Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice

Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Towards a Phase Model of Strategic Planning Bernd Lorenz Walter

Article information: To cite this document: Bernd Lorenz Walter . "Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Towards a Phase Model of Strategic Planning" In Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice. Published online: 25 Sep 2014; 59-79. Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2043-9059(2014)0000006022 Downloaded on: 16 March 2016, At: 04:04 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1568 times since NaN*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Dima Jamali, (2014),"CSR in Developing Countries through an Institutional Lens", Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 8 pp. 21-44 Christel Dumas, Emmanuelle Michotte, (2014),"Where do-gooders meet bottom-liners: Disputes and resolutions surrounding socially responsible investment", Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 7 pp. 119-148 Ralph Tench, William Sun, Brian Jones, (2014),"Introduction: CSR Communication as an Emerging Field of Study", Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, Vol. 6 pp. 3-21

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.


*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMUNICATION: TOWARDS A PHASE MODEL OF STRATEGIC PLANNING Bernd Lorenz Walter ABSTRACT Purpose The chapter develops a phase model of strategic planning in integrated corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication by presenting CSR as a mindset in communication processes. Design/methodology/approach The chapter provides rationales for establishing a new phase model of strategic planning in CSR communication by adapting existing models of strategic communications. In this context, the main focus is on the need to involve stakeholders in CSR communication processes (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Findings The chapter argues that in the sense of CSR communication, stakeholders should be involved in the strategic planning process from

Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, Volume 6, 59 79 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2043-9059/doi:10.1108/S2043-9059(2014)0000006022

59

60

BERND LORENZ WALTER


the beginning, with respect to the issues that the corporation and targeted stakeholder groups have in common. Research limitations/implications The chapter concentrates on selected key aspects of CSR and CSR communication. In particular the aspects such as reputation, credibility, ethical alignment and stakeholder involvement are considered as prerequisites for understanding the construction of the phase model. Practical implications This chapter provides practical implications for developing communication concepts in CSR communication in daily business practice. Originality/value This chapter facilitates a comprehensive understanding of strategic CSR communication as part of CSR reflected in the development processes of communication concepts. Keywords: CSR communication; strategic planning; communication strategy; stakeholder involvement strategy

In the face of changed media behaviour towards participation and transparency, corporations have started to redefine their communication business models. As a new infrastructure of communication, the Internet which is still very young is probably the main driver of this process. It shifts the pre-digital ‘read-only culture’ to a ‘read/write culture’ (Lessig, 2008, p. 28), and hence the balance of power between businesses and society. It enables social and ecological consciousness to find its way into the establishment, which has the potential to lead to major changes in business, politics and society. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be perceived as a reaction to this ongoing process of societal change. CSR calls for new approaches to business communication, since in the modern context the strategies and measures of the pre-Internet age often fail. This is true not only for the communication of CSR activities, but also for business communication as a whole. The communication concept is at the heart of every communication planning process, mostly in connection with campaign planning. This chapter refers to the numerous models of strategic planning from the past to present, a phase model which meets the requirements of CSR by taking the conceptual framework of Morsing and Schultz’s (2006) stakeholder involvement strategy into special account. In order to understand the phase model of CSR communication, it is important to reflect on


CSR Communication: Towards a Phase Model of Strategic Planning

61

some of its basic preconditions. Beginning with the concept of CSR itself and consequently CSR communication, this chapter will reflect on the main challenge for CSR communication bridging the gap between profits and morals. Enhanced reputation is seen as the most important asset of CSR communication, and is therefore targeted by all CSR communication concepts, which provides adequate reason to reflect critically on this subject. Credibility and trust are another hurdle faced by CSR communication, and has a direct connection to the ethical claims of CSR. Before the chapter finally presents its proposed phase model, it is important to reflect on the different stakeholder strategies leading to the Morsing and Schultz’s (2006) stakeholder involvement strategy.

CSR AS A CORPORATE MINDSET There is a huge variety of and even controversy around definitions of CSR in the multidisciplinary academic literature, as well as with practitioners. Since even ‘responsibility’ as a term is variously interpreted, it is unrealistic to expect to find a one-size-fits-all definition for CSR. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that, in its broadest sense, CSR refers to ‘the social obligations and impacts of business in society’ (Crane & Matten, 2007a, p. vi), and more specifically involves the ‘major transformation of business thinking […] to meet society’s broader challenges’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 4). Carroll and Buchholtz (2000, p. 35) developed the most commonly cited definition of CSR in reference to their CSR pyramid (Carroll, 1991): ‘Corporate social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic expectations placed on organizations by society at a given point in time’. Beyond the different dimensions of responsibility, this extrinsic definition of CSR emphasizes the fact that there are expectations which corporations must take into account and respond to in order to gain the ‘respect of society’ and finally a ‘license to operate’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 17). Following legitimacy theory, the existence of an organization can only be secured if it is perceived to take the values and norms of society into account (i.e. adhering to the social contract between business and society) (Farache, Perks, & Berry, 2009). In this sense, stakeholders determine the scope of action for corporations by ascribing legitimation. This legitimation is not only given for corporations’ philanthropic endeavours in forms such as voluntary activities undertaken to demonstrate good


62

BERND LORENZ WALTER

corporate citizenship. Rather, responsibility is coded into the corporate DNA: it is a measure to optimize the ‘business design’ to gain competitive advantages (Liebl, 2011) by ‘reconnecting company success with social progress’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 4). By implementing CSR into the core business and the entire value chain of the corporation, CSR relates more to making socially responsible profits than investing (irresponsible) profits in societal deeds. Thus, an intrinsically motivated perspective according to Carroll and Buchholtz’s definition, based on Elkingtons’s triple-bottom-line concept (Elkington, 1994), could be: CSR is a corporate mindset which encompasses the economic, social and ecological responsibility of a corporation ‘at a given point in time’ (Carroll, op. cit.). The appendix ‘at a given point in time’, to Carroll and Buchholtz’s definition, is an important addition, since the meaning and perception of responsibility changes over time. For instance, past responsibilities might conflict with the demands of today, and those of the future might not be any more acceptable or sufficient in terms of the legitimization of society (Smith, 2004). In addition to the time aspect, the cultural background of responsibility plays an important role, since the expectations of stakeholders assigned to responsible corporations are culture-based and vary greatly from country to country (Crane, Matten, & Spence, 2007).

THE ROLE OF CSR COMMUNICATION CSR communication is still one of the main topics of discussion in the business communication field (Zerfass, Moreno, Tench, Vercˇicˇ, & Verhoeven, 2011). However, since ‘CSR’ is difficult to define, the same is true for ‘CSR Communication’. CSR communication is a delicate issue due to the fact that it involves the inherent problem of communicating sustainability issues. Brugger (2010) summarized these problems with reference to the following attributes: complexity, contradictions, difficult visibility, longevity and negativity. In the face of these, many companies avoid discussing CSR at all, or at least treat it in a highly restrained manner. However, following Watzlawicks’s axiom, ‘one cannot not communicate’ (Watzlawick, BeavinBavelas, & Jackson, 1967, p. 51), the communication process in fact begins, whether intentionally or not, as soon as a corporation starts to implement CSR. Consequently, even if a corporation ‘decides’ not to talk about its CSR engagement perhaps adhering to the mindset that it is sometimes better to remain silent than to brag about the latest CSR endeavours



63

(Sen, Du, & Bhattacharya, 2009) communication still inevitably occurs. In addition to the difficulties involved in the effective communication of CSR activities, a question can be raised regarding the self-conception and the scope of action of CSR communication as a whole. Bentele and Nothhaft (2011) stated that there are two simultaneous perspectives of CSR: the responsibility of the corporation and the perception of corporate responsibility by society. With this in mind, at least four types of CSR communication can be distinguished: a. Communication on and about CSR. This dimension ascribes CSR communication a service role in relation to CSR. CSR communication conveys CSR activities to the internal and external stakeholders groups, and is therefore directly connected to the public relations and organizational communication of the corporation (Schultz, 2011). In this sense, CSR communication primarily aims to ‘balance between deeds and words’ by adding further value (Morsing, 2003, p. 146). The main purpose of communication on and about CSR is to appear as a responsible corporation to attract those stakeholders who appreciate this attribute. However, this dimension of CSR communication has proven traditional instruments and measures of marketing and public relations to be insufficient (Morsing, 2003), and sometimes even misleading. Moreover, the paradox regarding the integration of CSR into the core business is that the more it is integrated, the fewer opportunities arise around publicoriented settings (Liebl, 2011). b. Communication as part of the CSR mindset. Since CSR is accepted as a mindset and thus is part of a corporations’ DNA, communication has to emphasize its role as an effective transmission belt of the corporate culture to the internal and external stakeholders. This dimension integrates the mindset of CSR into the entire corporate communications spectrum by following a strategy of participation. CSR in communication processes actively puts the interests of stakeholders, in terms of supporting the perception of individual benefits (Schrader & HenningThurau, 2001) as a shared concern (Scott & Lane, 2000), at the centre of attention. It integrates the stakeholders’ interests into all strategic communication decisions and processes to potentially strengthen ‘member identification’ (Morsing, 2006, p. 1). In addition, it stresses the meaning of communication towards listening (pull-communication), rather than talking (push-communication). All too often, corporations give answers to questions nobody has asked, and the actual questions remain unanswered (Dyllick, 1992). With regards to CSR, therefore, active listening


64

BERND LORENZ WALTER

does not mean waiting for the time to talk; instead, it involves actively exposing stakeholders’ interests and claims to find the right answers to them in contrast to the majority of today’s communication, which is about ‘telling, not listening’ (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 23). The precondition for taking responsibility is to understand the demands that corporations should actually respond to. Following the constructive communication model, corporations must connect their own communication contents to the real-life scenario of the recipients (Brugger, 2010). This is especially true in the context of the communication of CSR activities, as corporations must take into consideration that not all stakeholder claims can be met by communications, and not all responsibility issues will be raised by stakeholders (Ulrich, 1998). c. Responsible communication. Every communication measure should consider ethical standards. Responsible communication requires ethical standards to be met with respect to every culture and form. Ethical conduct models already exist in the various communication disciplines, but are still violated. Responsible communication also implies ethical standards not only in terms of the message itself, but also how it is produced or distributed (e.g. using less paper). d. Communication of ‘ethical’ products and services. This consumer-oriented dimension of CSR communication entails all communication efforts to market products and services with ethical, societal and ecological attributes. There is a fast-growing market for these goods, which has a significant effect on the entire value chain. This dimension is not explicitly relevant to the understanding of the phase model, however, since it concentrates on products and services, rather than CSR as a corporate mindset.

ALIGNING ETHICS WITH STRATEGY CSR does not necessarily directly imply ethical motivations. Strictly speaking, it can simply help to decrease costs (e.g. energy efficiency) and enhance competitiveness (e.g. expanding to new markets). However, as soon as a corporation interacts with stakeholders, ethical claims are perceived, whether intended or not, and thus CSR becomes irrevocably involved, and stakeholders inevitably begin to judge CSR endeavours as being right or wrong in terms of morality and ethics (Crane & Matten, 2007a). Against this background, ethics play an important role for profit-making



65

organizations, since stakeholders are very sceptical if profit-making and ethics are presented together. In reference to the Kantian framework, L’Etang summarized the reason for this scepticism as follows: ‘there is clearly something wrong about claiming moral capital while at the same time being driven largely by self-interest’ (L’Etang, 2006, p. 414). Earlier, she had argued that ‘where self-interest plays a part in the motivation of the action, then that action is regarded as prudential and cannot be regarded as a morally right action’ (L’Etang, 1996, p. 83). Many stakeholders, especially in Western cultures, perceive profit-making as an expression of self-interest which is made at the expense of others. Therefore, attempts by corporations to engage in CSR are often seen as ‘buying an indulgence’ which is especially true when the CSR engagement is not related to the core business (Suchanek, 2008, p. 5). As Suchanek suggested, ‘ethics implies that morality should always prevail over self-interest’ (Suchanek, 2008, p. 3). However, since profit-making belongs to the logic of existence of for-profit organizations, altruism is simply not affordable. On the other hand, it is not acceptable for profits to be made while negatively affecting third parties; this will also ultimately be detrimental to the corporation itself, if only when stakeholders eventually revoke the company’s license to operate. As a result, corporations should strive for win win situations; in other words, according to Suchanek’s (2008, p. 3) golden rule, corporations should ‘invest in social cooperation for mutual advantage’. With regards to CSR, this means that corporations should aspire to mutual benefits of both the society and the corporation (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Since this approach depends very much on human capital (including self-discipline, trustworthiness and social competence) and organizational capital (including the structure and rules of the corporation), Suchanek (2008, p. 4) suggests an extension to the golden rule: ‘[corporations should] invest in the conditions which foster social cooperation for mutual benefit’. Finally, it is the stakeholders who judge the extent to which a corporation succeeds in converging social responsibility and financial profits, which in turn will directly reflect on the CSR engagement and the corporation’s reputation (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Forehand and Grier suggested that intrinsic and extrinsic motives can work together and result, in the best case, in enhancing the credibility of the CSR message, as well as generating goodwill (Forehand & Grier, 2003). Consumers increasingly accept a ‘“win win” perspective’ as they come to know more about the CSR motivations of corporations, to the point where they ‘believ[e] that CSR initiatives can and should serve both the needs of society and the bottom lines of business’ (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010, p. 10).

66

BERND LORENZ WALTER


REPUTATION Consumers and other stakeholders are still concerned about the fact that they feel under-informed about the ethical claims of corporations (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Furthermore, as long as stakeholders are unaware of CSR endeavours, corporations cannot expect to see positive effects on their reputation. The likelihood of earning positive effects increases the more information stakeholders receive (Bortree, 2009); however, Morsing, Schultz and Nielsen (2008) presented this as a paradox: on the one hand, stakeholders expect corporations to take responsibility, but on the other, when corporations begin to talk about CSR, stakeholder scepticism rises. Often, stakeholders simply do not believe in the CSR engagement, and condemn it as an act of corporate hypocrisy (Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). Therefore, some authors attest that CSR is nothing more than manipulation with the intention to mislead the public (Øyvind, 2011). As a result, many corporations decide to act in alignment with societal norms, but to do so quietly (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2003). This is especially true when moral avowals are claimed which contain the risk to be scandalized when they are not going to be fulfilled (Eisenegger & Schranz, 2011). Indeed, this approach minimizes the risk of negative reaction, but obviously does not solve the paradox. In addition, it means that corporations cannot benefit from the supposed advantages to corporate reputation, which can be defined as the ‘overall estimation of a firm by its stakeholders, which is expressed by the net affective reactions of customers, investors, employees, and the general public’ (Fombrun, 1996, pp. 78, 79). In fact, whether CSR really does have a positive effect on corporations’ reputations depends on various factors. However, there is an overall agreement that reputation and CSR are somehow interconnected, and have even been described as ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Hillenbrand & Money, 2007, p. 1), although there is no consensus about what form this connection takes (Eisenegger & Schranz, 2011). Positive effects on reputation by CSR endeavours can be expected when a corporation already has a good, or at least a neutral, reputation (Pfau, Haigh, Sims, & Wigley, 2008), while corporations with a bad reputation receive a poor assessment (Yoon, Gu¨rhan-Canli, & Schwarz, 2006). ‘The more problematic the legitimacy of a company is, the more skeptical are constituents of legitimation attempts’ (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990, p. 185). Stakeholders also expect corporations’ CSR endeavours to be linked with their core business (Haley, 1996). However, as Fouad Harndan, former campaign strategist for Greenpeace, contends, ‘good’ corporations are in


67


particularly critical focus of certain stakeholder groups (and also journalists), who are waiting for the first mistake or evidence of irregularities (Liebl, 2011).

CREDIBILITY AND TRUST In terms of reputation-building, credibility and trust play a crucial role. In fact they are, to some extent, a license to communicate. Studies have shown that the credibility of a corporation is not affected if a CSR communication campaign primarily intends to make profits out of it (i.e. is selfinterested) (Schmitt & Ro¨ttger, 2011); however, when corporations try to conceal such self-interest, negative effects are seen on credibility, and consequently reputation (Forehand & Grier, 2003). However, CSR campaigns always pose a credibility risk (Schmitt & Ro¨ttger, 2011). Different factors can be utilized to avoid this risk, including one of the most important aspects: transparency (Brønn & Vrioni, 2001; Schmitt & Ro¨ttger, 2011). Crane and Matten (2007b, p. 70) defined transparency as the ‘degree to which corporate decisions, policies, activities and impacts are acknowledged and made visible to relevant stakeholders’. Transparency does not necessarily follow from the provision of more information, however it is more important that the information is understandable, and that recipients are willing to understand it (Herbst, 2011). Another important factor relating to credibility risk is the potential for discrepancies to arise between self-reporting and third-party reporting (Schmitt & Ro¨ttger, 2011). On the other hand, the credibility of CSR messages is enforced if they are communicated by third parties, or at least are accepted and welcomed by third parties (active third-party endorsement) (Eisenegger & Schranz, 2011). In particular, cooperation with NGOs enhances the credibility of CSR communication campaigns (Mutch & Aitken, 2009). Most important for the credibility of a CSR campaign is the involvement of stakeholders at least employees (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Credibility, in turn, is marked by two components: competence and trust (Six & Scha¨fer, 1985). Following Luhmann (2000), trust involves a risky investment made in advance to reduce social complexity. Bentele broadens this perspective and argues that trust is not only a social mechanism, but also a communicative one (Bentele & Nothhaft, 2011). Trust comes into play if one acts in the absence of any form of security or guarantee. Opportunities and risks are assessed in the absence of more reliable

68

BERND LORENZ WALTER


approaches based on knowledge of past or current events. Since trust is developed from one’s own positive experiences, or those of third parties, Rotter describes trust as a result of a learning process (Rotter, 1981).

STAKEHOLDER STRATEGIES Responsibility demands third-party justification of actions; in the context of a corporation this third party consists of the stakeholders. Crane and Matten (2007b, p. 58) define a stakeholder as an ‘individual or a group which either: is harmed by, or benefits from, the corporation; or whose rights can be violated, or have to be respected, by the corporation’. Key stakeholders of a corporation include shareholders, employees, clients and civil society organizations. The stakeholder approach opens the existing narrow perspective on taking responsibility for increasing shareholder value via profit maximization to a broader level, which involves creating value for all stakeholders (Crane et al., 2007). Freeman, whose stakeholder theory basically established the idea of value creation for stakeholders (Freeman, 1984), even promotes ‘stakeholder responsibility’ over ‘corporate social responsibility’ (Freeman, 2004). Further to this idea, Porter and Kramer suggested their ‘principle of shared value which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 4). Stakeholder relationships can take many forms. Morsing and Schultz (2006) distinguish three different stakeholder strategies, which sets the basis for the phase model which will subsequently be presented: a. Stakeholder information strategy. b. Stakeholder response strategy. c. Stakeholder involvement strategy.

Stakeholder Information Strategy The information strategy is, so far, the strategy that is most commonly adopted by corporations. The information strategy involves informing stakeholders about CSR, and about the corporation’s CSR activities ‘in order to attribute positive evaluations to it’ (Morsing, 2003, p. 148). Basically, this strategy follows linear communication models like Berlo’s sendermessage-channel-receiver model of communication (Berlo, 1960). In the



69

best-case scenario, ‘the company ‘gives sense’ to its audiences’ (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 327), for instance by publishing non-financial reports intended ‘to inform and convince public audiences about corporate legitimacy’ (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 333). Corporations that follow the information strategy apparently attempt to understand stakeholders’ expectations and the best way in which to meet them; alternatively, in the worst-case scenario, corporations are simply not interested in stakeholder demands, which renders the stakeholder approach pointless. Against the background of the fact that, according to one study, one third of business leaders are more engaged with their personal career than with enabling and realizing something together (Herbst, 2011), the level of interest in creating mutual value might not be particularly strong. Moreover, it is not realistic for business leaders to control the meanings and perceptions among stakeholders (Crane & Livesey, 2003). On the contrary, ‘CSR initiatives may then retrospectively be perceived as a means of covering up or accommodating the legitimacy problem, which in turn reinforces stakeholder skepticism towards CSR initiatives and corporate legitimacy’ (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 332). Consequently, it seems that ‘the more problematic the legitimacy, the greater the protestation of legitimacy’ (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990, p. 185). Recognizing this, Morsing and Schultz (2006, p. 325) ‘suggest that there is an increasing need to develop sophisticated two-way communication processes (sense making and sense giving) when companies convey messages about CSR’.

Stakeholder Response Strategy The response strategy is based on the two-way symmetric model posited by Grunig and Hunt (1984), and strives for a bilaterally equal dialogue. Nevertheless, following the stakeholder response strategy a corporation’s intention is still to influence and convince stakeholders of its CSR strategy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). In contrast to the stakeholder information strategy, in the response strategy stakeholders are invited to respond to the information given to them. Thus, in terms of CSR stakeholders are asked to give feedback on the corporation’s CSR activities and to ‘engage in sense giving in response to organizational actions’ (Holt, 2006, p. 12). By encouraging such feedback, the corporation has access to the public reaction to their CSR endeavours (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).

70

BERND LORENZ WALTER


Stakeholder Involvement Strategy The involvement strategy is Morsing and Schulz’s preferred strategy, and is also the basic idea for the CSR communication strategic planning phase model set forth in this chapter. Instead of sending messages to the stakeholders the involvement strategy invites stakeholders to ‘pro-actively’ take part in corporate CSR communication (Morsing, 2006, p. 177). This strategy also follows the model of stakeholder democracy, which gives stakeholders an opportunity to ‘influence and control corporate decisions’ (Crane & Matten, 2007b, p. 62). By doing so, the strategy aims to increase the credibility of CSR communications (Farache et al., 2009), and enhances stakeholders’ identification with the CSR message which, in turn, results in positive identification with the corporation (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Morsing and Schultz argue ‘that striving towards stakeholder involvement and an improved mutual understanding of stakeholder expectations towards business and vice versa are crucial elements in its enactment’ (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 336). The involvement strategy requires the organization’s willingness to listen as part of the CSR mindset, in order to stay up-to-date with stakeholders’ expectations. ‘Companies should not only influence but also seek to be influenced by stakeholders’ (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 328). Accordingly, the messages are not created to give to the stakeholders, but rather are created with them. This activates a kind of ‘auto-communication’ (Christensen, 1997, p. 1), which proactively engages stakeholders in the communication process for ‘mutual construction of CSR communication’ to increase member identification via shared responsibility of the CSR message (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 336). Thus, the strategy involves internal as well as external stakeholders in the sense giving and sense making process, which is critical for the ‘understanding and constructi[on] of issues in organizations’ (Holt, 2006, p. 13). Sense making involves many people in the creation of shared meaning and shared experience that will ultimately guide organizational action (Holt, 2006) towards a ‘preferred redefinition of organizational reality’ (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). The sense making process should not only ‘provide interpretation and meaning retrospectively for events that have already occurred’ (Holt, 2006, p. 6), but also anticipate future events. The participative involvement strategy is utilized by courageous corporations and stakeholders that are willing to change and ready to redistribute power, since ‘participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless’ (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216). However,


71

Crane and Livesey (2003, p. 40) warned that if involvement and dialogue are not ‘genuinely adopted’, it can lead to cynicism and distrust.

The phase model of strategic planning in CSR communication (Fig. 1) illustrates the process of conceptualizing and planning communication strategies commonly adopted in campaign planning processes, while taking the aforementioned premises into account. In particular, the following premises and preconditions, which were explained above, are of vital importance: a. Implementing CSR as a mindset. For this phase model, all of the presented types of CSR communication are taken into account, Evaluation

Measures

Objectives/Target Groups

Materiality Assessment

Stakeholder Analysis

Situation Analysis

Stakehoder Involvement & Participation

Strategy

Control Feedback


THE PHASE MODEL

Issue Management Stakeholder Management Corporate Culture / Identity

Fig. 1.

Phase Model of Strategic Planning in CSR Communication.


72

BERND LORENZ WALTER

although it is argued that this phase model does not necessarily need to be used in the context of explicit CSR activities and the marketing of ‘ethical’ products and services. The following explanations are, however, in the context of communication on and about CSR. b. Striving for good reputation. As mentioned above, striving for good reputation is one of the main purposes of CSR communication. No matter what the actual intention of the communication strategy the phase model is adopted for, the benefits to reputation are considered. c. Pursuit of mutual benefits. Following Suchanek’s ‘golden rule’, the phase model is understood as an investment ‘in the conditions which foster social cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Suchanek, 2008, p. 4). Consequently, the main challenge for communications is to master the profit-morality balance in terms of stakeholder perception. d. Implementing the ‘stakeholder involvement strategy’. The phase model basically follows Morsing and Schultz’s stakeholder involvement strategy detailed above. The main focus in the phase model is on the participative nature of this strategy. It proactively involves and engages the internal and external stakeholders in the planning process. The different phases of the model follow well-known communication process models (Bruhn, 2006; Zerfass, 2004), and are also partly adopted by existing models on strategic planning (Bentele, 2005). Even though the models differ in the terms they use, the specific stages and their order are as follows: a. b. c. d. e.

Situation analysis. Objectives and target groups. Strategy (including positioning, messages and leading idea). Measures (including budgeting, timing etc.). Evaluation.

Meffert and Burmann (2005) used these phases to determine the following steps for a process-oriented approach for CSR communication: a. Situation analysis, which includes the analysis of self-perception, in contrast to the perception of others. b. Communication objectives, which encompasses the inner and outer communication objectives. c. Relation to the brand, including congruency with corporate branding and positioning of CSR aspects in terms of the core of the brand. d. Communication design, which involves concreting the intensity of communication; determining the instruments to be used, along with the


73


content and stakeholder groups; and ensuring formal, content-rich and timely integration. e. Communication control, which includes monitoring the achievement of the objectives and identifying possible amendments. By adapting this approach and considering the premises and preconditions mentioned above, it can be argued that in each phase of the process stakeholders who are addressed by the communication strategy should be involved. The involvement of stakeholders should be incorporated into a normative model of communication, and should not only be considered by the implementation of dialogue-oriented communication tools (Brugger, 2010). This can be achieved, for instance, by involving stakeholder representatives into the strategic planning team, or by setting up a steering committee which is consulted and controls the strategic planning process. Furthermore, it is argued that the process of strategic planning starts before the situation analysis stage, since it must be anchored in the corporate culture and corporate identity. Corporate culture is a dynamic process, which stands in constant interaction with society to form the corporations’ identity. The CSR mindset has to be treated as a part of this corporate culture and identity in order to set the basis for truth and truthful communication, which is in line with the ‘normative rightness’ validity dimensions of Habermas’s communicative rationality theory (Habermas, 1981, 1983). Otherwise, there is a danger of obscurity or rejection of claims to validity, and thus communication failure occurs (Kunczik, 2002). In this context, truth is developed on a claim which all participants the corporation and the stakeholders share, and which is constantly developed in the framework of an ethical discourse (Habermas, 1983). In this discourse, the expectations of CSR are formulated without risk of falling into the reputation trap (Eisenegger & Schranz, 2011). Thus, it is very important to systematically identify the stakeholders and initiate a dialogue with them. In addition, it is important to identify the relevant issues, which can have multiple dimensions including societal problems, open questions, potential opportunities, etc., and are not necessarily related to communications (Liebl, 2011). In the context of social responsibility in particular, the focus is not only on communication, but also on concrete action in the form of strategy, processes, products, etc. Heath put this in terms of ‘getting the house in order’, which implies the identification and implementation of standards that reflect on social responsibility and result from the scanning and monitoring of the stakeholders, their value systems, and entitlements (Heath, 1997). The strategic issue management,


74

BERND LORENZ WALTER

therefore, must be conceived as a concerted task and the subject of a ‘strategic conversation’ throughout the entire organization not only in communication departments (van der Heijden, 1996, p. 1). As long as every single employee is part of this strategic endeavour, responsibility towards society is already a necessary part of this, provided that the employees are given enough space to contribute to the ‘strategic conversation’ (van der Heijden, op. cit.). Since strategic issue management is an ongoing process, it can also shape the brand experience of the relevant stakeholders (‘living the brand’) (Ind, 2001, p. 1), since they are actively engaged in selecting the issues to be supported (Du et al., 2010) in connection to a higher agenda. This engagement is a frequently and systematically designed process (Morsing & Schultz, 2006), which is directly interconnected with the materiality assessment to identify the most pressing issues at the relevant time. The materiality assessment identifies which issues are of core interest to the stakeholders in relation to the impact on corporations, and are ultimately relevant to the conceptualization of the communication strategy. Following the phase model, the stakeholder analysis and the results of the materiality assessment, based on a comprehensive issue analysis and stakeholder management, enter into the situation analysis as part of a systematic recording of the communication network of relationships within the enterprise and between the stakeholders within the organization, the market and the socio-political environment (Zerfass, 2004). The communication objectives and target groups also reflect directly on the results of the materiality assessment, as well as the stakeholder analysis. It is important to emphasize again here that the definition of the objectives and the target groups will be defined together with the stakeholders who represent these groups. They should be a proactive part of the definition process, as well as for the entire process of strategic planning. At the centre of every communication concept is the leading idea which is formulated as a result of a creative process. The leading idea is the common thread running through the communication measures, instruments and channels. In each case of communication, dialogue must be utilized. Cultural differences and the time perspective must also be taken into account, as mentioned above. The communication measures, instruments and channels have to be carefully selected and arranged to ensure a credible, authentic and trustworthy perception of the communication by the target groups. Here, stakeholder engagement again plays an important role as a yardstick for successful communication strategy, and even as inventors e.g. crowdsourcing, co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000). Evaluation finally closes the circle of the communication control process. It is


75


important here to give feedback on the single phases in terms of adjustments and improvements.

CONCLUSION The strategy of involving stakeholders in business processes outside communications has already been approved in selected areas (e.g. open innovation). Regarding communications, this chapter has presented an initial approach to the adoption of the phase model in organizational communications, which includes involving (mainly internal) stakeholders in the communication process, especially when it comes to communications about values and guiding principles. Implementing the phase model into communication processes by applying external stakeholders as well is, in practice, not as easy, especially given that collaboration with stakeholders is a learning process which entails many obstacles. Crane and Matten (2007b) summarized these obstacles as follows: resource intensity, culture clash, schizophrenia (mostly resulting from ethical dilemmas), uncontrollability, co-optation, accountability and resistance. Furthermore, it should be noted that corporations might merely cater to the lowest common denominator in decision-making processes, which is rarely the most efficient method of operation. In combination with this, corporations tend to collaborate with more ‘easy-care’ stakeholders than key stakeholders that represent the more critical stakeholder voices. Given the difficulties which can arise in stakeholder relationships, the degree and the means of involvement might vary in practical use. True to the maxim ‘the journey is the reward’, the positive aspects of involving stakeholders in the strategic planning process of CSR communication strategies outweigh the negative. Such positive factors include decreased risk of communication failures, which leads to consistent adherence to CSR practices, and advance anticipation of ethical dilemmas.

REFERENCES Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216 224. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177 194.


76

BERND LORENZ WALTER

Bentele, G. (2005). Konzeption. In G. Bentele, R. Fro¨hlich, & P. Szyszka (Eds.), Handbuch der Public Relations. Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und berufliches Handeln (pp. 590 591). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Bentele, G., & Nothhaft, H. (2011). Vertrauen und Glaubwu¨rdigkeit als Grundlage von Corporate Social Responsibility: Die (massen-)mediale Konstruktion von Verantwortung und Verantwortlichkeit. In J. Raupp, S. Jarolimek, & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch CSR (pp. 45 70). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Bortree, D. S. (2009). The impact of green initiatives on environmental legitimacy and admiration of the organization. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 133 135. Brugger, F. (2010). Nachhaltigkeit in der Unternehmenskommunikation. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Bruhn, M. (2006). Integrierte Kommunikation. In B. F. Schmid & B. Lyczek (Eds.), Unternehmenskommunikation, Kommunikationsmanagement aus Sicht der Unternehmensfu¨hrung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Brønn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207 222. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, July August, 39 48. Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (4th ed.), Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Christensen, L. T. (1997). Marketing as auto-communication. Consumption, markets and culture. Public Relations Review, 1(3), 197 227. Crane, A., & Livesey, L. (2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Relationships, communication reporting and performance (pp. 39 52). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing Limited. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007a). Corporate social responsibility as a field of scholarship. In A. Crane & D. Matten (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility. London: Sage. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007b). Business ethics (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: In a global context. In A. Crane, D. Matten, & L. J. Spence (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context (pp. 1 23). London: Routledge Chapman & Hall. 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. Dyllick, T. (1992). Management der Umweltbeziehungen, O¨ffentliche Auseinandersetzung als Herausforderung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Eisenegger, M., & Schranz, M. (2011). CSR Moralisierung des Reputationsmanagements. In J. Raupp, S. Jarolimek, & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch CSR (pp. 72 96). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90 100. Farache, F., Perks, K., & Berry, A. (2009). The role of advertising in the legitimization of CSR actions: Propositions and a conceptual framework. Proceeding on Australian and



77

New Zealand Marketing Academy conference, November 30 December 2, 2009, Melbourne (pp. 1 9). Retrieved from http://www.duplication.net.au/ANZMAC09/Papers.html. Accessed on 21 September 2011. Fombrun, C.J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 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, 349 356. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift fu¨r Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228 241. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433 448. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. T. (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorien des kommunikativen Handelns. Handlungsrationalita¨t und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers’ understanding of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25, 19 36. Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herbst, D. G. (2011). Rede mit mir, scm. Berlin: scm c/o prismus communications GmbH. Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. (2007). Corporate responsibility and corporate reputation: Two separate concepts or two sides of the same coin? Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 261 277. Holt, M. K. (2006). An exploration into sensemaking and sensegiving: A stakeholder model approach. Proceedings of the Dr. John Amis’organizational theory doctoral seminar, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Ind, N. (2001). Living the brand (3rd. ed.), London: Kogan Page. Kunczik, M. (2002). Public relations. Konzepte und Theorien (4th ed.), Ko¨ln: Bo¨hlau. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. London: Bloomsburry Academic. Liebl, F. (2011). Corporate social responsibility aus Sicht des Strategischen Managements. In J. Raupp, S. Jarolimek, & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch CSR (pp. 305 326). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexita¨t. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. L’Etang, J. (1996). Corporate responsibility and public relations ethics. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 82 105). London: International Thomson Business Press. L’Etang, J. (2006). Corporate responsibility and public relations ethics. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 405 421). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meffert, H., & Burmann, Ch. (2005). Markenmanagement: Identita¨tsorientierte Markenfu¨hrung und praktische Umsetzung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45 72.


78

BERND LORENZ WALTER

Morsing, M. (2003). Conspicuous responsibility: Communicating responsibility to whom? In M. Morsing & C. Thyssen (Eds.), Corporate values and responsibility (pp. 145 154). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholder. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 171 182. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 332 338. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2003). Integrating social initiatives into marketing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Integrating CSR and Marketing, Boston School of Management, September 19 20, Boston, MA. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The catch 22 of communication CSR: Findings from Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communication, 14(2), 97 111. Mutch, N., & Aitken, R. (2009). Being fair and being seen to be fair: Corporate reputation and CSR partnerships [Special issue: Corporate reputation as anticipated corporate conduct]. Australian Marketing Journal, 17(2), 92 98. Øyvind, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility und die rhetorische Situation. In J. Raupp, S. Jarolimek, & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch CSR (pp. 151 170). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Pfau, M., Haigh, M. M., Sims, J., & Wigley, S. (2008). The influence of corporate social responsibility campaigns on public opinion. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(2), pp. 145 154. Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 285 301. Porter, E. M., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 78 92. Porter, E. M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 2 17. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, January, 18 27. Rotter, J. B. (1981). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1 7. Kampagnen als integriertes Schmitt, J., & Ro¨ttger, U. (2011). Corporate responsibility Kommunikationsmanagement. In J. Raupp, S. Jarolimek, & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch CSR (pp. 173 187). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Schrader, U., & Henning-Thurau, T. (2001). Umweltorientiertes Konsumentenverhalten. In W. F. Schulz (Ed.), Lexikon Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 179 186). Mu¨nchen: Oldenbourg. Schultz, F. (2011). Moralische und moralisierte Kommunikation im Wandel: Zur Entstehung von corporate social responsibility. In J. Raupp, S. Jarolimek, & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch CSR (pp. 19 42). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43 62. Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). Building relationships through corporate social responsibility. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 195 211). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Six, B., & Scha¨fer, B. (1985). Einstellungsa¨nderungen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Smith, J. (2004). A precis of a communicative theory of the firm. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(4), 317 331.



79

Suchanek, A. (2008). Business ethics and the golden rule. Diskussionspapier-Nr. 2008-3, Wittenberg-Zentrum fu¨r Globale Ethik, Lutherstadt-Wittenberg. Ulrich, P. (1998). Integrative Wirtschaftsethik Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen O¨konomie. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt. Van der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley. 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. Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Some tentative axioms of communication. In Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes (p. 48). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY: Norton. Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226 238. Yoon, Y., Gu¨rhan-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. Zerfass, A. (2004). Unternehmensfu¨hrung und O¨ffentlichkeitsarbeit, Grundlegung einer Theorie der Unternehmenskommunikation und Public Relations (2nd ed.), Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., Tench, R., Vercˇicˇ, D., & Verhoeven, P. (2011). European communication monitor: Trends in communication management and public relations, Brussels. Retrieved from www.communicationmonitor.eu. Accessed on September 21, 2011.