and negative CSR scores. A significant negative effect of masculinity was found on the positive CSR score with no significant effects on the negative CSR score, while no significant effects of uncertainty avoidance were found for both positive and negative CSR scores (Kang et al., 2016). Subsequently, Halkos and Skouloudis (2017) extended the preceding previous studies by examining all six of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as independent variables instead of only four. Specifically, the last two cultural dimensions of Hofstede: (1) long-term versus short-term orientation and (2) indulgence versus restraint were added to this study. Similar to Ringov and Zollo (2007), ordinary least square (OLS) was used. Halkos and Skouloudis (2017) studied the relationship between CSR and national culture by measuring the national CSR composite index (NCSRI) of 86 countries as the dependent variable. Controlled variables included institutional efficiency and socioeconomic conditions. The results indicated that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions that had positive effects on NCSRI were (1) individualism versus collectivism, (2) long-term versus short-term orientation, and (3) indulgence versus restraint, while the dimensions that had negative effects on NCSRI were (1) masculinity versus femininity, (2) power distance, and (3) uncertainty avoidance (Halkos & Skouloudis, 2017). In 2020, Vollero et al. examined the influence of three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, specifically (1) individualism versus collectivism, (2) power distance, and (3) uncertainty avoidance, on a dependent variable that is directly concerned with CSR communication, specifically online CSR communication on corporate websites. Content analysis and ANOVA tests were conducted on corporate websites of 352 companies listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI) and the Hang Seng (Mainland and HK) Corporate Sustainability Index (HSMHUS) from seven regions: Asia, North America, South America, Northern Europe, Western Europe, United Kingdom, and Oceania. In this study, collectivism refers to interactive features that enable stakeholder engagement. Next, power distance refers to the presence of hierarchy information on sustainability governance, CSR reports, codes of ethics, and company philosophy. Finally, uncertainty avoidance is characterized by the presence of navigability, usability, multimedia, and principles of communication. Findings revealed that CSR communication on corporate websites from Asian countries comprised the highest level of individualistic features in contrast with Hofstede’s findings that Asian countries tended to have high collectivism. Similarly, Asian countries with high power distance at national levels displayed the lowest levels of power distance in CSR communications on corporate websites, 51

Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai

while South European countries with low power distance at national levels had the highest levels of power distance on their CSR communications on corporate websites. For uncertainty avoidance, national culture tended to be consistent with online CSR communications on corporate websites. Many Asian countries have low uncertainty avoidance in both their national culture and their CSR communications on websites (Vollero et al., 2020).

Implications of National Culture for MNCs The preceding findings imply that CSR communication is intensely contextual, so MNCs should adapt their CSR communication strategies to suit local contexts while maintaining consistent global themes. Consequently, when communicating CSR across cultures, MNCs need to consider intercultural and cross-cultural contexts from global and local to glocal challenges. Roy and Quazi (2021) recommended that MNC subsidiaries should increase stakeholder involvement in developing countries by increasing two-way dialogic communication with stakeholders in order to increase awareness, gain insights about stakeholders, and respond to their demands accordingly, as well as use one-way communication channels for CSR communication messages that are intended to inform stakeholders. In the next section, Starbucks Thailand has been chosen as an illustrative case of successful glocal CSR communication and culture. As a Southeast Asian country with Buddhism as the main religion of approximately 90% of the population, Thai culture has embraced the concept of philanthropy in daily life, especially the core values of giving, sharing, and donating (Sthapitanonda et al., 2015). Specifically, Thai cultural values emphasize that citizens and organizations with upper socioeconomic status should provide support and assistance to ones from lower socioeconomic status (Sthapitanonda, 2015). CSR in Thailand emerged from the sustainable development projects of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (King Rama IX) that are aligned with his philosophy of sufficiency economy that he communicates to Thai citizens through considerable royal projects and learning centers in all regions of Thailand (Sison & Sarabia-Panol, 2018).

CSR Communication of MNCs in the Context of Thailand The Roles of CSR and CSR Communication among Practitioners in Thailand CSR implementations and CSR communications are essential for the sustainable performance of businesses. Therefore, the CSR communication strategies that organizations use for each group of stakeholders affect mutual understanding, trust, and long-term brand image. Meanwhile, best practices vary depending on the scales and industries of each organization (Wattanasupachoke, 2017). Religions and consumer demands play important roles in the effectiveness of CSR strategies of MNCs in the local contexts of Thailand (Sthapitanonda, 2015; Sthapitanonda & Watson, 2015). Hence, MNCs seek to apply and adapt strategies of CSR implementations and CSR communications to suit the Thai context. CSR in Thailand has been strongly promoted by the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) from increasing awareness and providing knowledge on CSR to increasing the value of publicly listed Thai companies that implement CSR by leveraging them internationally (Mongkolchit, 2016). Concurrently, Generation Y consumers are an interesting target segment in terms of communication patterns and pop culture. At the national level, Thai beliefs in Buddhism and the roles of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (King Rama IX) have enhanced the effectiveness of CSR, as the commitment to doing good, to be integrated in Thailand (Mongkolchit, 2016). Specifically, the fundamental concept of CSR culture in Thailand among corporations and NGOs corresponds to the Thai metaphor of “Pid Thong Lang Phra” that refers to acts of performing good deeds without publicizing them (Sthapitanonda et al., 52

Communicating CSR across Cultures

2015; Sthapitanonda & Watson, 2015). The literal meaning of “Pid Thong Lang Phra” is to place the “gold leaf to the back of a Buddha image” (Sthapitanonda et al., 2015, p. 5). While the concept of not publicizing CSR activities is questionable in the digital era since stakeholders and the general public might not be aware of the good deeds of the corporations and NGOs (Sthapitanonda & Watson, 2015), the “Just Do It” concept is still essential for CSR communication in Thai contexts, resembling the classic idiom that “actions speak louder than words” (Sthapitanonda, 2015). Since the “Tom Yum Kung” financial crisis in Thailand in 1997, demands for good governance and CSR increased in Thailand (Kitnapatanapong, 2018; Yodprudtikan, 2019). The World Bank collaborated with the Thai government and financial institutions to create systems to support private sectors, and the Thai government expanded the applications of the concept of sufficiency economy of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (King Rama IX) to implement CSR projects. Nevertheless, many Thai stakeholders do not seem to be aware of the term “CSR” despite their awareness and involvement in sustainability issues and community development (Sison & SarabiaPanol, 2018). This reflects the importance of effective glocal CSR communication strategies to inform Thai stakeholders about the good deeds of MNCs for Thai communities.

The Roles of CSR Communication among Communication Researchers in Thailand The roles of communications in CSR still have not reached a consensus among communication researchers in Thailand. While many recent studies in Thailand (e.g., Hormgesorn, 2013; Nueangjamnong, 2017; Nueangjamnong & Sthapitanonda, 2018; Phimonwong, 2017; Phimonwong & Korcharoen, 2018; Wanlayangkoon, 2014) have been in line with contemporary global definitions of CSR communication as an integrative process in the core business strategies, operations, and stakeholder collaborations (e.g., The 2015 CSR Conference, as cited in Heath & Waymer, 2017; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018; White et al., 2017) and the Thai conceptualization of CSR in-process, other studies in Thailand operationalized CSR implementations and/or communications separately from core business operations. These studies on CSR after-process operationalized CSR implementations and communications as (1) ethical social activities of the organization separated from the core business operations (e.g., Praraththajariya, 2009; Praraththajariya & Sthapitanonda, 2010), (2) participatory stakeholder involvement in CSR activities (e.g., Senkraikul, 2019; Sopakdee et al., 2016), and (3) publicity after CSR implementations (e.g., Manutprasert et al., 2016; Simakhajornboon & Sanwong, 2019; Thairawan, 2011). Consequently, further studies on the roles of communications in CSR could redefine, reframe, and reconstruct the conceptual definition and the operational definition of CSR communication for future research. The glocal case study of Starbucks Thailand has been chosen as an illustrative case for future research on CSR communication.

Successful Glocal CSR Communication: The Case of Starbucks An example of a successful case study of glocal CSR communication across cultures of an MNC is Starbucks. According to Hahn and Kim (2016), Starbucks has frequently been regarded as a role model for CSR. Starbucks operates under the concept of thinking globally and acting locally (Lobel, 2017). As an annual sponsor, Starbucks uses social media channels to encourage stakeholders to participate in a popular global CSR program entitled the “Global Month of Service” with Starbucks’s global partners, including employees, customers, community members, and local organizations, and 250,000 people worldwide received benefits from this successful campaign (Starbucks, as cited in Kesavan et al., 2013; Starbucks, 2014, as cited in Wen & Song, 2017). Another recognized CSR program of Starbucks is its mentorship program to increase racial and social equity to connect partners who are black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) to senior 53

Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai

leaders with the objectives of gaining proportions of BIPOC representatives of at least 30% at every corporate level and at least 40% for every retail and manufacturing function within 2025 (Digital Marketing Institute, 2021; Starbucks, 2020). The main glocal CSR implementation of Starbucks in Thailand is the Starbucks Muan Jai Blend that is exclusive at the community store in Lang Suan in the inner city of Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand. The phrase Muan Jai is the local Kam Mueang dialect of Northern Thailand that means “wholehearted happiness” (Dytokun, 2017). Globally, this is Starbucks’s fourth community store with a commitment to giving back to the society (Bangkok Post, 2013). Since 2003, Starbucks has collaborated with the Integrated Tribal Development Programme (ITDP) in the northern region of Thailand to improve the quality of life of coffee farmers that plant the Muan Jai Blend in their local hill tribe villages (Dytokun, 2017). For each Starbucks beverage that customers purchase at this community store in Lang Suan, Starbucks Thailand contributes ten Thai baht to the ITDP. This financial contribution of Starbucks Thailand supports sustainable education, health, and irrigation projects of ITDP in the three local coffee farming villages of Chiang Mai, a province in Northern Thailand, that produce the Muan Jai Blend. Moreover, 5% of Starbucks’s sales revenue of Muan Jai Blend has been given back to these local coffee farming communities (Bangkok Post, 2013). Primary research of interviews and in-store observations of the Starbucks community store in Thailand have been conducted to gain further insights into the glocal CSR implementations and participatory communication processes of Muan Jai Blend. The assistant manager of this community store said that Starbucks’s employees and partners have been involved in this project through corporate training and voluntary coffee farm trips to visit the local communities that produce Muan Jai Blend to see how the local coffee farmers live their lives and collect the beans. Furthermore, the interviewee explained that Starbucks provides logistic services to directly pick up coffee beans from these local villages. In terms of participatory CSR communication, according to this assistant manager, Starbucks Thailand communicates this community store concept to the public, including both Thai and foreign customers, through social media and Starbucks newsletters via Starbucks applications. Meanwhile, in-store observations show that this community store enhances customers’ experience of Muan Jai Blend through demonstrations of brewing and pouring techniques, as well as inviting customers to taste Muan Jai Blend purely without adding sugar or other ingredients. Concurrently, this assistant manager and the team of Starbucks’s employees and partners at this community store also volunteer to be ambassadors who communicate about this glocal CSR inprocess project to customers and encourage them to purchase Muan Jai Blend to support the local Thai communities that produce this exclusive coffee. Consequently, it can be evaluated that the participatory involvement of various stakeholders in Starbucks’s glocal CSR project in Thailand, including employees, partners, local communities, and customers correspond to the normative paradigm of CSR implementation and communication conceptualized by Tuan et al. (2019), comprising of traits of the interpretive paradigm through the production and reproduction of wholehearted happiness of Muan Jai Blend among collaborations and word-of-mouth of various stakeholders, along with ensuring fair practices by giving career opportunities to local communities that produce the Muan Jai Blend as well as giving back the profit by funding the sustainable education for these local communities. Moreover, the integration of stakeholder involvement in CSR implementations and CSR communication into the core business operations of Starbucks not only globally but also glocally are in line with the results of Nueangjamnong and Sthapitanonda (2019) on CSR communication of MNCs in Thailand that found direct effects of CSR organizational culture, volunteer work motivation, and corporate volunteering on employee engagement. While the scope of the study of Nueangjamnong and Sthapitanonda (2019) is limited to internal stakeholders, specifically management and employees within MNCs, the present discussions of the case study of Starbucks Thailand illustrate voluntary

54

Communicating CSR across Cultures

employee engagement and participatory CSR communication with local and international external stakeholders across cultures. In Thailand, Starbucks has also been implementing other CSR in-process projects that emphasize stakeholders’ participation with tangible environmental sustainability goals. The Matter (2020) stated that Starbucks’s campaign of giving ten baht discounts to customers who bring their reusable cups has successfully reduced the use of almost two million paper cups and plastic cups per year on average. The survey of Suwannawong (2018) found that Thai customers of Starbucks responded with very high satisfaction ratings for this CSR campaign. Among Starbucks’s CSR in-process implementations, Thai customers also responded that they were very satisfied with the use of paper coasters made from recycled materials that make customers feel involved in Starbucks’s efforts to reduce global warming, as well as the use of energy-saving light bulbs and appropriate temperatures that make customers feel involved in reducing energy usage. Furthermore, Starbucks has collaborated with Associate Professor Dr. Singh Intrachuto, a renowned Thai environmental designer, to use recycled coffee grounds to manufacture tables that have been used at more than 280 Starbucks branches in Thailand (The Matter, 2020). These CSR in-process implementations are in line with Starbucks’s global mission to be a “Greener” store with its environmental sustainability campaign of developing 10,000 “Greener” stores across the globe within 2025 (Neelis, 2018; Panee, 2019). Globally and locally, in other words, glocally, Starbucks’s missions regarding CSR, environmental conservation, and sustainability emphasize reductions in resource consumption and waste production, and the brand communicates these CSR goals and implementations to stakeholders (The Matter, 2020).

Implications for CSR Communication within Glocal Contexts In this chapter, we define “glocal” CSR communication as a need to adapt the global business strategies to make an impressive meaning and to actively engage the stakeholders in the local contexts by using a number of communication tools and techniques. Our purpose is to reconceptualize and challenge the variety of CSR and CSR communication across cultures from global and local to glocal challenges of MNCs in adapting global CSR missions to local contexts. Our discussions of CSR communication of MNCs across cultures provide implications for conducting further research on other illustrative case studies of glocal CSR communication in other countries and other companies. Future studies could use qualitative approaches of case study research and/or the Delphi technique as research methods to explore the role of communicators who interact with foreign decision-makers and policies makers regarding the adaptation of CSR and CSR communication to local contexts. The case study of Starbucks in Thailand discussed in this chapter explicitly demonstrates the principle of participatory glocal CSR and CSR communication. By initiating the Muan Jai Blend, an exclusive core product of Starbucks Thailand produced by local coffee farmers in local community villages in Northern Thailand and distributed at Starbucks’s community store in the upscale area of the Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand, Starbucks gives job opportunities to villagers in these local communities. Furthermore, by giving 5% of the sales revenue of Starbucks Thailand from Muan Jai Blend back to the local coffee farming communities as well as donating ten baht per purchased beverage at the community store to the ITDP to develop sustainable education, health, and irrigation projects for local communities in Northern Thailand, Starbucks responsibly contributes socially and financially to improving the quality of life of people in rural areas. Starbucks communicates this glocal CSR project with internal stakeholders by providing corporate training and voluntary trips to coffee farms in these villages for Starbucks’s employees and partners who then volunteer to be ambassadors who communicate this to external stakeholders, including both Thai and foreign customers, in the community store while providing demonstrations of brewing and 55

Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai

pouring techniques of Muan Jai Blend to encourage customers to make purchases to support the local communities and spread the word of mouth. Starbucks also communicates this project to the public through newsletters in the Starbucks applications and via social media. Hence, the preceding CSR practices of Starbucks in Thailand illustrate outstanding applications of the principles of glocal CSR and CSR communication that align with the global CSR core values of Starbucks by creating local community stores and producing exclusive types of coffee beans simultaneously with aligning with the Thai philosophy of helping others in need that is influenced by the Buddhist philosophy of giving and making merit as well as the philosophy and implementations of sustainable development of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (King Rama IX). For further studies, we believe that there are many other cases of MNCs that scholars can explore to study glocal CSR and glocal CSR communication of MNCs in many countries that are meaningful and engaging for stakeholders. We have conceptualized that the concepts of glocal CSR and glocal CSR communication resemble the Thai proverb “Kao Muang Tha Liw, Tong Liw Tha Tham”. The literal meaning of the phrase “Kao Muang Tha Liw, Tong Liw Tha Tham” is: When entering a city that squints, one needs to squint as well, while the practical meaning in the Thai context is to behave appropriately in each situation and context in the society. The closest English proverb to this Thai proverb is “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, which means to adapt to the customs when visiting foreign lands. Since the glocal concept corresponds to both an English proverb and a Thai proverb, it can be concluded that the concepts of glocal CSR and glocal CSR communication directly correspond to the philosophies of both Western cultures and Thai cultures.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4

5

Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as your guide, compare and contrast the CSR communication of multinational corporations in different cultures. What is your definition of “culture”? How does it play a role in shaping CSR concepts in your country? Please select a CSR report of your favorite MNC. Then, discuss to what extent you find the global and glocal challenges in communicating its CSR projects. Conduct a Google search of interviews of the CEOs or CCOs on CSR projects of the same MNC in at least two countries. Then, compare the interviews to CSR communications on the corporate websites of the MNC in those two countries. Imagine that you are a journalist. Prepare questions for interviewing the CEO of any MNC regarding CSR communication across cultures based on the conceptualizations of glocal CSR communication in this chapter.

References Abdullah, Z., & Abdulrahaman, A. A. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of CSR communication management (CSRCM): An agenda for future research. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(9), 600–606. https:// doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.09.119 Bangkok Post. (2013). Coffee for communities. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/social-and-lifestyle/352722/ coffee-for-communities Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Ashgate. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161. Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. 10.1111/joms.12196 Digital Marketing Institute. (2021). 16 Brands doing corporate social responsibility successfully. https:// digitalmarketinginstitute.com/blog/corporate-16-brands-doing-corporate-social-responsibility-successfully

56

Communicating CSR across Cultures Dytokun. (2017). Wholehearted happiness: Muan Jai Blend. https://whateverisbrewing.wordpress.com/coffeetastings-2/wholehearted-happiness-muan-jai-blend/ Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W. J., Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C., & Scultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: Quo vadis? Corporate Communications, 18(2), 176–192. 10.1108/13563281311319472 Hahn, Y., & Kim, D. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: A comparison analysis. East Asian Journal of Business Management, 6(4), 13–17. 10.13106/eajbm.2016.vol6.no4.13 Halkos, G., & Skouloudis, A. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between corporate social responsibility and national culture: A quantitative assessment. Management Decision, 55(3), 595–613. 10.1108/MD1220160868 Heath, R. L., & Waymer, D. (2017). Unlocking corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(2), 192–208. 10.1108/ccij-12-2015-0084 Hishan, S. S., Ramakrishnan, S., Keong, L. B., & Umar, A. (2017). The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR)—a review of literature. Advanced Science Letters, 23(9), 9287–9290. 10.1166/asl.2017. 10072 Ho, F. N., Wang, H.-M. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2012). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 423–433. 10.1007/s10551011-1047-y Hormgesorn, P. (2013). Grounded theory and current status of CSR communication in theses and independent studies in Thailand (1998–2012) (Master’s thesis). National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, Thailand. https://repository.nida.ac.th/handle/662723737/3022 Jahoda, G. (2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture”. Culture & Psychology, 18(3), 289–303. 10.1177/1354067X12446229 Jain, R., & De Moya, M. (2013). Global, local, or glocal: Investigating CSR strategies of best corporate citizens in India. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(3), 207–226. 10.1080/1553118X.2013.782548 Kang, K. H., Lee, S., & Yoo, C. (2016). The effect of national culture on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1728–1758. 10.1108/ IJCHM-08-2014-0415 Kasemsuk, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility approach to sustainable business. Panyapiwat Journal, 8(2), 261–271. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo Dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60–67. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.003 Kesavan, R., Bernacchi, M. D., & Mascarenhas, O. A. J. (2013). Word of mouse: CSR communication and the social media. International Management Review, 9(1), 59–67. Kitnapatanapong, S. (2018). 21 things to know 21 years after the ‘Tom Yum Kung’ financial crisis. https://www. posttoday.com/finance-stock/columnist/556364 Lobel, R. (2017). The most powerful brands think globally but act locally. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mostpowerful-brands-think-globally-act-locally-richard-lobel Manutprasert, P., Pruksaudomchai, S., Sawaprom, S., & Siriwong, P. (2016). The types, the strategies and the communication for corporate social responsibility (CSR) of business companies found in Banlaesuan Magazine. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 9(1), 1381–1398. Minkov, M. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the world’s modern societies and their cultures. SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781483384719 Mongkolchit, P. (2016). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: Empirical study of thai public listed companies. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 9(5), 24–36. Morsing, M., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication. Human Relations, 72(12), 1920–1947. 10.1177/001872671880430 Neelis, K. (2018). Starbucks launches global commitment to build 10,000 ‘Greener’ stores by 2025. https://www. greenmatters.com/news/2018/09/17/xQrHp/starbucks-global-greener-2025 Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: A legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(4), 492–511. 10.1108/ccij-04-2018-0042 Nueangjamnong, P. (2017). Corporate social responsibility communication for employee engagement (PhD dissertation). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/ 60038 Nueangjamnong, P., & Sthapitanonda, P. (2018). Organizational CSR communication to employees to motivate employees to volunteer. Journal of Public Relations and Advertising, 11(2018) (Special Edition 2018), 104–116. Nueangjamnong, P., & Sthapitanonda, P. (2019). Engaging happy employee: From the perspectives of CSR organizational culture, volunteer work motivation, and corporate volunteering. Presented at CSR Communication Conference 2019.

57

Parichart Sthapitanonda and Chanapa Itdhiamornkulchai Panee. (2019). “I’m not joking.” Starbucks announces to build 10,000 “Greener” stores within 2025. https:// sdthailand.com/2019/05/starbucks-global-greener-stores/ Peng, Y.-S., Dashdeleg, A.-U., & Chih, H. L. (2012). Does national culture influence firm’s CSR engagement: A cross country study. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 58(9), 40–44. Phimonwong, P. (2017). Communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). A case study of Dairy Home Co, Ltd. (Master’s thesis). Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok, Thailand. http://libdoc.dpu.ac.th/thesis/Panchalee.Phi.pdf Phimonwong, P., & Korcharoen, M. (2018). Communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). A case study of Dairy Home Co, Ltd. Journal of Mass Communication, Faculty of Mass Communication, Chiang Mai University, 6(2), 93–122. Praraththajariya, K. (2009). Corporate responsibility communication of tobacco business (Master’s thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/18716 Praraththajariya, K., & Sthapitanonda, P. (2010). Corporate responsibility communication of tobacco business. Journal of Public Relations and Advertising, 3(3)(Special Edition 2), 121–140. Ringov, D., & Zollo, M. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a socio-institutional perspective: The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 476–485. 10.1108/ 14720700710820551 Roy, T. K., & Quazi, A. (2021). How and why do MNCs communicate their corporate social responsibility in developing countries? Evidence from Bangladesh. Competition & Change, 0(0), 1–23. 10.1177/10245294211 003275 Senkraikul, P. (2019). The analysis of Toyota’s corporate social responsibility communication forms: A case study of communication arts student, Mahasarakham University. Siam Communication Review, 18(24), 31–40. Simakhajornboon, P., & Sanwong, P. (2019). The influence of CSR communication on purchasing intention at 7 eleven convenience stores. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 12(4), 1365–1389. Sison, M. D., & Sarabia-Panol, Z. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, public relations and community engagement: Emerging perspectives from Southeast Asia (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315734668 Sopakdee, K., Luangchangthong, C., Sirilor, T., Panjamaphon, A., & Siriwong, P. (2016). The successful guidelines for green construction in industrial area, Trok Fri Mai community, Ampher Klaeng, Rayong province case study: Tree bank project, bank for agriculture and Agricultural cooperatives. Veridian EJournal, Silpakorn University, 9(1), 27–44. Starbucks. (2020). Starbucks role and responsibility in advancing racial and social equity. https://stories.starbucks.com/ press/2020/starbucks-role-and-responsibility-in-advancing-racial-and-social-equity/ Sthapitanonda, P. (2015). “Just do It” vs. “Strategic relations with stakeholders”: The challenges in communicating CSR in Thailand. Presented at CSR Communication Conference 2015. Sthapitanonda, P., & Nueangjamnong, P. (2016). CSR communication of corporations: From concepts to implementations and challenging future research directions. Journal of Public Relations and Advertising, 9(1), 73–92. Sthapitanonda, P., Sinsuwarn, N., & Haft, J. R. (2015). Alcohol industry CSR activities in Thailand: Appropriate or not. Journal of Public Relations and Advertising, 8(1), 1–13. Sthapitanonda, P., & Watson, T. (2015). ‘Pid thong lang Phra’ – the impact of culture upon Thai CSR concepts and practice: A study of relationships between NGOs and corporations. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 16(1), 61–72. Suwannawong, W. (2018). The influence of triple C strategy on the decision to use Starbucks in Bangkok (Master’s independent study). Bangkok University. Thairawan, S. (2011). The types communication ways of corporate social responsibility (CSR) of government and private sector found in PRAEW Magazine (Master’s thesis). Silpakorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. The Matter. (2020). Towards a sustainable coffee business! What has Starbucks Thailand done to reduce waste and conserve the environment? https://thematter.co/brief/brief-1599728401/123118 Tuan, A., Dalli, D., Gandolfo, A., & Gravina, A. (2019). Theories and methods in CSRC research: A systematic literature review. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 212–231. 10.1108/ ccij-11-2017-0112 Verk, N., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2019). A dynamic review of the emergence of corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-019-04232-6 Vollero, A., Siano, A., Palazzo, M., & Amabile, S. (2020). Hoftsede’s cultural dimensions and corporate social responsibility in online communication: Are they independent constructs? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 53–64. 10.1002/csr.1773 Wanlayangkoon, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility communication strategy of bank for agriculture and agricultural cooperatives. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 7(3), 700–714.

58

Communicating CSR across Cultures Wattanasupachoke, T. (2017). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies: A study of the gen Y’s perception in Thailand. Chulalongkorn Business Review, 39(151), 24–48. Wen, J.(T.), & Song, B. (2017). Corporate ethical branding on YouTube: CSR communication strategies and brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(1), 28–40. 10.1080/15252019.2017.1295291 White, C. L., Nielsen, A. E., & Valentini, C. (2017). CSR research in the apparel industry: A quantitative and qualitative review of existing literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(5), 382–394. 10.1002/csr.1413 Woo, H., & Jin, B. (2016). Culture doesn’t matter? The impact of apparel companies’ corporate social responsibility practices on brand equity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 34(1), 20–36. 10.1177/0887302 X15610010 Yodprudtikan, P. (2019). Good governance in the 2020 decade. https://www.bangkokbiznews.com/blogs/ columnist/123735

59

5 ARTICULATING THE VALUE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE IN CSR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers

Introduction Institutional theory has been proclaimed as a “formidable lens for explaining how and why corporate social responsibility (CSR) assumes different forms” (Brammer et al., 2012, p. 8). From an institutional perspective, CSR is defined as “an identifiable pattern of activities influenced by social norms concerning a firms’ social, environmental, and economic behaviors and impacts” (Bice, 2017, p. 20). CSR activities can be either implicit or explicit (Matten & Moon, 2008) and multi-layered, influenced by macro-, meso-, and micro-level actions and pressures (Campbell, 2007). These different levels form a complex web of social, political, and economic actions and discourses which operate in concert to establish and routinize organizational behaviors (Campbell, 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008). In particular, institutional theory offers a lens to explore the sets of CSR behaviors that are serially reproduced, socially binding, and presented as fact (Campbell, 2007; Colyvas & Jonsson, 2011; Jepperson, 1991). An institutional approach has been adopted to explore business and society interactions and is well accepted within management research (Frynas & Yamahaki, 2016; Risi, 2022). Management scholars Matten and Moon (2008) argued that institutional theory allows for varied institutional frameworks (e.g., political, financial, cultural, education, and labor systems) to be examined thereby illuminating the highly contextual and contested nature of CSR. Other researchers have noted micro-level frameworks such as the business unit where CSR is housed (Chamorro & Bañegil, 2006) and company characteristics (Fifka & Drabble, 2012) as determinants to CSR activities. The dominance of an institutional perspective in management literature was described in a study by Frynas and Yamahaki (2016) which found out of 462 articles published in 13 management journals between 1990 and 2014 the majority (n = 206) were grounded in stakeholder theory followed by institutional theory and legitimacy theory. To a lesser extent, management scholars used resourcebased view, agency theory, and resource dependency theory to scaffold their CSR research. However, institutional theory remains at the theoretical margins for organizational communication and public relations scholars’ researching CSR (Ji et al., 2021). Communication scholars who have embraced institutional theory have primarily examined archival CSR reports and texts of large multinational corporations (e.g., O’Connor & Shumate, 2010; Yang et al., 2020). A longitudinal bibliometric co-citation network analysis of 290 articles published in 61 communication

60

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-7

Institutional Perspective

journals between 1980 and 2018 revealed communication scholars grounded their research in four main theoretical traditions: stakeholder theory, attribution theory, legitimacy theory, and framing theory (Ji et al., 2021) rather than institutional theory. To a lesser extent, communication researchers used dialogic theory, critical theory, and cognitive dissonance theory as scaffolding for their inquiries. Notably, over half of the studies identified were grounded in just two theories: stakeholder and legitimacy theory (Ji et al., 2021). Crane and Glozer (2016) drew attention to the “disparate conversations” (p. 1226) in CSR communication. They too found that across journals and disciplines legitimacy and stakeholder theory were the most common theoretical lenses used to study CSR communication, however, journals differed in theory dominance based on discipline. One reason for the above discrepancies is that institutional theory and its logics give primacy to fields, beliefs, and practices that are taken for granted and relatively fixed (e.g., Giddens, 1984), which align more closely with the foundations of management scholars. This presents a conundrum for CSR communication researchers. On the one hand, an institutional approach is useful in documenting the pressures on organizations to behave in socially sanctioned ways and demonstrate consistency or isomorphism within operating fields (e.g., Zorn et al., 2011). On the other hand, institutional theory’s emphasis on established behaviors limits our examination of CSR communication to an antecedent or outcome of institutionalized behaviors. This chapter embraces the CSR/institutional theory conundrum and unpacks the principles that link institutional theory and CSR communication research, highlights the CSR communication research that is grounded in institutional theory, and identifies directions for future research. In doing so, we illuminate the explanatory power of institutional theory in the context of CSR communication research thereby offering an expansive theoretical umbrella under which management, organizational communication, and public relations scholars can advance CSR communication knowledge.

Connecting Business to Society Institutional theory argues that values connect business to society (Kraatz & Flores, 2015) and that organizations become institutions when they are “infused with value beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand” (Selznick, 1957, p. 17). As an expression of values, CSR is not about “whether values, but whose and what values, are represented in business decisions” (Deetz, 2007, p. 269). Through value representation, corporations position themselves as occupying a legitimate and stable place in society (Jepperson, 1991; Sorsa, 2008; Weber & Glynn, 2006). Further, through the communication of enduring and widely accepted values and practices the corporation is constituted as an institution thereby becoming deeply woven into the fabric of society (Weber & Glynn, 2006). Notably, institutional practices “transcend particular organizations and situations” (Lammers & Barbour, 2006, p. 364) and enable institutions to dictate, largely unimpeded, which behaviors and how those behaviors will be enacted within a social system (Douglas, 1986, p. 251). Schmidt (2008) extended Douglas’s line of thought and argued that institutions are not “neutral structures” (p. 318) and can be objects of “trust and mistrust” (p. 318). Adopting institutional theory and the concept of institutions, organizational researchers realized that organized life was patterned across whole societal sectors or fields (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and that formal organizations were built on widely shared rational myths as much on technical requirements (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This led to a major and influential shift in organization studies toward a social constructionist, symbolic emphasis in institutional research that deemphasized local and technical influences and raised the role of societal pressures, generally termed neo- or new institutionalism. Thus, from the point of view of new institutionalism, CSR strategies

61

Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers

are the result of social forces, including isomorphic pressures on all organizations within a field to adopt similar structures and policies.

Tenets of Institutional Theory for CSR Communication Research It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review the entirety of institutional theory research that has evolved over the last 100 years (see Greenwood et al., 2017 for a comprehensive review, and Lammers & Garcia, 2009, for applications to organizational communication). Rather, we focus on the key tenets associated with new institutionalism that are applicable to CSR communication research and advance an argument for an expanded role of institutional theory in CSR communication research. Notably, scholars in organizational communication (e.g., Lammers & Barbour, 2006) and public relations (e.g., Hou, 2021) have invoked many of these tenets in their calls for an institutional approach to their subfields.

Rational Myths Meyer and Rowan’s (1977) major contribution was the articulation of rational myths: impersonal prescriptions that identify various social purposes as technical ones and specify in a rule-like way the appropriate means to pursue these technical purposes that have strength beyond the discretion of any individual participant or organization. Rational myths are, therefore, taken for granted as legitimate (pp. 343–344). An important feature of rational myths is that they are the widely shared building blocks of organizations. Individuals wanting to organize around a particular purpose or goal are required to establish their organizations in ways that are consistent with established beliefs, whether or not they fit the rational or functional purpose of an organization. As Meyer and Rowan (1977) wrote: “Many of the positions, policies, programs, and procedures of modern organizations are enforced by public opinion …” (p. 343). It is not at all a stretch to see rational myths as arguments (i.e., rhetoric) about the way things should be done. A similar strand of research enlisted concepts of rhetoric in the analysis of institutions (Alvesson, 1993; Green & Li, 2011). Castelló and Lozano (2011) linked CSR to corporations’ search for legitimacy: “CSR rhetoric is starting to be embedded in the cognitive societal spectrum of what is considered good business practice” (p. 20). They observed that CSR has become an enthymeme, a syllogism or argument whose conclusion is completed by an audience (p. 15). In a striking similarity to Meyer and Rowan’s (1977) rational institutional myths, they observed that CSR enthymemes are “not universally rational or true but are so only within specific socio-cultural contexts, depending on their conformity to the audience’s beliefs and assumptions” (p. 15). Examples of rational myths in CSR communication include corporations making their Instagram squares black to symbolize solidarity with the Black community in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, use of environmental symbols and photographs in CSR reports and websites, and terms such as “sustainability”, “safe production”, and “good neighbor”. These building blocks of contemporary organization with respect to CSR take the form of requirements for doing business that reflect prevailing and enduring beliefs, which may not be connected to functional task requirements. In this way, CSR takes on a life of its own across organizational fields, to which we now turn.

Isomorphic Pressures DiMaggio and Powell (1983) famously asked “why are organizations so similar?” (p. 147) and offered three isomorphic pressures as an answer: mimetic processes as competitive firms copied their rivals’ strategies; coercive processes as firms complied with patrons’ or governments’ mandates; and normative pressures as they adopted the strategies favored by professions and other associations. According 62

Institutional Perspective

to DiMaggio and Powell, organizations respond to pressures within their field that ultimately results in homophily. In turn, homophily is rewarded whereas nonconformity is punished (Hendry, 2006). Scholars have found that field homogeneity supports growth and survival (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) including increased legitimacy (Doh et al., 2009) as well as protection from environmental disturbances such as litigation, boycotts, and regulations (O’Connor et al., 2017). In the context of CSR, isomorphic pressures result in a constrained set of CSR behaviors being enacted within a field (e.g., Blindheim, 2015). Through CSR communication particular sets of behaviors are normed, coerced, or mimicked through a field and thus legitimized (O’Connor et al., 2017). Examples of isomorphic pressures include the adoption of government standards (coercive isomorphism) associated with CSR (e.g., ESG standards), limited selection of social issues and nonprofit partners as forms of CSR engagement (mimetic isomorphism), and organizational participation or membership in CSR associations such as the Business Roundtable, Aspen Institute or the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (normative isomorphism).

Institutional Work Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) defined institutional work as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (p. 214). They pointed to three elements of an institutional work perspective: “the awareness, skill and reflexivity of individual and collective actors (p. 219); “the conscious action of individual and collective actors” (p. 219); and “action as practice” (p. 220) and noted that multiple and potentially disparate actors have agency in institutions. Thus in arguing against the deterministic elements of a top-down institutional perspective, Lawrence and Suddaby made room for individual organizations and individuals in organizations to be creative agents of change or stability. However, institutional work does not guarantee its desired ends will be achieved and actors’ actions may impact the social structure in unanticipated ways (Lawrence et al., 2011; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). Examples of institutional work in CSR include the FTSE4Good Index, a collection of socially responsible stock indexes which emerged through institutional work processes (Slager et al., 2012). That index and other standards like it are the result of the conscious skill and effort of actors who were themselves embedded in routine and established practices. Other examples include employee safety programs such as Cleveland Cliff’s “Take Five Program” which allows workers to stop the job at any time for safety reasons; Gravity Payments fair wage commitment to employees that has altered the conversation around employee compensation; and employee volunteer programs. As such, CSR reveals ways that institutions are modified by the work of agents who take positions outside of prevailing norms, such as social entrepreneurs, social movements, and corporate leadership.

Institutional Entrepreneurship Closely related to the institutional work perspective is scholarship on institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana et al., 2009). Battilana et al. (2009) defined institutional entrepreneurs as “actors who leverage resources to create new or transform existing institutions” (p. 68). Their research identified a conundrum in institutional theory; if institutionalized rules and beliefs so structure the world that they become taken for granted how then could actors change institutions if their very consciousness was already structured by institutionalized arrangements? For Battilana and colleagues the answer was found in social actors, either individuals or organizations, who hold differing field and social positions which in turn influences the likelihood that they may become agents of change. The process of institutional entrepreneurship, like other organizational change, includes developing a vision, mobilizing people, and motivating others to achieve and sustain the vision (Battilana et al., 2009, p. 78). For example, Chatzichristos and Nagopoulos’s (2021) compared the success of 63

Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers

institutionalizing three social enterprises in Austria, Portugal, and Greece. They found that success of social entrepreneurs as institutional entrepreneurs depended on high civil approval, a wellestablished field that allowed social enterprises to remain autonomous, and anchoring of the venture to a pre-existing counter-hegemonic narrative or embedded network that could drive a new institutional logic. The role of institutional entrepreneurship is of considerable importance in CSR practice because it may serve as a counterbalance to isomorphic pressures. Examples of institutional entrepreneurship may include corporations that are early adopters in partnerships with marginalized social issues or forms of CSR. For example, when Bono launched Product RED in 2006, the program legitimized “philanthrocapitalism” (Farrell, 2012) and brought the issues of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria into mainstream CSR though RED’s partnership with iconic brands such as American Express, Apple, and Hallmark (Ponte et al., 2009).

Institutional Logics An institutional logics approach foregrounds the consistency of organizational structures (e.g., corporations, professions) as the basis for institutionalized action (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Institutional logics are defined as “socially shared, deeply held assumptions and values that form a framework for reasoning, provide criteria for legitimacy, and help organize time and space” (Dunn & Jones, 2010, p. 114). Ocasio et al. (2015) highlighted the role of communication in advancing institutional logics and argued that “specific processes of communication such as coordinating, sense giving, translating, and theorizing demarcate cognitive categories of understanding [and] help individuals … link those categories to specific practices and experiences” (cited in Cornelissen et al., 2015, p. 18). The institutional logics perspective has gained considerable currency, and while logics have been specified as symbolic frameworks, few have identified the communicative aspects of logics as arguments. One exception is Lammers and Proulx (2016), who observed that it is “useful to think of logics as characteristic ways that a belief, message, or practice is defended” (p. 19). Lammers and Proulx (2016) saw logics as sets of arguments about the world that are composed of common rhetorical elements such as claims, grounds, warrants, and backings. They observed, for example, that physicians used different arguments to reason why their independence and autonomy was essential in healthcare. In the context of CSR, institutional logics are found in the means by which CSR ideas are spread and the types of CSR initiatives communicated. Looking at internal organizational practices, Greenwood et al. (2011) found that firms sorted practices into units that matched particular logics. They noted that “CSR practices with a perceived business benefit (consistent with a market logic) tended to be housed in mainline business units, while CSR practices lacking a business case (and justified via a community logic) [were] more likely to be located in corporate or philanthropic foundations” (p. 14). Taking an external public relations focus, Bartlett and colleagues (2007) observed that in contrast to market and hierarchical logics, public relations managers, using a third, professional logic, were instrumental in spreading CSR ideas and values. Considering both internal and external constraints, O’Connor and Shumate (2010) argued that CSR communication creates boundaries around what the corporation accepts responsibility for as well as what categories of CSR are beyond its responsibilities (justification of logics of community).

Institutional Messages In an effort to more clearly establish the role of communication with regard to institutional logics, Lammers (2011) advanced the concept of institutional messages. He argued that both the institutional works perspective as well as the institutional logics perspective could be enhanced by 64

Institutional Perspective

understanding institutions and institutional logics as messages (Lammers, 2011). He explicated institutional messages as “conceptual and empirical link[s] between the predominantly macro world of institutions and the micro world of organizational communication” (p. 154). Institutional messages are characterized by endurance, reach, incumbency, and intention. Thus, institutional messages transcend particular settings, interactants, and organizations (Lammers & Barbour, 2006) and convey logics of action to internal and external audiences (Lammers, 2011). Therefore, institutional messages may influence the behavior of individuals, organizations, and institutional fields through reproduction wherein practices are codified, habituated, accepted, and become part of a larger system of meaning (Colyvas & Jonsson, 2011). Lammers and Jackson (2014) observed that the features of institutional messages, which carried institutional logics, were features of institutions themselves. In considering how institutional messages influence institutional fields, Schmidt (2008) draws our attention to how messages can also be deceitful: Although discourses are most often successful if true, coherent, and consistent, they need not be any of those things. Successful discourses may be manipulative, they may lie, they may be “happy talk” or “spin” to obscure what political leaders are really doing and they may even be vehicles for elite domination and power. (p. 312) The importance of this observation is not the willing deceit of a social actor, but the power of institutional messages to create the reality within which people act. CSR scholars have noted that institutional messages differ across settings such as industry field, social issue engagement, and market economies (e.g., Lee, 2021). In addition, institutional messages can serve as aspirational to influence the organization and the field about how CSR should be practiced in the future (Christensen et al., 2013). Examples of CSR institutional messages and message events include CSR reports, web pages, and advertisements, press conferences, workshops, CSR programs (Kärreman & Rylander, 2008; Maney & Oliver, 2001). We no turn to CSR studies that have employed an institutional perspective.

Selected CSR Communication Studies Communication scholars have interrogated CSR communication across and within institutional fields. This section highlights several studies, grounded in institutional theory, from scholars positioned in the organizational communication and public relations disciplines; the section is not meant to be an exhaustive review of all studies. Rather, it offers an extension of the research featured in earlier sections of this chapter. Notably, the studies advanced by organizational communication and public relations scholars are dominated by an analysis of archival CSR texts and reports of large multinational corporations. In addition, the studies share a methodological approach that relies on content and textual analysis and, more recently, network analysis. To date, studies that use other methodologies have not invoked an institutional theory lens (Ji et al., 2021). To begin, several scholars have analyzed how macro level forces institutionalized CSR communication. For example, Zhou (2021) investigated the CSR reports of Global Fortune 500 companies to discern institutional factors, widespread and enduring trans-organizational structures and norms that influence the communication of LGBTQ advocacy in CSR reporting. In this study, the author paired institutional theory and stakeholder theory to advance a series of hypotheses tested using semantic network analysis. Zhou’s findings revealed that several institutional factors (democracy, civil liberties, legal protections, corporate country of origin, and industrial sector) predicted whether the CSR reports of Global Fortune 500 companies would include LGBTQ advocacy communication.

65

Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers

Relatedly, Lee (2021) explored how firms’ social roles are communicated and institutionalized in the titles of firms’ social reports. This study offers two distinctions not found in other CSR communication research using institutional theory. First, Lee interrogates different social roles: corporate citizenship, corporate sustainability, and corporate social responsibility to identify if these distinct institutionalized concepts result in differences in the CSR activities communicated. Second, the study used a cross-national framework to discern if different forms of capitalism explain CSR behaviors. This study found that social roles were institutionalized and that the institutionalized social roles resulted in differences in the social themes (e.g., labor, community, economic responsibility) communicated. Moreover, Lee found cross-national variations wherein the three market economies exhibited isomorphism in their adoptions of social roles. Overall the study provides support for the role of established and enduring patterns of CSR behaviors within and across national boundaries. Fifka et al. (2018) conducted a comparative study of CSR mission statements in the United States and India. They used an expanded set of institutional factors [home country, industry sector, degree of internationalization, company size, corporate profitability, founding year, length of CSR mission statement, and compliance with the global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines] to examine what factors determined CSR communication. In contrast to the aforementioned studies, Fifka and colleagues found no support for country effect; partial support for sector (manufacturing vs. service); no support for level of internationalization; and very little differences between US and Indian companies in the type of CSR statements issued. They concluded that the institutional pressures for MNCs outweighed the sociocultural factors in their CSR communication. Related to the work of Fifka et al. (2018), O’Connor and colleagues (2017) compared the CSR communication of MNCs and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) in the petroleum industry. Similar to the aforementioned studies, they analyzed CSR reports to discern which CSR practices were habitually practiced and codified across the field. They found that environmental, health and safety, and philanthropy practices that benefit employees and communities were institutionalized and that these practices represented much of the CSR communication. Further, they found high levels of congruence across MNCs and SMEs thus suggesting that the economic field was the driving force of isomorphism rather than organizational structure. This finding echoed the earlier research of O’Connor and Shumate (2010) that found the CSR values communicated were more likely to be institutionalized within but not across economic industry thereby supporting the arguments of scholars that isomorphism occurs within institutional fields (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Similar results were found in a study that examined the Facebook posts of Canadian cannabis companies and identified consistent legitimacy strategies used across companies, thus suggesting some level of mimetic isomorphism was occurring (Ji et al., 2021). Taken together, these studies indicate that particular types of CSR practice become legitimized within a field and the legitimation of ideas and practices are in turn the glue that binds institutional fields. Yang and colleagues (2020) expanded the types of CSR reporting analyzed to include CSR reports, corporate websites, Facebook, and Twitter. Their multi-platform text sample allowed the researchers to interrogate cross-sector alliances related to the global refugee crisis, as a form of CSR, using an institutional theory approach combined with network analysis. Distinct from the majority of CSR communication research, this study applied National Business System (NBS) theory, which is a comparative institutional theory that explains how companies’ CSR approaches are influenced by the cultural, political, economic, and educational contexts of their home countries (Matten & Moon, 2008) to advance their inquiry. Yang and colleagues found that urgent and controversial issues (e.g., refugee crises) intensify the influence of political and economic institutional contexts making those contexts more salient than other institutional factors. In addition, they found that educational and cultural contexts have little influence on CSR practices as related to the refugee crisis. In sum, CSR communication scholars using institutional theory have answered questions about how institutions communicate CSR and to some degrees have unpacked similarities and differences 66

Institutional Perspective

within and across fields and issues thus adding depth and nuance to our understanding about the types of CSR that are institutionalized. In the next section, we address these limitations and outline a research agenda for scholars studying CSR communication.

A CSR Communication Institutional Theory Research Agenda The tenets of institutional theory explicated above are particularly relevant to the study of CSR communication. Yet, the components of institutional theory do not fully address the need to put “communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis” (Cornelissen et al., 2015, p. 10) nor do they account “for the communicative constitution, maintenance, and transformation of institutions” (p. 14). In this section, we outline three possible research trajectories grounded in institutional theory for CSR communication scholars to consider. First, CSR communication offers researchers an opportunity to study the process by which CSR practices are institutionalized. Second, recent institutional scholarship has argued that values are fundamental to the business and society relationship (e.g., Risi, 2022) yet little CSR communication research interrogates this fundamental construct, preferring instead to describe the values present rather than focus on what the values are representing. Third, CSR communication has been grounded in normative structures of industry fields thus limiting our understanding of how field boundaries may be communicatively constituted in counterintuitive ways.

The Process of Institutionalization CSR can be viewed as a special case of an emerging, stable, and enduring practice, that is, institutionalization. Institutionalization refers to two different but connected processes: the ongoing and potentially evolving structuring of established ways of acting and thinking (e.g., Barley & Tolbert, 1997) or the initiation and establishment of a new way of acting and thinking (Dempsey & Sanders, 2010; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Most of the research on institutionalization, including CSR research, has followed the former path, documenting and theorizing institutional influences on particular organizations (Burns & Scapens, 2000; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Sillince & Barker, 2012). This is likely because the defining features of institutionalization (e.g., entrenchment of the practice into the social fabric and minimal contestation; Scott, 2001) need time to materialize and become “sticky” (Colyvas & Jonsson, 2011, p. 47) before determinations regarding institutionalization can be made. Thus, the opportunity to study the institutionalization of CSR refers not only to the pressures on particular organizations to adopt CSR practices (as many of the studies reviewed earlier do), but the actual rise of CSR itself as an institution. Following Tolbert and Zucker (1996), the process of institutionalization includes the stages of innovation, habitualization, objectification, and sedimentation. Communicatively, according to Lambert and Lammers (2013), these stages include advocacy, designing a vision, and creating a narrative (innovation); changing normative associations, constructing normative networks (habitualization); transmission, negotiation, and eventual acceptance (objectification); and message reach and endurance (sedimentation). Relatedly, corporate texts serve to institutionalize a field because they are (a) produced by authoritative actors, (b) recognizable and used by other organizations, (c) highly structured, and (d) legitimize the organization’s activities (Lammers & Barbour, 2006; Phillips et al., 2004). We envision research that interrogates the institutionalization process of CSR and CSR practices. Questions that researchers following this line of thought might ask include: “What are the stages of institutionalization for CSR and CSR practices?”; “How are institutionalized CSR practices transformed?”; and “What are the characteristics of CSR as an institution?”. In pursuing these

67

Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers

questions, we hope researchers will consider the value of longitudinal studies and turning points to unmask the process of institutionalization.

CSR as a Case of Integrating Values and Structures As noted earlier, CSR practices reflect shared social values (e.g., Brammer et al., 2012). Kraatz et al. (2020) and Risi (2022) argued that institutional research of the last several decades has left the question of values out of analysis. Reviewing definitions of values in the sociology literature, Kraatz and colleagues cited Hitlin (2003) who specified that values meet five criteria: (1) they are concepts or beliefs, (2) they pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (3) they transcend specific situations, (4) they guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events and, (5) they are ordered by relative importance. (p. 219) Risi (2022) argued that normative and descriptive approaches must be combined in order to understand “how values become manifest in various practices and what the consequences those practices have” (p. 329). The disconnect between practice and consequence goes back to the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) who explicitly excluded norms and values from their explanation of institutions. Risi (2022) noted that DiMaggio and Powell’s parsing of values from the regulative and structural components of organizational life has resulted in research dominated by an analysis of the formal structures that are more readily measured. Difficulty in measurement, however, should not dissuade researchers from interrogating how values and structures are interconnected. Scholars have noted that “responsibility” is a value in and of itself that is “in persistent tension with organizational structures and routines” (Kraatz et al., 2020, p. 500) and structures cannot be changed without a change in the values that guide them (Risi, 2022). As such, our research should not decouple values from praxis. In the case of CSR research there are moral consequences for people, communities, and organizations that should not be overlooked. We echo the call of Risi (2022) for CSR scholars to descriptively and normatively investigate the role of values in institutions (p. 328). Questions that researchers following this line of inquiry might ask include: “What values are reflected in CSR communication and how do those values represent different stakeholder groups?”; “How do stakeholders experience the CSR values practiced and communicated by organizations?”; and “What are the ethical implications of how CSR is practiced by corporations operating in different locations and industries?”.

Communicatively Constituting Field Boundaries The tenets of institutional theory help us understand how institutional fields enact CSR. Researchers have identified different CSR communication practices across and within economic and industry fields (e.g., Ju et al., 2021; O’Connor & Shumate, 2010). This research has shown that some industrial fields are more likely to engage in CSR communication than other industries. However, the research that adopts an institutional field approach to CSR communication relies on predetermined industrial fields, most commonly those that coalesce around economic industry classifications. Following Lammers & Barbour’s (2006) theorizing that institutional fields are discursive communities and relational systems which initiate CSR behavior and CSR behavior expectations, we suggest institutional fields should be analyzed beyond economic and industry classifications. Such a move would address claims that CSR is both a contested and contextual concept (e.g., Brammer et al., 2012) and provide insights into how context influences CSR practices and communication. 68

Institutional Perspective

We envision research that interrogates how institutional fields are communicatively defined. Questions that researchers following this line of thought might ask include: “How do stakeholders group organizations together (e.g., by product, association, location)?”; “What attributes do stakeholders assign to organizations across fields and do those attributes cluster in counterintuitive ways?”; and “How are fields networked?”.

Conclusion This chapter presented several tenets of institutional theory that are relevant to CSR communication research. The institutional approach recognizes that organizations live in wider environments or fields which have powerful influence which organizations attempt to manage, negotiate, and change. As such, institutional theory provides a framework for analyzing CSR across and within fields thereby considering the ways that CSR is more than an idiosyncratic organizational level activity. Specifically, invoking an institutional lens allows us to examine how macro level structures (e.g., capitalism) inform institutional logics which are communicated at the field and organizational levels of analysis and how the CSR communication and practices of organizations and institutional fields reify or transform macro level structures. Finally, institutional theory compliments stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and network analysis approaches. This theoretical compatibility allows CSR research grounded in the institutional tradition to engage in multiple levels of analysis and consider how communication is central to the process of institutionalization.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4

In what ways might the “taken for granted-ness” of institutions, including the institution of CSR itself, constrain the adoption of new forms of CSR practices and communication? The institutional perspective argues for studying organizational fields rather than single organizations. What type of research designs would allow for meso and macro levels studies? How does communication institutionalize particular patterns of CSR and CSI? What institutional forms, fields, texts are most likely to drive CSR practices?

References Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 997–1015. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117. htpps://doi.org/93-117.01708406-99701-0018-0005 Bartlett, J. L., Tywoniak, S., & Hatcher, C. A. (2007). Public relations professional practice and the institutionalisation of CSR. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 281–299. 10.1108/1363254071 0843904 Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. 10.1080/19416520903 053598 Bice, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as an institution: A social mechanisms framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 17–34. 10.1007/s10551-015-2791-1 Blindheim, J. (2015). Institutional models of corporate social responsibility: A proposed refinement of the explicit-implicit framework. Business & Society, 54, 52–88. 10.1177/0007650312443961 Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 3–28. 10.1093/ser/mwr030 Burns, J., & Scapens, R. W. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change: An institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 3–25. l0.l006/mare.1999.0119

69

Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946–967. 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275684 Castelló, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29. 10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8 Chamorro, A., & Bañegil, T. M. (2006). Green marketing philosophy: A study of Spanish firms with ecolabels. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(1), 11–24. 10.1002/csr.83 Chatzichristos, G., & Nagopoulos, N. (2021). Social entrepreneurs as institutional entrepreneurs: Evidence from a comparative case study. Social Enterprise Journal, 17(4), 566–583. 10.1108/SEJ-12-2020-0137 Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393. 10.1177/1350508413478310 Colyvas, J. A., & Jonsson, S. (2011). Ubiquity and legitimacy: Disentangling diffusion and institutionalization. Sociological Theory, 29, 27–53. 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01386.x Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10–27. htpps://doi. org/ffhal-02276731f Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010. 01386.x Deetz, S. (2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267–278). Oxford University Press. Dempsey, S. E., & Sanders, M. L. (2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization, 17(4), 437–459. 10.1177/13505084103 64198 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. 10.17323/1726-3247-20101-34-56 Doh, J. P., Howton, S. D., Howton, S. W., & Diegel, D. S. (2009). Does the market respond to endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36, 1461–1485. 10.1177/0149206309337896 Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse University Press. Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149. htpps:// doi.org/0001-8392/10/5501-0114/ Farrell, N. (2012). Celebrity politics: Bono, product (RED) and the legitimising of philanthrocapitalism. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14(3), 392–406. 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00499.x Fifka, M. S., & Drabble, M. (2012). Focus and standardization of sustainability reporting: A comparative study of the United Kingdom and Finland. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(7), 455–474. 10.1002/bse.1730 Fifka, M. S., Kühn, A., & Stiglbauer, M. (2018). “One size fits All”? Convergence in international corporate social responsibility communication – a comparative study of CSR mission statements in the United States and India. Journal of Public Affairs, 18(3), e1670. 10.1002/pa.1670 Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press. Frynas, J. G., & Yamahaki, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(3), 258–285. 10.1111/beer.12115 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity. Green Jr., S. E., & Li, Y. (2011). Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1662–1697. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01022.x Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Meyer, R. E. (Eds.). (2017). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371. 10.1080/19416520.2011.590299 Hendry, J. R. (2006). Taking aim at business: What factors lead environmental nongovernmental organizations to target particular firms? Business & Society, 45, 47–86. 10.1177/0007650305281849 Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 118–137. 10.2307/1519843 Hou, J. Z. (2021). The articulation of ‘agency’: How can public relations scholarship and institutional theory enrich each other? Public Relations Inquiry, 10(1), 97–117.

70

Institutional Perspective Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). The University of Chicago Press. Ji, Y. G., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2021). Theoretical insights of CSR research in communication from 19802018: A bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–23. 10.1007/s10551-021-04748-w Ju, R., Dong, C., & Zhang, Y. (2021). How controversial businesses communicate CSR on Facebook: Insights from the Canadian cannabis industry. Public Relations Review, 47(4). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102059. Kärreman, D., & Rylander, A. (2008). Managing meaning through branding: The case of a consulting firm. Organization Studies, 29(1), 103–125. 10.1177/0170840607084573 Kraatz, M. S., & Flores, R. (2015). Reinfusing values. In M. S. Kraatz (Ed.), Institutions and ideals: Philip Selznick’s legacy for organizational studies (pp. 353–381). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1108/ S0733-558X20150000044013 Kraatz, M. S., Flores, R., & Chandler, D. (2020). The value of values for institutional analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 474–512. 10.5465/annals.2018.0074 Lambert, N. J., & Lammers, J. C. (2013, November). A communicative model of institutionalization: The case of the collaborative assistance emergency response organization. Annual meeting of the National Communication Association, organizational communication division. Chicago, IL. Lammers, J. C. (2011). How institutions communicate: Institutional messages, institutional logics, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 154–182. 10.1177/0893318910389280 Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16, 356–377. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00274.x Lammers, J. C., & Garcia, M. A. (2009). Exploring the concept of “profession” for organizational communication research: Institutional influences in a veterinary organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(3), 357–384. 10.1177/0893318908327007 Lammers, J., & Jackson, S. (2014). The institutionality of a mediatized organizational environment. In J. Pallas, L. Strannegard, & S. Jonsson (Eds.), Organizations and the media: Organizing in a mediatized world (pp. 33–47). Routledge. Lammers, J. C., & Proulx, J. D. (2016). The role of professional logic in communication in healthcare organizations. In T. Harrison & E. Williams (Eds.), Organizations, health, and communication (pp. 13–30). Routledge. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). SAGE Publications. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58. 10.1177/1056492610387222 Lee, T. H. (2021). How firms communicate their social roles through corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, and corporate sustainability: An institutional comparative analysis of firms’ social reports. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 10.1080/153118x.2021.1877708 Maney, G. M., & Oliver, P. E. (2001). Finding collective events: Sources, searches, timing. Sociological Methods & Research, 30(2), 131–169. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. 10.1086/226550 Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. (2015). How streams of communication reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 28–48. 10.5465/amr.2013.0274 O’Connor, A., Parcha, J. M., & Tulibaski, K. G. (2017). The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility communication: An intra-industry comparison of MNCs’ and SMEs’ CSR reports. Management Communication Quarterly, 1–30. 10.1177/0893318917704512 O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 529–551. 10.1177/ 0893318909358747 Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourses and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635–652. 10.5465/amr.2004.14497617 Ponte, S., Richey, L. A., & Baab, M. (2009). Bono’s product (RED) initiative: Corporate social responsibility that solves the problems of ‘distant others’. Third World Quarterly, 30(2), 301–317. 10.1080/01436590802 681074

71

Amy O’Connor and John C. Lammers Risi, D. (2022). Business and society research drawing on institutionalism: Integrating normative and descriptive research on values. Business & Society, 61(2), 305–339. 10.1177/0007650320928959 Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342 Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. University of California Press. Sillince, J. A. A., & Barker, J. R. (2012). A tropological theory of institutionalization. Organization Studies, 33(1), 7–38. 10.1177/0170840611425735 Slager, R., Gond, J. P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33(5/6), 763–790. 10.1177/0170840612443628 Sorsa, V. (2008). How to explain socially responsible corporate actions institutionally: Theoretical and methodological critique. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 13(1). https://ssrn.com/ abstract=1446747 Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). SAGE Publications. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory [electronic version]. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). SAGE Publications. Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639–1660. 10.1177/0170840606068343 Yang, A., Liu, W., & Wang, R. (2020). Cross sector alliances in the global refugee crisis: An institutional theory approach. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29, 646–660. 10.111/beer.12288 Zhou, A. (2021). Communicating corporate LGBTQ advocacy: A computational comparison of the global CSR discourse. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 10261. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102061 Zorn, T. E., Flanagin, A. J., & Shoham, M. D. (2011). Institutional and noninstitutional influences on information and communication technology adoption and use among nonprofit organizations. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 1–33. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01387.x

72

6 CONSTITUTIVE VIEWS ON CSR COMMUNICATION: THE COMMUNICATIVE CONSTITUTION OF RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION, ORGANIZING, AND ORGANIZATIONALITY Dennis Schoeneborn, Sarah Glozer, and Hannah Trittin-Ulbrich

Introduction The field of CSR communication (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Du et al., 2010) is concerned with how organizations negotiate meanings about their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, both in interactions with external stakeholders (e.g., NGOs, the media) and/or with internal stakeholders (e.g., employees). Traditionally, scholars have looked at CSR communication either from (1) strategic-instrumental, (2) critical-normative, or (3) institutional views. Strategic-instrumental views (e.g., Du et al., 2010) are primarily interested in how CSR communication can be used as a means to achieve an organization’s strategic ends (e.g., increase in reputation or profitability). Criticalnormative views (e.g., Scherer & Palazzo, 2007) focus on how CSR communication should be done in an ideal-typical way and in line with moral societal values. The assumption here is that CSR communication, if conducted in accordance with the (Habermasian) ideal of a dominance-free dialogue, can have a formative and fruitful impact on the business practices of an organization, as well (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). Institutional views (e.g., Campbell, 2007) try to explain descriptively why (or why not), firms engage in practices of CSR and CSR communication in the first place. This is usually explained by highlighting organizations’ needs to adapt to expectations in its environment to attain legitimacy. In recent years, we can also observe the emergence of a fourth theoretical perspective on CSR communication, that is, a communication-as-constitutive (CCO) view (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013; Schultz et al., 2013; Vollero et al., 2022). CCO scholarship rests on the assumption that communication is not only the explanandum, i.e., the phenomenon to be explained – but, to the contrary, communication can also serve as the explanans, that is, the primary mode of explanation for the occurrence of social or organizational phenomena (Ashcraft et al., 2009). Accordingly, applied to the CSR context, CCO perspectives focus on how communication predates and brings forth practices of CSR (Christensen et al., 2013; Schoeneborn et al., 2020a). As Schultz et al. (2013) argue, a CCO perspective is valuable especially in today’s digital and networked DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-8

73

Dennis Schoeneborn et al.

society, since a communication-centered lens can help to explain the new realities and fluid dynamics of an organization’s stakeholder relations (see also Glozer et al., 2019). CCO is gaining traction in the scholarly community on CSR communication, for instance, within conferences and review articles (Crane & Glozer, 2016). Furthermore, a recent special issue on “CSR and communication” published in Business and Society explicates a research agenda of “formative” (i.e., constitutive) views on CSR communication (Schoeneborn et al., 2020a). In this chapter, we provide a consolidated overview of CSR communication scholarship from a CCO perspective. We first offer a summary of more general works on CCO, before spelling out the implications of CCO scholarship for CSR communication as a field. We conclude the chapter with some final reflections and an outlook for future research.

What Is CCO? The CCO perspective initially emerged in organizational communication studies, but has found increasing attention in the wider field of organization and management studies, in the meantime (Ashcraft et al., 2009; Cooren et al., 2011). The main impetus of CCO scholarship is to understand organizations first and foremost as communication-born phenomena: organizations come into existence through communication by human actors (as well as non-human actors, such as tools, technologies, or other artifacts). CCO scholarship has been applied to various phenomena in and around organizations, such as matters of authority (Taylor & Van Every, 2014), change (Ford & Ford, 1995), or diversity (Trittin-Ulbrich & Villesèche, in press), to name just a few. Most typically, CCO scholarship is presented by subdividing the field into three main schools of thought: (1) the “Montreal School” (e.g., Taylor & Van Every, 2000) that mainly draws on insights from Latour’s actor-network theory or Austin and Searle’s speech act theory (among other sources of inspiration); (2) the “Four Flows” School (e.g., McPhee & Zaug, 2000) that is primarily based on Giddens’s structuration theory; and (3) the “Luhmann School” (e.g., Schoeneborn, 2011) that draws on Luhmann’s theory of organizations as autopoietic social systems. More recently, Schoeneborn et al. (2019) have suggested a new systematization of contemporary CCO scholarship, differentiating between three orientations of the object of communicative constitution: organization as an entity or noun, organizing as a process or verb, and organizationality as an adjective or attribute. The first orientation in CCO scholarship looks at the communicative constitution of the organization as an entity or noun. Works following this orientation are concerned with investigating the fundamental question of how an organization as a social entity or actor emerges out of communication and how it is maintained over time (Luhmann, 2019; Taylor & Van Every 2000). Importantly, the organization is created through recurrent communicative attributions (Bencherki & Cooren, 2011). This understanding of CCO is particularly suitable for studies of CSR that ask how the organization as a higher-level authority comes into being and gains agency in its own right (Taylor & Cooren, 1997), as well as in interaction with external stakeholders (Kuhn, 2008). A second orientation in CCO scholarship concentrates on the communicative constitution of organizing as a process or verb. The focus here is not so much on an explanation of the organization as an (overall) social entity, but on the investigation of the constitutive role of communication for specific processes of organizing, such as CSR and sustainability practices (Christensen et al., 2013). This understanding is particularly suitable for studies that reveal the formative role of communication in paving the way for institutionalizing (Haack et al., 2012) or changing (Ford & Ford, 1995) organizational practices. A third and most recent orientation of CCO scholarship examines the communicative constitution of organizationality as an attribute or adjective. Works in this orientation are devoted to the question of, “what makes communication organizational?” (Taylor & Cooren, 1997, p. 409). The understanding follows the assumption that the possibility of organization is already inherent in all 74

Constitutive Views on CSR Communication

communication and that it consequently makes sense to understand organizationality as a gradual property of social collectives (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015). This understanding is useful for CSR studies that move beyond the focus on formal organization (e.g., corporations) but that explore also the role of communication in facilitating new, alternative, and fluid forms of organization (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011; Blagoev et al., 2019).

Implications of CCO Scholarship for CSR Communication In a next step, we outline main implications for CSR communication based on the three different orientations of CCO scholarship (i.e., the communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality; Schoeneborn et al., 2019).

The Communicative Constitution of the Organization The first orientation within CCO scholarship is concerned with studying the role of communication in constituting the organization as entity or actor. Even though CCO scholarship is concerned with communication more broadly, it can be used to shed light on the particular role of CSR communication, as well (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). This stream of research is focused on how CSR communication contributes to the constitution and institutionalization of the organization in its entirety (e.g., Cooren, 2020; Kuhn, 2008). Kuhn’s “communicative theory of the firm” (2008) can be seen as one main representative of this orientation. In his article, Kuhn adds to prior debates on the “theory of the firm” by proposing a relational understanding of organizations. In this view, organizations come into being not only through communicative practices by organizational members but also by non-members, for instance, through CSR and stakeholder communication. It is only through intense communicative relations with its environment that an organization is able to marshal consent with intra- and extraorganizational stakeholders that is needed to gain legitimacy for its operations (see also Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). The key here is recurrent communicative attributions that let the organization as (legitimate) collective actor emerge (Buhmann & Schoeneborn, 2021). In the same context, practices of CSR communication can imply connotations of strong collective actorhood, since they evoke imaginations of the organization as a good “corporate citizen”. In a similar vein, Schoeneborn and Trittin (2013) propose understanding organizations as communicatively constituted phenomena. Importantly, the authors argue that CSR communication is only one of many, co-occurring discourses that jointly make up the organization as a social entity and actor. For CSR communication to gain traction in the communicative constitution of an organization then depends on the extent to which CSR-related discourses can become connected to other discourses that shape an organization (e.g., marketing, operations, finance, etc.). One key implication here is that CSR managers need to engage in internal translation work and reframing of societal, CSR-related discourses (see also Girschik’s notion, 2020, of “internal activism”). One of the most recent elaborations on the communicative constitution of the organization as an entity and actor has been proposed by Cooren (2020). His article is grounded in the notion of “ventriloquism”, that is, the metaphorical idea that, akin to a ventriloquist and his/her dummy, spokespersons (or spokesobjects) start to “evoke” an organization by speaking on its behalf. In turn, the organization (or the “dummy”) may also gain agency over its spokepersons (the “ventriloquists”) by limiting the range of what can be validly said on its behalf (see also Bencherki & Cooren, 2011). By relating the notion of ventriloquism to the area of CSR, Cooren (2020) highlights the need to open our view for a much wider range of phenomena and values that become “voiced” in organizational settings. Importantly, organizations need to become cognizant of not only the voices of human stakeholders (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013) but also the “voices” of the natural environment, unborn 75

Dennis Schoeneborn et al.

generations, etc. In this regard, Cooren’s article (2020) can be seen as one of the rather few works that combine CCO scholarship with a normative impetus (see also Schoeneborn et al., 2020b). In sum, even if CCO maintains that organizations come into being in and through multiple cooccurring discourses (Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017), the locus of responsibility is seen here as residing centrally with the organization as a collective actor. One main question in this orientation is who (or what) can validly serve as a spokesperson (or spokesobject) for “the” organization (Bencherki & Cooren, 2011; Cooren, 2020). In this way, it opens up the field of CSR communication for a fascinating range of research questions, some of which are addressed in the third orientation of CCO scholarship that is focused on the communicative constitution of organizationality (e.g., phenomena of open organizing).

The Communicative Constitution of Organizing The second area in which CCO theorizing has gained traction is in the communicative constitution of (responsible) organizing. Studies following this orientation focus primarily on how communication shapes and transforms practices of organizing. In this sense, this research bears certain cross-relations to research on change communication (e.g., Ford & Ford, 1995). Most prominently, the debate around the role of aspirational talk, defined as “communication, which announces ideals and intentions rather than reflect actual behaviours” (Christensen et al., 2013, p. 373), can be seen as a main representative of this orientation. Traditionally, CSR research has shed critical light on the fact that in some firms, CSR communication tends to be decoupled from actual business practices and thus can be seen as a hypocritical, corporate attempt to “greenwash” (e.g., Glozer & Morsing, 2019; Siano et al., 2017). In contrast, the notion of aspirational talk indicates that if corporations and their stakeholders communicate or “talk” about their future aims and goals of CSR, this can have a formative effect on how corporations act upon these concerns (Christensen et al., 2013). In various publications, Christensen et al. (2013, 2020, 2021) theorize why, and under which conditions, talk about CSR may initiate that corporations subsequently “walk their talk” and implement CSR into their business practice. Other studies have empirically shown that, indeed, communicating aspirations inside and outside of the firm may bring about change in the way corporations engage in CSR (e.g., Haack et al., 2012; Koep, 2017; Penttilä, 2020). Haack and his colleagues (2012) explore, for example, the process of CSR standardization in the banking industry. They find that once firms’ public communication and commitment to CSR standards is “talked into being”, new CSR practices emerge, fostering the institutionalization of the standard. Recently, the aspirational talk debate has shifted toward the investigation of the boundary conditions which make it likely that future-oriented CSR communication leads to the increasing implementation of CSR. Winkler et al. (2020), for example, highlight that aspirational talk can also – under certain circumstances – lead to the opposite effect and the rejection of CSR. This is particularly likely if stakeholders adhere too closely to the corporate aspirational talk rhetoric, leading to uncritical belief in or cynical distance toward the talk. Similarly, Lauriano et al. (in press) find that if employees experience a word-deed misalignment on part of their highly committed organizations firm, this may lead to hypocrisy accusations and potentially a disengagement of employees with the corporate aspirations in CSR. Font et al. (2017) address in their study the formative effect of CSR noncommunication, that is, the phenomenon of “greenhushing”. More specifically, the authors suggest that when external stakeholders do not sufficiently appreciate a firm’s substantive commitment to CSR, such firms are more likely to “greenhush”, that is, to communicatively downplay their commitment to CSR, which can ultimately lead to the institutionalization of low-degree CSR practices. In their review of formative views on CSR communication, Schoeneborn et al. (2020a) conclude that CSR communication submits to either a “walking-to-talk” logic, that is, a view that suggests that actions precede communication (e.g., Girschik, 2020), or a “talking-to-walk” logic, 76

Constitutive Views on CSR Communication

that is, one in which communication precedes substantive actions in CSR. Most research on aspirational CSR talk (e.g., Christensen et al., 2013, 2020) follow this latter logic. Schoeneborn et al. (2020a) suggest that fully subscribing to a formative view on communication means to overcome the dichotomy between talk and action and recognizing that they are ultimately two sides of the same coin; in other words, one can study the communicative dimension of action and the actionability dimension of communication (see also Ford & Ford, 1995). Examples of such “t(w)alking” views (Schoeneborn et al., 2020a), which would look at the mutually constitutive relation between talk and action, however, remain scarce, thus leaving ample opportunity for future research. Taken together, one of the main merits of the aspirational talk debate and related studies is that these works enlighten our understanding of how and through which communicative practices (i.e., future-oriented communication) organizing is facilitated or changed in CSR. Importantly, other studies concerned with the communicative constitution of organizing in CSR have begun to engage in normative-ethical concerns relating to the question of which voices (i.e., opinions, discourses, expressions, values) should be included in the communicative constitution of an organization (e.g., Cooren, 2020; Schoeneborn et al., 2020b). Drawing on central concepts of CSR and sustainability research, such as dialogue and polyphony, scholars discuss which voices or stakeholders should be considered in the communicative constitution of organizing in CSR, but also within the organization as a whole (Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017). In sum, studies on the communicative constitution of organizing in CSR focus on the how and why organizational reality is “talked into being” through communication in and around CSR. A common thread that runs across studies in this orientation is their analytical focus on corporations and their engagement with internal and external voices. However, importantly, particularly those works alluding to the constitutive role of organizing through multiple voices (e.g., Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017), they indicate a shared responsibility and actionability of internal and external voices for the communicative constitution of (responsible) organizing. These studies consequently demonstrate certain commonalities with research on the communicative constitution of organizationality, which will be discussed in the next sub-section.

The Communicative Constitution of Organizationality The third area of CCO theorizing in CSR research concerns the communicative constitution of organizationality as an attribute or adjective. Pertaining to the question of “what makes communication organizational” (Taylor & Cooren, 1997, p. 409), the lens of organizationality transcends the distinction between “organization” and “non-organization” (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015). Organizationality views can help to cast a spotlight on the open, fluid, and fragmented organizational structures and contexts in which CSR is negotiated, such as social movements, networks, markets and communities (Schoeneborn et al., 2019). While this third orientation of CCO thinking is more recent and less developed than the preceding two orientations, it closely connects with the notion of “partial organizations” (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011). Concepts like organizationality or partial organization open our view to consider a much wider range of organizing phenomena that occur beyond the boundaries of traditional, formal organizations (that would be characterized by typical elements such as clear rules, membership, or hierarchies). In the context of CSR, communication may also cut across traditional boundaries and lead to hybrid organizational settings, in which “fully-fledged” and “partial” forms of organizing coexist (Nielsen, 2018). Such insights contribute to our understanding of contexts that afford higher and lower degrees of organization (Schoeneborn et al., 2019). For instance, CSR communications that occur in social media enable the public negotiation of what constitutes responsibility (Glozer et al., 2019; Maiorescu-Murphy, 2022), as well as the emergence of informal organization beyond the boundary of official CSR “orders” (e.g., those spelled out in CSR reports, press releases, website 77

Dennis Schoeneborn et al.

communications, and the like). Stohl et al. (2017) found that even social media policies that regulate employee communications activities, “embody […] sensibilities and communicative values” (p. 416) and thus instantiate CSR. Dobusch and Schoeneborn’s (2015) analysis of the hacker collective “Anonymous” also offers empirical insights into organizationality at the digital interface. Herein, the authors discuss how the collective operates via “low degrees of organizationality” in the form of open and loose boundaries and membership. Yet, conversely, the collective is also able to temporarily mobilize high degrees of organizationality, for instance, when (dis)associating hacker’s identities from collective efforts. This distinction between decentralized and centralized pursuits – or low to high organizationality – is mediated via communication; specifically, speech acts as “identity claims” that concern what the social collective is, does or aspires to be. Similarly, Reinecke and Ansari (2021) find in their analysis of the decentralized “Occupy” socio-political movement that protesters utilize organizational frames to guide collective communicative activities and material activities, such as “capitalism is crisis” when targeting financial establishments. This view of organizationality opens up an understanding of the emergence of organization; specifically, how fragmented and diversified communications become interconnected over time and space via “connective action” (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Such narrative “networks” (see also Dutta & Ring, 2021; Schultz et al., 2013) may occur in the contexts of brands, constituted by dispersed consumer voices devoid of centralized organizational or managerial “control” (Mumby, 2016). In the context of CSR, such gradual understanding of organizations – and their responsibilities – continues to emerge via new organizational forms facilitated at the digital interface, such as within video games (Coombs & Holladay, 2015) or “gamification”; the introduction of game elements to non-game contexts (Maltseva et al., 2018). The use of such platforms to engage in CSR communication alludes to the fluid and creative nature of organizing outside of formal organizational contexts. The communicative constitution of organizationality (beyond the boundaries of formal organizations), may also take place through more unconventional contexts. Social media firestorms – a “sudden discharge of large quantities of messages containing negative word-of-mouth and complaint behavior” (Pfeffer et al., 2014, p. 118) that often emerges if irresponsible business practice is exposed – may be conceived as a temporary (low-threshold and temporary) form of organization. Kim and her colleagues (2021) for instance, discuss the types of organizations or individuals that become the targets of public condemnation as part of CSR communications, alongside the scope and focus of condemnation in relation to social issues. These communicative acts are inherently organizational in the context of crisis communication as, “when users post their opinions on a given event or issue with certain keywords or hashtags attached, they are contributing to collective accumulations of a certain social claim or opinion with which the keywords or hashtags are linked” (ibid., p. 2). CSR communication taking place in virtual contexts are, therefore, shaped by actions such as “likes”, “shares”, and hashtags (Papacharissi, 2015), “hypertextual” cues (e.g., website links, Albu & Etter, 2016), as well as word limits for posts (Etter & Vestergaard, 2015). With the increasing acknowledgement of the algorithmic structuring of much of our online (non-)human interactions, we may further argue that features of the virtual world can be studied in relation to their degree of organizationality. However, if the locus of organization can also reside outside of the boundaries of formal organizations, questions arise around the locus of organizational responsibilities, as well. If we think of organizations as evolving phenomenon comprised of myriad voices, rather than stable entities, the locus of responsibility becomes somewhat more plural and fragmented in the CCO orientation of organizationality. Returning to our Anonymous example, as Schoeneborn & Dobusch, (2019, p. 326) argue, “if anyone can speak on behalf of Anonymous, who cannot?” Organizationality illuminates the voice of actors often overlooked as “external” to the organization and its responsibilities. For instance, we may consider if and how do platform labourers working 78

Constitutive Views on CSR Communication

within dynamic forms of organization constitute responsibility and does this differ from the organizations that they work for? In this vein, Nielsen (2018, p. 696) argues that the platform economy presents, “a series of interesting dilemmas including questions of responsibility and ownership as platforms typically attempt to adopt a shroud of utilitarian function in which they are not an actor but rather the facilitating mechanisms of a process”. Indeed, the attribution of (non-)organizational features is likely to also involve tension and contestation (Castelló & Lopez-Berzosa, 2021). In sum, the final orientation of CCO scholarship focuses on degrees of organizationality as the main object of constitution. The locus of responsibility in this sense is fragmented and diversified in line with new and emergent forms of “partial” organizations (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011), such as social collectives (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015), the platform economy (Nielsen, 2018) and social media firestorms (Kim et al., 2021). Consequently, the core question of what constitutes organizationality in the context of open organizing remains a core focus area of interest, as well as the boundary-spanning features of CSR communication.

Conclusion and Outlook In sum, we have spelled out in this chapter what the three main orientations of CCO scholarship – the communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality – imply for the research area of CSR communication. Yet, we do not consider these orientations as mutually exclusive, but they tend to exhibit partial overlaps. In Table 6.1, we signpost key distinctions between the three orientations. As Table 6.1 shows, the three views are distinct especially when it comes to the object of constitution; in other words, what is it that is constituted in and through communication: the organization as a noun/entity, pratices of organizing as a verb/process, or different degrees of being organizational as an adjective/attribute. From this distinction we can furthermore derive that the three orientations differ in where they place the locus of responsibility. For example, while the first orientation is useful to study how “the” organization as an actor is talked into being and thus can be addressed also as a (centrally/collectively) responsible entity, the third orientation rather explores organizational phenomena that occur beyond the boundaries of formal organizations. Hence, in this view the question arises, for instance, as to where to place the locus of responsibility in the case of loose and fluid social collectives where acts can neither be traced back to specific contributors nor to “the” organization as a collective entity and actor (e.g., in the case of hacker collectives, Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015; or social media firestorms; Etter et al., 2019). The three orientations each yield different implications for neighboring areas within communication studies. First, the communicative constitution of organization view has direct implications for the field of public relations (PR). As Buhmann and Schoeneborn (2021) highlight, if we do not take the existence of organizations as corporate actors as a given, but instead look at the very communication processes that bring forth such collective actorhood, it is worthwhile analyzing the particular role of PR communication (e.g., communicative relations with various stakeholder) in maintaining this actorhood status. Second, the communicative constitution of organizing view is often discussed in the context of change. For instance, the notion of aspirational talk (Christensen et al., 2013) describes a situation where an organization’s bold aspirations – as expressed in external, public communication – can play an important role in driving organizational change toward implementing CSR. In this regard, the work of Christensen et al. (2013, 2021) offers fruitful cross-connections to key works in change communication (e.g., Ford & Ford, 1995) that have similarly explored the performative character of talk for organizational change. Third, the communicative constitution of organizationality view can help shed new light on the area of crisis communication. While a majority of works on crisis communication is concerned with how corporations can best cope with reputational crises, i.e., by 79

Dennis Schoeneborn et al. Table 6.1 Three constitutive views on CSR communication Communicative constitution of…

…Organization

…Organizing

…Organizationality

Object of constitution Locus of responsibility Which voices are involved?

“The” organization as entity/actor Central

Practices of organizing Central or shared

Degrees of organizationality of a social phenomenon Fragmented/diversified

Typically organizational members or other designated/official spokespeople PR

Negotiation between members and nonmembers

Voices outside the boundaries of formal organization

Change communication

Crisis communication

How does CSR communication contribute to the constitution of the organization as a collective (and responsible) actor? How (and why) do voices gain authority to speak on behalf of the organization?

What are the boundary conditions under which CSRb communication becomes performative for organizing, such as CSR/ sustainability practices? Which voices should be included in the communicative constitution of an organization?

Cooren (2020), Kuhn (2008),

Christensen et al. (2013), Scherer & Palazzo (2007)

How can CSR communication (in a broader sense) contribute to the legitimation and responsibilization of social collectives beyond formal organizations? How can we better understand CSR practices that exist beyond formal organizations? Dobusch and Schoeneborn (2015), Glozer et al. (2019), Nielsen (2018)

Affected neighboring areas in comm. studies Exemplary research questions

Exemplary studies

aiming to “control” and “manage” stakeholder dissent (Kim et al., 2021), a CCO view shifts the focus of attention toward studying the organizationality of the social collectives and movements that mobilize such crises to begin with, especially on digital platforms. Taken together, our chapter contributes to CSR communication studies by distinguishing the three main orientations of CCO scholarship that can be useful to study CSR communication studies in different ways. As such, we believe that this orientation has great potential to inform and enrich CSR communication scholarship by way of greater appreciation of the diversity and complexity of organizational phenomena in today’s digitally networked society (see also Schultz et al., 2013). Based on our analysis, we now outline three promising avenues for future CSR communications research that cut across the three CCO orientations we have articulated in this chapter, related to themes of (1) tension, (2) temporality, and (3) non-communication in CSR communication.

The Role of Tensions as a Driver for CSR Communication First, what is the constitutive or formative impact of agonistic and dissensual communication for organizing in CSR? Communication between organizations and their various stakeholders is often riddled with tension, particularly when civil society actors are involved. Recently, scholars have

80

Constitutive Views on CSR Communication

begun to outline how these conflicts in stakeholder dialogues may be inevitable, but also desireable (e.g., Castelló & Lopez-Berzosa, 2021; Dawson & Brunner, 2020). The notion of “agonistic deliberation” (Brand et al., 2020) recognizes that social actors have different roles in society and bring different perspectives which challenge the seeking of “consensus”. Instead, communication between firms and their stakeholders need a certain degree of openness and tolerance for conflict. Future CCO-based research could, for example, study what organizing practices agonistic deliberations between firms and their stakeholders bring about, elaborating upon the boundary conditions under which CSR talk becomes performative for organizing. Greater understanding the means by which certain stakeholders gain authority and legitimacy to speak on behalf of the organization may offer fruitful insight into more fluid forms of organization (Cooren, 2020). Finally, future research could further advance ethical-normative approaches to the study of the constitutive role of communication on CSR and argue whose (agonistic) voices should become constitutive for organizing practices.

The Role of Temporality in Constructing CSR Communication Second, what is the role of temporality in organizing CSR communication? Indeed, what comes first: CSR (practices) or communication? Given that studies within the first orientation of CCO scholarship pertain to how organizations as actor emerge, and are maintained, through communication (Luhmann, 2019; Taylor & Van Every, 2000), a better appreciation of the evolution of organizations as (un)responsible actors could prove fruitful in understanding both the gradual constitution and institutionalization of the organization, as how the boundaries between “internal” and “external” organizational constituents may shift over time. CSR communications taking place in “hyper-chronotopical” social media environments see truths mobilized and continually refined in such a way that organizations are opened up to greater (and quicker) scrutiny (Glozer et al., 2019). How responsive are organizations (and stakeholders) to issues of CSR in “real-time”? Furthermore, can we conceptualize organizational digital “footprints” and legacy texts as organizational artifacts where organizations are being held to account by various versions of themselves? It is also important to note that despite much discussion of the deliberative potential of digital settings, the majority of stakeholder-initiated CSR communication still occurs asynchronously (Okazaki et al., 2020). What occurs within CSR communicative voids between interactions, and even off- and online worlds?

The Performativity of Non-Communication/Silence Finally, we believe there is value in studying the increasing trend of “non-communication” in the context of CSR. As mentioned above, Font and his colleagues (2017) have revealed that some firms in the hotel business engage in “greenhushing”, that is, the deliberate withholding or understating of CSR and sustainability achievements. Carlos and Lewis (2018) have collected evidence for a similar trend of such “strategic silence” also in other industries. However, and in line with Watzlawick et al.’s (1967) famous axiom “one cannot not communicate” (p. 48), it is valid to assume that “silence on the matter of CSR is also a form of communication” in its own right (Ihlen et al., 2011, p. 11). Accordingly, we argue that future research on CSR communication should take a closer look at the constitutive and performative effects of such (attempts of) non-communication in the area of CSR and sustainability (see also Brennan et al., 2013).

Discussion Questions 1

If communication constitutes phenomena of organization and organizing, what are the implications for the role of CSR communication for organizations? 81

Dennis Schoeneborn et al.

2

3

4

Under which boundary conditions is CSR communication likely to become constitutive/ performative for CSR; in other words, under which conditions can CSR communication lead organizations to become more responsible and sustainable? What are some of the consequences when organizations decide to be silent about their achievements in the area of CSR/sustainability? And is such “greenhushing” (i.e., doing good but not talking about it) desirable at all? How do ephemeral and (a)synchronous social media contexts (e.g., Instagram stories that disappear over time) shape the possibilities for firms to engage in CSR/stakeholder communication?

References Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18(1), 83–104. Albu, O. B., & Etter, M. (2016). Hypertextuality and social media: A study of the constitutive and paradoxical implications of organizational twitter use. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 5–31. Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64. Bencherki, N., & Cooren, F. (2011). Having to be: The possessive constitution of organization. Human Relations, 64(12), 1579–1607. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. Blagoev, B., Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2019). ‘We are all herd animals’: Community and organizationality in coworking spaces. Organization, 26(6), 894–916. Brand, T., Blok, V., & Verweij, M. (2020). Stakeholder dialogue as agonistic deliberation: Exploring the role of conflict and self-interest in business-NGO interaction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30, 3–30. Brennan, N. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Beelitz, A. (2013). Dialogism in corporate social responsibility communications: Conceptualising verbal interaction between organisations and their audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 665–679. Buhmann, A., & Schoeneborn, D. (2021). Envisioning PR research without taking organizations as collective actors for granted: A rejoinder and extension to Hou. Public Relations Inquiry, 10(1), 119–127. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018). Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 130–169. Castelló, I., & Lopez-Berzosa, D. (2021). Affects in online stakeholder engagement: A dissensus perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1–36. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20, 372–393. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2020). Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 114, 327–335. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2021). Talk–action dynamics: Modalities of aspirational talk. Organization Studies, 42(3), 407–427. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2015). Two-minute drill: Video games and social media to advance CSR. In Corporate social responsibility in the digital age. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Cooren, F. (2020). A communicative constitutive perspective on corporate social responsibility: Ventriloquism, undecidability, and surprisability. Business & Society, 59(1), 175–197. Cooren, F., Kuhn, T. R., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. Dawson, V. R., & Brunner, E. (2020). Corporate social responsibility on wild public networks: Communicating to disparate and multivocal stakeholders. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(1), 58–84. Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1005–1035. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.

82

Constitutive Views on CSR Communication Dutta, K., & Ring, K. (2021). Do do-gooders do well? Corporate social responsibility, business models and IPO performance. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 23(2), 245–253. Etter, M., Fieseler, C., & Whelan, G. (2019). Sharing economy, sharing responsibility? Corporate social responsibility in the digital age. Journal of Business Ethics 159, 935–942. Etter, M. A., & Vestergaard, A. (2015). Facebook and the public framing of a corporate crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 163–177. Font, X., Elgammal, I., & Lamond, I. (2017). Greenhushing: The deliberate under communicating of sustainability practices by tourism businesses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 1007–1023. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570. Girschik, V. (2020). Shared responsibility for societal problems: The role of internal activists in reframing corporate responsibility. Business & Society, 59, 34–66. Glozer, S., Caruana, R., & Hibbert, S. A. (2019). The never-ending story: Discursive legitimation in social media dialogue. Organization Studies, 40(5), 625–650. Glozer, S., & Morsing, M. (2019). Helpful hypocrisy? Investigating humour and ‘double talk’ in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 114(6), 363–375. Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D., & Wickert, C. (2012). Talking the talk, moral entrapment, creeping commitment? Exploring narrative dynamics in corporate responsibility standardization. Organization Studies, 33, 815–845. Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. Wiley. Kim, S., Sung, K. H., Ji, Y., Xing, C., & Qu, J. G. (2021). Online firestorms in social media: Comparative research between china Weibo and USA twitter. Public Relations Review, 47(1). Koep, L. (2017). Tensions in aspirational CSR communication—a longitudinal investigation of CSR reporting. Sustainability, 9(12), 1–28. Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intraorganizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8–9), 1227–1254. Lauriano, L. A., Reinecke, J., & Etter, M. (in press). When aspirational talk backfires: The role of moral judgements in employees’ hypocrisy interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics. Luhmann, N. (2019). Organization and decision. Cambridge University Press. Maiorescu-Murphy, R. D. (2022). Business-centered versus socially responsible corporate diversity communication. An assessment of stakeholder (dis)agreement on twitter. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102138. Maltseva, K., Fieseler, C., & Trittin-Ulbrich, H. (2018). The challenges of gamifying CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 44–62. McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organization: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1/2), 1–16. Mumby, D. K. (2016). Organizing beyond organization: Branding, discourse, and communicative capitalism. Organization, 23(6), 884–907. Nielsen, K. R. (2018). Crowdfunding through a partial organization lens – the co-dependent organization. European Management Journal, 36(6), 695–707. Okazaki, S., Plangger, K., West, D., & Menéndez, H. D. (2020). Exploring digital corporate social responsibility communications on Twitter. Journal of Business Research, 117, 675–682. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press. Penttilä, V. (2020). Aspirational talk in strategy texts: A longitudinal case study of strategic episodes in corporate social responsibility communication. Business & Society, 59(1), 67–97. Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2), 117–128. Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2021). Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the occupy movement. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 378–408. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120. Schoeneborn, D. (2011). Organization as communication: A Luhmannian perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 663–689. Schoeneborn, D., & Dobushc, L. (2019). Alternating between partial and complete organization: The case of anonymous. In Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (Eds). Organization outside organizations: The abundance of partial organization in social life. Cambridge University Press. 318–333. Schoeneborn, D., & Trittin, H. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 193–211.

83

Dennis Schoeneborn et al. Schoeneborn, D., Kuhn, T. R., & Kärreman, D. (2019). The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 475–496. Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020a). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and t(w)alking. Business & Society, 59, 5–33. Schoeneborn, D., Trittin-Ulbrich, H., & Cooren, F. (2020b). Consensus vs. dissensus: The communicative constitution of responsible management. In O. Laasch, D. Jamali, R. E. Freeman, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The research handbook of responsible management (pp. 453–469). Edward Elgar. Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692. Siano, A., Vollero, A., Conte, F., & Amabile, S. (2017). “More than words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal. Journal of Business Research, 71, 27–37. Stohl, C., Etter, M., Banghart, S., & Woo, D. (2017). Social media policies: Implications for contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 413–436. Taylor, J. R., & Cooren, F. (1997). What makes communication ‘organizational’? How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(4), 409–438. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Erlbaum. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2014). When organization fails: Why authority matters. Routledge. Trittin, H., & Schoeneborn, D. (2017). Diversity as polyphony: Reconceptualizing diversity management from a communication-centered perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 305–322. Trittin-Ulbrich, H., & Villesèche, F. (in press). Voices, bodies and organizations: Bridging CCO scholarship and diversity research. In J. Basque, N. Bencherki, & T. R. Kuhn (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the communicative constitution of organizations. Routledge. Vollero, A., Yin, J., & Siano, A. (2022). Convergence or divergence? A comparative analysis of CSR communication by leading firms in Asia, Europe, and North America. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102–142. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. M., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. Norton. Winkler, P., Etter, M., & Castelló, I. (2020). Vicious and virtuous circles of aspirational talk: From selfpersuasive to agonistic CSR rhetoric. Business & Society, 59(1), 98–128.

84

7 TOWARD A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL NETWORK MODEL OF CSR INITIATIVES Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives are often networked. For example, when the United States grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic along with a racial injustice uprising in 2020, Capital One announced its Capital One Impact Initiative that committed US$200 million over five years to support socioeconomic mobility in underserved communities and combat COVID-19 ramifications. Capital One worked with organizations and NGOs like Impact Ventures and Paul Quinn College to provide education and housing programs as well as medical goods and services to underserved communities (CSRWire.com, 2021). Despite its affluence, Capital One could not carry out their initiative alone; it relied on partnerships and cooperation within networks of organizations committed to the issues and initiative. Capital One’s CSR initiative is not rare. Decades of research has documented the prevalence of CSR-initiative networks around the world (Albareda & Waddock, 2018; Arevalo & Aravind, 2017; Saffer, 2019; Stohl & Stohl, 2010; Svendsen & Laberge, 2006; Yang & Liu, 2020). Others have produced case studies based in Asia (Lai & Fu, 2021; Yang & Cheong, 2019), Latin America (Beckman et al., 2009), and North America (Shumate et al., 2018), all of which reiterated that networks are critical to CSR efficacy. Unfortunately, most of the existing research uses cross-sectional data and focuses only on case studies or small samples of organizations. Where others have demonstrated how a network approach can help us recognize the importance of networks for CSR initiatives (Albareda & Waddock, 2018; Yang & Liu, 2020), we address the need to develop theories that assess the longterm sustainability of CSR networks. Indeed, prior works have offered useful theoretical and analytical frameworks. The collaborative value creation model equips researchers with the ability to examine how business – nonprofit collaborative dyads can co-create economic, social, and environmental value for society, organizations, and individuals (Austin & Seitandidi, 2012a, 2012b). The symbiotic sustainability model, one of the most widely cited CSR network framework in strategic communication, describes the economic, social, and cultural capital that can be mobilized or restricted when businesses and nonprofits communicate about the existence and character of their partnerships to stakeholders (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010; Shumate et al., 2018). Yet, critical questions remain unanswered like: how long can CSR initiate networks last? What types of partnerships are more likely to resist decay? What impact do CSR networks have

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-9

85

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

on participating organizations and their organizational communities? Addressing these questions can help us comprehend the long-term value and impact of CSR networks. The long-term stability of CSR initiative networks is by no means easy to maintain. Corporations, NGOs, and government agencies are different types of organizations following different institutional norms and values (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010). Difficulty in communication, mistrust, misalignment in values and interests may often prevent the long-term success of such initiatives (Saffer, 2019; Saffer et al., 2018). Yet, contemporary research and theoretical frameworks on CSR networks tend to focus on confirming the existence of CSR networks rather than exploring their long-term sustainability. To fill the gap in the literature, in this chapter we propose a multi-dimensional network model of CSR network initiatives. This model draws from recent research in CSR networks (Albareda & Waddock, 2018; Saffer et al., 2018), interorganizational network ecology theory (Xu et al., 2021; Yang, 2020), and ecological research on Blau space (McPherson, 2004; McPherson & RangerMoore, 1991) to propose a new approach to conceptualize CSR initiative networks as operating and evolving in multi-dimensional spaces. This model asserts that resources, values, and interests coshape the niche space in which CSR initiative ties can be created and sustained over time. The model assumes that longitudinal niche movement of interorganizational ties within Blau spaces can determine the efficacy and long-term impact of CSR initiatives among business, civil society, and others. The framework then suggests conditions that would introduce the different rates of tie formation and decay, as well as predict the likelihood for certain relationships to withstand environmental turbulence. Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications are also discussed.

CSR as Multi-Dimensional Interorganizational Networks CSR broadly recognizes that “business and society are intricately woven and that business has a responsibility to respond to societal needs and pressures” (Clark, 2000, p. 366). The concept of corporate actors behaving in a socially responsible manner captures “the expectations and responsibilities of business to society to contribute to the well-being of stockholders, internal and external stakeholders, and the sustainability of our global environment” (Stohl & Stohl, 2010, p. 115). Yet, the significance of CSR often depends on how it is defined and whether it is seen as a concept or a strategy. Despite the amount of scholarly attention and evolution CSR has received since it was first discussed in the mid-20th century, there is no agreed-upon definition of CSR today (Carroll, 1999). Narrow definitions confine CSR to the obligations that organizations have as they pursue their selfinterests – often profits – within the boundaries of social norms and regulatory guidelines (Decker, 2004). Such definitions maintain that organizations are socially responsible so long as they follow the rules. Broader definitions push for the consideration of social and environmental implications of an organization’s activities. Carroll’s (1979) often-cited definition captures this view by asserting that an organization’s social responsibility “encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (p. 500). As Ihlen (2013) noted, this definition of CSR recognizes the social construction of society’s expectations. And as Schultz and colleagues explained, CSR “requires a multi-faceted understanding of many concerns, voices, and conceptions of truth, and an ability to engage across independent and conflicting interpretations of the intricate issues related to corporate behavior” (2013, p. 680). We add that civil society creates space for society’s expectations to be debated and heard among a cacophony of voices. Civil society, in many ways, is where the expectations about corporate behaviors are brought to bear. Entities ranging from activist groups to nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to governmental bodies negotiate their relationships with each other and business as they engage in dialogue about the issues related to corporate behavior. The relationships and dialogue that emerge from these interactions can produce society’s expectations that are then communicated to business in a 86

Multi-Dimensional Network Model

number of ways. NGOs and activist groups, for instance, may use their relationships with business to communicate expectations and, in some cases, enact those expectations as part of a corporation’s CSR initiatives or act as brokers between corporations and regulators. This is where much of the strategic communication literature has focused. When attention turns to business–NGO partnerships or collaboration, CSR as a concept morphs into an organizational strategy. As a strategy for business, CSR is seen for what it can provide in terms of improving an organization’s reputation (Mutch & Aitken, 2009), legitimacy on an issue (Crane et al., 2008), or even employee identification (Turban & Greening, 1997), though those desired business outcomes are not always achieved (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Schultz, 2013). As a strategy for NGOs or other types of civil society organizations, partnering on CSR initiatives can be a means to gaining access to resources “that are otherwise difficult to obtain, including information, funding, and legitimacy” (Lai & Fu, 2021, p. 91; Meyskens et al., 2010; Yanacopulos, 2005). Still, whether CSR is seen as a concept or a strategy used by a business or NGO, we find the building blocks of CSR networks: the interorganizational relationships.

Interorganizational CSR Networks Interorganizational CSR networks are the patterns and relationships that emerge from CSR initiatives (Albareda & Waddock, 2018). CSR networks can range from formal governing bodies that regulate CSR behaviors (e.g., UN Global Compact) to more emergent collections of organizations that have some stake in a CSR issue (Roloff, 2008). The relationships that create CSR networks can also come in different forms. For instance, researchers of CSR networks have used Shumate and Contractor’s (2013) typology to study their flow (Connaughton et al., 2018), semantic (Chung & Jiang, 2017; Zhou, 2021), or representational (Shumate et al., 2018) relations. Across the spectrum of formality and types of relations, communication researchers studying CSR networks from a macro level give “attention toward patterns of communication that shape the organizational landscape, such as prominent social issues” (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010, p. 578) and that “moves away from a dyadic perspective (i.e., the organization-stakeholder relationship) to a communication ecology perspective where various organizations and stakeholders act strategically to achieve their goals” (O’Connor & Shumate, 2018, p. 402). While CSR network research has made important advances, the implications drawn from this body of work tend to be short-term focused in the sense that organizations’ values and strategies are highlighted for influencing an issue or reaping some reward. We seek to shift the focus to the long-term implications on the whole network rather than well-positioned organizations. To make the shift to a long-term focus, it is necessary to rightly position issues within networks. Where CSR networks tend to be defined by the connections among organizations, a long-term view offers researchers an opportunity to see the ways organizations are connected to issues and each other. The multi-stakeholder issue network perspective asserts that organizations are not only stakeholders to each other but to the issues at hand (Roloff, 2008). Importantly, this decentering of organizations elevates issues and makes it possible to see the evolution of issues (Saffer, 2018). Returning to the Capital One Impact Initiative, the issue at hand is socioeconomic mobility. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial injustice uprising of 2020, the social construction of these issues evolved rapidly. Many became acutely aware of the inequalities in terms of healthcare and income that have continued to be unaddressed in the United States for generations. Putting aside the evolution of the collective understandings of socioeconomic mobility, Capital One has set benchmarks for their involvement on a five year timetable. Yet, the issue at hand – socioeconomic mobility – will not be fully addressed in that time. Moreover, when we account for the fact that the social construction of the issue will not be the same in five years, we can begin to see the need to recenter our conceptualization of interorganizational CSR networks away from organizations 87

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

and toward the issue(s) at hand. This assumes CSR is not “achieved” with some moral or ethical actions within a finite time frame; rather, it makes paramount questions about how CSR networks can be sustainable beyond the presence or absence of particular actors like Capital One. Instead of asking questions about whether organizations – corporations, NGOs, or others – reap some reward or enact influence over others via their CSR network initiatives, we ask what the network factors that affect the outcomes of CSR networks. In other words, we offer a model that explains the social network elements influencing the sustainability of CSR networks and their ability to address the issue(s) at hand.

Multi-Dimensionality of Interorganizational CSR Networks The literature on interorganizational relationships has long understood that relationships are multidimensional (Shumate et al., 2017). Organizations can have multiple types of relationships with other organizations within a network. For instance, relationships might vary in the nature of their communication (cf. Shumate & Contractor, 2013) or by relational aspects like trust or cooperation (Saffer et al., 2021). For issue-based networks like CSR networks, the relationships among members can also vary by resources, values, and interests (Yang, 2020). We consider each in the following sections.

Resource Dimension Resources are how organizations and networks sustain themselves. Networks provide organizations access to resources that they may not otherwise have on their own (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Issue niche theory (Yang, 2020) explains that networks can provide members access to resources that vary in width where some networks have far-reaching access to resources and others do not. For instance, the Capital One CSR network has economic capital dedicated to the network’s initiatives. Other members of the network may have resources in the form of cultural, social, or human capital that prove useful in enacting the initiative. Collectively, organizations vary in their degrees of access to resources.

Value Dimension Along with resources, organizations also bring with them their values, or what issue niche theory identified as ideology (Yang, 2020). Indeed, values are inherent in CSR networks where organizational action and participation are statements or performances of their values. Importantly though, the value dimension departs from the exchange-based relationship associated with the resource dimension. Instead, the value dimension orients more toward covenantal relations where organizations work toward a common or shared goal which is morally and ethically sanctioned (L’Etang & Pieczka, 2006). Yet, each organization may have a different set of values guiding their participation in a CSR network. For instance, Capital One may be driven by their two stated corporate values – Excellence and Do the Right Thing – whereas others in the CSR network like the Heartland Alliance may be driven by their values of economic justice. These values may influence the longterm sustainability of dyadic relationships as well as the network as a whole.

Interest Dimension Members of a CSR network may also have differences in regards to their interests for being a member of the network. A corporation, for example, may invest money in an issue but that could be making such “investment” for their interest in having photo opts or a certain brand copartnerships. Equally so, an international NGO may have their own interests in finding funding thus they may participate in networks to broker relationships with local NGOs that provide them

88

Multi-Dimensional Network Model

with stories and other collateral that can be used to elevate the importance or significance of an issue to potential funders. Having outlined our conceptualization of CSR as multi-dimensional interorganizational networks, the next section situates such networks into an ecological and issue niche perspective.

Interorganizational Network Ecology and Niche CSR Initiative Networks as a Form of Interorganizational Networks CSR initiatives often involve networks of organizations collaborating on certain issue areas (Lai & Fu, 2021; Yang & Cheong, 2019). Take the racial equity and affordable housing issue, for instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, homelessness and evictions have been severely worsened, and people of color were significantly more likely to be victims of such social ills (Times, 2021). When companies such as Capital One plans to improve conditions, they may work with NGOs such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition and Habitat for Humanity to identify individuals and communities that need help, work with city municipals and committees to obtain building permits and policy support, work with affordable housing developers to design and implement new housing projects, and work with landlord outreach programs to provide incentives for affordable rental units. In the process of carrying out this CSR initiative, many other organizations may become part of the network. Organizations such as universities and research institutions, various types of funding agencies and loan providers, and career-training organizations may help understand the complex issue, identify solutions, and provide specialized assistance to issue solutions. This process of interorganizational networks forming around CSR initiatives is an important characteristic of modern day CSR. It is both a direct response to the complexity inherently involved in many CSR issues, and also reflects the omnipresence of connectivity among contemporary organizations (Ahuja et al., 2012). As Yang’s (2020) issue niche theory notes, when organizations identify a social issue as relevant and start to pay attention or take actions on the issue, such organizations become issue stakeholders. Issue stakeholders are never isolated entities but are connected by complex relationships into an interorganizational, networked population, characterized by their shared stake in the aforementioned issue (Roloff, 2008). Multiple CSR issues and associated organizations could create an interorganizational community. To understand such interorganizational populations and communities, organizational ecology theory provides a pertinent theoretical framework.

Organizational Ecology Theory Organizational ecology theory seeks to understand the rates of birth, growth, and mortality of a population of organizations in different environments (Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Hannan et al., 2007). While early work focuses on explaining the various forms of organizations, later research has extended the theory to explain different forms of interorganizational network relationships (Doerfel et al., 2013; Lee & Monge, 2011; Monge et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2021). Organizational ecology theory assumes a hierarchy of environments and relationships for organizations that include organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems (Hannan & Carroll, 1992). Ecological studies can focus on any level, their interrelationships, or the whole system. Specifically, organisms refer to specific organizations. In our case, those are organizations that are stakeholders of CSR issues (i.e., Capital One). According to organizational ecology theory, populations of organizations tend to share a common form, patterns of activity, patterns of resource utilization, and their normative orders (Hannan & Carroll, 1992). In their later work, Hannan and Carroll (2007) proposed a “fuzzy-set” approach to define organizational populations, arguing that 89

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

for any given collectivity of organizations, some may fit nicely whereas others present a more partial fit. In the case of CSR issues, stakeholder organizations may not take similar forms (e.g., corporations vs. NGOs) nor do they utilize resources in similar ways. What they share, according to Yang (2020), is their desire to take action on CSR issues. The issue niche theory thus provides an opportunity to define organizations connected by CSR issues into a unique type of organizational population, whose relationships are more complex than organizations from the same industry or resource niche. In addition, organizational ecology theory proposes that organizational communities are populations of organizations that share the same ecosystem (Hannan & Carroll, 1992). In the case of CSR initiatives, that ecosystem may be defined by national/geographic boundaries (e.g., CSR issues in the United States) or temporal dimensions (e.g., pressing CSR issues in the 21st century). Organizations operating in an ecosystem could be connected by cooperative or competitive relationships. For instance, organizations may develop symbiosis or mutualistic relationships where they depend on each other for operation (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010). Such relationships are of great importance to the success of CSR initiatives. For instance, Paarlberg and Varda (2009) explained that the scarcity or abundance of resources in a community does not inherently limit the community’s nonprofits carrying capacity. If these nonprofits are well connected and could funnel resources through their networks, even a seemingly resource-deprived community could support many nonprofits. On the contrary, if nonprofits could not expand their networks, they may easily run out of resources. In other words, networks between nonprofits and other organizations could have positive synergistic effects that transform the ability of a community to support associated nonprofits. Similarly in the context of social issues, network composition among stakeholders could largely influence the carrying capacity of specific issues, a point to which we will return later (Yang, 2020). Organizational ecology theory argues that the success of organizations’ operations and the sustainability of their relationships are influenced by environmental factors that are not completely within their control. In other words, the external environment and the organization’s internal adoption process could create a process of evolution and change where organizational operations, forms, and relationships that exhibit a high level of “fit” are more likely to be retained and survive over time (Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Monge et al., 2008). When applying this idea to CSR initiatives, it challenges the assumption that the success or failure of a given CSR initiative is largely driven by involved organizations’ ability or commitment. Instead, this ecological approach recognizes the external environment that may enable or constrain the success of such initiatives, and advocate for a shifting emphasis on creating community level support that enables successful CSR initiatives. Another critical concept in organizational ecology theory is the idea of the niche (Hannan & Carroll, 1992). A niche refers to a population’s position in the ecosystem relative to the resources available (Weber et al., 2016). A niche can be defined in terms of populations’ identities, domains, and category memberships in resource space (Monge et al., 2008). Yang (2020) further expands the concept and defines a niche in terms of different social issues that organizations and the public pay attention to. Yang and colleagues (Yang, 2020; Yang & Saffer, 2021) also tie the concept of niche width to public attention associated with issues and thus offer a new perspective to consider how organizations with various resources, interests, and values could collaborate in a space not defined by shared resources but by shared attention. Within a niche, network relationships may experience varying degrees of decay (also known as tie dissolution, see Xu et al., 2021). In the context of CSR initiatives, the tendency to focus exclusively on studying tie formation rather than also considering tie decay is worrisome because substantial social changes often require a considerable amount of time. As noted by Xu et al. (2021), “investigating dissolution mechanisms is important because it offers a useful lens to explain why some network ties are stable while others are transient” (p. 5). Transient CSR partnerships may serve more window-dressing needs rather than actually delivering long-lasting changes and solutions to 90

Multi-Dimensional Network Model

challenging social issues. As such, for scholars to study and understand CSR initiative networks, it is important for them to explore conditions that differentiate stable and transient ties. Recognizing the importance of a theoretical framework that considers these unique aspects of CSR initiative networks, the following section introduces a multi-dimensional network model to reconceptualize CSR networks and also explains conditions in which relationship ties among diverse types of organizations may be stable or subject to decay.

A Multi-Dimensional Network Model of CSR Initiative Networks Blau Space and Multi-Dimensionality While traditional ecological research tends to primarily conceptualize niches based on a single dimension, McPherson (1983, 2004) conceptualizes niches as multi-dimensional spaces known as Blau spaces. More analytically, a Blau space is “the k-dimensional system generated by regarding the sociodemographic variables as dimensions, rather than as variables” (McPherson, 2004, p. 264). The original idea of multi-dimensional space of sociodemographic dimensions was first proposed by Peter Blau (1977). And was further incorporated by McPherson and colleagues into organizational evolutionary models (McPherson, 1983, 2004; McPherson & Ranger-Moore, 1991). According to the Blau space model, a niche is a dense area in a multi-dimensional space (McPherson, 1983). The Blau space model proposes that actors’ networked activities are more likely to occur within dense areas of a Blau space. Similar to that of traditional organizational ecology theory, only localized (in terms of network sense, localized means among a densely connected cluster of actors) and dense areas could support the formation of niches. Sparse relationships among a handful of actors could not form a niche. Moreover, niche differentiation in a Blau space is not based on one dimension but is shaped by variables in multiple dimensions. For instance, in a single dimensional niche that is defined exclusively by financial resources, specialists vs. generalists may be determined by the amount of financial resources that each organization is able to access/possess. In a multi-dimensional niche that considers both financial resources and social reputations, for example, organizations’ position in the multi-dimensional niche thus are defined by the intersection of two values rather than one. And how close organizations are in this niche is determined by the distance between their positions. For groups of organizations that are located closely, they could be viewed as operating within the same niche; whereas for groups of organizations that are far away from each other, they can be seen as operating from different niches. The interactions between niches are by definition sparse.

Toward a Multi-Dimensional Model of CSR Initiatives as Blau Space An important contribution of Blau space is its recognition of the multi-dimensionality within social arenas. Blau space models recognize that social interactions among networked actors (e.g., companies, grassroots groups) are distributed along multi-dimensions rather than a single dimension, and therefore expand the type of dimensions that we can consider as critical for organizations’ operations and relationship building. This conceptualization is critical for understanding CSR initiatives because many CSR initiatives are characterized by multiple dimensions of variables rather than a single-dimension of variables (Stohl & Stohl, 2010; Yang & Cheong, 2019). Organizations that take part in CSR initiatives may pursue resources, reputation, interests, and ideological missions. As such, adopting the Blau space model provides a necessary condition to build a theoretical framework that accounts for the uniqueness of interorganizational relationships among CSR stakeholders. In this chapter, as discussed earlier, we primarily consider dimensions based on three variables: resources, interests, and values. We define the CSR initiative networks as operating in a three 91

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer K-Dimensional Blau Space without Actors

K-Dimensional Blau Space with Actors

Resource Dimension

Interest Dimension

4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0

Value Dimension

Interest Dimension

2

1

0

-1

-3

-4

1.2

-2

2.8 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

nsion e Dime Resourc

Designate the Distance Between Two Points

Figure 7.1

A multi-dimensional Blau space model of CSR initiatives

dimensional Blau space (see Figure 7.1) and each of the dimensions could serve to differentiate organizations. In terms of resources, this dimension can range from actors with limited resources (e.g., grassroots groups from impoverished communities) to actors with abundant resources (e.g., financially resourceful corporations). Organizations’ resources can be measured by their financial assets or revenues or human capital such as employee (staff) size. Interests and values are issue-specific. In terms of interest, an issue-driven interest suggests that the organization takes a keen interest in the solution of the issue whereas another organization may care less about how the issue is resolved or not. For instance, in a local community impoverished by racial inequality, the local community groups may have a high stake in solving the issue whereas a corporation who gives a donation may be primarily concerned about its reputation gains from engaging on this issue rather than if the issue actually gets resolved. Organizations’ interests can be assessed by survey questions or observation data such as organizations’ long-term involvement in certain issues (more investment of time and energy indicate higher interests). Here, by survey we mean asking questions to organizations’ professionals or managers to identify major interest areas. It is likely that within the same organizations, there are different and even conflicting interests. It is then important to differentiate primary and secondary interests based on the survey data. Values or organizations’ worldviews are also issue specific. In some controversial issues, organization values may range from conservative to liberal (e.g., on the reproductive rights issue, some organizations get involved to restrict access to abortion whereas other organizations get involved to provide more access, both can be in the name of CSR). On other issues, organizational values may range from human-centric to environment-centric (e.g., on the conservation of indigenous tribal land issue, some organizations get involved to create more local jobs whereas others get involved to protect wildlife, both could be in the name of CSR). Organizations’ values could be assessed with survey questions or other self-report data. Both interests and values can function as a continuum (continuous variables) where organizations scatter along these dimensions. The three variables thus could provide three dimensions in which organizations can be defined with a unique position in the CSR network of the Blau space. It is

92

Multi-Dimensional Network Model

necessary to note that although the three dimensions are probably observable in many CSR issues, they are not necessarily always observable in every CSR issue. Additionally, some CSR issues may also be defined by other variables that are not included here. The proposed model is meant as an initial effort to develop theories in this space. With additional case studies, the list of relevant variables (number of K dimensions) may continue to increase. According to Blau (1977), when k dimensions are perfectly correlated, they operate as one. When k dimensions are uncorrelated, each dimension could lead to social differentiation along a new axis. The correlation levels among the k dimensions are critical indicators of social differentiation (McPherson & Ranger-Moore, 1991). In spaces with high correlations among k dimensions, there could be a low diversity of species whereas, in spaces with low correlations among k dimensions, considerable diversity would emerge. In the context of CSR initiatives, the resource dimension normally would not be correlated with the interest and value dimensions. The degree to which the other two dimensions correlate with one another is largely issue-specific. In a context where issue stakeholders’ interests and values are largely aligned, the two dimensions, value and interest are highly correlated; in a context where issue stakeholders’ interests and values are in conflict or show quite a high level of diversity, the correlation between dimensions would decrease. The dimensional changes affect organizations’ diversity in terms of their relative positions in the CSR Blau space. Therefore, since the resource dimension is reliably noncorrelate with the other two, the diversity of a Blau space is largely determined by value and interests, as such, our first proposition is: Proposition 1: In CSR initiatives where the interest and values of organizations are largely aligned, there is less diversity in terms of organization positions in the overall Blau space. In CSR initiatives where the interest and values of organizations are diverging or in conflict, there is more diversity in terms of organization positions in the overall Blau space.

Tie Formation in Blau Space Points in a Blau space (organization positions in Blau space) are social positions described by the values of the Blau dimensional variables (McPherson & Ranger-Moore, 1991). While each point may be occupied by multiple entities, such points are unique and are defined in relation to all the other positions. Two positions are characterized by their distance from one another in this multidimensional space (see the arrow in the with actors Figure 7.1). While organizations could voluntarily form relationships, they have different tendencies to form relationships with specific types of others. Further, as noted by Blau (1977), relationships among actors are shaped by the properties of Blau space and their positions in such spaces. From a network perspective, the probability of contact between two actors is a declining function of distance in Blau space. As noted by McPherson and Ranger-Moore (1991), “the powerful idea of the model is that the connections that do not exist determine how the system behaves” (p. 22). Therefore, based on the Blau space model, two organizations are more likely to form relationships in a CSR initiatives Blau space if the distance between their positions is short. Therefore, we propose the following proposition: Proposition 2: In CSR initiatives, the likelihood of tie formation among two organizations is negatively correlated with the Blau space distance between their positions. Moreover, the energy required to sustain relationships among actors is also negatively associated with two actors’ distance in Blau space (McPherson & Ranger-Moore, 1991). Previous research suggests that ties that are costly to maintain are more likely to be subject to decay (Burt, 2002). As 93

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

such, the stability of ties (how long a tie could last) is also negatively associated with the distance between organization positions in a Blau space. As such, we propose: Proposition 3: In CSR initiatives, the stability of ties between two organizations is negatively correlated with the Blau space distance between them. It is important to note that the above propositions apply to both cooperative and competitive ties. In most CSR network research, the primary focus has been on cooperative ties that often span social sectors (Lai & Fu, 2021; Yang & Cheong, 2019). However, there could also be competitive relationships among organizations from the same social sector. For instance, in the same CSR Blau space, NGOs that are closely positioned in the space may form a competitive relationship to compete for partnership with corporations. Similar to that of cooperative relationships, the distance between these NGOs’ Blau space could largely determine the likelihood for them to compete, and if they do, the stability of their competitive relationships.

Evolution in Blau Space So far we have discussed tie formation and decay tendencies in the CSR network Blau space. The Blau space model also explains the process of variation, selection, and retention (McPherson & Ranger-Moore, 1991), which is also known as the evolutionary process. At the center of the evolutionary aspect is the carrying capacity of a CSR Blau space. According to McPherson and Ranger-Moore (1991), the carrying capacity of Blau space is influenced by three factors: the correlation among k dimensions, network density among member organizations, and competition from other issues. As discussed earlier, when the k dimensions are highly correlated, actors are less differentiated from one another and thus more likely to cluster together. The clustering condition could reduce the available area in Blau space for organizations to exist. In other words, such a pattern would reduce the carrying capacity of a CSR initiative. In a Blau space with a low carrying capacity, either fewer organizations could operate in such a space, or severe competitions may emerge, especially among NGOs seeking funding opportunities. In ecological theories, competition is one of the main drivers for variations among organizations (Hannan & Carroll, 1992). Competitions would motivate organizations to diversify and evolve, and such changes, according to McPherson and RangerMoore (1991) could lead to evolutions of an overall Blau space. Based on this feature of Blau space, we propose the following proposition: Proposition 4: In CSR initiatives where the interest and values of stakeholder organizations are largely aligned, there are either fewer organizations operating in the overall Blau space or there is severe competition among organizations and cause volatile changes in the Blau space. In CSR initiatives, when the interest and values of stakeholder organizations diverge, if resources are abundant, there are more organizations operating in the overall Blau space; when resources are scarce, organizations may operate in the Blau space without forming relationships. In addition, the density of connections between organizations is another factor that shapes tie formation and evolution. Blau (1977) argues that contacts among members of a Blau space could provide channels of support and increase the persistence of relationships. When applying the idea to the context of CSR initiatives, it means that in a Blau space with a high density of ties, relationships are more likely to persist whereas in a Blau space with low density, relationships may be more subject to decay because the effort for tie maintenance mainly falls on pairs of contacts rather than 94

Multi-Dimensional Network Model

communities of actors (Burt, 2002). This is an important insight because it recognizes the success of CSR partnerships may not rely entirely on pairs of partners, but also on the community of organizations in which they carry out such initiatives. As such, we propose the following proposition: Proposition 5: In CSR initiatives where the tie density among organizations is high, relationships among organizations are more likely to persist over time. In CSR initiatives where the tie density among organizations is low, relationships among organizations have a higher rate of decay. Finally, different CSR issues may compete for the attention and resources that a specific issue receives. Such competition among issues influences the carrying capacity of specific issues and the associated Blau spaces. As noted by Yang (2020), public attention is critical for maintaining the relevance of issues for the general public and could have a direct impact on how much resource a specific CSR issue can attract. This is because CSR issues (e.g., poverty, climate change) often require considerable resources to address. When an issue receives considerable spotlight, the general public and stakeholders of corporations would demand or expect actions, whereas when this issue remains obscure, managers may have difficulty justify why they invest money and efforts into this issue. Ocasio’s (2011) work on how managerial attention can attract attention in organizations is an example. When some businesses are giving attention to an issue, others would recognize it as relevant and also pay attention or justify why they pay attention. Issues that have received a lot of attention may attract more attention not because they are necessarily more important, but because they have been successful at attracting attention (Ocasio, 2011). Additionally, research on issue evolution suggests that the competition among issues for public attention is the main reason for certain issues to fall from the center of public attention (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Yang (2020) also explained that for issues to attract sufficient public attention, they need to stay in the public sphere for a relatively long period of time. As such, we propose the following proposition: Proposition 6: For CSR initiatives that focus on issues that stay in the center of public attention for long periods of time, relationships among organizations are more likely to persist over time. For CSR initiatives that focus on issues that attracted little public attention or quickly lost the spotlight in the public sphere, relationships among organizations have a higher rate of decay. In sum, the proposed model conceptualizes CSR initiatives as networks formed in multidimensional spaces. Such networks are far from homogenous clusters. Instead, they feature organizations motivated by complex variables along at least three dimensions. In addition, the model proposes conditions in which such networks may persist over time or be subject to quick decay. The following section further discusses the theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of this model.

Discussion and Implications Theoretical Contributions We are fully aware that the proposed model is divergent from the prominent approach to study CSR that either focuses on normative values, implications for businesses, or practical tactics and strategies (Clark, 2000). Nevertheless, we believe this chapter presents an important effort to shift the conversation to several important aspects of CSR initiatives that have been largely overlooked by previous research. 95

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

First, our model proposes a community-centric approach to understand CSR initiatives. Unlike previous research that implicitly assumes that the success of CSR initiatives are largely dependent on individual organizations’ ability or dedication, this framework broadens the scope to consider CSR initiatives as efforts that take collaboration and the efforts of communities of organizations. Our model recognizes how organizations’ resources, values, and interests may precondition the space of their collaboration/competition; thus, highlighting the importance of the social structure at the community level that is necessary for CSR initiatives to flourish. Second, this model shifts the attention from short-term focus to a long-term focus that explores factors that contribute to the sustainability of relationships formed around CSR initiatives. This approach is more aligned with the nature of many CSR issues that are inherently complex and take long-term efforts to solve or make any difference (Visser, 2010). As we mentioned earlier, the field of CSR network research needs to move beyond declaring the existence of networks or marvel at how network matters, but to consider the long-term stability of networks and factors that contribute to varying degrees of relationship sustainability. The inclusion of the concept of Blau space in the model, as argued by McPherson (1990), allows us to “combine global level processes of social networks with an evolutionary model of the growth, decline, and change in social entities from organizations to identities” (p. 264). We believe this is an important theoretical effort to move the research on CSR networks forward. Third, last but not least, is the potential for this model to be further developed along additional dimensions. The original Blau space model recognizes k dimensions (McPherson, 2004). Although the current framework in this chapter identifies three dimensions, the number of dimensionality is not inherently limited. The model conceptualizes CSR initiatives as activities carried out in highdimensional spaces. Instead of seeing each dimension as variables, the approach turns variables into dimensions to provide a nuanced look at how each dimension shapes organizations’ positions, and preconditions their choices and behaviors. Future studies where the conditions of specific CSR cases are more complex, additional dimensions may be added. The flexibility of this model is thus naturally able to accommodate high-dimensionality analysis, which are key features of modern-day computational models and methods.

Methodological Implications In addition to the aforementioned theoretical implications, the proposed framework is also valuable because the application of Blau space provides a new approach to study the outcome of CSR initiatives. Specifically, software packages such as Blaunet have been developed to study organizational dynamics in Blau spaces (Genkin et al., 2018; Harder & Brashears, 2020). According to the description of Blaunet, this software can be used for five main purposes: 1) identify a list of possible salient dimensions; 2) calculate, plot, and analyze niches for social entities by measuring the social distance along the salient dimensions between individuals affiliated with them; 3) generate Blau bubbles for individuals, thereby allowing the study of interpersonal influence of similar others even with limited or no network information; 4) capture niche dynamics cross-sectionally by calculating the intensity of exploitation from the carrying capacity and the membership rate; and 5) analyze the niche movement longitudinally by estimating the predicted niche movement equations. (p. 1) These five purposes can be used to reveal important aspects of CSR initiatives that have rarely been explored. As an open-source package in R, anyone familiar with the R language can easily access this package and apply it to their cases and research projects.

96

Multi-Dimensional Network Model

In addition, many models in machine learning are specifically designed to address research needs in high-dimensional spaces. As such, this framework added additional tools in practitioners’ toolboxes to measure and understand CSR initiatives. Such a methodological advancement can help CSR scholars to explore new research directions.

Practical Implications Finally, this model also provides important practical implications for the planning and evaluation of CSR initiatives. In terms of initiative planning, this model helps practitioners to anticipate the type of spaces in which they would form CSR initiative relationships and the likelihood such relationships may (1) experience competition and (2) sustain over time. These are important guidelines that could help practitioners to decide which issues to approach or how to approach certain CSR issues. In terms of evaluation, the emphasis on long-term values helps to direct practitioners’ attention to the long-term aspect of their CSR initiatives. Rather than narrowly focusing on the investment of resources (financial capital or human capital), which often is reflected in a one-time announcement or contract, this model asks practitioners to assess the sustainability of their partnerships, how diverse such partnerships are and how long they last. This evaluation approach is more consistent with the nature of most CSR issues, which take long-term engagement and efforts to make real differences. The shift toward long-term engagement may also help to address critics of CSR as window-dressing or green-washing events. By shifting the evaluation matrix to long-term rather than short-term, practitioners may provide more accountability in the long-term social impact of their CSR efforts. In sum, societies are constantly challenged by social issues large and small. Collaborations among organizations from different social sectors are critical for providing feasible solutions to these social issues. As CSR scholars, we should develop theoretical frameworks that account for emerging practice and direct attention to important, under-researched issues. We are confident our chapter serves such goals and could provide considerable insights to the CSR research and practice communities.

Discussion Questions 1

2

3

4

The model presented above emphasizes the importance of long-term oriented CSR initiatives. What might be some reasons why companies adopt short-term oriented CSR? What are reasons why they might adopt long-term oriented CSR initiatives? If your company focuses on short-term, how can you persuade your manager to consider other options that are more longterm oriented? Local communities in which companies carry out CSR initiatives are often complex and diverse, with individuals and community groups pursuing different interests and ideas. In this chapter we identified resources, interests, and values as three dimensions for Blau space. Could you identify additional, distinctive dimensions? Typologies of networks are important to communication network research because the type of network can help researchers understand the nature of the relationships being studied. Often the focus is on the flow relations where there is some exchange taking place within the network. What are some other types of relations (affinity, representational, and semantic) that are relevant to study CSR initiatives? How might the types of relations change the model proposed in this chapter? This chapter used the Capital One Impact Initiative as an example of a networked CSR initiative and the components of the proposed model. What are other CSR initiatives that you could use to apply this model? How do the dimensions change given the case? 97

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer

References Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), 932–968. Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, 23(2), 434–448. 10.1287/orsc.1110.0695 Albareda, L., & Waddock, S. (2018). Networked CSR governance: A whole network approach to metagovernance. Business & Society, 57(4), 636–675. 10.1177/0007650315624205 Aldrich, H.E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Sage Publications. Arevalo, J. A., & Aravind, D. (2017). Strategic outcomes in voluntary CSR: Reporting economic and reputational benefits in principles-based initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 201–217. 10.1007/ s10551-015-2860-5 Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. 10.1177/0899764012450777 Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968. 10.1177/0899764012454685 Beckman, T., Colwell, A., & Cunningham, P. H. (2009). The emergence of corporate social responsibility in Chile: The importance of authenticity and social networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 191–206. 10.1007/s10551-009-0190-1 Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. Free Press. Burt, R. S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363. 10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00017-5 Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497–505. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268–295. Chung, A., & Jiang, H. (2017). Handling negative publicity: The influence of employing CSR communication in apology statements in reducing anger and negative word-of-mouth (NWOM). Journal of Communication Management, 21(3), 267–286. 10.1108/JCOM-11-2016-0091 Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 363–380. 10.1016/s0363-8111(00)00053-9 Connaughton, S. L., Vibber, K. S., Krishna, A., Linabary, J. R., & Štumberger, N. (2018). Theorizing corporate-community relationships and the role of contextual factors in peacebuilding and beyond. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 28(1), 1–19. 10.1075/japc.00001.con Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge University Press. CSRWire.com. (2021). Corporate social responsibility is shifting as a result of 2020’s triple crisis. Retrieved from https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/719311-corporate-social-responsibility-shifting-result-2020s-triple-crisis Decker, O. S. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and structural change in financial services. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(6), 712–728. 10.1108/02686900410543840 Doerfel, M. L., Chewning, L. V., & Lai, C. H. (2013). The evolution of networks and the resilience of interorganizational relationships after disaster. Communication Monographs, 80(4), 533–559. 10.1080/03637751. 2013.828157 Genkin, M., Wang, C., Berry, G., & Brashears, M. E. (2018). Blaunet: An R-based graphical user interface package to analyze Blau space. PloS One, 13(10), e0204990. Hannan, M., & Carroll, G. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations. Oxford University Press. Hannan, M., Polos, L., & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, code, and ecologies. Princeton University Press. Harder, N. L., & Brashears, M. E. (2020). Predicting organizational recruitment using a hybrid cellular model: New directions in Blau space analysis. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 26(3), 320–349. 10.1007/s10588-020-09306-9 Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78. Ihlen, Ø. (2013). Relating rhetoric and reputation. Handbook of communication and corporate reputation, 249–261. Lai, C. H., & Fu, J. S. (2021). Exploring the linkage between offline collaboration networks and online representational network diversity on social media. Communication Monographs, 88(1), 88–110. 10.1080/ 03637751.2020.1869797

98

Multi-Dimensional Network Model Lee, S., & Monge, P. (2011). The coevolution of multiplex communication networks in organizational communities. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 758–779. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01566.x L’Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (Eds.). (2006). Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice. Psychology Press. McPherson, M. (1983). An ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 48, 519–532. McPherson, M. (1990). Evolution in communities of voluntary organizations. In J. V. Singh (Ed.), Organizational evolution: New directions (pp. 224–245). SAGE Publications. McPherson, M. (2004). A Blau space primer: Prolegomenon to an ecology of affiliation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(1), 263–280. 10.1093/icc/13.1.263 McPherson, J. M., & Ranger-Moore, J. R. (1991). Evolution on a dancing landscape: Organizations and networks in dynamic Blau space. Social Forces, 70(1), 19–42. 10.1093/sf/70.1.19 Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., & Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661–680. 10.1111/j.15406520.2010.00389.x Monge, P., Heiss, B. M., & Margolin, D. B. (2008). Communication network evolution in organizational communities. Communication Theory, 18(4), 449–477. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00330.x Mutch, N., & Aitken, R. (2009). Being fair and being seen to be fair: Corporate reputation and CSR partnerships. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(2), 92–98. 10.1016/j.ausmj.2009.05.002 Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286–1296. 10.1287/orsc.1100.0602 O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2018). A multidimensional network approach to strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 399–416. 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452242 Paarlberg, L. E., & Varda, D. M. (2009). Community carrying capacity: A network perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 597–613. 10.1177/0899764009333829 Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of business ethics, 82(1), 233–250. Saffer, A. J. (2018). The outcomes of engagement in activism networks: A co-creational approach. In K. Johnston & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 285–300). John Wiley & Sons. Saffer, A. J. (2019). Fostering social capital in an international multi-stakeholder issue network. Public Relations Review, 45(2), 282–296. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.02.004 Saffer, A. J., Pilny, A., & Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2021). What influences relationship formation in a global civil society network? An examination of valued multiplex relations. Communication Research. 10.1177/009365 02211016162 Saffer, A. J., Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2018). Reconsidering power in multistakeholder relationship management. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(1), 121–139. 10.1177/0893318917700510 Schultz, F. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, reputation, and moral communication: A constructivist view. In C. Carroll (Ed.), Handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 362–375). Wiley Blackwell. Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692. 10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8 Shumate, M., Atouba, Y., Cooper, K. R., & Pilny, A. (2017). Interorganizational communication. In C. R. Scott & L. Lewis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication (pp. 1–24). John Wiley & Sons. Shumate, M., & Contractor, N. S. (2013). Emergence of multidimensional social networks. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp. 449–474). SAGE Publications. Shumate, M., Fu, J. S., & Cooper, K. R. (2018). Does cross-sector collaboration lead to higher nonprofit capacity? Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 385–399. 10.1007/s10551-018-3856-8 Shumate, M., Hsieh, Y. P., & O’Connor, A. (2018). A nonprofit perspective on business–nonprofit partnerships: Extending the symbiotic sustainability model. Business & Society, 57(7), 1337–1373. 10.1177/ 0007650316645051 Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 577–609. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01498.x Stohl, M., & Stohl, C. (2010). Human rights and corporate social responsibility. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1(1), 51–65. 10.1108/20408021011059223 Svendsen, A., & Laberge, M. (2006). A new direction for CSR: Engaging networks for whole system change. In J. Jonker & M. de Witte (Eds.), The challenge of organizing and implementing corporate social responsibility (pp. 131–147). Palgrave Macmillan. Times. (2021). Millions of tenants behind on rent, small landlords struggling, eviction moratoriums expiring soon: Inside the next housing crisis. Available from https://time.com/5940505/housing-crisis-2021/

99

Aimei Yang and Adam J. Saffer Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672. 10.5465/257057 Visser, W. (2010). CSR 2.0: The evolution and revolution of corporate social responsibility. In M. Pohl & N. Tolhurst (Eds.), Responsible business: How to manage a CSR strategy successfully (pp. 311–328). John Wiley & Sons. Weber, M. S., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2016). The emergence and evolution of social networking sites as an organizational form. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 305–332. 10.1177/0893318916629547 Xu, Y., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2021). Ecological influences on network tie dissolution in the evolution of affiliation networks in the International Communication Association, 2009–2015. Human Communication Research, 47(1), 75–103. 10.1093/hcr/hqaa009 Yanacopulos, H. (2005). The strategies that bind: NGO coalitions and their influence. Global Networks, 5(1), 93–110. 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2005.00109.x Yang, A. (2020). The issue niche theory of nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations’ interorganizational network ecology. Communication Theory, 30(1), 41–63. 10.1093/ct/qtz014 Yang, A., & Cheong, P. H. (2019). Building a cross-sectoral interorganizational network to advance nonprofits: NGO incubators as relationship brokers in China. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 784–813. 10.1177/0899764018819869 Yang, A., & Liu, W. (2020). CSR communication and environmental issue networks in virtual space: A crossnational study. Business & Society, 59(6), 1079–1109. 10.1177/0007650318763565 Yang, A., & Saffer, A. J. (2021). Standing out in a networked communication context: Toward a network contingency model of public attention. New Media & Society, 23(10), 2902–2925. 10.1177/1461444820939445 Zhou, A. (2021). Communicating corporate LGBTQ advocacy: A computational comparison of the global CSR discourse. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102061. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102061

100

8 A CONVERSATION ABOUT THREE KEY YET UNDEREXPLORED TENSIONS IN CONTEMPORARY NOTIONS OF CSR COMMUNICATION Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl 1

Introduction Within CSR literature and practice there are three underlying and oftentimes unacknowledged communicative assumptions associated with our conceptions of CSR. In this chapter, we discuss three of the preferred and often unappreciated tensions that arise. 1 2 3

Voluntariness given priority over regulatory CSR Action as more meaningful than CSR talk Transparency as the ideal form of CSR communication with no role for opacity

Our own perspectives on these issue are grounded in our diverse experiences as scholars who have both spent a great deal of time grappling with the practical consequences of our theories, researchers who have worked directly with organizations as they strive to be socially responsible, and teachers who have spent hundreds of hours talking with our students about these tensions. Our individual experiences as scholars working with business practice in a number of ways have informed our ideas, debates, and our writings for this conversation. Cynthia’s unique experience as an engaged scholar with international experiences on collective action organizations and the role of new communication technologies in the context of CSR and Mette’s unique experiences as a researcher and more recently as a practitioner working directly with international governmental organizations, business schools and corporations across the globe. In the following, we introduce the three tensions that we have identified as central for CSR communication. We find that these three tensions are somewhat under-appreciated in CSR communication scholarly work where primarily one side of the tensions is celebrated: voluntary, action, and transparency, while the other side of the tensions is seen as outside the definition of CSR or as counterproductive: regulation, talk, and opacity. We suggest that it is necessary to take into consideration how both sides of the tensions – voluntary/regulatory, talk/action, and transparency/ opacity – may lead to further advancement of the CSR agenda to create a more fair, just, equitable and greener society.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-10

101

Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl

Voluntary CSR Given Priority over Regulatory CSR Despite the evolution of CSR, moving from solely philanthropic and charitable activity of wealthy industrialists (see Carnegie, 1889) to the ethical responsibility for businesses to make decisions and take action that are “desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen, 1953, p. 6) through the UN Global Compact’s (2000) call to companies “to align strategies and operations with universal principles of human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption and take actions that advance societal goals (https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc) an underlying and often unexamined assumption of CSR is the idea of voluntarism. That is, CSR is conceived as a set of discretionary, voluntary organizational choices that go beyond what is nationally, regionally, or globally prescribed (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Embedded in the assumption of voluntarism is the development, implementation, and evaluation of self-prescribed codes of conduct and reporting mechanisms which govern corporate relationships with stakeholders, including, employees, supply chains, consumers, and communities. In contrast, a mandatory approach to CSR would establish a precise set of rules that corporations would have to comply with, along with a set of agreed upon sanctions. If CSR were assumed to be mandatory, expectations regarding an organization’s obligation to society would become enforceable and legally binding through guidelines that require a high degree of formalization (Montiel-Justo, 2019). Standards for organizational transparency and accountability would be established and compulsory. The assumptive position of voluntarism is grounded in several factors. To begin is the absence of consensus on what should constitute a corporation’s social responsibility. Despite widespread agreement on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) there are vast differences in the cultural, economic, institutional, and political contexts in which expectations of socially responsible corporate activity are developed (Matten & Moon, 2008; Yang, 2021). For example, in India, CSR is operationalized as the legal obligation of “every company with a net worth of 500 crores or more must spend 2% on average of its three-year net profits in pursuance of its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy” whereas in other countries such as the UK and China CSR disclosures of sustainability activities, rather than expenditures, are legally mandated (Gatti et al., 2019). Voluntary CSR enables corporations to behave in ways that are consistent with the particular values, beliefs, and needs of their culture and of relevance to their particular industry. Second, even in those areas where there is agreement upon what comprises CSR, the jurisdictional and institutional boundaries for assuring compliance are oftentimes fuzzy and complex, complex, and in flux. International law regarding CSR is still in its infancy, although there have been several attempts to connect CSR with the International Human Rights Law regime (Stohl & Stohl, 2017) and a proposal for a new EU regulatory framework on business and human rights is currently being discussed and expected to be in place soon (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1145). Third, despite the inherent risks that profit may be prioritized higher than societal development when companies are engaging in activities related to human rights, anti-corruption and the environment, there is a growing public expectation that for-profit private companies must do more to contribute to societal betterment (Wettstein, 2012). For example, movements such as Black Lives Matter, Me Too, and the Russian war in Ukraine put increasing pressure on companies to actively advance equality and peace by supporting particular political candidates, signing petitions for legislation or withdrawing business operations from a geographical region. Companies are called upon to act voluntarily in these circumstances, and it is an open question to what extent this kind of corporate action in political affairs can be mandated. Fourth it is assumed that if CSR became mandatory, the regulations and standards would be so minimal and the statutory language too vague to be operational or enforceable. Moreover, for mandatory CSR to have any traction, it is assumed it would need to be local/country-oriented

102

A Conversation about Three Key yet Underexplored Tensions

rather than global. Accordingly, the standards would not be fit to address the urgent transnational problems we face. Finally, the centrality of voluntarism in CSR is grounded in the relationship between communication and the fiduciary motives of corporations. It is assumed that when companies communicate their CSR contributions to stakeholders they gain legitimacy, enhance their image, and increase their market share. If CSR is mandated, the argument goes, competitive advantage would be lost and without a financial motive it is assumed there would be far less CSR activity. CSR activity would be reactive and “ticking the box” and only doing what is strictly required by law rather than what is innovative, relevant and impactful for society.

Conversation 1: The Voluntary/Regulatory CSR Communication Tension Cynthia Clearly there are many advantages to CSR comprising a wide range of voluntary activities that include enabling corporations to take discretionary advantage of their specific areas of strength and address their points of weakness. When CSR is voluntary companies have flexibility to approach local, national, and global concerns in whatever way they want, looking to gain competitive advantage by addressing the demands of their primary stakeholders and using CSR communication to improve their reputation and consumer loyalty. Voluntary CSR can enable companies to address those issues where they can contribute best utilizing their specific area of expertise, skills, resources and competences and accordingly have the greatest impact. However, when CSR is conceived as a tool to advance corporate strategic interests, two issues arise. First, when CSR is voluntary it runs the risk of being conceived as a mere contrivance enabling companies to decide themselves if and what they are doing in the name of CSR. Thus CSR becomes an add-on to corporate decision making, rather than being integral part of business operations. Fundamental moral and ethical concerns for human rights and the environment become like gossamer wings, delicate and insubstantial, easily disappearing when economic winds change. Hence when we assume CSR is voluntary, doing what is right for society is shaped by doing what it takes for a company to do well. Moreover, only large organizations that are under the scrutiny of a large swath of stakeholders are likely to develop comprehensive CSR, small- and moderate-sized enterprises operate “under the radar” of social and legacy media and hence these companies may be less concerned with CSR. Mandatory CSR in contrast, provides multiple opportunities to develop common definitions or global principles of what CSR means as well as setting societal norms, expectations, and agendas for all collective entities. Without codified standards accompanied by sanctions, corporate accountability remains elusive. Moreover, when CSR practices are predominately voluntary, efforts to identify and constrain corporate behavior are delegated to NGOs and citizen activism, and the foci of CSR pressure revolves around those stakeholder interests who have the economic freedom to take part in social protest and possess greater economic buying power (Jenkins, 1983). Thus, within a voluntary framework, CSR activism is most likely to address issues reflecting middle- and upperclass consumers’ values and concerns rather than fundamental universal human rights (Wettstein, 2012). Further, when these stakeholders lose interest in a particular issue (child labor, climate change, etc.) they stop requesting and putting pressure on corporations and corporations may end their CSR activities in that area accordingly. However, if we switch to an assumptive base that CSR is mandatory for all organizations, the focus moves from identifying particular needs of a particular group at any given point in time to the universal rights of all communities, from acts of charity toward imperatives of corporate action. CSR is reconstituted through the accountability embedded in regional, national and international agreements about what an organization is and what it must be. 103

Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl

Mette Indeed, this is one of the controversial and ongoing important debates in CSR – how to balance the mandatory versus the voluntary request for CSR. As it has been scientifically substantiated by for example by the planetary boundary framework developed by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, there is a clear approaching limit to the natural resources we can develop our communities and that we can take for granted as plan for future progress with regards to for example clean breathable air, clean drinkable water, clean soil and many other natural resources of the planet. We are facing a scarcity of natural resources that goes beyond national borders. At the same time, we are facing severe challenges to labor rights, anti-corruption and human rights that also go beyond national boundaries and that are per se transnational complexities in need of global attention and action. How to engage the world market agents, our businesses, on being the “force for good” as some have labeled it, will rely heavily on careful and strategic efforts to engage both ends of the CSR tension; to mobilize a continued effort to blend legally binding incentives (i.e., mandatory frameworks) and to summon prescriptive normative incentives (i.e., voluntary engagement). The UN Global Compact, as a global initiative having more than 15,000 business signatories, describes itself “The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative that seeks to advance universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption through the active engagement of the corporate community, in cooperation with civil society and representatives of organized labour” (UN Global Compact Policy, 2022). This does not mean that the Global Compact does not support legally binding regulations, but it means that the UN Global Compact as a globally spanning initiative is there to support, encourage and advance voluntary business and business associations to advance their practices to reach the UN 2030 Agenda, and it does not itself have the mandate nor the resources to monitor or measure corporate activities. Accordingly, it is voluntary for a company to sign up to the UN Global Compact but it commits to report annually on its sustainable development activities and outcomes in a Communication on Progress Report (COP). Such voluntary reporting is intended to support the advancement of SDG awareness and activities. Locally the COP reporting has proven to advance actions as businesses are invited to set new and higher targets for their future actions. Of course, this does not guarantee that business do not sometimes overpromise or do not live up to their acclaimed aspirations. Neither does it guarantee that businesses do not sometimes support societal development that does not improve the conditions for the beneficiaries they were intended to support. However, the UN Global Compact works with other voluntary initiatives such as the OECD and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to ensure that the Global Compact standards are aligned with other standards in the area and the meeting the requirements of one framework helps to comply with the others. Of course, such voluntary commitment by business via the UN Global Compact, with its many multinational companies and small- and medium-sized business members, can be critiqued for being a commitment that has no immediate legal repercussions. However, it is important to understand how a voluntary commitment creates a space for business to prepare and start engaging, to set a tone and from there to develop and potentially prepare for complying to new legal frameworks as they come into place. The so-called “grey zone” between voluntary and mandatory CSR is an important space to learn how to navigate what areas to transform from voluntary to regulatory frameworks.

Cynthia As CSR continues to evolve, I suspect there will be less emphasis on the bifurcation of voluntary and mandatory CSR, and greater understanding of the need for what the European Renewed strategy for CSR (2014) described as “applicable legislations and collective agreement between social

104

A Conversation about Three Key yet Underexplored Tensions

partners as a prerequisite for organizations meeting their social responsibility” (https://www. eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvkkpftveemt7_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vitwrzhm31gk). Black swan events, such as the COVID pandemic, climate change disasters, the murder of George Floyd, and the Me Too movement, have shown not only that there is increasing global pressure for organizations “to embrace, support and enact a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labor standards, and environmental practices” (Annan, 1999) but that we need to acknowledge the role that complementary regulation plays in creating an environment more conducive to organizations voluntarily meeting their social responsibility. There is an intrinsic connection between responsibility and accountability (Tamvada, 2020). One provocative approach to resolving the tensions between voluntary and mandatory CSR is what scholars describe as “metaregulation” in which laws are designed to require implementation of generalized practices to minimize negative corporate impact while at the same time recognizing that voluntary industry codes, protection of business reputation and so on are relevant tools to motivate and even enforce CSR (Parker, 2009). A hybrid approach of international standards, domestic policies, and corporate discretion regarding the environment, human rights, communication freedoms, work conditions, and environmental activity will I believe create a sociopolitical metacommunicative context facilitating normative convergence and compliance while respecting the differences among organizational and institutional contexts.

Transparency Is Good and Opacity Is Bad The second CSR communication tension we emphasize is about transparency versus opacity. A fundamental dimension of mainstream CSR definitions is the call for transparency. Transparency is associated with notions of good governance and accountability; it is seen as a foundational pillar for CSR. Basically, the idea is that the more transparent the company is urged to be about its production and activities, the more the company is pushed to better ethical practices. Transparency refers to being able to see through something, like a window that allows light to pass through clearly. Transparency sends signals that the business is willing to show its activities to the world and that it has nothing to hide. Increasingly businesses, and also governments and NGOs, are expected to provide transparency on their practices, and as such they are making it possible for other audiences to look into their operations and assess these practices (Christensen & Schoeneborn, 2017). The quest for transparency is oftentimes included in CSR definitions where it refers to that businesses shall disclose information beyond what they are legally required to communicate. As such, transparency in the context of CSR includes information on for example diversity, equity, inclusion, human and animal rights, anti-corruption measurements, as well as activities to improve the company’s environmental footprint in areas that are sometimes not legally required to be reported on. Such information is often published in the company’s CSR report or sustainability report, and as stated above part of the commitment as a business signs up to UN Global Compact. The underlying assumption of transparency is that companies are likely to make their commercial transactions more ethical when they are exposed in full daylight. A widely accepted definition of transparency is provided by Rawlins: Transparency is the deliberate attempt to make available all legally releasable – whether positive or negative in nature – in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced and unequivocal, for the purpose of enhancing the reasoning ability of publics and holding organizations accountable for their actions, policies and practices. (Rawlins, 2009, p. 75) If a company chooses not to publish on its work to improve working conditions among its suppliers, that may be viewed as if it is secretively trying to hide something. It is assumed that transparency gives openness, insight and clarity and these qualities are associated with positive outcomes. A number of 105

Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl

global initiatives have been established to promote transparency in various fields such as Transparency International, publishing an annual corruption perception index, Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA), improving access, availability, and affordability of medicine, and the International Monetary Fund IMF), working to increase fiscal transparency to the public about governmental spending. In contrast, a perspective on CSR, that would give prevalence to transparency’s opposite, namely opacity, would imply a focus on those areas that the business itself does not bring into its public relations communications, stakeholder conversations or publishes in its CSR report. Such emphasis on opaquely kept topics and activities that are not brought at the forefront of communications by the business itself, is what NGOs and activists emphasize as they target to reveal unethical business conduct. They surface business actions that were perhaps strategically kept in the dark and bring them into the light with the ambition to change corporate behavior to the better. In conventional understandings of CSR, a focus on corporate opacity has as its main purpose to bring a spotlight on unknown perhaps secret corporate behaviors. The assumptive default position of transparency as the preferred goal for corporate action is grounded in several factors. First, information will “speak for itself”. Calls for transparency include a call for more information. Building on the idea that the more information available, i.e., the more disclosure, the better insights into (un)ethical business practices. Behind such notion is their assumption that information is neutral, that the “data speak for itself” (Christensen & Schoeneborn, 2017). Accordingly, the quest for CSR disclosure assumes that companies deliver “accurate” information with clear messages and underprioritizes acknowledgment of the “inaccurate” information, i.e., encourages to keep experimentation and failures in the dark. Second, reflects a strong belief in a linear communication model. Understanding transparency as provision of information implies a communication model anchored in the “transmission view” (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). Business practice is described and conveyed by a company and received by an audience. However, in practical reality the communication model is much more complex. In practice information is selected, presented, negotiated, reinterpreted, or ignored as it is being produced (Christensen et al., 2013). Accordingly, current CSR definitions tend to underappreciate how the quest for transparency is likely to surface predominantly polished, carefully manufactured versions of reality, neglecting or toning-down valuable information about dilemmas, complexity, and challenges, which the company maybe currently working on and struggling with. Third, there are expectations for immediate and full disclosure. The quest for full disclosure for a company to report all its CSR engagements as soon as it starts its CSR journey puts a huge demand on the company. Identifying what is a relevant CSR practice and what is not, engages a strategic discussion about reputational risks. Engaging the company in, for example, how to reduce forced labor, child labor or corruption are complex and highly sensitive matters, often politically sensitive matters, that are likely to stimulate increased critical attention to the company’s actions and aspirations. Most companies are not interested in attracting unnecessary critical attention, and therefore, a company may be inclined to choose a risk averse strategy and focus its CSR strategy on less sensitive or more mainstream CSR issues to engage in and report on, thereby avoiding emphasis on areas where the company could potentially really make a positive change. The expectations for a company to fully disclose its CSR activities from the onset of its CSR journey may have counterproductive implications and incline the firm to engage at a minimum level as the reputational risk of engaging at a substantial level is considered too high.

Conversation 2: The Transparency – Opacity CSR Communication Tension: Mette Transparency is a beautiful ideal. “It is not a problem to show everything if you have nothing to hide” is the underlying mantra. And the recent decades’ quest for more transparency has indeed 106

A Conversation about Three Key yet Underexplored Tensions

surfaced several unethical and also illegal corporate behaviors that have been going on in the dark where companies have strategically hidden their practices or been ignorant of their own contribution to unethical or illegal practices. So, no doubt that transparency is an ideal to strive for. At the same time, “showing everything” is a theoretical ideal. It is not possible for any company to show all its CSR actions. A company has to choose which actions to emphasize and “show” and which issues to downplay in its communication strategy. In such strategic decisions, there is a tendency to prioritize the type of action where the company can show successful measurable progression and issues that are non-complex and easier to communicate in a way that will attract positive attention and public appraisal. While that is very understandable, such observation calls us to reflect on some of the unintended consequences of urging companies to demonstrate transparency. As communication scholars we have somehow underexplored the market mechanisms that make it necessary for companies to keep certain actions in the opaque to remain competitive, i.e., to be first on the market to launch a new product or to get the patent rights approved before anyone else in the industry. Also, when a company is experimenting on a journey to innovate perhaps better and perhaps more sustainable products, there is likely to be a demand for a “space of opaqueness” to allow for failures and half-baked ideas to be tested. The implications of such “market necessity for opaqueness” for different kinds of corporate transparency has not received much attention in CSR communication scholarship.

Cynthia Part of the request and hyper reliance on transparency as an essential part of CSR, I believe, is grounded in the development of highly sophisticated information communication technologies and their ability to make information, decision processes, and organizational behaviors easily visible to others. ICTs today enable levels of tracking and monitoring that were never before possible, and as you suggest, an underlying assumption of most CSR thinking is that transparency acts as a catalyst for accountability and the incorporation of CSR principles into organizational structures and practices. Ironically, however, assumptions of transparency often lead to “transparency paradoxes” (Stohl et al., 2016), “transparency traps” (Bernstein, 2014), and “transparency frauds” (Wickert et al., 2016) in which “transparency” actually increases opacity. Indeed, the more information we have does not necessarily mean the more we know. Corporations may unintentionally or strategically render their CSR activity opaque through providing large amounts of information which is difficult if not impossible for the average stakeholder to understand or act upon. Further, as the most recent case of Indian organic cotton and false certification indicates substantiating and reporting transparency of complete supply chains, as well as labor and environmental practices is highly problematic (Wickert et al., 2016). But not only may transparency trigger distortions of what an organization is actually doing in terms of CSR, it may also stifle innovation and experimentation. When the whole world is watching, and the reporting of all activity is expected, corporations may be unwilling to take a risk, fearful of communicating unfinished projects, unrefined ideas, or hopes for the future. Transparency does not provide a safe space for organizations to try new things with the possibility of failure. I suggest that rather than the idealization of transparency and demonization of opacity we need to consider more fully the counterproductive implications of demanding complete transparency.

Mette The positive connotations associated with transparency are indeed important to uphold. But as the global challenges are becoming more and more complex and companies are invited to engage and demonstrate their immediate contribution to betterment of society, I think now is a good time to reflect to what extent the positive narrative about transparency can still support positive corporate 107

Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl

progress and to what extent the positive narrative about transparency has ignored to debate its possible negative implications, as you say. Obviously, we should never encourage companies to systematically develop more opacity. But it seems that the quest for transparency stimulates transparencies only of an idealized corporate CSR reality in which undesirable, sensitive, or complex issues are downplayed. Companies operate in an increasingly complex context where they are expected to engage in highly political sensitive issues such as war, armed conflict, corruption, and modern slavery, and it is worth considering if companies would be willing to engage even more in the world’s wicked problems if they were encouraged to be more transparent in ways that would allow them to communicate problems, challenges, imperfection rather than expecting immediate successful results. Karl Weick once suggested that at times it may be beneficial to consider to what extent the managers of companies are really “bad ones making poor decisions” or “good people struggling to make sense” (1995, p. 206-207). This may also apply for our analysis and assessment of companies navigating the line between transparency and opacity.

CSR Action Is Superior to CSR Talk The third CSR communication tension is about the talk-action complexity. Across CSR literature and CSR practice there is an agreement that transformative action is needed to create the world that we want. Calling for accelerating solutions to the world’s grand challenges, the UN Secretary General Guterres labeled 2020–2030 “The Decade of Action”. Global and local action is urgently needed to secure greater leadership, more resources, and innovative ways of addressing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Budgets, policies, and regulatory frameworks need to be adjusted to transform local and global action toward a more just, clean and equitable society. A fundamental assumption underlying the CSR focus on action and the UN’s call for a “Decade of Action” is that “action” is superior to “talk”. The EU Commission states that The actions of companies have significant impacts on the lives of citizens in the EU and around the world. Not just in terms of the products and services they offer or the jobs and opportunities they create, but also in terms of working conditions, human rights, health, the environment, innovation, education, and training. (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/ industry/sustainability/corporate-social-responsibility-responsible-business-conduct_en) An example of a common business definition of CSR states that “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to strategies that companies put into action as part of corporate governance that are designed to ensure the company’s operations are ethical and beneficial for society” (Wells, 2021). Prevalent for CSR definitions is a focus on business action understood as activities that will work directly to reduce CO2 emissions, improve labor rights, and eliminate corruption such as for example installment of technical devices to reduce pollution, increased investment in employee health and salary and a stop to payments for “special favors” i.e., corruption. This CSR definition requests companies to emphasize such “action” rather than “just talking” about it, and it is expected that CSR action is accurately represented in CSR communication (Wagner et al., 2009). A communication perspective on CSR, giving prevalence to CSR talk, will imply emphasis on the performativity of deliberation and dialogue as the main object of analysis and as the key leverage to transform business CSR behavior. An emphasis on CSR communication builds on trust in how communication, deliberation, commitments, and negotiation are performative for making Agenda 2030 happen and accordingly to transform corporate behavior. The assumptive default position of action as superior to talk is grounded in several factors. First, is time. CSR communication is often taken as representational of CSR action and any gap between talk and action is considered a problem that needs attention in order for the gap to be 108

A Conversation about Three Key yet Underexplored Tensions

closed (Archel et al., 2011). Accordingly, CSR tends to focus on accurate depiction of past action, i.e., an inclination to focus on the past. Second, is the idea of performativity. Talk is considered subservient to organizational action and not regarded as a productive force in and of itself. Accordingly, current CSR definitions tend to limit the performative dynamics of talk, not allowing for how “aspirational talk” may be driving future action. In contrast, CSR talk can be seen as performative of CSR action: CSR communication does things, makes reality happen. Third, is the concern with of hypocrisy. Much debate about CSR talk critiques CSR communication campaigns and advertisements for being hypocritical: promising much more than a business can ever live up to. While that has been proven true in a number of circumstances, the relation between talk and action is even more intricate than that: talk is able to offset the need for action in the here and now (Glozer & Morsing, 2020), i.e., by talking about an issue, audiences may feel affirmed that action will follow. While this may not be the case.

Conversation 3: The Talk-Action CSR Communication Tension Mette Let me start by stating that there is indeed an urgent need for corporate behaviors to transform! And that there is an urgent need for business action to help solve the global wicked problems, i.e., those urgent challenging problems to which no predefined solution has been so far established. But what we want to highlight here is the somewhat under-appreciated urgent need for the kind of CSR action that is CSR communication. In the current mainstream CSR definitions, theorizing and practice, I see a clear pattern of how the need for talk is much under-valued. In fact, I would go so far as to say that “talk” is belittled, degraded, and looked down upon. In the recent decades, CSR talk – and more generally also talk – has increasingly been deprecated as hot air, deceit, fake news, or “it’s just that, nothing but talk”. However, as communication scholars and as business executives will know: talk matters! Talking is an important part of the job. Drawing on linguistic philosophy, speech act theory and more recently CCO theorizing, that is Communication Constitutes Organization, communication management scholarship has made us aware how “talk” not only represents reality but makes reality. Communication does things. Just think of how the “yes” uttered by the bride and the groom forever after changes the relationship between these two people. This statement is not describing the ceremony but doing it (Austin, 1962). Just think about those talks that have influenced behaviors of the world and still do, such as Martin Luther King “I have a Dream” in 1963 and Emmeline Pankhurst “Freedom or Death” in 1913. And just think about types of small daily communications between people where nothing else happens but talk, such as apologizing, requesting, complaining, warning, inviting, refusing, and congratulating. These communicative actions do things and change the relations between people, sometimes on the spot radically influencing their behaviors accordingly.

Cynthia These observations clearly illustrate how important it is for CSR scholars and practitioners to integrate the perspective of management performativity studies and CCO theorizing insofar as “talk” is accordingly analyzed as action. These theories draw on the basic idea that every use of language carries a performative dimension: “to say something is to do something”. When challenging the default assumption, communication becomes the core subject of study when trying to understand better how language is used to mobilize those needed resources to achieve the SDGs, to give more attention to uncomfortable climate truths, to surface taboo issues on inequities – all with an ambition to create and 109

Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl

sustain positive transformative action. In contrast, when we accept the default assumption that action is distinct and more important than communication, we are invoking a container model of CSR in which the organizational responsibility contains communication but is separate from it. This decoupling of talk and action often results in corporate conservatism, maintaining the old ways of talking and doing so as not to be accused of greenwashing, pink washing, etc. Now sometimes, and indeed too often, that may be true. But I think about 2017 when the iconic Fearless Girl, a statue of a young ponytailed girl with arms akimbo, standing directly across from and confronting the New York City Wall Street “Charging Bull” was unveiled by its sponsor, State Street Global Advisors, that is SSGA, a US asset and investment management firm. Immediately, as soon as the statue was uncovered, there was great controversy both nationally and internationally. In those many discussions SSGA and indeed all of Wall Street were accused of corporate hypocrisy. How dare they suggest they support gender equity and women’s power on Wall Street! Not only were there very few women in Wall Street firms at all, but in particular State Street Global Advisors had only two women on their 14person management committee, and fewer than 15 women on their 75-person executive committee. Yet since the launch of Fearless Girl and the conversations that followed, 681 publicly traded companies around the world that previously did not have any women on their boards have added at least one female board member. Additionally, State Street’s own board of directors has increased in the percentage of woman. There still is a long way to go, but as Stephen Tisdalle, CEO of State Street Global Advisors said, “We were never coming out and saying, ‘Look how great we are’. It was meant to inspire us as much as it was meant to inspire the whole world” (Stein, 2020). Talk was indeed action! Since 2019, “Fearless Girl” has been recreated in London’s financial district as well as in Dublin, igniting even more conversations about equity and CSR in the global financial sector (https://nypost. com/2018/10/18/fearless-girl-is-heading-to-europe/).

Mette In fact, it is worth keeping in mind that the Sustainable Development Goals themselves are “communicative actions”. And that they in fact emerged after a lot of talk. The successful creation of the SDGs was created out of several years of talk involving 193 UN member states as well as importantly a great number of businesses, civil societies, and international organizations. Today, this communication is one of the UNs most recent impactful inventions that has changed the orientation, engaged new debates, and systematically transformed behavior around the world. At the same time “talk” is often belittled, degraded, and looked down upon. Talk is increasingly deprecated as being hot air, deceit, or fake news. How often do we not hear such statements as “action speaks louder than words”, “pay less attention to what men say, just watch what they do”, or “it doesn’t mean anything, it is just talk”. While talk may some of the time be hypocritical, deceptive and use to cover less-ethical actions, it is also worth considering that the relationship between talk and action is oftentimes somewhat more complex than that. As educators in management and communication schools, we talk a lot. We know that talk matters. And in fact, we believe that this talk is an impactful part of our mission, that serves to transform the behavior of the leaders of the world. So, while we are urgently focused on changing the action toward Agenda 2030, let us not forget to also celebrate the transformative power of talk.

Conclusion Our conversation has addressed three underlying communicative CSR assumptions and the tensions embodied in their binary opposites: (1) voluntary/mandatory, (2)transparency/opacity, and (3)talk/action. These reflections have important implications for research and practice. First, binary thinking often 110

A Conversation about Three Key yet Underexplored Tensions

entraps us, precluding the possibility for creative solutions. Unquestioned acceptance of the default assumptions simplifies problems and limits our view of what is and what could be. Further, bifurcated approaches often result in rigid polarization, preventing organizations and researcher from recognizing and addressing what has been described as VUCA (Bennis & Nanus, 1985), the Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous global environment that unquestionably demands greater corporate responsibility but also requires integrative, temporally flexible, fluid, and imaginative solutions. Addressing the tensions that arise from previously unexamined assumptions can help researchers and practitioners respond to a new type of VUCA, that is an approach to CSR that embodies the current CSR challenges of nuanced vision, uniqueness, collective commitment, and appreciation of differences.

Notes 1 Authors are presented alphabetically. Authors contributed equally to this chapter.

References Annan, K. (1999, January 31). Speech addressing the World Economic Forum. un.org https://www.un.org/sg/en/ content/sg/speeches/1999-02-01/kofi-annans-address-world-economic-forum-davos Archel, P., Husillos, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalisation of unaccountability: Loading the dice of corporate social responsibility discourse. Accounting Organizations and Society, 36(6), 327–343. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Harper. Bernstein, E. (2014). The transparency trap. Harvard Business Review, 92(10, Spotlight Feature), 58–66. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper & Row. Carnegie, A. (1889). Wealth. North American Review, 148, 391, 653–665. https://www.carnegie.org/ publications/the-gospel-of-wealth/ (February 23, 2022). Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85–105. doi: 10.1111/j.14682370.2009.00275.x Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393. Christensen, L. T., & Schoeneborn, D. (2017). The corporate construction of transparency and (in)transparency. In A. Rasche, M. Morsing, & J. Moon (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Strategy, communication and governance. Cambridge University Press. Gatti, L., Vishwanath, B., Seele, P., & Cottier, B. (2019). Are we moving beyond voluntary CSR? Exploring theoretical and managerial implications of mandatory CSR resulting from the New Indian Companies Act. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 961–972. Glozer, S., & Morsing, M. (2020). Helpful hypocrisy? Investigating ‘double-talk’ and irony in CSR marketing communications. Journal of Business Research, 114, 363–375. Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 527–553. Chicago. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424. Montiel-Justo, A. A. (2019). Should CSR be mandatory, voluntary or both? https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/333161843 Parker, C. (2009). Meta-regulation: Legal accountability for corporate social responsibility. In D. McBarnet, A Voiculescu, & T. Campbell (Eds.), The new corporate accountability. Corporate social responsibility and the law (pp. 21, 207–237). Cambridge University Press. Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. Schoeneborn, D., & Trittin, H. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 193–211. Stein, L. (2020). State street shares global progress on 3rd anniversary of fearless girl. Retrieved from https:// www.campaignlive.com/article/state-street-shares-global-progress-3rd-anniversary-fearless-girl/1676154

111

Mette Morsing and Cynthia Stohl Stohl, M., & Stohl, C. (2017). Human rights and corporate social responsibility. In A. Brsysk & M. Stohl (Eds.), Expanding human rights: 21st century norms and governance (pp. 115–138). Edward Elgar. Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Leonardi, P. (2016). Managing opacity: Information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 123–137. Tamvada, M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and accountability: A new theoretical foundation for regulating CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 5(2), 1–14. 10.1186/s40991-019-0045-8. UN Global Compact Policy. (2022). ( https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles) Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77–91. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications. Wells, A. (2021). Crucial constructs: CSR. https://crucialconstructs.com/corporate-social-responsibility/ Wettstein, F. (2012). CSR and the debate on business and human rights: Bridging the great divide. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 739–770. 10.5840/beq201222446 Wickert, C., Scherer, A., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational costs. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1169–1196. Yang, Y. (2021). Institutional pressures for convergence and divergence of corporate social responsibility: Collaborative and adversarial networks of NGO-Governmental Organization-Corporations in South Korea. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

112

SECTION II

Form and Content of CSR Communication

9 CSR COMMUNICATION MESSAGE EFFECTS Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao1

Introduction As society increasingly expects organizations to be socially responsible, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a business imperative in today’s global marketplace (Du et al., 2010). While organizational socially responsible practices have been growing significantly during the past decades, the organizational practice of communicating CSR has been an often-overlooked component of CSR research and practitioner attention (Bortree, 2014; Kim, 2019). As Schmeltz (2012) noted, “Companies tend to shy away from the communication aspect of CSR, either because they are not comfortable communicating their own view on corporate responsibilities, or because they are oblivious of the critical importance of such communication activities” (p. 30). At the crux of effective CSR communication is successful CSR message design and implementation (Pérez & Liu, 2020). When CSR messages are created and communicated in an appropriate way, such messages could generate numerous benefits to the organization, its nonprofit partners, social causes, and the organization’s stakeholders. For example, through communicating CSR messages, organizations may enrich their social discourse, project a desired socially responsible identity and reputation, promotes stakeholder relationships, mitigate reputational damage from organizational crises, increase reputation and donations for its nonprofit partners, boost social awareness of the causes being supported, and empower stakeholders to be moral agents for social change (e.g., Tao & Ji, 2020). While the positive effects of CSR messages are desirable and appealing, CSR communication is not without challenges. In fact, when CSR messages are not communicated appropriately, they may backfire, induce skepticism, and impose negative ramifications for a company and its CSR initiatives. Recognizing CSR communication as a delicate matter, scholars across multiple disciplines have started to establish and expand the field of study on CSR communication, particularly CSR message effects (e.g., Du et al., 2010; Kim, 2019). Nowadays, research on CSR message effects has become a new sub-specialty under CSR communication that bridges different ideas, methodological approaches, and empirical findings from communication, psychology, marketing, management, and information science (Verk et al., 2021). As CSR message effect studies become a promising line of research that encompasses a plethora of multidisciplinary theories and approaches, the growth in the demand for, and supply of, knowledge production relating to CSR message effects calls for a systematic consideration of this developing sub-specialty of CSR communication research. This chapter thus provides a review of literature that examines the message effects of CSR communication. It offers insight

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-12

115

Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao

into theoretical and methodological approaches to CSR message effects, CSR message strategies, diverse factors that influence stakeholder responses to CSR messages, and the different contexts within which messages are communicated. Further, based on this comprehensive review of literature on CSR message effects, we will provide critiques on extant literature and shed light on promising directions for future studies to advance this sub-area of research within the field of CSR communication.

Theoretical Approaches to Examining CSR Message Effects The field of CSR studies has been characterized by theoretical diversity and paradigmatic plurality (Ji et al., 2021), so has its sub-area of CSR message research. Below, we present some major theories that have been commonly used by CSR researchers to examine the effects of CSR messages among stakeholders. We do not intend to provide an exhaustive list, but we aspire to provide readers with a good frame of reference that represents the theoretical landscape of CSR message effect studies.

Attribution Theory Attribution theory has been popularly used as an overarching explanation to understand stakeholders’ evaluations of CSR messages, particularly their inferences about corporate motives behind CSR messages and thus skepticism toward such messages. Attribution theory starts with the basic assumption that individuals are social perceivers who make causal inferences about external stimuli (e.g., events, experiences, messages, and other observations; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelly, 1973). By asking “why is this happening”, individuals can better understand and predict their surroundings (Kelly, 1973). In general, the theory distinguishes between two types of causal inferences (Weiner, 2012): personal dispositions that are intrinsic to the actor being observed (e.g., “This company engages in CSR because it genuinely cares about the society”.), and contextual factors that are extrinsic to the actor (e.g., “This company engages in CSR because it was pressured to do so”.). Applying such theoretical insights to CSR context, researchers have differentiated two types of motives to which stakeholders attribute a company’s CSR action and messages: altruistic motives vs. extrinsic motives (Kim & Lee, 2012). Attribution of altruistic motives are shown to enhance stakeholders’ overall evaluations of the firm and its CSR messages and initiatives (e.g., Rim & Song, 2017). An inference of extrinsic motives, however, does the opposite (Kim & Lee, 2012). Furthermore, according to attribution theory, individuals hold a fundamental tendency to make dispositional inferences instead of considering alternative contextual factors unless something novel, surprising, or contradictory occurs that drives the individual to prioritize situational factors in their inference processes (Weiner, 2012). In CSR literature, such novel, surprising, or contradictory elements are often discussed as low company-cause fit or information that violates stakeholders’ existing expectations toward the company (e.g., Cho et al., 2021).

Signaling Theory Signaling theory (Spence, 1973) approaches to CSR message effects start with a fundamental assumption concerning the problem of information asymmetry: While a company possesses all the information about its CSR efforts (e.g., CSR-related motives, goals, policies, processes, outcomes), stakeholders are unlikely to know everything about the company’s CSR (Bae et al., 2018). This leads to an issue of information asymmetry between the company and its stakeholders (Connelly et al., 2011). Information asymmetry limits the abilities of stakeholders to provide accurate evaluations of the company’s CSR and therefore to distinguish between various companies in a competitive market environment (Bae et al., 2018). The signaling theory further argues that to mitigate the problem of information asymmetry, companies can deliver various “signals”, such as 116

CSR Message Effects

CSR messages, to stakeholders, allowing them to differentiate between firms with good versus moderate versus bad CSR performance (Bergh et al., 2014). With the company’s “deliberate communication of positive information in an effort to convey positive organizational attributes” (Connelly et al., 2011, p. 44), the range of CSR communicative signals becomes informative and can be used as a diagnostic for stakeholders’ evaluations (Saxton et al., 2019). The signal theory has been mostly used to study stakeholders’ responses to CSR reports and disclosure (e.g., Bae et al., 2018). Recently, the theory has been increasingly used to understand stakeholder evaluations of CSR messages on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (e.g., Saxton et al., 2019).

Narrative Theory Recently, CSR researchers have ventured into the field of narrative persuasion (Fisher, 1984) and asked whether a narrative CSR message would be more effective than a non-narrative CSR message in generating positive stakeholder outcomes (e.g., Boukes & LaMarre, 2021). Despite the controversy concerning the comparative effectiveness of narratives versus non-narratives (e.g., statistics or rhetoric) in persuasion literature (e.g., Zebregs et al., 2015), CSR researchers tend to advocate that narrative CSR messages generally work better than non-narrative CSR messages (e.g., Xu & Kochigina, 2021). That is, compared to non-narrative CSR messages, narrative CSR messages can transport audiences into the narrative world where the audiences become immersed in the storyline and less aware of their actual surroundings (the transportation explanation; Green & Brock, 2000). In addition, narrative CSR messages can also create the experience of perspective taking and cultivate a sense of attachment with the character portrayed in the story (i.e., the identification explanation; De Graaf et al., 2012). The transportation and identification explanations of CSR narrative effects, to a great extent, were summarized into the narrative engagement process – narratives enhance audiences’ attentional focus on the message, comprehension of the message, emotional arousal associated with the story character, and a sense of immersion in the narrative world (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). As the narrative theory approaches to CSR message effects begin to gain popularity, we believe this approach holds promise for future studies, especially given the prevalence of corporate storytelling nowadays.

Other Theories In addition, CSR researchers have widely adopted expectancy violation theory, elaboration likelihood model, and persuasion knowledge model (see Table 9.1) as overarching theoretical frameworks. Furthermore, other theories used to examine CSR message effects, including framing theory (Entman, 1993), cognitive appraisal theory (Moors et al., 2013), limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (Lang, 2000), social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), norm theory (Cialdini et al., 1991), dialogic theory (Kent & Taylor, 1998), and the symbiotic sustainability model (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010), to name a few.

Methodological Approaches to Studying CSR Message Effects CSR communication research has evolved based on different ontological and epistemological orientations. As such, existing literature embraces diverse aspects of studying CSR communication, from normative and ethical discourses on what CSR ought to be, to instrumental use of CSR (Golob et al., 2013). When it comes to CSR communication message effects, instrumental approach is the dominant paradigm in the current literature (Golob et al., 2013). In this perspective, CSR communication is considered an instrument used to inform stakeholders and promote the CSR activities. Studies have focused on identifying antecedents and consequences by examining relationships between CSR 117

Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao Table 9.1 The application of theories to explain CSR message effects Theories Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT)

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Application to CSR message effect study In the context of CSR EVT from the discipline of interpersonal communication communication, EVT has ( Afifi & Metts, 1998; been used to understand Burgoon, 1993) posits that CSR message effects based on perceived expectancy people evaluate their relationships with others discrepancies from stakeholders. based on to what extent their expectancies are violated or confirmed by the specific others. Petty and Cacioppo’s (1984) ELM, along with ELM is a dual-process Heuristic-Systematic theory that describes the Model (HSM, Eagly & psychological processes Chaiken, 1993), has driving attitude change due been used to predict the to exposure to persuasive impacts of communication messages. CSR messages, particularly to address how stakeholder with varied levels of involvement in a social cause prompt different information processing processes and therefore a range of companyrelated, CSR-related, and message-related outcomes.

Example studies Rim et al. (2020) used EVT to understand how stakeholders’ attribution of CSR motives are affected by inconsistent CSR message cueing. Tao and Song (2020) used EVT to examine stakeholder reactions to CSR messages during times of a corporate crisis.

Browning et al. (2018) examined how CSR message complexity affects information processing cues. Applying the key constructs of the ELM, the study also showed the effects of cause involvement, ability and motivation to process the message on corporate image evaluations. Overton and Yang (2021) applied the ELM to explain how systematic and heuristic processing measures as antecedents that inform problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition and, ultimately, how individuals develop information seeking behaviors, as mediated by CSR message frames. Positioning CSR messages as Ham and Kim (2020) studied Persuasion Friestad and Wright (1994) CSR messages as a type of a persuasion attempt from Knowledge conceptualize how a corporate response strategies to the company to produce Model persuasion agent and a crisis situations and examined wanted outcomes among (PKM) persuasion target interact stakeholders, CSR consumers’ skepticism toward during a persuasion episode. the use of such messages. The PKM proposes researchers, particularly from the advertising and Lee et al. (2020) examined how stakeholders’ use of marketing fields, have promotion-focused (vs. knowledge structures to used the PKM to prevention-focused) CSR analyze and interpret a messages can lessen the understand stakeholders’ persuasion attempt so they negative impact of perceived attributions of CSR can choose the appropriate motives and their persuasive intent. actions and control the skepticism when exposed outcomes of such an attempt. to CSR messages.

118

CSR Message Effects

communication and stakeholders’ cognitive, affective and behavioral evaluations that are directly and indirectly related to business performances. Extant literature has also documented psychological mechanisms, stakeholder related factors, and boundary conditions that contribute to our understanding of what to communicate and how they work under which condition. Such studies rely heavily on quantitative methods to assess causal relationships or correlations. The experimental method was the most widely used method in CSR message effects research, as it allows to establish cause-and-effect relationships under a controlled environment. Scholars can systematically investigate how specific aspects of CSR message strategies influence stakeholders’ reactions using stimuli, such as scenarios, media stories, press releases, and advertisements (e.g., Austin & Gaither, 2017). A self-report was another common approach used to assess a participant’s subjective evaluations, cognitive and emotional state and experiences. However, to overcome the disadvantages of subjectivity and social desirability biases associated with self-reporting (Medina et al., 2021), studies also use technology devices such as eye-tracking and neuroimaging tools to better capture psychophysiological reactions and arousals. For example, Bae (2020) examined the role of emotional messaging and heuristic cues on a Facebook brand page in lessening consumer skepticism toward CSR messages. In this study, eye-tracking devices helped identify different patterns of information processing between high and low skeptical consumer groups based on monitoring their eye movements. Regarding the neuroimaging technique, it allows researchers to capture moment-by-moment implicit processing, and thus helps unpack the neural mechanism for consumer responses such as affective empathic responses (Lee, 2016). Scholars also use quantitative content analysis to illustrate strategies and key features used in CSR messages in traditional media like magazines (e.g., Bortree et al., 2013), on corporate websites (e.g., Gómez & Chalmeta, 2011), as well as on social network sites (e.g., Kim et al., 2014). In addition to analyzing message contents and strategies in a descriptive manner, studies also examined relationships between these message characteristics and stakeholder engagement on social media (i.e., retweet, number of likes, comments, and shares; Araujo & Kollat, 2018) to provide evidence of message effectiveness. The existing CSR message effects research also benefited from qualitative methods like case studies, interviews, focus groups, and ethnographies. Case studies provided information on the CSR communication environment and the drivers behind communication decisions (e.g., Chaudhri & Wang, 2007), and interviews helped to explore practitioners’ and stakeholders’ perception of CSR communication (e.g., Chaudhri, 2016). Scholars also used qualitative content analysis of archival data (e.g., corporate reports) for the descriptive analysis of CSR strategies (e.g., Hahn & Lülfs, 2014).

CSR Message Strategies Using the diverse theoretical lenses discussed above, CSR communication scholars have studied message characteristics and strategies to enhance our understanding of the process and outcome of CSR communication. Existing literature offered empirical evidence that CSR communication outcomes are influenced by various CSR message-related factors, including but not limited to the valence of messages (Rim & Song, 2016), tone (Chae, 2020), information objectivity (Kang & Atkinson, 2021), specificity (Robinson & Eilert, 2018), consistency (Rim et al., 2020), transparency (Lee & Comello, 2019), authenticity (Pérez & Liu, 2020), message fit (Maktoufi et al., 2020), message framing (Dhanesh & Nekmat, 2019), and storytelling (Araujo & Kollat, 2018). Researchers have also identified other corporate-related or CSR program-related antecedents such as prior company reputation (Yoon et al., 2006), prior corporate communication strategies (Tao & Wilson, 2016), and proactive versus reactive approaches (Rim & Ferguson, 2020). Furthermore, individual differences in stakeholders, such as ethical orientation (Shim et al., 2017), demographic and psychological features also influence CSR message effectiveness. In this section, we review critical factors of CSR message effects that are known to influence stakeholders’ attribution of CSR motives, and thus CSR outcomes. 119

Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao

Fit The importance of fit in CSR communication literature has been mostly examined at a CSRprogram level. Yet, the fit effect at the program level naturally translates into the message effects. Fit, defined as “the perceived congruence between a social issue and a company’s business” (Du et al., 2010, p. 12), is used to indicate stakeholders’ perceptions of similarity of the pairing. Stakeholders use fit as a cue to judge the appropriateness of a company’s support for a certain cause or a corporatepartnership (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). In general, it is known that because people use heuristic cues to evaluate the perception of fit, the similarity between a company and a cause (i.e., a high-fit) tends to elicit more positive CSR outcomes (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). Nevertheless, there is still a lack of consensus among the past research findings regarding the fit effect (de Jong & van der Meer, 2017), due to the conceptual and methodological issues associated with fit-related research and the contextual factors within which the study took place. The perceptual fit can be shaped depending on how it is communicated. Scholars particularly focused on “articulation” that provides a rationale for the partnership in CSR messages, e.g., “why it makes sense to sponsor a particular object” (Olson & Thjømøe, 2011, p. 64) in CSR messages. For example, Maktoufi et al.’s study (2020) examined how “created fit messaging” strategy influenced stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate-nonprofit partnership fit. The results offered the “created fit messaging” strategy which worked for both low fit and high fit partnership, and the effects were greater for individuals with a higher degree of CSR activism. Such findings provide insights into how best to design CSR communication messages that help create perception of fit, beyond a CSR program planning level.

Transparency Recent research has focused on transparency as a determinant of CSR communication quality, a strategic instrument for stakeholder management, and a key promise of corporate legitimacy (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). It has also been identified as a crucial factor in CSR communication as it helps decrease skepticism (Kim & Rim, 2019) and enhances company reputation perception (Kim, 2019). In CSR communication research, scholars adopted Rawlins’ (2008) conceptualization of transparency, defined as “the deliberate attempt to make available all legally releasable information – whether positive or negative in nature – in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal, for the purpose of enhancing the reasoning ability of publics and holding organizations accountable for their actions, policies, and practices” (p. 75). One aspect of transparency involves making both positive and negative information available, without omitting negative aspects of CSR practices (Kim & Ferguson, 2018). Although it is not unusual for a source to deliver a mixed signal, this may decrease the perceived competence of the source, which would be of concern for a communicator (McGinnies & Ward, 1980). However, previous research in persuasion literature suggested that providing both sides can enhance credibility (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994). Rim et al. (2019) empirically demonstrated that a transparent CSR message did not negatively influence company competence or reputation. Rather, it positively influenced the company’s perceived integrity and reputation.

Authenticity Authenticity is generally understood as the attributes of an object that are perceived as being genuine, real, sincere, honest and original, and that cannot be copied (Perez, 2019). Scholars conceptualized message authenticity focusing on specific attributes in CSR messages. Perez (2019) proposed an examination of the antecedents of message authenticity in CSR communication, which

120

CSR Message Effects

include CSR fit, social impact specificity, and social topic information. As to social impact specificity, providing concrete facts on how much the company contributes to CSR is critical, as it shapes stakeholders’ perception on whether the company is “making a real and meaningful difference and whether or not the company is perceived to give enough relative to its size and profits” (Alhouti et al., 2016, p. 1243). As to social topic information, including specific information about the social causes makes the message more diagnostic and thus, more authentic. Ultimately, such CSR message authenticity can contribute to message and source credibility, and therefore, increases loyalty and advocacy behaviors (Perez, 2019). We echo Perez (2019) that CSR message content can be crafted by incorporating the attributes that transmit to authenticity and transparency, as well as by articulating the created fit, which ultimately helps enhance overall CSR effectiveness. It should also be noted that although transparency, authenticity, and fit are distinct concepts, when it comes to the attributes of each concept, they share some commonalities, including “information specificity”, which has long been supported by persuasion literature. Information with specific (vs. general) claims is perceived to be verifiable (Darley & Smith, 1993), easier to process (Bettman et al., 1998), and easier to grab consumers’ attention (MacKenzie, 1986).

Contextual Factors Influencing CSR Message Effects While a great deal of research looked at the elements of message strategies that maximize positive consequences, another stream of research investigated conditional and dysfunctional effects of those strategies, with particular attention accorded to CSR skepticism. Persuasive message strategies should be used with caution as they may cause backlash to the organization depending on the contexts within which these messages are communicated. Research has documented that CSR message effects differ by contextual factors including past corporate behaviors, reputation, and notable events such as having to deal with a crisis. That is, when there is a reason to suspect the authenticity of CSR messages, people engage in more complex message processing and speculate underlying motivations (Ham & Kim, 2020). Scholars also paid particular attention to the effects of a crisis type and a crisis-cause fit on stakeholder responses to CSR messages after a crisis. Kim and Choi (2018) demonstrated that CSR initiatives that were congruent with a crisis generated more positive stakeholder responses, but only when the crisis was stemmed from an accident, not a transgression. Similarly, Rim and Ferguson (2020) also noted that in a victim crisis, a low-fit CSR message was more effective in improving company reputation than a high-fit CSR message. Furthermore, CSR communication in the stigmatized or controversial industries has been of interest to CSR scholars, from normative debates to suggestions for strategic communications, and to identifying boundary conditions (e.g., Austin & Gaither, 2017). While there is no solid parameter, scholars have embraced both “morally corrupted” industries, such as tobacco, weapon, gambling, and “issue-riddled” industries such as chemical, oil, and fast-food industries, into their research in CSR message effects related to controversial industry (Song et al., 2020).2 Companies belonging to these industry sectors often encounter hostile perceptions and CSR communication is inherently challenging (Lee & Comello, 2019). Within stigmatized industries, studies generally suggested to avoid high-fit CSR programs as they may heighten CSR skepticism and be negatively evaluated by stakeholders (Kim & Choi, 2012). Austin and Gaither (2017) used a soda company, and findings showed that low-fit CSR (i.e., literacy initiative) was evaluated more positively than high-fit CSR (i.e., obesity initiative) as the campaign was viewed as more public-serving and value-driven. A similar pattern of fit effects was observed when research focused on a morally corrupted industry, tobacco (Kim & Choi, 2012). When it comes to other CSR message strategies, while information specificity strategy has been identified as effective in lessening stakeholders’ skepticism, Austin and Gaither’s (2017) findings 121

Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao

related to the benefit salience variable implies that this would not be a case for a socially stigmatized industry. However, as to the effect of transparency in CSR messages, Lee and Comello (2019) showed that the effects of transparency in CSR messaging on consumer skepticism applied to stigmatized industries, and to a greater extent than non-stigmatized industries. As such mixed findings indicate, there is no solid answer on how to best incorporate message strategies to communicate CSR efforts in controversial industries. Scholars need to continue to work on unpacking boundary conditions to further guide strategic construction of CSR messages.

Conclusion and Future Directions Though not exhaustive, we provided a classification of literature that sheds light on theoretical and methodological approaches to examining CSR message effects, different CSR message strategies and factors that moderate CSR message effects, and contexts within which CSR messages are communicated. By making this underdeveloped stream of CSR message effects studies more accessible to both the academicians and practitioners, we hope our review will assist them in learning and appreciating the current nature and state of the research. Our review of the CSR message effects literature points to important directions for future research. First, in terms of theoretical approaches, while diverse multidisciplinary theoretical lenses have been adopted to study CSR message effects, persuasion and psychology theories appear to constitute the majority of research. This dominant use of persuasion and psychology theories is not surprising because the broader field of message effect studies is rooted in psychology and persuasion disciplines. However, it might have narrowed our thinking on how the knowledge construction pertaining to CSR message effects could benefit from theories from other disciplines. For future research, we encourage scholars to explore more diverse theories from other disciplines including but not limited to communication, information science, management, and even sociology. Meanwhile, we also encourage more scholarly efforts on theoretical innovation. This is important because most theories adopted to examine CSR message effects came from established theories in other fields, and there is no new theory that is being generated to address phenomena unique to CSR message construction and effects. Our openness to diverse theories, different philosophical foundations, and theoretical invention can potentially bring more theoretical breakthroughs that are indispensable in challenging and enriching our existing knowledge on CSR message effects. Second, regarding methodological approaches, while our knowledge on CSR message effects has benefited from traditional methods such as lab experiments and surveys, for future research, we envision more opportunities for the application of computational approaches, such as big data and artificial intelligence algorithms. These emerging approaches allow us to capture and trace stakeholders’ actual online behaviors in an unobtrusive way and thereby help us to overcome various limitations associated with traditional methods and self-reported data that have dominated extant CSR message effects research. These limitations include imperfect introspections in reporting their behaviors, introduction of social desirability biases, and the artificial settings to secure internal validity while sacrificing generalizability of findings. Furthermore, we encourage researchers to move away from heavy reliance on one single method in examining CSR message effects. Instead, to unpack complex CSR message effects, researchers need to consider the benefits of adopting mixed design research or triangulations and conducting field experiments, which existing literature lacks. Third, regarding research topics, we see quite a few opportunities. For example, new media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc.) have been frequently used by organizations and stakeholders to co-construct CSR content, engage in CSR dialogue, and spread CSR-related discussions to the larger society (Saxton et al., 2019). Yet, we still lack a holistic understanding of social media-based CSR message effects that emerge during such message co-creating, conversing, and diffusing processes. Additionally, the advent of innovative media technologies such as mobile applications, virtual reality and 122

CSR Message Effects

augmented reality, allows for new opportunities for organizations to communicate CSR goals, commitment, and practices in an interactive and immersive way (Lee et al., 2021). Although a handful of studies (e.g., Lee et al., 2021) have initiated scholarly conversations on this topic, we call for more efforts to understand how these new technologies alter the CSR message construction processes as well as people’s sense-making and evaluations. In this regard, CSR scholars may learn fresh theoretical and methodological insights from the fields of computer-mediated communication and computer science and potentially develop novel approaches in understanding CSR message effects via new technologies, which is a promising subfield of CSR message research. Another research topic that deserves more attention from CSR scholars is the examination of CSR message effects in different cultural contexts. Based on our review, a majority of CSR studies predominantly examined message effects in western contexts, while limited efforts have been undertaken to unpack the micro, meso, and macro levels of impacts of CSR messages in non-western contexts. This is problematic because many social, environmental, and health issues that CSR addresses are global issues that require long-term collaborations between organizations, governments, NGOs, and citizens across different countries and continents. Thus, a contextualized understanding of how people and institutions evaluate and respond to CSR messages in different cultures are crucial to successful creation and communication of culturally sensitive CSR messages, which is indispensable to exploring solutions for these global issues. Finally, regarding the types of CSR message effects examined, we suggest researchers not singularly focus on immediate psychological and behavioral effects generated by CSR messages. While such momentary effects are important, longitudinal evaluations of CSR message effects such as longterm stakeholder, organizational, and cause related outcomes are also critical but have rarely been explored. Such longitudinal evaluations can help us to answer questions on the sustainability of CSR communication campaigns and programs, which is a relatively untapped area in CSR message research.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4

What are some theoretical frameworks that you think are promising in assisting CSR message effects research? Why? How can CSR message effect research benefit from theories from different disciplines? What are other contextual factors that may impact CSR message effects but have not been elaborated on in this chapter? What emerging research methods are you interested in adopting to study CSR message effects?

Notes 1 Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript. 2 See Song et al. (2020) for more details about the typology. Such distinctions are critical to understanding and interpreting the findings of previous CSR communication studies because the extent of harmfulness or sinfulness may create nuances in how stakeholders react to persuasion strategies in CSR messages.

References Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 365–392. Alhouti, S., Johnson, C. M., & Holloway, B. B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1242–1249.

123

Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao Araujo, T., & Kollat, J. (2018). Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter: The power of engaging strategies and storytelling elements. Internet Research, 28(2), 419–431. Austin, L., & Gaither, B. M. (2017). Perceived motivations for corporate social responsibility initiatives in socially stigmatized industries. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 840–849. Bae, M. (2020). Role of skepticism and message elaboration in determining consumers’ response to causerelated marketing claims on Facebook brand pages. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 41(3), 301–331. Bae, S. M., Masud, M., Kaium, A., & Kim, J. D. (2018). A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: A signaling theory perspective. Sustainability, 10(8), 2611. 10.3390/ su10082611 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215 Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53. Bergh, D. D., Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J., & Shannon, L. M. (2014). Signalling theory and equilibrium in strategic management research: An assessment and a research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 1334–1360. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217. Bortree, D. S. (2014). The state of CSR communication research: A summary and future direction. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 1–8. Bortree, D. S., Ahern, L., Smith, A. N., & Dou, X. (2013). Framing environmental responsibility: 30 years of CSR messages in National Geographic Magazine. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 491–496. Boukes, M., & LaMarre, H. L. (2021). Narrative persuasion by corporate CSR messages: The impact of narrative richness on attitudes and behavioral intentions via character identification, transportation, and message credibility. Public Relations Review, 47(5), 102107. Browning, N., Gogo, O., & Kimmel, M. (2018). Comprehending CSR messages: Applying the elaboration likelihood model. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(1), 17–34. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. Chae, M. J. (2020). The effects of message tone and formats of CSR messages on engagement in social media. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(10), 501–511. Chaudhri, V. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and the communication imperative: Perspectives from CSR managers. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(4), 419–442. Chaudhri, V., & Wang, J. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility on the internet: A case study of the top 100 information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 232–247. Cho, M., Park, S. Y., & Kim, S. (2021). When an organization violates public expectations: A comparative analysis of sustainability communication for corporate and nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 101928. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574. Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1993). Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 100–113. De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, J. W. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823 de Jong, M. D., & van der Meer, M. (2017). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 71–83. Dhanesh, G. S., & Nekmat, E. (2019). Facts over stories for involved publics: Framing effects in CSR messaging and the roles of issue involvement, message elaboration, affect, and skepticism. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 7–38.

124

CSR Message Effects Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes (Vol. xxii). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, 390–397. Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53–63. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communications Monographs, 51(1), 1–22. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W. J., Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C., & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: Quo vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 176–192. Gómez, L. M., & Chalmeta, R. (2011). Corporate responsibility in US corporate websites: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 93–95. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401–420. Ham, C. D., & Kim, J. (2020). The effects of CSR communication in corporate crises: Examining the role of dispositional and situational CSR skepticism in context. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101792. Ji, Y. G., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2021). Theoretical insights of CSR research in communication from 1980 to 2018: A bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. 10.1007/s1 0551-021-04748-w Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press. Kang, E. Y., & Atkinson, L. (2021). Effects of message objectivity and focus on green CSR communication: The strategy development for a hotel’s green CSR message. Journal of Marketing Communications, 27(3), 229–249. Kelly, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. Kim, S. (2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143–1159. Kim, S., & Choi, S. M. (2018). Congruence effects in post-crisis CSR communication: The mediating role of attribution of corporate motives. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(2), 447–463. Kim, S., & Ferguson, M. A. T. (2018). Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 549–567. Kim, S., Kim, S. Y., & Sung, K. H. (2014). Fortune 100 companies’ facebook strategies: Corporate ability versus social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 18(4), 343–362. Kim, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 168–170. Kim, S., & Rim, H. (2019). The role of public skepticism and distrust in the process of CSR communication. International Journal of Business Communication. August. 10.1177/2329488419866888. Kim, Y. S., & Choi, Y. (2012). College students’ perception of Philip Morris’s tobacco-related smoking prevention and tobacco-unrelated social responsibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 184–199. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. Lee, E. J. (2016). Empathy can increase customer equity related to pro-social brands. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3748–3754. Lee, S. Y., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2021). Engaging consumers with corporate social responsibility campaigns: The roles of interactivity, psychological empowerment, and identification. Journal of Business Research, 134, 507–517. Lee, S. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Ahn, H. (2020). Deflecting resistance to persuasion: Exploring CSR message strategies on consumer evaluations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(3), 393–412.

125

Hyejoon Rim and Weiting Tao Lee, T. H., & Comello, M. L. N. G. (2019). Transparency and industry stigmatization in strategic CSR communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 68–85. MacKenzie, S. B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising on attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174–195. Maktoufi, R., O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2020). Does the CSR message matter? Untangling the relationship between corporate–nonprofit partnerships, created fit messages, and activist evaluations. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(2), 188–212. McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467–472. Medina, C. A. G., Martínez-Fiestas, M., Aranda, L. A. C., & Sánchez-Fernández, J. (2021). Is it an error to communicate CSR Strategies? Neural differences among consumers when processing CSR messages. Journal of Business Research, 126, 99–112. Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119–124. Olson, E. L., & Thjømøe, H. M. (2011). Explaining and articulating the fit construct in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 57–70. Overton, H., & Yang, F. (2021). Examining the impact of information processing on CSR communication response. Communication Quarterly, 69(4), 454–477. Pérez, A. (2019). Building a theoretical framework of message authenticity in CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 334–350. Pérez, A., & Liu, M. T. (2020). Information specificity, social topic awareness and message authenticity in CSR communication. Journal of Communication Management, 24(1), 31–48. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. Rawlins, B. (2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. Rim, H., & Ferguson, M. A. T. (2020). Proactive versus reactive CSR in a crisis: An impression management perspective. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(4), 545–568. Rim, H., Park, Y. E., & Song, D. (2020). Watch out when expectancy is violated: An experiment of inconsistent CSR message cueing. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(4), 343–361. Rim, H., & Song, D. (2016). “How negative becomes less negative”: Understanding the effects of comment valence and response sidedness in social media. Journal of Communication, 66(3), 475–495. Rim, H., & Song, D. (2017). Corporate message strategies for global CSR campaigns: The mediating role of perceived altruism. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(3), 383–400. Rim, H., Swenson, R., & Anderson, B. (2019). What happens when brands tell the truth? Exploring the effects of transparency signaling on corporate reputation for agribusiness. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(4), 439–459. Robinson, S., & Eilert, M. (2018). The role of message specificity in corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Research, 90, 260–268. Saxton, G. D., Gómez, L., Ngoh, Z., Lin, Y. P., & Dietrich, S. (2019). Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 359–377. Schmeltz, L. (2012). Consumer‐oriented CSR communication: Focusing on ability or morality. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(1), 29–49. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243. Shim, K., Chung, M., & Kim, Y. (2017). Does ethical orientation matter? Determinants of public reaction to CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 817–828. Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 577–609. Song, B., Wen, J., & Ferguson, M. A. (2020). Toward effective CSR communication in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(3), 243–267. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. Tao, W., & Ji, Y. G. (2020). Firm-determined or consumer-determined corporate social responsibility (CSR)? Examining the effects of choice-of-cause in cause-related marketing. International Journal of Business Communication, May, 10.1177/2329488420918397. Tao, W., & Song, B. (2020). The interplay between post-crisis response strategy and pre-crisis corporate associations in the context of CSR crises. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101883

126

CSR Message Effects Tao, W., & Wilson, C. (2016). The impact of corporate communication on company evaluation: Examining the message effects of CSR, corporate ability, and hybrid strategies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(5), 426–444. Verk, N., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2021). A dynamic review of the emergence of corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3), 491–515. Weiner, B. (2012). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer Science & Business Media. Xu, S., & Kochigina, A. (2021). Engaging through stories: Effects of narratives on individuals’ skepticism toward corporate social responsibility efforts. Public Relations Review, 47(5), 102110. Yoon, Y., Gürhan‐Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390. Zebregs, S., van den Putte, B., Neijens, P., & de Graaf, A. (2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30(3), 282–289.

127

10 VISUAL STRATEGIES FOR CSR COMMUNICATION Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung

Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is defined as a company’s practices to benefit the environment, communities, and society at large (Kotler & Lee, 2005). CSR communication has been described as “communication that is designed and distributed by the company itself about its CSR efforts” (Morsing, 2006, p. 171). CSR communication’s effect on publics’ attitudes and behaviors has gradually become apparent, making CSR one of the most popular topics that companies talk about. Indeed, CSR-related discourse gives a company the opportunity to relate to publics beyond topics related to its products and services. Publics’ increasing expectations in recent years for companies to address social and environmental issues also drive the need for more CSR communication. Numerous companies are constantly communicating their CSR initiatives through various channels, such as websites, social media, CSR reports, advertising, and press releases. Despite CSR’s popularity, however, CSR communication must surmount several hurdles. In particular, attracting people’s attention to CSR messages is difficult, and yet that is the prerequisite for eliciting the subsequent effects of CSR (Du et al., 2010). In comparison to urgent news or crisis coverage, CSR messages are often not newsworthy, making it hard for them to cut through the clutter. Another hurdle is making CSR issues relatable. Despite reflecting societal needs and demands, the significance of CSR issues is usually long term rather than immediate, they often focus on a particular group as beneficiaries, and/or the beneficiaries are located overseas. Consequently, strategies are needed to overcome these fundamental obstacles, and this need has become more urgent with organizational communication’s growing dependence on social media. In this chapter, we propose that visual strategies can meet these challenges. To stand out amid the flood of information online, almost all CSR messages include visuals. Visuals are superior to text in grabbing attention (Powell et al., 2015) and in stimulating emotions (e.g., Brubaker & Wilson, 2018) and thus have great potential for CSR communication. Many of the topics CSR deals with can potentially tap into emotions, especially those involving the public’s prosocial behaviors. However, there is still a scarcity of research on visual strategies in CSR communication and on the mechanisms through which, why, and when certain visual strategies can be effective. In the following section, drawing from the literature in journalism, marketing, health communication, and advertising, we delineate various types of visual strategies, focusing on three aspects – modality, visual framing, and brand visibility – that we believe are most relevant to the context of CSR. We then map out various visual strategies that scholars and practitioners can incorporate in

128

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-13

Visual Strategies for CSR Communication

CSR communication. Finally, we conclude by summarizing the current state of the scholarship on visual strategies for CSR communication and avenues for future research to explore.

Visual Strategies: Modality Visuals have increasingly been used, alone or with text, in CSR messages. The CSR literature has shown that messages containing visual components are more effective than text-only messages in social media engagement (e.g., Abitbol & Lee, 2017). Visuals give more vivid and concrete representations of information than does text and therefore can facilitate easier and faster activation of cognitive schemata for memory and comprehension (Newhagen & Reeves, 1992; Powell et al., 2015). Visual strategies can be implemented in various modes, including static images, animations, and videos. Static images, such as photographs (Bae, 2016; Garcia & Greenwood, 2015; Xue & Muralidharan, 2015) and infographics (Kanbaty et al., 2020), have been the most commonly studied visuals in CSR messages. However, another popular format is audiovisuals, including videos and animations. These present a continuous and dynamic flow of audio and visual information at the same time and thus are advantageous in delivering complex or process-driven information, such as causes/effects, movements, and procedures. Research has shown that the audiovisual format can be more effective than static image formats in the cognitive domain, such as attention, comprehension, and retention of information, especially in explaining abstract concepts or processes (Mayer, 2009), as well as in increasing motivation, engagement, and perceived interactivity with the content (Rieber, 1990, 1991). CSR messages often use videos as a storytelling tool because videos can stimulate multiple senses and therefore generate better representations of reality, such as spectacular natural scenery (Hartmann et al., 2016), and also create enhanced perceptions of a company’s trustworthiness and social and environmental responsibility (Cho et al., 2009). Unlike static images, however, the audiovisual format, such as videos and animations, may be ineffective when the dynamic and continuous presentation of transient information produces additional cognitive demands (Mayer, 2009). Moreover, videos may lead to distraction or cognitive overload when they convey too much information to be processed at once due to fast pacing or high complexity (Lang et al., 1999; Lang et al., 2013). Accordingly, CSR practitioners need to be cautious about how they use videos. Long-form videos in CSR messages may cause some viewers’ attention to wander. More recently, technological developments have led to advances in the mode of visual presentation, and visuals with interactive features such as virtual reality (VR) and 360° videos have emerged to offer a degree of sensory realism similar to real-world experiences, called visual immersion or telepresence (Steuer, 1992). For example, Toms Shoes integrates VR to let their customers experience a virtual giving trip in Peru and emotionally engage with children wearing shoes for the first time that were donated by the company (Becker, 2021). Lee et al. (2021) found that the use of immersive technology positively influenced publics’ attribution of companies’ CSR motives, their attitudes toward the CSR, their purchase intention, and emotional connection via enhanced telepresence – a sense of “being there” in a setting rendered by visual media. Such emergent interactive visual media can be an effective tool for storytelling about social causes or companies’ socially responsible initiatives while producing enhanced emotional engagement (McPherson, 2017). Different types of visuals can be used to present CSR messages. Practitioners need to understand the pros and cons of each option and weigh them in order to achieve the intended goals of their messages.

129

Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung

Visual Strategies: Visual Framing Framing is a cognitive means of selecting and highlighting certain portions of the perceived reality presented in a message so as to make them salient, while downplaying others (Dhanesh & Rahman, 2021; Entman, 1993; Garcia & Greenwood, 2015). Visual framing is framing through visual cues, defined as “a continuous winnowing process” that “begins with the choice of events to cover, followed by the selection of what pictures to take, how to take them (angle, perspective, assumptions and biases, cropping, and so forth), and which ones to submit” (Entman, 1993, p. 269). Visual framing can have cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects because it induces an audience’s specific interpretations of an issue or an event in a particular image (Goffman, 1974). In this chapter, we discuss two different types of visual framing which have commonly been used and which have a great potential for application in CSR communication.

Human-Interest Visual Framing Human-interest framing is using visuals “portraying one or more specific persons who are personally involved with [an] issue” (Boukes 2015, p. 122). In human-interest framing, “individual lives are featured to personalize the story, with affective dimensions accentuated” (Luther & Xiang, 2005, pp. 859–860). According to exemplification theory, human-interest visual framing can stimulate viewers’ heuristic processing by making the visually described objects, including the person(s) and/ or the environment, more relatable and easier to connect with emotionally (Zillmann & Brosius, 2000). A typical form of CSR practices is to engage with social issues relevant to a company’s publics and their daily lives, highlighting human-interest angles. Jeong and Kim (2021) found that when a brand was visually depicted with anthropomorphic attributes (e.g., smiling faces and limbs), CSR messages produced a greater perception of emotional connection (warmth) and buying pleasure. Likewise, one visual CSR communication strategy is to use images of caring employees of the company involved – for example, Walmart’s CSR messages show employees in Walmart uniforms caring for at-risk people and environments.

Emotional Visual Framing Another type of visual framing is visuals that trigger emotions. There are two different theoretical approaches to understanding emotions elicited by visual content: dimensional (lower-order) emotions and discrete (higher-order) emotions.

Dimensional Emotions One approach posits that emotions consist of two fundamental dimensions: valence at the hedonic level (a continuum of positive to negative), and arousal, an intensity level (a continuum of low to high) (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Lee & Lang, 2009). This approach views emotions as automatic (often unconscious), instant, and involuntary biological responses to a stimulus (e.g., visual content) (Lang, 2006, 2017). In this perspective, most visual content is innately emotional and merely differs in its intensity, so non-emotional content is content with a very low arousal level. Lang’s limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing, or LC4MP (Lang, 2006, 2017), integrates the dimensional theory of emotion to describe how emotional content in visual media influences viewers’ cognitive processing of content. According to the LC4MP, all humans have two underlying motivational systems, the appetitive and the aversive, each of which is automatically triggered by information motivationally relevant to human survival. For example, environmental opportunities (e.g., food or mates) or threats (e.g., predators or diseases), recognized

130

Visual Strategies for CSR Communication

by instinct, have motivational relevance. The LC4MP states that most visual content has an emotional tone (valence) that varies in its intensity (arousal), and it categorizes content framing into four types: low-arousing positive, low-arousing negative, high-arousing positive, and high-arousing negative. Similarly, emotional visual content in CSR messages can influence publics’ motivated processing of the content, and thus, in turn, can affect the attribution of a company’s motives for CSR, attitude toward the company, purchase intention, CSR participation intention (Chung & Lee, 2019), and memory of CSR information (Chung & Lee, 2020; Lee & Chung, 2018). These studies consistently show the greater effectiveness of high-arousing negative images over high-arousing positive images and suggest that practitioners use negative images related to CSR issues, directly visually highlighting the endangered environment or people or animals suffering from water shortages or pollution, so as to intensify the perceived degree of threat. In contrast, positive images depicting a desirable or positive future for the environment (e.g., fresh water or air) were found to be less effective because they did not include such convincing motivational cues.

Discrete Emotions Another approach considers emotions as discrete states, such as fear, happiness, disgust, sadness, and anger (Lazarus, 1991; Nabi, 2017). According to the attribution theory of emotion (Lazarus, 1991), individuals have an inherent desire to grasp the causes of their behaviors or events in relation to factors such as responsibility, certainty, and legitimacy. The attribution theory views a specific emotional state as a psychological construct arising from an individual’s cognitive appraisal or evaluation of an event or situation. For example, anger is triggered by attributing the causes of a negative event to others externally, not coming from the self, whereas guilt is triggered by attributing the causes to the self internally. As such, five negative emotions – fear, anger, sadness, disgust, and guilt – have differential, adaptive, and motivational functions (Lazarus, 1991; Nabi, 1999). Little research on CSR communication has examined visuals’ eliciting discrete emotions, but the research in advertising and health communication has demonstrated the value of such visual framing, raising the possibility of using such visual framing in CSR messages. It should be noted that most of the studies examined the effect of a specific emotion-eliciting message (e.g., fear appeals) compared to non-emotional messages, rather than comparing different types of emotions, because each emotion has its own unique motivational function and effectiveness. Fear appeals are one of the most studied types of persuasive messages (Avery & Park, 2018; Leshner et al., 2011; Nabi, 1999). Fear is known to generate a strong impulse to avoid (potential) threats. In a situation with immediate or noticeable harm, fear can activate strong defensive motivations and behaviors. Visuals can be effective in eliciting fear by depicting threatening information and increasing personal motivational relevance. Research has found that fear appeal visuals – such as images of the HPV virus and warts caused by the virus in anti-HPV campaign messages (Avery & Park, 2018), images of diseases or death associated with smoking in anti-smoking campaign messages (Leshner et al., 2011), and videos of human activities damaging the environment in environmental advocacy campaigns (Pressgrove et al., 2021) – were more effective in increasing attention, memory, and behavioral intention than were non-fear appeal visuals. Disgust is another type of strong negative emotion, but its function is not the same as that of fear. Disgust is a “grossed out” feeling (Nabi, 2002) related to avoidance and nausea (Leshner et al., 2011), producing a rejection or distancing from some event or situation (Rozin et al., 2008). Research has shown that disgust-eliciting visuals (e.g., diseased organs, yellowed teeth, or cholesterol-filled arteries) enhanced attention and recognition of the content, but the use of both fear and disgust together in one message generated defensive processing (Leshner et al., 2011). For CSR communication, this implies that not all negative visuals will be effective. Visual strategies need to be 131

Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung

carefully calibrated so as to avoid using multiple emotional frames together and thus eliciting defensive processing. A guilt frame, along with shame or empathy, is often used in communicating about issues such as environmental preservation (e.g., images of recycling and water conservation; Baek & Yoon, 2017) and charities’ fundraising (e.g., images of deprived children needing help; Basil et al., 2008; Hibbert et al., 2007). Guilt arises from one’s self-evaluation that one has infringed on an internalized moral, religious, or ethical code (Lazarus, 1991; Nabi, 1999). Guilt is a cognitive obsession which involves thinking that something is wrong and needs to be remedied immediately; thus, it motivates one’s socially responsible, appropriate demeanor. Guilt appeals, however, are not always effective – for example, they fail when audiences perceive manipulative intent or feel skepticism toward the tactics (Hibbert et al., 2007), or when addressing individuals high in environmental consciousness as opposed to those with a low level (Chang, 2012).

Visual Strategies: Brand Visibility A unique but functionally important element for CSR visual strategies is brand visibility, defined as visual summary information about the sponsoring company, such as brand logos, names, or symbols, visually expressing what the company stands for and how it is distinct from others (Tourky et al., 2021). One of the main purposes of CSR communication is to create mental linkages between a company and its CSR initiatives, called CSR associations – the public’s knowledge or perception of the company’s CSR activity (Brown & Dacin, 1997) – and ultimately to generate long-term benefits for the company (e.g., Chung & Lee, 2019, 2020; He & Li, 2011). High dominance of brand visibility was found to be more effective in producing positive product evaluations than low dominance of brand visibility (Sheinin & Biehal, 1999). The most common type of brand visibility is company logos, which can be presented in three ways: a name alone (e.g., Google), a unique symbol only (e.g., Shell), or a name combined with a symbol (e.g., Starbucks’ mermaid). These, in the concept of branding, function to communicate the company’s general image, core values, or marketing efforts with a broad range of stakeholders (MacInnis et al., 1999; Park et al., 2013). Further, a strong corporate identity has the potential to strengthen a relationship with the company’s customers (Park et al., 2013) and thus to work as a catalyst for managing and implementing effective CSR communication (Tourky et al., 2021). The visibility or presence of company names or logos, therefore, is key for successful corporate communication. Research has consistently shown that when corporate identity (e.g., logos) was dominantly visible, corporate communication generated better company evaluations, such as reputation (Van den Bosch et al., 2004), attitudes and purchase intentions (Jun et al., 2008), and brand loyalty (Müller et al., 2013). Thus, it is necessary for a company’s visual identity to be present in CSR messages to help the public know who the communicator of the message is. Another effective strategy for implementing brand visibility is the use of symbolic objects, such as characters, color, or typography (e.g., the Starbucks mermaid or a green color) representing the company in visual content. For instance, some companies often use visual symbols to personalize brands and communicate CSR information with their customers (e.g., Cricket Wireless’s green color characters to represent the brand’s CSR association; see https://www.cricketwireless.com/ why-cricket/csr). Chang and Chen’s (2017) eye-tracking study compared three types of images used in cause-related marketing (product-oriented vs. cause-focused with the beneficiary’s face image vs. cause-focused with the social cause image) and found that a product-oriented ad showing the product’s congruent functional image generated a longer fixation duration than did cause-focused ads when the ad was for a utilitarian product, because consumers could use rational motivation to drive their purchase of the utilitarian product. Therefore, visuals representing companies’ identities can be an effective means of fortifying CSR messages, as they can offer richer and more tangible 132

Visual Strategies for CSR Communication Table 10.1 Types of visual strategies, theories, exemplar studies, and research questions Type of visual strategies Modality Static images (e.g., photographs, illustrations, and infographics) Audiovisual (e.g., videos and animations)

Immersive technologies (e.g., VR, and 360° videos)

Visual framing Human-interest visual framing

Emotional framing: dimensional emotions

Theoretical foundations

Exemplar studies

Research questions

Impression management theory

Chong et al. (2019)

•

How do the effects of static images compare to those of text?

Media richness theory

Abitbol and Lee (2017), Brubaker and Wilson (2018), Cho et al. (2009), Hartmann et al. (2016) Lee et al. (2021)

•

In what context is the audiovisual format of CSR messages effective? Does the complexity and/ or the length of audiovisuals matter? How does an elevated perception of sensory realism (e.g., telepresence) and/or interactivity in CSR messages influence the effects of visual content?

Exemplification theory; visual fluency (or processing fluency) theory

Chang and Chen (2017), Dhanesh and Rahman (2021)

•

Dimensional theory of emotion; LC4MP

Chung and Lee (2019), Chung and Lee (2020), Lee and Chung (2018)

•

Hierarchy-of-effects model; media richness theory

•

•

Emotional framing: discrete emotions (e.g., fear, disgust, and guilt)

Appraisal theory; protection motivation theory

Avery and Park (2018), Baek and Yoon (2017), Basil et al. (2008), Chang (2012), Hibbert et al.

•

In CSR messages, are images with humaninterest visual framing (e.g., victims who need help or caring company employees involved in social, community, or environmental issues) more effective than those that lack human-interest visual framing? In CSR messages, what are the effects of the valence and intensity of emotional visuals on memory, attitude, and behavior? What kinds of content in visuals affect viewers’ motivational activation and its level, thus affecting their processing of CSR messages? For visual CSR strategies, what types of emotions are more effective and what types are less so? Does the level of effectiveness differ by issue? (Continued)

133

Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung Table 10.1 (Continued) Type of visual strategies

Brand visibility Corporate visual identity (such as company names and logos)

Symbolic objects to visually represent the brand (e.g., characters, color, or typography)

Theoretical foundations

Exemplar studies

ELM; heuristic-systematic processing model

Anthropomorphic theory; self-congruity theory; visual fluency (or processing fluency) theory

Research questions

(2007), Leshner et al. (2011), Pressgrove et al. (2021), Rozin et al. (2008)

•

What kinds of visuals in CSR messages elicit specific types of emotions?

Jun et al. (2008), Park et al. (2013), Van den Bosch et al. (2004)

•

Harmon-Kizer (2019), Jeong and Kim (2021), Müller et al. (2013)

•

What degree of brand visibility dominance in visuals is most effective? Are there differences in the effects of brand names and logos by context? In CSR messages, is using anthropomorphic visuals to represent a brand more effective than not doing so?

•

representations of the company than words can (e.g., the company’s name) (Macinnis et al., 1999; Swartz, 1983). The dilemma, however, is that the dominance of brand visibility can backfire, eliciting skepticism. For example, Berens et al. (2005) found that CSR associations had a positive effect on product attitudes when a brand’s visibility was less dominant through the use of an endorsed branding strategy – when a corporate brand and its subsidiary company were used together in an ad (e.g., Nestlé’s Perrier) than when only the corporate brand was used (e.g., P&G’s products), but the effect was found only when fit was high or involvement was low. Berens et al. (2005) explained that people could focus more on a company’s CSR efforts and activity when the brand was less visible in the ad. Table 10.1 summarizes the three aspects of visual strategies and provides foundational theories and examples of studies and research questions.

Conclusion This chapter has attempted to provide a roadmap to the variety of visual strategies that can be used in CSR communication and to understanding their effectiveness. The positive effects of visuals, such as getting attention, telling a story, or creating the reality the company wants to deliver, are very powerful. However, they are not always and equally effective, and thus practitioners’ use of visuals should be carefully calculated so as to avoid diverting attention away from key messages. This paradox underscores the importance of using visuals in a strategic way. The research on visual strategies discussed in this chapter highlights the possibilities and the gaps in visual studies on CSR communication, showing the need for more research to advance both theory and practice. First, more research is needed that explores the effects of audiovisual formats beyond static images, as this topic corresponds to the evolving media environment and will advance our knowledge of the format’s potential both to enhance companies’ messages and to overload viewers’ processing. Second, more research on visual framing is needed. Although visual framing is

134

Visual Strategies for CSR Communication

perhaps the most prominent topic in visual studies, surprisingly little CSR communication research has been done in that area. In particular, the effects of human-interest framing and discrete emotions have rarely been tested. Future research on these topics will advance theories such as exemplification theory and appraisal theory as well as contribute to developing visual strategies to make CSR messages more relatable. Third, studies of the effects of visual strategies in CSR communication are needed that go beyond the effects on companies. Some visual strategies may be more effective at generating company-related outcomes (e.g., attitude toward the company, perceived CSR motives), whereas others may have more impact on issue-related outcomes (e.g., issue involvement, issue awareness), and research is needed to distinguish these. Research is also needed to fill in gaps in the visual studies literature more broadly, such as exploring conditions under which the effects of visual strategies can vary. The existing literature implies that no visual strategies will be effective across all conditions. Using videos that are too complex, for example, or having brand visibility that is too dominant can backfire, yet the relevant theories and scholarship have not yet fully explicated the delicate boundary between enough and too much in these areas. Other underexamined areas such as positive emotional strategies and the sequential effects of visuals also need further exploration. In addition, further development of theory-based principles for CSR communication can provide insights for practice. Consistent with research in other contexts, the use of visual components in CSR messages has been found to be more effective than using a text-only format (e.g., Abitbol & Lee, 2017). Most CSR messages, however, still seem to be limited to static images (e.g., Bae, 2016; Kanbaty et al., 2020), although research suggests the potential of other forms of visuals (e.g., Lee et al., 2021). The growing popularity of video-based platforms such as TikTok, the ubiquity of multimedia consumption across devices and platforms, and the development of immersive video formats all incentivize practitioners to create content that can meet the needs of diverse communication channels. We also recommend that practitioners consider using negative visual framing and making brand identity visible. First, Chung and Lee (2019, 2020) and Lee and Chung (2018) have shown the value of high-arousing negative images, in particular for gaining attention to messages. Publics’ lack of awareness of CSR activities is the most fundamental challenge that practitioners face, and visual strategies are vital tools in meeting that challenge. Second, several studies have consistently indicated the effectiveness of presenting brand identity in CSR messages (e.g., Chang & Chun, 2017; Müller et al., 2013). There seem to be some boundary conditions, however, when brand visibility can generate pushback (e.g., Berens et al., 2005), and the existence of such issues indicates why more research on CSR strategies is essential. Despite the importance of visual strategies, research on them in the CSR context is still inadequate for several reasons. First, it is hard to distinguish visual strategies in CSR communication from those other areas such as health communication and environmental communication. Essentially, CSR messages can contain any type of issue, making it difficult to delineate unique visual strategies for CSR. Although we have endeavored in this chapter to identify the visual strategies most applicable and relevant to CSR, those that we have focused on cannot be viewed as exclusive to CSR. Second, CSR communication strategies are often formulated at the management level, and thus the research on CSR message strategies has been quite limited. Third, there has been little theorizing that uniquely explains the effects of visual strategies. Nevertheless, because of their growing accessibility and reduced costs, emerging visual media, such as holograms, AR, VR, and flexible displays have been increasingly integrated into CSR communication, despite a lack of evidence about what kinds of visual message designs are most likely to be effective. To narrow these gaps, more research is urgently needed to meet the needs of companies and the public.

135

Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4

What are the future applications of visual strategies in CSR messages? Will the existing knowledge on visual strategies still be informative? Why? Aside from emotional human-interest and emotional visual framing, what other types of visual framing might be useful to apply in CSR communication? Identifying the ideal level of brand visibility in CSR messages is challenging. How can practitioners determine how to walk that fine line? What other factors might interact with the effects of brand visibility, making it either more effective or less so?

References Abitbol, A., & Lee, S. Y. (2017). Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 796–808. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.05.002 Avery, E. J., & Park, S. (2018). HPV vaccination campaign fear visuals. An eye-tracking study exploring effects of visual attention and type on message information value, recall, and behavioral intentions. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 321–330. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.005 Bae, M. (2016). Effects of various types of cause-related marketing (CRM) ad appeals on consumers’ visual attention, perceptions, and purchase intentions. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(6), 810–834. 10.1080/ 10496491.2016.1214210 Baek, T. H., & Yoon, S. (2017). Guilt and shame: Environmental message framing effects. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 440–453. 10.1080/00913367.2017.1321069 Basil, D. Z., Ridgway, N. M., & Basil, D. D. (2008). Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1–23. 10.1002/mar.20200 Becker, B. (2021, June 10). 10 VR marketing examples to inspire you in 2021. HubSpot. https://blog.hubspot. com/marketing/vr-marketing-examples Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 35–48. 10.1509/ jmkg.69.3.35.66357 Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Political news with a personal touch: How human interest framing indirectly affects policy attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 121–141. 10.1177/1077699014558554 Brown, T., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84. 10.1177/002224299706100106 Brubaker, P. J., & Wilson, C. (2018). Let’s give them something to talk about: Global brands’ use of visual content to drive engagement and build relationships. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 342–352. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2018.04.010 Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191–214. 10.1146/ annurev.psych.50.1.191 Chang, C.-T. (2012). Are guilt appeals a panacea in green advertising? The right formula of issue proximity and environmental consciousness. International Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 741–771. 10.2501/IJA-31-4-741-771 Chang, C.-T., & Chen, P.-C. (2017). Cause-related marketing ads in the eye tracker: It depends on how you present, who sees the ad, and what you promote. International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 336–355. 10.1080/ 02650487.2015.1100698 Cho, C. H., Phillips, J. R., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2009). Media richness, user trust, and perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(6), 933–952. 10.1108/09513570910980481 Chong, S., Narayan, A. K., & Ali, I. (2019). Photographs depicting CSR: Captured reality or creative illusion? Pacific Accounting Review, 31(3), 313–335. 10.1108/PAR-10-2017-0086 Chung, S., & Lee, S. Y. (2019). Visual CSR messages and the effects of emotional valence and arousal on perceived CSR motives, attitude, and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 46(7), 926–947. 10.1177/ 0093650216689161

136

Visual Strategies for CSR Communication Chung, S., & Lee, S. Y. (2020). Cognitive processing of corporate social responsibility campaign messages: The effects of emotional visuals on memory. Media Psychology, 23(2), 244–268. 10.1080/15213269.2019.15 91999 Dhanesh, G. S., & Rahman, N. (2021). Visual communication and public relations: Visual frame building strategies in war and conflict stories. Public Relations Review, 47(1). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.102003 Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7. 10.1111/ j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x Garcia, M. M., & Greenwood, K. (2015). Visualizing CSR: A visual framing analysis of US multinational companies. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(3), 167–184. 10.1080/13527266.2012.740064 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper and Row. Harmon-Kizer, T. (2019). The role of logo recoloring on perceptual fluency in cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(7), 959–982. Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., & Eisend, M. (2016). Nature imagery in non-green advertising: The effects of emotion, autobiographical memory, and consumers’ green traits. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 427–440. 10.1 080/00913367.2016.1190259 He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identification and moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 673–688. 10.1007/s10551-010-0703-y Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davies, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 723–742. 10.1002/mar.20181 Jeong, H. J., & Kim, J. (2021). Human-like versus me-like brands in corporate social responsibility: The effectiveness of brand anthropomorphism on social perceptions and buying pleasure of brands. Journal of Brand Management, 28, 32–47. 10.1057/s41262-020-00212-8 Jun, J. W., Cho, C.-H., & Kwon, H. J. (2008). The role of affect and cognition in consumer evaluations of corporate visual identity: Perspectives from the United States and Korea. Journal of Brand Management, 15(6), 382–398. 10.1057/bm.2008.11 Kanbaty, M., Hellmann, A., & He, L. (2020). Infographics in corporate sustainability reports: Providing useful information or used for impression management? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 26, 10.1016/ j.jbef.2020.100309 Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. John Wiley & Sons. Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S57–S80. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.002 83.x Lang, A. (2017). Limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP). The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 17, 1–9. 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0077 Lang, A., Bolls, P., Potter, R. F., & Kawahara, K. (1999). The effects of production pacing and arousing content on the information processing of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(4), 451–475. 10.1080/08838159909364504 Lang, A., Gao, Y., Potter, R. F., Lee, S., Park, B., & Bailey, R. L. (2013). Conceptualizing audio message complexity as available processing resources. Communication Research, 42(6), 759–778. 10.1177/009365 0213490722 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819 Lee, S., & Lang, A. (2009). Discrete emotion and motivation: Relative activation in the appetitive and aversive motivational systems as a function of anger, sadness, fear, and joy during televised information campaigns. Media Psychology, 12(2), 148–170. 10.1080/15213260902849927 Lee, S. Y., & Chung, S. (2018). Effects of emotional visuals and company–cause fit on memory of CSR information. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 353–362. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.001 Lee, Y.-J., Zhao, W., & Chen, H. (2021). Consumer response to virtual CSR experiences. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 42(1), 102–122. 10.1080/10641734.2020.1734119 Leshner, G., Bolls, P., & Wise, K. (2011). Motivated processing of fear appeal and disgust images in televised anti-tobacco ads. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(2), 77–89. 10.1027/ 1864-1105/a000037 Luther, C. A., & Zhou, X. (2005). Within the boundaries of politics: News framing of Sars in China and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 857–872. 10.1177/107769900508200407

137

Sun Young Lee and Sungwon Chung MacInnis, D. J., Shapiro, S., & Mani, G. (1999). Enhancing brand awareness through brand symbols. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 601–608. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. McPherson, S. (2017, January 19). 6 CSR trends to watch in 2017. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ susanmcpherson/2017/01/19/6-csr-trends-to-watch-in-2017/?sh=60ef17efb1cc Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 171–182. 10.1111/j.14678608.2006.00440.x Müller, B., Kocher, B., & Cretta, A. (2013). The effects of visual rejuvenation through brand logos. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 82–88. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.026 Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292–320. 10.1111/j.1468-2885. 1999.tb00172.x Nabi, R. L. (2002). Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: A test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 204–216. 10.1080/03637750216541 Nabi, R. L. (2017). Emotion in media persuasion. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, 1–8. 10.1002/ 9781118783764.wbieme0161 Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1992). This evening’s bad news: Effects of compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 25–41. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00776.x Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., Pol, G., & Park, J. W. (2013). The role of brand logos in firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 180–187. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.011 Powell, T. E., Boomgaarden, H. G., De Swert, K., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 997–1017. 10.1111/ jcom.12184 Pressgrove, G., McKeever, R., & Collins, E. (2021). Effectiveness of persuasive frames in advocacy videos. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102060 Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 135–140. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.135 Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318–328. 10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.318 Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757–776). Guilford Press. Sheinin, D. A., & Biehal, G. J. (1999). Corporate advertising pass-through onto the brand: Some experimental evidence. Marketing Letters, 10, 63–74. 10.1023/A:1008087108223 Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x Swartz, T. A. (1983). Brand symbols and message differentiation. Journal of Advertising Research, 23(5), 59–64. Tourky, M., Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., & Shaalan, A. (2021). Conceptualizing corporate identity in a dynamic environment. Qualitative Market Research, 24(2), 113–142. 10.1108/QMR-01-2018-0003 Van den Bosch, A. L. M., de Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2004). Managing corporate visual identity: Use and effects of organizational measures to support a consistent self-presentation. Public Relations Review, 30(2), 225–234. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2003.12.002 Xue, F., & Muralidharan, S. (2015). A green picture is worth a thousand words?: Effects of visual and textual environmental appeals in advertising and the moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(1), 82–106. 10.1080/10496491.2014.971209 Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Routledge.

138

11 CSR COMMUNICATION AND THE COMMODIFICATION OF COMPASSION Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

Introduction Recently, a discourse of compassion has become widespread in global society. Compassion has various definitions with different roots (philosophical, theological, and theoretical) (e.g., Sznaider, 1998). In this chapter, we focus on Sznaider (1998), who proposed that public compassion originates in “an abstract and rational idea of humanity” (p. 123). Moreover, it “demands the performance of beneficent actions involving a certain kind of imaginative power to reconstruct others’ conditions, an act of empathy implying a fundamental equality in human experience and moral status” (p. 123). Put differently, compassion refers to being or “feeling helpful through actions meant to alleviate the suffering of distant others” (Richey et al., 2021). As a result of globalization processes, compassion too has become globalized, and suffering, at least for individuals from the Global North, is mostly removed from their everyday lives and transmitted to them through media. Thus, we can talk about the phenomenon of global compassion – “a moral sensibility or concern for remote strangers from different continents, cultures and societies” (Höijer, 2004, p. 514). The discourse of public, or global compassion, is situated at the intersection of politics, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, media, and citizens/consumers (Höijer, 2004). In particular, the rise of compassion was demarcated with the emergence of a market society, wherein the market itself has extended the public scope of compassion together with the sphere of moral concern (Sznaider, 1998). Owing to society’s marketization, compassion has become increasingly commodified (Richey, 2019). In practice, commodified compassion is coupled with corporate social responsibility (CSR), specifically its marketing and communication aspects. Particularly relevant for this coupling is a shift of CSR from its moral and duty-bound considerations about a firm’s influence on the environment and community and its civic responsibilities to stakeholders, toward an instrumental practice enthroned as “yet another element of corporate branding” (Einstein, 2012, p. 17). These processes are a direct reflection of what Einstein (2012) referred to as a personalized economy, where every individual’s need can be met with a personalized commodity tailored to their expectations. By recognizing the interdependence between materiality and meaning (Ibert et al., 2019), firms have realized that by branding compassion and making it salient, they can meet the expectations of (post-modern) consumers. Consumers, yearning for immediate gratification, on the one hand, and wanting to be conscious consumers, on the other hand, see packed and promoted charities as “worthy of their money” because they not only satisfy their personal needs but also represent a quick fix of social ills out there (Einstein, 2012).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-14

139

Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

Accordingly, doing good becomes one with doing well (Richey et al., 2021), and compassion as a marketable commodity turns into conspicuous compassion (West, 2004), invoked through “charity branding” and slick advertisements (Richey et al., 2021). Thus, we witness (1) an increasing number of the so-called CSR campaigns that encourage individuals to act responsibly, (2) increasingly popular new forms of CSR, such as brand activism, as a potential driver of social change, and (3) discussions on how best to achieve stakeholders’ engagement in such CSR formats (Vredenburg et al., 2020). Yet, while these CSR-related marketing and communication campaigns tend to have certain short-term benefits for selected charities and social ills, they are not free of cost. There are increasing doubts as to whether such activities can lead to real social changes. Critics warn of not seeing the forest for the trees by indicating many pathologies of such practices (Schneider, 2020). A major systemic-level criticism acknowledges that, in this way, social is increasingly coded as an instance of economic (Shamir, 2008), thus creating a “charitable marketplace” (Einstein, 2012), which embodies a continuous commodification of social issues and, with it, a symbolic expansion of the individualism and neoliberalist mentality (Schneider, 2020). Commodification of compassion is becoming a complex process with consequences that go beyond the immediate and observable results of partnerships among brands, NGOs, and consumers toward potential (and not quite known) long-term changes for the whole society (e.g., Richey, 2019). Building on other recent works in this area (e.g., Kipp & Hawkins, 2019; Olwig, 2021a; Richey, 2019; Richey et al., 2021; Vredenburg et al., 2020), this chapter aims to map the idea of commodified compassion in the contexts of CSR and CSR communication. After presenting the background for the commodification of the compassion process under the CSR umbrella and the related practices, we focus on its discursive manifestations through motivational framing and critically reflect on the effects of the commodification of compassion. Finally, we present some conclusions and reflections on the way forward for CSR and CSR communication.

New World of CSR: Commodifying Compassion or Doing Well by Doing Good Rapid globalization and digitalization processes have produced a new reality of a post-national constellation (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011), demarked with the degradation of authority, unclear jurisdictions, and the blurring of the lines between the public and private spheres (Kobrin, 2009). Consequently, business firms are increasingly becoming political actors assuming the socio-moral roles of governments (Shamir, 2008). This responsibilization push on companies is occurring under the CSR umbrella and is resulting in the active engagement of businesses in social issues (Scherer, 2018; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). Along these lines, the mainstream CSR literature mostly understands the essence of CSR in terms of a firm’s ethical and philanthropic obligations, seemingly reflecting a new social contract between business and society where business is a provider of public goods and is committed to improving society’s well-being (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Kotler & Lee, 2005). However, this commitment is not at odds with market rationality, and such moral agency of the responsibilized business “essentially stipulates that corporations have their own commercial incentives to behave morally” (Shamir, 2008, p. 12). Consequently, the so-called “new world of CSR” has created the mantra “doing well by doing good” (Vogel, 2005, p. 21), or in other words, “converging values with value creation” (Shamir, 2008, p. 11). This perspective attempts to solve macro-systemic failures of capitalism with micro-firm approaches (Crane et al., 2014), which encourage managers (and other decision-makers) to apply market principles within CSR, often at the expense of other (ethical) criteria (Schneider, 2020). Put differently, while businesses might be able to make sense of their environment, they can do so only through the filters that adapt the picture to their own mode of operation (Roth et al.,

140

CSR Commodification of Compassion

2020, p. 416), which follows the rationality of the market and turns the socio-moral tasks into “packages of ‘consumer goods’” (Shamir, 2008, p. 9). In this vein, the practice and literature tell us that even though the firms are furthering some social good, the way they operate is mostly rooted in the instrumental approaches to CSR that favor the “business case of CSR” (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Schneider, 2020). The common denominator of such practices is always a tight coupling between CSR and a firm’s financial goals (Lee, 2008) – either by contributing to them or by not harming them. Such instrumental orientation has become dominant in practical and academic understanding of CSR, pushing it away from the “duty-aligned” perspective (Gond et al., 2009). Consequently, substantial changes in (harmful) business practices are ruled out and replaced by CSR as “a largely ceremonial exercise” (Schneider, 2020, p. 1318). While companies often try to communicate their CSR practices as moral and good, in essence, the business case is driven by egoistic motivation, reflecting the belief that compassion is good for business (Shamir, 2008). Thus, the proponents of managerial and marketing perspectives believe in the win-win outcome within synergic value creation. Synergies are based on tangible compassion toward societal needs, on the one hand, and economic value, on the other hand (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).

Co-opting Compassion through CSR and CSR Communication Activities Within value creation as a modus operandi, firms have invented various methods for activities they tout as CSR. One notable example of such activities is corporate philanthropy, which is based on converging the interests between monetary gains and social benefits (Porter & Kramer, 2002). Corporate philanthropy is possibly the oldest and most traditional practice. Acting as philanthropists, corporations do charity, set up their own foundations that take care of community investments (Gautier & Pache, 2015), or involve their own employees to volunteer for a certain cause (Breeze & Wiepking, 2020). When corporations try to align their philanthropic giving with their business and/ or marketing goals, such philanthropy is referred to as strategic (Porter & Kramer, 2002) or marketing-oriented (Gautier & Pache, 2015). Corporate philanthropy is not directly using charity for selling, but there is a consensus that the link is there, although indirect – by building corporate goodwill and improving corporate reputation (Gautier & Pache, 2015). A more direct shift from human needs to commodities (Olwig, 2021b) is selling products as charitable through cause-related marketing (CRM; Kotler & Lee, 2005), thus demonstrating that firms can meet their financial goals while simultaneously benefiting society and involving consumers to take charge of their charitable giving by buying the products (Einstein, 2012; Kotler & Lee, 2005). CRM is one of the most well-known and widespread corporate practices that counts as part of CSR (Ponte & Richey, 2014), representing a typical example of the marriage between marketing and CSR (Olsen & Peretz, 2011). CRM’s great renown was built through the universally publicized and supported RED campaign, which included many reputable global companies and celebrities to promote the fight against AIDS (e.g., Richey & Ponte, 2011). This particular case of CRM has been extensively researched and critically appraised through the concept of “Brand Aid”, a synonym for the exhibition of compassion (Richey, 2019). Following this as an example, other globally known campaigns of CRM have been developed (e.g., TOMS shoes), supporting the “CRM industry” operating under the CSR umbrella. On top of these two fairly traditional and rather popular CSR marketing activities, firms (and their NGO partners) are constantly innovating and developing new modes of selling compassion. Some of these approaches take advantage of digital technologies and social media. They take corporate philanthropy and CRM to the next level by further commodifying certain causes and issues (e.g., Hawkins, 2018). Social media has many advantages for such activities. For instance, it allows for targeting certain groups of users, customizing charity “products”, and gives consumers the opportunity to be engaged through content-sharing and producing their own content 141

Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

(Von Engelhardt & Jansz, 2014). A bundle of approaches that leverage social media is referred to as philanthrocapitalism or ostensibly free philanthropy, where users are not charged fees, yet platforms gain value from collecting user data (Koot & Fletcher, 2020). Activities using online platforms include specific calls for donations, online voting for humanitarian projects, and the so-called “clickto-commit” and “make your click meaningful” campaigns (Hawkins, 2018). Projects such as “gaming is giving”, in which users and gamers support a certain cause by simply playing a video game, or those that use crowdsourcing platforms for causes, are becoming increasingly popular among brands as well as charities and NGOs (Koot & Fletcher, 2020). The digitalization of compassion is gaining popularity due to its alleged potential to empower global citizens to show support to the victims of social ills in otherwise remote or distant places (Hawkins, 2018) in many interactive ways, including the creation of citizens’ own CSR-related content in their role as prosumers (Koot & Fletcher, 2020). Moreover, it can enable them to “step into the shoes” of suffering distant others through online simulation programs (e.g., Bertrand et al., 2018). A recent phenomenon within CSR marketing activities is an extension of CRM toward social (or ethical) branding, where a certain social issue becomes a focal branding point. A social issue thus assumes the role of a brand’s defining narrative and is a co-creator of its symbolic value (Ibert et al., 2019). A well-known example is Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty, where the brand is built on the “benefit” of women’s self-esteem and further supported by Dove’s Self-Esteem Found, which leads awareness campaigns and transfers money from brand sales to charities (Einstein, 2012). This example points to yet another emergent marketing strategy closely coupled with CSR – brand activism. Brand activism is defined as “the alignment of a brand’s explicit purpose and values with its activist marketing messaging and prosocial corporate practice” – a new activity that is seemingly crucial for both marketing success and a potential for social change (Vredenburg et al., 2020, p. 445). Activist brands attempt to select and address issues that are often controversial, contested, or polarizing and adopt either progressive or conservative stances (Chatterji & Toffel, 2019). Hence, brand activism is not rooted in a universal consensus about the correct and agreeable response to a certain social or political issue. According to Sarkar and Kotler (2018), such a position ostensibly defines brand activism as the next step in CSR’s evolution. Accordingly, controversial issues, such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo movement, and FridaysForFuture, serve as “catalysts for mainstream brands to define problems of social interest and refocus on doing social good” (Vredenburg et al., 2020, p. 456). However, in addressing these issues, brands simultaneously act selectively, often “cherrypicking” the ones that generate more publicity value and appear more marketable (ibid.). Another good illustration of a CSR-related practice is NGO transformative partnerships, which promote global development by addressing development problems and using them as a commodity for exchange (Ponte & Richey, 2014; Richey et al., 2021). Within these partnerships, business actors and their market-based approaches are a key tool or magic bullet to address developmental issues. Following the logic of value (co)creation, the most optimal partnership is one that produces a synergistic value based on optimally combining both partners’ resources to achieve social change (Vestergaard et al., 2021). However, such direct collaborations are oftentimes not symmetrical in terms of power (Goodman, 2013). It is the profit-driven partner that normally decides what cause is “good” and “worthy”, and this is judged by the level of its marketability to the sentimental public (Richey et al., 2021). In other words, the priority in such partnerships is placed upon compassionate feelings providing profit or at least reputation boost (ibid.). As in the case of brand activism, transformative partnerships are recognized as CRM 2.0 and a second generation of Brand Aid in CSR’s evolution. They are supported with sustainable development goals (SDGs), which provide “a convenient and visible narrative framework for explaining and marketing sustainability efforts” (Olwig, 2021a, p. 5) and legitimize commodification of humanitarian efforts. Moreover, SDGs themselves, with their visual identity and colorful logos, offer as a branding tool for companies further supporting the commodification of humanitarianism and development interventions 142

CSR Commodification of Compassion Corporate philanthropy

Free philanthropy

Brand activism

Basic premise: Support a cause by giving money or volunteering

Basic premise: Support a cause; raise consumer awareness

Basic premise: Support a cause, raise awareness, influence consumer behavior change

Business aim: Reputational benefit

Business aim: Influence consumer perception about the firm/brand Dominant communicative form: Digital marketing

Business aim: reputational benefit; building brand image

Dominant communicative form: Public relations

Dominant communicative form: Public relations, corporate (brand) communication

Cause-related marketing

Social / ethical branding

NGO Partnerships

Basic premise: Support a cause; raise awareness by selling products

Basic premise: Support a cause; raise awareness by selling products; influence consumer behavior change

Business aim: Direct economic benefit; building brand image Dominant communicative form: Marketing, advertising

Business aim: Direct economic benefit; building brand image

Basic premise: Seek synergic value; encourage social change Business aim: Direct business value creation

Dominant communicative form: Branding, marketing communications (advertising)

Dominant communicative form: Public relations, corporate communication

Figure 11.1 Modes of commodified compassion in the CSR context

(Olwig, 2021a; Richey et al., 2021). Figure 11.1 illustrates the selected modes of commodified compassion within instrumental CSR. In summary, the marriage between profit and CSR-related practices intensifies commodification in areas that are traditionally not governed by market forces. Consequently, social and environmental problems become directly tied to individual consumption choices (Kipp & Hawkins, 2019).

CSR Communication as an Inspiring Motivator: Constructing Aspirational Actors through Motivational Framing This popular strategic coupling of social causes with economic rationale – or doing good through consumption – can also be observed on the discursive level (Einstein, 2012; Shamir, 2005). Communication campaigns focus on producing a “responsibilized consumer” with the power to save the world (Kipp & Hawkins, 2019), thus supporting the idea of a “moralized” market (Shamir, 2008, p. 3). As a general rule, non-profit narratives within CSR communications are designed to encourage conspicuous compassion and motivate consumers, employees, or other stakeholders by emphasizing their moral responsibility and heroism (Olwig, 2021a). In their CSR communication, for example, companies actively portray different types of commodified compassion “in action”, described in the previous section as a direct expression of organizational- and individual-level CSR. Such calls to action reveal what is encouraged on part of consumers and, thus, promoted as an appropriate and expected response to solving large-scale or systemic problems (e.g., environmental degradation, fair trade, child labor, public health issues, and local development) (Rojek, 2014). A more in-depth look at such calls to action can unveil what type of underlying motives or “rationale for action” are/is being discursively attached to them (Snow et al., 2019, p. 396). This can 143

Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

be investigated by adopting the framing perspective that enables researchers to decipher how different issues, beliefs, social experiences, and culturally embedded values and meanings are linked in meaningful interpretive packages or frames, which resonate with consumers or other stakeholders (Snow et al., 2019, p. 397) and help them make sense of social issues and events (Goffman, 1974). Furthermore, it helps one to understand how and why specific issues, along with the problems and solutions discursively tied to them, become more salient than others (Snow et al., 2019, p. 398). Using the analogy of the main elements of compassion (i.e., noticing, feeling, and responding to others’ suffering [Kanov et al., 2004]) to explain the key objectives of framing processes, we indicate that the latter try to define which social issues should become noticed by individuals or collectives, what type of feelings they should evoke in them, and to what type of response they should lead or be translated into. Thus, to understand how (commodified) compassion is being rhetorically constructed as a key motive for engaging in CSR-related activities, it is useful to lean on motivational framing, which provides insight into the discursive construction of what Benford (1993, p. 200) called “vocabularies of motive”. They help those involved in resolving an issue to explain and justify their (non-)actions to themselves and others and, thereby, give meaning to their participation in a certain type of activity. Analyzing the process of commodifying compassion in the context of CSR from this perspective indicates that consumers’ and brands’ participation in CSR-related/prosocial behavior is discursively conditioned or being portrayed as motivated not only by one’s “altruistic” sense of compassion toward others’ suffering but also with self-oriented motives. The latter include motives such as selfexpression, self-enhancement, guilt reduction (on the individual level), or profit generation, as well as improving a brand’s reputation (on the organizational level) (Einstein, 2012; Ellen et al., 2006; Moore, 2008; Shamir, 2005). Such rationale for engaging in prosocial behavior can, thus, be best described as a “marketable compassion” – a “motivational state” that acts as a hybrid between those of altruism and egoism (Batson & Shaw, 1991, p. 108). This is labeled conspicuous compassion or more colorfully described as “individuals projecting their ego onto society” (West, 2004, p. 23). Compassion, in this case, is discursively prescribed a dual character. On the one hand, it is portrayed as other-centered and, on the other hand, as a self-centered motivational state. If the rise of catchy slogans that encourage us to show our compassion, such as those used in Starbucks’ CRM (i.e., RED) campaigns (e.g., You sip. We donate, Raise a red cup to a good cause, and ’tis better to give and receive), is any indication, individuals are being encouraged to rationalize commodified compassion and actions springing from it as an “all-around” good motive for doing good. This can serve as an illustration and a reminder of how particular framing choices hold great potential to influence/guide individuals’ attitudinal and behavioral responses in a given situation. They can even contribute to the (somewhat naïve) acceptance and action on such “compassion with a twist”. In coining this term, we metaphorically lean on the main theme of Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist, in which acts of compassion toward the main character are, much the same, subject to the (somewhat calculative) notion of personal gain (Patten, 1969). Beyond being a motivational state, such compassion (and compassion in general) can also be described as a positive emotional state (Goetz et al., 2010; Roeser et al., 2018). In fact, in this case, the motivational framing relies heavily on evoking the feeling of compassion (Snow et al., 2019, p. 397) as well as that of responsibilized empowerment (Kipp & Hawkins, 2019) to mobilize action.

Hollowed-Out Effects of Commodified Compassion The abovementioned discursive focus on compassion as a commodity, which emphasizes its dual character, creates many dilemmas and problems. This duality might not be considered problematic per se, as compassion is rarely purely other-centered or boundlessly selfless (Fox, 2006; Moore, 2008). It does, however, raise the question of whether such deliberate meshing of other-and self144

CSR Commodification of Compassion

centered motives for acting on one’s feelings of compassion “‘taint/s/’ moral behavior” of moral agents – be it companies or individuals (Corvino, 2006, p. 2). The advocates of agent-based moral theories mostly agree that this is the case, as they link the assessment of the moral status of actions directly to the virtuousness of one’s motives for engaging in them. This does not mean, however, that self-centered motives cannot lead to beneficial outcomes that surpass one’s own (well-)being (Corvino, 2006; Van Zyl, 2009). Yet, the adoption of “morality pays” (Corvino, 2006, p. 1), or in our case, “compassion pays” logic causes many unfavorable outcomes (see Figure 11.2 for an overview of the effects).

Macrolevel Effects First, this logic uncritically reduces the complexity of social problems into seemingly manageable ones, if approached through the mentality of “every small action counts” (e.g., wearing pink ribbons or buying special “pinkified” merchandise as a sign of support for breast cancer [Moore, 2008]). However, these small actions are often just semiotic devices announcing, “I care – deeply!” (West, 2004, p. 23), without tangible effects. With this, the attention is shifted to the so-called cute, comfortable, and convenient “micro-steps” toward a better future and away from the reality of the systemic nature of social problems, which, for instance, cannot be tackled without making bigger (and somewhat “uncomfortable”) development changes. The business world’s propensity to package serious social issues into “media friendly project interventions” and campaign slogans, which act as “simple, one-sided sound-bites”, results in a situation in which these same issues remain mostly unresolved and systemic challenges remain unchallenged and unanswered (Rojek, 2014, p. 135). The execution of a business firm’s political role through philanthropic or other related CSR activities (Figure 11.1) favors predominantly “individualized and depoliticized solutions” to public/ political issues and leads to their privatization, which is not conductive to finding ways “of supporting public structures” in their efforts to solve them (Olwig, 2021b, p. 2). However, it might successfully contribute to adding to the power imbalance between the for-profit sector and national states (ibid.). Similarly, the side-effects can also be detected in the changing dynamics between the for-profit and non-profit sectors. Although the ever more popular partnerships between organizations from both sectors certainly can create a bigger platform for activist activity, generate greater exposure to CSR-related campaigns, and achieve greater awareness, they often “fall prey” to the business-case logic and the precedence of “the commercial interests of a business partner” (Vestergaard et al., 2021, p. 10). Moreover, such commercialized partnerships can be “accused” of not only “turning activists into consumers” (Olwig, 2021b, p. 2) but also inciting non-profit organizations to appropriate – to their nature non-native – commercial goals (ibid., p. 3). Furthermore, they “push” them into – by association, at least – supporting proliferation of the business case-influenced CSR framings (Burchell & Cook, 2013). However, by getting too comfortable with the business-case CSR vocabulary, NGOs might draw (public) skepticism regarding the authenticity and sincerity of their resistance efforts against corporate wrongdoings or a certain type of social injustice, which is a problem worth anticipating.

Microlevel Effects In addition to more macrolevel challenges and dilemmas, doing good through consumption (Richey, 2019) engenders some individual-level challenges related to activist behavior or the lack thereof. From the business (case) viewpoint, such “low cost heroism” (ibid., p. 79), which rests upon “comfortable” acts/expressions of compassion (Einstein, 2012; Rojek, 2014), holds (at least) a double appeal. First, it presents an opportunity for engaging in CSR by addressing specific social 145

146 Global dissociation from social ills Collective irresponsibility

Reduced complexity of social problems

Sustaining systemic problems

Business case vocabulary appropriation

Depolitization and privatization of social issues

Power shifts

Depolitization and privatization of social issues

Sustaining systemic problems

Figure 11.2 Macro- and microlevel effects of commodified compassion processes

Overabundance of compassion CSR

Digitalization

Partnerships

Dual character of compassion/tensions

Reduced complexity of social problems

Macro-level side-effects

Compassion fatigue Non-activism

Pseudo-compassion

Slacktivism

Simplified understanding of reality

‘Playing’ with serious issues and others’ well-being (compassion as a playground)

Skepticism

Limited sacrifice, ‘comfortable’ expressions of compassion, effortless activism

Conspicuous acts of compassion

Rise of ‘wannabe’ consumer/employee superheroes

Individualization of responsibility

Lack of a systemic view on social problems

Micro-level side-effects

Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

CSR Commodification of Compassion

causes in a profitable/marketable and measurable way. In short, it enables companies to put their own (i.e., economic) spin on the social causes by treating them as “corporate appropriations” (Banet-Weiser & Mukherjee, 2012), which fits rather perfectly with the neoliberal discourses and agenda (Shamir, 2004). Second, it acts as a mechanism for dividing the responsibility for solving problems companies often help sustain (e.g., raising donations for ensuring clean water supplies in developing countries within the bottled water sector) between different stakeholders. Such diversion strategies serve the objective of maintaining the status quo but also place considerable responsibility on consumers’ shoulders. On a discursive level, such actions are portrayed as ways of contributing to the muchneeded consumer empowerment and ensuring the consumers that they can fulfil their role of responsible citizens “by simply engaging in consumption activities that maximize utility” (i.e., by taking the “fast lane” toward achieving good citizenship goals) (McShane & Sabadoz, 2015, p. 547). From individuals’ viewpoint, however, CSR activities based on the logic of commodified compassion “serve as a signal to consumers that they can pursue social goals through traditional marketplace consumption without sacrifice” (McShane & Sabadoz, 2015). This means that consumers also participate in the symbolic processes of transferring their responsibility for “doing good” to other social actors, such as companies and NGOs (ibid.). Put differently, they rely on them to choose the causes worth supporting and organize a way to do so, which allows them to engage in somewhat unchanged consumption patterns. Eliminating (most of) the sacrifice from the equation, however, encourages consumers to become complacent in their role of “click and pay” or commodity activists (Mukherjee & Banet-Weiser, 2012). It can also lure them into suppressing their desire to learn more about a particular social problem for developing a deeper/holistic understanding of it and engaging in a more “hands-on” advocacy of the latter, as well as curb their potential to evolve into more critical activists (Repo, 2020, p. 222; Tinic, 1997, p. 19). Another concern is that even internal stakeholders (i.e., employees), who often have a close-up look at the tensions between prosocial and economic motives for engaging in CSR-related behaviors within their organization, tolerate such imperfect interventions and, therefore, help sustain them. This holds true even in the case of cynical employees, who might “cynically” distance themselves from the aspirational nature and results of CSR activities that clash with the organization’s day-to-day activities they witness; however, they finally accept the logic behind it by not standing against it more actively (Costas & Kärreman, 2013, p. 406). Such over-reliance on compassion for evoking consumer-or even employee-responsible behavior can lead to a more “extreme” individual-level side-effect, labeled “compassion fatigue”. In other words, individuals’ overexposure to constant calls for acting on their feelings of compassion can result in their detachment from or desensitization to social problems and their (deliberate) inactivity (e.g., non-activism) when acting on their concerns toward them (Kinnick et al., 1996, p. 690). This phenomenon was previously detected in cases where individuals were overexposed to media reporting about social issues, such as violent crimes, AIDS, homelessness, and child abuse (Kinnick et al., 1996). Similar (side-)effects of engaging in acts of (commodified) compassion can be identified in the digital space. Within the latter, consumers and employees are often exposed to gamification efforts to present serious social issues in a more entertaining, attention-grabbing manner (Trittin et al., 2019) and even encouraged to engage in acts of “playful consumerism” (Chouliaraki, 2010, p. 107). Despite its attractiveness, however, the act of digitalizing, particularly gamifying compassion in the CSR context, often fails to transcend its focus on the art of “playful coding” and to act as a mechanism for advancing individuals’ moral education. Hence, it inspires muted emotional responses to suffering (Chouliaraki, 2010). It can also cause individuals’ alienation from the CSR-related issues being promoted in such a way or their unwillingness to look beyond the oftentimes surface-level presentation of social problems and expand their knowledge of them (Maltseva et al., 2019; Trittin et al., 2019). Likewise, it supports the individuals in appropriating a “feel-good” role of slacktivists, 147

Urša Golob and Nataša Verk

who feel comfortable engaging with a social issue behind their keyboards in the form of low-risk and relatively low-intensity activities of clicking, liking, and (co-)creating or sharing content, but are often less likely to feel compelled to extend such actions to any offline, self-sacrificing, or long-term expressions of activism (Grigore et al., 2017; Koot & Fletcher, 2020; Maltseva et al., 2019). In short, it lulls them into thinking that they are considerably improving someone else’s well-being by making no or minimal sacrifice of their own, which agrees with the overall framing of commodified compassion. This leaves them largely disconnected from any deep feelings of (authentic) compassion and prioritizing compassion without any “real-life/offline” behavioral response, which can be categorized as a type of pseudo-compassion (Cavanagh, 1995, pp. 321–322).

Concluding Remarks and a Look Ahead Commodified compassion is a typical “by-product” of the dynamics of capitalism, particularly its material and symbolic extensions. Its existence is closely related to the notion of CSR (and CSR communication), which paradoxically represents the most promising corrective mechanism of capitalist wrongdoings. Instead, CSR, in its most dominant instrumental mode, has proven not to be a magic bullet for addressing the malfunctioning of capitalism (Schneider, 2020). Moreover, CSR as a business case, with its dissociation from often harmful corporate practices and its association with projects for the common good, can be seen as an accelerator of the compassion commodification process. Within the practices often referred to as the result of the marriage between marketing and CSR (Olsen & Peretz, 2011), firms use narratives, material cues, and symbolic representations to establish themselves as the agents of positive associations between their brand (or corporate) identities and compassion (Ibert et al., 2019). This agency is mostly discursive; the discourse plays an important role in legitimizing these new practices and ideas and acts as a motivational force. Consumers and other stakeholders, as targets of such (discursive) activities, contribute “active interpretative work … to the value propositions” (Willmott, 2010, p. 552) transmitted through various CSR activities. This process of uncritical discursive coupling of compassion with market logic thus constitutes the consumers as a “body of action” (Chouliaraki, 2010, p. 110) while supporting their consumer identity based on individualism (Roff, 2007). Yet, such consumers lack long-term or deep compassionate commitment (to a certain topic or others’ suffering) and satisfy themselves with shortcuts they believe will still help them gain the status of good citizens. This chapter interrogates the commodification of compassion as largely problematic. While market-based approaches might be efficient and create some value for selected segments or social ills, the main problem of treating compassion as a commodity lies in the fact that such an approach is too selective and tends to simplify very complex social issues and relationships (Richey et al., 2021). Moreover, it puts excessive responsibility on individuals in their capacity as consumers by framing them as the ultimate solution for social issues (Kipp & Hawkins, 2019). Infusing a more critical perspective is important for future understanding of the roles of CSR and CSR communication. Namely, an uncritical approach to framing CSR-related activities (and compassion) can lead to even higher degrees of commodification, with the ultimate level of a “complete commodification” (Hahn et al., 2015), where the underlying basis for compassion is its financial value resulting in “no profit-no compassion”. On this basis, our interrogation of commodified compassion can also be understood as a call to (critical) scholarly arms in the area of CSR and CSR communication, which can highlight further issues and contradictions of the instrumentality of such practices and anchor them more firmly into mainstream thinking. Currently, these critical studies and reflections are still limited to the “periphery” outside mainstream business literature and practice. We concur with Schneider (2020), who argued that the extent to which CSR and CSR communication research can contribute to finding a solution to these pathologies remains an open question. However, we also share their optimism that 148

CSR Commodification of Compassion

current “cracks” in capitalism, related to growing economic and social inequalities and ecological degradation, are an opportunity for change and a fertile ground for critical reflection and new (revolutionary) ideas (ibid.).

Discussion Questions 1 2

3 4 5

Under what conditions can one expect a turn toward the process of decommodifying CSRrelated activities (and compassion)? Can this be perceived as an aspirational or exasperating goal? Who holds discursive power over defining the meaning of compassion in the CSR context? Can we talk about a lack of truly competitive discursive struggles over its meaning, and what does this lead to? Can CSR communication further improve individuals’ moral education? What level of commitment to CSR-related/prosocial behavior can be prescribed to acts of commodified compassion (on organizational and individual levels)? Does commodified compassion hold any moral value? Is it an empty gesture or a winning winwin strategy? Can it also be linked to some positive side-effects?

References Banet-Weiser, S., & Mukherjee, R. (2012). Introduction: Commodity activism in neoliberal times. In R. Mukherjee & S. Banet-Weiser (Eds.), Commodity activism: Cultural resistance in neoliberal times (pp. 1–17). New York University Press. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122. Benford, R. D. (1993). “You could be the hundredth monkey”: Collective action frames and vocabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 195–216. Bertrand, P., Guegan, J., Robieux, L., McCall, C. A., & Zenasni, F. (2018). Learning empathy through virtual reality: Multiple strategies for training empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embodied virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 1–18. Breeze, B., & Wiepking, P. (2020). Different drivers: Exploring employee involvement in corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3), 453–467. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). CSR, co-optation and resistance: The emergence of new agonistic relations between business and civil society. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 741–754. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. Cavanagh, M. E. (1995). Rediscovering compassion. Journal of Religion and Health, 34(4), 317–327. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2019). Assessing the impact of CEO activism. Organization & Environment, 32(2), 159–185. Chouliaraki, L. (2010). Post-humanitarianism: Humanitarian communication beyond a politics of pity. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), 107–126. Corvino, J. (2006). Reframing “morality pays”: Toward a better answer to “why be moral?” in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(1), 1–14. Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2013). Conscience as control – managing employees through CSR. Organization, 20(3), 394–415. Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56, 130–153. Einstein, M. (2012). Compassion, Inc. University of California Press. Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. Fox, M. A. (2006). “Boundless compassion”: The contemporary relevance of Schopenhauer’s ethics. European Legacy, 11(4), 369–387. Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369.

149

Urša Golob and Nataša Verk Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351–374. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row. Gond, J. P., Palazzo, G., & Basu, K. (2009). Reconsidering instrumental corporate social responsibility through the Mafia metaphor. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1), 57–85. Goodman, M. K. (2013). iCare capitalism? The biopolitics of choice in a neoliberal economy of hope. International Political Sociology, 7(1), 103–105. Grigore, G., Molesworth, M., & Watkins, R. (2017). New corporate responsibilities in the digital economy. In A. Theofilou, G. Grigore, & A. Stancu (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in the post-financial crisis era: CSR conceptualisations and international practices in times of uncertainty (pp. 41–62). Palgrave Macmillan. Hahn, T., McDermott, C., Ituarte-Lima, C., Schultz, M., Green, T., & Tuvendal, M. (2015). Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation. Ecosystem Services, 16, 74–82. Hawkins, R. (2018). Breaking down barriers of culture and geography? Caring-at-a distance through Web 2.0. New Political Science, 40(4), 727–743. Höijer, B. (2004). The discourse of global compassion: The audience and media reporting of human suffering. Media, Culture & Society, 26(4), 513–531. Ibert, O., Hess, M., Kleibert, J., Müller, F., & Power, D. (2019). Geographies of dissociation: Value creation, ‘dark’ places, and ‘missing’ links. Dialogues in Human Geography, 9(1), 43–63. Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. M. (2004). Compassion in organizational life. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 808–827. Kinnick, K. N., Krugman, D. M., & Cameron, G. T. (1996). Compassion fatigue: Communication and burnout towards social problems. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 687–707. Kipp, A., & Hawkins, R. (2019). The responsibilization of “development consumers” through cause-related marketing campaigns. Consumption Markets & Culture, 22(1), 1–16. Kobrin, S. J. (2009). Private political authority and public responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 349–374. Koot, S., & Fletcher, R. (2020). Popular philanthrocapitalism? The potential and pitfalls of online empowerment in “free” nature 2.0 initiatives. Environmental Communication, 14(3), 287–299. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Wiley. Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73. Maltseva, K., Fieseler, C., & Trittin-Ulbrich, H. (2019). The challenges of gamifying CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 44–62. McShane, L., & Sabadoz, C. (2015). Rethinking the concept of consumer empowerment: Recognizing consumers as citizens. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 544–551. Moore, S. E. H. (2008). Ribbon culture: Charity, compassion and public awareness. Palgrave Macmillan. Mukherjee, R., & Banet-Weiser, S. (2012). Commodity activism: Cultural resistance in neoliberal times. New York University Press. Olsen, L. E., & Peretz, A. (2011). Conscientious brand criteria: A framework and a case example from the clothing industry. Journal of Brand Management, 18(9), 639–649. Olwig, M. F. (2021a). Sustainability superheroes? For-profit narratives of “doing good” in the era of the SDGs. World Development, 142, 105427. Olwig, M. F. (2021b). Introduction: Commodifying humanitarian sentiments? The black box of the for-profit and non-profit partnership. World Development, 145, 105536. Patten, L. R. (1969). Capitalism and compassion in “Oliver Twist”. Studies in the Novel, 1(2), 207–221. Ponte, S., & Richey, L. A. (2014). Buying into development? Brand Aid forms of cause-related marketing. Third World Quarterly, 35(1), 65–87. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80, 56–69. Repo, J. (2020). Feminist commodity activism: The new political economy of feminist protest. International Political Sociology, 14, 215–232. Richey, L. A. (2019). Eclipsed by the halo: ‘Helping’ brands through dissociation. Dialogues in Human Geography, 9(1), 78–82. Richey, L. A., Hawkins, R., & Goodman, M. K. (2021). Why are humanitarian sentiments profitable and what does this mean for global development? World Development, 145, 105537.

150

CSR Commodification of Compassion Richey, L. A., & Ponte, S. (2011). Brand aid: Shopping well to save the world. University of Minnesota Press. Roeser, R., Colaianne, B. A., & Greenberg, M. A. (2018). Compassion and human development: Current approaches and future directions. Research in Human Development, 15, 238–251. Roff, R. J. (2007). Shopping for change? Neoliberalizing activism and the limits to eating non-GMO. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(4), 511–522. Rojek, C. (2014). ‘Big Citizen’ celanthropy and its discontents. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(2), 127–141. Roth, S., Valentinov, V., Heidingsfelder, M., & Pérez-Valls, M. (2020). CSR beyond economy and society: A post-capitalist approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 165, 411–423. Sarkar, C., & Kotler, P. (2018). Brand activism: From purpose to action. Idea Bite Press. Scherer, A. G. (2018). Theory assessment and agenda setting in political CSR: A critical theory perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 387–410. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. Schneider, A. (2020). Bound to fail? Exploring the systemic pathologies of CSR and their implications for CSR research. Business & Society, 59(7), 1303–1338. Shamir, R. (2004). The de-radicalization of corporate social responsibility. Critical Sociology, 30(3), 669–689. Shamir, R. (2005). Mind the gap: The commodification of corporate social responsibility. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 229–253. Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1–19. Snow, D. A., Vliegenthart, R., & Ketelaars, P. (2019). The framing perspective on social movements: Its conceptual roots and architecture. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, H. Kriesi, & J. McCammon (Eds.), The wiley blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 392–410). John Wiley & Sons. Sznaider, N. (1998). The sociology of compassion: A study in the sociology of morals. Journal for Cultural Research, 2(1), 117–139. Tinic, S. A. (1997). United Colors and untied meanings: Benetton and the commodification of social issues. Journal of Communication, 47(3), 3–25. Trittin, H., Fieseler, C., & Maltseva, K. (2019). The serious and the mundane: Reflections on gamified CSR communication. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 141–144. Van Zyl, L. (2009). Agent-based virtue ethics and the problem of action guidance. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 6(1), 50–69. Vestergaard, A., Langevang, T., Morsing, M., & Murphy, L. (2021). Partnerships for development. Assessing the impact potential of cross-sector partnerships. World Development, 143, 105447. Vogel, D. J. (2005). Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19–45. Von Engelhardt, J., & Jansz, J. (2014). Challenging humanitarian communication: An empirical exploration of Kony 2012. International Communication Gazette, 76(6), 464–484. Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A., & Kemper, J. A. (2020). Brands taking a stand: Authentic brand activism or woke washing? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39(4), 444–460. West, P. (2004). Conspicuous compassion: Why sometimes it really is cruel to be kind. Civitas Institute of the Study of Civil Society. Willmott, H. (2010). Creating ‘value’ beyond the point of production: Branding, financialization and market capitalization. Organization, 17(5), 517–542.

151

12 CSR COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA Hao Xu

Introduction Social media, including social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites, has grown out of Web 2.0 – a computer-mediated communication technology featuring decentralized communication in complex interconnected dynamics (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; O’Reilly, 2009). It offers the ability for users from around the world to create content, participate in two-way communication, and interact in real-time conversation. As summarized by Saxton and Waters (2014), “dynamic messaging capabilities, numerous interactive features, and formal social networks” have become the defining features of social media (p. 280). Through the lens of affordances, these features grant individuals, as well as organizations, the ability to engage in various communicative actions (Treem & Leonardi, 2013). Corporations have been capitalizing on social media’s capabilities since inception. Over the past decade, corporate interactions on social media have garnered greater numbers of visitors than other web-based communication channels, suggesting great potential to engage various stakeholders (Neff, 2010). In recent years, research has shown how social media can afford dialogic communication between organizations and publics (Zhou & Xu, 2022), as well as public engagement on social issues (Khazraee & Novak, 2018), revealing profound implications for the role of social media in both organizational communication and public interest/social change communication. Social media as a platform for communication on CSR initiatives between companies and stakeholders has received considerable attention by researchers over the last decade (e.g., Fernández et al., 2022; Kent & Taylor, 2016). Studies have indicated that social media can be a useful communication channel for companies, given that it offers them opportunities to engage in two-way dialogue with stakeholders and they can embark on appropriate social media strategies, to achieve their CSR communication goals. For example, it has been found that social media communication can generate public awareness of CSR (H.-H. M. Lee et al., 2013), improve the quality of CSR communication (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013), and promote public engagement (Chu et al., 2020). On the other hand, social media communication can present challenges for CSR practices. The vast reach and viral nature of social media, combined with the increased availability of information for stakeholders, has given rise to an active and highly informed stakeholder group that is ready to hold companies accountable (e.g., K. Lee et al., 2013; Whelan et al., 2013). With increasing public expectations for ethical business operations, research shows that companies must gain and maintain legitimacy through CSR.

152

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-15

CSR Communication and Social Media

As research on social media CSR communication develops, some key theoretical frameworks have emerged. This chapter provides a comprehensive review of current literature and theories related to social media CSR communication, primarily focusing on three lines of research: (1) CSR in an era of constant social media scrutiny, (2) dialogic CSR communication between companies and publics on social media, and (3) the corporate use of social media characteristics in enhancing CSR communication effectiveness. Additionally, this chapter augments the discussion on emerging topics in social media CSR communication and gives recommendations for future research.

Social Media Scrutiny and Challenges to Corporate Legitimacy Corporations do not operate in a vacuum. In addition to selling products and services, gaining and maintaining corporate legitimacy by aligning corporate behaviors with stakeholder expectations is essential for an organization’s continued existence (Dawkins, 2004). In light of institutional theory, Suchman (1995) defined legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate, within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574). In other words, a company is perceived as legitimate when its activities are congruent with social norms and regulative processes (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). Companies need to fulfill expectations from various groups of stakeholders and fill a socially desirable role. When practicing CSR, legitimacy can be gained when there is congruence between the values reflected in stakeholders’ attention and corporate CSR efforts (Colleoni, 2013). Inasmuch as the stakeholders’ expectations regarding corporate engagement in social issues are increasing, so too has obtaining corporate legitimacy through CSR. As Loughran et al. (2022) asserted, these growing expectations are explained in part by the development of social media. Customers, investors, activists, and citizens have increased access to information about companies’ involvement in social issues and their internal decision-making processes. Companies now face increased scrutiny from stakeholders for practices that used to be relatively inconspicuous to the public. Moreover, because of the wide-ranging impact and increasing volume of social media conversations, stakeholders regard them as reliable sources of information to assess companies and the appropriateness of their behaviors (Castelló et al., 2016; Whelan et al., 2013). Loughran et al. (2022) found that over the past decade, S&P500 companies significantly increased the use of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) terms in their codes of ethics, largely due to their need to respond to voices emerging from social media. As Castelló and colleagues (2016) suggested, such social media voices have become an indispensable part of the co-construction of corporate legitimacy. More importantly, social media presents stakeholders the possibility to express their opinions to the company, and to one another. Stakeholders can openly put forward their expectations and speak out against companies they perceive to be irresponsible, and companies are expected to listen and respond. These conversations often take place under relevant hashtags, such as #SustyBiz, #EthicalSourcing, #SocialEnterprise, and #BizHumanRights. When hashtags are utilized by prominent individuals, such as those with tens or hundreds of thousands of followers, they can have greater influence on company decisions compared to the traditional media outlets of the past (Yohn, 2018). In a recent empirical study, Saxton et al. (2021) found that companies actively engaged with social media users who had the ability to influence and mobilize other users in terms of their CSR performance. The two-way communication process on social media provides a chance for practitioners and researchers to evaluate the congruence between stakeholders’ value orientations and corporate CSR practices. Over the past decade, there has been an increasing amount of research devoted to understanding public perceptions of corporate legitimacy through social media conversations. For example, Etter and colleagues (2018) studied the sentiments of tweets and news media coverage 153

Hao Xu

about an Italian bank, concluding that there was a gap in normative judgments about corporate legitimacy between news media and ordinary citizens. Focusing on specific CSR topics, Colleoni (2013) analyzed CSR-related tweets by companies from the 100 Best Corporate Citizens 2009 list and found that many companies’ CSR agenda and the social expectations of stakeholders were incongruent on social media. Furthermore, by studying people’s retweets of Fortune 500 companies’ CSR-related posts, Saxton et al. (2019) found that stakeholders were more likely to resonate with CSR messages on the topics of environment, education, or contemporary social movements. In general, social media gives rise to challenges of legitimacy for companies and brings about important implications for businesses to open a societal dialogue. As companies are trying to use social media to engage customers in two-way, personal communication, they increasingly need to use appropriate strategies to address legitimacy gaps, the concerns stakeholders raise, and the criticisms they put forward.

Dialogic CSR Communication and Community Identification Tapping more deeply into the two-way communication between companies and publics, dialogic communication is a theoretical perspective that is imperative for social media CSR communication. Dialogic public relations scholars always see dialogue as an ethical practice, and beneficial for all parties involved (e.g., Huang & Yang, 2015; Kent & Taylor, 1998). CSR echoes the dialogic public relations concept, as it is expected to be conducted for the general good of companies, publics, and society. Thus, establishing company-public dialogue is important to CSR communication as it provides “an obvious nexus to ethically, and efficiently, build relationships with publics that build social capital” (Kent & Taylor, 2016, p. 62). Dialogic CSR communications on social media contribute to value co-creation, which promotes a sense of community among publics around shared values. This section reviews relevant literature in the areas of dialogic communication and community identification.

Dialogic CSR Communication on Social Media Focusing on the intersection of social media and CSR, Kent and Taylor (2016) offered a framework for how dialogic social media, used in CSR communication, can create understanding and social capital between organizations and their publics. The Homo Dialogicus approach is advocated by Kent and Taylor (2016) as an alternative perspective to the traditional Homo Economicus approach in CSR, shifting the focus from financial gains to a relational one that emphasizes ethical and mutually beneficial public-company relationships. Kent and Taylor’s (2016) Homo Dialogicus approach is rooted in the tradition of dialogic communication. Dialogue refers to a two-way symmetrical communication between a company and its publics. As Kent and Taylor (2002) previously explained, true dialogue should include five features: mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and commitment. Dialogic communicators champion their own beliefs and opinions but should be willing to listen to others’ ideas and make changes. Thus, with its capacity for creating two-way interactive communication, social media is seen as an effective tool for building company-public dialogues, which go beyond one-way, monological corporate communication. Building on the Homo Dialogicus perspective, Kent and Taylor (2016) suggested three key requirements for dialogic CSR communication: (1) engagement of stakeholders, (2) recognition of the value of others, and (3) empathy with stakeholders and stake-seekers. This shares similarities with Yang et al.’s (2015) two-dimensional conceptualization of organization-public dialogic communication (OPDC), which has been applied to recent CSR research (e.g., Park & Kang, 2020; Song & Tao, 2022). Accordingly, OPDC consists of an orientation of mutuality, which involves mutual respect and the confirmation of the unique and different views of communicators by each 154

CSR Communication and Social Media

communicator, and a climate of openness, which captures a willingness for open and honest communication to occur between an organization and its publics (Yang et al., 2015). In sum, company-public CSR dialogue entails a strong ethical orientation that recognizes publics’ role in CSR and is open to the co-creation of value. While company-public dialogue in public relations is held to a very high standard that may be hard to achieve (Kent & Taylor, 2016), current CSR research in the organizational management and brand marketing fields focuses more on the dialogic communication processes enabled by social media features (e.g., Korschun & Du, 2013; Okazaki et al., 2020). It is widely believed that the twoway communication processes enabled by social media contribute to stakeholder empowerment and facilitates CSR co-creation (e.g., Bialkova & Te Paske, 2021; Okazaki et al., 2020). Through social media, companies can grant publics a more active role in their CSR activities in several ways, including opportunities to speak up about a social issue with which to engage, or formats of CSR activities (Okazaki et al., 2020). A growing number of studies have confirmed the positive influences of CSR dialogues and CSR co-creation on social media. Researchers have found that dialogic communication processes on social media can lead to active campaign participation (Bialkova & Te Paske, 2021), favorable corporate reputation (Illia et al., 2017), and beneficial organizational-public relationships (OPRs) (D. Kim & Choi, 2013). As Chen and colleagues (2020) suggested, these findings can serve as an important basis for future research to explore public perspectives in organization-public dialogue and explicate the complex interactions of multiple stakeholders in the co-creation of CSR value.

Community Identification through Dialogic CSR Communication Companies actively use dialogue to form virtual communities on social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram (Chen et al., 2020), which brings the concept of community identification under the spotlight. Social media users can now engage in virtual corporate communities through simple actions, such as liking, sharing, and commenting on companyrelated posts or creating new posts with hashtags, while official corporate memberships are not required (Men & Tsai, 2015). Although social media blurs the boundaries of corporate communities, a sense of belongingness among publics can still be constructed, based on social media behaviors. According to the identification theory, a company can proactively communicate its values, goals, and missions through CSR communication, in order to construct its corporate identity (Morsing, 2006). Through the communication of organizational value stances, publics may find a company’s identity more attractive to the extent that the company’s communicated values are similar to their own values, which, in turn, serves as a basis for the formation of company-public identification. Moreover, in line with social identity theory, when a strong corporate identification is formed, corporate identities communicated in CSR enable individuals to maintain and express their sense of self more fully and authentically and positively distinguish themselves from others (Sen et al., 2006). As Korschun and Du (2013) described, while publics’ identification with companies is already likely due to value-laden CSR messages, co-creating CSR together with peer publics on social media further makes the entire community of dialogue participants an attractive target for identification. On social media, not only does dialogic communication facilitate company-public twoway communication, but it also encourages peer-to-peer communication, among members of publics. Social media CSR dialogues become a platform, where the publics involved can express their values and feel that they are working together for a common CSR goal, like environmental protection or societal welfare. This feeling can drive an individual member of publics to identify with not only the company communicating CSR, but also the virtual community of peer publics around it, based on a sense that they all share the core CSR values and that the entire community

155

Hao Xu

can even “help him or her to tailor CSR programs to personal needs” (Korschun & Du, 2013, p. 1498). In the social media context, dialogic CSR communication and community identification go hand in hand, each promoting one other. While CSR co-creation through dialogue serves as an important element to develop community identification, researchers have also found that publics’ enhanced identification may contribute to their dialogic communication with companies (Hong et al., 2010). Additionally, studies have supported the idea that identification with a community on social media can lead to positive public-company relational outcomes, such as electronic word-ofmouth and CSR participation (Hur et al., 2020; Sreejesh et al., 2019). In this sense, publics’ online community identification is likely to constitute a crucial variable in the effectiveness of social media CSR communication, both as a result of effective CSR dialogues and as an important antecedent of the relational outcomes.

Social Media-Based Factors Impacting CSR Message Effectiveness The effectiveness of CSR communication is an enduring topic in existing research. When it comes to the impact of social media-based factors, some key features of social media communication have received constant attention, including liking and sharing and user-generated content. This section reviews theories and studies relevant to the social media-based factors impacting CSR message effectiveness.

Social Media Liking and Sharing as CSR Endorsement The open, public, and socially networked qualities of social media not only provide an effective venue for dialogic corporate communication with publics, but also a transparent platform that can facilitate public interpretation of CSR messages. Existing literature has identified two typical types of user interactions with corporate messages on social media platforms: liking a message and sharing one (Buzeta et al., 2020; Maslowska et al., 2016). Both liking and sharing are social media-specific behaviors and constitute the unique nature of social media communication as well as the inherent opportunities of CSR communication on social media. Scholars have investigated the effects of such features mostly from the signaling theory perspective, suggesting that users’ liking and sharing behaviors add metaknowledge, so that communicators (companies) and audiences (other ordinary social media users) can gauge the effectiveness of a message and the quality of a company (Saxton et al., 2019). Signaling means that one party can use observable demonstrations to reveal its unobservable attributes, when there are information asymmetries (Spence, 1974). In the CSR context, information asymmetry exists because stakeholders want to understand to which extent the company is devoted to addressing the social issues and commits to fulfill its value statement. According to signaling theory, corporate communications act as signals. Companies (senders of signals) can communicate relevant information to their publics (receivers of signals) through signals, which can help reduce information asymmetry, and publics can assess the quality of the company based on the signals they receive (Spence, 1974). Meanwhile, publics on social media “endorse” companies’ CSR messages through their liking and sharing behaviors. Social media platforms make these organically generated, numerical cues (numbers of “likes” or “shares”) observable to publics. On social media, therefore, signals come not only in the form of corporate messages, but also as responsive countersignals (Saxton et al., 2019). These signals and countersignals on social media reflect the validity of corporate messages and the perceived legitimacy of CSR.

156

CSR Communication and Social Media

In line with signaling theory, Donath (2007) argued that responsive countersignals available online are especially difficult to fake and can, therefore, provide reliable and meaningful information. When social media users’ collective reactions to content serve as effective countersignals, they can become indicators of the popularity and importance of the CSR message and the quality of the company. For example, H. Kim and Xu (2019) revealed that the presence of positive numerical cues with CSR messages could be effective in generating better consumer responses to the company and its CSR campaign. Similarly, Hartmann and colleagues (2021) also found that social media peers’ endorsement of a CSR message in terms of the number of “likes” and “shares” could contribute to an individual’s intention to share the message. Simultaneously, signalers (companies) can also rely on responsive countersignals from receivers (publics) to understand which signals are most effective and how receivers interpret signals. While liking and sharing countersignals reflect how well a company’s CSR message resonates with publics, companies that heed such resonance can use them to gauge the efficacy of their CSR messages and devise appropriate CSR communication strategies over the long term.

User-Generated Content in Social Media CSR Communication As the interactive nature of social media platforms enable “virtual CSR dialogues”, company-public relationships can be cultivated through publics’ active participation in CSR (M. Cho et al., 2017). While publics become active participants in CSR co-creation, questions arise as whether different message sources – particularly, companies versus users – can impact the effectiveness of CSR communication via social media. Christodoulides et al. (2012) define user-generated content as “consumers creating content that is made available through publicly accessible transmission media, such as the internet, reflects some degree of creative effort, and is created for free outside professional routines and practices” (pp. 54–55). Generally, this includes blogs, wiki entries, posted videos and photographs, and microblog posts on platforms like Facebook and Twitter (Haigh & Wigley, 2015). In the interactions between companies and publics, user-generated content is visible online content initiated and created by ordinary publics, which typically includes original posts and comments related to companies’ messages (A. J. Kim & Johnson, 2016). User-generated content constitutes an integral part of social media interactions and give publics information and perspectives that they would not experience in linear sender-receiver one-to-one settings. Source effects are particularly important for CSR communication because its effectiveness heavily depends on credibility and trust in genuine company motives. If a source is perceived as credible, the content of the message is likely to be evaluated as objective and the effectiveness of communication can be enhanced (Goldsmith et al., 2000). In the CSR context, Colleoni (2013) found that even when dialogical communication strategies were used, CSR communication through company-owned social media channels was still often perceived as a marketing practice, resulting in negative public reactions. Dunn and Harness’ (2018) further revealed that companygenerated CSR communication on social media may lead publics to attribute intrinsic or selfish motives to CSR, which may amplify public skepticism. Meanwhile, since social media provides ordinary people with unprecedented opportunities to put forward their voices, the effectiveness of communicating CSR through user-generated messages has received increasing attention. If a message is shared by a trusted sender, trust toward the original company-generated communication becomes less relevant, so that negative perceptions associated with company-owned sources can be overcome (S. Cho et al., 2014). A number of studies have emphasized the positive effects of user-generated content in CSR communication, as compared to information that comes directly from companies (e.g., Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2021; H. Kim & Xu, 2019). Ukpabi and Karjaluoto (2018) argued that when ordinary social media users are the source of 157

Hao Xu

CSR information, publics tend to perceive them as proximal and reliable peers, so skepticism toward CSR diminishes. Furthermore, according to M. Kim and Kim (2014), publics tend to think that ordinary users have extrinsic or disinterested reasons for highlighting a company’s CSR initiatives and their messages related to the company’s CSR are, therefore, more trustworthy. For this reason, researchers recommend that companies invest effort in engaging ordinary social media users in their CSR initiatives (Ferná ndez et al., 2022). Furthermore, given that user-generated content on social media can quickly reach broad audiences, it is recommended that companies use appropriate response strategies to manage users’ comments in CSR communication (Rim & Song, 2016).

Emerging Topics in Social Media CSR Communication To facilitate an in-depth discussion of the intersection between social media and CSR, this chapter reviews several emerging issues that could have profound implications for this field, ranging from the impacts of the external sociopolitical environment to relationships with employees as companies’ internal members, as well as technological advances, which can help better understand social media publics.

Corporate Social Advocacy on Social Media In recent years, companies have been operating in an increasingly polarized political environment. According to a report by Edelman (2022), about half of consumers believe that companies should do more to address sociopolitical problems and can do better than governments in driving necessary social changes. In response to the current political environment, a growing number of companies now move beyond their traditional CSR practice that cares for general welfare and have started engaging in sociopolitical issues like same-sex marriage, gun laws, and racial equality, often termed corporate social advocacy (CSA) (Dodd & Supa, 2014). In CSA, companies often explicitly promote stances as being for or against particular sociopolitical issues. For instance, in September 2021, over 50 companies spoke out against Texas’ abortion law (B. Kim, 2021), and in September 2019, executives of 145 companies wrote a letter to the US Senate, urging the legislators to take action on gun safety (Lucas, 2019). In this sense, CSA is seen as “inherently political, and potentially confrontational”, since such initiatives often attract certain stakeholder groups, but potentially alienate other groups (Yim, 2021, p. 61). For companies, platforms like Twitter and Instagram have become important channels to put forward corporate voices on controversial sociopolitical topics or public policy issues. However, while social media has often been thought of as potentially dialogic spaces, there is often a lack of mutual understanding between companies and publics on social media when it comes to sociopolitical issues. For example, Ciszek and Logan (2018) conducted a critical discourse analysis of Ben & Jerry’s support for Black Lives Matter on social media, finding that effective dialogic communication between the company and publics was not established. Ben & Jerry’s Facebook thread, as they described it, appeared to be “a sounding board, providing a space where users can vocalize their social and political positions, at times monologuing, while others engage in agonistic interactions” (Ciszek & Logan, 2018, p. 123). This finding echoes Schultz and Wehmeier’s (2010) earlier view that “emotionalized communication is often used by protest movements and does not aim at finding consensus, but at breaking up dialogue and, therefore, the mutual negotiation of social reality” (p. 21). The polarized sociopolitical discussions and growing societal expectations on CSA, together with the interactive and dialogic features of social media, put companies under the microscope from various stakeholders, including activists. As companies increasingly engage in CSA, it is necessary for

158

CSR Communication and Social Media

scholars and practitioners to further the discussion about how companies can open inclusive dialogues with publics and how social media can serve as a platform for beneficial CSA.

Employees’ Role in Social Media CSR Communication Along with the growing public expectations comes the recognition of employees’ active role in CSR communication. In 2019, a group of employees publicly criticized Amazon’s inaction on climate change on the blogging platform medium, drawing public attention to the company’s CSR record, with some of them remaining vocal on social media over a period of time (MacLellan, 2020). While Amazon’s case might be an extreme one, across the industry it is common that employees share their work-related experience openly and notably – on anonymous and deidentified channels like Glassdoor (Y. Lee, 2021). Compared to CSR messages from company-owned channels, which are strategically designed by communication professionals, the opinions of employees can be spontaneous and informal. However, as companies’ internal members, employees are commonly perceived as a credible source by external publics (J. N. Kim & Rhee, 2011). As important boundary-spanners, employees’ voluntary information sharing through their personal social media accounts provides meaningful information about their employers to publics outside the organizations. Employees’ words regarding their employers’ CSR efforts on social media can shape external publics’ perceptions of the companies (Y. Lee & Tao, 2020). Heeding the demand to improve companies’ external reputation through employee communication, some recent research has devoted attention to employee social media word-of-mouth and employee engagement through CSR communication. For example, Jiang et al. (2022) showed that effective CSR communication to employees could reduce the perception of corporate hypocrisy and lead to active promotion of their companies’ CSR initiatives on social media. Current research also highlights the importance of internal CSR efforts. According to Y. Lee (2021), internal CSR can cultivate a beneficial company-employee communal relationship. This, in turn, can enhance employees’ intention to advocate for their employers on social media. In general, how employees are engaged in CSR practices can impact companies’ external image, particularly in an era where both internal and external publics’ expectations on CSR are high and internal corporate practices are visible on social media. It is, therefore, critical for companies to build healthy relationships with employees through CSR practices and communication. For both academia and the industry, further insights linking employees’ CSR engagement and social media use are warranted.

Use of Social Media Data in CSR Communication Research and Practice From a technological perspective, the abundance of social media data has become a defining feature of human communication. With hundreds of millions of users communicating, interacting, and creating content at an unprecedented pace, this deluge of data can be turned into useful information for practitioners and researchers (Gil de Zúñiga & Diehl, 2017; van Atteveldt et al., 2019). Using emerging computational methods and techniques, such as natural language processing, social network analysis, and netnography, researchers can now study communication processes at scale, so as to explore unique questions that have not previously been fully addressed. The “naturally occurring” user-generated data can also overcome a series of shortages associated with traditional social science methods and be adopted to examine complex dynamics of company-public interactions in the real world. Applying social media analytics to understand CSR communication has received growing attention in both academia and industry. For example, IBM worked with the United States Chamber of Commerce Foundation (USCCF) Corporate Citizenship Center in 2017 and showcased how 159

Hao Xu

social media analytics can be used to understand the effects of CSR communication. They studied around 18,000 CSR-related posts extracted from blogs, forum sites, news sites, and Twitter, and their sentiment analysis found that companies communicating more CSR online have more favorable corporate reputations among social media users (USCCF, 2017). More recently, through a social network analysis of Twitter users’ interactions, Rim et al. (2020) mapped out the network structure around boycotting and advocating for Starbucks and Budweiser following their stance against Trump’s immigration ban in 2017. The study revealed the differences between how brand boycotters and supporters organized around CSA cases. Xu et al. (2021) and Zhou (2021) further pointed out the potential of using algorithm-assisted semantic analysis techniques to examine CSR discourse in social media posts. In general, the rise of social media and availability of massive data facilitates a more in-depth understanding of CSR communication. While current research mostly focuses on the social media landscape related to CSR practices, direct and objective assessment of publics’ voices in CSR communication is still rare and should be encouraged. In particular, as Chen et al. (2020) suggested, post threads that demonstrate “listening for understanding” or show “personal narratives and storytelling” can be critical indicators for online dialogic conversations and worth further investigation (p. 5). CSR communication practices in the industry can also benefit from the possibility of a thorough, real-time understanding of publics. This chapter, therefore, calls for more research exploring the application of social media analytics in CSR communication research, especially in the context of increasingly complex company-society relationships and social environments.

Conclusion The last decade has witnessed a rapid development in research focusing on social media CSR communication. While social media poses legitimacy challenges to companies, calling for the institutionalization of CSR communicative norms and practices, it also offers an opportunity for companies to communicate their CSR messages to publics. In an effort to help better understand the role of social media in CSR communication, this chapter synthesized several relatively important theories, deriving from various research traditions. It has gained insights from the institutional perspective, company-public dialogic communication, community identification, signaling theory, and source effects. As social media continue to develop and the relations between companies and society are becoming increasingly complex, there are many exciting avenues for future research. The author hopes the theoretical perspectives reviewed in this chapter can contribute to significant theoretical and practical developments in the future.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4

5

Analyzing a recent CSR campaign on social media, how were the theoretical frameworks reviewed in this chapter (e.g., dialogic communication, signaling theory, etc.) exemplified? Compared to other channels (e.g., corporate websites, paper/PDF reports), what are the greatest benefits that social media can bring to CSR communication? What are the major challenges of communicating CSR initiatives on social media? To adapt to CSR communication needs and social media affordances, how can companies adjust their social media policies to include more aspects of social listening and/or usergenerated content? As new social media platforms, such as TikTok and Clubhouse, and new features, such as chatbots, are emerging, how might they influence social media CSR communication?

160

CSR Communication and Social Media

Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Michaele D. Myers from the University of Minnesota and Renee R. Mitson from the University of Florida for their valuable suggestions on this chapter.

References Bialkova, S., & Te Paske, S. (2021). Campaign participation, spreading electronic word of mouth, purchase: How to optimise corporate social responsibility, CSR, effectiveness via social media? European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 30(1), 108–126. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. Buzeta, C., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2020). Motivations to use different social media types and their impact on consumers’ online brand-related activities (COBRAs). Journal of Interactive Marketing, 52, 79–98. Castelló, I., Etter, M., & Årup Nielsen, F. (2016). Strategies of legitimacy through social media: The networked strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432. Chen, Y. R. R., Hung-Baesecke, C. J. F., & Chen, X. (2020). Moving forward the dialogic theory of public relations: Concepts, methods and applications of organization-public dialogue. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101878. Cho, M., Furey, L. D., & Mohr, T. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility on social media: Strategies, stakeholders, and public engagement on corporate Facebook. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 52–69. Cho, S., Huh, J., & Faber, R. J. (2014). The influence of sender trust and advertiser trust on multistage effects of viral advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 100–114. Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J. (2012). Memo to marketers: Quantitative evidence for change – how user-generated content really affects brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 52(1), 53–64. Chu, S. C., Chen, H. T., & Gan, C. (2020). Consumers’ engagement with corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication in social media: Evidence from China and the United States. Journal of Business Research, 110, 260–271. Ciszek, E., & Logan, N. (2018). Challenging the dialogic promise: How Ben & Jerry’s support for Black Lives Matter fosters dissensus on social media. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(3), 115–127. Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228–248. Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 108–119. Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 2–23. Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 231–251. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. Dunn, K., & Harness, D. (2018). Communicating corporate social responsibility in a social world: The effects of company-generated and user-generated social media content on CSR attributions and scepticism. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(17-18), 1503–1529. Edelman. (2022). 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/trust/2022trust-barometer Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K., & D’Eugenio, A. (2018). Measuring organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens’ judgments with sentiment analysis. Business & Society, 57(1), 60–97. Fernández, P., Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza, V. (2022). What drives CSR communication effectiveness on social media? A process-based theoretical framework and research agenda. International Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 385–413. Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Diehl, T. (2017). Citizenship, social media, and big data: Current and future research in the social sciences. Social Science Computer Review, 35(1), 3–9. Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The influence of corporate credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4), 304–318. Gómez-Carrasco, P., Guillamon-Saorin, E., & Garcia Osma, B. (2021). Stakeholders versus firm communication in social media: The case of Twitter and corporate social responsibility information. European Accounting Review, 30(1), 31–62.

161

Hao Xu Haigh, M. M., & Wigley, S. (2015). Examining the impact of negative, user-generated content on stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(1), 63–75. Hartmann, P., Fernández, P., Apaolaza, V., Eisend, M., & D’Souza, C. (2021). Explaining viral CSR message propagation in social media: The role of normative influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(2), 365–385. Hong, S. Y., Yang, S. U., & Rim, H. (2010). The influence of corporate social responsibility and customercompany identification on publics’ dialogic communication intentions. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 196–198. Huang, J., & Yang, A. (2015). Implementing dialogic communication: A survey of IPR, PRSA, and IABC members. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 376–377. Hur, W. M., Moon, T. W., & Kim, H. (2020). When and how does customer engagement in CSR initiatives lead to greater CSR participation? The role of CSR credibility and customer-company identification. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1878–1891. Illia, L., Romenti, S., Rodríguez-Cánovas, B., Murtarelli, G., & Carroll, C. E. (2017). Exploring corporations’ dialogue about CSR in the digital era. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 39–58. Jiang, H., Cheng, Y., Park, K., & Zhu, W. (2022). Linking CSR communication to corporate reputation: Understanding hypocrisy, employees’ social media engagement and CSR-related work engagement. Sustainability, 14(4), 2359. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo Dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60–67. Khazraee, E., & Novak, A. N. (2018). Digitally mediated protest: Social media affordances for collective identity construction. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118765740. Kim, A. J., & Johnson, K. K. (2016). Power of consumers using social media: Examining the influences of brand-related user-generated content on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 98–108. Kim, B. (2021). Corporations speak out against Texas abortion ban. PR Week. Retrieved from https://www. prweek.com/article/1728616/corporations-speak-against-texas-abortion-ban Kim, D., & Choi, M. I. (2013). A comparison of young publics’ evaluations of corporate social responsibility practices of multinational corporations in the United States and South Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 105–118. Kim, H., & Xu, H. (2019). Exploring the effects of social media features on the publics’ responses to decreased usage CSR messages. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 287–302. Kim, J. N., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3), 243–268. Kim, M., & Kim, Y. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder value of restaurant firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 120–129. Korschun, D., & Du, S. (2013). How virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value: A framework and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1494–1504. Lee, H.-H. M., van Dolen, W., & Kolk, A. (2013). On the role of social media in the “responsible” food business: Blogger buzz on health and obesity issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 695–707. Lee, K., Oh, W. Y., & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis of Fortune 500’s Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 791–806. Lee, Y. (2021). Bridging employee advocacy in anonymous social media and internal corporate social responsibility (CSR). Management Decision, 59(10), 2473–2495. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD‐01‐2020‐0101 Lee, Y., & Tao, W. (2020). Employees as information influencers of organization’s CSR practices: The impacts of employee words on public perceptions of CSR. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101887. Loughran, T., McDonald, B., & Otteson, J. R. (2022). How have corporate codes of ethics responded to an era of increased scrutiny? Journal of Business Ethics, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐022‐05104‐2 Lucas, A. (2019). Chief executives of 145 companies urge Senate to pass gun control laws. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/12/chief-executives-of-145-companies-urge-senate-to-pass-guncontrol-laws.html Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on corporate greenwash. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 747–757. MacLellan, L. (2020). A timeline charting the new rise of employee activism. Quartz. https://qz.com/work/ 1943717/a-timeline-charting-the-new-rise-of-employee-activism/

162

CSR Communication and Social Media Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. C., & Collinger, T. (2016). The customer engagement ecosystem. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 469–501. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 395–403. Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto‐communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 171–182. Neff, J. (2010). What happens when Facebook trumps your brand site? Ad Age. Retrieved from https://adage. com/article/digital/advertising-facebook-biggest-crm-provider/145502 Okazaki, S., Plangger, K., Roulet, T., & Menéndez, H. D. (2020). Assessing stakeholder network engagement. European Journal of Marketing, 55(5), 1359–1384. O’Reilly, T. (2009). What is Web 2.0. O’Reilly Media. Park, Y. E., & Kang, M. (2020). When crowdsourcing in CSR leads to dialogic communication: The effects of trust and distrust. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101867. Rim, H., Lee, Y., & Yoo, S. (2020). Polarized public opinion responding to corporate social advocacy: Social network analysis of boycotters and advocators. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101869. Rim, H., & Song, D. (2016). “How negative becomes less negative”: Understanding the effects of comment valence and response sidedness in social media. Journal of Communication, 66(3), 475–495. Saxton, G. D., Gómez, L., Ngoh, Z., Lin, Y. P., & Dietrich, S. (2019). Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 359–377. Saxton, G. D., Ren, C., & Guo, C. (2021). Responding to diffused stakeholders on social media: Connective power and firm reactions to CSR-related Twitter messages. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(2), 229–252. Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299. Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 9–29. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166. Song, B., & Tao, W. (2022). Unpack the relational and behavioral outcomes of internal CSR: Highlighting dialogic communication and managerial facilitation. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102153. Spence, M. (1974). Competitive and optimal responses to signals: An analysis of efficiency and distribution. Journal of Economic Theory, 7(3), 296–332. Sreejesh, S., Sarkar, J. G., & Sarkar, A. (2019). CSR through social media: Examining the intervening factors. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(1), 103–120. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189. Ukpabi, D. C., & Karjaluoto, H. (2018). What drives travelers’ adoption of user-generated content? A literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 251–273. USCCF. (2017). The CSR effect: Social media sentiment and the impact on brands. Retrieved from https:// www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/CSR%20Effect%20Final%20April%2014.pdf van Atteveldt, W., Strycharz, J., Trilling, D., & Welbers, K. (2019). Computational communication science| toward open computational communication science: A practical road map for reusable data and code. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3935–3954. Whelan, G., Moon, J., & Grant, B. (2013). Corporations and citizenship arenas in the age of social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 777–790. Xu, H., Huh, J., & Rim, H. (2021). Research in progress: Companies getting political and the influence on CSA public relations. The Arthur W. Page Center. Retrieved from https://www.bellisario.psu.edu/pagecenter/article/research-in-progress-companies-getting-political-and-the-influence-on-csa-p Yang, S. U., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization-public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. Yim, M. C. (2021). Fake, faulty, and authentic stand-taking: What determines the legitimacy of corporate social advocacy? International Journal of Strategic Communication, 15(1), 60–76.

163

Hao Xu Yohn, D. L. (2018). Reminder: Customers care how you treat your employees. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/09/reminder-customers-care-how-you-treat-your-employees Zhou, A. (2021). Communicating corporate LGBTQ advocacy: A computational comparison of the global CSR discourse. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102061. Zhou, A., & Xu, S. (2022). Digital public relations through the lens of affordances: A conceptual expansion of the dialogic principles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 33(6), 445–463.

164

13 CSR AND CRISIS COMMUNICATION: EXPLORING THE RESEARCH ON CSR CRISIS COMMUNICATION W. Timothy Coombs

Introduction This chapter explores the research that draws connections between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and crisis communication, often called CSR crisis communication. The CSR crisis communication research claims to contribute to crisis communication, it is instructive to understand how the intersection of CSR and crisis communication contributes to the larger body of crisis communication research. As an applied field, crisis communication research should yield insight for both theory and practice. As with corporate communication in general, crisis communication’s first link to CSR was to view CSR as an asset during a crisis (e.g., Vassilikopoulou et al., 2009). The idea is that good things happen to organizations that engage in CSR. Hence, CSR communication prior to crisis was viewed as a buffer to protect corporations during a crisis. The relationship between CSR and crisis communication has evolved from this simplistic view of CSR as a resource to a more sophisticated understanding of how CSR relates to perceptions and reactions to risk and crises. In this chapter, the development of the connection between CSR and crisis communication is explored along with identifying the more promising future directions for this research area. The first section explores how the CSR research in crisis communication follows the pattern found in the prior reputation research in crisis communication. With that contextual information, we then explore CSR as a crisis response strategy, CSR as a crisis type, and crisis communication advice that emerges from the CSR crisis communication research.

Echoes of Prior Reputation: CSR as a Crisis Buffer or Burden The idea of CSR as a buffer or burden is an extension of the research on how prior reputation affects crises and crisis communication. A favorable reputation is taken as an asset that should serve as a buffer during a crisis that protects an organization from the harm associated with a crisis. Researchers talked about reputation building a reservoir of good will that created a halo effect for organizations. The positive views about the organization (prior reputation) should be applied to the crisis situation thereby protecting the organization from crisis damage. An illustration of the buffer is the belief a favorable reputation would protect the organization from the reputational damage associated with

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-16

165

W. Timothy Coombs

crises (Ulmer, 2001). An alternative view of reputation and crisis is that the prior reputation is a bank account. A crisis will force some withdrawal from the bank account, thus, having a larger bank account prior to a crisis results in a larger bank account after the crisis (Alsop, 2004; Coombs & Holladay, 2001).

Overview of the Prior Reputation Research The halo effect holds that because people like the organization before the crisis, they are willing to disregard the negative associates generated by the crisis. The prior reputation acts as a shield to protect the organization from reputational harm a crisis can inflict (Klein & Dawar, 2004). A true halo effect as a reputational shield appears to be very limited and requires an extremely strong precrisis reputation and a crisis that involves very little attribution of crisis responsibility to the organization in crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2006). A serious design concern appears in the halo effects research. That design concern is the use of just the positive and negative pre-crisis reputations. If there are differences after the crisis, it is unclear if the effect on reputation was from the positive or the negative prior reputation. Essentially there are three plausible interpretations of the research findings. The difference can be a result of the negative pre-crisis reputation, the positive pre-crisis reputation, or a combination of the two. Klein and Dawar (2004) were among the first to recognize that the unfavorable reputation might be the driving effect. Their study used just the positive and negative prior reputation but argued the positive prior reputation was the driving force. Still, they choose to focus on the positive pre-crisis reputation as the driver. Coombs and Holladay (2001) designed a study that included three conditions: positive, neutral, and negative prior reputation. It should be noted that their manipulation of prior reputation included contributions to the community, a form of CSR. Their data showed neutral and positive prior reputations had a similar effect and that the negative prior reputation increased reputational damage rather than a positive reputation reducing it. They called this finding the Velcro effect. The Velcro effect supports Alsop’s (2004) belief that reputation is like a bank account. Organizations accrue reputational capital that they must spend during a crisis. The advantage of a positive pre-crisis reputation is that it gives the organization more money to spend. The Velcro effects suggests those with a negative pre-crisis reputation have to spend more reputational capital during a crisis than those with a neutral or positive pre-crisis reputation. The bank account interpretation is an alternative to the buffering effects of prior reputation but still maintains there is value in a positive prior reputation because of the dangers associated with a negative prior reputation. The Velcro effect was one indicator of the dangers associated with prior reputations. Moreover, Coombs & Holladay (2006) noted that favorable prior reputations could create higher high expectations for crisis communication making prior reputation a burden. Later studies explored the idea of burden, what Sohn & Larisy (2015) called a boomerang effect, finding that a burden from prior reputation did exist. When an organization has a favorable prior reputation, stakeholders pay more attention to the crisis and consider the crisis to be a greater violation of expectations. When an organization with a favorable prior has a crisis, that crisis stands out more stakeholders (Rhee & Haunschild, 2006). Overtime, stakeholder develop expectations of a certain level of performance for organizations with favorable reputations (Rindova et al., 2005). Because of the expectations that develop, organizations with favorable prior reputations are judged more harshly than those missing this reputational asset (Brooks et al., 2003). The favorable prior reputation is a burden because it can amplify the negative effects from a crisis (Zavyalova et al., 2016). The inconsistency in the effects of prior reputation prompts researcher to understand why the two different effects emerged. Zavyalova et al. (2016) used organizational identification as the explanatory framework. Organizational identification is a form of social identification that allows 166

CSR and Crisis Communication

stakeholders see a part of themselves in the organization reflected in a strong value congruence between the stakeholder and the organization. The research found a favorable prior reputation was a buffer for high identification stakeholders but a burden for low identification stakeholders. High identification stakeholders create a larger reservoir of goodwill and are likely to give organizations the benefit of the doubt during the crisis. Low identification stakeholders have a smaller reservoir of goodwill. The crisis then draws attention to the expectation violation creating a burden. However, the beneficial aspect of high identification has limits. When crises are repeated or one is particularly egregious, even the high identification stakeholders will turn on the organization (Zavyalova et al., 2016). Other studies have reached similar conclusions using identification or related concepts. Stakeholders who like an organization are less critical of the organization and more willing to accept crisis responses than those with low levels of identification (Bundy et al., 2017).

CSR and Crisis Communication Explores Buffers and Burdens Given that CSR is an essential element of reputation, it made sense to argue that prior CSR efforts could affect a crisis situation and crisis communication. Again, the reasoning is that engaging in CSR prior to a crisis creates a buffer effect (Vassilikopoulou et al., 2009). Kim and Yang’s (2009) research is an exemplar of examining the buffering effect of prior CSR. The study used two conditions, good and bad CSR history. They found CSR history did affect post-crisis reputation with the post-crisis reputation being higher in the good CSR history condition compared to the bad CSR history condition (Kim & Yang, 2009). Unfortunately, prior CSR studies in crisis communication (e.g., Kim, 2013; Kim & Woo, 2018) have used the simple two conditions – positive CSR verses negative CSR. While researchers then proclaim the value of prior CSR, they do not really know if the effects were from the positive or the negative CSR conditions. Further, Zhou and Ki (2018) noted the designs only examined post-crisis reputation, hence, the studies yield little insight into how good CSR affects a reputation during a crisis because we do not know how reputation changed after the crisis and the crisis response. Results from their study supported the bank account view of prior CSR rather than the buffering effect associated with the halo effect (Zhou & Ki, 2018). Once more we see the prior CSR research mirroring the prior reputation research. Many of the prior reputation studies in crisis communication (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2001; Decker, 2012; Lyon & Cameron, 2004) manipulated prior positive reputation using CSR such as contributions to the community. Hence, much of the prior CSR research is redundant with the earlier prior reputation research because of the overlap in how prior reputation and pre-crisis CSR were operationalized.

CSR as a Form of Risk Corporate social responsibility concerns and CSR communication can be defined as risks (Coombs & Holladay, 2015). When stakeholders become involved with a CSR concern, say sustainable fishing, they often demand that organization address those concerns. Essentially stakeholders develop expectations that organizations will behave in ways they view to be socially responsible. Therefore, engaging in CSR can be a form of risk management (Bebbington et al., 2008; Fombrun, 2005). By addressing CSR concerns before they become a major public concern, managers prevent those CSR concerns from damaging an organization. For instance, a restaurant chain that only buys sustainably caught fish is insulate the organization from the risk created when customers begin to demand sustainable fish. The CSR efforts can even be a competitive advantage if rival restaurant chains are still sourcing from unsustainable suppliers – the rivals suffer from the emerging crisis. CSR then becomes part of the larger mix of risks an organization scans and attempts to manage (Coombs, 2019).

167

W. Timothy Coombs

It is CSR’s strong connection to reputation that further positions CSR as a crisis risk. Reputations is now recognized as a valuable asset for an organization (e.g., Baer et al., 2018). CSR has gone from a small part to a major part of corporate reputations. Industry research has documented a shift from financial factors to the importance of the non-financial factors of environment, social, and governance (ESG). According to the Reputation Institute and RepTrak, CSR has become the most important driver of organizational reputation (RepTrak, 2021; Reputation Institute, 2020). Moreover, academics have documented the important of CSR for cultivating positive organizational reputations (e.g, Lin-Hi & Blumberg, 2019; Rothenhoefer, 2019). The growing importance of CSR to organizational reputation reflects how stakeholders now hold expectations for how organizations should behave. Crisis can be defined as violation of expectations (Coombs, 2019), hence, violating expectations for engaging in socially responsible behavior can be a crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2015). A crisis is the manifestation of risk (Heath & Palenchar, 2009). That is why managing a risk can prevent the occurrence of a crisis. Once an organization publicly engages in CSR activities, it creates an expectation the organization will be socially responsible. The organization is activity involved in creating the expectations of socially responsible behavior (Coombs & Holladay, 2015). The result is that when evidence indicates an organization is acting improperly, a risk could manifest and damage the organization’s reputation – erode a valued organizational asset. Again, we are defining a crisis as a violation of salient stakeholder expectations that create negative outcomes for stakeholders and/or the organization (Coombs, 2019). This definition includes violations of expectations to engage in responsible behavior. CSR risks create crises based upon realization of a problem rather than being event based, such as an industrial accident or a transportation mishap (Coombs, 2019). Booth (2000) identified the reputational problems that arose when an organization was associated with a negative activity. Engaging in behavior perceived as irresponsible would be an association with a negative activity. There is a strong social construction element to CSR risks – they are heavily driven by stakeholder perceptions. A CSR-challenge is a unique crisis risk created when stakeholders claim an organization is acting in an irresponsible manager. Lerbinger (1997) was among the first to identify stakeholder challenges as a problem for organization that could lead to crises. Lange and Washburn (2012) developed a model of how perceptions of social irresponsibility are constructed. There needs to be an undesirable outcome, that undesirable outcome must be linked to the organization, and the victims need to be in a position where they could not prevent the negative outcomes (were not accomplices). The model offers a pattern for how a CSR-challenge develops. Some stakeholder, typically activists, identify a negative outcome and link it to the organization. Moreover, the victims are portrayed as helpless to stop the problem. We can return the example of sandblasting clothing in the fashion industry. The negative outcome was the harmful effects of sandblasting on workers. The fashion houses that were using sandblasting to distress clothing were at fault. The workers were powerless to stop the problem. The goal was for other stakeholders, especially customers, to define the behavior as irresponsible and unacceptable. Stakeholders should expect organization to show more concern for worker safety. The sandblasting of clothing was now a risk that could escalate into a crisis if mishandled. Coombs and Holladay (2012, 2015) argued that a CSR-challenge was a unique form of paracrisis. A paracrisis occurs when an organization must publicly manage a risk. A paracrisis looks similar to crisis but involves a different dynamic including the use of some response strategies that should not be used in crisis communication. Effective risk management can prevent the risk from escalating into a crisis. Ineffective risk management can accelerate the risk becoming a crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 2012).

Summary The discussion of the prior reputation research in crisis communication provides an important context for interpreting the early CSR crisis communication research. Because CSR is an important 168

CSR and Crisis Communication

dimension of reputation, it is logical that the early CSR crisis communication research examined the effects of prior CSR efforts (CSR communication) on the crisis dynamic. Early CSR crisis communication research found limited support for prior CSR as a benefit (e.g., Vassilikopoulou et al., 2009). However, researchers quickly found that CSR could be a burden as well. That burden centered on how violating expectations related to CSR could be a risk (Coombs & Holladay, 2015) or even a crisis (Eisenegger & Schranz, 2011). The CSR communication research replicated the prior reputation research but generally failing to recognize that fact when reporting the results of their studies.

CSR and Crisis Response Strategies Crisis response strategies are the words and actions managers use when responding to a crisis. Benoit (1995) has constructed the most comprehensive list of crisis response strategies through his work with image restoration theory. Bolstering is an established crisis response strategy that includes reminding people about the past good works of an organization and praising stakeholders for their actions during a crisis (e.g., Coombs, 2019). The reminder form of bolstering is available to crisis managers when the organization has done good things in the past. CSR provides evidence of the organization having done good things. That is why many researchers consider CSR messages in crisis communication to be a form of bolstering (e.g., McDonnell & King, 2013; Park, 2017). Some CSR crisis communication researchers have argued for CSR messages being a unique form of crisis response. Ham and Kim (2019) argued that: CSR communication can serve to diminish or rebuild post-crisis communication strategies in SCCT. More specifically, we expect that the defensive roles played by CSR communication will vary according to crisis type, serving as either a confession strategy in response to preventable crises, or an excuse strategy in response to accidental crises. In addition, we argue that CSR communication can serve as a bolstering strategy to mitigate the negative impact of crises on the corporation by emphasizing the corporation’s good traits. (Ham & Kim, 2019, p. 355) Unfortunately, Ham and Kim (2019) do not unpack the argument as to how and why CSR communication can be a confession or an excuse. The operationalization of the CSR communication strategies in the experiment were not detailed enough to explain how it could be anything but a bolstering strategy. Rather than being a unique crisis response strategy, CSR communication after a crisis is a specific variation of bolstering that reminds stakeholders of the positive actions of the organization in crisis. Furthermore, Park’s (2017) research suggests that when used as a bolstering strategy, CSR communication is a supplemental strategy meaning it should be used in combination with other crisis response strategies. Using only a CSR communication response can create the impression the organization cares more about itself than about its stakeholders. Another topic related to crisis response is the distinction between corporate ability and corporate responsibility found in the corporate association literature pioneered by Brown and Dacin (1997). Corporate associations represent the cognitions stakeholders associate with an organization and is defined as “any types of beliefs, moods and emotions, evaluations etc., about an organization that are held by individuals and that are mentally associated with the organization” (Dacin & Brown, 2002, p. 254). Corporate associations represent a form of social assessment similar to but distinct from reputation. Dacin and Brown (2002) divided corporate associations into corporate ability (CA) and corporate responsibility (CSR). Corporate ability is about professional competence related to products and services. Corporate responsibility is related to fulfilling moral obligations to society (Tao & Song, 2020). 169

W. Timothy Coombs

Tao and Song (2020) claim organizations can respond to a crisis by communicating “its past good records and continued commitment in CA and/or CSR”. A CA response will focus on “a company’s positive performance as well as ongoing commitment in being or becoming a successful product and service provider, while a CSR response strategy highlights the firm’s good work and continued efforts in fulfilling moral obligations and promoting societal well-being” (Tao & Song, 2020, p. 3). Essentially, they are arguing for two different ways to operationalize the bolstering strategy or reminding. An organization can either remind stakeholders of success with products or services or about CSR actions. Moreover, Tao and Song (2020) claim CA and CSR strategies are distinct from the strategies provided by either image restoration theory (IRT) (Benoit, 1995) or situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 1995, 2007). However, this statement is made without support, just a reference to the two theories placing crisis response strategies on a continuum from denial to accommodation. The continuum is not evidence of a difference nor support the unique nature of CSR communication. IRT covers bolstering in detail (see Benoit, 1995) and SCCT bases its use of bolstering upon IRT (Coombs, 2019). It is more precise to say that the CA and CSR strategies are forms of bolstering rather than to claim they are different from the crisis response strategies developed in IRT. Their study applying CA and CSR strategies focuses on how the CSR strategy will outperform the CA strategy when the crisis involves a CSR violation, what they term response “diagnosticity” (Tao & Song, 2020). Once more we see a failure to contextualize the CSR communication results within the larger crisis communication literature. The study uses CA and CSR as forms of bolstering, an established crisis response strategy that has demonstrated limited utility as a crisis response (Coombs, 2019). Their stimuli are a mix of crisis response strategies, using apology and corrective action, coupled with the bolstering. But there is not specific discussion of the other elements of the crisis responses. Logically, CSR should be better at bolstering than CA because CA is about the organization and has little relevance to stakeholders. The results are as expected that CSR is superior to CA for bolstering. Ignoring the value of the other elements in the crisis response lessens the potential yield from the study. We do not learn what the effect is of just using CA or CSR responses without the benefit of the other, accepted crisis response strategies. The reader is provided limited understanding of the true value of these two strategies. Diagnosticity is an interesting concept, but the study does not give us a clear understanding of its true value in part because CA is a very weak form of bolstering used as the comparison. It would have been more informative to compare a relevant and an irrelevant form of CSR.

CSR and Crisis Types Crisis types refer to the frames used to interpret the crisis situation. Crisis types are important because they shape perceptions of crisis responsibility and how people react to both crises and crisis response strategies (Coombs, 2007). The CSR crisis communication research has sought to identify the unique nature of “CSR crises”.

CSR as a Crisis Type The argument for CSR as a crisis type has strong connections to Brown and Dacin’s (1997) work on the CA and CSR dimensions of corporate associations. The logic is that crises can be either a CA of a CSR crisis. A CSR crisis is “a major event that poses a threat to reputation associated with norms and values cherished by society, and socially expected obligations” (Sohn & Lariscy, 2015, p. 25), while a CA crisis is “a critical event that adversely affects reputation associated with expertise of product and service, technological innovation, and industry leadership” (Sohn & Lariscy, 2015, p. 25). The problem is that almost all crises are a mix of CA and CSR – the two categories are not separate. Every crisis creates some measure of reputational damage and creates some concerns about CA. 170

CSR and Crisis Communication

Chen and Tao (2020) conducted research that demonstrated the CA and CSR domains are related to one another arguing they spillover into one another during a crisis. They refined the conceptualization of the CSR crisis by defining it as “the perceived violation of stakeholders’ expectations toward an organization’s commitment to societal obligations, which can create negative outcomes for the organization and its stakeholders” (Chen & Tao, 2020, p. 180). The CSR and CA distinctions make sense for corporate associations but serve less well as distinctions for crisis types. As with crisis response strategies, the concept of the CSR crisis fits with existing conceptualization of crisis types such as crisis type framework found in SCCT (Coombs & Holladay, 2001). CSR crises could be a variant of crises found in the accidental or a preventable crisis cluster. CSR crisis communication researchers have used both of these crisis clusters in their research studies (e.g., Ham & Kim, 2020). For instance, the violation of societal obligations might be from technical-error, human-error, and intentional (management misconduct). We can label variants of crises as CSR crises but is that a useful distinction? Research by Gistri et al. (2019) would suggest there are times the designation of a CSR crisis has value. Gistri et al. (2019) introduce the concept of consumer perception of incongruence (CPI) in part to help understand when CSR is a burden or buffer. CPI is the perceived congruence between prior CSR actions and the crisis situation. Consumers make judgments about how well or poorly the current crisis fits with past CSR efforts. For instance, say an organization has promoted its strong environmental work. If the organization has a crisis that involves intentionally releasing hazardous materials into the environment, that would be a high CPI crisis. If the organization has a crisis that involves hiring of child labor, that would be a low CPI crisis. Their study found that high CPI increased the negative effect of a crisis on consumer attitudes toward the organization, word-ofmouth, and purchase intention. Moreover, the discomfort (from cognitive dissonance theory) created by the CPI moderate some of the negative effects of the crisis. In addition, accommodative crisis response strategies could reduce the negative effects of CPI (Gistri et al., 2019). In a way, CPI is an extension of earlier CSR relevance research. However, the earlier CSR relevance study failed to find a connection between the nature of the crisis and its relationship to CSR efforts (Park, 2017). The research into CSR expectation offers some insights into crisis types as well. Kim et al. (2019) posited that people can have economic expectations for organizations and ethical CSR expectations (again we see the ideas of ability and responsibility appearing). The study examined the effects of these two expectations on how people viewed organizational misconduct (a form of management misconduct crisis found in SCCT). They found people with high economic expectations would rate a misconduct situation as being low in terms of perceived misconduct while those with CSR expectations rated a misconduct situation much higher in terms of perceived moral inequity. Economic and CSR expectations, though related, can shape how people view a crisis (Kim at al., 2019). Managers are unlikely to know the expectations of various stakeholders prior to a misconduct event. However, managers will know many stakeholders will hold CSR expectations. That means some stakeholders will dismiss the misconduct but others will hold them accountable for it. If even a segment of stakeholders holds the organization accountable, the actions will be deemed misconduct. Therefore, managers must be prepared whenever there could be perceptions of misconduct because a segment of their stakeholders will recognize it as a crisis.

Crisis Communication Guidance Ultimately, crisis communication research should prove its value in application. We must understand how the CSR crisis communication research can improve crisis communication by offering guidance to crisis manager (Coombs, 2019). It is critical to consider what crisis communication guidance can be derived from the CSR crisis communication research. The crisis communication guidance reflects the need to understand the buffer or burden from CSR communication. The first concern is can it help and the second concern is when does CSR communication help.

171

W. Timothy Coombs

CSR communication as a crisis response can help as a form of bolstering. Similar to other crisis communication research exploring bolstering, CSR communication is a supplemental rather than a primary strategy. That means CSR communication used alone is not very useful response but can help a little when used with other crisis response strategies such as the ethical base response or accommodative strategies (Park, 2017). We use the phrase “help a little” because the effects sizes from the bolstering studies are small. If CSR communication can help after a crisis, we must understand when it is mostly likely to help? Researchers have explored CSR fit (CSR efforts are consistent with what the organization does) and length of involvement with CSR (short or long involvement). As with the CSR communication in general, CSR fit results are inconsistent. Length of CSR involvement does seem to matter. Organizations with a long involvement with CSR experience greater benefits from CSR communication as a crisis response than organizations with short involvement with CSR because it can enhance integrity (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). However, these results hold for accidental crises but not for preventable crises (those with strong attributions for crisis responsibility (Zhou & Ki, 2018). Even though limited in its application, the length of CSR involvement sheds some light on the dynamics behind bolstering. Bolstering seems to work when the past actions are credible or believable. Researchers often examine CSR skepticism as an outcome. For instance, there is greater CSR skepticism when length of CSR involvement is short compared to long (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). Moreover, CSR skepticism is less when stakeholders view the CSR as intrinsically motivated (serve the public) verses extrinsically motivated (benefits the organization) (Ham & Kim, 2019, 2020). Similarly, Wu and Overton (2021) found CSR crisis responses to be more effective when they were values-driven rather than selfserving. The lesson is that for CSR crisis response to work best during a crisis, the organization needs to have had a long-term commitment to CSR and be intrinsically motived to engage in CSR. We can extrapolate these findings to bolstering strategies in general that utilize reminders of past good works. Stakeholders need to believe that past good works are credible. The credibility may depend upon the length of time involved with the good works and motivation for those good works.

Conclusion and Future Research Directions Ham and Kim (2019) made the statement “Given the important of CSR as a reputation repair strategy, research has examined the potential of CSR in mitigating the negative impact of crises” (p. 367). There is very problematic assumption within this statement. The data from a range of studies has yet to prove that CSR is an “important” reputation repair strategy. At best, the CSR crisis responses are a form of bolstering. Bolstering, even in the CSR crisis communication research, accounts for very little variance. Researchers can find significant effects for bolstering strategies in crises with lower levels of crisis responsibility but the effects size should lead us to question the importance of those results. Furthermore, bolstering remains a supplemental strategy (Park, 2017), which does not warrant the label “important”. CSR as a crisis response strategy sits more on the margins of crisis communication more than being important. Overall, CSR crisis communication has shown a very limited potential to mitigate the negative effects of crises either as a form of prior reputation or as a crisis response strategy. The volume of the CSR crisis communication research far exceeds the yields it offers to crisis communication theory and practice. As noted in this chapter, many of the results were already known based upon previous crisis communication research that researchers often failed to recognize in their studies. There is some value in discovering CSR follows a pattern similar to prior reputation in crisis communication but that is an incremental gain at best. Moreover, it would have been useful for the CSR crisis communication research to consistently recognize this overlap with the prior reputation research to better contextualize the results of the research. We should ask the question, “Where should crisisbased CSR communication go in the future to build theory?” 172

CSR and Crisis Communication

The current research indicates CSR crisis communication research has two routes that are promising for theory building whereby CSR contributes to our understanding of crisis communication. The first avenue is the explication of the bolstering crisis response. It can be argued that CSR is central to most bolstering messages an organization would create. Even though the effects can be small, crisis managers would benefit from advice on how and when to utilize CSR-related bolstering. The CSR crisis communication research has shown that skepticism of the bolstering effort is an important factor. The addition of skepticism from the CSR communication research has potential for insights into crisis communication. Further research needs to explore the value of including skepticism as an explanatory factor and the connection between the viability of bolstering being a function of the credibility of the good works being utilized in the strategy. This research could include an assessment of skepticism of the bolstering claim along with assessments of account acceptance. Future research should continue to explore the dynamics of bolstering while remembering bolstering’s limited utility within crisis communication. The expectations associated with CSR provide a second avenue of research that appears to be even more promising. The CPI research offers a glimpse into the potential CSR expectations has for crisis communication research. While crisis management and communication research provide a strong understanding of operational crises that are event-based, our understanding of the more perceptual crises is thin. CPI provides a mechanism for mapping expectations and expectation violations thereby providing greater insights into non-event-based crises. CPI helps to anticipate when CSR is a buffer or a burden during a crisis. Future research should seek to expand CPI’s application within crisis communication beyond just the application to CSR. CPI also has applications for paracrises. Many expectation violations do not rise to the level of crisis but still create a public risk that warrants organizational consideration and potentially a response. CPI raises the issue of CSR as a crisis risk. The relationships between CSR, CSR communication, risk, and crisis have just begun to be explored. More attention is needed to understand the nature and consequences of those relationships. The research refining the conceptualization and effects of paracrises are good examples. While paracrises can extend beyond CSR, CSR expectations were at the core of its development. Moreover, treating CSR communication as risk provides a richer conceptualization of CSR. CSR communication as a risk moves beyond the business-centric focus of CSR to more of a societal-centric focus because it considers how the web stakeholder relationships within which an organization resides shapes how it conceptualizes and enacts CSR (Wickert, 2021). Crisis-based CSR communication research should embrace this more political perspective on CSR that emphasizes the connections between organizations and their various stakeholders (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). Finally, future researchers need to ground the crisis-based CSR communication research more fully in the crisis communication literature to enhance the insights gained from this fusion of research interests. Crises provide a very specific context for CSR. Appreciating that context and prior research in the area that could inform current CSR communicate research efforts thereby creating stronger research projects that have the potential to yield unique insights into crisis communication.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4

How does CSR communication research overlap with prior reputation research in crisis communication? Why is that overlap to be expected? What if any value is there in labeling a crisis and CSR crisis? Why does engaging in CSR communication create a risk for an organization? How are stakeholder expectations about CSR related to risk and crisis communication?

173

W. Timothy Coombs

References Alsop, R. (2004). The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputation: Creating, protecting & repairing your most valuable asset. Kogan Page Publishers. Baer, M. D., Bundy, J., Garud, N., & Kim, J. K. (2018). The benefits and burdens of organizational reputation for employee well‐being: A conservation of resources approach. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 571–595. 10.1111/peps.12276 Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and Reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2(3), 337–361. 10.1108/09513570810863932 Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. State University of New York Press. Booth, S. A. (2000). How can organisations prepare for reputational crises? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 8(4), 197–207. 10.1111/1468-5973.00140 Brooks, M. E., Highhouse, S., Russell, S. S., & Mohr, D. C. (2003). Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 904–915. 10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.904 Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84. 10.2307/1252190 Bundy, J., Pfarrer, M. D., Short, C. E., & Coombs, W. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661–1692. 10.1177/014920631 6680030 Chen, Z. F., & Tao, W. (2020). The association spillover mechanism of CSR crises: Evidence from the Uber case. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(5–6), 178–197. 10.1080/1062726X.2020.1861949 Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447–476. 10.1177/ 0893318995008004003 Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. 10.1057/ palgrave.crr.1550049 Coombs, W. T. (2019). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 321–340. 10.1207/ S1532754XJPRR1304_03 Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2006). Unpacking the halo effect: Reputation and crisis management. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 123–127. 10.1108/13632540610664698 Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, J. S. (2012). The paracrisis: The challenges created by publicly managing crisis prevention. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 408–415. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.04.004 Coombs, T., & Holladay, S. (2015). CSR as crisis risk: Expanding how we conceptualize the relationship. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 144–162. 10.1108/CCIJ-10-2013-0078 Dacin, P. A., & Brown, T. J. (2002). Corporate identity and corporate associations: A framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2), 254–263. 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540178 Decker, W. H. (2012). A firm’s image following alleged wrongdoing: Effects of the firm’s prior reputation and response to the allegation. Corporate Reputation Review, 15(1), 20–34. 10.1057/crr.2011.27 Eisenegger, M., & Schranz, M. (2011). Reputation management and corporate social Responsibility. In O. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 128–146). Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9781118083246.ch7 Fombrun, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 7–12. 10.1057/ PAGRAVE.CRR.154023 Gistri, G., Corciolani, M., & Pace, S. (2019). Does the perception of incongruence hurt more? Customers’ responses to CSR crises affecting the main reputation dimension of a company. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(7-8), 605–633. 10.1080/0267257X.2019.1580761 Ham, C. D., & Kim, J. (2019). The role of CSR in crises: Integration of situational crisis communication theory and the persuasion knowledge model. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 353–372. 10.1007/s10551-017-3706-0 Ham, C. D., & Kim, J. (2020). The effects of CSR communication in corporate crises: Examining the role of dispositional and situational CSR skepticism in context. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101792. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2019.05.013

174

CSR and Crisis Communication Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges (2nd ed.). Sage. Kim, H. K., & Yang, S. U. (2009). Cognitive processing of crisis communication: Effects of CSR and crisis response strategies on stakeholder perceptions of a racial crisis dynamics. Public Relations Journal, 3(1), 1–39. Retrieved from https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Cognitive-Processing.pdf Kim, S. (2013). Corporate ability or virtue? Relative effectiveness of prior corporate associations in times of crisis. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 241–256. 10.1080/1553118X.2013.824886 Kim, S., Krishna, A., & Dhanesh, G. (2019). Economics or ethics? Exploring the role of CSR expectations in explaining consumers’ perceptions, motivations, and active communication behaviors about corporate misconduct. Public Relations Review, 45(1), 76–87. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.011 Kim, Y., & Woo, C. W. (2018). The buffering effects of CSR reputation in times of product-harm crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ‐02‐2018‐0024 Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217. 10.1016 Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326. 10.5465/amr.2010.0522 Lerbinger, O. (1997). The crisis manager: Facing risk and responsibility. Lawrence Erlbaum. Lin-Hi, N., Rothenhöfer, L., & Blumberg, I. (2019). The relevance of socially responsible blue-collar human resource management: An experimental investigation in a Chinese factory. Employee Relations: The International Journal. 10.1108/ER-03-2018-0081 Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior reputation and immediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(3), 213–241. 10.1080/1532-754X.2004. 11925128 McDonnell, M. H., & King, B. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 387–419. 10.1177/000183 9213500032 Park, H. (2017). Exploring effective crisis response strategies. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 190–192. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2016.12.001 RepTrak. (2021). Corporate Responsibility and ESG are increasingly top drivers of stakeholder support. Retrieved from https://ri.reptrak.com/hubsf/_2021%20GRT/2021%20Global%20RepTrak%20100%20Repot.pdf Reputation Institute. (2020). New study from Reputation Institute reports across-the-board reputation lift from world’s top 100 brands driven largely by elevated CSR practices. Retrieved from new study from Reputation Institute reports across-the-board reputation lift for world’s top 100 brands driven largely by elevated CSR practices | Business Wire. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200303005319/ en/New‐Study‐from‐Reputation‐Institute‐Reports‐Across‐the‐Board‐Reputation‐Lift‐for‐World% E2%80%99s‐Top‐100‐Brands‐Driven‐Largely‐By‐Elevated‐CSR‐Practices Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the US automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101–117. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0175 Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049. 10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573108 Rothenhoefer, L. M. (2019). The impact of CSR on corporate reputation perceptions of the public—a configurational multi‐time, multi‐source perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 141–155. 10.1111/beer.12207 Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x Sohn, Y. J., & Lariscy, R. W. (2015). A “buffer” or “boomerang?”—the role of corporate reputation in bad times. Communication Research, 42(2), 237–259. 10.1177/0093650212466891 Tao, W., & Song, B. (2020). The interplay between post-crisis response strategy and pre-crisis corporate associations in the context of CSR crises. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101883. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020. 101883 Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships: Malden Mills as a case study. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 590–615. 10.1177/0893318901144003 Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273–283. 10.1007/s10551-008-9731-2

175

W. Timothy Coombs Vassilikopoulou, A., Siomkos, G., Chatzipanagiotou, K., & Pantouvakis, A. (2009). Product-harm crisis management: Time heals all wounds? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(3), 174–180. 10.1016/ j.jretconser.2008.11.011 Wickert, C. (2021). Corporate social responsibility research in the journal of management studies: A shift from a business‐centric to a society‐centric focus. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), E1–E17. 10.1111/ joms.12775 Wu, L., & Overton, H. (2021). Examining native CSR advertising as a post-crisis response strategy. International Journal of Advertising, 1–28. 10.1080/02650487.2021.1914445 Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders’ organizational identification affects the role of reputation following a negative event. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 253–276. 10.5465/amj.2013.0611 Zhou, Z., & Ki, E. J. (2018). Exploring the role of CSR fit and the length of CSR involvement in routine business and corporate crises settings. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 75–83. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.11.004

176

14 CORPORATE SOCIAL ADVOCACY Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin

Corporate Social Advocacy For decades, corporations have utilized CSR initiatives to support philanthropic efforts, encourage employee giving and volunteer programs, engage in social marketing, and promote diversity and equity programs, all in effort to enhance their reputation and build their brand. In recent years, the growth of social media, along with heightened consumer and employee expectations for corporations to act on issues related to social justice (Zheng, 2020), have given rise to what is frequently referred to as corporate social advocacy (CSA). CSA moves beyond CSR in that it involves corporate support for – or opposition to – controversial social causes or movements, and thus, runs the risk of alienating some stakeholders. The following chapter traces the historical lineage of corporate advocacy in the United States, from corporate issue advertising in the early 1900s through subsequent waves of corporate advocacy in the 1970s. While these earlier forms of corporate advocacy focused on the protection of business’ interests, the rise of social media and heightened consumer expectations for corporations to engage publicly on a range of issues gave rise to the CSA commonly seen today, advocacy which prioritizes social and political issues and their impacts on stakeholder groups over direct and/or obvious corporate interests. The chapter then reviews points of overlap and divergence with CSR communication, and reviews CSA research, the majority of which is grounded in CSR literature. Finally, the chapter highlights directions for future research in CSA and poses questions for scholarship in this field based on a range of topics and questions.

Examining the Historical Tenets of CSA Despite the recent proliferation of corporate advocacy regarding social and political issues, corporate advocacy is not a recent phenomenon. Corporate advocacy has existed, in some form or another, since the initiation of corporate institutional advertising in the early 1900s (Sethi, 1977). An early example from the beginning of the twentieth century involved efforts by German textile interests to recover property seized during World War I. The campaign included speeches, news items, and editorials regarding international relations, treaty rights, and issues of respect for property during

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-17

177

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin

times of war (Miller, 2012). In addition to shaping public sentiment, the campaign is also regarded as having been influential in shaping legislative policy matters, namely the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928 (Sethi, 1977). Corporate advocacy was again prominent in the 1930s in response to attacks on industry due to unemployment during the depression, including The National Association of Manufacturers’ efforts to promote industry and the American free enterprise system through radio, newspapers, outdoor advertising, motion pictures, and booklets (Sethi, 1977). This strategy was also used by The Natural Gas and Oil Resources Committee in a 1954–1955 campaign to educate and inform the public about the oil and gas industry in an (unsuccessful) effort to free the natural gas industry from federal price controls (Miller, 2012). Along the same lines, the American Medical Association (AMA) waged advocacy campaigns for decades against public healthcare programs such as Medicare. Although the AMA was able to delay the legislation for more than 40 years, the Medicare bill was signed into law in 1965 (Sethi, 1977). While it seems most of these early examples of corporate advocacy in the United States were focused on the promotion of business interests against perceived threats to corporate interests in the form of government regulation, it was the political and social changes of the late 1960s and early 1970s that are often credited with the rise of corporate advocacy campaigns among many industries (Sethi, 1977). As public and media criticism regarding a variety of political, environmental, and social issues gained a foothold in mainstream America, corporations used corporate advocacy as a way of defending themselves against perceived news bias and pressure from activist groups (e.g., Brunig & Ledingham, 1999; Heath & Nelson, 1985). In fact, Sethi (1979) estimated that from 1977 to 1979, between 30% and 40% of corporate institutional advertising was devoted to controversial social issues dealing with aspects of national public policy with direct impact on the sponsoring corporation; most concerned topics related to environmentalism, energy issues, or the capitalist system. Corporate issue advocacy became commonplace among industry giants and trade groups, including Bethlehem Steel (explaining the cost of pollution controls); Marathon Oil (regarding the impact of taxes and controls); and the American Petroleum Institute (commenting on the energy crisis and the Middle East oil embargo) (Cutler & Muehling, 1989; Miller, 2012; Sethi, 1977). Beyond the tangible goals of circumventing external intervention in corporate activities, corporate issue advocacy was also used as a strategy to build and maintain a positive public image (Hon, 1997; Kim, 2001). By emphasizing “traditional” American values, such as hard work and determination, corporate advocacy was, at least historically, seen as a non-confrontational, “safer” alternative to engage audiences about issues related to public policies (Bostdorff & Vibbert, 1994; Gaither & Sinclair, 2017). Many campaigns attempted to downplay an industry’s negative impacts, shifting public attention away from public concerns while promoting the benefits of the industry to society. Including only brief and selective references to corporate activities, most corporate advocacy campaigns placed a much stronger emphasis on shared values, often distracting attention from serious questions about public issues or corporate activities (Bostdorff & Vibbert, 1994; Miller, 2010). Message strategies praised societal values, condemned oppositional values, and/or associated an organization’s products with worthwhile societal goals (Bostdorff & Vibbert, 1994). In regard to climate change, for example, wealthy industry trade groups including the American Petroleum Institute and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity employed a discursive practice of distraction and appropriation of U.S cultural values and mores, all while shifting public dialogue from climate change and potential environmental policies to how these policies would hurt the industries and adversely affect the average U.S. citizen (Gaither & Gaither, 2016).

178

Corporate Social Advocacy

Evolving Goals and Strategies: Adding the “Social” to Corporate Advocacy As highlighted, throughout the 1900s and early 2000s, corporate advocacy in the U.S. was predominantly used as a tool by businesses and industry trade groups to improve or protect the market for their products (e.g., Cutler & Muehling, 1989; Gaither & Gaither, 2016; Miller & Sinclair, 2009; Nelson, 1994; Sethi, 1977). Many of these issue-focused campaigns were initiated to influence a legislative outcome or a public policy debate, such as the American Petroleum Institute’s campaign encouraging citizens to oppose Environmental Protection Agency regulations on GHG emissions (Gaither & Gaither, 2016). Campaigns focused on deflecting criticism and promoting an organization’s image, working overwhelmingly to advance corporate goals, all while consolidating power in the hands of “elite local, national, regional and international actors in transnational networks of private profiteering” (p. 53). CSA, meanwhile, represents an evolution of corporate advocacy in that the actions taken by a company are focused on publicly addressing a social issue or concern among certain stakeholders rather than serving as an attempt to improve a corporation’s image, improve its bottom line, or prevent regulation that would negatively impact the company. In fact, given that the social issues at the heart of CSA are often politically charged and/or socially divisive, corporations engage in CSA in support of stakeholder groups with the understanding that it will not likely be wellreceived by everyone. Unlike previous iterations of corporate advocacy, which were typically undertaken to improve outcomes for the sponsoring corporation in myriad ways, corporate social advocacy is initiated on behalf of stakeholders (both in and outside the company) despite the potential negative fallout for the company resulting from a negative public response. A well-known example of this occurred when Dick’s Sporting Goods announced its decision to stop selling assault-style weapons and to raise the minimum age for gun sales to 21. The company also announced it would not sell accessories for use with AR-15 rifles or other similar weapons that permit a shooter to fire more rounds than traditional weapons without reloading (Isidore, 2018). This decision was made following the Parkland, Fla., school shooting, despite the fact that the gun used by the shooter in Parkland was not bought at DICK’s Sporting Goods (although the company did acknowledge the shooter had previously purchased another gun from its stores). Following the shooting, DICK’s chairman and CEO Edward Stack explained, “We don’t want to be a part of this story any longer”. Stack also called on elected officials to pass “common sense” gun reforms, such as conducting more extensive background checks that include past interactions with law enforcement and mental-health information (as cited in Creswell & Corkery, 2018, para. 19). In an in-depth case study of DICK’s CSA, which included an in-depth interview with the company president, Gaither, Austin, and Collins (2018) found that Dick’s Sporting Goods’ CSA was undertaken despite the fact that corporate executives expected “polarized reactions” and potentially negative sales impacts. (See Table 14.1 for a brief comparison of corporate advocacy and corporate social advocacy.)

CSA and CSR: Overlap and Divergence Given CSA’s emphasis on stakeholders within and outside the company, as well as its overall aim to contribute to public discourse on social and political issues and causes, the rise in CSA has naturally led many scholars and practitioners to discuss CSA as a function of a corporation’s CSR. Societal benefits may include donating money to local charities, giving employees paid volunteer days, and providing services to underserved populations, to name just a few (Gaither, Austin, & Schulz, 2018).

179

Corporate social advocacy

Corporate advocacy

Corporate statements or actions addressing a social issue or concern which impacts certain stakeholder groups

Corporate action focused on protecting the organization’s products and position in the marketplace

Objectives

Public statements and/ or corporate initiatives in support of – or opposition to – political policies and social causes

Promotion of corporate image, deflection of criticism, and/or lobbying efforts to promote business interests (e.g., prevent government regulation)

Corporation

Impacted stakeholders

Strategies

Interests served

Table 14.1 Corporate advocacy versus corporate social advocacy

Traces historical roots of corporate issue advocacy in the United States with case study examples Heath and Nelson Reviews advertising case law relative to image/issue (1985), Cutler and advertising; examines criteria used and/or proposed by Muehling (1989) courts and regulatory agencies in assessing corporate advocacy as a form commercial speech Bostdorff and Vibbert Defines “values advocacy” as a form of advocacy (1994) advertising and highlights the primary functions of corporate advocacy as: enhancing an organization’s image, deflecting criticism, and laying the groundwork for future policy debates Miller (2010) Examines the ability of corporate advocacy campaigns to influence the public’s agenda and generate support for the advocacy sponsor Gaither and Gaither Examined advocacy communication by US-based (2016) industry trade groups representing fossil fuel industries to generate public support for the industries while fostering uncertainty around climate change and reduce concern for climate initiatives Dodd and Supa (2014) CSA is conceptualized within public relations as spanning the boundaries between issues management and corporate social responsibility; examines how organizational stances on social-political issues impact corporate financial performance Dodd (2018) Suggests the rise of CSA is the result of a post-nationalist society, in which an erosion of trust in government and media has heightened expectations for corporations to engage in controversial social and political issues extending beyond their own corporate interests

Sethi (1977)

Relevant studies and research inquiries

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin

180

Yim (2021)

Xu et al. (2021)

Austin et al. (2019)

Gaither, Austin, and Collins (2018)

Highlights distinction between advocacy (e.g., public statements in support/opposition of an issue) and activism (e.g., tangible corporate actions or initiatives to drive change relative to the issue); suggests CSA serves as an opportunity to strengthen relationships with some stakeholder groups, while severing ties with others Reports findings from a US national survey on attitudes toward CSA; highlights types of issues most appropriate for organizations to address based on corporation’s commitment to advocacy, perceived motivations, and other variables; results highlight differences in response to CSA by demographic variables Experimental research suggesting consumers’ reactions to CSA are not dependent entirely on agreement with the corporate stances; consumers with closer perceived psychological distance to a company had higher expectations for CSA than those with further distance perception, although psychological distance did not influence consumers’ attitudinal response to the CSA Identifies “authentic” CSA as initiatives that project clear moral values and meet public value expectations; experimental findings suggest this form of CSA generates substantially higher perceptions of legitimacy and more positive behavioral willingness than other types of CSA initiatives

Corporate Social Advocacy

181

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin

By portraying the company as responsive to the needs and concerns of society (Ellen et al., 2006), CSR initiatives can also provide a reputational boost. Similar to CSR, CSA allows businesses to engage with stakeholders on timely and significant issues, and the rise in social media has made this business function increasingly visible (Edman, 2010; Gaines-Ross, 2017; Zheng, 2020). CSA has been used as a tool for corporations to weigh in on government policies (Zheng, 2020), as businesses have taken a definitive action or stance in response to politically charged issues either in support of or opposition to policies, political perspectives, or issues (Clemensen, 2017). After US President Trump issued the 2017 travel ban, for example, many companies released statements against the travel ban and called out unfair immigration policies (Reisinger, 2017). Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, publicly opposed President Trump’s executive order limiting immigration to the United States, commenting on Facebook, “We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help. That’s who we are” (Wong, 2017). Several months later, Merck CEO Ken Frazier resigned from President Trump’s Manufacturing Jobs Initiative following Trump’s response to the tragedy in Charlottesville, Va., when protests by white nationalists turned violent, in which he denounced “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides” (Johnson & Wagner, 2017). Frazier publicly commented on the Merck Twitter page, “America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal” (Gaines-Ross, 2017). CSA moves beyond corporate citizenship and CSR – strategies that often involve philanthropic efforts in support of a cause – into a public stance on a controversial issue, including public comments on the ways the company is working to further address or support that issue (Clemensen, 2017; Dodd & Supa, 2014).

Corporate Relationship with the Advocated Issue Obviously, both CSR and CSA address issues of social concern; unlike CSR, however, CSA statements such as those by CEOs from Facebook and Merck are noteworthy given their lack of an apparent connection with the corporation engaging in advocacy. The bulk of academic research on CSR generally suggests consumers evaluate CSR initiatives more favorably when the cause is related to the company’s products, brand, or target market (e.g., Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Cone et al., 2003; Kim, 2011). The positive influence of the relationship is believed to occur due to associative learning (Till & Nowak, 2000), in which the stronger connection between the stimuli helps to create an associative link for consumers (Lee et al., 2012). Higher congruence between the company and cause also increases perceptions that the company is an expert in the cause (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002), resulting in more positive company evaluation, corporate reputation, and product sales (Barone et al., 2000). Of course, there are caveats to these recommendations, such as when the CSR initiatives are focused on an issue which is negatively affected by the business itself, such as Coca-Cola’s CSR initiatives to address obesity (Gaither & Austin, 2016). While most CSR research suggests consumers evaluate initiatives more favorably when the cause is related to the company’s products (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) and that higher congruence between company and cause increases perceptions that the company is an expert in the cause (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002), CSA is often reactive and sometimes unrelated to the company’s core business obligations (Dodd & Supa, 2014). In doing so, CSA goes against conventional business wisdom that advises companies to remain neutral on controversial issues, especially those unrelated to the business, for fear of alienating customers or potential customers

182

Corporate Social Advocacy

(Korschun et al., 2016). Although CSA may not always have an obvious connection with the company or its products, similar to research in CSR, research in CSA also suggests that the relationship between company-cause may be an important factor in public response (Lim & Young, 2021). In an experimental study, Kim et al. (2020) found that companies were more likely to be viewed as hypocritical when taking a stand on an issue that was less relevant to the company’s business. Conversely, when the fit between the company and an advocated issue is “high”, the company was seen as being values-oriented, which subsequently decreased perceptions of corporate hypocrisy. Corporations which are viewed as using progressive-oriented marketing tactics to cash in on people’s idealism run the risk of being labeled as “wokewashing” (Jones, 2019). When Pepsi’s 2017 ad featuring imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement and officers and protestors uniting over a can of soda offered by Kendall Jenner was met with almost universal criticism, many argued this was due, at least in part, to Pepsi’s lack of connection to the BLM movement (Batchelor & Hooten, 2017). In short, having a high-fit between the company and the advocated cause has the potential to raise cognitive associations for consumers, thereby helping them to understand the rationale driving the corporate advocacy (Kim et al., 2020).

Stakeholder Alignment with Corporate Values Among the most important points of distinction between CSR and CSA, however, is that while CSR is likely to generate uniformly favorable responses from stakeholders (e.g., Yoplait’s “Save Lids to Save Lives” campaign to promote breast cancer awareness), corporations engage in CSA with the understanding that it may not be well-received by all stakeholders. Nike’s support of Colin Kaepernick and the “Take a Knee” movement, for example, strengthened Nike’s dedicated customer base, but was also criticized by conservative pundits and politicians (Bieler, 2019). One obvious reason for potentially unwelcome public reactions to CSA is whether or not stakeholders support the advocated issue. The nature of the issue, particularly how partisan it is viewed, has been shown to impact public response. When agreement on an issue is widespread (e.g., legalization of marijuana), expectations for corporations to act are heightened; whereas, when an issue is particularly partisan in nature (e.g., gun reform), expectations for corporations to act are more widespread (Browning et al., 2020). According to Browning et al. (2020), “organizations must increasingly look toward this psychographic component of their stakeholders if they are to capitalize on their advocacy efforts” (p. 1046). Other demographic variables are also important to consider; in a US-based survey, older conservatives were more likely to believe CSA must be aligned with corporate products and services, whereas younger and more liberal stakeholders were more supportive of CSA on a range of pressing social issues (Austin et al., 2019).

Increased Consumer Expectations and the Growth of CSA Research Despite some instances of public backlash to CSA, however, recent survey research demonstrates emerging insights that stakeholders generally support corporations that engage in social issues in a purposeful way. An online survey by Zeno of more than 8000 respondents across eight global markets found that global consumers are four to six times more likely to trust the company, purchase from the company, defend the company in the event of criticism, and recommend the company to others (Zeno, 2020). This was further unscored in the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer, an online survey focusing on trust and credibility of more than 33,000 respondents across 28 countries

183

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin

(Edelman, 2021), which revealed that 86% of respondents are looking for CEOs to lead on broad societal issues ranging from climate change to the struggle for racial justice. Academic research further supports this survey evidence of CSA’s potential success. In a mixed-methods study of US firms that participated in a boycott campaign directing attention to issues of misinformation, hate speech, and discrimination on Facebook, Afego and Alagidede (2021) found that firms who publicly announced their intention to participate in the “Stop Hate for Profit” advertiser boycott earned a statistically significant positive abnormal stock return of 2.68% in the four days immediately following a company’s announcement. Indeed, CSA seems to suggest an evolution of the ways corporations engage in public interest communication. Whereas CSR has been used as a tool for decades by businesses to better the lives of stakeholders such as employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate (Snider et al., 2003), the increase in popularity of social media has resulted in a platform for both activists and corporations to express their views to their publics. By engaging with stakeholders about political issues, of course, companies open themselves up to a host of potential criticisms about motivations and legitimacy (Etter, 2013). While organizations might have more resources and sophisticated communications, individuals and activist groups are increasingly participating in dialogue within and for the public interest as they expect organizations to likewise formulate their own positions (Austin et al., 2019).

CSA and the Role of Corporate Values Although it is true that some consumers are likely to react negatively toward business stances on political issues, consistent with research in CSR that shows stakeholders respond more favorably to values-driven motives for CSR than those driven by external stakeholder pressures (Ellen et al., 2006), research also suggests that consumers respect and patronize companies that take stances on issues that align with their stated corporate values (e.g., Dodd & Supa, 2014; Gaither, Austin, & Collins, 2018; Kim et al., 2020; Korschun et al., 2016). In a field experiment and two controlled experiments, Korschun et al. (2016) found that when a company’s intended image was one as being values-driven, abstaining from commenting on a political issue led to greater perceptions of hypocrisy than taking a stand either for or against an issue. Meanwhile, when a company’s intended image was market-driven, they were perceived as less hypocritical when they abstained from commenting on an issue than when they took a stand on an issue. Moreover, abstaining from engaging in a social issue (versus taking a stand on an issue) resulted in lower purchase intentions for companies that were perceived to be guided by values. Simply stated, the study suggested that companies that present themselves as being more market-driven than values-driven may be viewed as hypocritical when they do engage on a political issue; meanwhile, companies that present themselves as values-driven may be viewed as being hypocritical when they do not engage in CSA (Korschun et al., 2016). Meanwhile, a company’s values orientation relative to CSA also seems to impact its ability to build and maintain stakeholder relationships. A study by Kim et al. (2020), for example, found that a company’s perception as being values-oriented in its decision making fully mediated the relationship between the company choosing to take a stand on a potentially controversial social issue and resulting organization-public relationship outcomes, including trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment. When a company took a stand on a social issue, respondents were more likely to perceive them as values-oriented, which in turn, impacted their perceptions of trust in the company, satisfaction with the company, perceptions of control mutuality with the company, and the company’s commitment. In other words, whether a company takes a stand or not impacts how people perceive a company’s corporate identity. The perceived value orientation of the company then

184

Corporate Social Advocacy

determines the level of trust. In a reverse manner, when a company does not take a stand, people are more likely to perceive the company as results-oriented in making decisions, and in turn, decrease their trust in the company.

Engagement with Stakeholders While CSR initiatives typically benefit a range of stakeholders, CSA and activism by nature involve polarizing issues often on behalf of marginalized groups. Although company-issue congruence has been shown to benefit public response to CSR, research suggests that engagement with stakeholders on the issue at stake may be even more important in the equation for public response to CSA. For example, DICK’s CSA not only supported gun control and reform publicly, but also involved corporate action on these issues, including political lobbying and changes to store gun sale policies. Perhaps as a result of this genuine engagement with the issue and stakeholders, DICK’s CSA was perceived as being driven by corporate values (Austin et al., 2019). This possibility is important to consider as values-based companies that fail to take action, even on social issues that are likely to be controversial, may elicit more scrutiny than companies that act on issues with which stakeholders disagree (Korschun et al., 2016). One conceptualization of “genuine engagement” may be the perceived “authenticity” of the CSA initiatives (Yim, 2021). For CSA to be viewed as “authentic”, a corporation’s claims and promises must be in alignment with its overall organizational philosophy. Moreover, according to Yim (2021), CSA should be viewed not only as a way of influencing public behavior but as a dialogue with stakeholders with tangible impacts on corporate behavior. Initiatives that project clear moral values and meet public value expectations are found to generate greater perceptions of legitimacy and positive behavioral outcomes. According to Yim (2021), While it is clear that corporate social advocacy initiatives that broadly align with consensual public values will be easier for stakeholders to accept, we call on organizations not simply to adapt to public opinion, but to steer by their inner values compass. (Yim, 2021, p. 70) To genuinely engage with stakeholders, a reciprocal dimension of CSA is key, meaning that initiatives should be interactive and open to participation. Moreover, moral legitimacy on CSA initiatives requires alignment between its organizational identity and initiatives, as well a focus on a given issue over an extended period of time (Lim & Young, 2021). Companies must be “highly sensitive” to cultural changes, while working continuously to determine “how to take people with them in their CSA interventions, thus co-creating value together with their public” (p. 70). One way to build legitimacy and heightened perceived authenticity is through dialogue with a range of diverse stakeholders in open platforms such as social media (Lim & Young, 2021).

Directions for Future Research Democratic Dialogue According to Dodd (2018), “the emergence of CSA is defined by an increasingly globalized, postnationalist society where multinational corporations derive power and pressure by way of their ability to transcend sovereign government structures” (p. 225). In an era of globalization, pluralization, and the erosion of traditional institutions, Dodd (2018) argues corporations have “emerged as protector and promoter of the

185

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin

political agendas of the public on a large scale” (p. 227). While public trust in the United States between 2020 and 2021 declined across all institutions – business, NGOs, media, and government – business became the most trusted institution, according to the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer. In fact, businesses were the only institution seen as both ethical and competent (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2021). As trust in other democratic institutions declines, private actors (i.e., corporations) are left “to pick up the slack” in terms of public interest communication (Dodd, 2018, p. 231). As expectations grow for businesses to do more than make a profit, the creation of democracy as a public good may offer a path forward for corporations. Palazzo and Scherer (2008) argue that corporations will have to support democratic discourse and focus on input from stakeholders and society in order to maintain legitimacy as the power of the nation state weakens. According to Collins and Gaither (2020), the politicized corporation may be a logical path forward for many business leaders. With the ability to reach varying stakeholders, particularly through online and social media channels, corporations wishing to engage politically should consider how they can best facilitate discussion and connections among a range of groups in order to create democracy as a public good. Future research may investigate strategies and tools to forge connections between brands and stakeholders, providing a platform on which democratic dialogue can flourish.

The Role of Accountability As more companies engage in social advocacy, public demand for accountability to substantiate corporate statements in support of social issues is also increasing. For example, after decades of “arguing that a man couldn’t be sexy without a smooth face”, an article in The Guardian recently attacked Gillette’s campaign against toxic masculinity as “clumsy and inauthentic and forced” (Jones, 2019). Along the same lines, Adidas in the summer 2020 (like many other brands) used social media to speak out against racism; meanwhile, some black employees in United States offices called out the culture of the company as being “far from equitable” (Gallagher et al., 2020). By demonstrating accountability for CSA initiatives, extending beyond public statements into tangible, transparent actions, corporations have the potential to reduce skepticism toward the CSA, generate favorable attitudes toward the CSA and the company overall, and ultimately, build favorable relationships with stakeholders. Future research should consider how different dimensions of CSA initiatives may impact perceptions of a corporation’s accountability toward the advocated issue, a construct which has been found to positively impact attitudes toward corporate marketplace advocacy campaigns, advocacy initiatives, and the sponsoring company (Miller & Sinclair, 2009).

CSA Culturally and Internationally Another important topic for investigation includes attitudes toward and perceptions of CSA in different international and cultural contexts. For example, Waymer and Logan (2021) examined how Nike challenged racial, gender, and cultural norms through various CSA to examine connections between engagement and CSA outcomes. A case like Nike’s Colin Kaepernick CSA was directed toward racial injustice in the United States (Hoffmann et al., 2020) and reception of this advocacy, which played out on an international level, may be perceived differently in different countries and cultures where different racial and cultural aspects are in flux. For global companies that choose to address social issues, these issues may be differently received in different cultural

186

Corporate Social Advocacy

contexts. Future research is recommended to address CSA on an international scale to determine the effects of addressing social issues in these varying contexts. Organizations engage stakeholders and publics differently via social networks in different countries and cultures (e.g., Men & Tsai, 2012) and likely would engage differently on CSA communication as well. The majority of research to date on CSA has involved only one country or cultural context, typically from a US-based perspective.

Conclusion While CSA research has blossomed over the last decade, many aspects of CSA and approaches to understanding, including more critical perspectives (e.g., Hoffmann et al., 2020), remain under examined. CSA has been defined as different and unique from CSR, due in part to the focus on controversial and often polarizing issues, but many of the same tenets of effective CSR may also apply to CSA research. Important areas for consideration include company-issue congruence, perception of the company as a values-based, and stakeholder/consumer expectations for advocacy, all which may affect skepticism toward CSA and perceived corporate hypocrisy. Future research is recommended to examine the role of deliberative dialogue, accountability, and differing international and cultural contexts.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4 5

How is corporate social advocacy different from corporate social responsibility? How does the perceived values orientation of a company impact expectations for corporate social advocacy? What does it mean for a corporation’s CSA initiatives to be viewed as authentic? What factors might affect how CSA initiatives are received by stakeholders? How might corporations demonstrate their accountability when it comes to CSA?

References Afego, P., & Alagidede, I. P. (2021). What does corporate social advocacy signal? Evidence from boycott participation decisions. Journal of Capital Markets Studies, 5(1), 49–68. 10.1108/JCMS-10-2020-0040 Austin, L., Gaither, B. M., & Gaither, T. K. (2019). Corporate social advocacy as public interest communication: Exploring perceptions of corporate involvement in controversial social-political issues. Journal of Public Interest Communication, 3(2). 10.32473/jpic.v3.i2.p3 Batchelor, T., & Hooten, C. (2017, April 5). Pepsi advert with Kendall Jenner pulled after huge backlash. The Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/pepsi-advertpulled-kendall-jenner-protest-video-cancelled-removed-a7668986.html Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 9–24. 10.2307/41166284 Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 248–262. 10. 1177/0092070300282006 Bieler, D. (2019, July 19). Colin Kaepernick’s Nike ad garners an Emmy nomination. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/07/18/colin-kaepernicks-nike-ad-garners-an-emmynomination/ Bostdorff, D. M., & Vibbert, S. L. (1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing organizational images, deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations Review, 20 (2), 141–158. 10.1016/0363-8111 (94)90055-8

187

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin Browning, N., Lee, E., Park, Y. E., Kim, T., & Collins, R. (2020). Muting or meddling? Advocacy as a relational communication strategy affecting organization–public relationships and stakeholder response. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1026–1053. 10.1177/1077699020916810 Brunig, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–158. 10.1016/ S0363-8111(99)80160-X Clemensen, M. (2017). Corporate political activism: When and how should companies take a political stand? Unpublished master’s project. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://conservancy.umn.edu/ bitstream/handle/11299/189490/Clemensen%2C%20Maggie%20-%20Corporate%20political%20activism. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Collins, M., & Gaither, B. M. (2020, March). More than words: Patagonia’s CSA as a form of deliberative democracy. International Public Relations Research Conference. Cone, C. L., Feldman, M. A., & DaSilva, A. T. (July 2003). Causes and effects. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 95–101. https://hbr.org/2003/07/causes-and-effects Creswell, J., & Corkery, M. (2018, February). Walmart and Dick’s raise minimum age for gun buyers to 21. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/walmart-anddicks-major-gun-retailers-will-tighten-rules-on-guns-they-sell.html Cutler, B. D., & Muehling, D. D. (1989). Advocacy advertising and the boundaries of commercial speech. Journal of Advertising, 18(3), 40–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4188732 Dodd, M. (2018). Globalization, pluralization, and erosion: The impact of shifting societal expectations for advocacy and public good. Journal of Public Interest Communication, 2(2). 10.32473/jpic.v2.i2.p221 Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 2–23. Edelman. (2021). A new mandate to lead in an age of anxiety. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/trust/ 2021-trustbarometer/insights/age-of-anxiety Edman, H. (2010). Twittering to the top: A content analysis of corporate tweets to measure organization-public relationships. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1726/?utm_source=digitalcommons.lsu. edu%2Fgradschool_theses%2F1726&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. 10.1177/ 0092070305284976 Etter, M. (2013). Reasons for low levels of interactivity: (Non-) interactive CSR communication in Twitter. Public Relations Review, 39, 606–608. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.06.003 Gaines-Ross, L. (2017, October). Hundreds of CEOs are speaking out in the Trump era. Here are the patterns. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/10/what-ceo-activism-looks-like-in-the-trump-era Gaither, B. M., & Austin, L. (2016). Campaign and corporate goals in conflict: Exploring company-issue congruence through a content analysis of Coca-Cola’s twitter feed. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 698–709. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.001 Gaither, B. M., Austin, L., & Collins, M. (2018). Examining the case of DICK’S Sporting Goods: Realignment of stakeholders through corporate social advocacy. Journal of Public Interest Communication, 2(2). 10.32473/ jpic.v2.i2.p176 Gaither, B. M., Austin, L. L., & Schulz, M. (2018). Delineating CSR and social change: Querying corporations as actors for social good. PR Inquiry, 7(1), 45–61. 10.1177/2046147X17743544 Gaither, B. M., & Gaither, T. K. (2016). Marketplace advocacy by the U.S. fossil fuel industries: Issues of representation and environmental discourse. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 585–603. 10.1080/ 15205436.2016.1203953 Gaither, B. M., & Sinclair, J. (2017). Environmental marketplace advocacy: Influences and implications of U.S. public response. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 10.1177/1077699017710452 Gallagher, J., Safdar, K., & Terlep, S. (2020). Adidas tweeted against racism. Its Black workers say that isn’t enough. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/workers-press-adidas-estee-lauder-others-to-act-on-racismdiversity-11591660452 Heath, R. L., & Nelson, A. (1985). Image and issue advertising: A corporate and policy perspective. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 58–68. 10.1177/002224298504900205 Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21, 78–89. 10.1509/jppm.21.1.78.17600

188

Corporate Social Advocacy Hoffmann, J., Nyborg, K., Averhoff, C., & Olesen, S. (2020). The contingency of corporate political advocacy: Nike’s ‘dream crazy’ campaign with Colin Kaepernick. Public Relations Inquiry, 9(2), 155–175. 10.1177/ 2046147X20920802 Hon, L. C. (1997). What have you done for me lately? Exploring effectiveness in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(1), 1–30. 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0901_01 Isidore, C. (2018, February 28). Dick’s Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles. Available at http://money. cnn.com/2018/02/28/news/companies/dicks-weapon-ban/index.html Johnson, J., & Wagner, J. (2017). Trump condemns Charlottesville violence but doesn’t single out white nationalists. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-condemns-charlottesville-violence-butdoesnt-single-out-white-nationalists/2017/08/12/933a86d6-7fa3-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html? utm_term=.22ddd706131e Jones. (2019). Woke-washing: How brands are cashing in on the culture wars. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/media/2019/may/23/woke-washing-brands-cashing-in-on-culture-wars-owen-jones Kim, Y. (2001). Measuring the economic value of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 3–26. 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_2 Kim, H. S. (2011). A reputational approach examining publics’ attributions on corporate social responsibility motives. Asian Journal of Communication, 21, 84–101. 10.1080/01292986.2010.524230 Kim, S., Austin, L., & Gaither, B. M. (2020, March). Corporate social advocacy and perceived corporate hypocrisy. International Public Relations Research Conference. Korschun, D., Aggarwal, A., Rafieian, H., & Swain, S. D. (2016). Taking a stand: Consumer responses to corporate political activism. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2806476. 10.2139/ssrn.2806476 Lee, E. M., Park, S.-Y., Rapert, M. I., & Newman, C. L. (2012). Does perceived consumer fit matter in corporate social responsibility issues? Journal of Business Research, 65, 1558–1564. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.040 Lim, S., & Young, C. (2021). Effects of issue ownership, perceived fit, and authenticity in corporate social advocacy on corporate reputation. Public Relations Review, 47(4). 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102071 Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2012). How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 723–730. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2011.10.006 Miller, B. M. (2010). Community stakeholders and marketplace advocacy: A model of advocacy, agenda building, and industry approval. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 85–112. 10.1080/106272609031 70993 Miller, B. M. (2012). Generating public support for business and industry: Marketplace advocacy campaigns. Cambria Press. Miller, B. M., & Sinclair, J. (2009). Community stakeholder responses to advocacy advertising: Trust, accountability, and the persuasion knowledge model. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 37–52. Nelson, R. A. (1994). Issues communication and advocacy: Contemporary and ethical challenges. Public Relations Review, 20(3), 225–231. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, democracy, and the politicization of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 33(3). 10.5465/amr.2008.32465775 Reisinger, D. (2017, April). Major tech companies line up against Trump’s revised travel ban. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/04/20/tech-company-travel-ban/ Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 175–187. Sethi, S. P. (1977). Advocacy advertising and large corporations: Social conflict, big business image, the news media, and public policy. D. C. Heath. Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74. Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 175–187. Till, B., & Nowak, L. (2000). Toward effective use of cause-related marketing alliances. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(7), 472–484. 10.1108/10610420010351394 Waymer, D., & Logan, N. (2021). Corporate social advocacy as engagement: Nike’s social justice communication. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 102005. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.102005 Wong, J. C. (2017, January 20). Mark Zuckerberg challenges Trump on immigration and “extreme vetting” order. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/27/markzuckerberg-donald-trump-immigration-order-facebook

189

Barbara Miller Gaither and Lucinda Austin Xu, H., Lee, E., & Rim, H. (2021). Should businesses take a stand? Effects of perceived psychological distance on consumers’ expectation and evaluation of corporate social advocacy. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1–24. Yim, M. C. (2021). Fake, faulty, and authentic stand-taking: What determines the legitimacy of corporate social advocacy? International Journal of Strategic Communication, 15(1), 60–76. Zeno. (2020). 2020 Strength of purpose study. Retrieved from https://www.3monkeyszeno.com/uploads/ZenoGroup_Strength-of-Purpose-Executive-Summary-1.pdf Zheng, J. (2020, June 15). We’re entering the age of corporate social justice. Business Management. https://hbr.org/ 2020/06/wereentering-the-age-of-corporate-social-justice

190

15 A CONVERSATION ABOUT CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN CSR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH Amy O’Connor and Holly Overton1

Topic 1: Defining CSR HOLLY:

I’m still fascinated by the notion that we, as scholars, still have not arrived at a widely agreed upon conceptualization of CSR. I mention this not to problematize it, but rather to emphasize that, for me, CSR is a reflection of society’s expectations for how corporations contribute to societal good. That is, it is a socially constructed idea that is continuously evolving, which may be why it is difficult to nail down one definition or meaning of CSR. In 1970, Milton Friedman famously argued that the only responsibility of business to society is to increase profits. Several decades later, Carroll (1991) suggested that CSR encompasses economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. Broadly, the idea that CSR means companies contributing to societal good and acting as responsible citizens became accepted. Today, engaging in socially responsible activities is clearly an expectation, not an option. Furthermore, CSR is seen as a company strategy and, ideally, embraced as part of a company’s mission. AMY: I think a lot about the supposedly voluntary nature and boundary conditions of CSR. The question “what are corporations responsible for?” looms large in my mind. Given changes in stakeholder expectations and the near ubiquitous practice of CSR among large corporations, I am uncertain if CSR remains a voluntary activity. Recent research by Cone Communications (2021) found that 86% of investors want companies to work for the benefit of all stakeholders, not just shareholders and 75% of Americans say it is no longer acceptable for companies to just make money, they must positively impact society too. These statistics are amplified by findings from the Edelman 2021 and 2022 Trust Barometer, which found corporations are the most trusted institution in society – even more trusted than NGOs. These numbers are an indication that stakeholders want corporations more involved in social issues and turn to corporations to solve social problems. In the abstract, it sounds like a great idea to have corporations solve pressing social problems. Certainly, many of the largest corporations have access to capital that could lend itself to addressing social issues. But I often wonder if corporate designed solutions to social problems will limit what social issues and solutions are considered acceptable or viable in the corporation’s eyes.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-18

191

Amy O’Connor and Holly Overton

This leads me to my second definitional question – where do the boundaries of organizational influence in the social sphere end and begin? CSR communication research suggests corporation define the boundaries as “in the communities in which we live and work” (O’Connor & Shumate, 2010). In this definition, CSR is tied to organizational operations and workforce placement. However, pressing social problems do not have such clear geographic boundaries and many communities and issues do not reside near corporate headquarters or operations. This raises serious equity issues. Beyond geographic boundaries, our conceptualizations of CSR are unclear about issue boundaries. In the same study, Michelle and I found that not all social issues receive the same corporate support and some of the most wicked social issues (e.g., violence and poverty) are less likely than other social issues (e.g., children’s health) to benefit from corporate largesse. HOLLY:

In addition, when I think about what CSR means to me, I find myself asking the same question Amy raised about what corporations are responsible for. And my thought is that it varies as a function of stakeholder expectations. I think about shifting societal expectations of what stakeholders and publics demand of organizations. The Edelman Trust Barometer has indicated in its most recent reports that individuals are looking to companies to solve society’s problems now more than ever. Trust in government is eroding, and societal expectations for companies are sky-high. More recently, it has become clear that individuals are expecting companies to take stances on controversial social-political issues, which extends well beyond the notion of being good citizens and contributing to societal good. Scholars have termed this corporate social advocacy (CSA), but its relation to CSR has not been fully conceptually defined. As societal expectations continue to shift, so do public and stakeholder evaluations of company efforts. Our understanding of what CSR means, and furthermore the role of public relations in CSR, has been called into question. What remains to be seen is how organizations will continue to position themselves through their CSR communication strategies and efforts. AMY: For me, grappling with what CSR means involves taking the characteristics of the organization and society seriously. I suggest that an organization’s CSR activities and communication reflect the organization’s past, culture, leadership, and location as well as its relationships with stakeholders. In other words, it is impossible to divorce the message from its organizational roots; this is part of the reason many CSR scholars have moved away from fictitious organizations in their research designs. Moreover, we tend to think about CSR practices and communication as singular episodes or messages and overlook the macro-, meso-, and micro-level structures that guide CSR decisions including what communication is possible for an organization. For example, the macro structure of capitalism influences how much CSR western companies are willing to pursue. Similarly, across cultures what is socially responsible or acceptable in one context may be deemed irresponsible or undesirable in another context. At the organization and economic field-level different CSR activities may be compulsory whereas some activities are nearly impossible to execute based on corporate history or its established brand image. For example, the environmental CSR practices and communication of Patagonia and BP are significantly different – and they should be. At the micro level of consideration, the countless interactions over time that stakeholders have with organizations serve as the building blocks for what CSR means to them and the expectations they have for organizations collectively and independently. In addition, micro-level considerations such as CEO proclivities are important influencers of CSR. HOLLY: I also see CSR as a relationship-building activity. From a theoretical perspective, some have long argued that it’s rooted in systems theory (Kelly, 2001) in that organizations are interdependent, as Amy suggests. Therefore, in my opinion, by nature, CSR is inherently a socially constructed idea, and while a company can take various approaches to position itself as a good citizen, it is ultimately measured by how its efforts meet – or fail to meet – public and 192

O’Connor and Overton Conversation

stakeholder expectations. For me, this also raises the question about the role of public relations in CSR. Is CSR a “PR thing?” The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) defines public relations as “a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics” (PRSA, 2022). It seems impossible to separate CSR from public relations, as public relations is known to be a management function focused on building relationships with publics and stakeholders at various levels. It’s also the ethical conscience of an organization and the heartbeat of the organization’s efforts in the areas of reputation management, crisis communications, content creation, and media relations, among other key areas. However, in practice, it seems that public relations’ role in CSR varies. Ultimately, while public relations’ role is to advise management, to serve as the conscience, and likely to oversee CSR communications, its actual specified role in CSR is loosely defined and, much like the idea of CSR itself, seems to have different meaning among different organizations.

Topic 2: The Origin and Use of the Terms “Stakeholders” and “Publics” AMY:

In recent years, I have challenged graduate students to explain why they use one term over the other in their research. The students have been quick to note that the decision to use “stakeholder” or “public” has implications for the subdisciplines they align with as well as the assumptions they have about the relationship between the organization and the stakeholder or public and the theoretical lenses used in research. And while I couldn’t agree more, I have found these underlying assumptions remain unproblematized and at the margins of our discussions about CSR communication research.

The history of “stakeholder” is grounded in the business discipline and Freeman’s (1984) famous theory by the same name. The stakeholder approach supplanted a shareholder orientation and expanded the types of people and groups that could impact and be impacted by the organization. Moving forward, business theorists advanced a prioritization process that allowed organizational managers to assess stakeholders based on power, legitimacy, and willingness (Mitchell et al., 1997). Much of the literature since then has argued that stakeholders should be “managed” and different stakeholder groups are more salient to the organization than others. In this vein, CSR can become a strategy to mollify stakeholders rather than build mutually beneficial relationships. In addition, stakeholder salience suggests that corporations should devote resources only to those stakeholders that are likely to negatively impact the organization. On the one hand, I believe that this adequately captures the potential power differences between organizations and stakeholder groups. To some extent, it feels like Mitchell and colleagues make explicit what we intuitively know. On the other hand, the prioritization of stakeholders opens the door for potentially unethical treatment of stakeholder groups who cannot muster the resources to counteract corporate actions. Moreover, in our increasingly interconnected world, stakeholders and organizations are not as siloed as they once were. It is much easier for stakeholders to observe how an organization treats other stakeholders and make inferences about how the organization will treat them as well as note disparities in organization-stakeholder relationships (Crane, 2020). HOLLY:

I think the foremost reason is that the terms “stakeholder” and “public” are too often used interchangeably – an issue that has larger implications than some researchers acknowledge. These seemingly small differences make a difference, and these terms should not be used as synonyms, as they are rooted in different traditions. While the term “stakeholder” is grounded in the business discipline, as Amy clearly explains, the term “public” derives from Grunig’s early

193

Amy O’Connor and Holly Overton

works rooted in the public relations literature (Grunig & Dozier, 1992). While stakeholders are known as groups who can affect (or be affected by) an organization, a public is defined more so by their relation to messages. Specifically, publics are the recipients of messages, and they are segmented often in accordance with their relationship with the organization. In my opinion, these definitional distinctions are even reflections of some of the guiding questions that drive research. For example, “How are publics and stakeholders influenced by CSR communication?” I think this all-too-common question drives empirical investigations. We see experiments testing how various factors impact public or stakeholder outcomes. We aim to identify best practices for organizational messaging and how to achieve a certain outcome. However, perhaps we have been looking at it backwards. Public relations is a relationship-building function, and I argued that CSR is a socially constructed idea based on public or stakeholder expectations. With that in mind, perhaps we should be reversing the question and asking, “How is CSR communication influenced by stakeholders and publics?” From a legitimacy perspective, it is the publics and stakeholders who essentially give a business its “license to operate”, so why aren’t we investigating more fully the impact of these groups, or more notably, how these groups with varying positionality to an organization distinctly impact CSR communication? AMY:

I love the idea of reversing the question. I think if we reverse the question, it helps us more accurately capture the ability of “stakes” to shift over time. In the case of CSR, recognizing that stakes shift is essential for understanding how new norms and expectations emerge for the organization-stakeholder relationship. In addition, the idea of shifting stakes highlights the dynamic nature of the organization-stakeholder relationship. Second, reversing the question helps us see how stakeholders may hold a multiplicity of stakes; stakeholderorganization relationships can be dependent, supportive, antagonistic, and ambivalent all at the same time. In this way, the stakeholder-organization relationship is understood as messy, value laden, and potentially full of contradictions. For CSR scholars this opens up the possibility that organizations can be simultaneously responsible and irresponsible across issues and values. Finally, reversing the question or more perhaps asking the two questions simultaneously would expose the reciprocity in the stakeholder-organization relationship. Noting Freeman’s (1984) definition, stakeholders can impact and be impacted by the organization. Lately, I have been particularly focused on the word “can” in the definition of stakeholders. This one word suggests to me there is some fluidity in how and when stakeholders are impacted by and impact an organization. For CSR scholars, I think Mitchell et al.’s (1997) idea of urgency could help us answer understand when and why CSR or CSI practices engage stakeholders. HOLLY: I think that it is important that we as scholars not only work toward better understanding key differences between these terms, but that we also recognize how these differences function in practice. To paraphrase Dewey’s arguments, publics arise from stakeholders. Perhaps it’s fair to say that publics choose an organization but stakeholders are chosen. There are deep implications for what this means for CSR communication and how organizations function and communicate in general. The public relations perspective focuses on the relational approach wherein publics may not necessarily involve people who have something to give to an organization. It is the mutually beneficial relationship between the two that matters. With this in mind, I often use the term “public” but also aim to recognize when using the term “stakeholder” is appropriate and what implications the use of either term may have.

194

O’Connor and Overton Conversation

Topic 3: Methodological Directions for CSR Communication Research HOLLY:

There is a rich body of CSR communication literature, mostly inclusive of studies that focus on antecedents and outcomes of CSR communication. CSR communication literature grounded in public relations has spent a great deal of time examining consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions through largely quantitative analyses such as surveys or experiments with fictitious organizations. We’ve gained knowledge about antecedents and outcomes of CSR communication, but we haven’t consistently done a great job of taking these findings and offering tangible implications for the profession. Furthermore, while public relations touts the relationship-building function, we don’t often engage in research that actually examines how relationships are built. For example, how do publics make sense of a CSR initiative? To answer that question, we should talk with them. Perhaps we have been too focused on message effects and have paid too little attention to how CSR communication is actually used. AMY: I agree that the CSR literature has been primarily focused on consumers. I would go so far as to say that our focus on consumers has limited our understanding of how CSR operates in other conditions. To some extent, I find this discussion at odds with our earlier conversation about publics and stakeholders. We (the CSR scholarly community) know and articulate ways in which CSR impacts a wider range of stakeholders, yet we spend a lot of our research efforts in areas dominated by consumers and consumer products. One of the key tenets of CSR is legitimacy or social license to operate which are grounded in the ideas that communities and other stakeholders that are impacted by the organization have the ability to essential to an organization’s ability to operate. To me, this means we need to expand our approaches to include a variety of stakeholders, companies, and industries to gain a fuller picture of the CSR communication landscape. I believe in doing so, we will learn more about how different stakeholder groups make sense of CSR and CSA practices and communication and the patterns of CSR communication that exist within and across contexts. Finally, as we think beyond consumers, we may find that CSR theorizing needs to be adapted to address how different stakeholder groups experience CSR and the motives companies have for engaging in CSR. This could result in some exciting new theoretical directions. HOLLY: There have been considerable challenges with methodological applications in public relations research, particularly related to measurement. Perhaps the most common issue scholars have identified is the lack of valid measurement of concepts, which is also a reflection of the lack of theory-building in our field. We need to see more growth in the area of scale development and from a practical standpoint, proper measurement and evaluation. This is applicable to CSR communication research conducted through a public relations lens, as well. AMY: I would add that I hope we will embrace qualitative methods more fully. A recent study found that between 1994 and 2014 only 169 CSR studies used some form of qualitative methods (Bass & Milosevic, 2018). Moreover, the qualitative research that has been done primarily used interviews as the sole source of data. These statistics highlight that there is a huge gap in our knowledge and exposes a limitation in scholars’ approach to CSR research. I think we need to expand the methodological base of CSR research to include ethnographic, phenomenological, and grounded theory approaches. Echoing Holly’s comment above, I suggest that by giving voice to different stakeholder groups, the cultural dimensions that influence CSR practices and communication would be foregrounded. This methodological move is essential to building richer and more practically informed theoretical perspectives of CSR. HOLLY: We also need to expand our conversations. Bibliometric analyses have illustrated just how small our research networks can be. Simply stated, we are having conversations with ourselves. We have an opportunity to expand our knowledge through conversations with other research

195

Amy O’Connor and Holly Overton

traditions – or at least more cross-citations! Here we could incorporate theoretical arguments from different approaches, which could lead to diversification of methodological approaches and stronger, more informed conclusions about the phenomena we are studying. AMY: I wholeheartedly agree with Holly that CSR communication research needs to reach beyond our sub-discipline borders! In fact, that was one of my main goals when I set out to edit this handbook. As we expand our research networks to engage in cross-citations and maybe even cross-collaborations, new theoretical and methodological approaches will emerge. This could be a particular exciting move for CSR communication theory development. Certainly, this would require us to rethink what conventions we attend, the journals we consider for publication as well as the journals we read and review for. I believe those two moves would strengthen CSR communication research considerably. HOLLY: Amy’s point about the hope for embracing qualitative methods more fully resonates with me so much. Diversifying our body of literature will only strengthen it. I think this is a necessary step. It’s time for us to build new bridges and to work toward producing research that not only offers practically informed theoretical perspectives of CSR, but also aims to empower professionals with actionable information that can strengthen the important work they do.

Notes 1 Authors are presented alphabetically. Authors contributed equally to this chapter.

References Bass, A. E., & Milosevic, I. (2018). The ethnographic method in CSR research: The role and importance of methodological fit. Business & Society, 57(1), 174–215. 10.1177/0007650316648666 Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. 10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G Cone Communications. (2021). Porter Novelli Purpose Premium Index. https://www.conecomm.com/ insights-blog/2021/12/17/introducing-the-2021-porter-novelli-purpose-premium-index-ppi Crane, B. (2020). Revisiting who, when, and why stakeholders matter: Trust and stakeholder connectedness. Business & Society, 59(2), 263–286. 10.1177/0007650318756983 Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic Management. A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times, 122–126. Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (Eds.) (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. L. Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In L. R. Heath & G. M. Vasquez (Eds.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279–289). SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781452220727.n21 Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. 10.5465/ amr.1997.9711022105 O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 529–551. Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). (2022). About public relations. https://www.prsa.org/about/allabout-pr

196

SECTION III

Exploring Organizational Influences on CSR Communication

16 CSR COMMUNICATION IN STIGMATIZED INDUSTRIES Tae Ho Lee

Introduction Firms in stigmatized industries that provide harmful products or services, for example, tobacco, alcohol, or gambling, confront significant social and economic sanctions because stakeholders negatively evaluate these industries due to their harmful effect on society (Devers et al., 2009). As one of the strategies to address stakeholders’ negative evaluations, stigmatized industries have increasingly adopted CSR communication (Grougious et al., 2015; Wolfe & Blithe, 2015), resulting in the higher CSR advertising expenditures than their non-stigmatized peers (Oh et al., 2017). However, the strategic value of stigmatized industries’ CSR communication has been debated because it can actually highlight these industries’ negative characteristics (Du et al., 2010; Schuler & Cording, 2006; Servaes & Tamayo, 2013), thereby making stakeholders’ more doubtful of the firms’ motives and increasing negative evaluations (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Yoon et al., 2006). Tobacco companies, for example, have increasingly adopted CSR programs to improve their public image under the circumstances where the harmful influence of their products has garnered more social attention and criticism (World Health Organization, 2013). However, this has been significantly criticized as an inherent contradiction and misleading, as seen in the World Health Organization’s response to tobacco industries’ CSR programs for youth smoking prevention and health advocacy (World Health Organization, 2004). In the same vein, some countries have even started to regulate tobacco companies’ CSR activities, focusing on the potential deception of these programs (Chugh et al., 2020), which suggests the increasing hardship in communicating CSR activities in stigmatized industries. Focusing on the unique challenging situation stigmatized industries face due to their negative characteristics, communication scholars have mainly explored how to strategically communicate CSR initiatives in stigmatized industries. Several research topics have drawn special interest, including congruency between a firm and its social messages (high vs. low congruency) (Gaither & Austin, 2016) and motive attributions (firm serving vs. public serving) (S. Kim & Lee, 2012). Most research in communication scholarship has focused on a few retail industries, including tobacco, alcohol, and fast food (Austin & Gaither, 2016; S. Kim & Lee, 2012; Lee & Comello, 2019). Stigmatized industries have sometimes been explored by focusing on the harmful influence of a certain industry, often without discussing the theoretical background of stigmatized industries. Though there has been a gradual increase in relevant studies over time, communication research on CSR in stigmatized industries has remained relatively underdeveloped, leaving ample opportunities to engage with diverse research topics, methodologies,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-20

199

Tae Ho Lee

theoretical backgrounds, and scope of industries. This chapter introduces a conceptual foundation on which to situate the study of stigmatized industries’ CSR communication, some of the recent communication research in this area, and desired topics for future research.

Conceptual Foundation: Individual Stigma and Organizational Application The concept of industry stigmatization draws from Goffman’s (1963) seminal work on individual stigma and its subsequent application to and development in organizational stigma (Devers & Mishina, 2019; Devers et al., 2009). Individual stigma explains how certain individuals are negatively categorized based on specific individual or group characteristics involving, for example, physical attributes, race, religion, or national origin when they are deemed as deviating from social norms (Goffman, 1963). Individual stigma is a “deeply discrediting” mark that classifies certain individuals as not only “different” but also of a “less desirable kind” (Goffman, 1963). Individual stigma in general does not implicate any tangible negative influence on society, but rather evaluators’ subjective and arbitrary identification and interpretation of certain individual traits as deviating and undesirable (Kitsuse, 1962). Organizational stigma similarly provides “a label that evokes a collective stakeholder group-specific perception that an organization possesses a fundamental, deep-seated flaw that deindividuates and discredits the organization” (Devers et al., 2009, p. 155). When stakeholders associate a group of organizations with “values that are expressly counter” to their own, the category of organizations becomes stigmatized (Devers et al., 2009, p. 157). Significantly, organizational stigma deindividuates the focal organizations through negative stereotyping and categorically discrediting them despite differences among individual organizations, which ultimately invokes various social and economic sanctions across stigmatized organizations (Devers et al., 2009). In comparison to individual stigma, organizations have a higher chance of controlling, preventing, and removing stigma because it is their own actions and choices that make them stigmatized (Devers et al., 2009, p. 158).

Industry Stigmatization: Terminologies, Criteria, Affected Industries, and Changes Several terminologies, including sin, vice, and controversy, have been used to describe stigmatized industries (see Oh et al., 2017 for a list of examples). Discussions of stigmatized industries using these terminologies, however, have rarely substantiated the criteria to define industry stigma, often only referring to the presumed harmful impact on society from specific industries (Oh et al., 2017). The industries of tobacco, gambling, defense/weapons, and liquor (Waxler, 2004), or gaming, tobacco, alcohol, and adult entertainment, are often mentioned (Hong & Kacperczyk, 2009) as typical stigmatized industries, and described as vice or sin stocks. Similarly, the industries of alcohol, firearms, gambling, military, nuclear power, and tobacco are referenced as representative stigmatized industries, and described as sin firms (Heal, 2008; Leventis et al., 2013). However, these terms have rarely designated specific criteria for determining stigmatized industries. While a few have mentioned largely abstract criteria, they show significant disparity, as shown in the examples of “political incorrectness” (in four sectors of tobacco, gambling, defense, and liquor) (Waxler, 2004), “religious or moral principle” (Fabozzi et al., 2008), and “delicacy, decency, [and] morality” (Cai et al., 2012). It is noted that two categories of industry stigma have been advanced, namely core and event stigma, focusing on where the stigma originates: either the fundamental characteristics of an industry or temporal events (Hudson, 2008; Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009). Core stigma involves the fundamental characteristics of an industry in terms of business outputs or operational routines, as in the cases of arms dealers (Vergne, 2012), brothels (Wolfe & Blithe, 2015), and pornography producers (Voss, 2015). In contrast, event stigma implicates “anomalous or episodic negative event(s)” (Hudson, 2008, p. 253), which include bankruptcies and product recalls. While event stigma is 200

CSR Stigmatized Industries

relatively isolated from an industry’s core characteristics and is thus temporary and more easily curable (e.g., decoupling) (Devers et al., 2009; Elsbach & Sutton, 1992), core stigma is fundamentally more challenging because it cannot easily be altered or removed (Hudson, 2008). Event stigma has often been addressed in communication scholarship through the conceptual lens of crisis (Coombs, 2007, 2014) by focusing on the situational context, while other communication research has mainly addressed the concept of core stigma when approaching stigmatized industries (Lee & Comello, 2019). Earlier in conceptualizations, the negative influence on individuals with regards to health, such as addiction and increased medical costs, was the main consideration in designating stigmatized industries (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, and gambling) (Fabozzi et al., 2008). Subsequently, more social-level perspectives implicating larger-scale concepts such as environmental influences (e.g., gas) or human rights violations (e.g., fair-trade sourcing) have increasingly been integrated into designating stigmatized industries (Fabozzi et al., 2008; Hong & Kacperczyk, 2009). While the concept of stigma is often distinguished from legitimacy (Devers et al., 2009; Devers & Mishina, 2019), industry stigmatization in light of the dynamic changes over time has also been approached as a volatile concept with varying degrees (Lee & Comello, 2019) that benefits from categorizations of legitimacy implicating the different stages of accepted, proper, debated, and illegitimate (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Deephouse et al., 2017). The category of stigmatized industry has constantly been expanded from the industries of the “triumvirate of sins”, namely, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling (Cai et al., 2012; Hong & Kacperczyk, 2009; Jo & Na, 2012; S. Kim & Lee, 2012), to include diverse industries encompassing such things as weapons and defense (Fabozzi et al., 2008; Vergne, 2012), nuclear energy (Beelitz & Merkl-Davies, 2012), gay bathhouses (Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009), mixed-martial arts leagues (Helms & Patterson, 2014), travel agencies (Hampel & Tracey, 2017), brothels (Blithe & Wolfe, 2017), and fast-food chains and soda producers (Gaither & Austin, 2016; Lee & Comello, 2019). The changes in the composition of stigmatized industries seem to reflect social changes and the corresponding dynamics in the way stakeholders perceive certain industries as deviating from social norms. For example, changes in the law, as a manifestation of the socio-political legitimation of an industry from the governmental perspective (Khessina et al., 2020), have created the now legalized yet still socially stigmatized industry of medical cannabis in the United States (Khessina et al., 2020; Lashley & Pollock, 2020). This industry is described as being situated in the early phase of legitimization from stigma, as similarly observed in the history of legalizations of alcohol, lottery, and abortion (Khessina et al., 2020; Lashley & Pollock, 2020). Technological changes also have created new stigmatized industries, such as that of e-cigarettes, which continues to struggle unsuccessfully to distance itself from the traditional tobacco industries that remains deeply stigmatized (Hsu & Grodal, 2021). Rapid changes in all aspects of society, including laws and technologies, will continue to affect how certain industries are stigmatized and de-stigmatized, thus warranting more scholarly attention.

Strategies for Overcoming Industry Stigmatization and CSR Communication Firms in stigmatized industries confront significant social and economic sanctions, which include heightened risk of litigation, stricter governmental regulations, and more exposure to consumer boycotts and media scrutiny (Grougious et al., 2015; Lashley & Pollock, 2020), in addition to challenges in the routine business practices of hiring employees, attracting customers, and securing finance (Hudson, 2008; Vergne, 2012). In short, stigmatized industries face fundamental challenges in maintaining social legitimacy and survival (Deephouse et al., 2017; Hudson, 2008; Vergne, 2012). To address these challenges from industry stigmatization, several strategies have been suggested, which include shielding and concealing a firms’ stigmatized business (Wolfe & Blithe, 2015), decoupling a firm’s stigmatized aspect from its legitimate side (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992), straddling 201

Tae Ho Lee

stigmatized and non-stigmatized businesses (e.g., Playboy’s opening of nightclubs) (Voss, 2015), and exiting the stigmatized category entirely when the firm has multiple lines of business (Piazza & Perretti, 2015). CSR communication has been adopted in this context in stigmatized industries as one of the strategies to improve stakeholders’ negative evaluations toward them that originate from the fundamentally negative characteristics embedded in their products or services (Wolfe & Blithe, 2015). Research suggests that stigmatized industries are more likely to communicate CSR activities to show their compliance with social norms (Grougious et al., 2015), as shown in their higher CSR advertising expenditures compared to non-stigmatized peers (Oh et al., 2017). The strategic value of stigmatized industries’ CSR communication, however, has been often contested because CSR communication can make these industries’ negative characteristics based on their products or services more pronounced (Du et al., 2010; Schuler & Cording, 2006; Servaes & Tamayo, 2013), thereby increasing stakeholders’ skepticism and negative evaluations (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009; Yoon et al., 2006). CSR communication of stigmatized industries provides a useful platform to investigate CSR communication in general because their uniquely controversial nature presents a clear case on which to test the effects of CSR in the context of high skepticism and low trust toward these companies, a social trend that has become increasingly prevalent in most industries (e.g., Banerjee & Bonnefous, 2011; Byrne, 2010; Cai et al., 2012; Jo & Na, 2012; Palazzo & Richter, 2005; Yoon et al., 2006). Grougious et al. (2016) also noted that any organization can become stigmatized due to unexpected events or ongoing business operations in this world of increased likelihood of social stigma. The endless corporate scandals that accompany the declining trust and deepening skepticism toward organizations (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2017) clearly point to the increasing risk of stigmatization of more companies and industries at a general level.

Main Research Themes: Firm and Message Congruency and Attribution of Motives Research has focused on how to craft CSR communication in stigmatized industries so it can address stakeholders’ negative evaluations instead of worsening them, and ultimately generate positive stakeholder reactions. Specifically, the subjects of congruency (often referenced as fit) between a firms’ products or services and the social causes addressed in their CSR communication (Austin & Gaither, 2017; Gaither & Austin, 2016) and stakeholders’ motive attributions (S. Kim & Lee, 2012) have been researched extensively, in that they relate to the purpose of addressing stakeholders’ fundamentally negative evaluations of stigmatized industries. Significantly, many studies have approached congruency and motive attributions simultaneously, presuming that congruency affects attribution of motives, which can ultimately explain stakeholders’ positive or negative responses to CSR messages from stigmatized industries (Austin & Gaither, 2017; Gaither & Austin, 2016; Y. S. Kim & Choi, 2012). Emphasizing the role of motive attribution, Yoon et al. (2006) stated that CSR activities can improve a firms’ image when consumers attribute sincere motives, but not when they perceive the motive as unclear or insincere (p. 377). However, the relationship between congruency, motive attribution, and stakeholders’ responses has also been challenged, with some studies negating both the conventional view of the prevailing role of congruency and the dichotomous view (e.g., firm serving vs. public serving) toward motive attribution (Ellen et al., 2006; S. Kim & Lee, 2012). Research has indicated the distinctiveness of the challenges in communicating CSR in stigmatized industries, sometimes directly contradicting the findings from non-stigmatized industries’ CSR communication (Austin & Gaither, 2017; Gaither & Austin, 2016; S. Kim & Lee, 2012; Y. S. Kim & Choi, 2012). In terms of congruency, research in general has suggested that high congruency between a sponsoring firm of CSR in terms of its products, services, or market, and the social causes that are 202

CSR Stigmatized Industries

addressed through the CSR can enhance stakeholders’ positive evaluations (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; H.-S. Kim, 2011; Nan & Heo, 2007). The strategic value of high congruency can be inferred because it causes stakeholders to view the sponsoring firm as an expert in the referenced social causes (Bloom et al., 2006; Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). Also, high congruency “is less likely to raise [stakeholders’] suspicions because a firm is not acting out of character with its prime directive thus … value-driven attributions are more likely” (Ellen et al., 2006, p. 151). In contrast, research about stigmatized industries has shown that CSR communication with high congruency can instead backfire, increasing stakeholders’ negative evaluations because it draws attention to their negative characteristics (Ellen et al., 2006; Forehand & Grier, 2003). For example, stigmatized industries’ efforts to cure the wrongs which they themselves created or contributed to via their products or services (e.g., youth tobacco prevention campaign) (Y. S. Kim & Choi, 2012) demonstrate how high congruency can make their negative characteristics (e.g., tobacco products’ harmful influence on health) more pronounced, inducing stakeholders to question their motives and sincerity (e.g., their CSR campaigning against their own products and profits), thereby diminishing the strategic value of CSR communication. Several studies have suggested that CSR communication with high congruency in stigmatized industries can worsen stakeholders’ negative evaluations toward them (Austin & Gaither, 2017; Gaither & Austin, 2016; Y. S. Kim & Choi, 2012). Content analyzing Coca-Cola’s Twitter feed CSR content, Gaither and Austin (2016) found that messages with high congruency between CocaCola and the social causes in the CSR campaign relating to water scarcity and well-being resulted in more criticism and skepticism. The CSR sponsoring firm, Coca-Cola, negatively contributed to these social causes by heavily consuming water and producing sugary soda products, and thus the CSR communication to preserve water and address obesity directly contradicted the impact of its business, making stakeholders question the firm’s motives and sincerity (Gaither & Austin, 2016). In contrast, Coca-Cola’s support of empowering women, which was not directly congruent with the firm’s products, elicited more positive evaluations (Gaither & Austin, 2016). In a similar context, Austin and Gaither’s (2017) experiment using a hypothetical soda manufacturer showed that a CSR initiative relating to literacy enhancement, with low congruency, generated more positive attributions of the firm’s motives as public-serving than the CSR initiative relating to obesity, with high congruency, regardless of what the fictitious firm expressed about its CSR motives by acknowledging its firm-serving motives. In the same vein, Y. S. Kim and Choi’s (2012) experiment using Phillip Morris and college students in the United States and South Korea showed that the CSR initiative of donating for hunger relief, with low congruency, generated more positive evaluations from stakeholders than the CSR initiative of youth smoking prevention, with high congruency. However, the negative impact of high congruency has not always been found. For example, Tao and Ferguson (2015) showed that Phillip Morris USA’s CSR initiative relating to youth smoking cessation, with high congruency, did not result in more negative evaluations of stakeholders when compared to its CSR initiative relating to child obesity, with low congruency. S. Kim and Lee (2012) advanced significant propositions regarding the relationship among congruency, motive attribution, and stakeholders’ evaluations of CSR communication in stigmatized industries. S. Kim and Lee (2012) experimented with how congruency between a firm (e.g., McDonald’s and Miller Brewing Company) and a social cause in CSR messages (e.g., relating to obesity and binge drinking, respectively) influenced consumers’ attribution of CSR motives and consumers’ evaluations of the firm’s CSR activities. Importantly, consumers evaluated a firm as more trustworthy when they attributed both high public-serving and firm-serving motives, suggesting consumers’ perception of a firm’s CSR motives are not “zero-sum” (p. 170). They explained that consumers are “smart enough to acknowledge” firms’ self-serving CSR motives, but still supporting CSR activities if they are also sincere (S. Kim & Lee, 2012, p. 170). Additionally, the research provided a useful theoretical implication that congruency between a firm and supported 203

Tae Ho Lee

social causes “does not exclusively determine the salience of firm-serving motives among companies in stigmatized industries” (S. Kim & Lee, 2012, p. 170).

Additional Research Contexts Several additional topics, including prior reputation, on whom the burden for cure or improvement is to be placed, message source and social cues in social media, and the role of transparency, have been explored for CSR communication in stigmatized industries, based on a strategic viewpoint (Austin & Gaither, 2016; H. Kim & Xu, 2019; S. Kim & Lee, 2012; Lee & Comello, 2019). Findings on these topics in stigmatized industries have generally echoed those involving nonstigmatized industries, thereby providing points of commonality for strategic CSR communication across stigmatized and non-stigmatized industries (Austin & Gaither, 2016; H. Kim & Xu, 2019; S. Kim & Lee, 2012; Lee & Comello, 2019). Several studies have shown that firms in stigmatized industries with positive prior reputation are more likely be deemed sincere when they attempt to address the very wrongs that they created (Bae & Cameron, 2006; Gaither & Austin, 2016; S. Kim & Lee, 2012; Yoon et al., 2006). An interesting exploration in message construction has been made regarding to whom the responsibility for cure or improvement should be assigned in CSR messages (Austin & Gaither, 2016). When Coca-Cola placed the responsibility for cure or improvement on individuals, for example, in relation to individuals’ behavioral change to burn calories or preserve water, or to spread messages about larger social causes, in order to address the very wrongs the firm contributed (e.g., water depletion, or obesity), it received the most negative evaluations (Austin & Gaither, 2016). In contrast, Coca-Cola received the most favorable evaluations when it admitted its own responsibility to take an action for improvement, emphasizing socially responsible business practices (Austin & Gaither, 2016). Focusing on social media communication, Kim & Xu (2019) found that message source (e.g., a friend’s post vs. sponsored ads) and the presence of positive social cues as measured by the number of “likes” and “shares” on a posting can be useful for generating more positive evaluations toward CSR messages that discourage the consumption of products from a firm in a stigmatized industry. Lee and Comello’s (2019) experiment on transparent CSR communication from stigmatized industries found that more transparent CSR messages reduced skepticism when a more stigmatized industry was involved (e.g., a fictitious hamburger chain vs. a cereal company). As transparency in CSR communication implicates a sincere commitment in terms of providing substantial information, a higher level of accountability of the firm, and stakeholder participation in the process (Rawlins, 2009), the positive influence of more transparent CSR messages in stigmatized industries echoes the significance of sincerity as shown in other studies (H. S. Kim & Lee, 2018).

Future Research Directions It is desirable for future research to address a broader scope of stigmatized industries beyond a few consumer industries, how firms in stigmatized industries communicate CSR, how diverse types of stakeholders other than consumers react to CSR messages from stigmatized industries, and overtime changes of which industries are stigmatized and on what rationale, as more fully described next. By mainly drawing on a strategic viewpoint, the communication scholarship on CSR in stigmatized industries has thus far concentrated on a few consumer-related industries involving tobacco, alcohol, and fast-food (Austin & Gaither, 2016; S. Kim & Lee, 2012; Lee & Comello, 2019). CSR communication in many non-consumer stigmatized industries, such as weapons and defense (Fabozzi et al., 2008; Vergne, 2012) and nuclear energy (Beelitz & Merkl-Davies, 2012), thus remain unexplored in communication scholarship. Additionally, the scope of stigmatized industries is constantly changing, now including the rather new industries of medical cannabis with its legalization (Khessina et al., 2020), 204

CSR Stigmatized Industries

and e-cigarettes based on technological and legal developments (Hsu & Grodal, 2021), which also remain to be explored. Future research addressing a broad range of stigmatized industries, including the newly developed ones, is thus warranted, given the rapid changes in nearly all aspects of society. The strategic exploration of how to construct CSR messages in stigmatized industries has given insights in various communicative contexts of congruency (Gaither & Austin, 2016) and motive attributions (S. Kim & Lee, 2012), to name a few. In contrast, descriptive approaches investigating actual companies for a more nuanced understanding of CSR communication in stigmatized industries have been rare (c.f., Ban, 2016; Coombs, 2017), limiting our understanding of how these industries communicate CSR. As shown in Ban’s (2016) research, how a firm in a stigmatized industry communicates through its CSR messages can provide significant insights into what firms in a specific stigmatized industry are attempting to hide, emphasize, and dispute concerning the negative characteristics of their products or services (Ban, 2016). This can shed light on the underlying dynamics in social-level arrangements surrounding stigmatized industries, including laws, politics, and economy. In light of the conceptual ambiguity and constant changes in the scope of industry stigmatization deriving from the difficulty of defining deviating behaviors from social norms (Cai et al., 2012; Fabozzi et al., 2008; Oh et al., 2017; Waxler, 2004), more descriptive explorations of stigmatized industries’ CSR communication would be especially useful for understanding how industry stigma communicatively manifests and is thereby constructed, contested, and transformed by stigmatized industries, as suggested in communicative institutionalism (Cornelissen et al., 2015). It is notable that one specific stakeholder group, namely consumers, has been primarily addressed in communication scholarship, which has largely approached CSR communication in stigmatized industries from a strategic viewpoint. While consumers indeed deliver significant voice to the discussion of industry stigma, many other types of stakeholders also exist that influence stigmatized industries and their CSR communication, including the news media, governmental entities, and civic groups (Beelitz & Merkl-Davies, 2012; Piazza & Perretti, 2015). As the concept of industry stigma and the actual industries included are constantly changing, it is imperative to understand the process of how the concept of industry stigma is communicated among diverse stakeholders, and thereby created, maintained, and changed (Cornelissen et al., 2015). For the nuclear energy industry, for example, the perspective of media exposure has been found to be especially critical to how a firm determines its reaction to stakeholders’ negative evaluations (Piazza & Perretti, 2015). Similarly, discourse analysis following an accident in a German nuclear power plant showed how the top management considered the perspectives of diverse stakeholders, which included the media, the public, and politicians, in determining their coping discursive strategy (Beelitz & Merkl-Davies, 2012). The longitudinal aspect of the changes surrounding stigmatized industries and CSR communication, namely, what defines industry stigma (e.g., direct impacts on individuals such as health, or larger societal implications such as environment and human rights violations), which industries emerge as additionally stigmatized, and which aspects of social changes wield influence (e.g., legal and regulatory changes, technological advancements, etc.), warrants special attention. How different actors communicate surrounding CSR over time can be especially indicative of the related overtime changes and our understanding of stigmatized industries (Cornelissen et al., 2015).

Discussion Questions 1 2

Why do people criticize and evaluate certain industries more negatively, for example, those relating to tobacco, alcohol, or gambling? How does an industry’s stigmatization based on its products or services differ from when a group of individuals is stigmatized due to certain individual characteristics such as physical attributes, race, religion, or national origin? 205

Tae Ho Lee

3 4

The World Health Organization (WHO) negatively evaluated a certain industry’s CSR programs. Which industry was it, and why did the WHO criticize the industry’s CSR programs? Some tobacco companies advanced CSR campaigns to reduce youth smoking. Discuss the effectiveness of the campaign in consideration of company and social cause congruency, and consumers’ attribution of motives.

References Austin, L., & Gaither, B. M. (2016). Examining public response to corporate social initiative types: A quantitative content analysis of Coca-Cola’s social media. Social Marketing Quarterly, 22(4), 290–306. 10.1177/ 1524500416642441 Austin, L., & Gaither, B. M. (2017). Perceived motivations for corporate social responsibility initiatives in socially stigmatized industries. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 840–849. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.06.011 Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of corporate giving. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 144–150. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.007 Ban, Z. (2016). Delineating responsibility, decisions and compromises: A frame analysis of the fast food industry’s online CSR communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44(3), 296–315. Banerjee, S. B., & Bonnefous, A. M. (2011). Stakeholder management and sustainability strategies in the French nuclear industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(2), 124–140. Beelitz, A., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2012). Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy: “CEO-speak” After an incident in a German nuclear power plant. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 101–120. 10.1007/s10551011-1065-9 Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why and how consumers respond to corproate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24. Blithe, S. J., & Wolfe, A. W. (2017). Work–life management in legal prostitution: Stigma and lockdown in Nevada’s brothels. Human Relations, 70(6), 725–750. 10.1177/0018726716674262 Bloom, P. N., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K. L., & Meza, C. (2006). How social-cause marketing affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review. Byrne, E. F. (2010). The US military-industrial complex is circumstantially unethical. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 153–165. Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 467–480. Chugh, A., Bassi, S., Nazar, G. P., Bhojani, U., Alexander, C., Lal, P., Gupta, P. C., & Arora, M. (2020). Tobacco industry interference index: Implementation of the World Health Organization’s framework convention on Tobacco Control Article 5.3 in India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 32(4), 172–178. 10.1177/1010539520917793 Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. 10.1057/ palgrave.crr.1550049 Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (W. Timothy Coombs, Ed.). SAGE Publications. Coombs, W. T. (2017). Origin stories in CSR: Genesis of CSR at British American Tobacco. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(2), 178–191. 10.1108/CCIJ-01-2016-0007 Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in insistutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10–27. 10.5465/amr. 2014.0381 Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 27–54). Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). SAGE Publications. Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1), 154–171. 10.1287/orsc.1080.0367 Devers, C. E., & Mishina, Y. (2019). Comments on stigma versus legitimacy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(1), 16–21. 10.1177/1056492618790898

206

CSR Stigmatized Industries Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. 10.1111/ j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x Edelman Trust Barometer (2017). https://www.edelman.com/trust/2017‐trust‐barometer Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147–157. 10.1177/ 0092070305284976 Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738. 10.5465/256313 Fabozzi, F. J., Ma, K. C., & Oliphant, B. J. (2008). Sin stock returns. Journal of Portfolio Management, 35(1), 82–94. Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–356. 10.1207/s15327663jcp1303_15 Gaither, B. M., & Austin, L. (2016). Campaign and corporate goals in conflict: Exploring company-issue congruence through a content analysis of Coca-Cola’s twitter feed. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 698–709. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.001 Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster. Grougious, V., Dedoulis, E., & Leventis, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting and organizational stigma: The case of “sin” industries. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 905–914. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.041 Hampel, C. E., & Tracey, P. (2017). How organizations move from stigma to legitimacy: The case of Cook’s travel agency in Victorian Britain. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2175–2207. Heal, G. (2008). When principles pay: Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line. Columbia University Press. Helms, W. S., & Patterson, K. (2014). Eliciting acceptance for “illicit” organizations: The positive implications of stigma for MMA organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1453–1484. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78–89. Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15–36. 10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.09.001 Hsu, G., & Grodal, S. (2021). The double-edged sword of oppositional category positioning: A study of the U.S. e-cigarette category, 2007–2017. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 86–132. 10.1177/000183922 0914855 Hudson, B. A. (2008). Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 252–266. Hudson, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2009). Not with a ten-foot pole: Core stigma, stigma transfer, and improbable persistence of men’s bathhouses. Organization Science, 20(1), 134–153. 10.1287/orsc.1080.0368 Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441–456. Khessina, O. M., Reis, S., & Verhaal, J. C. (2020). Stepping out of the shadows: Identity exposure as a remedy for stigma transfer concerns in the medical marijuana market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–43. 10.1177/ 0001839220972422 Kim, H.-S. (2011). A reputational approach examining publics’ attributions on corporate social responsibility motives. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(1), 84–101. 10.1080/01292986.2010.524230 Kim, H. S., & Lee, T. H. (2018). Strategic CSR communication: A moderating role of transparency in trust building. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), 107–124. 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1425692 Kim, H., & Xu, H. (2019). Exploring the effects of social media features on the publics’ responses to decreased usage CSR messages. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 287–302. 10.1108/CCIJ-102017-0095 Kim, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2012). The complex attribution process of CSR motives. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 168–170. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.024 Kim, Y. S., & Choi, Y. (2012). College students’ perception of Philip Morris’s tobacco-related smoking prevention and tobacco-unrelated social responsibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 184–199. 10.1080/1062726X.2012.626138 Kitsuse, J. I. (1962). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. Social Problems, 9(3), 247–256. Lashley, K., & Pollock, T. G. (2020). Waiting to inhale: Reducing stigma in the medical cannabis industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2), 434–482. 10.1177/0001839219851501

207

Tae Ho Lee Lee, T. H., & Comello, M. L. (Nori) G. (2019). Transparency and industry stigmatization in strategic CSR communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 68–85. 10.1177/0893318918807566 Leventis, S., Iftekhar, H., & Dedoulis, E. (2013). The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing. International Review of Financial Analysis, 23, 152–165. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74. 10.2753/ JOA0091-3367360204 Oh, H., Bae, J., & Kim, S. J. (2017). Can sinful firms benefit from advertising their CSR efforts? Adverse effect of advertising sinful firms’ CSR engagements on firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(4), 643–663. 10.1007/s10551-016-3072-3 Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. (2005). CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 387–401. Piazza, A., & Perretti, F. (2015). Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear power generation in the United States, 1970-2000. Organization Science, 26(3), 724–742. 10.1287/orsc.2014.0964 Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. 10.1080/10627260802153421 Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. (2006). A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 540–558. 10.5465/AMR.2006. 21318916 Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061. 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1630 Tao, W., & Ferguson, M. A. (2015). The overarching effects of ethical reputation regardless of CSR cause fit and information source. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(1), 23–43. 10.1080/1553118X.2014. 954285 Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!” The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273–283. 10.1007/s10551-008-9731-2 Vergne, J. P. (2012). Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed methods study of the global arms industry. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1027–1052. 10.5465/amj.2010.0599 Voss, G. (2015). Stigma and the shaping of the pornography industry. Routledge. Waxler, C. (2004). Stocking up on sins: How to crush the market with vice-based investing. Wiley. Wolfe, A. W., & Blithe, S. J. (2015). Managing image in a core-stigmatized organization: Concealment and revelation in Neveda’s legal brothels. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 539–563. World Health Organization. (2004). Tobacco industry and corporate responsibility: An inherent contradiction. https:// escholarship.org/uc/item/6kf7q7v9 World Health Organization. (2013). Banning tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship: What you need to know. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/83779/WHO_NMH_PND_13.1_eng.pdf Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390. 10.1207/ s15327663jcp1604_9

208

17 TOWARD A RELATIONAL CSR MODEL: CSR COMMUNICATION OF GLOBAL FORTUNE 100 DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC Nur Uysal

Introduction With the growing interest in the field, our understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a knowledge domain and practice has been expanded in recent years (Ji et al., 2021). However, CSR has always been a moving target. The unprecedented social events and crises we have recently witnessed reshape stakeholders’ expectations of CSR, creating a need to rethink and redefine the role and responsibilities of business in society. In particular, with their extensive global value chains (GVCs), multinational corporations (MNCs) are uniquely positioned as new world leaders to play significant roles in shaping the global socio-economic landscape (Jensen, 2008). Moving beyond the traditional set of expectations, stakeholders increasingly pressure MNCs to express their stances on controversial issues and exercise their power to influence the course of social and political change (Edelman, 2020). Recent years have been replete with examples. In the wake of George Floyd’s death and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, for example, stakeholders demanded that corporations take a stronger action on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Many corporations such as Uber and Amazon were expected to take a position on the Afghan refugee crisis following the US evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021 (Gentile, 2021). At the time of writing this chapter, a cascade of MNCs including IBM, McDonald’s, BP, and Toyota, responded to stakeholder demands in protest of Russia’s military attack on Ukraine and suspended their operations in Russia or exited entirely (Goldenziel, 2022). It is clear that stakeholder expectations from MNCs have significantly evolved in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major shock to our collective systems – and a potential catalyst to redefine what exactly CSR means and to rethink the newly emerging and still amorphous responsibilities of business in society. For decades, the Pyramid of CSR model (Carroll, 1979, 1991) has provided a foundation that helps to delineate dimensions of CSR, and it has enjoyed a wide popularity among management and communication scholars. This chapter revisits the Pyramid of CSR framework in the light of the recent societal developments and seeks to advance a collaborative, relational, and communicative approach to CSR. A case study on Fortune Global 100 corporations’ response communication to the pandemic provides insights into how MNCs, as authoritative societal actors (Lammers, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2017), collectively contribute to the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-21

209

Nur Uysal

ongoing co-creation of what CSR means for business and society. This is important to study because corporations work as mechanisms to “prime, edit, and trigger” the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences (Weber & Glynn, 2006, p. 1648). The complex network of relationships that holds MNCs together is built and perpetuated through corporate discourse (Breeze, 2013). The underlying argument of this chapter is that linear, static, and managerial treatments of CSR fail to capture a deep understanding of how corporations and stakeholders negotiate and co-create meanings about CSR in today’s open, fast, and dynamic world, in which the challenge of re-articulating social relations remains of central importance. Although CSR may still be corporate-based, CSR is not necessarily corporate-centric and corporate-controlled anymore. CSR scholarship needs to further develop relational theorizing efforts focusing on the (re)construction and emergent effects of relational dynamics between corporations and stakeholders. To help advance a relational approach to CSR, this chapter first critically reviews the relevant scholarship on the Pyramid of CSR as developed in the management literature. Second, a case study analysis illustrates how Fortune Global 100 corporations communicate their responses to the global pandemic and help construct what it means to be socially responsible for MNCs during this point in time. Third, the limitations of the Pyramid of CSR model will be discussed in the light of case study findings. The final section concludes with a research agenda designed to explore the newly emerging responsibilities of business in society and offers a theoretical and methodological lens that help explain the complex relationships between stakeholders and corporations.

The Conceptual Evolution of the Pyramid of CSR What exactly means to be socially responsible for a corporation? Academics and practitioners have been striving to establish an agreed-upon definition of CSR since 1950s marked by Howard Bowen’s 1953 publication of Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Since then dozens of definitions have arisen that focus on three main areas: (1) what range of economic, legal, ethical, and voluntary matters fall under the purview of a corporation’s responsibility, (2) what types of social issues a corporation is responsible for, and (3) what the manner or philosophy of response should be (social responsiveness). In an attempt to clarify and integrate various definitions, Carroll (1979) in his seminal article, “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance” categorized the range of obligations that business has to society into four groups: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary. Building upon Sethi’s (1975) corporate social performance (CSP) model, Carroll (1979) explained that this four-part framework help categorize the various responsibilities that society expects business to assume and provided a widely popular definition of CSR: “Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (p. 500). Carroll further explained that this definition “does not ‘nail down’ the degree of specific responsibility in each category, but it was not meant to” (p. 500). He also pointed out that social issues under the rubric of social responsibility change over time and they differ for different industries. In his follow-up article, “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders”, Carroll (1991) explicated on his four-part framework and proposed a pyramid model of CSR. This pyramid model has become one of the most popular constructs of CSR that has been used in the literature and practice for several decades, consolidating different CSR rationales and expectations into a uniform framework. According to this pyramid model, CSR of business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm’s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. In other words, “the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen” (p. 42).

210

CSR Global Fortune 100

However, Carroll (1991) initially implied a hierarchy of CSR domains by stipulating that the economic and legal domains are the most fundamental while philanthropic responsibilities are considered less important than the other three domains (p. 42). It could be said that the economic responsibility is “required” of business by society; the legal responsibility also is “required” of business by society; the ethical responsibility is “expected” of business by society; and the philanthropic responsibility is “expected/desired” of business by society (Carroll, 1991). A close reading of the Carroll (1991) article reveals the weak conceptual linkages between the Pyramid of CSR and stakeholder theory that corporations are responsible to groups beyond shareholders who are impacted by and can impact the corporation (Freeman, 1984). Carroll (1991) argued that the word “social” in CSR is personified by stakeholders and listed five major stakeholder groups: shareholders, employees, customers, local communities, and the society at large (p. 46). When Freeman (1984) introduced stakeholder theory into the management literature, he broadly defined stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” (p. 53). Freeman argued that the success of a corporation largely depends on its capacity to negotiate, balance, and satisfy the demands and interests of various internal and external stakeholders. However, a corporation has multiple stakeholders whose interests often diverge considerably not only from those of the corporation but also from each other. Therefore, an essential task in stakeholder management is to strategically prioritize competing stakeholder demands. In an attempt to address this managerial challenge, Carroll (1991) proposed a stakeholder/responsibility matrix based on the question: What corporate social responsibilities (economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic) do we (businesses) have to our stakeholders? Nevertheless, this matrix was theoretically underdeveloped and didn’t receive much scholarly attention in the management literature. To explicate what Freeman (1984) called “the principle of who or what really counts”, Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed Stakeholder Salience Theory (SST), which poses that stakeholders who possess power, legitimacy, and urgency are more salient to corporations – salience being defined as “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims” (p. 869). The attribute of power refers to the stakeholder’s capacity to influence the corporation; legitimacy refers to the validity of the stakeholder’s relationship to the corporation. Power and legitimacy are the core attributes of salience and, when combined, they constitute authority. The attribute of urgency refers to the imminence of the stakeholder’s claim to the focal corporation. The inclusion of urgency adds a catalytic and dynamic component to the process whereby stakeholders attain salience in the minds of managers (Agle et al., 1999). It is important to note that power, legitimacy, and urgency are enacted through rhetoric and action. From a managerial view, Carroll (1991) briefly mentioned the notion of salience in his discussion on stakeholder orientation, and suggested that, moving beyond stakeholder identification, a moral management style that relies on ethical norms and a high standard of right behavior should be employed in determining what economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) responsibilities companies have to stakeholders. In his later writing, Carroll (1999) emphasized the growing importance of ethical responsibility component as “expectations over and beyond legal requirements” (p. 283). In explaining the discretionary responsibilities, Carroll elaborated that these represent “voluntary roles that business assumes but for which society does not clear-cut an expectation as it does in the ethical responsibility” (p. 284). He described these voluntary activities as a strategic “choice” left to individual managers’ judgment (p. 284). Carroll argued that the CSR concept will evolve over time to capture new realms in which businesses have responsibilities to society. In extrapolating from Carroll’s four domains of corporate social responsibility (1979) and Pyramid of CSR (1991), Schwartz and Carroll (2003) proposed an alternative approach to conceptualizing CSR. Building upon the scholarly and practical criticism, they identified three main limitations of the pyramid model: (1) the use of a pyramid to depict the relationships among the four

211

Nur Uysal

components of the model; (2) the role of philanthropy as a separate component in the model; and (3) the incomplete theoretical development of the economic, legal, and ethical domains. Indeed, the pyramid framework suggests a hierarchy of CSR domains, leading misunderstandings on the priorities of the four domains, and may not be the best framework to describe the complex relationships between businesses’ responsibilities to the society. One of the striking criticisms of the pyramid model concerns the role of philanthropy as a distinct component (Clarkson, 1995). Agreeing with this line of criticism, Schwartz and Carroll (2003) argued that it would be “inaccurate” to call such activities “responsibilities” due to their voluntary or discretionary nature (p. 505). In this respect, philanthropy is not considered a “duty or social responsibility” of business, but something that is merely “desirable” or beyond what duty requires (p. 506). Instead, they suggested subsuming the “philanthropic/discretionary” category under ethical and/or economic responsibilities, reflecting the possible differing motivations for philanthropic activities. In this new model, a three-domain approach is presented in which the three core domains of economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities are depicted in a Venn framework. The Venn framework yields seven CSR categories resulting from the overlap of the three core domains. Figure 17.1 demonstrates a visual and conceptual development of Carroll’s pyramid model. By using a Venn diagram instead of a hierarchical pyramid, Schwartz and Carroll (2003) attempted to address one of the main criticisms of the Pyramid of CSR and emphasized that “none of the three CSR domains (i.e., economic, legal, or ethical) is prima facie more important or significant relative to the others” (p. 508). As such, this reconceptualization of CSR notes the economic motives of corporate activities in nature and emphasizes the overlapping nature of the domains. Despite of Schwartz and Carroll’s attempts to transform the pyramid model into a three-domain Venn diagram, this effort was theoretically underdeveloped and wasn’t well accepted by management scholars. Revisiting the four-part definitional framework of CSR, Carroll (2016) in his article, “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look” revisited his Pyramid of CSR and further explained each of these responsibilities in the model. Of importance, taking on ethical responsibilities implies that organizations will embrace those activities, norms, standards, and practices that even though they are not codified into law are expected nonetheless. And, corporate philanthropy includes all forms of business giving, embracing business’s voluntary or discretionary activities. These activities are voluntary or discretionary and they are guided by business’s desire to participate in social activities that are not mandated, not required by law, and not generally expected of business in an ethical sense. Finally, Carroll (2016) identified four strong drivers of CSR in the last two decades: globalization, institutionalization, reconciliation with profitability, and academic proliferation. The impacts of new communication technologies on shaping CSR were not discussed in this paper. The review of the relevant literature on the theoretical development of the Pyramid of CSR suggests that although the model (Carroll, 1979, 1991) provided a preliminary foundation for theory and practice, the model falls short to explain the dynamic, nonlinear, and complex relationships between business and society. Despite Carroll’s several attempts to refine the model, the conceptual structure of CSR remains to be abstract and the relations between its elements are elusive. The pyramid model is based on a hierarchy of separate responsibilities and the scope of the responsibilities is limited. Building upon a linear framework, the model views discretionary responsibilities as an add-on voluntary corporate behavior that are left to the choice of managers. The pandemic has added a new layer of complexity to the relationships between corporations and stakeholders. To better understand the evolving responsibilities of businesses to society, the following case study illustrates the ways in which corporations rationalize and communicate their COVID-19 responses to stakeholders (Table 17.1).

212

213

Economic Responsibilities

Legal Responsibilities

Ethical Responsibilities

Discretionary Responsibilities

Be profitable

Obey laws & Regulations

Do what is just and fair, Avoid harm Ethical Responsibilities

Philanthropic Responsibilities

Economic Responsibilities

Required by society

Required by society

Expected by society

Desired by society

Legal Responsibilities

Be a good corporate citizen

Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR (1991)

Figure 17.1 The visual and conceptual development of Carroll’s CSR model

TOTAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Carroll’s (1979) Social Responsibility

(i) Purely Economic

(v) Economic/ Legal

(ii) Purely Legal

(vi) Legal/ Ethical (vii) Economic/ Legal/Ethical

(iv) Economic/ Ethical

(iii) Purely Ethical

The Three-Domain Model of Corporate Social Responsibility

Schwartz and Carroll’s (2003) ThreeDomain Approach to CSR

CSR Global Fortune 100

Nur Uysal Table 17.1 The conceptual evolution of the Pyramid of CSR model Journal articles

Main points

Carroll (1979) “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance”. Academy of Management Review

Three major questions: (1) What is included in corporate social responsibility? (2) What are the social issues the organization must address? and (3) What is the organization’s philosophy or mode of social responsiveness? The original four-part framework: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary Pyramid of CSR: A hierarchy of CSR domains by stipulating that the economic and legal domains are the most fundamental while philanthropic responsibilities are considered less important than the other three domains. Stakeholder/responsibility matrix. Three moral types and orientations toward stakeholder groups. The CSR concept transitioned significantly to alternative themes such as stakeholder theory, business ethics theory, CSP, and corporate citizenship. The impacts of globalization, emerging technologies. A three-domain approach is presented in which the three core domains of economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities are depicted in a Venn framework. None of the three CSR domains (i.e., economic, legal, or ethical) is prima facie more important subsuming the “philanthropic/discretionary” category under ethical and/or economic responsibilities. Missing characteristics: ethics permeates the pyramid; tensions and tradeoffs inherent; it’s integrated, unified whole; it’s sustainable. stakeholder framework, and; its global applicability and use in different contexts. Ethics should also be seen as a factor which cuts through and saturates the entire pyramid.

Carroll (1991) “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders”. Business Horizons

Carroll (1999) “Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct”. Business and Society

Schwartz and Carroll (2003) “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach”. Business Ethics Quarterly

Carroll (2016) “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look”. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility

COVID-19 Response Communication of Global Fortune 100: A Case Study For the case study, a purposive sample of the top 100 corporations from the 2020 Global Fortune 500 list was constructed (https://fortune.com/global500/2020/). This sample was chosen because Fortune 500 companies are authoritative global actors (O’Connor & Gronewold 2013) and their communicative practices are often mimicked by other organizations (Lock & Schulz-Knappe, 2019; O’Connor & Shumate, 2010). Among the 100 corporations, 35% of them were from the United States followed by 23% from China, 8% from Japan, and 7% from Germany. The major industries included in this study were financial services (n = 20), foreign government (n = 19), crudepetroleum oil (n = 15), and automobiles and motor vehicles. In terms of the tenure on the list, the mean for the companies’ years in the list is 20.45 ranging from 2 to 26 years on the list. The analysis

214

CSR Global Fortune 100

focused on corporate websites as they are the main tools for CSR communication (Du & Vieira, 2012; O’Connor & Shumate, 2010). In particular, during COVID-19 pandemic, the prominence of corporate website communication has increased to keep stakeholders informed and engaged (Nguyen et al., 2020). The analysis consisted of two phases. First, the websites of the corporations in the sample were coded based on their CSR communication such as what they called to their CSR policies and programs, whether they published updated CSR reports, and locations of their CSR communication. Second, a qualitative analysis of corporate pandemic response messages conducted to study how corporations frame and position their COVID-19 pandemic response in relation to their CSR commitment. In this study, corporate pandemic response is defined as a communicative message that corporations use to describe their activities to address the consequences of the pandemic and their justifications for those activities. This study utilized a qualitative content analysis to systematically examine corporations’ messages describing their pandemic responses to the stakeholders (Miles et al., 2014). The COVID-19 response messages analyzed in this study ranged in length from one paragraph to several pages. A study sample was constructed deriving all the pandemic response communication text by each company in the list. A total of 3962 lines of singlespaced data were collected. The study sample was then analyzed line-by-line to develop a working schema based on Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of CSR, and then the CSR categories (e.g., community; employee relations; diversity, equity, and inclusion) well-established in the management literature (Dean & Sharfman, 1996). The schema was modified and refined based on subsequent reviews (Miles et al., 2014), identifying the words and phrases corporations used to describe and justify their activities in response to the pandemic.

Insights from the Case Study Analysis: CSR Communication during COVID-19 Pandemic The majority of the companies in the sample (64%) published a form of CSR report in 2020, which suggests that CSR reports have become a norm across the industries even during times of uncertainty. Given that 2020 has been a challenging year for these companies due to the pandemic, it is a positive sign for institutionalizing CSR reports within organizations. The majority of CSR communication (63%) was located on the homepage of the corporate websites in the sample. In other instances, this communication was accessible two clicks away (28%) and three clicks away (3%) under the “About Us” or “Investor Relations” sections. It is important to note that out of 23 Chinese companies in the global Fortune 100 list, six of them (almost ¼) don’t present any CSR information on their company websites (State Grid, SAIC Motor, China National Offshore Oil, China Mobile Communications, China Post Group, China Minerals). The terms to describe CSR policies and activities have proliferated over the years (O’Connor & Ihlen, 2018). Findings reveal that companies in the sample have used a variety of titles to describe their CSR activities. Among Fortune Global 100 companies, “sustainability” was the most popular term to describe their CSR commitment followed by “social responsibility” (13%), “corporate social responsibility/CSR” (12%), and “ESG” (10%). In particular, the title “Sustainability” was common among European companies (Germany, France, and the Netherlands) as well as Japanese companies (seven out of eight Japanese companies). Chinese companies preferred to communicate their CSR activities under the “Social Responsibility” title, dropping the “Corporate” part (n = 10). Similarly, three Russian companies in the top 100 list preferred to call their CSR activities “Social Responsibility” and “Sustainability”. Figure 17.2 shows titles corporations in the sample used to describe their CSR programs. All of the companies with CSR communication (n = 94) identified multiple stakeholder groups that directly benefited from CSR activities on their CSR landing pages. Following Freeman’s (1984)

215

Nur Uysal Apple Values 1.0% Corporate Citizenship 2.0% Corporate Responsibility 9.0 % Corporate Social Resp... 5.0% CSR 6.0% Environment & Society 1.0%

No Name 6.0% Sustainable Development 1.0%

Sustainability 29.0%

ESG 6.0% Impact 2.0% Responsibility 3.0% Social Impact 2.0%

Social Responsibility 12.0%

Figure 17.2 Titles used by Global Fortune 100 to describe CSR

Patients 2.3% Young People (Students) 2.0% Shareholders 2.3% Arts/Cultural Organizat... 1.3%

Employees 23.3%

Communities 18.7%

Citizens 2.7%

The environment 25.7%

Customers 12.7%

Figure 17.3 Beneficiaries (stakeholders) mentioned in the CSR communication

well-established definition, in this study the term stakeholder refers to “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). The most frequently mentioned aspect of CSR was the environment (n = 77) followed by employees (n = 70 instances). “Employees” was the most mentioned stakeholder group with agency. Employees were generally referred to as “Our People” and were presented the key beneficiaries of “protection” and “corporate support”. Other stakeholder groups mentioned in the CSR communication included “communities” (n = 56) and “customers” (n = 38). Figure 17.3 shows the most frequently mentioned beneficiaries in the CSR communication.

216

CSR Global Fortune 100 help

spread supply

global

continue

provide

work

one

financial relations people world billion rights crisis human

efforts

2020 customers communities first

challenges medical

need 000

including

year

covid-19 energy

social care

environment

resources inclusion

services

community

employee health safety

response needs

million

coronavirus working

new

emergency

around

business impacted

pandemic

economic

countries

support

employees

unprecedented

Figure 17.4 Common words and phrases in corporate pandemic response communication

Creating a Corporate Pandemic Response Discourse The analysis suggests that a corporate consensus exists regarding the scope of and rationale for corporate pandemic response. Further, findings reveal three primary approaches in how corporations frame their role: (1) as a “partner” or “ally” in this global “fight” against the pandemic; (2) as a “socially responsible citizen”, “supporting” the safety and well-being of the community; and finally, (3) as a “protector” of employees, caring for their mental and physical well-being. Companies stressed that they have “resources” and “competencies” to fight against the impacts and they are “adaptive” and “resilient”. While these communication frames employed by top global corporations are questionable in terms of their intended outcomes and actual impacts, corporate websites serve as a symbolic and vital communication tool that will potentially construct a public discourse on the COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 17.4 presents a word cloud figure that highlights the most commonly used words and phrases in corporate pandemic response communication. Although environmental responsibility has been the main focus of CSR communication (Uysal, 2018; Verk et al., 2021), the pandemic discourse has shifted the focus from the “environmental” aspect of CSR to the well-being of employees and the community at large. Only a few companies mentioned the environment in their pandemic responses.

Employees as the Main Beneficiary of Pandemic Response: “Protecting Our Employees” Employees were the most frequently mentioned stakeholder group in the corporate responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies in the sample mentioned employees as their “top priority”. The most common phrase in the employee response statements was to “protect our employees” (n = 28). For example, Cardinal Health, an American multinational health care services company, stated: “As the global pandemic unfolded, we moved quickly to protect the health and safety of our employees”. Similarly, Exor, a holding company incorporated in the Netherlands, explained: “In a year dominated by the global pandemic, health and safety took on an even greater significance as we strived to maintain a safe workplace for all of our employees”. A number of companies put a human face and shared the number of employee deaths due to the pandemic. For example, Royal Dutch Shell, an Anglo-Dutch multinational oil and gas company noted:

217

Nur Uysal

The COVID-19 pandemic made 2020 a deeply challenging year. Tragically, it led to the deaths of 20 of our Shell colleagues, painful evidence of the gravity of the situation in many parts of the world. […] We, at Shell, have been playing our part. We took additional steps to make workplaces safe for staff and contractors, and to maintain energy supplies. (https://www.shell. com/sustainability.html) While companies stated their commitment to “protecting” their employees, their communication fell short on the specific actions (e.g., childcare, flexible work) that they implemented in response. For example, Amazon, which has been recently criticized for its lack of employee care and protection, stated that “since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have worked nonstop to make hundreds of changes to our operational processes to protect the health of our employees” without providing further details. Only three companies (Prudential, Allianz, and Cardinal Health) mentioned about the mental and physical health well-being of employees and outlined their specific responses to support and protect their employees. For example, Prudential Financial Inc., an American company providing insurance, investment management, explained: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Prudential has taken extensive steps to care for the health and safety of our teammates, including expanding and enhancing employee benefits and resources such as free mental health resources for employees and family members, online wellness resources, and child and dependent care benefits. Allianz, a German multinational financial services company, discussed their “support” for employees suffering from mental and health issues and claimed that “topics like well-being, safety and mental health, teleworking and work-life balance have become priorities”.

“Supporting the Communities” We Live and Work The analysis showed that community was the second most mentioned stakeholder group (n = 56) in the CSR communication of the sample. The most common phrase in the community response statement was to “support our communities” (n = 45). In analyzing the frames of linking corporate responses to CSR, it is clear that the “protecting” and “supporting” the communities where companies work and live was the main theme. Exor Group noted: “As the global pandemic spread, protecting the health and safety of our people and the communities in which we work was an urgent priority”. This line of corporate pandemic response focused on philanthropic activities such as donating masks or hand sanitizers. For example, Costco listed philanthropic activities: “In FY20, we donated and/or provided at cost hospitals and government agencies with masks, hand sanitizers, surface wipes, gloves and personal care items to help them respond to COVID-19”. Only few specifically described how they utilized their resources and services to respond to the global pandemic. For example, in the petroleum and oil industry, Royal Dutch Shell described their specific donations: We increased production of isopropyl alcohol and donated it for hand-sanitizing liquid and used our global supply network to source masks and ventilators to address shortages in some communities where we work. We offered free fuel for ambulances and free food and drink in certain countries for emergency workers. We also donated to relief efforts, including $10 million to COVAX, the program working for equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.

218

CSR Global Fortune 100

Similarly, Exxon Mobil emphasized “adaptability” and “competencies” during the pandemic era and highlighted how they were able to provide help to the community using their resources. That adaptability was critically important in responding to the COVID-19 global pandemic. I am proud of the way our company and our people delivered assistance to governments, health care personnel and first responders around the world while safely providing an uninterrupted supply of vital energy products. We boosted production of isopropyl alcohol, the key ingredient in hand sanitizer, and polypropylene, critical for the manufacture of medical masks and surgical gowns. One of our U.S. manufacturing facilities even temporarily reconfigured its operations to directly manufacture hand sanitizer to meet increased demand. In the communications industry, Verizon pointed out how the company utilized its capability: This year’s coronavirus pandemic presented us with a new type of crisis as for the first time in modern history we witnessed most of our society shift to working and learning from home, testing our networks in new and unimaginable ways. We’re proud that for the first 90 days of the pandemic, we were able to maintain pre-COVID reliability levels, despite spikes and shifts in user demand. Additionally, Verizon’s industry-leading team of engineers and technicians were able to continue and even, in some cases, accelerate deployment of our 5G network. Taken collectively, top Fortune 100 companies in the sample framed their COVID-19 responses as part of their existing corporate responsibility prioritizing the well-being of employees and the communities in which they live and work. The CSR activities as response to the pandemic mainly included philanthropic activities (e.g., donations, free services). Companies also emphasized their role and responsibility for communities alongside the governments.

Redefining the Pyramid of CSR in Response to COVID-19 The pandemic environment has pushed corporations out of their comfort zones and charted new roles in protecting their employees, customers, suppliers, and communities while going beyond their economic, ethical, and legal responsibilities. As such, the categorical understanding of corporations’ responsibilities to society as outlined in Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR (1979, 1991) has been challenged. The lines among societal expectations, moral obligations, ethical responsibilities have blurred during the pandemic. Can we still categorize corporate philanthropic donations such as ventilators or masks as “voluntary” or “discretionary” responsibilities of business? What about the role of business in enforcing the vaccine mandate in some countries? Corporations are at a juxtaposition entangled with politics, societal expectations, and economic obligations. The increasing polarization, rapid technological change, the spread of disinformation, and empowered stakeholders yet add a further layer of complexity to the changing dynamics between business and society. Pyramid of CSR conceptually and practically falls short to explain the complex organization-stakeholder relationships in today’s environment. From its conception to its development over the years, the model is deeply grounded in a managerial view. Especially, in the early treatments of the model, the Pyramid of CSR was used as a tool to “manage” stakeholders than addressing their needs and interests through a co-creational approach. Carroll (1991) tends to use survey data from managers to develop his model, lacking insights from multiple stakeholder groups. Built upon a passive stakeholder assumption and a binary view of stakeholder, this model views corporations as the powerful side of the CSR equation. Today 219

Nur Uysal

the recent developments made it clear that stakeholders have a right to establish and enforce a balance of power among the institutions of society and to grant their legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). However, if stakeholders lose their “good faith and confidence” in an organization, it will lose its license to operate (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, p. 58). Recent studies in the management literature have emphasized this power shift to stakeholders (Agle et al., 1999; Freeman, 1984). Despite the advancement of the stakeholder perspective in the last decades, Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR lags behind to integrate heterogeneous and at times competing stakeholder demands into its (re)conceptualization. During the pandemic, we witnessed how quickly employees can turn into activists. For example, thousands of Amazon workers protested the company for its sick pay policy and COVID-19 protections (Thomson & Day, 2020). The pyramid model fails to capture the fluidity of stakeholder roles and to provide a roadmap to address the competing expectations of stakeholders during the times of uncertainty and crisis. As the spread of COVID-19 caused upheaval in just about every aspect of society and has highlighted the deep social inequities, DEI is becoming even more of a top priority for corporations. While diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has been recognized as an essential component of CSR in strategic communication (Hon & Brunner, 2000; Uysal, 2013), the Pyramid of CSR lacks the conceptual development to include CSR as part of the four responsibility domains in the model. The findings from the case study demonstrated that a part of corporate pandemic discourse created by American companies focused on DEI and discussed “inclusive recovery”. About 10% of the companies in the sample (n = 11) mentioned DEI in relation to their COVID-19 pandemic responses. In this context, companies emphasized disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on the Black and Latino communities and women. For example, Walmart stated: The events of 2020, including racial violence in the U.S. and COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on communities of color and women, serve as a further call to action for everyone, including companies, to work for greater equity and inclusion within their own operations and across society. Cardinal Health pointed out the diverse communities and employees disproportionately facing the COVID-19 impacts: As the pandemic has affected all of our lives, it has also highlighted deep inequities among people of color in the United States. Blacks, African Americans and Latino Americans are more likely to get COVID-19 and, according to a new survey from the Commonwealth Fund, they are facing greater mental health and economic challenges due to the pandemic than white Americans. Alphabet Inc., an American multinational technology conglomerate holding company and parent company of Google focused on women: “COVID-19 strained well-being and burdened caregivers, many of whom are women”. Anthem, an American health insurance provider, reported its donations: COVID-19 and recent social unrest have highlighted racial inequities and health disparities that have long plagued our communities. Because we are committed to, connected to, and invested in our communities, Anthem has pledged $100 million—half to respond to COVID-19 and the other half to focus on social injustice and health inequities. Adding “LGBTQ” component, the German multinational financial company Allianz, also emphasized the importance of DEI during this difficult time: “Diversity and inclusion has become even 220

CSR Global Fortune 100

more relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted minority groups such as women, LGBT+ employees and people of color”. CSR is a moving target – always changing, evolving, and adapting to the needs and expectations of the society. Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR framework inherently suggests a hierarchal approach to understanding the four responsibilities of business. The pyramid model visually presents rigid boundaries among economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities, when, in fact, expectations of society from businesses are fluid and elusive. In particular, the lines between ethical responsibilities and corporate philanthropy have blurred during the pandemic. Accordingly, ethical responsibilities imply that organizations will embrace those activities, norms, standards, and practices that even though they are not codified into law, are expected nonetheless. On the other hand, corporate philanthropy embraces business’s voluntary or discretionary activities. These activities are voluntary or discretionary and they are guided by business’s desire to participate in social activities that are not mandated, not required by law, and not generally expected of business in an ethical sense (Carroll, 2016). During the pandemic, corporations found themselves at a unique position. They not only donated ventilators and masks, but also used their capacities and resources to manufacture them. Further, business has been at the center of the government’s vaccine mandate, forcing millions of workers to get vaccinations. As states currently remove their mask mandates, corporations have to make decisions on this controversial issue. These activities are difficult to categorize under Carroll’s ethical or corporate philanthropy domains.

Toward a Relational and Communicative CSR The pandemic has highlighted the importance of networks and mutually dependent relationship among the three main types of organizations – for-profit, non-profit, and government. Particularly, when the government was absent, the public expected businesses to step in and fill the void (Pew Research Center, 2021). MNCs felt the dire need to restructure their relationships with other players in various ecosystems. To address the economic, social, political, and psychological ramifications of the pandemic, MNCs collaborated with a diverse range of organizations to enact their CSR activities that usually went beyond the traditional domains of responsibilities in the Pyramid of CSR. We can describe these efforts as “Collaborative CSR”. In the age of networks (Castells, 2009; Latour, 2005), collaborative CSR replaces CSR activities that were solely initiated and implemented by corporations. Collaboration can sometimes be the most important form of CSR. However, the Pyramid of CSR model fails to explain this aspect of social responsibility. An increase in the diversity of societal actors, issues, and highly digitalized media is leading to a further intensification and sophistication in the collaborative CSR initiatives, which in turn, creates a corresponding need for more sophisticated analyses of the relational dynamics between business and society. This observation suggests that, to keep pace with these trends, new conceptual lenses are needed for understanding CSR with a focus on relational approaches. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a “relational turn” in understanding the dynamics in CSR. To gain a wider perspective, this chapter proposes using “relationalism” as an analytical lens to explore the relational dynamics between MNCs and stakeholders. Grounded in social psychology (Kashima & Hardie, 2000) and sociology (Emirbayer, 1997), relationalism focuses on relationships and prioritizes a relational perspective between specific parties. As a methodological perspective, relationalism is also used in international relations studies (Howard, 2010). Methodological relationalism is a meta-theoretical perspective that is parallel to methodological individualism and methodological holism (Ritzer & Gindoff, 1992). Going beyond a binary view of relationships, relationalism offers a more nuanced perspective of relations, as well as the complexity of relational dynamics that may occur among multiple parties. Thus, relationalism may help address some of the limitations found in the conceptualization of CSR as developed in the management literature. 221

Nur Uysal

Indeed, a significant limitation in the Pyramid of CSR lies in the conception of discrete, static relationships between corporations and stakeholders. This managerial approach does not capture the potentially complex interactions within the network of corporate-stakeholder relationships that have been further intertwined during the pandemic. In a wired world transformed by globalization and new communication technologies, stakeholders often interact, cooperate, and form alliances with other stakeholders and organizations. Therefore, a conceptual lens that covers the full range of relations between MNCs and stakeholders is likely to contribute to theorizing efforts in CSR. Finally, what appears to be missing from the pyramid model is a fuller understanding of how dramatically digital media and networked communication technologies are changing not just CSR communication strategies, but the relational dynamics between stakeholders and corporations and what CSR means in modern society. The new communication technologies and digital media have made the world open, fast, and dynamic. Stakeholders have seized upon the power of the social media and have become parallel players in defining and redefining the relational dynamics between corporations and stakeholders. As such, stakeholders are equal players in (re)defining what being socially responsible for a corporation entails. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a relational turn in CSR theory and practice, presenting an opportunity for scholars and practitioners to place communication at the center of any CSR models. Communication is not an add-on; it is a corporate social responsibility. In other words, without communication, there is no corporate social responsibility. Hoff-Clausen and Ihlen (2015) discussed the notion of rhetorical citizenship and argued that communication is a set of practices in which social responsibility must be enacted. From this view, citizenship is a discursive phenomenon as “participation and debate are crucial to being a citizen, and rhetoric is at the heart of this process” (p. 3). Therefore, any CSR model without a communicative approach is incomplete. MNCs are one of the most influential societal actors (O’Connor et al., 2017), having greater political and economic power than many nation states in the world (Ballor & Yildirim, 2020). Their corporate behaviors are mimicked by many other organizations. As such, MNCs can co-create the meaning of CSR and reshape the discourse on what it means for organizations to be socially responsible at a given time. The co-creating meaning through discursive action is a fluid and dialogic process, inviting parties to participate in the realities that it represents (Breeze, 2013). In a way, the agents who participate in this dialogic process can introduce new representations or reinterpret older ones. Corporations define the structures, roles, and values of this constructed discourse upon which the meaning will be negotiated and co-created through the participation of stakeholders (Breeze, 2013). Corporate discourse carries institutional logic and transforms into a new reality independent of senders and recipients (Lammers, 2011). Weber and Glynn (2006) explain that institutions prime the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences in three ways: first, they “serve up a limited register of typifications (words) that can be used to construct a course of action”; second, “institutionalized attention structures prime people to start with certain words”; and third, “institutionalized conventions about grammar and syntax underlie the winnowing effect of early words” (p. 1649). Some words and themes are more likely to appear than others in corporations’ response messages to the pandemic. The findings from the case study suggested that MNCs created a collective “corporate pandemic response discourse” as part of their CSR.

Future Research The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the interplay between business and society highlighting a relational turn and posed the important question of what CSR actually means in the new postpandemic world. Moving forward, a fragmented and linear understanding of CSR falls short of capturing the fluidity and complexity of the concept in a globally interconnected environment where the roles and responsibilities of organizational entities (e.g., for-profit, non-profit, 222

CSR Global Fortune 100

governments) have converged and become tangled. A relational and communicative approach to understanding CSR offers several directions for future research. First, during the pandemic, MNCs have gained greater prominence due to their vast resources and global reach (Gereffi, 2020). They were expected to step up when governments were failing to adequately address the pandemic challenges and take the lead in forming collaborations with various types of organizations. From a network approach, research should continue this line of inquiry on cross-sectoral and corporate-non-profit partnerships (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010). MNCs’ challenges of operating within and across different societies highlight the political and cultural aspects of CSR. Coupled with rising cultural, political, and economic populism, the pandemic has highlighted the distinction between MNCs’ local responsiveness versus local presence – a deep understanding of the identities and local contexts constructed through integrated local relationships (Lorenzen et al., 2020). CSR efforts during the pandemic went beyond the dichotomous global integration/local responsiveness (GL/LR) framework in the management literature (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). If the ability to communicate represents a form of power (Castells, 2007, 2009), the relational power dynamic has moved away from corporations to stakeholders. Current theories of CSR cannot adequately address the complexity of this new reality. One way to expand theorizing efforts in CSR is to bring in a critical cultural studies approach. Future research in CSR communication should develop theoretical lenses that will place identity at the locus of CSR research and help explain the complex power dynamics between (and among) corporations and social media empowered and networked stakeholders. Second, MNCs are authoritative actors in CSR (O’Connor et al., 2017). The pandemic has dramatically changed the societal and business environments in which MNCs operate, and MNCs have both responded to and actively shaped this evolving environment. As discussed earlier, CSR is a socially constructed concept, co-created through discursive activities. As such, they are in a power position to construct and shape the discourse on what it actually means to be socially responsible. Combining a rhetorical perspective (O’Connor & Ihlen, 2018) with a network approach (O’Connor & Shumate, 2018; Yang & Taylor, 2015; Uysal & Yang, 2013), studies should analyze the ways in which these large established entities co-create a new CSR discourse as they redefine their expanded role in post-pandemic society. Additionally, recent research has highlighted the “dark side of globalization” and provided evidence that MNCs suffered financially more than purely domestics corporations during the stock market crisis caused by the pandemic (Guedhami et al., 2021). It will be interesting to further explore the popular “win-win” and “creating shared value” discourse in CSR communication (Porter & Kramer, 2011) in the context of social versus economic benefits debate. Third, the pandemic has highlighted the theoretical and practical linkages between CSR and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Several scholars in strategic communication have long argued that DEI should be part of CSR (Hon & Brunner, 2000; Uysal, 2013), and recent research has shown a positive impact of DEI as a component of CSR on corporate brands (Laskin & Kresic, 2021). The findings from the case study demonstrated that DEI issues, such as disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on Black and Latinx communities in the United States, were an essential component of MNCs’ CSR efforts during the pandemic. With a focus on social justice, future research should focus on the new linkages between CSR and DEI that will continue to evolve in the post-pandemic world. Some issues at this intersection include the challenges of hybrid workplace, work and life balance, gender inequalities, identity, and artificial intelligence. Finally, this chapter argued that CSR has evolved from its categorical four-part definition in the Pyramid of CSR model to a more relational and communicative understanding of the responsibilities of corporations in the post-pandemic society. Moving beyond managerial frameworks, the future of theory building in CSR lies in the critical and relational approaches. Methodological relationalism can provide a lens for better understanding what the relational turn in CSR means with 223

Nur Uysal

a greater focus on the fluid network of corporate-stakeholder relationships. Stakeholders are increasingly networked, interconnected, and empowered. Social issues are diverse, complex, and controversial. CSR is socially constructed and co-created through participatory discourse. CSR scholarship may still be corporate-based, but it is not necessarily corporate-controlled anymore. In corporate communication theory, if not in practice, with the paradigm shift of the nature of stakeholders from passive to active, participatory stakeholders have been acknowledged in recent years. Future research should continue building on this momentum and develop CSR theories that reflect this paradigm shift.

Conclusion The goal of this chapter is to revisit the Pyramid of CSR model in light of the recent societal changes and to examine what CSR means for MNCs during a global pandemic. CSR is a moving target constantly redefined by the relational dynamics between corporations and stakeholders. The COVID-19 pandemic has not just introduced a disturbing health crisis, but it has caused critical economic, social, political, and psychological ramifications around the globe. Against this backdrop, CSR has reemerged as a potential catalyst to re-define the symbiotic relationship between business and society. A relational approach to CSR can further our understanding of stakeholders as powerful partners in co-creating the meaning of CSR in today’s open, fast, and dynamic world. As the power of MNCs increases, so does the power of their stakeholders. Most of the management literature treats CSR as a managerial concept, assuming passive stakeholders and placing corporations at the center of theory-building. CSR communication research and theory should advance a relational and communicative approach to understanding the responsibilities of corporations to society characterized by open communication, speedy information (and disinformation), and social-mediaempowered and interconnected stakeholders. Such an approach will capture the fluidity of the relational dynamics between business and society.

Discussion Questions 1 2

3 4

What are the newly emerging and still amorphous responsibilities of businesses in the postpandemic society? Research indicates differences in CSR communication across cultures (e.g., Crane & Matten, 2007). What would be some of the cultural differences in the context of corporate pandemic response communication? In which sectors (if any) will MNCs continue engaging in initiatives to address pandemic challenges? In which CSR activities can MNCs create increased value through local presence and commitment to the identity?

References Agle, B. R., R. K. Mitchell, & J. A., Sonnenfeld, (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525. Agudelo, M. A. L., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Davídsdóttir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1), 1–23. Ballor, G. A., & Yildirim, A. B. (2020). Multinational corporations and the politics of international trade in multidisciplinary perspective. Business and Politics, 22(4), 573–586.

224

CSR Global Fortune 100 Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press. Breeze, R. (2013). Corporate discourse. Bloomsbury. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268–295. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1), 1–8. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business cases for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85–105. Castells, M. (2007). Communication power and counter-power in the networked society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford University Press. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Dean, J. W., Jr., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368–396. 10.2307/256784 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Du, S., & Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413–427. Edelman. (2020). The 2020 Edelman trust barometer spring update: Trust and the Covid-19 pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/research/trust-2020-spring-update Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. 10.1086/ 231209 Forcadell, F. J., Úbeda, F., & Aracil, E. (2021). Effects of environmental corporate social responsibility on innovativeness of Spanish industrial SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120355. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–98. Gentile, E. (2021). Politics as religion. Princeton University Press. Gereffi, G. (2020). What does the COVID-19 pandemic teach us about global value chains? The case of medical supplies. Journal of International Business Policy, 3(3), 287–301. Goldenziel, J. (March 6, 2022). Corporations can’t afford to stay out of Russia’s war. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillgoldenziel/2022/03/06/corporations-cant-afford-to-stay-out-of-russiaswar-in-ukraine/?sh=5ad8d1831fcb Golub, U., Verk, N., Ellerup-Nielsen, A., Thomsen, C., Elving, W. J. L., & Podnar, K. (2017). The communicative stance of CSR: Reflections on the value of CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(2), 166–177. Guedhami, O., Knill, A. M., Megginson, W. L., & Senbet, L. W. (2021). The dark side of globalization: Evidence from the impact of COVID-19 on multinational companies. Available at SSRN 3868449. He, H., & Harris, L. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of Business Research, 116, 176–182. Hoff-Clausen, E., & Ihlen, Ø. (2015). The rhetorical citizenship of corporations in the digital age. In A. Adi, D. Crowther, & G. Grigore (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in the digital age (pp. 25–45). Emerald. Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. (2000). Diversity issues and public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(4), 309–340. 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1204_2 Howard, P. (2010). Triangulating debates within the field: Teaching international relations research methodology. International Studies Perspectives, 11(4), 393–408. Ihlen, Ø. (2008). Mapping the environment for corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders, publics and the public sphere. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(2), 135–146.

225

Nur Uysal Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. John Wiley & Sons, 3–22. Jensen, N. (2008). Political risk, democratic institutions, and foreign direct investm ent. The Journal of Politics, 70(4), 1040–1052. Ji, Y. G., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2021). Theoretical insights of CSR research in communication from 1980 to 2018: A bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(2), 1–23. Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 19–48. 10.1111/1467-839X.00053 Lammers, J. C. (2011). How institutions communicate: Institutional messages, institutional logics, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 154–182. 10.1177/0893318910389280 Laskin, A. V., & Kresic, K. (2021). Inclusion as a component of CSR and a brand connection strategy. In Public relations for social responsibility. Emerald Publishing Limited. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. Lock, I., & Schulz-Knappe, C. (2019). Credible corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication predicts legitimacy: Evidence from an experimental study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 2–20. Lorenzen, M., Mudambi, R., & Schotter, A. (2020). International connectedness and local disconnectedness: MNE strategy, city-regions and disruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(8), 1199–1222. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Nguyen, T., Pham, T., Le, Q., &Bui, T. (2020). Impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment through organizational trust and organizational identification. Management Science Letters, 10(14), 3453–3462. O’Connor, A., & Gronewold, K. L. (2013). Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the petroleum industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 210–236. O’Connor, A., & Ihlen, Ø. (2018). A rhetorical approach to corporate social responsibility. In Ihlenand, O., & Heath, R. (Eds), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication, 401–416. Wiley Publishing. O’Connor, A., Parcha, J. M., & Tulibaski, K. L. (2017). The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility communication: An intra-industry comparison of MNCs’ and SMEs’ CSR reports. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 503–532. O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 529–551. O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2018). A multidimensional network approach to strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 399–416. Pew Research Center (2021, May 17). Americans see broad responsibilities for government; little change since 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/americans-see-broad-responsibilitiesfor-government-littlechange-since-2019/ Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: Redefining capitalism and the role of the corporation in society. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77. Ritzer, G., & Gindoff, P. (1992). Methodological relationism: Lessonsforand from social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 128–140. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530. Segal, E. (January 21, 2021). How companies can partner with governments to distribute covid vaccine efficiently and effectively. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsegal/2021/01/21 Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California management review, 17(3), 58–64. Shayan, N., Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N., Alavi, S., & Zahed, M. (2022). Sustainable development goals (SDGs) as a framework for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Sustainability, 14, 1222. 10.3390/su14031222. Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 577–609. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Chicago.

226

CSR Global Fortune 100 Thomson, A., & Day, M. (November 27, 2020). Amazon workers protests Black Friday during COVID-19. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2020/11/27/amazon-workers-protests-black-friday-covid19/ Uysal, N. (2013). Shifting the paradigm: Diversity communication on corporate web sites. Public Relations Journal, 7(2), 8–36. Uysal, N. (2018). On the relationship between dialogic communication and corporate social performance: Advancing dialogic theory and research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(3), 100–114. Verk, N., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2021). A dynamic review of the emergence of corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3), 491–515. Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27, 1639–1660. Wicke, P., & Bolognesi, M. M. (2020). Framing COVID-19: How we conceptualize and discuss the pandemic on Twitter. PloS One, 15(9), e0240010. Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2015). Looking over, looking out, and moving forward: Positioning public relations in theorizing organizational network ecologies. Communication Theory, 25(1), 91–115. Yang, A., Uysal, N., & Taylor, M. (2018). Unleashing the power of networks: Shareholder activism, sustainable development and corporate environmental policy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(6), 712–727.

227

18 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SIZED FAST-GROWTH PRIVATE FIRMS: HOW IS CSR CONCEIVED, ENACTED, AND COMMUNICATED? Peggy Cunningham

Introduction The study of the private, small- and medium-sized, private firms (private SMEs) helped address three neglected questions: (1) Do private SMEs think about and enact corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives? (2) How do CSR programs (if any) affect employees of these firms? and (3) How is CSR communicated by the private SMEs? When addressing these questions, Carroll’s (1991) definition of CSR was used because it is comprehensive, widely accepted, and cited. Carroll defined CSR as encompassing four responsibilities that must be enacted simultaneously: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic). Carroll illustrated the responsibilities using a four-tiered pyramid. The responsibilities are determined by the expectations of society at a given point in time. Carroll also stressed that a consideration of stakeholders and sustainability is inseparable from CSR. Despite the fact that almost 99% of the firms in North America are privately held (Oberlo, 2022), little is known about them or their CSR initiatives. In addition, most studies examining the impact of businesses’ CSR efforts have looked beyond the boundaries of the firm to external stakeholders, such as consumers or regulators (Ramasamy et al., 2010). Studies examining the impact of CSR on internal stakeholders (i.e., employees), are far less common (Hejjas et al., 2019). The lack of research emphasis on employees is significant because it is a firm’s employees who are responsible for the design and implementation of CSR programs (Quinson, 2020). Employees’ behavior with regard to CSR hinges not only on their own motivations and ethical tendencies, but also on their interactions with their peers and superiors (Carmeli et al., 2017). As insiders, employees are often viewed as highly credible CSR spokespersons who talk to important groups like customers, suppliers, and retailers (Schaefer et al., 2019). McAlexander et al. (2002) noted that “customers crave audience with the people [employees] behind the brand” (p. 50). Surprisingly, despite the importance of employees to the success of firms’ CSR iniatives, employees’ awareness of their companies’ CSR activities is often low, and research has shown that communicating CSR to employees

228

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-22

CSR in SMEs

is a delicate matter since sceptism can arise if employees believe that CSR initiatives are manipulative, deceptive, or undertaken solely for self-serving reasons (Du et al., 2010). The chapter is organized as follows. A description of private firms is provided followed by details of a study of 42 private SMEs. The findings from the study are outlined next. They focus on the values of the high-performing private SMEs and how values drive private SMEs’ CSR initiatives that fulfill Carroll’s (1991) four tiers of responsibilities. Examples of how values are enacted and communicated are also provided. The chapter closes with a short-discussion section, which suggests that private SME’s ethical values form the foundation of their pyramid of responsibilities, and that these firms take a constitutive perspective on CSR communication (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). A list of discussion questions concludes the chapter.

Private Firms Private firms are those that are owned by their founders, management, or private investors. Unlike public companies, they have not sold a portion of the company via public offering on a registered stock exchange. Since they don’t have to file disclosure statements with regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, less is known about them than is known about publicly traded firms. Private firms vary vastly in size. Some are tiny, consisting only of a founder and one or two employees; others are international giants like Cargil, Deloitte, or Bloomberg (Statista, 2019). The private, fast-growing SMEs in this study ranged in size from 1 to 499 employees. Compared with CSR programs undertaken by large corporations, little is known about CSR within SMEs, especially private SMEs. Exceptions include work by Baumann-Pauly et al., (2013) who found that SMEs may be as advanced in their implementation of CSR as are MNCs, may be more adept in engaging employees in their CSR efforts, but rarely meet complex reporting requirements. Spence (2016) is another exception. Her conceptual paper focused on small businesses with the aim of redrawing stakeholder theory and Carroll’s (1991) CSR pyramid using a feminist perspective (duty of care). Other research designed to explain the drivers of CSR in private SMEs has produced mixed findings. Type of ownership (Gioffré et al., 2021), type of customer (consumers versus businesses) (Li & Wu, 2020), type of venture capital (Zhu & Lu, 2020), and size (Zheng & Zhang, 2016) have all been noted as important reasons why CSR programs are undertaken by private firms.

The Private SME Study Forty-two in-depth interviews were undertaken with founders, owners, senior managers, and employees of fast-growing private SMEs that competed in international marketplaces. Only broad questions were asked to avoid leading informants. The firms that were part of the study came from a wide variety of industries including advertising, consulting, construction, consumer packaged goods, financial services, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, software-as-a-service, and transportation. This helped ensure that the data contained multiple perspectives (Fusch & Ness, 2015). The data was analyzed with the purpose of identifying common themes. Quotations from the interviews are provided with each theme to give the informants voice and to add credibility to the author’s interpretation of the data (see Cunningham, 2021, for a more detailed description of the study method).

Findings A number of factors were found to be drivers of the private SMEs’ growth and performance. Many of these explanations have been recognized in the literature (e.g., sufficient capital, visionary 229

Peggy Cunningham

leadership, successful innovation). What was striking, however, was that the high-performing private SMEs described values as the drivers of all their actions, including their CSR initiatives and their success. This finding is largely absent in the extant literature. None of the private SMEs used the term CSR, even though their actions fulfilled Carroll’s (1991) four tiers of responsibility. While many public and private firms espouse a set of values, few apply their values to all they do. This was not the case among the firms studied. Values were deeply embedded in the firms’ cultures and many of the informants stressed that if their values were to be viewed as authentic, they had to be “lived” every day by both managers and employees. A typical informant noted, When we talk about being values-driven … .it is important to get that together in a way that is authentic … you can’t fake authenticity for too long … you cannot come across as a snake oil person because your prospective team-mates, your current team mates and your clients know it is all about character … being the real thing. That it is authentic. Companies that authentically live their values have been labeled values-led companies, a concept that originated with Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream in the late 1990s (Cohen & Greenfield, 1998). While Maignan et al. (2005) defined business commitment to CSR as adoption of “values and norms along with organizational processes to minimize their negative impacts and maximize their positive impacts on important stakeholder issues” (p. 958), little research has focused on values as integral to CSR initiatives. Exceptions include the conceptual work of Baumgartner (2014) who developed a model integrating values, strategies, and instruments contributing to one aspect of CSR – sustainable development. Other studies have shown that managers’ personal values (versus values shared by everyone in the firm) have been found to drive CSR (e.g., Duarte, 2010) while religious values were found to influence consumer demand for CSR (Ramasamy et al., 2010; Shu et al., 2021). While it has long been recognized that senior managers play a critical role in shaping organizational values (e.g., Hambrick & Mason, 1984), the private SME study suggested that employees also lived the values and took ownership and stewardship of them. One typical founder described his firm’s values as being “negotiated” and becoming the “architecture” of his firm, noting, “The values should come first … that is what drives the vision and the mission. But people within the organization have to tell you what is important to them”. Long-term employees helped socialize new employees into living the private SMEs’ values. Stories about how the values were lived were often shared with new recruits. Long-standing employees were also quick to sanction any new employee who didn’t live the values. As many of the SMEs grew, employees expressed concern that their firms’ values would be lost. Everyone from the firms’ management teams to employees went to great lengths to preserve the values that were at the heart of the firms’ cultures. One co-owner of an investment firm, for example, described his sole role was being the “culture communicator” who constantly stressed and kept alive the values that were central to his firm’s culture and success. While there was some variance in the values described by the firms, the most common values underpinning the private SMEs’ fulfillment of Carroll’s four tiers of responsibility are described next along with examples of how the values were communicated.

Ethical Values – Honesty, Fairness, Integrity, and Transparency All of the firms spoke of and lived a set of ethical values. Doing this didn’t just fulfill the ethical tier of responsibility – the firms’ ethical values underpinned Carroll’s the entire framework suggesting that they were the foundation for the other responsibilities. In contrast, while Carroll noted that ethical values infused his pyramid, he suggested that economic responsibilities were foundational and formed the base of the pyramid. The private SMEs certainly did not neglect their economic 230

CSR in SMEs

responsibilities. They all had exceptional growth and profitability over a five-year period. They achieved these results, however, using their ethical values which made legal compliance an imperative for these firms. The private SMEs also had programs aimed at their discretionary responsibilities such as their community support and sustainability programs. In other words, the private SMEs fulfilled the four responsibilities essential to being responsible firms. While it was stressed repeatedly that the ethical values had to be lived, there was a difference in opinion about how values, including ethical values, should be communicated. Some founders stressed that it was their actions and embedding the values deeply in their cultures that communicated their values best. A founder of a communications firm put it this way: It is a hang up I have … some firms print their values … display them … that is a real sign of weakness … when you have to post what you are about … how you do things … when you have to put them in a frame and hang them on the wall, that is a sign of insincerity. In contrast, other SMEs used visible symbols to communicate their values. An owner of a service firm, for example, featured the following statement on his business cards and the company’s stationery: “Integrity will be evidenced in my character and action, and I will not tolerate among us anyone who does not adhere to these values of honesty, uprightness, soundness, and wholeness”. Another firm used a yellow bucket as its symbol. It was the only toilet available to the firm’s personnel early in its history. The bucket not only connected current employees to the humble beginnings of the firm, but its likeness was also modeled into the trophy that was given annually to the employee who best exemplified the firm’s ethical values. No matter what method was used, founders and senior managers of the private fast-growth SMEs went to great lengths to communicate their ethical values to the firm’s employees and external stakeholders. They did this personally whenever possible. For example, CEOs of many of the firms personally introduced the firm’s ethical values to new employees when on-boarding them. Many shared their financial statements with their employees. This not only demonstrated the value of transparency, but it also allowed employees to see how their work and commitment contributed to the firm’s success. Fairness and equity were enacted through policies and processes such as promotion-from-within (a tactic followed by 80% of these firms). Similarly, customers were treated fairly and with integrity. This helped the top private firms build strong, trusting relationships. The relationships were often so strong and trusting that proprietary information was freely shared. This enabled a deep understanding of each other’s businesses that often led to collaborative innovation between firms and their clients. Clients became a ready market for new products. This significantly reduced the fast-growth firms’ market risk and enhanced their economic outcomes. One informant put it this way: It is high risk developing and launching a new product. The risk drops considerably when it is your customer who helps you develop it. They become the first buyer. They validate the technology and help improve it. They act as test markets and ambassadors that encourage broader sales.

Care Members of the high-performing private SMEs spoke of their firms as organizations where people care deeply for each other, their customers, and their communities, and that care was “a prerequisite to all we do”. Many informants, senior managers, and line employees referred to their companies as

231

Peggy Cunningham

loving and caring families: “(Company name) is more than just a place to come to work; it’s a family. We look after each other”. Another founder added a caveat, however, “We’re like a family, but still not a family. The people who work together are not a family … you can’t get fired from a family. We are a team and a community”. Whether described as a family or a community, the private SMEs’ employees had a sense of belonging. The expressions of the value of care within the firms was very similar to what Gilligan (2011) labeled “the ethic of care”. She described it as starting from “the premise that as humans we are inherently relational, responsive beings and the human condition is one of connectedness and interdependence” (p. 1). She viewed people as empathetic, responsive, and hard wired for cooperation. With the exception of authors like Spence (2016), the responsibility to care for the well-being of internal and external stakeholders is often overlooked in discussions of CSR. Gilligan (1982) and Spence (2016) contended that a care-based morality arose from a feminist perspective. In contrast, they believed that a justice-based morality was found largely among men. The study of the private SMEs, however, suggested that both male and female founders adopted an ethic of care, which underpinned the firms’ enactment of their ethical, social, and economic responsibilities. Having an ethic of care may be a rare trait in an era where many firms regard employees as merely “human resources” similar to other factors of production. Care was communicated largely through actions and organizational amenities, not words alone. One firm consciously limited its production capacity and the number of orders it accepted so as not to overwork its staff. Another manufacturer of products that weighed thousands of pounds installed a massage room within the plant so all employees could get a free massage every week. Other firms focused on health and wellness programs for employees. These ranged from providing in-plant exercise facilities to in-company classes on nutrition or better sleep. When new and potentially dangerous equipment was installed and tested for the first time at another firm, the founder stood between the machine and his employees to demonstrate his care of his employees as well as his confidence in the equipment’s safety. At many of the private SMEs, care stretched to situations beyond the workplace. For example, employees were often given extra time off to resolve personal issues. One company gave a junior employee an airline ticket so she could travel across the country to support her critically ill mother. Others granted employees interest-free loans to help them overcome a personal challenge like a house fire. Narratives describing these types of caring acts (which some authors like McAlexander et al., 2002, have described as “ritual storytelling”) became deeply embedded in the firms’ cultures, and they were shared by word-of-mouth from one employee to another. One founder noted, “The narrative is what builds the confidence within the organization that we are trying to do the best we can”. When care was enacted and communicated in the above noted ways, it was seen as being deep and authentic. Care was fundamental to the strong and trusting bonds that existed between the executive level of the firms and their lower level employees. Trust in management has been conceptualized as employees’ perceptions that the management is competent, cares about them and adheres to the practices benevolent for them (Mayer et al., 1995). High levels of trust are a rarity in today’s world where only one-third of employees trust their employer (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2021). As an illustration of how deeply trust and the value of care were embedded in his firm, a CEO recounted the story of what happened at his firm after an employee was hit by a truck during her lunch break. He was away attending a conference at the time. Without his knowledge, his assistant ordered a freezer and had it delivered to the injured woman’s home. Other employees had it filled with ready-made meals to ensure that the injured employee would be less stressed about her four children and husband being well-cared for while she recovered in the hospital. No one asked the 232

CSR in SMEs

CEO for permission to spend company funds – they acted and knew it was the right thing to do given the firm’s values. In other words, employees were trusted and empowered to make decisions. They were encouraged to solve problems, not run to management. As such, many informants described their firms as places where “everyone is a leader”. Others described this as “a more distributed leadership model”. Employees shared the narratives with external stakeholders thereby helping to build the reputation of the private SMEs as caring organizations. Such word-of-mouth communication was viewed as especially credible and powerful by many of the private SMEs. Enhanced reputation enabled the private SMEs to recruit and retain exceptionally knowledgeable and capable employees. The firms’ turnover rates were also exceptional low so these companies’ investments in training paid off in significant ways again enhancing the economic responsibilities that were foundational to Carroll’s (1991) pyramid. Employees who worked for the private SMEs were not just devoted to their firms, they were also willing to go to exceptional lengths to support their company. To exemplify this, a senior executive described a crisis situation at her company that sells frozen goods that are shipped worldwide. After months of effort, the private SME got its first order from China. Just as the shipment was ready to go out the door, the CEO discovered that the products were labeled incorrectly. Employees were asked to bring in hairdryers to help remove the faulty labels. Every employee responded. They not only brought in their hairdryers, but they also volunteered to work all night to get the job done so that the goods could be shipped as per schedule. There was only one casualty – “The CEO’s hairdryer gave up the ghost half way through the night”. The value of care extended to the private SMEs’ customers. The firms focused on serving customers in exceptional and caring ways. The need to care for customers was communicated to employees in many ways. For example, the CEO of a manufacturing firm refused to describe the company in terms of the products it manufactured. Instead, he consistently described his firm as a “customer service firm”. Action was taken so that all employees knew the firms’ customers and how their jobs impacted customer satisfaction. Some firms included administrative employees on technical service calls so they could interact directly with customers. Others assigned employees to its customer helpline so they could hear the challenges that customers were facing. Some used more traditional means such as posters hung around offices with simple, clear messages about what happens on the customer’s end if an employee failed to respect a deadline or didn’t provide quality service. Others used internal newsletters with articles titled the “customer’s point of view”. A typical firm described its company’s philosophy as follows: (Company name) puts the customer at the center of everything it does. We must be humble and grab every opportunity we can to learn from our customers. The tech marketplace is littered with casualties who – through complacency or arrogance – stopped listening to their customers. We know better and use the credo that “if we take care of the customer, the business takes care of itself”. Putting the customer first and deeply understanding customers is a well-established driver of performance (see Slater & Narver, 1995). The fast-growth SMEs also extended their value of care to other external stakeholders including the communities in which they operated. This helped them fulfil Carroll’s (1991) CSR dimension of discretionary responsibility. Some described this as “good citizenship”, but as was the case with the other values, care was communicated most frequently through actions. Several of the SME owners purchased their firms to prevent the loss of jobs in their community. Others refused to move their firms offshore even when this would have lowered costs. A software-as-a-service firm showed its care for the community by renovating an old run-down building in a drug-ridden area of town. 233

Peggy Cunningham

The building not only became the firm’s headquarters, but it also served as the pivot point that initiated revitalization of the entire neighborhood. Other SMEs provided financial and in-kind support for many charitable initiatives in their communities. The firms encouraged employees to participate in community-focused activities and gave them paid time off to volunteer. Again, employees became highly credible representatives of the firm’s ethical and discretionary responsibilities and spread knowledge of the firms’ good works by word-of-mouth.

Respect for Employees and the Value They Bring When asked to provide the top three reasons for their firm’s success, leaders of the private SMEs almost universally attributed their success to their employees. Typical statements from CEOs included: “It’s the employees who are central to our high performance, not me”. “Our people are our biggest asset”. Another noted, “Our employees know that the success is theirs”. Because the company leaders respected and valued their employees, they saw it as “important to ensure that employees thrived personally and professionally at all levels of the company”. The companies supported training and educational programs for their employees. Employees were crosstrained so they could serve each other and customers better. One informant described this process as follows: “People at [company name] are friendly, inclusive, approachable, and dedicated to serving not just their customers, but one another. Our culture can be summed up in a short phrase: How can I help you? … We encourage cohesion and community”. Valuing and respecting employees was another means whereby the private SMEs brought to life their ethical responsibility component of Carroll’s (1991) pyramid. Respect was communicated in numerous ways. One CEO, for example, made it a practice of taking different groups of employees to lunch every week. During these lunches, he made it clear that he listened to everyone’s ideas. Symbols of success were other powerful communication tools. For example, many of the private firms who were part of this study had won numerous awards. Not surprisingly, these trophies were proudly displayed in the companies’ entrance ways. While this is not unusual, what was unique was the labels on the display cases attributed the awards to the performance of the private SMEs’ employees. Respect was also enacted through inclusiveness and respect for diversity. The majority of the private fast-growth SMEs had highly diverse workforces that spoke many languages. They strove to ensure that each and every employee felt appreciated for the value they brought to the firm no matter what their ethnicity or gender. Diverse employees were especially important in firms that relied on in-bound marketing (websites that attract queries from prospective customers worldwide). Having people within the firm who spoke multiple languages and who understood different country cultures, norms, and business practices boosted new market development and sales. Thus, the respect for diversity again helped these private SMEs fulfill all their CSR responsibilities – economic, legal, ethical responsibilities (i.e., fairness, equity) and discretionary (social) responsibilities (i.e., inclusiveness). Senior leaders used a number of tools to communicate their respect for diversity. They used formal tools like hiring policies and codes of conduct designed to prevent discrimination. But as was the case with communicating other values, it was again actions that spoke loudest to employees and external stakeholders – who was hired, who was promoted, whose voices were heard.

Collaboration As the preceding sections suggest, the high-performing private SMEs valued collaboration with employees, customers, and other partners far more than their less successful counterparts. The value of collaboration was again communicated through words, policies, and actions. Since employee collaboration was essential to creating customer value, the private, fast growth SMEs 234

CSR in SMEs

focused on and rewarded team versus individual success. Collaboration with external stakeholders, including customers, built trust and strong, lasting relationships. It fostered information sharing and collaborative innovation. Collaboration, in turn, fostered word-of-mouth communication among external stakeholders. As one CEO exclaimed, our partners “act as the most credible reference a company could have”. Another senior marketing executive said “leveraging customers is our best salesforce”. The value of collaboration supported the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (sustainability/environmental) dimensions of CSR in unexpected ways. For example, a major client of one software-as-a-service company complained that the company’s sales staff were not as skilled as they should be. Instead of just complaining, the client (a huge international firm with one of the best sales training programs in the world) invited members of the private firm to join its sales training program, enabling the private firm’s personnel to learn leading-edge sales skills which improved the company’s business prospects. Collaborative innovation in partnership with customers often resulted in the development of more sustainable products and production methods, helping the firms fulfill their legal and discretionary responsibilities. Involving employees in sustainability efforts also increased their engagement with this aspect of CSR.

A Virtuous Cycle – Ethical Values, Trust, and Performance This chapter provides insights into the pivotal nature values played within private SMEs as they enact the four tiers of CSR. Surprisingly values served to enhance business performance – something rarely acknowledged in the extant literature. Values instigated a virtuous cycle. Employees who were respected, cared for, and valued had greater physical and emotional well-being. They viewed their work as more meaningful. They took pride in their organization and were loyal and highly productive. As empowered, cross-trained workers, they innovated and solved problems for the firm and its customers. The firms became sought after workplaces that attracted the very best personnel, which was especially important in sectors where people with certain skills were hard to find. The employees supported innovation and served customers extremely well. As a result, customers were willing to pay higher prices for superior products. Thus, the private, fast-growth SMEs earned higher margins, which gave them more resources to invest in the firm, create more value enhancing activities, and invest in their CSR initiatives. CSR was further enhanced through the trusting relationships the firms had with their stakeholders. By responding proactively to stakeholder issues, the private SMEs mitigated stakeholders’ concerns and avoided the adversarial stakeholder relationships that are all too common a problem for other types of firms.

Discussion and Conclusion Despite the fact that values have been included in definitions of CSR (Maignan et al., 2005), research to understand the values that act as the foundation for simultaneously fulfilling Carroll’s (1991) four CSR responsibilities has been scant. The study described in this chapter addressed this knowledge gap. The private, fast-growth SMEs each lived and enacted their values in all they did. Employees and managers alike believed in “walk and talk”, and this was a powerful communication tool. Owners and managers were very attuned to the need to constantly communicate (or as some said, “over communicate”) their firms’ values, especially during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic during which firms faced rapidly changing business conditions. Fearing exposure to the virus, employees were often afraid to come to work. They experienced more stress and mental health issues. Executives of the private SMEs soon realized that it was everything they did that

235

Peggy Cunningham

communicated to employees that their firms were fine and were sticking to their values – from whistling as they walked down the hall to every other action: Employees take cues from all types of things … what car I drive that day, how fast I drive, how fast I’m walking, what time I arrive or leave the plant, if I look tired or energized, if I look worried or optimistic. I want them to know that I am concerned, but not petrified. During the pandemic, the power of narrative was appreciated even more. Managers and employees alike recognized that corporate values-led stories were one of the most effective ways of communicating the private SMEs’ values to their internal and external stakeholders. Stories of how values were lived were useful tools that helped these firms retain their culture despite the pandemic. Employees continued to be credible spokespersons who engaged with a vast network of stakeholders. Giving employees voice and encouraging them to share their narratives with external parties helped position the SMEs as firms that not only produced great value, but also as ones that could be trusted. Not surprisingly, a founder of a communications firm recently noted: “The most powerful tool of all is word-of-mouth. Don’t brag about your organization in a newsletter. Don’t brag about it unless you’ve done it. Use testimonials from your own team”. The study of private SMEs illustrated that communicating through actions, narratives, and wordof-mouth is often seen as being highly authentic instead of being viewed with skepticism. This finding addresses an important research gap since Pérez (2019) noted that research that analyses how message authenticity influences persuasiveness of CSR communication is underdeveloped. She defined authentic communication as that that is perceived as “real, actual, genuine and bona fide” (p. 325) and her conceptual model predicts authentic CSR messages will be viewed as having high message and source credibility. This was certainly the case in the study described in this chapter. Despite the success of the private SMEs, which were part of this study, challenges and opportunities remain for firms and researchers. Given the influence of ethical values, and the ways in which they supported the four pillars of the firms’ CSR programs, it is surprising that the highly successful, fastgrowth firms did not do more to formally communicate their values-related achievements. None of firms in this study issued a CSR report. Only a few of the firms featured their values on their firm’s stationery, websites or their social media sites. Very few linked their values in a formal way with their brands. Many noted that they limited their communications to informal methods because of their fear of appearing inauthentic, mercenary, or overly focused on the exceptional business results their values fostered. Research is needed to verify the accuracy of this assumption. While some extant research has shown that CSR communication causes skepticism on the part of internal and external audiences, other research suggests that this concern may not be grounded (see McShane & Cunningham, 2012). In a similar vein, Lude and Prügl’s (2018) work suggested that communicating the “family” nature of an organization could increase trust and authenticity. While much of the extant literature has focused on how managers’ values influence employee beliefs and actions through the “trickle-down effect”, the study described in this chapter found that employees were very active participants in value selection and enactment. At one firm, for example, managers and employees took turns in writing down what they viewed as the firm’s most important values. The two lists became the basis of several months of discussion between employees and management. Eventually, a mutually agreed upon set of six values was agreed upon, and they formed the firm’s “pillars of practice”. An employee noted that it became “evident around the business that people felt more ownership of these values”. In other words, employees “owned” the values as much as owners or management did. The values not only gave meaning to employees’ worklife, they also inspired employees to be advocates and protectors of the SMEs’ values. Thus, the findings of the study described in this chapter provide an illustration of what scholars have termed “communication constitutes organizations” or the 236

CSR in SMEs

“CCO” perspective of communication (Ashcraft et al., 2009; Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). These authors saw “CSR communication not simply as an instrument for achieving strategic goals but, crucially, as one of several voices that invoke notions of ethics and responsibility within the entire organization” (p. 194). This chapter extends this thinking to the values that underpinned the SMEs’ CSR programs. Values not only enabled these firms to fulfill their ethical responsibilities as per Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of responsibilities, they also underpinned the other three layers of responsibility – economic, legal, and discretionary (philanthropic). In summary, the research outlined in this chapter extends the sparse literature relating values, especially ethical values and the ethic of care, to CSR. It provided answers to questions of whether or not private SMEs fulfill Carroll’s four tiers of responsibilities, the types of CSR initiatives they undertake, and the powerful effects values and CSR initiatives have on employees. While the private SMEs rarely used the term CSR, this chapter illustrates that they exhibited a triple-bottomline approach (people, planet, and profit). They put special emphasis on the people aspects of CSR, however. Employees of the private SMEs negotiated and owned the values as much as senior managers did and the study contributes to the literature on how “communication constitutes organizations”. The chapter also illustrates the belief on the part of these firms that the responsibilities that constitute CSR are authentically communicated when they are enacted, shared through powerful narratives, and passed along to external stakeholders through word-of-mouth communication on the part of internal and external stakeholders. While the study addressed some gaps in the literature, much remains to be learned. Studies using other methods and a broader sample of private SMEs located in different geographies would add greatly to knowledge.

Discussion Questions 1 2

3 4

Why do you think so little research related to CSR has focused on values even though they are part of Maignan et al.’s (2005) definition of CSR? Were you surprised by the finding that ethical values underpinned everything that the private SMEs did including their economic performance? Can you explain how the ethical values helped drive the performance of these firms? The responsibility to care for employees is largely absent from most views of firms’ corporate social responsibilities. Should this be included in definitions of CSR? The study outlined in this chapter showed that many of the private, fast-growth firms preferred to communicate their CSR responsibilities through their actions, narratives, and word-of mouth communication. Are there other effective communication tools private SMEs could use to authentically convey their values and CSR-related accomplishments?

Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank all the informants and Grant Thornton LLP for the support they provided for this project.

References Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64. 10.5465/19416520903047186 Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. J., & Scherer, A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 693–705. 10.1007/s10551013-1827-7

237

Peggy Cunningham Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 258–271. 10.1002/csr.1336 Carmeli, A., Brammer, S., Gomes, E., & Tarba. S. Y. (2017). An organizational ethic of care and employee involvement in sustainability-related behaviors: A social identity perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1380–1395. 10.1002/job.2185 Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. 10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G Cohen, B., & Greenfield. J. (1998). How to run a values-led business and make money too. Simon and Schuster. Cunningham, P. (2021). Fast growth private firms: The power of ethical values and trust in enhancing performance. In Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_1260-1 Du, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. https://doiorg.ezproxy.library.dal.ca/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x Duarte, F. (2010). Working with corporate social responsibility in Brazilian companies: The role of managers’ values in the maintenance of CSR cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 355–368. 10.1007/s10551-0100470-9 Edelman Trust Barometer. (2021). https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. Gilligan, C. (1982). New maps of development: New visions of maturity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(2), 199–212. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb02682.x Gilligan, C. (2011). Interview on June 21st, 2011. Ethics of Care. https://ethicsofcare.org/carol-gilligan/ Gioffré, A., Tampieri, A., & Villanacci, A. (2021). Private versus public companies with strategic CSR. Journal of Economics, 133, 129–166. 10.1007/s00712-020-00729-1 Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. 10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2019). It’s like hating puppies! Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 319–337. 10.1007/s10551-018-3791-8 Li, J., & Wu, D. (2020). Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social and governance impact? Management Science, 66(6), 2291–2799. 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3324 Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (2018). Why the family business brand matters: Brand authenticity and the family firm trust inference. Journal of Business Research, 89, 121–134. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.040 Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956–977. 10.1108/03090560510610662 Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. 10.2307/258792 McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54. 10.1509/jmkg.66.1.38.18451 McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 81–100. 10.1007/ s10551-011-1064-x Oberlo. (2022). How many small businesses are there in the US in 2021? https://www.oberlo.ca/statistics/ number-of-small-business-in-the-us Pérez, A. (2019). Building a theoretical framework of message authenticity in CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 334–350. 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0051 Quinson, T. (2020). Net-zero pledges won’t work just from the top down. Financial Post. https://financialpost. com/pmn/business-pmn/net-zero-pledges-wont-work-just-from-the-top-down Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M. C. H., & Au, A. K. M. (2010). Consumer support for corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of religion and values. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 61–72. 10.1007/s10551-010-0568-0 Schaefer, S., Terlutter, R., & Diehl, S. (2019). Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees’ evaluation of the authenticity of their company’s corporate social responsibility engagement. Journal of Business Research, 101(August), 128–143. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.030 Schoeneborn, D., & Trittin, H. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 193–211. 10.1108/135632 81311319481 Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74. 10.2307/1252120

238

CSR in SMEs Shu, C., Hashmi, H. B. A., Xiao, Z., Haider, S. W., & Nasir, M. (2021). How do Islamic values influence CSR? A systematic literature review of studies from 1995–2020. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551021-04964-4 Spence, L. J. (2016). Small business social responsibility: Expanding core CSR theory. Business & Society, 55(1), 23–55. 10.1177/0007650314523256 Statista. (2019). Top 20 largest private U.S. companies in 2019, by revenue. https://www.statista.com/ statistics/549091/largest-private-us-companies-by-revenue/ Zheng, H., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Do SOEs outperform private enterprises in CSR? Evidence from China. Chinese Management Studies, 10(3), 435–457. 10.1108/CMS-10-2015-0225 Zhu, Z., & Lu, F. (2020). Family ownership and corporate environmental responsibility: The contingent effect of venture capital and institutional environment. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(6), 1–18. 10.3390/ jrfm13060110

239

19 OVERCOMING THE DARK SIDE OF CSR COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Ganga S. Dhanesh

Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has broadly been defined as businesses meeting a multitude of social, environmental, ethical, legal, and governance responsibilities toward a diverse set of stakeholders. Although diverse theoretical approaches have offered reasons for companies’ involvement with their numerous responsibilities, the functionalist, strategic approach is one of the most entrenched ones, according to which being responsible can generate mutual benefit for companies and their stakeholders, encapsulated in the idea of doing well by doing good (Drucker, 1984; Porter & Kramer, 2006). However, to garner returns from being responsible, companies need to communicate about their CSR engagements (Du et al., 2010; Ihlen et al., 2014). Effective CSR communication can help to generate multiple reputational, relational, and legitimacy returns across internal and external stakeholders, including creating ethical corporate identities, strengthening stakeholder engagement, maintaining organization-public relationships, enhancing corporate reputation, and buffering a company during crises (Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018; Jiang & Luo, 2020; Schaefer et al., 2020; Wang & Pala, 2021). Yet, although employees have been highlighted as a key stakeholder in the enactment and communication of CSR, there is a larger body of research on external stakeholders, and scholars have continued to call for more research on CSR communication from the perspective of employees (Carlini et al., 2019; Crane & Glozer, 2016; Edinger-Schons et al., 2019; Jiang & Luo, 2020; Men & Vercic, 2021; Schoeneborn et al., 2020). In response to this call, although scholarship on CSR communication and employees has emerged across the fields of business ethics, public relations, organizational communication, human resource management, and marketing the functionalist bias continues in this strand of research as well. This body of work argues that communicating CSR is good for business throughout the employee lifecycle. Effective CSR communication can enhance employer attractiveness, drive employer reputation and branding, create ethical employer brand identities, and act as a signaling device for potential employees (Carlini et al., 2019; Vercic & Coric, 2018). For existing employees and their organizations, it can contribute to various positive outcomes such as employee engagement (Jiang & Luo, 2020; Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018), job satisfaction, organizational pride (Schaefer et al., 2020), organizational commitment (Dhanesh, 2012; Brammer et al., 2007), employee identification (Wang & Pala, 2021), employee-organization relationships (Dhanesh, 2014), organizational

240

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-23

CSR and Employee Relations

citizenship behavior, and even employee advocacy (Edinger-Schons et al., 2019; Jiang & Luo, 2020; Schaefer et al., 2020). Outcomes of CSR communication can also extend beyond the time employees are with their organizations, continuing to influence relationships with alumni (Carlini et al., 2019). This chapter problematizes the excessive focus on establishing positive associations between CSR communication and employee relations within theory and practice. Instead, it takes a critical look at the dark side of CSR communication and employee relations (Rupp & Mallory, 2015) and interrogates some of the complex associations between the two, including the use of CSR practices by organizations as a tool of identity control (Costas & Kä rreman, 2013), the complex linkages between employee identification, work meaningfulness, and work addiction (Brieger et al., 2020), organizational abdication of employee technological well-being (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2019), and the issue of competing, pluralistic employee interests not aligned with organizational CSR initiatives (Bondi & Yu, 2019). By focusing on the intended or unintended consequences of CSR communication, this chapter contributes to a budding stream of research on the negative fallout of CSR from an employee perspective (Aguinis et al., 2020; Brieger et al., 2020; Hejjas et al., 2019). While most studies tend to take an organizational or institutional viewpoint, this chapter adopts an individual perspective as discussed in most models of effective CSR communication such as the Du et al. CSR communication framework (2010) wherein the effectiveness of CSR communication as an instrumental tool to generate positive outcomes is moderated by individual characteristics. Individual variations are critical, and research has increasingly adopted what is called a behavioral perspective to CSR or micro-CSR that focuses on person-centric (specifically employee-centric) approaches, as opposed to the more prevalent firm or institutional approaches to examining CSR (Aguinis et al., 2020; Brieger et al., 2020; Hejjas et al., 2019). This chapter has adopted the behavioral, micro, employee-centered approach to CSR examining CSR communication from an employee perspective. The chapter is organized as follows. It starts with defining CSR communication and specifically CSR communication from the perspective of employees, followed by a review of research on the downsides of CSR communication and employee relations. It then concludes with suggestions for future research and research-based principles for CSR communication theory and practice.

CSR and Its Communication Although multiple terms such as CSR, corporate citizenship, corporate social performance, creating shared value and conscious capitalism refer to businesses meeting their various economic, social, and environmental responsibilities, the term CSR continues to be the most popular (Carroll, 2016). Despite the broad array of terms and various theoretical approaches, there are three broad clusters in the literature: the business and society approach, the economic approach, and the stakeholder approach. According to the business and society approach, since society has given sanction to businesses to function, businesses have a reciprocal obligation to give back to society. The economic approach argued that the only responsibility of business is to make profits and to increase the economic value of the company for its shareholders. However, this approach later morphed into the strategic approach to CSR or the business case for CSR, which argued that being responsible can be mutually beneficial for companies and their stakeholders, encapsulated in the idea of doing well by doing good (Drucker, 1984). Finally, the stakeholder approach contended that a business has responsibilities to its entire spectrum of stakeholders, and hence its actions must consider the well-being of each of these groups. Although many definitions of CSR are compatible with the stakeholder approach, Carroll’s (1979) definition with four domains of CSR is perhaps one that addresses the foci of the three 241

Ganga S. Dhanesh

approaches, particularly encompassing the strategic approach to CSR through addressing the needs of a variety of stakeholders. According to Carroll (1979), “the social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (p. 500). The first domain of responsibility − economic − states that society expects businesses to produce goods and services and sell them at a profit. Legal responsibility refers to how society expects businesses to be economically viable within the confines of the law. Ethical responsibility represents the kinds of behaviors and ethical norms and practices that society expects business to follow, even though they have not yet been codified into law. Discretionary responsibility addresses the voluntary aspect of the social responsibilities of businesses and encapsulates businesses’ response to society’s expectations that corporations should be good corporate citizens. However, companies need to communicate about their engagement with corporate responsibilities to generate awareness among key stakeholders, influence their attitudes and behavior, and thus reap a variety of returns from being responsible constituents in society (Du et al., 2010; Ihlen et al., 2014). Research within the functionalist, strategic approach to CSR communication has found that communicating about corporate responsibilities can help to generate multiple reputational, relational, and legitimacy returns (Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018; Jiang & Luo, 2020; Schaefer et al., 2020; Wang & Pala, 2021). However, most of the work generated in this area has focused on external stakeholders although employees have been highlighted as an important stakeholder group who could become highly engaged advocates and ambassadors of a responsible organization (Carlini et al., 2019; Crane & Glozer, 2016; Edinger-Schons et al., 2019; Jiang & Luo, 2020; Men & Vercic, 2021; Schoeneborn et al., 2020). Responding to this call for more research there has been increasing focus on CSR communication and employee relations.

CSR Communication and Employee Relations Conceptualizations of CSR with respect to employees tend to mirror the dimensions of CSR proposed by Carroll (1979). For instance, the notion of internal CSR has been theorized to include the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of CSR, including monitoring employee productivity, honoring employees’ contractual obligations, encouraging workforce diversity, and implementing policies that support work-life balance (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001). Internal CSR can also include employee volunteering programs (Weder et al., 2019). While the term internal CSR offers a neat label for CSR activities related to employees, this conceptualization does not acknowledge employees’ special status as organizational stakeholders, who are exposed to not only a closer view of their organizational CSR activities but also to external and internal CSR communication and articulations of organizational and corporate ethical identities based on CSR (Carlini et al., 2019; Dhanesh, 2021). These discussions have also been reflected in challenging the tidily compartmentalized notion of internal communication directed at members within an organization with the concept of autocommunication, which argues that with the blurring of sharp internal and external organizational boundaries, communication that is intended for external consumption could influence employees too (Christensen, 1997). Building on the theories of auto-communication and organizational identification, Morsing (2006) proposed that CSR communication is a vital process of autocommunication for employee identification. Similarly, the concept of integrated communication (Cornelissen, 2020) that straddles both internal and external aspects also challenges the notion of internal communication as restricted to intra-organizational communication. Finally, while internal communication has multiple dimensions, internal corporate communication, mostly based on oneway communication between managers and employees, is employed to communicate organizational

242

CSR and Employee Relations

goals, objectives, and strategies, making it an ideal vehicle to communicate CSR (Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018). However, the constitutive approach argues that it is critical to engage in CSR communication to co-create meanings and understandings of CSR among organizations and their stakeholders (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Schoeneborn et al., 2020). This argument acquires greater prominence considering that social media platforms have amplified employees’ word-of-mouth communication, particularly with regard to CSR (Lee & Tao, 2020), and how employees might withdraw from CSR processes when organizations follow strong sense-giving, informational, and persuasive approaches (Wagner, 2019). Scholars of internal CSR communication across the fields of organizational communication, public relations, marketing, and advertising have examined CSR communication mostly from functionalist and constitutive approaches (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Schoeneborn et al., 2020). A functionalist perspective built on a positivist research tradition argues that it is important to communicate an organization’s track record on CSR to generate positive returns while the constitutive, constructivist perspective built on the interpretivist research tradition argues that it is imperative to engage in CSR communication to co-create meanings and understandings of CSR among organizations and their stakeholders (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Schoeneborn et al., 2020). Crane and Glozer’s (2016) review of CSR communication literature led to a framework that categorized literature along two dimensions – internal/external stakeholders, and functionalist/constitutive paradigms – producing four approaches to CSR communication research labeled the 4Is. While CSR Integration refers to functionalist research aimed at internal stakeholders, CSR Interpretation refers to research within the constitutive paradigm aimed at internal stakeholders. Similarly, CSR Identity refers to the set of functionalist work aimed at external stakeholders, while CSR Image refers to scholarly work within the constitutive paradigm aimed at external stakeholders. An extensive and thorough review of empirical research on CSR communication and employees across the fields of business ethics, public relations, organizational communication, human resource management, and marketing revealed that research has examined antecedents of CSR communication such as CSR communication strategies (Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018; Jiang & Luo, 2020), message valence of employee word-of-mouth related to CSR (Lee & Tao, 2020), and potential employees’ perceptions of CSR and employer brand (Vercic & Coric, 2018). It has also examined outcomes of effective CSR communication such as employee engagement (Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018; Jiang & Luo, 2020), employee identification (Wang & Pala, 2021), and corporate reputation from the perspective of potential employees (Vercic & Coric, 2018). Employees have been found to be more satisfied with their jobs, and are less willing to quit their jobs, when working for a socially responsible organization (Glavas & Kelley, 2014). This chapter problematizes this excessively functionalistic focus on CSR communication and employee relations and argues that research and practice need to adopt a critical perspective to examine the dark side of CSR communication and employee relations (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). To do so, the chapter turns to critical management studies that have interrogated the negative outcomes of CSR with respect to employees. This chapter is driven by an overarching research question: What are some of the issues associated with CSR communication and employee relations, particularly in the employment of CSR as a managerial tool for engendering employee outcomes such as identification, satisfaction, commitment, and employee engagement?

CSR, Ethical Corporate Identity, Employee Identification, and Identity Control One of the important outcomes of effective CSR communication is to help organizations craft ethical corporate identities and engender employee identification (Du et al., 2010; Hildebrand et al., 2011; Morsing, 2006; Wong & Dhanesh, 2017). Connecting notions of corporate identity, ethics, 243

Ganga S. Dhanesh

and CSR, Balmer et al. (2007) introduced the idea of ethical corporate identity, a concept that goes beyond the personification of the organization and instead is seen to form “relationally between parties, within a community of business and social exchange” (p. 7) based on socially and dialogically embedded organizational practices, critical reflexivity, and responsiveness. Ethical corporate identities can contribute to stakeholder identification, defined as stakeholders’ perception of commonalities between corporate norms and their individual norms (Maignan & Ferrell 2001). Stakeholders’ identification with a company is also more likely to be based on CSR associations that reflect the values and character that undergird an organization rather than corporate ability associations based on a company’s expertise in producing and delivering its products and services (Balmer & Greyser, 2006). Based on the literature in social identification, identity, and corporate marketing, Hildebrand et al. (2011) explained that a company’s CSR practices can lead to stakeholder identification when communicating such practices can help to meet stakeholders’ higher-order self-related needs such as the need to know oneself (self-definition), the need to feel good about oneself (self-enhancement), and the need to feel special (self-distinctiveness). However, scholars have questioned whether attempts at engendering identification encroach into the realm of management control over employees’ sense of identity. For instance, from an organizational communication perspective, Andersen et al. (2016) discuss the identification dilemma – a CSR communicative dilemma that needs to balance the need to create CSR value for employee identification without becoming a normative tool of employee identity control. According to the authors, the CSR dilemma of organizational communication occurs when the organizational demands on employee engagement become a strategy of employee control. This dilemma manifests itself when the company projects a unitary, ethical identity with which employees must comply, thus creating what they label a dilemma of identification. Critical stakeholder theory also considers organizational attempts at generating employee identification as “a cynical exercise in worker control and co-option” (Stoney & Winstanley, 2001, p. 610). Similarly, Morsing (2006) argued that what might have started as a CSR practice and offer of ethical values to generate shared value through employee identification could potentially lead to ethical mental shackles that create uniformly thinking employees. Costas and Karreman (2013) argued that through CSR discourses and practices that contribute to creating an idealized image of a socially, ecologically, and ethically responsible corporate self, organizations employ CSR as a form of aspirational control that connects employees’ aspirational identities and ethical conscience to the organization. The authors raised the possibility of CSR-based identity regulation interfering with employee’s sense of self, which could potentially lead to various forms of identification, disidentification, and ambiguity. Through empirical research in two management consultancies, Costas and Karreman (2013) showed that employees fall into three orientations – believers, straddlers, and cynics – demonstrating wide variations in their approach to their organization’s CSR practices. While a small portion of believers might be intrinsically motivated to join a company attracted by its CSR practices, most of the others are disturbed by their organizations’ excessive use of CSR for instrumental purposes of image building and reputation. The authors buttressed their argument by employing the concept of socio-ideological control, which refers to “managerial efforts to persuade people to adapt to certain values, norms and ideas about what is good, important and praiseworthy” (p. 398), enacted through the management of meaning, particularly by regulating employee identities through normative themes of CSR that are beneficial for the company. Worse still, excessive employee identification through CSR could lead to unintended consequences such as work addiction.

244

CSR and Employee Relations

CSR, Work Meaningfulness, and Work Addiction Various dimensions of CSR across ethical and discretionary responsibilities can contribute to enhancing organizational identification and the meaningfulness of work for employees, enhancing their sense of working for a company that contributes to the greater good. However, there is a potential unintended risk to excessive employee perceptions of identification and work meaningfulness generated through CSR, specifically work addiction (Brieger et al., 2020). Work addiction is defined as “the tendency to work excessively hard and being obsessed with work, which manifests itself in working compulsively” (Schaufeli et al., 2009, p. 322). The word addiction with its negative connotations is employed because employees focus disproportionately on their work and neglect or fail to appreciate other spheres in life, such as private relationships, personal health, and leisure, entertainment, and down time. CSR and employee work addiction is a complex issue as socially responsible companies tend to take care of their employees, particularly ensuring that they do not work excessively long hours. However, employing social identity theory and social exchange theory, Brieger et al. (2020) empirically demonstrated that being socially responsible can unintentionally stimulate and cause work addiction through organizational identification and work meaningfulness, calling CSR “too much of a good thing” (p. 311). They also acknowledged that work addiction is a relatively stable individual characteristic and a chronic behavioral pattern seen most often in 10–30% of the workforce in certain industries and particularly among management level employees with non-linear and de-centralized work. This corresponds to literature on employee engagement which has found that only around 15% of employees worldwide and 35% in the United States fall in the engaged category (Gallup, 2021). Typically, research and practice have considered the disengaged 70% as the problem, trying to find out ways in which this large percentage of the working population who are not engaged or are actively disengaged can be engaged at work, especially through CSR. However, work addiction is an issue that affects the 30% who are engaged, one that has not received much attention within research and practice on CSR communication and employee relations. Taking a slightly different stance from Brieger et al. (2020), Aguinis et al. (2020) distinguished between different types of CSR that could cause positive and negative outcomes. Employing attribution theory and sensemaking, Aguinis et al. (2020) argued that employee perceptions of embedded CSR wherein being socially responsible is a way of working and is embedded in the organization’s DNA, could lead to positive outcomes, while employee perceptions of peripheral CSR or CSR that is external to the organization, such as through donating or contributing to a charity, could have negative outcomes. They argued that through CSR and sensemaking, employees can find meaning at work through peripheral CSR, while they can find meaning in work through embedded CSR. This distinction also adds more nuance to Brieger et al.’s (2020) discussion of work meaningfulness as a mediator of the effect of CSR on work addiction. These discussions acquire even more relevance in the context of what is being touted as the “Great Resignation” or large numbers of people quitting their jobs triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the reasons behind this exodus of employees could be employees rethinking their work and life goals after a long tenure of high workloads, hiring freezes, and other pressures of remote work (Cook, 2021). Sometimes referred to as the Great Reset, employees could reimagine a new vision of work-life balance when forcefully thrust into a homebound lifestyle. Remote work with physical distancing from the workplace and after office hours hangouts could have also jostled out work as the centerpiece of employee identity. However, remote work driven by the rapid and widespread adoption of information and communication technologies also exacerbated an already untenable situation for some employees, posing severe challenges to employee health and well-being.

245

Ganga S. Dhanesh

CSR, Technologies, and Employee Ill-Being Socially responsible companies tend to take care of their employees’ well-being. However, in some instances productivity tools that are employed to enhance performance outcomes can be a doubleedged sword creating unintended negative consequences for employees. One such issue is the deployment of information technologies in the workplace. For instance, Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (2019) proposed the concept of technological ill-being and explored the ethical issues associated with it, according to both individual and collective responsibilities related to its negative effects. According to the author, technological ill-being is “an expression of the tension between an individual’s social attributes and aspirations when using modern IT and a system of norms, rules, and values imposing constraints on him or her” (p. 339). Most importantly, the author highlighted a delicate tension regarding the onus of responsibility for technological ill-being being placed on the organization and its managers as moral actors, as opposed to individual employees. Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (2019) argued that technological ill-being is a neglected issue within the realm of CSR; that being unaware of the ill-effects of technology is a purposeful abdication of organizational responsibility; and proposed a fresh conception of ethics based on individuals’ ethical awareness and self‐reflexivity. This argument reflects the main arguments in an emerging body of work that examines organizations’ ethical responsibilities when it comes to the deployment and management of technologies in the workplace. For instance, there has been much work on whether technological affordances including increased connectivity and flexible work arrangements have positive or negative effects on employee engagement and burnout. On the one hand, increased connectivity through information and communication technologies can enhance the ability of employees to adopt flexible modes of working and be accessible independent of time and location. On the other hand, this accessibility can also lead to an always on mentality with employees unable to switch off from work, eventually leading to psychological detachment and emotional exhaustion (Derks et al., 2016). Particularly during the global COVID-19 pandemic, organizations have adopted remote work and are increasingly considering continuing with remote work arrangements permanently. These flexible work arrangements or new ways of working, conceptualized as “a work design in which employees can control the timing and place of their work, while being supported by electronic communication” (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012, p. 114) have had positive and negative effects. Studies have found that while technology-enabled ways of working can foster employee engagement through offering resources such as increased autonomy, effective and efficient communication (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; ter Hoeven et al., 2016), and increased accessibility and connectivity (Gerards et al., 2018; ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; ter Hoeven et al., 2016), it can also negatively affect employee engagement through increased interruptions at work (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; ter Hoeven et al., 2016) and increased work-life conflict (Fonner & Roloff, 2010). What is critical here is the role of organizational responsibility to help employees manage these technology-fueled pressures on employee well-being. Adopting the lens of hypermodernity, Dhanesh (2020) argued that hypermodern organizations, fully mobilized through the extensive use of mobile information technologies, have made the hypermodern employee constantly connected to the organization, creating a sense of never being genuinely disconnected from work. Dhanesh (2020) proposed that hypermodern organizations have a responsibility to deal with these issues of constant connectivity. Creating employee well-being programs without addressing the underlying structural causes for ill-being is merely paying lip service to well-being. Organizations need to create structural and cultural changes that can help to redefine the notion of core work hours and proactively help employees to renegotiate their understandings of work boundaries.

246

CSR and Employee Relations

CSR, Monophonic Corporate Voice, and Polyphonic Employee Voices Multiple tensions are unleashed when companies’ fixation for speaking in one unified corporate voice encounters diverse employee voices. According to Christensen et al. (2011), the notion of polyphony in CSR refers to combining numerous, diverse stakeholder voices while creating spaces for individual voices to be heard instead of being subsumed under or being dominated by a unitary monophonic voice (Castelló et al., 2013). Relatedly, the notion of symphony refers to argumentation that does not have an interactive, dialectical structure including arguments and counter arguments. The issue of polyphonic voices is even more heightened in large, global organizations that tend to be diverse across various dimensions such as age, gender, language, race, and ethnicity as well as less evident forms such as socio-economic background, culture, worldviews, religious beliefs, industry experience, and organizational membership. Diversity climate or the “degree to which a firm advocates fair human resource policies and socially integrates underrepresented employees” (McKay et al., 2008, p. 350) has been found to positively contribute to work outcomes, such as job satisfaction, sense of inclusion and work group identification (Hofhuis et al., 2016). Within CSR communication frameworks such as Du et al.’s (2010) too, stakeholder characteristics such as social value orientation and issue support are considered moderating variables that can temper the association between CSR communication and various internal and external outcomes including employee advocacy. The more diverse these stakeholder characteristics, the greater the challenge for companies to address polyphonic employee voices related to CSR. The stakeholder approach to CSR emphasizes addressing employee interests and companies are expected to be responsive to their stakeholders’ needs and wants in their CSR practices. However, stakeholder theory typically tends to homogenize priorities within a stakeholder group (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Acknowledging heterogeneous interests and priorities among the employee stakeholder group, Hejjas et al. (2019) found that employees are situated along a continuum of engagement/disengagement where differences could arise based on the degree to which employees support CSR within their organizations. From a corporate communication perspective, Andersen et al. (2016) argued that CSR communication challenges are posed when companies are faced with conflicting stakeholder views. They refer to this as a relation dilemma, dealing with stakeholder engagement and the need to address the multivocality of different, opposing stakeholder views while managing the ideal of a unified corporate voice. How can organizations address these diverse orientations of employee stakeholders? Addressing multiple stakeholder views has been one of the enduring themes within CSR communication research, split into two camps, one that foregrounds the organization’s voice through one-way informational, or asymmetrical models of CSR communication or one that foregrounds employee voice through dialogic and two-way communication models. For instance, Morsing and Schultz (2006) argued for the use of three CSR communication strategies: (1) the stakeholder information strategy built on the public information/one-way communication model focused on organizational sensegiving, (2) the stakeholder response strategy based on two-way asymmetric communication, wherein sensemaking feeds into sensegiving, and (3) the stakeholder involvement strategy based on two-way symmetric communication where sensemaking and sensegiving interacts in iterative processes. The third approach maps well with the constitutive approach to CSR communication wherein employees can co-create mutually acceptable understandings of CSR within their organizations (Crane & Glozer, 2016). Although companies may adopt all three models of CSR communication, CSR engagement strategy has positive effects on achieving CSR goals (Lim & Greenwood, 2017; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Although faced with competing employee interests and voices on CSR, companies are increasingly taking one-sided stands on social and environmental issues that have unleashed polarized

247

Ganga S. Dhanesh

reactions from audiences. Nike’s Dream Crazy campaign around racial injustice, Believe in Something. Even if It Means Sacrificing Everything; or Gillette’s campaign, The Best Men Can Be that addressed issues of bullying, sexism, and toxic masculinity are examples. The ethical issue with adopting a one-sided, monophonic, unified corporate voice on contentious issues where employees might have diverse points of view is the erasure or elision of employee concerns, leading to the marginalization of certain employee interests.

Future Research Directions The above review of research on the potential risks and downsides of CSR from an employee perspective has highlighted that while research across various fields has focused on these issues, largely the voice of CSR communication research has been missing in these conversations. Extant CSR communication research needs to reduce the excessive instrumental focus on establishing positive associations between CSR communication and various employee outcomes. Instead, research needs to strengthen critical and constitutive approaches to examining CSR communication to address its dark sides. It needs to adopt a behavioral, micro, employee-centered perspective to CSR to examine CSR communication from an employee perspective. These strands of research, discussed next, could offer more holistic and nuanced views of the complex intersections between CSR and employee relations. First, CSR communication research could borrow from critical management studies and interrogate how concepts of power and discourse intersect in creating a unified, monophonic corporate voice that exerts aspirational control over employee identities without acknowledging the diversity and polyphony of employee concerns related to CSR. This strand of research is increasingly important given that employee value propositions often promote CSR-based value alignment as a key driver for attracting and retaining talent and companies are often taking strong stands on polarizing social and environmental issues. This has deep repercussions on the erasure and marginalization of legitimate employee concerns and on assigning uniform employee identities. Researchers could employ critical discourse analysis to examine how aspirational identity control is exerted through discursive constructions of socially, ecologically, and ethically responsible corporate identities. Insights generated from such research could strengthen theory building from a critical perspective and help practitioners to be more reflexive in the unbridled use of employing ethical corporate identities to generate employee identification. Second, future research could bolster the stream of research within the constitutive approach to CSR communication, built on the theory of communicative constitution of organizations. The constitutive approach that focuses on CSR communication to co-create meanings and understandings of CSR among organizations and their employees is critical to build up a behavioral, micro, employee-centered perspective to CSR. Theories of sensemaking can be employed to understand how employees navigate the fuzzy boundaries between CSR-based work meaningfulness and work addiction. Research can also examine how employees negotiate the tensions and paradoxes that are unleashed with the Great Reset, when employees started questioning the centrality of work in their lives. Thematic and narrative analysis can be employed to understand how employees make sense of these changes and how socially responsible companies can respond to changing employee value orientations. Research can examine the rhetorical strategies employed by organizations and employees in the articulations of their identity performances, strengthening research on the use of rhetoric within the CSR space (e.g., O’Connor & Ihlen, 2018; Winkler et al., 2020). Practitioners who manage CSR and employees, typically found across functions such as public relations, internal communication, human resources management, and internal marketing, could advocate for adopting a more polyphonic approach to dealing with employee engagement with CSR practices. While this might be challenging for organizations used to more monophonic and 248

CSR and Employee Relations

one-way strategies of engagement, staying open to diverse employee voices, and engaging in dialectical processes of communication will eventually help organizations to articulate organizational and corporate identities that are truly inclusive or at the very least are reflexive and ethical.

Discussion Questions 1

2

3

4

In addition to the issues identified in this chapter, can you think of other issues that could arise due to the instrumental focus in internal CSR communication to generate positive employee outcomes? The chapter has offered examples of future research that strengthens critical and constitutive approaches to CSR communication. Discuss how functionalist research may address the dark side of CSR employee communication. What is your view on the tendency of companies to speak in a unified, monophonic voice while clearly employees and other stakeholders might have radically diverse views? As a future or current communication practitioner, how will you approach this issue? How do you think socially responsible organizations should address the issue of technological illbeing, especially given the increasing reliance on hybrid work technologies that enable remote work?

References Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Gabriel, K. P. (2020). Understanding employee responses to COVID-19: A behavioral corporate social responsibility perspective. Management Research, 18(4), 421–438. 10.1108/ MRJIAM-06-2020-1053 Andersen, S. E., Nielsen, A. E., & Høvring, C. M. (2016). Communicative dilemmas of CSR: Towards an integrative framework of CSR communication (pp. 51–69). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-44 700-1_4 Balmer, J. M. T., Fukukawa, K., & Gray, E. (2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility, and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 7–15. Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image, and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7), 730–741. Bondi, M., & Yu, D. (2019). Textual voices in corporate reporting: A cross-cultural analysis of Chinese, Italian, and American CSR reports. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(2), 173–197. 10.1177/23294 88418784690 Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1701–1719. Brieger, S. A., Anderer, S., Fröhlich, A., Bäro, A., & Meynhardt, T. (2020). Too much of a good thing? On the relationship between CSR and employee work addiction. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 311–329. 10. 1007/s10551-019-04141-8 Carlini, J., Grace, D., France, C., & Lo Iacono, J. (2019). The corporate social responsibility (CSR) employer brand process: Integrative review and comprehensive model. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(1–2), 182–205. 10.1080/0267257x.2019.1569549. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 497–505. Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(3), 10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6. Castello, I., Morsing, M., & Schultz, F. (2013). Communicative dynamics and the polyphony of corporate social responsibility in the network society. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 683–694. Christensen, L. T. (1997). Marketing as auto-communication. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 1(3), 197–227. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2011). The polyphony of corporate social responsibility: Deconstructing accountability and transparency in the context of identity and hypocrisy. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), Handbook of communication ethics (pp. 457–474). Routledge.

249

Ganga S. Dhanesh Cook, I. (2021). Who is driving the great resignation? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ 2021/09/who-is-driving-the-great-resignation Cornelissen, J. (2020). Corporate communication (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. Costas, J., & Kä rreman, D. (2013). Conscience as control: Managing employees through CSR. Organization, 20(3), 394–415. Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. 10.1111/joms.12196 Derks, D., Bakker, A. B., Peters, P., & van Wingerden, P. (2016). Work-related smartphone use, work-family conflict, and family role performance: The role of segmentation preference. Human Relations, 69(5), 1045–1068. Dhanesh, G. S. (2012). The view from within: Internal publics and CSR. Journal of Communication Management, 16(1), 39–58. Dhanesh, G. S. (2014). CSR as organization-employee relationship management strategy: A case study of socially responsible information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 130–149. Dhanesh, G. S. (2020). Who cares about organizational purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and how can organizations adapt? A hypermodern perspective. Business Horizons, 63(4), 585–594. Dhanesh, G. S. (2021). Beyond internal corporate social responsibility communication (ICSRC): Creating a purposeful organization. In A. Vercic & R. L.-Y. Men (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication – theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53–63. 10.2307/41165066 Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. Duthler, G., & Dhanesh, G. S. (2018). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its internal communication in predicting employee engagement: Perspectives from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Public Relations Review, 44(4), 453–462. Edinger-Schons, L. M., Lengler-Graiff, L., Scheidler, S., & Wieseke, J. (2019). Frontline employees as corporate social responsibility (CSR) ambassadors: A quasi-field experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 359–373. 10.1007/s10551-018-3790-9. Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 336–361. 10. 1080/00909882.2010.513998 Gallup. (2021). What is employee engagement and how do you improve it? Retrieved from https://www. gallup.com/workplace/285674/improve-employee-engagement-workplace.aspx Gerards, R., de Grip, A., & Baudewijns, C. (2018). Do new ways of working increase work engagement? Personnel Review, 47(2), 517–534. 10.1108/PR-02-2017-0050 Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202. Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2019). “It’s like hating puppies!” Employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 319–337. 10.1007/s10551-018-3791-8 Hildebrand, D., Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A corporate marketing perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1353–1364. Hofhuis, J., van der Rijt, P. G. A., & Vlug, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. Springerplus, 5(1), 1–14. 10.1186/s40064-016-2499-4 Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J. L., & May, S. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. John Wiley & Sons. Jiang, H., & Luo, Y. (2020). Driving employee engagement through CSR communication and employee perceived motives: The role of CSR-related social media engagement and job engagement. International Journal of Business Communication. Published online first. Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2019). Is employee technological “Ill-being” missing from corporate responsibility? The Foucauldian ethics of ubiquitous IT uses in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(2), 339–361. 10.1007/s10551-019Lee, Y., & Tao, W. (2020). Employees as information influencers of organization’s CSR practices: The impacts of employee words on public perceptions of CSR. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101887. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2020.101887.

250

CSR and Employee Relations Lim, J. S., & Greenwood, C. A. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR): Stakeholder responsiveness and engagement strategy to achieve CSR goals. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 768–776. 10.1016/ j.pubrev.2017.06.007 Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument: Concepts, evidence, and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 457–484. McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences in employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel Psychology 61, 349– 374. Men, L. R., & Vercic, A. T. (2021). Current trends and issues in internal communication. Palgrave Macmillan. Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics, 15(2), 171–182. 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00440.x O’Connor, A., & Ihlen, Ø. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and rhetoric: Conceptualization, construction, and megotiation. In Ø. Ihlen & R. L. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp. 401–415). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781119265771.ch28 Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–163. Rodrigo, P., & Arenas, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR pro-grams? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–283. Rupp, D. E., & Mallory, D. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 211–236. 10.1146/ annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505 Schaefer, S. D., Terlutter, R., & Diehl, S. (2020). Talking about CSR matters: Employees’ perception of and reaction to their company’s CSR communication in four different CSR domains. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 191–212. 10.1080/02650487.2019.1593736 Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard. The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4), 320–348. Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and T(w)alking. Business & Society, 59(1), 5–33. 10.1177/0007650319845091 Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: Confusion or utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626. ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113–120. ter Hoeven, C. L., van Zoonen, W., & Fonner, K. L. (2016). The practical paradox of technology: The influence of communication technology use on employee burnout and engagement. Communication Monographs, 83(2), 239–263. 10.1080/03637751.2015.1133920 Vercic, A. T., & Coric, D. S. (2018). The relationship between reputation, employer branding and corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 444–452. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.06.005 Wagner, R. (2019). Activating employees for sustainability: The importance of narrative and sensemaking in a salutogenic approach to internal CSR communication. Proceedings of the 5th International CSR Communication Conference, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm September 18–20, 2019. Wang, Y., & Pala, B. (2021). Communicating philanthropic CSR versus ethical and legal CSR to employees: Empirical evidence in turkey. Corporate Communications, 26(1), 155–175. 10.1108/CCIJ-01-2020-0014 Weder, F., Einwiller, S., & Eberwein, T. (2019). Heading for new shores: Impact orientation of CSR communication and the need for communicative responsibility. Corporate Communications, 24(2), 198–211. 10.1108/ CCIJ-02-2019-0020 Winkler, P., Etter, M., & Castelló, I. (2020). Vicious and virtuous circles of aspirational talk: From selfpersuasive to agonistic CSR rhetoric. Business & Society, 59(1), 98–128. 10.1177/0007650319825758 Wong, J. Y., & Dhanesh, G. S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) for ethical corporate identity management: Framing CSR as a tool for managing the CSR-luxury paradox online. Corporate Communications, 22(4), 420–439. 10.1108/CCIJ-12-2016-0084

251

20 CSR COMMUNICATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP: HOW DOES CSR COMMUNICATION CONTRIBUTE TO RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP? Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen

Introduction This chapter explores the role corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication plays in organizational leadership while examining at the same time the importance of organizational leadership in CSR communication activities. It argues that CSR communication plays a central role in orchestrating the development of responsible organizational leadership on the one hand and practicing responsible organizational leadership behavior in sustainable organizations on the other hand. The structure of the chapter is as follows. First, the chapter addresses recent societal changes focusing on stakeholder pressures for CSR and sustainability and how these pressures impact organizational leadership and pave the way for CSR communication and the concept of responsible organizational leadership. Next, the chapter investigates the literature that links CSR with organizational leadership focusing on the conditions under which responsible organizational leadership can emerge and how it should be practiced, in order to be a source of competitive advantage for the organization. The investigation supports the argument that CSR and CSR communication plays a crucial role. Third, based on an outline of CSR communication theory, the chapter develops research-based CSR communication principles in form of a model aimed at analyzing and practicing CSR as a practice that fosters change and advancement of responsible organizational leadership. Fourth, challenges for advancing research and practice in the area of responsible organizational leadership and CSR communication are addressed in the discussion & conclusion part of the chapter. Six reflection questions are included in the discussion to encourage engagement and further discussions.

Stakeholder Pressure for CSR and Sustainability Organizational leadership has been defined as “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and 252

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-24

CSR and Organizational Leadership

collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (Yukl, 2010, p. 8). Theory within the field addresses questions such as how leadership as a trait differs from leadership as a process, how appointed leadership differs from emergent leadership, and how the concepts of power, coercion, and management differ from leadership. Based on this, scholars distinguish between different approaches to organizational leadership. Recent societal changes and stakeholder pressures for CSR and sustainability have challenged long-established concepts and approaches to organizational leadership. As one of the current approaches to organizational leadership, transformational leadership as “a process that changes and transforms people” (Northouse, 2007, p. 175) has become the dominant approach today, the argument being that it provides a better fit for leading today’s complex organizations. In a changing environment with increasing stakeholder pressures for CSR and sustainability, companies are increasingly developing programs that imply strategic and organizational changes. By translating mission and vision into CSR and sustainability-related principles, policies, and commitments, these corporations adopt what has been framed as a responsible behavior while CSR and sustainability-related shared values underlie the whole program (Ingham et al., 2017, p. 563). Other companies seek to consolidate their position in CSR and sustainability (Gond et al., 2011, p. 115). Referring to Clinton (2009) and Margolis and Walsh (2003), the authors introduce as an example, multinational corporations that have embraced social causes and corporations that partner with global institutions and NGOs to fight against AIDS and eradicate world poverty. In so doing, “these corporations act as responsible leaders” (Gond et al., 2011, p. 115). Next, we investigate the literature that links CSR and sustainability with organizational leadership focusing on identifying what we know about the emergence of responsible organizational leadership and how it should be practiced, in order to be a source of advantage for the organization.

Linking CSR and Organizational Leadership The relationship between CSR and organizational leadership has received considerable research attention in recent decades (Zhao et al., 2022). Reviews that have addressed the relationship serve as documentation for this research’s attention. Next, we draw on Zhao et al. (2022) in our summary of the main findings of “the most relevant review articles” focusing on the relationship between CSR and organizational leadership. Saha et al. (2020) reviewed papers on ethical leadership, CSR, and firm performance between 1958 and 2016. They found that ethical leadership influenced by personal values has a direct and positive influence on CSR and a direct or indirect impact on corporate performance. Christensen et al. (2014) discussed leadership in terms of individual traits, leader processes at work, and shared leadership as antecedents to CSR and corporate social irresponsibility. They also compared the influence of different leadership styles (i.e., ethical, responsible, and servant leadership) on CSR and reported that servant leadership is more beneficial in emerging CSR work. Fox et al. (2020) developed a model that takes into account both authentic leadership and business model flexibility to explain CSR heterogeneity. They showed that firms with authentic leadership are more likely to satisfy their stakeholders and gain more benefits from these behaviors compared with firms with less authentic leadership during times of unprecedented crises. In addition to the relationship between specific leadership styles and CSR discussed in the abovementioned reviews, scholars have also explored the thought/action processes and ethical differences between managers and employees in fulfilling CSR. Basu and Palazzo (2008) presented for example an organizational sensemaking process model that explains how managers think, say, and act in ways that respect their key stakeholders and society. VanSandt and Neck (2003) argued that ethical gaps exist between organizational and individual codes and concluded that the primary factor may be that

253

Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen

senior managers ignore the needs of external stakeholders. They suggested what they called selfleadership as a potential way to alleviate this problem. Drawing from a large sample of peer-reviewed articles, Zhao et al. (2022) map the landscape of the CSR–leadership and identify key developments and patterns over the period 1994–2020. Seven subdomains are identified: board characteristics, responsible leadership, emerging country context, team efficacy, CEO pay fairness, shareholder wealth, and cross-sector social partnership. These subdomains are what the authors call “the main hot subdomains of CSR–leadership research”. The responsible leadership subdomain appeared as early as 1994 which can be explained by the increasing focus on stakeholder management, CSR, and sustainability in the 1980s (e.g., Freeman, 1984). In terms of theory, the authors find that stakeholder theory is the most popular in the domain of CSR–leadership, with many papers citing this approach or relevant keywords related to the theory, such as “stakeholder engagement” and “stakeholder management”. The investigation of the literature linking CSR and organizational leadership shows that there seems to be a common understanding that responsible organizational leadership is about making sustainable business decisions, which take into account the interests of all stakeholders. It also shows that previous research has primarily focused on investigating the relationship between leadership and CSR, e.g., how different leadership styles influence the development and implementation of CSR. The CSR–leadership relationship is less frequently studied. Thus, according to Zhao et al. (2022), one important approach for future research could be to “examine the impact of CSR on leadership changes from one type of leadership to another”. This chapter aims to meet the call for investigating the impact of CSR on leadership made by Zhao et al. (2022), the focus being on the impact of CSR communication on leadership. As a starting point, we adopt the definition proposed by Gond et al. (2011) who define responsible organizational leadership as building and sustaining “good relationships with all relevant stakeholders for the advancement of humanism and the promotion of welfare on a global scale” (p. 115). The definition provides guidance for choosing an appropriate theory that can help to illuminate how responsible leaders can build and sustain good relations with all relevant stakeholders. This chapter argues that building and sustaining good relationships with all relevant stakeholders for the advancement of humanism and the promotion of welfare on a global scale inevitably requires communication with these stakeholders about the advancement of the social responsibilities of the organization. Thus, CSR communication theory is suggested as a theory that plays a central role in building and sustaining good relations with stakeholders. Based on this, the following research question is formulated.

How Does CSR Communication Contribute to Responsible Organizational Leadership? By answering this question, the chapter aims to contribute practical knowledge on how organizations and leaders can achieve and practice responsible leadership through CSR communication and with theoretical knowledge on how research on CSR communication as responsible leadership can be addressed in the future. Next, CSR communication theory is addressed, the focus being on developing research-based CSR communication principles in form of a framework aimed at analyzing and practicing CSR communication as responsible organizational leadership. CSR communication is here defined as “a process of anticipating stakeholders’ expectations, articulation of CSR policy and managing of different organization communication tools designed to provide true and transparent information about a company’s or a brand’s integration of its business operations, social and environmental concerns, and interactions with stakeholders” (Podnar, 2008, p. 75). Figure 20.1 shows the relationships we establish between organizational change, responsible organizational leadership, and CSR communication. CSR communication functions as a mediator between stakeholders’ pressure 254

CSR and Organizational Leadership External context Stakeholder pressures and expectations for CSR

Responsible organizational leadership

Organizational change

CSR communication process

Figure 20.1

CSR communication as a mediator between stakeholders’ pressure for CSR and responsible organizational leadership

• Awareness of the need to seek legitimacy for organizational change strategy from stakeholders

Anticipating stakeholder expectations

Articulating strategy • Managing communication tools and interactions with stakeholders

• Integrating the expectations of stakeholders in the organizational strategy

Organizational legitimacy and change through responsible organizational leadership

Figure 20.2 The CSR communication process

for CSR and responsible organizational leadership. Figure 20.2 outlines the flow of CSR communication inspired by the definition by Podnar (2008, p. 75). Specific CSR communication principles that are developed below and illustrated in Table 20.1 are aim to help scholars analyze and leaders practice CSR communication as responsible organizational leadership.

CSR Communication CSR communication is an important field of research that has considerably grown during the past 20–25 years with the increased stakeholder pressure on businesses to contribute to society (e.g., Kakabadse et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2018; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). It has been defined as “a process of anticipating stakeholders’ expectations, articulation of CSR policy and managing of different organization communication tools designed to provide true and transparent information about a company’s or a brand’s integration of its business operations, social and environmental concerns, and interactions with stakeholders” (Podnar, 2008, p. 75). The chapter adopts this definition which basically considers CSR communication as a legitimacy-enhancing practice that corporations

255

Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen Table 20.1 Contribution of CSR communication to responsible organizational transactional versus transformational leadership Approach

Responsible organizational leadership through CSR communication As tool

As process

As social transformation

Transactional leadership

Hierarchical purposedriven information sharing (e.g., CSR projects, policies, goals, and performances)

Purpose and outcomedriven strategy and policymaking driven by CSR aspirations and talk

Transformational leadership

CSR information sharing and brainstorming (e.g., about CSR values, visions statement, strategies, etc.)

Strategy-driven CSR development information and reporting processes (including staged dialogue with stakeholders) CSR strategy presentation and debating with stakeholders

CSR policy and strategy sketching, and action planning based on true deliberation and collaborative interaction with stakeholders

undertake by integrating social, environmental, ethical, human rights, and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders’ (Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018, p. 493). The underlying assumption is that every company needs tacit or explicit permission (legitimacy) from stakeholders to do business (e.g., Palazzo & Scherer, 2006). In initial research, the purpose of CSR communication is articulated as a demonstration of how businesses “contribute to society as responsible corporate citizens and to prove their corporate social responsibility credentials” (Du et al., 2010; Du & Vieira 2012; Merkelsen, 2011). In more recent CSR communication research, the quest for legitimacy and relationship building has been added as a strong driver for CSR communication (Nielsen & Thomsen, 2018; Seele & Lock, 2015; Walker & Wan, 2012), especially with a growing consumer skepticism towards corporate CSR claims emerging with CSR and sustainability as the number one attribute in corporate branding and communication (e.g., Hildebrand et al., 2011; Maon et al., 2021). Finally, CSR communication research has expanded to embrace deliberative and formative roles of CSR communication as sensemaking (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) and aspirational talk (Christensen, 2013, 2021; Schoeneborn et al., 2020) paving the way for more intensive approaches to CSR communication as change, leadership, and citizenship enacted through networking between businesses, local stakeholder groups, and NGOs (Crane and Glozer, 2016; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). Along with the above-mentioned expansion of CSR communication, which has initially focused on the external role of CSR communication, the internal perspective of CSR communication has emerged with the growing agenda of CSR and sustainability in organizational development and governance planning (Gond et al., 2011). Accordingly, CSR employee engagement and management has come to constitute a growing field of interest in organizational studies of CSR and CSR communication, emphasizing employees’ perception of CSR as having important impacts on their engagement and work satisfaction in the workplace (e.g., Gond et al., 2017; Rupp et al., 2018).

CSR Communication, Change, and Organizational Leadership To illustrate how CSR communication can be addressed from a changed perspective that stimulates organizational leadership, we are inspired by Johansson’s and Heide’s paradigmatic approach to

256

CSR and Organizational Leadership

communication in organizational change contexts. They focus on how communication is addressed as (a) a tool, (b) a process, and (c) social transformation respectively in studies of organizational change. While communication as a tool is based on a conceptualization of the organization as a rational system, seeking to drive an organizational change process as effectively as possible through the dissemination of information and justification to organizational members (Johansson and Heide, 2008, p. 292), communication as a process reflects the idea of communication as socially constructed acts embedded in change situations through processes of narratives and sensemaking among organizational members (Johansson & Heide, 2008, p. 294). Finally, communication as social transformation focuses on the relationship between communication and action by investigating how social change is negotiated and performed through discourse, which articulate patterns of power reflecting “socially constructed norms of acceptable or unacceptable behavior” among organizational members (Johansson and Heide, 2008, p. 296). In the following, we relate Johansson and Heide’s three paradigmatic communication approaches to equally well-established CSR communication frameworks drawing particularly on Du et al. (2010), Morsing and Schultz (2006), and Christensen et al. (2013). The three approaches adopted to outline CSR communication in the following are thus rooted in the overall communicative purposes and motives of CSR communication on the one hand and the conceptual foundation, interaction forms, and interrelationships with stakeholders on the other.

CSR as a Tool – The CSR Purpose and Motive as a Driver of CSR Communication In its initial phase, CSR communication was introduced as a tool to attract attention to businesses’ CSR plans and activities proving their ethical commitment and good doing to clients, suppliers, consumers, investors, journalists, and the local community. Accordingly, CSR communication was primarily completed through messaging, which is one-way communication from a business to its stakeholders. However, while stakeholders do not necessarily explicitly ask for CSR messages, they claim that they want to know about the good deeds of the companies they buy from or invest in, while also tending to “become leery of the CSR motives when companies aggressively promote their CSR efforts” (Du et al., 2010, p. 8). Promotional CSR communication thus has been regarded by many as a double-edged sword introduced as a means of transparency of businesses’ good deeds, while causing skepticism amongst critical stakeholders who refuse to buy into the idea of CSR communication as a contribution, rather than a marketing and PR stunt (Elving, 2013). Along with the promotional purpose, the motive of CSR communication is believed to be an important determinator for how stakeholders evaluate and welcome CSR communication. Thus, CSR communication focusing on intrinsic (genuine ethical) motives and values based on their desire to contribute to societal and ethical agendas resonates better amongst stakeholders than extrinsic motives focusing on businesses’ self-beneficial corporate outcomes as their driver for CSR (Du et al., 2010, p. 9). In consequence, to overcome this problem and to increase the credibility of CSR messages, it is suggested by the authors that businesses explicitly communicate the functional and socio-ethical values that are embedded in their CSR initiatives for their employees, customers, NGOs, and beneficiaries (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Du et al., 2010). Seen from an organizational leadership perspective, CSR communication as a tool contributes first and foremost to disclose businesses’ CSR and sustainability initiatives to important stakeholders outside and inside the organization through CSR and sustainability reporting, press news, social media stories, etc. which allow professional stakeholders (journalists, competitors, and clients) as well as consumers and employees to keep track of the development of businesses’ CSR and sustainability agendas and to compare and rate them from one year to another. This disclosing attribute of CSR communication may thus both generate a stimulating inside-out and outside-in effect on businesses

257

Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen

to sustain their engagement in society and keep abreast with the expectations from and promises to stakeholders in line with recent principles of organizational leadership practices.

CSR as a Process – Social Interaction as a Driver for CSR Communication The narrow approach to promotional CSR communication and its primary external focus introduced above has regularly expanded towards integrating more internal communication perspectives along with increasing dyadic approaches to stakeholder communication. Today’s businesses are thus increasingly involved in social and communicative networks, whereby CSR is increasingly shaped by and in communication processes (Castello et al., 2013). Accordingly, communication, besides providing functional value for CSR, comes to add interpretative and constitutive values for how CSR is being constructed (Elving et al., 2015; Golob et al., 2017). The process perspective on CSR communication allows us to develop these values further. Departing from stakeholder theory and the idea of stakeholder interactions as mutually interactive and responsive relationships, Morsing and Schultz (2006) developed a seminal framework of CSR communication, distinguishing different communicative scenarios based on processes of sensegiving and sensemaking between businesses and stakeholders. Inspired by Andriof and Waddock’s (2002) approach to stakeholder interaction and stakeholder relationship management, CSR communication is hence conceptualized from the perspective of iterative processes of involvement, participation, and dialogue with stakeholders rather than from the perspective of stakeholders to be managed. Based on this premise, Morsing and Schultz develop three types of strategies whereby CSR communication responds to stakeholders’ expectations based on (1)the stakeholder information strategy identified as “one-way sensegiving communication”, (2)the stakeholder response strategy identified as “two-way asymmetric sensegiving -> sensemaking communication”, and (3)the stakeholder involvement strategy identified as “two-way symmetric sensegiving sensemaking communication” (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 326). Compared to the one-way CSR information strategy, which corresponds to using CSR communication as a tool, the CSR response and involvement strategies integrate both linear one- and two-way interactional perspectives of CSR communication. While the response strategy consists primarily of using sensegiving strategies drawing on staged rather than genuine interactive response strategies, the involvement strategy, is articulated as a more intensive engaging strategy, resting on dialogical principles and acts of co-construction with stakeholders. This also implies that the involvement strategy with its more intense focus on mutuality, dialogue, coconstruction, and collaboration can be seen as a stronger driver for responsible organizational leadership and change than the two other response strategies, which will be further elaborated in the following sections.

CSR as Social Transformation – Visions as a Driver for CSR Communication As an illustration of CSR as social transformation, we draw on the research of CSR communication as performative, and more specifically on Christensen et al.’s (2013) work on CSR as aspirational talk. According to the authors, aspirational talk refers to forms of CSR communication used in various situations to formulate, define, or articulate corporate principles, ideals, visions, and standards or presenting new plans as a means of practicing responsible leadership and stimulating positive social change prior to having totally accomplished such change in practice. This is in line with the idea of CSR aspirational talk, suggesting intentional rather than completed social acts and deeds in the moment of the enunciation, whereby aspirational talk becomes potentially productive of change and positive development (Christensen et al., 2013, p. 373). The idea of the aspirational talk is thus residing in the embedded performativity of speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969), rejecting the radical distinction between talk and action. Following this conceptualization, CSR communication is more 258

CSR and Organizational Leadership

generally regarded as “essentially aspirational rather than a perfect reflection of organizational practices” (Christensen et al., 2013, p. 373). With the idea of CSR as aspirational talk, the constitutive conceptualization of communication has provided new insights into the field and potentials of CSR communication as a platform for driving responsible organizational leadership and social transformation. First, the theory of aspirational talk has contributed to refute the hitherto strong insistence on consistency between the walk and the talk of CSR, in that both types of acts are embedded in the understanding of communication as performative. Second, to move organizational leadership towards social transformation and change, organizational managers need aspirational talk to foster corporate processes of conceptualizing, making sense of, and implementing new plans, visions, and ideas to develop their organizations into more socially oriented and committed, sustainable businesses. Finally, in a recent contribution investigating talk-action dynamics of aspirational talk in an organizational setting, Christensen et al. have complemented their initial study with a second study on aspirational talk, providing a schematic overview of how CSR talk-action dynamics potentially stimulate better organizational practices. The paper is formalized as potential organizational modalities of aspirational talk related to the following CSR reflection scenarios: brainstorming, vision statements, strategic plans, and excuses (Christensen et al., 2021, p. 414). The framework thus illustrates and exemplifies what CSR talk may potentially accomplish in different modalities running from sketching ideas to driving, explaining, and justifying CSR action. Addressed from an aspirational perspective, CSR communication hence becomes an obvious strong co-player in organizational change processes, with a potential to tune managers towards responsible organizational leadership.

CSR Communication as Responsible Organizational Leadership Next, we sum up the three communication approaches introduced above by inserting them in Table 20.1 that relate them to responsible transactional and transformational organizational leadership respectively. The table thus demonstrates the three CSR communication approaches’ main implications for and contributions to practicing responsible organizational leadership. Practiced from a transactional leadership perspective, CSR communication as a tool (A) contributes to describe and explain businesses’ CSR activities, projects, and plans assuming that stakeholders have no prior knowledge about the CSR but could benefit from getting insights into these issues. Concerning the contribution to transformational leadership, the information sharing would be expected to be more dynamic and brainstorming. CSR communication as a process (B) contributes to transactional leadership through informing, reporting, and “pretending to” discuss businesses’ CSR strategies with stakeholders mostly in terms of “staged” rather than “actual dialogue”, which means raising questions for which the answer is already given or is subject to pre-established formats. Its contribution to transformational leadership, on the other hand, is based on actual sensegiving and sensemaking iterative interaction processes, which are an important prerequisite for stakeholders to be able to support and influence transformational leadership processes. For CSR communication as a social transformation (C), the contribution of CSR communication to transactional leadership is articulated as strategy and policymaking interactions based on aspirational talks, sensemaking, and decision-making. This is also the case for the contribution of CSR communication to transformational leadership, with the difference that intensive debating, negotiating, and collaborating with stakeholders may be more pronounced.

259

Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen

Discussion and Concluding Remarks In this study, we theoretically examined how CSR communication contributes to responsible organizational leadership, the focus being on the CSR and CSR communication–leadership relationship, i.e., the impact CSR and CSR communication has on leadership. Previous studies have primarily focused on investigating the leadership–CSR relationship, i.e., the impact leadership has on CSR (Zhao et al., 2022). The study advances existing knowledge on the relationship between CSR and organizational leadership by contributing research-based CSR communication principles that help understanding, analyzing, and managing CSR communication as a practice that fosters responsible organizational leadership. The chapter shows that CSR communication can be addressed from a changed perspective that stimulates organizational leadership. Communication in change contexts can be approached as a tool, a process, and/or social transformation (Johansson and Heide, 2008). As a tool, communication is used to drive an organizational change process as effectively as possible through the dissemination of information and justification to organizational members. As a process, communication is conceptualized as socially constructed acts embedded in change situations through processes of narratives and sensemaking among organizational members. Finally, communication as social transformation focuses on the relationship between communication and action by investigating how social change is negotiated and performed through discourse. The chapter highlights that CSR communication as a practice that engages leaders at all levels and fosters responsible organizational leadership can take three forms: stakeholder information, stakeholder sensemaking, and stakeholder negotiation. Each of these forms can be related to transformational leadership as one of the current approaches to organizational leadership as “a process that changes and transforms people” (Northouse, 2007, p. 175) or to transactional leadership as a more traditional approach to organizational communication that “refers to the bulk of leadership models, which focus on the exchanges that occur between leaders and their followers” (Northouse, 2007, p. 176). The chapter outlines the main contributions of the three CSR communication approaches to the emergence and practice of responsible organizational leadership, arguing that CSR communication as social transformation combined with transformational leadership is the most fruitful approach. Thus, the chapter also shows the main implications of the approaches for responsible organizational leadership, e.g., missed opportunities of sensemaking if CSR communication is (only) approached as a tool by managers who practice transactional leadership. This is important knowledge as it helps scholars and leaders understand why and how CSR communication fosters, develops, and supports responsible organizational leadership. The researchbased CSR communication principles developed in the chapter can guide scholars who work with CSR communication text and talk in their research projects and leaders who communicate with external partners or stakeholders in general about the social responsibilities of the organization, the overall aim being to act as responsible organizational leaders who are capable of integrating the expectations of multiple stakeholders in the overall strategy of the organization. By virtue of the above results, the study contributes to the CSR communication literature and the organizational leadership literature by exploring the CSR communication-responsible organizational leadership relationship and suggesting research-based CSR communication principles that foster, develop, and support the relationship. Future studies could continue to explore the CSR communication-responsible organizational leadership relationship, e.g., by linking the CSR communication-responsible organizational leadership relationship and the responsible organizational leadership–CSR communication relationship and by conducting empirical research related to both forms of relationships.

260

CSR and Organizational Leadership

Discussion Questions 1

2 3 4

5

6

The chapter defines responsible organizational leadership as building and sustaining good relationships with all relevant stakeholders for the advancement of humanism and the promotion of welfare on a global scale. Explain the benefits of this definition for its application in theory and practice. What are the benefits of exploring the CSR communication–organizational leadership relationship? Explain the difference between an investigation of the CSR–leadership relationship versus an investigation of the leadership–CSR relationship. In which situations can managers use CSR as aspirational talk as a strategic CSR communication tool for practicing organizational leadership? Which challenges and opportunities might be connected to this strategy if any? Starbucks is known for having a strong CSR profile and maintaining strong relationships with their stakeholders. On their website, they claim among others: “Our aspiration is to be people positive—investing in humanity and the well-being of everyone we connect with, from our partners to coffee farmers to the customers in our stores and beyond” (https://stories.starbucks. com/stories/people/). How would you characterize and evaluate Starbucks’ approach to CSR and sustainability web communication in terms of practicing responsible transformational leadership through CSR communication? Justify your response(s).

References Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking – Theory, responsibility and engagement. Routledge, 19–42. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. Bash, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136. Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257–272. Castell¢, I., Morsing, M., & Schultz, F. (2013). Communicative dynamics and the polyphony of corporate social responsibility in the network society. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 683–694. Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20, 372–393. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2021). Talk-action dynamics: Modalities of aspirational talk. Organisation Studies, 42(3), 407–427. Clinton, B. (2009). Creating value in an economic crisis. Harvard Business Review, September, 70–71. Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. Du, S., & Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 413–427. Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277–292. Elving, W. J. L., Golob, U., Podnar, K., Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2015). The bad, the ugly and the good: New challenges for CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 118–127. Fox, C., Davis, P., & Baucus, M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility during unprecedented crises: The role of authentic leadership and business model flexibility. Management Decision, 58(10), 2213–2233. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

261

Anne Ellerup Nielsen and Christa Thomsen Golob, U., Verk, N., Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C., Elving, W. J. L., & Podnar, K. (2017). The communicative stance of CSR: Reflections on the value of CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(2), 166–177. Gond, J. P., Akremi, El., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person‐centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 225–246. Gond, J. P., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. (2011). The human resources contribution to responsible leadership: An exploration of the CSR–HR interface. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 115–132. Hildebrand, D., Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A corporate marketing perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1353–1364. Ingham, M., & Havard, C. (2017). CSR as strategic and organizational change at “Groupe la Poste.” Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 563–589. Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: three communication approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 288–305. Kakabadse, N. K., Rozuel, É., & Lee-Davies, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder approach: A conceptual review. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4, 277–302. Kim, C., Kim, J., Marshall, R., & Afzali, H. (2018). Stakeholder influence, institutional duality, and CSR involvement of MNC subsidiaries. Journal of Business Research, 91, 40–47. Maon, F., Swaen, V., & De Roeck, K. (2021). Corporate branding and corporate social responsibility: Toward a multi-stakeholder interpretive perspective. Journal of Business Research, 12, 64–77. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. Merkelsen, H. (2011). The double‐edged sword of legitimacy in public relations. Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 125–143. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338. Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: A legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(4), 492–511. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership, theory and practice. Sage Publications. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71–88. Podnar, K. (2008). Guest editorial: Communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 75–81. Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Skarlicki, D. P., Paddock, E. L., Kim, T.-Y., & Nadisic, T. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR‐specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 559–579. Saha, R., Shashi, Cerchione, R., Singh, R., & Dahiya, R. (2020). Effect of ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility on firm performance: A systematic review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 409–429. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Of walking, talking and t(walking). Business & Society, 59(1), 5–33. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2015). Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 401–414. Van Sandt, C. V., & Neck, C. P. (2003). Bridging ethics and self-leadership: Overcoming ethical discrepancies between employee and organizational standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 363–387. Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227–242. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Zhao, L., Yang, M. M., Wang, Z., & Michelson, G. (2022). Trends in the dynamic evolution of corporate social responsibility and leadership: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–23. https://doi-org.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:12048/10.1007/s10551-022-05035-y

262

21 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY AND CSR COMMUNICATION Claudia Janssen Danyi

Introduction The intersections of organizational history and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are emerging, intriguing, and relevant fields of research. While current research primarily stems from the “historic turn” in management and organization studies (see Godfrey et al., 2016; Phillips et al., 2020; Stutz, 2018), it has received comparably less attention within organizational communication and public relations (e.g., Janssen, 2013; Logan, 2021). Within CSR communication research, corporate history also remains an understudied area. Yet, perspectives that center communication have much to add to this area of empirical inquiry, theory development, and practice. CSR communication further constitutes a unique site for the communicative (co-)construction and negotiation of corporate histories. Organizational histories, Godfrey et al. (2016) argued, are inherently linked to questions of “morality and social impacts” (p. 599). Not merely a matter of documenting the past, they constitute products and processes of “narrative construction” (Foster et al., 2017, p. 1179). As such, corporate history can be understood as “a malleable substance that actors mold and shape to justify future actions” (Godfrey et al., 2016, p. 599), and to legitimize, moralize, and gain power (Godfrey et al., 2016; Mena et al., 2016). This makes them a vital strategic resource for organizations and managers to achieve strategic advantages (Foster et al., 2017). For instance, Foster et al. (2017) suggested that managers strategically employ the construction of historical narratives to foster organizational culture, legitimacy, authenticity, and identity. Given their power and strategic relevance for organizations, it is not surprising that organizational histories can also become sites of intense struggles (e.g., Janssen, 2012, 2013; Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016). Examples include public discourses about corporations’ complicity with the forced labor system and Holocaust in Nazi Germany (e.g., Booth et al., 2007; Federman, 2021; Janssen, 2013) or US American corporations’ ties to and benefits gained from slavery and systemic racism (e.g., Janssen, 2012; Logan, 2021). These “narrative contests” (Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016) over corporate pasts continue to matter. In 2021, for instance, the company Minnetonka followed up an apology with the designation of a “reconciliation advisor” to help the company address and make up for past practices of appropriating and profiting from Native American culture (Treisman, 2021). Furthermore, even in the absence of public contests over direct corporate wrongdoing, corporations may engage and be expected to engage in corporate social advocacy (CSA) based on the recognition of historic institution-level complicity with systemic injustice (see Logan, 2021).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-25

263

Claudia Janssen Danyi

When corporate histories and their bearing on the present and future are revisited, they can come to question the organization’s present-day moral character and legitimacy. At the same time, such struggles over corporate histories are connected to broader societal struggles for reconciliation of past and present injustice and constitute important sites of reconciliation (see Janssen, 2012, 2013). Thus, while CSR communication draws on corporate histories as a strategic resource, corporate histories may also constitute matters of CSR and call for corporate historical responsibility (CHR) themselves (Janssen, 2013). Rather than on the history of CSR and CSR communication (e.g., Ihlen & von Weltzien Hoivik, 2015), this chapter focuses on the linkages between CSR communication and the communicative (co-)construction, maintenance, and negotiation of corporate histories as important areas of research. It first provides a review of literature and research on CSR communication and organizational history. The review identifies two lines of research with a focus on CSR communication: •

•

Functionalistic approaches that center the communication of organizational (CSR) history as a strategic resource for CSR and crisis communication. This research has primarily examined how the communication of corporate history may bolster organizational messages and outcomes. Constructivist approaches that center organizational histories as contested narratives and matters of responsibility The review discusses three emerging theoretical frameworks that have situated struggles over corporate history within the realm of CSR and CSR communication; CHR (Janssen, 2013), corporate responsibility to race (CRR) (Logan, 2019, 2021), and historic CSR (HCSR) (Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016).

Proceeding, the chapter identifies and discusses underlying contradictions and tensions between these approaches to corporate history, which broadly reflect common differences between functionalistic and constructivist approaches to CSR communication (see Golob et al., 2013). Specifically, they revolve around remembering and forgetting positive versus negative corporate histories, ontological questions of control and boundaries of corporate history, and the positioning of negative corporate histories as threats to the organization versus a matter of reconciliation. Rather than aiming to resolve these tensions, the chapter embraces them as a fruitful base to discuss future directions and challenges for research and debate at the intersections of corporate history and CSR communication.

Literature Review Functionalistic Approaches: Corporate History as a Strategic Resource Functionalistic approaches have studied corporate history primarily as a positive strategic resource to bolster organizational messages and outcomes. This work has focused on the strategic potential of corporate history for CSR communication on the one hand and of the organization’s CSR and crisis history for crisis communication on the other hand. Studies have shown, for instance, that the communication of CSR history decreases public skepticism and positively affects perceptions of organizational credibility (e.g., Pomering & Johnson, 2009). Blombäck and Scandelius (2013) found that combining messages about corporate heritage with CSR communication increases perceptions of brand responsibility. Besides, scholars have also focused on refining our understanding of the role of an organization’s crisis and CSR history for crisis responses and perceptions (e.g., Chung & Lee, 2019; Eaddy & Jin, 2018; Ham & Kim, 2019; Klein & Dawar, 2004; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) identified crisis history, which commonly includes the existence or absence of past corporate irresponsibility, as a central variable for explaining and predicting public perceptions and expectations during a crisis (see Coombs, 2004). 264

Organizational History and CSR

Specifically, it established that a corporate crisis history – defined as the occurrence of similar crises in the past – increases the attribution of responsibility to the organization during a crisis and, thus, the potential negative effects of the crisis on the organization. Studies have confirmed SCCT’s prediction of the effect of crisis history over time (e.g., Coombs, 2004; Eaddy & Jin, 2018). In addition to crisis history, scholars have analyzed the utility of the communication of an organization’s CSR history for organizational crisis communication. Klein and Dawar (2004) found, for instance, that CSR history affects how stakeholders attribute blame during product-harm crises. Integrating SCCT and the Persuasion Knowledge Model, Ham & Kim (2019) proposed an empirical framework that defined CSR history as a variable that moderates the effects of CSR-based crisis responses. This study confirmed and refined earlier findings (e.g., Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009) that claims regarding a long organizational CSR history are more effective to mitigate crisis impacts than those referencing short organizational CSR history. Specifically, when stakeholders perceived a short CSR history, they relied on CSR motivation as either extrinsic or intrinsic for their evaluation. In contrast, a long CSR history bolstered CSR-based responses regardless of the perceived motivation (Ham & Kim, 2019). Other research has focused on how CSR history can support the effectiveness of specific sub-genres of crisis communication. Chung and Lee (2019), for instance, found that communication of CSR history positively affects the perception of the integrity of a corporate apology. Functionalistic research aimed at explaining, predicting, and controlling outcomes, has thus established the communication of a positive corporate history as a valuable and effective strategic resource for CSR and crisis communication. Corporate history, however, has predominantly been assumed as a one-dimensional variable – for instance, as a history of repeat crises, a long or short CSR history, or as the mentioning of corporate historical narratives, traditions, and heritage, among others. Based on this observation, Eaddy (2021) has recently called for more work to account for the complexity of an organization’s crisis history and proposed several dimensions that make crisis histories more or less salient. These include time, proximity, visibility, and crisis type, among others. However, the engagement of corporate history as a complex and dynamic construct – communicatively and strategically produced, maintained, and altered within and outside of the corporation and in the context of specific economic, political, and social systems – still holds much potential for future functionalistic research on the uses and functions of historical narratives as a strategic resource for CSR communication as well as on the strategic construction and communication of an organization’s CSR history toward different ends.

Constructivist Approaches: Corporate Histories as Contested Narratives and Responsibilities While functionalistic research concerned with the strategic value of corporate history emphasizes the utility of positive corporate histories, struggles around corporate histories have gained increasing attention as contested sites and responsibilities for CSR communication (Booth et al., 2007; Federman, 2021; Janssen, 2012, 2013; Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016; Spiliotis, 2006; Van Lent & Smith, 2020). Studies have, for instance, critiqued Aetna Inc.’s apologia in response to public pressure regarding its past business practice of selling slave insurance policies (Janssen, 2012), analyzed Volkswagen’s defensive and eventually reconciliatory communication regarding its complicity with the forced labor system in Nazi Germany (Janssen, 2013), and examined questions of accountability of the French railroad company for transporting French Jews to concentration camps (Federman, 2021). While these struggles can come to present crises for organizations (Janssen, 2012), Spiliotis (2006) first argued that German corporations’ recognition of moral responsibilities stemming from past ties to the forced labor system in Germany reflected a profound type of corporate citizenship. Scholars have further conceptually situated these discourses within the realm of CSR; such as CHRs (Janssen, 2013), HCSR (Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016), and CRR (Logan, 2021) (see Table 21.1). 265

266

Critical Race Theory (CRT), CSR, CHR, CSA

Rhetoric of reconciliation, corporate legitimacy and (re-)legitimation, remembrance and public memory, CSR

Explanatory/Typology Historic corporate Legitimacy, political social CSR, CSR responsibility (HCSR) ( Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016)

Corporate responsibility to race (CRR) ( Logan, 2019, 2021)

Normative Corporate historical responsibility (CHR) ( Janssen, 2013)

Theoretical grounding

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Introduces the term and theory of HCSR Proposes a typology of narrative contests over corporate history based on claim legitimacy and intensity of corporate engagement

Introduces the theory and term of CHR Theorizes how corporations can further reconciliation of past corporate complicity with historical injustice and seek re-legitimation Integrates rhetoric of reconciliation and CSR Introduces the theory and term of CRR Theorizes responsibilities that stem from the “racialized roots of the corporation” (p. 977) Proposes CSA for racial justice as a key CRR

Key contributions

Communicative contest: Volkswagen’s history of forced labor during the time of the Nazi regime in Germany Latent contest: IBM’s past of supplying technology for the Nazi regime Open contest: Chiquita’s past in Latin America Hostile contest: Monsanto’s past of providing Agent Orange during the Vietnam War

Race Together Initiative (Starbucks) “The Look” campaign (Procter and Gamble) “Dream Crazy” commercial (Nike) Ben & Jerry’s corporate advocacy for racial justice

CHR: Case study of Volkswagen’s CHR toward its use of forced labor in Nazi Germany Defensive responses (non-CHR): UBS, Credite Swiss, and Swiss Bank Corporation and profits gained from Nazi occupations and the Holocaust; Aetna Inc. and the business with slave insurance policies ( Janssen, 2012)

Example(s) referenced or analyzed

Table 21.1 Overview of constructivist approaches: Corporate histories as contested narratives and responsibility

Claudia Janssen Danyi

Organizational History and CSR

Janssen (2013) introduced the term and normative theory of CHR. In addition to present- and future-oriented philanthropic, economic, ethical, and legal responsibilities (Carroll, 2016), CHR contends that corporations can have moral obligations that stem from past corporate complicity with historical injustice. Focusing on reconciliatory and ethical practices of addressing past corporate ties to historical injustice, it situates these struggles within discourses of (re-)legitimation and reconciliation (Janssen, 2013). CHR holds that past corporate wrongdoing, such as complicity with genocide, slavery, or other crimes against humanity, carries present and future responsibilities toward victims and their descendants and constructive societal discourses of reconciliation of that injustice. These historical responsibilities generally include accountability for and remembrance of the past, willingness to repent, openness to reconciliatory dialogue, and commitments to preventing the past injustice from happening again and, thus, to shaping a more just present and future (Janssen, 2013). Building on the rhetoric of reconciliation (Doxtader, 2003; Hatch, 2008), CHR holds that the organization needs to open itself up to reconciliatory dialogue that centers the needs of victims and their descendants. How CHR may take shape and how the corporation can appropriately address its past specifically is thus subject to that dialogue, which is an integral part of CHR itself. CHR thus constitutes a communicative orientation, process, and practice (Janssen, 2013). It emphasizes reconciliatory communication about the past and embraces the present and future corporate social responsibilities based on fostering knowledge and remembrance of the past as a moral responsibility. As such, CHR stands in contrast to “selective forgetfulness” (Ricoeur, 1996, p. 22; Mena et al., 2016), stances of silence, ignorance, and denial, as well as corporate apologia and image restoration (Janssen, 2013). Based on Volkswagen’s CHR practices and communication regarding its past complicity with the forced labor system in Nazi Germany, Janssen (2013) illustrated how CHR may take shape in collaboration with victims. While Volkswagen initially took defensive stances, it eventually shifted to CHR communication, which resulted in the establishment of a public archive, furthering historical scholarship and publications about its past, an exhibition, publications of victims’ memoirs, a memorial, and the documentation of its CHR activities within its CSR reports, among others. Besides, Volkswagen also framed its present-day CSR commitments to labor and human rights as historical responsibilities stemming from its history of forced labor (Janssen, 2013). CHR as a communicative practice is, thus, inherently connected to CSR and CSR communication. It further holds the potential to become a transformative process that allows for transcending the position of a perpetrator within the discourse about the past toward that of a partner in the shared mission of preventing the past injustice from repeating itself. This may open a sustainable path of (re-)legitimation and a base for credible present-day and future CSR initiatives and programs (Janssen, 2013). Logan (2019, 2021) recently built on CHR, among others, and proposed the normative theory of CRR, which delineates historical responsibilities specifically to race in the US context; namely responsibilities “to advocate for racial justice, attempt to improve race relations, and support achieving a more equitable and harmonious society” (Logan, 2019, p. 983). This approach grounds historical responsibilities at the level of the institution. It proposes that corporate responsibilities to race not only stem from the “racialized roots of the corporation” (p. 977). Consequently, CRR holds that all organizations that are part of the “institution of corporate America” have present and future corporate responsibilities to race and race relations. This approach broadens the scope of corporations that may (and may be expected to) recognize corporate responsibilities to race in recognition of moral obligations stemming from the past, even in the absence of direct past corporate wrongdoing. It centers the corporation’s historical embeddedness within broader social, political, and economic structures and systems over time, along with benefits gained from systemic

267

Claudia Janssen Danyi

racism. It further connects those historical responsibilities with contemporary practices of CSA as a core CRR (Logan, 2021). While CHR and CRR constitute normative theories, Schrempf-Stirling et al. (2016) introduced the term Historic Corporate Social Responsibility (HCSR) to define and explain various types of “narrative contest” that may arise over corporate histories. Situating corporations “as intergenerational moral actors subject to fluctuations in socially constructed legitimacy, who are themselves participants in deliberative contests of narratives about their own past [ … ]” (p. 704), this work proposed a typology that centers the legitimacy of the claim (from limited to high) regarding the corporate past and the intensity of corporate engagement (from low to high) of the narrative contests as explanatory variables – the latter range from denial and confrontation to “selective transparency” and reconciliation. The HCSR typology captures CHR and CRR practices and communication as high corporate engagement and “communicative contests” when in response to high-legitimacy claims regarding corporate pasts. It further predicts high but moderating future intensity and a positive effect on corporate legitimacy for these contests. The approach diverges from normative theories as it incorporates diverse types of contests over responsibility for corporate pasts under the umbrella of CSR, including those that reflect corporate irresponsibility when examined from the perspectives of CHR and CRR, such as high-legitimacy claims and low corporate engagement contests (“hostile contests” – see Table 21.1). While HCSR, thus, provides a framework that categorizes various struggles over contested corporate pasts regardless of their outcomes, CHR and CRR offer theoretical lenses to consider and understand the moral dimensions as well as the social impacts of corporate responses to these struggles. Corporate shifts toward reconciliatory communication based on the recognition of the past as a moral responsibility along with the transition of initial responses toward long-term and sustainable commitments signify potentially significant processes of social and organizational change. This leads to questions about the factors that contribute to and undermine the adoption of sustainable CHR or CRR practices. Janssen’s (2013) study of Volkswagen’s CHR points to the recognition of the past as a moral responsibility and the resolution of lawsuits along with the absence of future liability claims as contributing factors that may impact an organization’s willingness to engage in CHR communication and dialogue. More research, including empirical studies beyond in-depth case studies, however, is needed to fully understand the different shapes of CHR and CRR and their social impacts, the implications of different types of narrative contests over corporate histories for CSR and CSR communication, their potential for organizational change, as well as the linkages of these struggles to contemporary social movements, broader societal discourses of reconciliation, and social change. CHR and CRR further hold the potential to ground current CSR and CSA practices within solid rationales that may enhance the credibility of those practices. Though approaching CHR as a strategic resource may itself undermine reconciliation and, thus, CHR (see Janssen, 2013), research might contribute to understanding perceptions of CHR and CRR practices and whether they enhance the credibility and authenticity of an organization’s CSR communication.

Strategic Tool or Responsibility? Tensions and Contradictions Like other areas of CSR communication, corporate history leads us to tensions that arise between functionalistic and constructivist approaches and considerations of utility and responsibility. The former suggests that organizations own, control, and strategically construct and employ their history to support CSR communication. It focuses on positive and beneficial corporate history, while negative corporate histories likely become threats to this resource and the organization itself (see, e.g., Balmer & Burghausen, 2019). In contrast, the latter makes salient the meaning of corporate history for diverse groups outside of the organization, the limitations of corporate control over corporate history, and the co-construction and negotiation of corporate histories within multiple political and social arenas along with their interconnectedness with broader scale (historical) 268

Organizational History and CSR

injustices. This section explores these tensions as a base for delineating areas for future research on CSR communication and corporate history.

Selective Remembering and Forgetting of Positive and Negative Corporate History Viewing corporate history as a strategic resource or a responsibility alters the scope and boundaries of corporate history considered, constructed, and told within the sphere of CSR communication. One fundamental tension rests on the simple emphasis of positive versus negative history. At the same time, this difference results in more complex tensions around responsibility and irresponsibility toward history and the communicative construction of the corporation’s impact and positioning in society over time. Specifically, emphasizing positive CSR history and corporate history to bolster CSR and crisis communication tends to construct the corporation as an entity that has had positive impacts on diverse groups of stakeholders and society, while it selectively forgets negative histories and impacts. As a form of “selective forgetfulness” (Mena et al., 2016; Ricoeur, 1996), corporate history exclusively treated as a strategic resource will tend to erase corporate ties to injustice and oppression. It is, thus, not surprising that it commonly takes public pressure for corporations to address their skeletons in the closet. Indeed, revelations of corporate ties to (historical) injustice – likely brought forth outside of the organization by activists, victims and descendants, lawsuits, investigations, and investigative journalism – can disrupt and threaten these positive narratives and ultimately come to prevent the erasure of this part of corporate history from public memory. These struggles then also present struggles over public memory, specifically, over what history is forgotten and remembered (see Janssen, 2012, 2013). Indeed, “public memory” and “memory-justice” (Booth, 2001) are critical dimensions of these struggles. It is often a desire of victims of historical injustice that “these things must not be forgotten” (Waldron, 1992, p. 5) and should be passed on to future generations. Memory maintains the injustice of the past as an immediate part of individual and collective identities in the present, sometimes over generations (Waldron 1992). Consequently, when voices start calling for acknowledgment of past corporate wrongdoing, they also call for recognition of the victims’ and descendants’ accounts, which may have conveniently been “forgotten”. Oppressed groups have continuously struggled to gain recognition for their recollections and history. Indeed, Booth (2001) has argued that memory is a vital part of justice itself and that “memory-justice” requires the responsiveness to and acknowledgment of past injustice. Through the lens of memory-justice selective forgetfulness, denial, and ignorance constitute injustice themselves because they prevent the memories and experiences of victims and their descendants from being recognized, acknowledged, and honored. When corporations come to ignore or even deny past complicity with injustice, they may thus contribute to maintaining the status quo and ultimately undermine the realization of CSR. In other words, tensions between remembering and forgetting positive versus negative histories present a more fundamental ethical tension between memory-justice and -injustice; thus, between corporate responsibility and irresponsibility. CHR suggested a resolution for how corporations might embrace negative history as a call for reconciliation and CSR by building a positive CHR history that might lead to sustainable reconciliation and bolster its legitimacy, relationships, and reputation (Janssen, 2013). However, the tensions between an embrace of positive versus negative corporate histories provide a rich ground for future research and debate.

Control and Boundaries of Corporate History Overall, discussions about the nature of corporate history in the context of CSR communication have been scarce. Though corporate history is generally acknowledged as communicatively 269

Claudia Janssen Danyi

constructed, conflicting underlying ontological assumptions become apparent in both research areas. When corporate history is viewed as a strategic resource, the emphasis is placed on the process of control and management of corporate history. Functionalistic approaches tend to position the corporation as the quasi-owner and -shaper of its history and, thus, the narrative construction of corporate history primarily within the confines of the organization. Constructivist approaches to corporate history complicate these underlying assumptions. When corporate history becomes the subject of public “narrative contests” over past corporate wrongdoing, the co-construction of corporate history as a contested, dynamic, and shared process and struggle becomes salient as the corporation’s control and ownership of its “own” historical narratives are challenged and revealed as limited. For instance, when Grünenthal, the pharmaceutical company that produced, marketed, and sold thalidomide in the 1950s and 1960s, apologized publicly for the first time in 2012, victims and their associations directly protested and challenged the apology along with the historical narratives Grünenthal constructed about its past. They further promoted counternarratives to the company’s accounts, leaving the contest over Grünenthal’s past unresolved and ongoing (McKie, 2012). These struggles further underline and recognize that corporate history and the public memory of corporate histories have meaning for and impact on diverse groups outside of the organization (e.g., Mena et al., 2016). Not only may they constitute an integral part of individual and collective identities (see Waldron, 1992), but they may also become a matter of memory-justice. This calls for considering other-directed approaches to corporate history in research and practice. It also points to the co-construction of corporate history as a possible site for establishing, improving, and maintaining positive organization–public relationships.

Directions for Future Research In addition, research at the intersections of corporate history and CSR communication can consider, examine, and understand corporate histories beyond those told and constructed by the organization, along with implications for CSR communication and the communication of the organization’s CSR history. Constructivist research has also primarily emphasized the corporation’s perspective within these discourses. Thus, research centering activists’ and victims’ accounts of corporate history as well as their communication, expectations, and needs within these narrative contests would further our understanding of these struggles and processes. Considering the reactive notion of CSR practice as a response to activist pressure and challenges to corporate legitimacy (Brown, 2008), functionalistic and constructivist research might also explore how activist campaigns can effectively challenge corporate histories and resist self-serving corporate constructions of history to affect change and ultimately push corporations toward CHR and CRR communication. Revealing the connectedness of corporate histories with broader contemporary political, economic, and social struggles and movements, contested corporate histories further make salient the interconnectedness of corporate pasts with broader social, economic, and political histories. Rather than corporate histories that center the organization as a positive agent, this calls for emphasizing the reciprocal entanglements of corporate histories with broader social, economic, and political systems and developments across time. From a normative standpoint, what the corporation did and did not do under different regimes and systems – for instance, during US American slavery or the Nazi regime and the Holocaust – becomes an important element of its CSR history. It further complicates concepts of long versus short CSR histories as corporate responsibility is not confined here to the existence of official CSR programs but to enduring moral (and historical) responsibilities toward human rights, dignity, and social justice that corporations may be held accountable for in the present and future.

270

Organizational History and CSR

Contested corporate histories further make salient that corporate histories are negotiated and coconstructed across multiple public arenas. This pushes us toward considering multi-vocal approaches to the communicative co-construction of corporate histories. It encourages constructivist research that focuses on exploring shared meaning-making and struggles over corporate histories along with the role corporations – as corporate citizens and “multi-generational moral actors” (SchrempfStirling et al., 2016) – may (and should) play within these processes. Finally, it calls for critical scholarship that considers questions and implications of power for the co-construction of corporate histories within the scope of CSR communication.

A Matter of Self-Defense or an Invitation to Meaningful Reconciliatory Dialogue? How issues and contests around corporate histories are defined is consequential for how organizations respond and how communication scholars analyze and seek to understand them. While functionalistic approaches have emphasized positive corporate histories, negative corporate histories have – when at all – been touched upon as “a burden” (Balmer & Burghausen, 2019) or even a “history trap” (Schug, 2003). Indeed, when strategic historical narratives can serve to foster corporate identity, culture, legitimacy, and authenticity (see Foster et al., 2017), negative corporate histories will likely be seen as a threat to these intangible assets and encourage defensive stances when positive corporate histories are challenged (Janssen, 2012). Christensen et al. (2020) identified evasion and re-narration as two strategies corporations apply to resolve inconsistencies between a negative history and present CSR communication. Schrempf-Sterling and colleague’s (2016) model focused on denial, ignoring, and “selective transparency” as strategies corporations may use besides reconciliation. When “narrative contests” rise to the level of a crisis, responses to threats to an organization’s reputation further fall within the scope of crisis communication and, more specifically, corporate apologia and image restoration. These genres encourage self-defensive rhetoric aimed at closure and mitigating harm from the organization. Scholars have critiqued apologia as “inappropriate and insufficient” in cases of significant harm caused (Hatch, 2006; Koesten & Rowland, 2004) and shown how corporate apologia, even when accommodative, can fail to appropriately address corporate ties to historical injustice (Janssen, 2012). The company Aetna Inc., for instance, apologized twice for its past business with slave insurance policies, but its rhetoric of apologia aimed at closure and defending the company’s present against the past ultimately undermined reconciliatory discourse and dialogue. It, thus, failed to further meaningful reconciliation (Janssen, 2012). If meaningful reconciliatory discourse about the past, however, is recognized as responsibility, responding with evasion, re-narration, or standard modes of corporate apologia is not sufficient and may even reflect corporate irresponsibility as it shows an unwillingness to recognize and live up to the broader moral dimensions of these struggles over corporate histories. From the normative perspective of CHR, these “issues” instead constitute struggles and opportunities for reconciliation (Janssen, 2012, 2013). In contrast to corporate apologia and image restoration, the rhetoric of reconciliation emphasizes other-directed communication that aims at healing broken relationships and, thus, open-ended dialogue with those who have been harmed about how the past may be addressed and how the corporation may seek forgiveness and redeem itself (see Hatch, 2008). At the same time, tensions between self-defensive responses to challenges perceived as a threat to the organization on the one hand and reconciliation in recognition of the moral responsibilities stemming from the past, on the other hand, call for more discussion and clarity about what corporate practices and communication regarding corporate pasts may and may not meaningfully fall under the broader umbrella of CSR and CSR communication. Broad-scale empirical research on how corporations do or do not frame their engagement as CSR would further help advance this discussion. These questions are complicated by self-defensive responses that also include initiatives commonly 271

Claudia Janssen Danyi

considered CSR, such as Aetna Inc.’s contributions to scholarship programs (see Janssen, 2012). Like debates about greenwashing, this leads to considering differences between “cheap reconciliation” (Volf, 2000, p. 168) and substantial reconciliatory discourse. In addition, communication scholars can contribute to identifying and capturing different types and levels of CHR communication to refine existing categories of corporate engagement regarding past corporate complicity with historical injustice.

Discussion ‘‘And it’s not because of the money. Our ancestors were kidnapped, whipped, tortured, forced to breed”, Deadria Farmer Paellman (cited from Cox, 2002, para. 10), a leading activist who challenged corporations to pay reparations, issue apologies, and acknowledge their past business ties to slavery, stated in an interview with USA Today. The concerns voiced then – how the legacy of slavery lives on in housing discrimination, racial profiling, and police brutality (Cox, 2002) – and the desire for true reconciliation are ever-present in today’s age of the Black Lives Matter movement. The quote reflects the immediacy and importance of corporate histories for contemporary struggles for justice and reconciliation. It pierces straight to questions of moral responsibilities that stem from the past. This chapter has focused on the intersections of organizational history and CSR communication which open intriguing spaces for timely and important research areas. It has identified two growing areas of research that emphasize positive corporate history as a strategic resource on the one hand and negative corporate history as a responsibility on the other hand. Discussing them in contrast, critical tensions emerged from the emphasis on positive versus negative corporate histories, underlying assumptions about control and boundaries of corporate histories, and self-defense versus reconciliation. As normative theories of CHR and CRR suggest that corporate histories are not only drawn upon by CSR communication but that they can constitute profound historical responsibilities themselves, they also center communication as a key to living up to those responsibilities – through Corporate Social Advocacy (CRR) and reconciliatory communication, remembrance, and dialogue (CHR). The emerging tensions thus reveal that the construction of corporate history, when exclusively approached as a strategic resource, may come to stand in direct contrast to reconciliatory stances and even undermine them. Taking historical responsibilities seriously, however, has implications for how an organization communicates and constructs its history and how it connects its past with the present and future. It means that calls for accountability for corporate histories, if true, cannot simply be evaded or denied. Instead, they need to be faced and reflected upon as a base for commitments to a better present and future. It also positions corporate practices of evasion, denial, and ignorance regarding those histories as irresponsible – and thus outside the scope of CSR communication and practice from a normative standpoint. At the same time, the connection of honest reckoning with the past with present CSR and CSA commitments opens a window for reconciling positive and negative corporate (CSR) histories through CSR communication. These tensions ultimately circle back to questions about responsibility for corporate history and the place and position of these responsibilities – and of CHR and CRR communication and practice – within the field of CSR and CSR communication. Discourses of corporate responsibility for the past will undoubtedly continue to emerge in the context of different global movements. Discussions of historical responsibility and climate justice, for instance, concern corporate conduct and business since the industrial revolution and relations between the global South and North. Past discriminatory and oppressive organizational policies and behavior regarding LGBTQ persons will also likely continue to challenge organizations to take responsibility for their past (see Domonske, 2017). Comparing emerging CHR discourses as they 272

Organizational History and CSR

evolve regarding different types of injustices and in correspondence with contemporary social movements will continue to provide an important ground for further developing our understanding of CHR practices and communication.

Discussion Questions 1 2 3 4 5

What are the ethical, social, and political implications and impacts of how corporations construct their historical narratives? What might be unique about how CSR communication constructs corporate histories compared to other organizational functions? What are the implications for an organization’s CSR when strategic CSR communication contributes to selective forgetfulness of historical injustice and systemic oppression? Is ethical communication about corporate history itself a CSR? Can and should corporate managers view a positive CHR history and record as a strategic resource?

References Balmer, J. M., & Burghausen, M. (2019). Marketing, the past and corporate heritage. Marketing Theory, 19(2), 217–227. Blombäck, A., & Scandelius, C. (2013). Corporate heritage in CSR communication: A means to responsible brand image? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(3), 362–382. Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., Procter, S., & Rowlinson, M. (2007). Accounting for the dark side of corporate history: Organizational culture perspectives and the Bertelsmann case. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(6), 625–644. Booth, W. J. (2001). The unforgotten: Memories of justice. The American Political Science Review, 95(4), 777–791. Brown, R. E. (2008). Sea change: Santa Barbara and the eruption of corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 1–8. Carroll, A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(3), 1–8. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2020). Timely hypocrisy? hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 114, 327–335. Chung, A., & Lee, K. B. (2019). Corporate apology after bad publicity: A dual-process model of CSR fit and CSR history on purchase intention and negative word of mouth. International Journal of Business Communication. 10.1177/2329488418819133. Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 41(3), 265–289. Cox, J. (2002, February 21). Farmer-Paellman not afraid of huge corporations. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-activist.htm Domonske, C. (2017, January 9). State department apologizes for decades of anti-LGBT discrimination. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/09/508966318/state-department-apologizes-fordecades-of-anti-lgbt-discrimination Doxtader, E. (2003). Reconciliation – A rhetorical concept/ion. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89(4), 267–292. Eaddy, L. L. (2021). Unearthing the facets of crisis history in crisis communication: A conceptual framework and introduction of the crisis history salience scale. International Journal of Business Communication, 10. 1177/2329488420988769 Eaddy, L. L., & Jin, Y. (2018). Crisis history tellers matter: The effects of crisis history and crisis information source on publics’ cognitive and affective responses to organizational crisis. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 23(2), 226–241. Federman, S. (2021). Last train to Auschwitz: The French national railways and the journey to accountability. University of Wisconsin Press.

273

Claudia Janssen Danyi Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., Suddaby, R., Kroezen, J., & Chandler, D. (2017). The strategic use of historical narratives: A theoretical framework. Business History, 59(8), 1176–1200. Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E. S., Rowlinson, M., & Ruef, M. (2016). What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 590–608. Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W. J., Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C., & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: Quo vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18 (2), 176–192. Ham, C. D., & Kim, J. (2019). The role of CSR in crises: Integration of situational crisis communication theory and the persuasion knowledge model. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 353–372. Hatch, J. B. (2006). Beyond apologia: Racial reconciliation and apologies for slavery. Western Journal of Communication, 70(3), 186–211. Hatch, J. B. (2008). Race and reconciliation. Lexington Books. Ihlen, Ø., & von Weltzien Hoivik, H. (2015). Ye olde CSR: The historic roots of corporate social responsibility in Norway. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 109–120. Janssen, C. I. (2012). Addressing corporate ties to slavery: Corporate apologia in a discourse of reconciliation. Communication Studies, 63(1), 18–35. Janssen, C. I. (2013). Corporate historical responsibility (CHR): Addressing a corporate past of forced labor at Volkswagen. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(1), 64–83. Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217. Koesten, J., & Rowland, R. C. (2004). The rhetoric of atonement. Communication Studies, 55(1), 68–87. Logan, N. (2019). Corporate personhood and the corporate responsibility to race. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 977–988. Logan, N. (2021). A theory of corporate responsibility to race (CRR): Communication and racial justice in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 1–17. McKie, R. (2012, September 1). Thalidomide victims say drug company’s apology is an insult. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/01/thalidomide-victims-drug-apology Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720–738. Phillips, R., Schrempf-Stirling, J., & Stutz, C. (2020). The past, history, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 203–213. Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2009). Advertising corporate social responsibility initiatives to communicate corporate image: Inhibiting scepticism to enhance persuasion. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(4), 420–439. Ricoeur, P. (1996). Memory, forgetfulness, and history. Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 45, 13–24. Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Historic corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700–719. Schug, A. (2003). History marketing. Ein leitfaden zum umgang mit geschichte in unternehmen [History Marketing. A guide for dealing with history in a corporation]. Transcript Verlag. Stutz, C. (2018). History in corporate social responsibility: Reviewing and setting an agenda. Business History, 63(2), 175–204. Spiliotis, A. (2006). Corporate responsibility and historical injustice. In J. Keane (Ed.), Civil society: Berlin perspectives (pp. 51–70). Berghan Books. Treisman, R. (2021, October 13). Moccasin maker Minnetonka has apologized for appropriating native American culture. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2021/10/12/1045373654/minnetonkamoccasins-native-american-cultural-appropriation-apology Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 273–283. Van Lent, W., & Smith, A. D. (2020). Using versus excusing: The Hudson’s bay company’s long-term engagement with its (problematic) past. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(2), 215–231. Volf, M. (2000). The social meaning of reconciliation. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 54(2), 158–172. Waldron, J. (1992). Superseding historic injustice. Ethics, 103, 4–28.

274

22 A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIVE CONSTITUTION OF CSR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS AND SOCIETY François Cooren and Michelle Shumate1

Topic 1: The Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility MICHELLE:

Corporate social responsibility is a socially constructed idea about for-profit businesses’ obligations to communities where they operate and sell their products or services. However, you have to go back to its origins to understand it. Marchand’s (1998) book chronicles the evolution of the construct well. During the rise of the industrial age in the United States, when owners like Rockefeller and Carnegie became wealthy, the temperance movement was prominent. Beyond the prohibition of drink, temperance also included wealth. Temperance for the “robber baron” owners meant to be “a good man doing well”. It was expressed through philanthropy and public goods projects, like building libraries.

However, as corporations became publicly held entities, there increasingly was no single owner to hold responsible. Instead, the corporation was legally constructed as an entity and developed a socially constructed identity and image. It became the personification of the “good man doing well”. Pressures on corporations to take a more significant role in society emerged in the United States because of two forces: the “hollowing out” of government (Milward & Provan, 2000) and the concentration of wealth. In Europe, government regulation plays a more vital role in addressing societal problems and redistributing wealth. The corporate social responsibility norms differ because of the government’s role and practices to address wealth disparities, such as taxation. For me, corporate social responsibility (CSR) describes the strategic moves that organizations engage in positioning themselves as moral institutions within their communities. These strategies vary in scope, consistency, and investment. Business leaders and strategic communication professionals communicate about these strategies in ways that suit their objectives at the time. FRANÇOIS:

This historical context is important as it shows that even if the use of the term “CSR” is relatively recent (the term was, as we know, coined by the American economist Howard Bowen (1953) a little less than seventy years ago, but it started to be really a hot topic of discussion in the 2000s), the ethical/moral dimension of the actions of corporations has always

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-26

275

François Cooren and Michelle Shumate

been, since their creation, a matter of concern for politicians, economists, and industrialists, not to mention, of course, mere citizens. In a world where business organizations are supposed to be mainly motivated by the search for profits, is there any room for other concerns, such as the preservation of the environment, the betterment of life conditions in communities, or the redistribution of wealth? At a time when we observe the rapid deterioration of our planet, the drastic increase of inequality between various classes of our societies, as well as a growing distrust in institutions and organizations in general, it is hardly surprising that the question of the social and environmental responsibility of corporations be considered a topical issue. For me, corporate social responsibility is first and foremost about the necessity for corporations to respond to matters of concern raised by their stakeholders. Contra shareholder theory (also called the Friedman doctrine), addressing CSR matters implies that a company be considered morally/ethically responsible to society and ecosystems, and not only financially responsible to its stockholders. The question, however, remains as to what extent we can trust corporations to self-regulate vis-à-vis these matters as accusations of windowdressing and greenwashing are usually quickly made when the time comes to evaluate CSR initiatives.

Topic 2: The Role of Communication in/on CSR MICHELLE:

CSR does not necessarily need to be the topic of marketing communication, employee communication, or investor relations campaigns. Waddock & Googins (2011) describe the paradox that companies face when considering their promotion of CSR efforts. Companies that communicate about their CSR efforts face more skepticism than companies that communicate nothing. King and McDonnell (2012) find that activists are more likely to target corporations who communicate about their CSR. In short, communicating about CSR can backfire for companies hoping to distinguish themselves from their peers.

I would like to believe that activist NGOs and employees, in the absence of regulator pressure, can influence the trajectory of CSR through their communication activities. Activists often target lead companies to change the practices of entire industries, hoping for direct impact (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007). Increasingly, employees pressure corporations to make public stands or improve their social responsibility. For example, Maks-Solomon and Drewry (2021) find that highly educated LGBT employee groups influenced major corporations to take public stands on LGBT issues. FRANÇOIS:

I would add that it is the role communication plays in CSR that might also need to be reconceived. When we think about CSR communication, we tend to have in mind the way a corporation communicates to the general public about its good deeds. This is what we could call a transmission view of communication, which is, of course, a non-negligible aspect of what companies do. However, as pointed out by John Durham Peters (1999), there is another view of communication that consists of highlighting its dialogical or interactive aspects. According to this paradigm, communication is not only a way to communicate about what you are doing, but it’s also an opportunity to listen to your stakeholders in order to possibly co-construct initiatives together.

Oftentimes, the problem is that corporations try, at best, to guess what their stakeholders want or need from them. For me, an alternative and more dialogical way of designing CSR communication would consist of organizing meetings or assemblies where representatives of the population and ecosystems could voice their matters of concern regarding a company’s activities. I’m not saying that 276

Cooren and Shumate Conversation

this is an easy path, but given the paradox that Waddock & Googins (2011) have identified, I wonder whether this is not worth at least trying. Corporations seem to naively believe that by communicating over and over about their initiatives, their reputation as good corporate actors will be established, while what they tend to produce in doing that is more and more skepticism. I have the naivety to believe that more dialogical forms of communication could at least create the conditions for more trust between companies and stakeholders. This view is not only more dialogic, but it is also constitutive, that is, it shows that communication is the (only) way by which CSR initiatives are conceived, designed, and even implemented. This constitutive view of organizational communication has been initially developed to analyze how communication is constitutive of organizational operations, whether at the level of the shop floor or at the managerial level, but it can also be applied to how organizations interact with their stakeholders. As long as communication is reduced to how and what organizations communicate to the general public, we tend to conceive it as an afterthought once everything has been conceived and designed. However, if we think constitutively about communication, we then realize that communication is what allows people to collectively design a CSR initiative in the first place.

Topic 3: The Role of Actors and Material Conditions in Shaping, Limiting, Enabling, or Amplifying a Corporation’s Social Responsibility MICHELLE:

In my research with Amy O’Connor (e.g., Shumate & O’Connor, 2010), we talk a good deal about the role of nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in shaping CSR. When NGOs enter relationships with corporations that are more integrative than philanthropy (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012), they play an influential role in shaping and, sometimes, amplifying CSR.

I’ll give two examples. The first is the area of NGO social responsibility certification. There are many NGOs that certify the environmental or social responsibility of companies. They audit these companies’ practices and work with them to change their operations to make them more responsible. In the United States, B Lab certifies businesses as a “force for good” (https:// bcorporation.net/about-b-lab). Their comprehensive assessment includes the companies’ environmental footprint, workplace practices, and products’ good for the world. Similarly, Rainforest Alliance has worked globally with companies to certify that the company’s operations have a minimal environmental impact. In doing so, both NGOs shape CSR practices. And then, they amplify the promotion efforts of certified businesses through branding and marketing communication efforts. Second, some NGOs work together with businesses to create new products or services that have a positive impact. For example, Foron worked with Greenpeace to design a more environmentally sustainable refrigerant (https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/15323/ how-greenpeace-changed-an-industry-25-years-of-greenfreeze-to-cool-the-planet/). Similarly, the Environmental Defense Fund’s partnership with McDonald’s to replace the foam clamshell packaging around their hamburgers (https://www.edf.org/partnerships/mcdonalds). In these true partnerships, NGOs shape CSR in powerful ways. However, to Francois’ earlier point, many companies do not engage in dialogic communication with groups to help shape their CSR efforts. They engage in CSR as a way to attract employees or avoid regulation. These efforts are rarely as impactful as a result, and they may attract activists’ accusations of pinkwashing, greenwashing, or other inauthenticity. FRANÇOIS:

Those are fantastic examples, which show very well the fruitfulness of more collaborative/dialogical ways to envision CSR. I know this is difficult, but I think that corporations have to accept to put themselves in more vulnerable situations when they deal with 277

François Cooren and Michelle Shumate

questions of responsibility. As recently shown in several publications (Carroll et al., 2020; Laasch, 2021, Schoeneborn et al., 2020), we have to go back to the etymology of the word “responsibility”, which is the capacity to respond. Organizations have to respond to what? To situations they are facing and that they might have at least partly contributed to. However, in order to respond, you need to have interlocutors who ask you the right questions and tell you what they think has to be done. Dealing with a situation dialogically (which is a way for me to deal with it pragmatically) means that you accept to be confronted by other actors who might have a different take on what the situation requires or dictates. Mary Parker Follett (1926), who was highly influenced by pragmatism as a philosophical movement (Snider, 1998), spoke a long time ago about what she proposed to call “the law of the situation”. By this, she meant that managers’ responsibility is “not how to get people to obey orders, but how to devise methods by which [they] can best discover the order integral to a particular situation” (p. 33). In other words, people should always start from the situation to try to figure out what to do. If we apply this beautiful idea to CSR, it means that organizations have to stop trying to monologically order a given situation the way they wish to by imagining what it requires. Dealing dialogically with a situation means that they give themselves the chance to be surprised by what other actors – NGOs, politicians, mere citizens, activists, scientists, environmentalists, etc. – have to say about what the situation dictates. This is indeed through this kind of dialogue or debate that a clearer picture of the situation – what Follett would call “the order integral to [it]” – can possibly emerge. In other words, organizations have to accept to share authorship, which also means to share authority, regarding CSR initiatives. As long as they are the sole authors of their initiatives, they run the risk of looking like the managers that are decried by Follett: they authoritatively tell others what should be done, but they might have no clue about what the situation really dictates. Sharing authorship (and therefore authority) means that others have a chance to co-author an initiative that might better reflect what should actually be done to respond to a situation. It’s also a way for these other actors to appropriate what is done to address this situation, which can then contribute to a feeling of mutual trust. MICHELLE:

I love the idea that François is offering of shared authorship. What does it look like for CSR to be co-authored with other stakeholders – including governments, communities, scientists, and NGOs? Visser (2013) offers a helpful contrast between two common models of CSR. CSR 1.0 is primarily promotional, focusing on public relations events and marketing campaigns. It’s about the representational alignment of corporations with cause more than it is the substantive behaviors of the organization. In CSR 1.0, the corporation is in charge, and everyone else is an audience.

CSR 2.0, in contrast, is transformational. It recognizes that the entire organization is implicated, not just the community relations team or corporate communication departments. Primary stakeholders influence business models. They can change core business operations. CSR 2.0 means corporations change their business models due to listening to other stakeholders. CSR 2.0 models are not just academic flights of fancy. Organizations such as Unilever have embraced transformational models for the past ten years. Interestingly, the biggest lesson they’ve learned has to do with systems change. CEO Alan Jope states, “As a company, we can do much to mitigate the impacts of our direct operations. Yet, the bulk of our footprint – be it social or environmental – occurs outside our four walls. To reach our sustainability goals, therefore, we need to work with others to change how key systems such as water and energy are structured” (https://www.unilever.com/news/news-and-features/ Feature-article/2020/the-unilever-compass-our-next-game-changer-for-business.html).

278

Cooren and Shumate Conversation

For me, Jope’s statement points to what I hope is CSR 3.0, a recognition that corporations are one actor in a system of other organizations. Unless corporations take a systems change approach, their efforts will fall short of the social impact needed to address some of our most significant challenges. CSR 3.0 is genuinely a co-authorship approach, where corporate leaders work alongside other stakeholders to author new systems. I argue that they must do so in networks, where organizational leaders address common super-organizational goals (i.e., beyond the impact of their footprint). In my book co-authored with Shumate & Cooper (2022), Networks for Social Impact, I discuss how the Dutch Climate Accords used this model. Businesses joined collaborative tables with NGOs and government leaders to establish climate goals for the Netherlands. This process resulted in more ambitious goals than the Paris Climate Agreement and more straightforward implementation strategies. I hope that these network models, which don’t center the corporation but place them as a member of a problem-solving table, are the future of CSR.

Topic 4: The Unique Contributions of Communication Scholarship about CSR FRANÇOIS:

I think that communication scholars can bring a sensitiveness to the key role communication plays in CSR matters. Communication is not just a matter of diffusion, propagation, and dissemination, as practitioners and management scholars often think, it is also a matter of relations, interactions, conversations, and debates. As Taylor (1988, 1993) demonstrated more than 30 years ago, there is literally no organization without communication. Regarding CSR matters, this means that communication scholars can study and highlight the processes by which these kinds of initiative are carried out and compare how various forms of communication can produce different results. The point that Michelle is making is very important: what communication scholars could encourage corporations to do is position themselves as members of a problem-solving table, which she rightly identifies as what CSR 3.0 could indeed look like. MICHELLE: Business school scholars author the vast majority of research on communication and corporate social responsibility without much of a background in communication. Most of that research takes an instrumental view of communication, examining how the “communication” of CSR results in some benefit for corporations (or backfires and results in some new risk). Ji et al. (2020) conducted a recent map of CSR research in communication. They identified 478 peer-review journal articles in communication about CSR from 1980 to 2018. Their analysis drew several conclusions – perhaps the most important of which was that the field remains fractured, with few citations among communication sub-disciplines. We have several excellent public relations, advertising, and organizational communication contributions. However, their citation analysis suggests that communication scholars have yet to make their mark on the larger field of CSR research. We have a rich understanding of communication, dating back to our roots in social constructivism and the coordination of meaning. Our unique contribution should be to bring a rich understanding of communication to shape the study and practice of CSR. I think communication scholars are uniquely placed to take up the study of CSR 3.0 because we do not necessarily position the corporation as the most important actor in creating social responsibility. And several communication scholars have begun to lead the way, considering CSR in terms of cross-sector collaboration dynamics (e.g., Yang & Saffer, 2019) and the communicative constitution of CSR (e.g., Cooren, 2020). I see communication’s unique contribution coming as the field matures in many ways. The next wave of scholarship can shape the communication field and the broader conversation around CSR.

279

François Cooren and Michelle Shumate

Notes 1 Authors presented alphabetically. Authors contributed equally to this chapter.

References Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Harper & Brothers. Carroll, A. B., Adler, N. J., Mintzberg, H., Cooren, F., Freeman, R. E., & Laasch, O. (2020). What ‘are’ responsible management? A conceptual potluck. In O. Laasch, R. Suddaby, R. E. Freeman, & D. Jamali (Eds.), Research handbook of responsible management (pp. 56–71). Elgar. Cooren, F. (2020). A communicative constitutive perspective on corporate social responsibility: Ventriloquism, undecidability, and surprisability. Business & Society, 59(1), 175–197. 10.1177/0007650318791780 Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders, Scientific foundations of business administration, 4, pp. 29–37. den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924. Ji, Y. G., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2020). Mapping corporate social responsibility research in communication: A network and bibliometric analysis. Public Relations Review, 46(5), 101963. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101963 King, B., & McDonnell, M.-H.(2012). Good firms, good targets: The relationship between corporate social responsibility, reputation, and activist targeting. In Tsutsui, K., & Lim, A. (Eds), Corporate social responsibility in a globalizing world: Toward effective global CSR frameworks (pp. 430–454). Cambridge University Press. Laasch, O. (2021). Principles of management: Practicing ethics, responsibility, sustainability. Sage. Maks-Solomon, C., & Drewry, J. M. (2021). Why do corporations engage in LGBT rights activism? LGBT employee groups as internal pressure groups. Business and Politics, 23(1), 124–152. 10.1017/bap.2020.5 Marchand, R. (1998). Creating the corporate soul. University of California Press. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380. Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. University of Chicago Press. Schoeneborn, D., Trittin, H., & Cooren, F. (2020). Consensus vs. dissensus: The communicative constitution of responsible management. In O. Lasch, R. Suddaby, R. E. Freeman, & D. Jamali (Eds.), Research handbook of responsible management (pp. 453–469). Edward Elgar. Shumate, M., & Cooper, K. R. (2022). Networks for social impact. Oxford University Press. Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO-corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 63, 577– 509. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01498.x Snider, K. (1998). Living pragmatism: The case of Mary Parker Follett. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 20(3), 274–286. Taylor, J. R. (1988). Une organisation n’est qu’un tissu de communications. Cahiers de recherches en communication. Taylor, J. R. (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Ablex. Visser, W. (2013). CSR 2.0: Transforming corporate sustainability and responsibility. Springer Science & Business Media. Waddock, S., & Googins, B. K. (2011). The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsibility. In Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.), The Handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 23–43). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9781118083246.ch2 Yang, A., & Saffer, A. J. (2019). Embracing a network perspective in the network society: The dawn of a new paradigm in strategic public relations. Public Relations Review, 45(4), 101843. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101843

280

SECTION IV

Exploring Social and Stakeholder Influences on CSR Communication

23 CSR COMMUNICATION AND LEGITIMACY CREATION Holly Overton, Virginia Harrison, and Nicholas Eng

Legitimacy: Conceptualization and Application What makes an organization legitimate, and why should organizations care? According to some scholars, a legitimate organization is one where its actions are deemed “desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574) and is earned by meeting stakeholders’ standards for what is considered to be acceptable organizational operation (Deegan, 2002). Therefore, legitimacy is socially constructed through stakeholder perceptions of the organization (Suchman, 1995). Suchman (1995) states that there are three types of organizational legitimacy: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive. Pragmatic legitimacy refers to stakeholder perceptions of how the company’s actions may benefit them (Allen, 2016) and how companies themselves act in the interest of their stakeholders (Suchman, 1995). Moral legitimacy involves perceptions of whether a company makes decisions that are considered to be “right” or “good” for the broader society, and if they reflect societal values and norms (Allen, 2016; Suchman, 1995). Cognitive legitimacy concerns whether “organizational activity will prove predictable, meaningful, and inviting” (Suchman, 1995, p. 582). Apart from organizational legitimacy, which focuses on how an organization is perceived as a whole, scholars have looked at specific issues or actions that confer legitimacy to an organization. Based on the role of communication in building legitimacy, public relations scholars introduced the concepts of issue legitimacy and actional legitimacy (Boyd, 2000; Brummer, 1991). Issue legitimacy “deals with legitimating a specific issue or an organizational behavior” (Chung et al., 2016, p. 406). Actional legitimacy focuses on specific corporate actions and functions at the microlevel of analysis (Boyd, 2000; Brummer, 1991). Actional legitimacy involves appropriateness, responsibility, and conscientiousness of the actions of an organization, and acknowledges that the public’s dialogue can affect corporate actions (Boyd, 2000; Brummer, 1991). Organizations strive for these different types of legitimacy since a company that is not perceived to be legitimate is unable to operate or grow; in other words, organizations need to be legitimate to exist (Castelló & Lozano, 2011; Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). It is therefore not surprising that organizations tend to engage in (and communicate about) activities that can legitimize them based on societal and stakeholder expectations (Dacin et al., 2007). Suchman (1995) proposes that there are three challenges of legitimation, including, gaining, maintaining, or repairing legitimacy. For a new organization that has yet to establish its legitimacy, gaining legitimacy might be of key importance. However, an organization that has already been conferred legitimacy might instead aim to maintain its legitimacy by continually acting in accordance with societal

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184911-28

283

Holly Overton et al. Table 23.1 Three types of legitimacy and applications in CSR communication research Type of legitimacy

Level of analysis

Organizational Macro

Issue

Micro

Actional

Micro

Focus

CSR context

Perceptions of organizations as a whole, and Environmental sustainability whether they are deemed “desirable, proper, (e.g., Yang & Ji, 2019) or appropriate within some socially Philanthropy (e.g., Zheng constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, et al., 2015) and definitions” ( Suchman, 1995, p. 574) Social issues/child Labor (e.g., Lock & SchulzKnappe, 2019) Perceptions of whether an organization handles Environmental sustainability specific issues in a legitimate manner ( Chung (e.g., Bortree, 2009; Yang et al., 2016) & Ji, 2019) Perceptions of whether specific corporate Sustainability and human rights actions and functions are deemed to be in supply chains (e.g., legitimate ( Boyd, 2000; Brummer, 1991) Harrison, 2019b)

expectations. Finally, if an organization that was once deemed as legitimate faces a legitimacy crisis (e.g., an environmentally conscious organization that is found to fund fossil fuel companies), then it may need to repair its legitimacy by taking action to reestablish trust with its stakeholders. Scholars have argued that although legitimacy is at the heart of most public relations functions (Metzler, 2001), it has traditionally been underexamined in public relations scholarship (Merkelsen, 2011). However, scholarship over the past decade has advanced our knowledge and application of legitimacy as a concept, particularly through its focus on the relationship between organizations and the stakeholders who grant its “license to operate”. Some scholars have suggested that communicating credibly about an organization’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities can help an organization gain or regain legitimacy with the public (Seele & Lock, 2015) or that CSR communication itself is a prerequisite to being seen as socially valid (Arvidsson, 2010). Castelló and Lozano (2011) argue that CSR communication plays a critical role in the ability to justify their societal contributions in a legitimate fashion. As CSR has long been a societal expectation and a core part of an organization’s business strategy, it can undoubtedly play a pivotal role in legitimacy creation and maintenance. Extant public relations and management literature have examined legitimacy creation in CSR scholarship in various contexts and primarily through the lens of identifying antecedents and outcomes of legitimacy, as highlighted in Table 23.1. While the concept of legitimacy has now been examined in a robust body of literature, scholarship has not yet examined legitimacy creation through different CSR partnership types – a gap in the literature that this chapter aims to discuss and empirically investigate. In the following sections, we review the literature on three CSR partnerships: corporate–nonprofit, corporate–corporate, and corporate–sport, and describe how different types of legitimacy have been measured. Following this, we detail the methodology of our online experiment, present our findings, and conclude with a discussion of our findings, future research, and implications for practice.

Legitimacy Creation and CSR Partnerships With the ever-increasing expectations of how companies should contribute to societal good, engaging in CSR partnerships has become a best practice and a core part of companies’ strategy. The Aspen Institute noted in its 2013 report that CSR partnerships have begun to take new forms. This remains true today as CSR partnerships have become more innovative with different types of 284

Legitimacy and CSR

partnerships taking on various societal issues that align with and sometimes extend beyond the company’s core business focus. With regard to partnership type, while the company–nonprofit partnership model has been the most commonly identified and widely studied alliance, there have been an increasing number of partnerships involving two corporations (company–company partnerships) and a number of partnerships involving sport entities. Here, we discuss each partnership type and how these alliances serve a company’s mission to be seen as legitimate entities among stakeholders through its CSR communication.

Corporate–Nonprofit Partnerships The relationship between corporations and nonprofits in the CSR context has been explored from two angles: how the corporation benefits from nonprofit partnerships (Hall, 2006; Rim et al., 2016) and, more recently, how these partnerships influence nonprofit outcomes (e.g., Dong & Rim, 2019; Waters & Ott, 2014). For corporations, CSR presents an important way to legitimize their contributions to the community in line with the ethical and philanthropic responsibilities perceived by stakeholders (Dacin et al., 2007; Holmes & Smart, 2009). For nonprofits, partnering with a corporation on a program related to the nonprofit’s cause can create legitimacy for their mission and increase the visibility and credibility of the nonprofit brand (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). This chapter examines how CSR legitimacy is perceived when a corporation partners with a nonprofit to carry out its CSR programming. Corporate–nonprofit partnerships present a unique opportunity for corporations to build CSR legitimacy. Nonprofit partners may provide an opportunity for corporations to build social capital and demonstrate their ability to innovate and benefit greater society (Holmes & Smart, 2009) by bringing together resources from different stakeholder groups (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010). Thus, corporations and nonprofits are able to work cooperatively to accomplish mutually beneficial goals (Harrison, 2019a; Rumsey & White, 2009). These partnerships also present unique challenges because of the different ways these sectors operate – for example, differences in organizational capacity may create tension in the relationships that may not be present in other types of cross-sector alliances (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009; Shumate & O’Connor, 2010). Thus, understanding how legitimacy is created in this type of partnership is crucial and ongoing. CSR partnerships that demonstrate altruism, or genuine concern for the nonprofit partner and beneficiaries of the CSR program, maybe one way to ensure corporate CSR practices are considered ethical and just, rather than self-serving to the corporation’s bottom line (Formentin & Bortree, 2019; Rim et al., 2016). Ensuring the nonprofit partner has a voice in the CSR program and co-creating shared goals not only leads to successful partnership outcomes (Harrison, 2021; Shumate & O’Connor, 2010) but may also boost perceptions of the partnership from consumers (Rim et al., 2016). Importantly, corporations must demonstrate that they are practicing CSR out of society-serving motives, and not self-serving (e.g., to boost sales or reputation), by partnering with a nonprofit (e.g., Mantovani et al., 2017). When consumers perceive a corporation’s nonprofit alliance as self-serving, stakeholder skepticism is heightened, leading to backlash on the corporation and supportive intentions (Ellen et al., 2006). Despite the risk of seeming insincere, corporations seek out and promote their nonprofit partnerships as a way to build both social and alliance legitimacy (Yang & Ji, 2019). Accordingly, this chapter aims to further understand the ways these partnerships influence different types of CSR legitimacy.

Corporate–Corporate Partnerships While extant literature has primarily focused on the relationship between corporations and nonprofits in a CSR context, partnerships between corporations have become commonplace and have 285

Holly Overton et al.

been examined in recent literature (Glavas & Fitzgerald, 2020). Consistent with the Aspen Institute’s (2013) report, a Harvard Business Review article in 2014 highlighted that “we are seeing both a growing awareness of the critical need for improved collaboration and the emergence of innovative models that create value for companies and drive systemic change” (p. 76). Some recent examples of company–company partnerships include PepsiCo, Inc., and Beyond Meat, Inc., announcing the formation of The PLANeT Partnership, LLC (TPP), a joint venture to introduce new plant-based protein offerings (PepsiCo, 2021) or Terracycle partnering with Taco Bell and Teva to facilitate recycling and waste reduction (Kamczyc, 2021). Another trend has been an increase in industrywide coalitions such as the Sustainability Council (Glavas & Fitzgerald, 2020) or BSR (BSR, 2021), among many others. Although research has demonstrated that CSR partnerships have often been beneficial for companies (Hall, 2006; Rim et al., 2016), this finding has been solely grounded on the fact that the corporation has benefitted from its partnership with a nonprofit. What remains unknown is whether the same outcomes would be applicable in company–company partnerships, and more specifically, whether companies are able to create legitimacy through their CSR communication efforts through this type of partnership. Thus, this chapter also examines how CSR legitimacy is perceived when a corporation partners with another corporation to carry out its CSR programming, as this type of partnership has been understudied in scholarship.

Sport Partnerships Sport CSR is a relatively underdeveloped area of research because it has thus far developed with an emphasis on organizational perspectives and outcomes (Trendafilova et al., 2017). The promise of sport CSR is not only for organizations to fulfill obligations to society but to fulfill the neoliberal promise to use team and sport resources to build communities, especially around fan bases (Babiak & Kihl, 2018; Trendafilova et al., 2017). While this perspective of private organizations fulfilling government social duties certainly comes under scrutiny (Trendafilova et al., 2017), the emphasis on CSR has become an ever-present reality, from the NFL’s Play 60 health promotion initiative (e.g., Hills et al., 2019) to environmental sustainability initiatives (Trendafilova et al., 2013). Evidence abounds that CSR communication from sport organizations have a positive impact on fan-supportive intentions, such as buying merchandise or viewing games (Kim et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019) or encouraging social media fan engagement (Devlin & Sheehan, 2018). Longitudinal analyses of programs like NBA Cares have shown that these impacts include the achievement of business objectives (Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010), and thus sport organizations may operationally benefit from practicing CSR. One important factor in legitimacy creation may be sport entity-cause congruence, which leads to more positive perceptions of CSR and supportive consumer outcomes (Lee et al., 2019; Joo et al., 2021). Sport team executives report that engaging in CSR helps to build legitimacy for their organizations to be seen as “good citizens” (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011). Importantly, we distinguish between two contexts around sport CSR research: sport CSR practiced by sport teams and governing bodies (e.g., Joo et al., 2021) and CSR practiced by sport consumer brands, e.g., Nike or Adidas (e.g., Boehmer & Harrison, 2021; Lee et al., 2018). In this chapter, we are particularly interested in how sport teams and organizations such as the NFL or one of its teams legitimize their CSR practices among stakeholders given the particular importance and power sport teams and their athletes may wield (Godfrey, 2009). In fact, sport entities, not corporations, may be the home for the legitimacy creation of CSR across sectors. Godfrey (2009) argues that sport both has an obligation to practice CSR given its position of power and wealth in society and it also can help make CSR more accepted as a business practice in other areas of society:

286

Legitimacy and CSR

Participation by sport organizations in CSR and related activities broadens the base and hence the social legitimacy of the whole CSR notion, that private-sector organizations have at least real interests, if not real obligations, in creating and sustaining a higher quality of life (p. 217). Thus, this study also asks how stakeholders view CSR practiced by sport entities (in comparison to corporations or nonprofits) given their unique roles in legitimizing CSR and legitimizing their own organizations. The following research question is proposed: RQ1: How do different company partnerships create legitimacy among stakeholders?

Measuring Legitimacy: A Path Forward Legitimacy has long been studied as a concept integral to an organization’s survival in society, but few scholars have attempted to measure legitimacy empirically (Chung et al., 2016). Broadly, legitimacy has been studied from a variety of perspectives, such as the regulative legitimacy perspective (Ruef & Scott, 1998) or Suchman’s (1995) focus on resource-dependence theory, which acknowledges the regulative legitimacy perspective, as well as a normative and cognitive legitimacy. Collectively, these perspectives are reflective of organizational legitimacy, which scholars argue is reflective of institutional theory’s focus on an organization’s need to establish legitimacy within its environment (Ruef & Scott, 1998). From a public relations and management perspective, scholars have acknowledged the role of communication in an organization’s ability to build and maintain legitimacy (Suchman, 1995; Boyd, 2000). In terms of measurement, Chung et al. (2016) argue that organizational legitimacy has only been measured on an “ad hoc basis” (p. 407) and that prior measurements either did not consider legitimacy from a general public perspective or applied measurements that were not validated. Chung et al. (2016) developed a five-item organizational legitimacy scale based on Suchman’s (1995) conceptualization of organizational legitimacy. Public relations scholars have examined issue legitimacy in the context of crisis communication (Coombs, 1992) and CSR communication (Bortree, 2009), specifically with regard to how companies’ activities regarding these issues are perceived as being handled legitimately. However, Chung et al.’s (2016) scale was the first to empirically measure issue legitimacy. The authors proposed a sixitem scale based on the general public, inspired by the conceptual work on issue legitimacy by Boyd (2000) and Coombs (1992). Adding to the scholarship that has advanced our understanding of legitimacy and how it can be measured, Boyd’s (2000) actional legitimacy was developed with intentions to be applied in public relations scholarship to “focus on how corporations gain support for specific, individual policies before or during these policies’ implementation” (p. 351). However, to date, no valid measurement has been established for actional legitimacy. This chapter adapts measures from Chung et al.’s (2016) scales for organizational and issues advocacy with the intent of examining perceptions of legitimacy among a sample from the general population. Since there has not been a valid measurement scale established for actional legitimacy, the authors take initial steps to test a new scale that can be applied to CSR communication literature. Furthermore, based on the conceptual arguments about organizational, issue, and actional legitimacy, this chapter seeks to answer the following research question: RQ2: Are there differences in perceptions of organizational legitimacy, issue legitimacy, and actional legitimacy among various CSR partnership types?

287

Holly Overton et al.

Method An online experiment was conducted to answer the proposed research questions. A one-factor (partnership type: corporate–corporate vs. corporate–nonprofit vs. corporate–sport) betweensubjects design was employed. The stimulus was a manipulated message presented in the form of a message description/prompt about a partnership and efforts regarding a sustainability-focused issue. Three different message descriptions/prompts were created based on real-life partnerships and issues. Each prompt included factual information about each partnership and its efforts to contribute to the sustainability-focused issue. The main experiment was conducted online through Qualtrics with a representative sample of 439 US residents recruited and compensated through Lucid. After indicating consent, participants’ prestimulus attitudes toward the companies included in the study (Eastman, Amazon, and Formula 1) were measured. Participants were asked to indicate their attitudes toward a list of six companies to avoid priming effects. Next, participants in each condition read the manipulated text that included information about a partnership and its efforts to contribute to a sustainability-focused issue. After reading the text, participants in all conditions completed the same questionnaire. Partnership type was the manipulated independent variable in this study. Individuals’ perceptions of organizational legitimacy, issue legitimacy, and actional legitimacy1 were measured as dependent variables. Covariates included prior company attitudes and individuals’ level of involvement with the sustainability-focused issue they read about in the prompt. See Table 23.2 for items and reliabilities. Participants’ demographic information was also recorded.

Results RQ1 asked how different partnership types create legitimacy among stakeholders. RQ2 asked whether there are differences in perceptions of organizational legitimacy, issue legitimacy, and actional legitimacy. To answer the research questions, three analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests were executed. Table 23.3 includes statistics for all tests. The first ANCOVA included partnership type as the independent variable, prior company attitudes and issue involvement as covariates, and organizational legitimacy as the dependent variable. The results indicated that partnership type did significantly affect organizational legitimacy in that individuals reported higher levels of organizational legitimacy for the company–company partnership than the sport partnership as well as higher levels of organizational legitimacy for the company–nonprofit partnership than the sport partnership. The second ANCOVA included partnership type as the independent variable, prior company attitudes and issue involvement as covariates, and issue legitimacy as the dependent variable. The results indicated that partnership type did significantly affect issue legitimacy in that individuals reported higher levels of perceived issue legitimacy for the company–company partnership than the company–nonprofit partnership but not the sport partnership. The third ANCOVA included partnership type as the independent variable, prior company attitudes and issue involvement as covariates, and actional legitimacy as the dependent variable. The results indicated that partnership type did significantly affect actional legitimacy in that individuals reported higher levels of perceived actional legitimacy for the company–company partnership than the sport partnership and also for the company–nonprofit partnership as compared to the sport partnership.

Discussion This chapter aimed to examine how different partnership types create legitimacy among the general public. A three-condition experiment illustrating examples of a real-life company–company partnership type, a company–nonprofit partnership type, and a sport partnership type, tested how each partnership type affected individuals’ perceptions of organizational legitimacy, issue legitimacy, and

288

Legitimacy and CSR Table 23.2 Measures and reliabilities Scale

Items

M (SD) Cronbach’s α

Organizational legitimacy ( Chung et al., 2016)

I have a positive opinion about [company]. I believe that [company type] corporations follow government regulations. [Company type] companies do a good job making their products. I think that [company type] companies are honest. I think that the [company type] industry is a necessary part of our society. I have a positive opinion about [issue type] efforts. [Issue type] Efforts have helped me. [Issue type] Efforts have helped other people I know. [Issue type] Efforts help people learn about issues in society. I think that any problems associated with [issue type] efforts could be solved. Overall, the benefits from [issue type] outweigh the problems. The actions taken by this organization …

4.58 (1.40) α=.90

Issue legitimacy ( Chung et al., 2016)

Actional legitimacy

Appropriateness dimension … are appropriate … fit the need … are suitable … are relevant.

3.60 (.93) α=.91

4.93 (1.38) α=.97

Responsibility dimension … are responsible … show accountability … are dutiful.

Prior company attitudes ( Rodgers, 2003)

Issue involvement ( BeckerOlsen et al., 2006)

Conscientiousness dimension … are conscientious … are honorable … are diligent … are meticulous. Dislike/like Unfavorable/favorable Negative/positive Never heard of/very familiar with

[Issue] is … Unimportant/important Of no concern to me/of concern to me Means nothing to me/means a lot to me Uninteresting/interesting

3.68 (1.62)Eastman α=.90 5.63 (1.57)Amazon α=.91 4.20 (1.70)Formula1 α=.91 5.68 (1.46)Recycl. α=.92 5.37 (1.79)Climate α=.96 5.60 (1.56)Ren.En. α=.95

The authors wrote new items to measure actional legitimacy focusing on its three theorized subdimensions: appropriateness, responsibility, and conscientiousness. Exploratory factor analysis of principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation was run on the items created for actional legitimacy to determine scale suitability. Results indicated that all items loaded strongly (>.74) on one factor (λ = 8.48), explaining 77.07% of the variance ( Pett et al., 2003). Thus, the 11 items were combined into one scale for actional legitimacy.

289

Holly Overton et al. Table 23.3 ANCOVAs for partnership type affecting legitimacy after controlling for prior attitudes and issue involvement Model

Organizational legitimacy Issue legitimacy Actional legitimacy

F (df), partial η2

Company–company partnership M (SE)

Company–nonprofit partnership M (SE)

Sport partnership M (SE)

8.32 (2,429), .04∗∗

4.68a (1.17)

4.70a (1.41)

4.22b (1.39)

5.37 (2,429), .02∗ 7.18 (2,429), .02∗

3.70a (0.87) 5.06a (1.25)

3.50b (0.96) 5.02a (1.42)

3.57ab (0.94) 4.68b (1.45)

∗

p