Corporate social responsibility communication:stakeholder information,respon and involvement strategies
Mette Morsing and Majken Schultz n
Introduction
Messages about corporate ethical and socially responsible initiatives are likely to evoke strong and often positive reactions among stakeholders. Rearch has even pointed to the potential business benefits of the internal and external communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR)efforts(Maignan et al.1999).However, while CSR is generally associated with positive corporate Johnson&Johnson,The Body Shop,Patagonia)and reflects an organiza-tion’s status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations(Brown&Dacin 1997),corporate CSR messages have also proven to attract critical Starbuck,Shell, TDC).In fact,rearch suggests that the more companies expo their ethical and social ambi-tions,the more likely they are to attract critical stakeholder attention(Ashforth&Gibbs1990, Vallentin2001).Other studies have triggered questions such as‘if a company focus too intently on communicating CSR associations,is it possible that consumers may believe that the company is trying to hide something?’(Brown& Dacin1997:81).Fur
thermore,stakeholder ex-pectations regarding CSR are a moving target and must be considered carefully on a frequent basis.While stakeholders previously primarily attribu-ted negative attention to particular ‘sin stocks’,including companies producing to-bacco,alcohol,weapons,pornography,etc.), today CSR issues have become more unpredict-able and changing,and including,for example, child labour,gene-modified organisms(GMOs), hormones,union asmbly rights,sweatshops, etc.,which in practice are concerns across many if not all industries.Furthermore,the number of CSR rankings and CSR surveillance institutions is increasing.Critical stakeholder attention is not restricted to a company’s decisions and actions, but also focus on the decisions and actions of suppliers,consumers and politicians,which may spur criticism towards a Nike, Cheminova).In that n,corporate CSR engagement today requires more sophisticated and ongoing stakeholder awareness and calls for more sophisticated CSR communication strate-gies than previously.
To increa our understanding of how man-agers can develop and maintain an ongoing awareness towards themlves and their environ-ment,we argue,in line with the editors of this special issue and other rearch(Craig-Lees2001, Cramer et al.2004),that the theory of n-making is a fruitful method for better under-standing communication process.Senmaking is inherently social(Weick
1995),as we ‘make n of things in organizations while in conversation with others,while reading communi-cations from others,while exchanging ideas with
n Respectively:Associate Professor and Director of the Center for
Corporate Values and Responsibility;and Professor in the Depart-
ment of Intercultural Communication and Management–both at
Copenhagen Business School,Frederiksberg,Denmark.
r2006The Authors
Journal compilation r2006Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600Garsington Road,
Oxford,OX42DQ,UK and350Main St,Malden,MA02148,USA323
others’(Nijhof et al.2006),implying that no manager or organization makes n in splendid isolation(Craig-Lees2001).But,the extent to which an individual–or an organization–is able to integrate the nmaking of others will influence the individual’s–or the organization’s –ability to en
act strategically a productive relationship(Gioia et al.1994).This implies that managers need to develop a n of the organi-zation’s internal and external environments(Tho-mas&McDaniel1990)and thereafter be willing to define a revid conception of the organization. This process is what Gioia&Chittipeddi(1991: 434)refer to as‘interpretive work’under the label ‘nmaking’,ing tofigure out what the others want and ascribe meaning to it.However, Gioia and Chittipeddi expand the notion of n-making by introducing the concept of‘n-giving’,putting a special focus on the managerial process facilitating nmaking in organiza-tions.According to Gioia&Chittipeddi(1991: 443),nmaking is followed by action in terms of articulating an abstract vision that is then disminated and championed by corporate man-agement to stakeholders in a process labelled ‘ngiving’,i.e.attempts to influence the way another party understands or makes n.In contrast to Gioia&Chittipeddi,who have an internal focus on ngiving and nmaking process among managers and employees,we add an external focus as we suggest that by involving external stakeholders in corporate CSR efforts,managers and employees will also engage in the ngiving and nmaking process. Building on Gioia and Chittipeddi’s terminology, we suggest that not only managers but also external stakeholders may more strongly support and contribute to corporate CSR efforts if they engage in progressive iterations of nmaking and ngiving process,as this enhances awareness of mutual expectations.
First,this paper outlines stakeholder theory with a focus on communication and,cond,it links stakeholder relations to the three CSR communication strategies discusd in this paper: informing,responding and involving.Next,a demonstration of veral survey studies illustrat-ing the communication challenge for managers is given.Finally,the implications for managerial practice are discusd becau companies want to communicate that they are ethical and socially responsible organizations.This paper concludes by suggesting that communicating CSR intro-duces a new–and often overlooked–complexity to the relationship between nder and receiver of corporate CSR messages,which entails a manage-rial commitment to involving stakeholders in the ongoing ngiving and nmaking process. Stakeholder theory
While the stakeholder model was introduced to management theory many years ago by Freeman (1984),stakeholder management has developed into one of current management theory’s most encompassing Donaldson&Pres-ton1995,Mitchell et al.1997,Stoney&Win-stanley2001).Freeman’s(1984:25)‘stakeholder view of thefirm’instrumentally defines a stake-holder as‘Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of thefirm’s objectives’and he suggests that there is a need for ‘integrated approaches for dealing with multiple stakeholders on multiple issues’(1984:26).While Freeman framed and demarcated stakeholders as e
lements of corporate strategic planning,he most importantly demonstrated the urgency of stake-holders for the mission and purpo of the com-pany,and in doing so,also suggested the positive financial implications of better relationships with stakeholders.In line with Freeman’s thinking, many other scholars have pursued exploration of the link between corporate social performance andfinancial performance(Wood1991,Pava& Krausz1996),but the conclusions so far paint an unclear picture(Margolis&Walsh2003).火影高清壁纸
In recent years,stakeholder theory has devel-oped a focus on the importance of engaging stakeholders in long-term value creation(Andriof et al.2002).This is a process who perspective focus on developing a long-term mutual rela-tionship rather than simply focusing on immedi-ate profit.This does not imply that profit and economic survival are unimportant,but the process argument is that in order to profit and
324
早稻田大学世界排名r2006The Authors Journal compilation r2006Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
survive companies need to engage frequently with a variety of stakeholders upon whom dependence is vital.The emphasis is moved from a focus on stakeholders being managed by compa
nies to a focus on the interaction that companies have with their stakeholders bad on a relational and process-oriented view(Andriof&Waddock 2002:19).This implies an incread interest in understanding how managers can manage not the stakeholders themlves,but relationships with stakeholders.As a result,this increas the scope of stakeholder relationships from public relations and marketing managers practising their author-ity and communication skills to a strategic potential for all functional managers to relate to multiple stakeholders.Stakeholder relationships in this processual perspective have even been suggested as a source of competitive advantage (Andriof&Waddock2002,Post et al.2002, Johnson-Cramer et al.2003)as tho companies with strong relations to other organizations, institutions and partners are in a better position to develop relational rents through relation-specific asts,knowledge-sharing routines,com-plementary resource endowments and effective governance(Dyer&Singh1998).
The stakeholder relationship is assumed to consist of‘interactive,mutually engaged and responsive relationships that establish the very context of doing modern business,and create the groundwork for transparency and accountability’(Andriof et al.2002:9).This brings the notion of participation,dialogue and involvement to the centre of stakeholder theory,with a clear inspira-tion(and aspiration)from democratic ideals. While dialogue is the tool,agreement and connsus are most often regarded as t
he solution on which to ba further decisions and action,and hence to continue the collaboration.As argued by Johnson-Cramer et al.(2003:149)‘The esnce of stakeholder dialogue is the co-creation of shared understanding by company and stakeholder’. Today,participation and dialogue have become a natural element of corporate lf-prentations. In the following ction,three CSR communica-tion strategies are prented that cover the develop-ment from a classical monologue to more mutual and dialogue-bad stakeholder relationships.Three CSR communication strategies Bad on Grunig&Hunt’s(1984)characteriza-tion of models of public relations,we unfold three types of stakeholder relations in terms of how companies strategically engage in CSR commu-nication vis-a-vis their stakeholders:the stake-holder information strategy;the stakeholder respon strategy;and the stakeholder involve-ment strategy.
In1984,public relations theory argued(Grunig &Hunt1984)that50%of all companies practid one-way communication(in terms of public information)to their stakeholders,and only 35%practid two-way communication process (in terms of either two-way asymmetric or two-way symmetric communication).This relates to the theory of nmaking in terms of public information building on process of ngiving, whereas two-way communication builds on pro-cess of nmaking and ngiving.While some would agree that the prevalence of public information(ngiving)is al
so a fairly accurate picture of corporate communication process today,we suggest that there is an increasing need to develop sophisticated two-way communication process(nmaking and ngiving)when companies convey messages about CSR.While one-way information on corporate CSR initiatives is necessary,it is not enough.
Grunig&Hunt have also prented a fourth public relations a one-way commu-nication model defined as‘press agentry/publicity’or a propaganda model.We have not elaborated upon this model as one of our strategies for CSR communication,but we mention it to put our three CSR communication strategies into perspec-tive.The press agentry model rves a propaganda function in which practitioners‘spread the faith of the organization involved,often through incomplete,distorted,or half-true information’(Grunig&Hunt1984:21).The question of whe-ther a message is true or not does not play a major role in this model.While the propaganda model may benefit,for example,the delivery of a sports promotion,movie press agentry or generally aes-thetic advertising messages,we contend that this model is inappropriate for CSR communication.
r2006The Authors
Journal compilation r2006Blackwell Publishing Ltd.325
赵匡胤
While some messages play with pretending to be real,this is not the ca for messages about ethics and CSR.In this ca,the public expects another type of authenticity and organizational support, i.e.that the company actually means what it says. In fact,we argue that the press agentry model erodes the very ambition of CSR communication, which is to prent the company as an ethical and transparent socially responsible organization. Nevertheless,this model highlights one of the assumptions behind contemporary stakeholder expectations regarding corporate CSR communi-cation,that it reprents the truth.
The following is a prentation of the three CSR communication strategies:a one-way communica-tion strategy,a two-way asymmetric communica-tion strategy and a two-way symmetric communi-cation strategy,each of which we relate to the pro-cess of ngiving and nmaking(Table1). Stakeholder information strategy
In the‘stakeholder information strategy’,similar to Grunig&Hunt’s public information model, communication is always one-way,from the organization to its stakeholders.Communication is basically viewed as‘telling,not listening’(Grunig&Hunt1984:23),and therefore the one-way communication of the stakeholder informa-tion strategy has the purpo of disminating
汤姆索亚历险......................................................................................................................................
Table1:Three CSR communication strategies
The stakeholder information strategy The stakeholder
王春新
respon strategy时光飞逝的成语
The stakeholder
involvement strategy
Communication ideal: (Grunig&Hunt1984)Public information,
one-way communication
Two-way asymmetric
communication
Two-way symmetric
communication
Communication ideal:n-making and ngiving:Sengiving
Senmaking
Sengiving
Senmaking
egiving
information,not necessarily with a persuasive intent,but rather to inform the public as objectively as possible about the organization. Companies adopting a stakeholder information model engage in active press relations pro-grammes and concurrently produce information and news for the media,as well as a variety of brochures,pamphlets,magazines,facts,numbers andfigures to inform the general public.Govern-ments,non-profit organizations and many busi-ness primarily u the public information model.The company‘gives n’to its audiences. The stakeholder information model assumes that stakeholders are influential as they can either give support in terms of purchasing habits, showing loyalty and praising the company,or they can show opposition in terms of demonstra
t-ing,striking or boycotting the company(Smith 2003).Therefore,the company must inform stakeholders about its good intentions,decisions and actions to ensure positive stakeholder sup-port.Quite a few companies engage in CSR initiatives becau corporate managers believe that it is morally‘the right thing to do’(Paine 2001),and this often sincere wish to improve social conditions in the local or global community supports their stakeholder information strategy. Top management,confident the company is doing the right thing,believes the company just needs to inform the general public efficiently about what it is doing to build and maintain positive stake-holder support.One strategic task of stakeholder information strategies is to ensure that favourable corporate CSR decisions and actions are commu-nicated effectively to the company’s stakeholders. The task of the corporate communications department is to ensure that a coherent message is conveyed in an appealing way and that the focus is on the design of the concept message(van Riel1995),i.e.that the CSR message conveys,for example,how the CSR initiatives demonstrate a generally shared concern,are linked to the core business and show organizational support(Scott &Lane2000).It is outside the realm of this strategy to consider that external third-party stakeholders,should endor corpo-rate CSR initiatives.Trustworthy communication originates from the company itlf.Stakeholder respon strategy
哥特音乐The stakeholder respon strategy is bad on a ‘two-way asymmetric’communication model,as oppod to the two-way symmetric model of the stakeholder involvement strategy.In both models, communicationflows to and from the public.But there is a conspicuous difference between the two models in that the two-way asymmetric assumes an imbalance from the effects of public relations in favour of the company,as the company does not change as a result of the public relations. Rather,the company attempts to change public attitudes and behaviour.As such,the company needs to engage stakeholders by making the corporate decisions and actions relevant for them becau the company needs the external endor-ment from external stakeholders.The corporate communication department will typically conduct an opinion poll or a market survey to make n of where the company has–hopefully–improved and can improve its CSR efforts.Communication is perceived as feedback in terms offinding out what the public will accept and tolerate.This is an evaluative mode of measuring whether a particular communication initiative has improved stake-holder understanding of the company–and vice versa.Corporate management will champion and ‘give n’to its decisions according to the market survey results in which managers‘make n’. Although the communication process are perceived as two-way methods in Grunig& Hunt’s public relations models,we elaborate on their model as we stress that responding to stakeholders is still rather nder oriented.The stakeholder respon strategy is a predominantly one-sided approac
h,as the company has the sole intention of convincing its stakeholders of its attractiveness.We,therefore,highlight stake-holder responsiveness rather than their pro-active engagement in communication process.Stake-holders are perceived as being influential,but as passively responding to corporate initiatives.In a company’s attempts to understand stakeholder concerns in a CSR perspective,it runs the risk of only hearing its own voice being reflected back; the company asks its stakeholders questions within a framework that invites predominantly李易峰心理罪
Business Ethics:A European Review
Volume15Number4October2006
r2006The Authors
Journal compilation r2006Blackwell Publishing Ltd.327
