Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Culturali
Corso di Laurea Magistrale in
Languages for Communication in International Enterprises and Organizations
Corporate Social Responsibility in China:
A genre and corpus-based analysis of CSR reports from mainland China and Hong Kong
Prova finale di:
Benedetta Cappelli Relatore:
Marina Bondi
Correlatore
Donatella Malavasi
Anno Accademico 2016/2017
Abstract English
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has received increasing attention in recent years, both from the corporate and the academic world. As a result of a series of unprecedented social, environmental and economic changes and thanks to the introduction of a number of international reporting guidelines and regulations, companies are encouraged to dedicate resources aimed at implementing their CSR strategies and to disclose relevant information about their sustainable behavior. CSR reporting is an opportunity for companies not only to meet societal expectations but also to evaluate the economic, social and environmental impact of their actions.
The aim of this study is to investigate the convergences and divergences between CSR reports issued in mainland China and Hong Kong, where CSR has become a top corporate priority since the early 2000s. Combining genre and corpus linguistics analysis, this paper explores the structure and linguistic makeup of the CSR reports published by three banks from mainland China and three banks from Hong Kong from 2010 to 2016. The first part of the analysis will be devoted to a generic textual investigation of the order in which the elements appear in the documents. The second part of the analysis will be conducted with the support of the corpus linguistic software AntConc, which provides useful computational tools to find and reveal meaningful linguistic patterns in the two bodies of texts.
More specifically, the corpus-based investigation will be focused on the different collocational patterns of self-referential expressions and stakeholders’ denominations in the two corpora.
Italiano
La Responsabilità Sociale d'Impresa (RSI) è stata oggetto di una sempre maggiore attenzione negli ultimi anni, sia da parte del mondo accademico che da quello delle imprese. A seguito di cambiamenti sociali, ambientali ed economici e grazie all'introduzione di una serie di linee guida e regolamenti in materia di sostenibilità, le imprese sono ora incoraggiate a destinare parte delle loro risorse all'implementazione delle strategie di CSR, oltre a dedicare maggiori risorse nella divulgazione delle informazioni riguardanti il loro impegno per uno sviluppo sostenibile. Il bilancio di sostenibilità rappresenta un'opportunità per le aziende non solo per venire incontro alle aspettative della società, ma anche per stimare l'impatto economico, sociale e ambientale delle loro azioni.
Lo scopo del presente elaborato è quello di indagare le convergenze e le divergenze tra i bilanci di sostenibilità pubblicati nella Cina continentale e a Hong Kong, dove la responsabilità sociale d’impresa è diventata prioritaria per le aziende sin dai primi anni del 2000.
Attraverso l’utilizzo congiunto dell’analisi di genere e dei corpora si esamineranno la struttura e le peculiarità linguistiche dei bilanci di sostenibilità di una triade di banche della Cina continentale e di altrettante con sede ad Hong Kong, pubblicati fra il 2010 e il 2016.
La prima fase dell’analisi verterà su un’indagine testuale della disposizione degli elementi strutturali che compongono i testi presi in esame. La seconda parte dell’analisi sarà invece condotta con l’ausilio del software AntConc che fornirà gli strumenti computazionali necessari all’individuazione e reperimento di schemi linguistici ricorrenti nei due corpora.
Nello specifico, lo studio dei corpora si focalizzerà sulle differenze e similarità rilevate nella collocazione di espressioni autoreferenziali e delle denominazioni degli stakeholder.
Français
La responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE) a reçu une attention croissante au cours des dernières années, à la fois du monde des entreprises et du monde académique. En raison des changements sociaux, environnementaux et économiques et grâce à l'introduction d'un certain nombre de directives et de réglementations internationales, les entreprises sont aujourd’hui encouragées à consacrer des ressources pour mettre en œuvre leurs stratégies RSE et divulguer des informations pertinentes sur leur comportement/développement durable. Donc, le reporting RSE est une opportunité pour les entreprises non seulement de répondre aux attentes sociétales mais aussi d'évaluer l'impact économique, social et environnemental de leurs actions.
L'objectif de cette étude est d'identifier les convergences et les divergences entre les rapports RSE en Chine continentale et à Hong Kong, où la RSE est devenue une priorité pour les entreprises depuis le début des années 2000.
En utilisant des outils linguistiques de genre et de corpus, cette dissertation se propose d’analyser la structure et les particularités linguistiques des rapports RSE publiés par trois banques de la Chine continentale et trois banques de Hong Kong de 2010 à 2016.
La première partie de l’analyse sera dédiée à une étude purement textuelle de l’agencement des éléments constituant les textes examinés. La deuxième partie de l'analyse sera réalisée à l'aide du logiciel AntConc qui fournira les outils nécessaires à l'identification et à la récupération de schémas linguistiques récurrents dans les deux corpus. Plus précisément, l'étude des corpus se concentrera sur les différences et les similitudes identifiées dans la collocation linguistique des expressions autoréférentielles et des dénominations des parties prenantes.
Keywords: CSR, China, Hong Kong, analysis, reports
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables ... iii
List of Abbreviations ... iv
Introduction ... 1
PART A – LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Corporate Social Responsibility ... 5
1.1 Definitions and evolution of CSR ... 5
1.2 Theories on CSR ... 8
1.2.1 “Three-Concentric Circles” Model ... 9
1.2.2 Carroll’s Pyramid Model ... 10
1.2.3 Shareholder vs. Stakeholder approach ... 12
1.2.4 Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line (TBL) ... 13
1.3 Corporate Responsibility (CR) reporting: A global and increasing trend ... 15
1.4 Reasons behind the growth of CSR reporting ... 16
1.5 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines ... 17
1.5.1 Global Reporting Initiative and the GRI Standards ... 17
1.5.2 The UN Global Compact and the Ten Principles ... 18
1.5.3 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and ISO 26000 ... 18
1.5.4 The Social Accountability International (SAI) and SA8000 ... 19
1.6 The importance of CSR communication ... 20
1.6.1 CSR communication strategies ... 21
1.6.2 CSR communication channels ... 22
1.6.3 CSR communication audience ... 24
2. Corporate Social Responsibility in China ... 26
2.1 Historical trace of CSR in China and Hong Kong ... 26
2.1.1 The influence of Confucianism on Chinese CSR practices ... 27
2.1.2 CSR in Mainland China (1949-Now) ... 27
2.1.3 CSR in Hong Kong (1841-Now) ... 29
2.2 CSR initiatives in China ... 30
2.2.1 Public initiatives ... 31
- The Company Law ... 31
- SASAC’s Guide Opinion ... 32
- China Banking Regulatory Commission ... 33
- Stock Exchanges Initiatives ... 34
2.2.2 Private initiatives ... 34
- CASS-CSR 3.0 ... 35
2.3 CSR initiatives in Hong Kong ... 36
- Initiatives from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEx) ... 36
- The Hong Kong New Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) ... 36
2.4 Conclusions ... 37
PART B – METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 3. Materials and methods ... 39
3.1 Corpus composition and data collection ... 39
3.1.1 Chinese banks: An overview ... 40
- Agricultural Bank of China (ABC) - China Construction Bank Corporation (CCB) - Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) 3.1.2 Hong Kong banks: An overview ... 41
- Bank of East Asia (BEA) - Bank of China Hong Kong (BOCHK) - Hang Seng Bank 3.2 Methodological approach ... 43
4. Findings and discussion ... 44
4.1 Genre analysis: The organizational and rhetorical structure of CSR reports ... 44
4.1.1 Preamble and corollary ... 44
4.1.2 Main report: CSR waves ... 48
4.2 Corpus-based analysis ... 50
4.2.1 Keyword lists ... 51
4.2.2 Self-referential expressions ... 53
4.2.2.1 Self-referential terms: first-person pronoun we ... 53
4.2.2.2 Impersonal self-reference: The Bank and The Group ... 56
4.2.3 Key stakeholders and their co-text ... 58
Conclusions ... 67
References ... 69
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility ... 11
Figure 2: The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact ... 18
Table 1: Mainland China CSR Corpus ... 39
Table 2: Hong Kong CSR Corpus ... 39
Table 3: Preamble composition - Hong Kong reports ... 47
Table 4 (a): Preamble composition – Mainland China – part 1 ... 47
Table 4 (b): Preamble composition – Mainland China – part 2 ... 47
Table 5: Waves of CSR – mainland China ... 49
Table 6: Waves of CSR – Hong Kong ... 50
Table 7: Selected keywords from the Hong Kong and mainland China corpora ... 52
Table 8: Top 20 right-hand collocates of we ... 54
Table 9: Selected concordance lines for we continue, we offer, we provide (Hong Kong) ... 55
Table 10: Selected concordance lines for we continue, we offer, we provide (mainland China) ... 55
Table 11: Hong Kong vs. mainland China: most frequent verb-collocates of Group ... 56
Table 12: Hong Kong vs. mainland China: most frequent verb-collocates of Bank ... 57
Table 13: Selected collocates of suppliers (Hong Kong corpus) ... 62
Table 14: Selected collocates of suppliers (mainland China corpus) ... 63
Table 15: Selected collocates of customers in both Hong Kong and mainland China corpora ... 63
Table 16: Selected collocates of community (Hong Kong) ... 65
Table 17: Selected collocates of community (mainland China) ... 66
List of Abbreviations
ABC Agricultural Bank of China
BEA Bank of East Asia
BNC British National Corpus
BOCHK Bank of China Hong Kong
CASS Chinese Academy of Social Sciences CBA China Banking Association
CBRC China Banking Regulatory Association CBRC China Banking Regulatory Commission
CC Corporate Citizenship
CCB China Construction Bank CCP/CPC Chinese communist party
CED Committee for Economic Development CEO Chief Executive Officer
CO Companies Ordinance
COP Communication on Progress
CR Corporate Responsibility
CSOEs State-owned enterprises directly controlled by the Chinese central government CSP Corporate Social Performance
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility ESG Environmental, Social and Governance ESG Environmental, social and Governance
EU European Union
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
HK Hong Kong
HKEX Hong Kong Stock Exchange
ICBC Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ISO International Organization for Standardization NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PR Public Relations
PRC People’s Republic of China R&D Research and development
RQ Reputation Quotient
SAI Social Accountability International SAR Special Administrative Region SARS severe acute respiratory syndrome
SASAC State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council
SGCC State Grid Corporation of China SOE State-owned enterprise
SRB Social Responsibilities of the Businessman SSE Shanghai Stock Exchange
SZSE Shenzhen Stock Exchange
TBL Triple Bottom Line
TWGH Tung Wah Group of Hospitals
UN United Nations
US/USA United States of America WTO World Trade Organization
Introduction
As the world is facing unprecedented economic, social and environmental challenges, mounting pressure is put on business enterprises and organizations, which are increasingly seen as crucial players for the creation and improvement of societal balance and welfare. As a matter of fact, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has received increasing recognition in recent years, and companies are more than ever being called to provide relevant, clear and transparent information about the social responsibility of their actions.
Businesses’ primary obligation towards society has shifted from being restricted to the provision of quality goods and services in exchange of a profit as an incentive for its operations, to the supply of quality goods and services in respect of the stakeholders’ ever-increasing environmental and social concerns.
The advent of globalization and the introduction of new technologies, together with the enormous advantages and opportunities they created, have also raised profound concerns regarding companies’
socially responsible behavior, putting a spotlight on the way corporation do their business and the impacts they have on society.
Presently, the most popular means through which a company is able to communicate its involvement in CSR initiatives is by issuing CSR reports. Thanks to the constant advancement of new technologies, in fact, nowadays the Internet represents the central strategic platform for a company to disseminate its corporate information, enabling it to reach a wider audience at relatively low costs and with small efforts. As a matter of fact, nowadays CSR reports can be downloaded from corporate websites and any other information about the company can be consulted online by anyone interested in its activities.
After initially rejecting to recognize the strategic importance of behaving socially responsibly, companies are now more than ever conscious of the enormous benefits derived from their actual commitment to CSR and the efforts dedicated to the implementation of a clear and transparent CSR communication. Furthermore, we live in an era that is marked out by accelerated technological progress, and business environment is characterized by increasingly fierce competition. Since it has become easier and easier for people to know about company’s actual business behavior, having a transparent, clear, well-planned and efficient CSR communication strategy may prove to be a useful tool for highlighting, protecting and enhancing a company’s corporate image and reputation, thus placing the company in a more advantageous and competitive position in the minds of stakeholders.
Besides, it is widely acknowledged that stakeholders play such a key role in today’s business worlds that their demands and expectations towards corporations’ activities cannot be ignored.
Therefore, placing social and environmental concerns at the core of a company’s business model, investing money and engage in CSR programs prove to be efficient ways to strengthen the relationship with stakeholders, win their hearts and minds and as a result, generate new business opportunities and increased returns for the company.
Academic and business research on CSR have primarily been western-focused, with the modern concept of CSR deriving from North America and Western Europe (Moon & Shen, 2010: 613). In light of the above, this paper will be dedicated to the study of how CSR has developed and is shaped in China, where CSR has become a top corporate priority only in recent years.
After 1978, thanks to the new policies introduced by the president Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese economy has been growing at a dazzling pace, and it is now considered one of the fastest growing economies in the world. As a result of China’s opening to the world combined with the country’s crucial new position in the global supply chain as well as its entry in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2011, Chinese businesses started to be encouraged to comply with specific national and international sustainability standards in order to show their support and commitment to social and environmental causes. More specifically, corporations in mainland China and Hong Kong began to recognize the importance of CSR in the 1990s and to actively disclose information about their social and environmental impacts only in the mid-2000s, with the first Chinese CSR report being released by the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) in 2006. After that, the number of social responsibility reports issued by Chinese enterprises has been steadily rising.
This paper aims to shed light on the structural organization and linguistic makeup of CSR reports released by selected banks from mainland China and Hong Kong, in an effort to identify potential convergences or divergences between the documents issued in the two Asian contexts.
Accordingly, the dissertation is divided into two sections: the first section (Chapters 1-2), named
“Literature Review”, provides a solid theoretical framework about the currently available literature on CSR, introducing the concept, definitions, and the main theories and approaches to CSR. It is then followed by an in-depth investigation of CSR initiatives and practices in both mainland China and Hong Kong. The second section (Chapters 3-4), “Methodology and Analysis” represents the core of the thesis and it is dedicated to the presentation of the materials, methods, and results obtained from the analysis.
Chapter 1 begins with an outline of the most influential definitions, theories and approaches to CSR, followed by a presentation of the most widely adopted international reporting standards and guidelines, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). Then, the chapter addresses some crucial aspects of CSR communication, focusing on the role of CSR communication, its primary audiences and communication channels.
Chapter 2 investigates the origins and historical development of CSR in mainland China and Hong Kong. It begins by tracing the evolution of CSR practices the two territories, describing the external and internal drivers that raised CSR awareness in China; then it provides an overview of the most significant public and private CSR initiatives adopted by Chinese corporations to report on their sustainable behavior.
Chapter 3 sets forth the materials and methods adopted to carry out the analysis. Specifically, data for the study consisted of two corpora made up of the CSR reports published by three banks from mainland China and three banks from Hong Kong from 2010 to 2016. Each corpus contained 21 reports, for a total of 42 documents overall.
Lastly, Chapter 4 presents and discusses the findings emerged from the study. The analysis was carried out by combining two different approaches: genre analysis and corpus linguistics. In the first phase, the texts were analyzed using genre analysis in an effort to identify the features characterizing the structural organization of the CSR reports included in the two corpora, focusing in particular on the order in which the elements composing the two corpora were presented. In the second phase, documents were investigated by means of the software program AntConc, which provides useful corpus linguistic tools to find and reveal relevant linguistic patterns in the two bodies of texts.
PARTA
LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 1
1. Corporate Social Responsibility
Over the last decades, the idea that corporations have social obligations has received considerable and increasing attention, and today Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a standard business practice. Corporate social responsibility has been broadly defined as “a concept whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment” (Green Paper, 2001). As a result of a series of social, environmental and economic changes, and also thanks to the introduction of an increased number of government regulations, companies are encouraged to behave responsibly, to dedicate resources to implement their CSR strategies and to disclose information about their commitment on social issues (Malavasi, 2012: 248).
Today, business enterprises and organizations are not expected only to disclose information about their financial performance to investors and shareholders anymore, through the publication of annual reports, but also to report on their actual commitment to improve societal welfare, disclosing social sustainability information available for stakeholders, including customers, employees, competitors, suppliers, distributors and the environment and the local community in which the company operates.
1.1 Definitions and evolution of CSR
Corporate social responsibility has been subject to growing interest in recent years, both from the corporate and the academic world (Golob et al., 2013: 176). Although the role of business in society has been debated for hundreds of years (Beal, 2012: 1), the modern concept of CSR is relatively recent and first appeared in the 1950s. However, despite the numerous studies and growing literature on CSR, there is still lack of a universal and precise definition of corporate social responsibility (Dahlsrud, 2008; Crane et al., 2014).
The American economist and professor Howard R. Bowen was the first to bring the attention to CSR in its current form. In his book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (SRB), published in 1953, he proposed an initial definition of the social responsibilities of a businessman: “It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen, 1953: 1).
The book marked the beginning of the discussion over business ethics and social responsibility (Bowen, 2013: vii) and it is therefore considered by many a landmark book for the introduction of the contemporary notion of corporate social responsibility. As a matter of fact, Archie Carroll, one of the most influential and active academics in the CSR field, in his article “Corporate Social
Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct”, presented Howard as the founding “Father of Corporate Social Responsibility” (Carroll 1999: 270).
As mentioned above, Bowen was one of the first to raise the question of what the responsibilities of businesses towards society were and in which ways a business should commit to positively contribute to social welfare (Bowen, 1953: 3), and these questions are still relevant today. In the very first pages of his book, Bowen stresses the pivotal influence that businesses’ decisions and actions (in Bowen's words, the businessman) have on the quality of people's lives. “[The businessman's]
decisions affect not only himself, his stockholders, his immediate workers or his customers – they affect the lives and fortunes of us all” (Bowen, 1953: 3). The decisions of a single company can have an effect on the overall welfare of the society of which it is part. For this reason, it is essential for companies and corporations to raise awareness of their influences and responsibilities towards society.
Bowen's ideas of a business having social responsibilities have not forthwith been accepted and shared. The influential economist Milton Friedman was one of the first to openly reject Bowen's claims on the social responsibilities of businesses. As a matter of fact, in his book Capitalism and Freedom (1962) and later in 1970, Friedman claimed that social responsibility is a “fundamentally subversive doctrine”, arguing that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Friedman, 1970: 6). In other words, according to Friedman, a business that pursues its primary interest – that is, the maximization of profits – is already doing social good, for two main reasons:
1. firstly, maximizing a business's profits leads to the creation of new workplaces and apparently to the production of goods and services, available for society as a whole;
2. secondly, increasing profits entails the need for a company to reduce costs, and cost reduction means reducing waste production, thus benefiting society.
According to Friedman, the only social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits, therefore rejecting the idea that a corporation has responsibilities that go beyond the mere economic interests.
One of the major arguments against Friedman's viewpoint is that, as a matter of fact, today the activities of a firm cannot be measured by taking into consideration only economic factors anymore.
Due to the recent developments in our contemporary world, such as globalization and the growing awareness of environmental and social issues, a firm needs to give importance also to ethical and environmental factors. For example, a company that earns a lot of profits is undoubtedly pursuing its economic interests. But, if it does so at the expenses of the environment, or if it does not consider its employees’ needs, the company's unethical behaviors would probably lead – in the long-run – to a
loss of credibility and productivity, and as a result of that, to a decrease in profits as well.
As mentioned above, there is still confusion on how CSR should be defined. Since the publication of Bowen's book, various definitions have been conceptualized and offered by scholars, academics and practitioners but still there is no universal and narrow definition of CSR (Crane et al., 2014: 5).
Carroll, in fact, suggests that “one of the factors contributing to the ambiguity that frequently shrouded discussions about social responsibility was the lack of consensus on what the concept really meant” (Carroll, 1979: 497).
It could be argued that the absence of homogeneity in CSR definitions is also often linked to the fact that social responsibility is something that can only be understood by taking into consideration the context in which it is used. Different countries and different backgrounds inevitably entail different perceptions of the social responsibilities of corporations. This is something that needs to be taken into account when dealing with the conceptualization of CSR.
Another scholarly definition of CSR is the one proposed by Joseph McGuire in 1963, who suggested that “the idea of social responsibility supposes that the corporation has not only economic and legal obligations, but also certain responsibilities to society which extend beyond these obligations”. While acknowledging the priority of economic and legal concerns, he recognized that a firm's responsibilities to society go beyond these two primary interests. McGuire's ideas included the general belief that a firm should be seen as a citizen. Therefore, he is considered by many the founding father of the corporate citizenship concept. A similar definition was also offered by Keith Davis, another scholar who wrote extensively on CSR and who described it as “the firm's consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm”
(Davis, 1973: 312). Others, like Henry Manne, suggested a different CSR perspective, according to which being socially responsible includes only voluntary acts of the firm, thus excluding any economic or legal concern.
According to Schwartz and Carroll (2008), definitions of CSR generally fall into two different categories:
• those claiming that the only obligation of a business to society is profit maximization and wealth creation, while at the same time operating in accordance with government regulations, introduced by scholars such as Friedman;
• those claiming that businesses have more extensive range of obligations to society which is not only economic and legal but also ethical, moral and philanthropic and that enterprises should, therefore, regulate their behaviors in order to meet societal expectations, such as the definitions advanced by Davis, McGuire and Carroll himself.
In the next sections, some of the most well-known CSR theories and approaches will be addressed,
in order to allow a deeper understanding of the vast panorama that the CSR field offers.
1.2 Theories on CSR
Over the last decades, a number of different CSR models, theories and approaches have been developed in an attempt to clarify the relationship between businesses and society.
Garriga and Melé (2004) offered an outstanding contribution to the map of the CSR field. They classified different CSR theories and approaches into four groups:
1. The first group, known as instrumental theories, includes theories that assume that a company's sole responsibility is to create wealth and maximize its profits. In this vision, CSR is seen as a means to achieve economic purposes. The most well-known representative of this group is the Nobel prize winner economist Milton Friedman, whose line of thought has already been discussed in Section 1.2.;
2. The second group, called political theories, focuses on “the responsible use of business power in the political arena” and includes approaches referred to as corporate constitutionalism, integrative social contract theory and corporate citizenship. This last approach in particular proves to be an interesting topic for discussion because the concept of corporate citizenship is frequently associated and sometimes confused with the concept of corporate social responsibility. Corporate citizenship is basically the idea that a company is understood to be like a citizen and, as such, it has the duty to act taking into account the needs of the community where it is operating1. As Garriga and Melé point out, this idea is not new, but it has received a renewed interest among practitioners thanks to a series of events – such as the process of globalization, deregulation, the Welfare State crisis – that have affected the relationship between business and society and consequently lead corporations – big ones in particular – to gradually hold more economical and social power than some governments (Garriga & Melé, 2004: 52).
3. The third group, defined as integrative theories, comprises those approaches that focus on the strategies put in place by a business to integrate social demands, claiming that “a business depends on society for its existence, continuity and growth” (Garriga & Melé, 2004: 52). This group of theories includes two traditional concepts which are very similar to the idea of CSR, namely social responsiveness and corporate social performance (CSP).
1In this respect, we noticed that some companies have even started to publish CSR reports under the name of “Citizenship reports”. For example, P&G, which has been releasing Sustainability reports since 1999, recently started to share Citizenship reports, that better reflect the company’s role as a societal member. (See https://us.pg.com/sustainability/at- a-glance/sustainability-reports [Accessed 8th November 2017]).
The former was introduced in the 1970s by Ackerman and Sethi. The main idea is that a gap – called “zone of discretion” (Ackerman, 1973: 92) – exists between what society expects from a business and the actual performance of the business. According to the social responsiveness concept, a company is expected to be aware and respond to social demands in order to fill this gap.
The latter was introduced by Archie Carroll (1979), who suggested that the corporate performance model had three essential elements: a definition of corporate social responsibility, a list of domains in which social responsibility of a business exists, and the philosophy businesses should take to respond to social issues (Carroll, 1979: 499).
Carroll is among the most active and prominent scholars in the CSR field, and as we are going to see, he has extensively contributed to the clarification of the CSR concept.
4. Finally, the fourth group, referred to as ethical theories, focuses on the sine qua non for creating and achieving a good society, that consists of doing what is ethically correct.
Freeman's renowned Stakeholder Theory is placed within this last group.
In the next sections, some of the most influential models of CSR will be briefly outlined in order to provide a general framework of the different possible conceptualizations of CSR that are part of the CSR panorama.
1.2.1 “Three-Concentric Circles” Model
In 1971 the Committee for Economic Development (CED) issued a policy statement proposing a definition of CSR, thus offering a more unambiguous representation of the social responsibilities of a business. According to the CED, corporations are now expected to actively contribute to “social problem-solving”, and the responsibilities of businesses are outlined through a model made of three concentric circles:
1. the inner circle encompasses the economic function of a business, which is to create growth, products and jobs;
2. the intermediate circle includes the responsibility of a business to exercise its economic function while at the same time being sensitive to society's changing values. “For example, with respect to environmental conservation; hiring and relations with employees, and more rigorous expectations of customers for information, fair treatment and protection from injury”
(CED, 1971: 15);
3. Finally, the outer circle outlines the responsibility of a company to help solve social problems
like poverty, urban light etc.
Businesses are expected to start from the inner circle by fulfilling their economic responsibilities, and gradually move to the outer rings.
1.2.2 Carroll's Pyramid Model
Another valuable contribution to the study of CSR was offered by Archie B. Carroll first in 1979 and later in 1991. In 1979, with the publication of the article “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance”, he set forth a four-part definition of CSR, suggesting that a company has four responsibilities to fulfill to be a good corporate citizen: economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (or philanthropic).
“The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time.”
(Carroll 1979: 500, emphasis added)
Carroll's CSR definition was later revised in 1991, in his article “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders”. In this article, the four components of CSR are further examined and depicted as a pyramid. In this new graphic representation of CSR, discretionary responsibilities are referred to as philanthropic, and they include the concept of corporate citizenship (see Section 1.3).
Figure 1. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Source: Carroll (1991).
As we can see from Figure 1, economic responsibilities are placed at the base of the pyramid, followed by legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. As Carroll suggests, a business should not fulfill these four obligations in sequential order, but each should be fulfilled simultaneously (Carroll, 1991: 43).
Economic responsibilities are depicted at the base of the pyramid because the fundamental obligations of a business to society have historically been economic. As a matter of fact, a business's primary responsibility is to provide goods and services to the community, making a profit as an incentive for its operations. “Before anything else, the business organization is the basic economic unit in our society. As such it has a responsibility to produce goods and services that society wants and to sell them at a profit. All other business roles are predicated on this fundamental assumption”
(Carroll, 1979: 500).
Legal responsibilities are placed within the second layer of Carroll's pyramid. Not only are businesses expected to fulfill their main economic function by supplying goods and services and making profits, but also, they are required to operate in accordance with the laws and regulations promulgated by the government (the “rules of the game”). According to Carroll, economic and legal responsibilities coexist and must be met simultaneously by a company, as they are the “fundamental precepts of the free enterprise system” (Carroll, 1991: 41).
While economic and legal responsibilities are clearly defined and unambiguous, ethical and
philanthropic responsibilities are ill-defined and they constitute the responsibilities of businesses that exist “beyond the law”.
Ethical responsibilities are defined as those activities and behaviors that are generally expected of businesses by society without being expressively codified into the law. Ethical responsibilities entail the “obligation to do what is right, just and fair, and to avoid or minimize harm to stakeholders (employees, customers, the environment and others)” (Carroll, 1991: 42). Since the definition of what is or what is not ethical is still unclear and subject to ongoing debates, being ethical is the most challenging responsibility of a company. Some of the activities that may be regarded as an effort of a company to fulfill its ethical responsibilities may include acting in a way that is not causing any damage to the environment, not exploiting their employees or not using child labor.
Finally, the last layer of Carroll's pyramid represents philanthropic responsibilities. Society expects from a business to “be a good corporate citizen”. This means that a company is expected to take real actions by engaging in activities or programs to contribute to the community well-being and to address specific societal issues, such as environmental, education and health issues. According to Carroll's view, philanthropic activities are voluntary and “business is expected to contribute financial and human resources to the community and to improve the quality of life.” (Carroll 1991: 42). The difference between ethical and philanthropic responsibilities is that if a company chooses not to engage in charitable activities, it is not framed as an unethical company.
This last layer is in line with the CED's outer circle (helping society) and it includes the concept of corporate citizenship, that we have discussed in the above paragraphs.
According to Crane et al. (2014), Carroll's pyramid model probably provides the most widely known academic framework for understanding the concept.
1.2.3 Shareholder vs. Stakeholder approach
In the earlier sections we presented Friedman's approach, also known as shareholder (or stockholder) perspective, according to which a company's main purpose is the maximization of profit. The ultimate goal of a firm is merely economic: its primary responsibility is to create and increase economic value for its shareholders (i.e. the owners of a company) through the maximization of profits.
This shareholder approach has generally been accepted and underpinned by the entire economic world throughout the 20th century, but the business environment has significantly changed. The responsibility of business is no longer seen as solely economic; it is no longer only aimed at serving the interests of shareholders and increasing their wealth by seeking profits.
Nowadays, the attention has shifted from a shareholder to a stakeholder perspective. Since the
term stakeholder is widely used today in the CSR debate, it is worth focusing on the concept and its implications. As a matter of fact, the stakeholder theory appears unavoidable when discussing and analyzing CSR (Branco & Rodriguez, 2007: 5), and it is considered as “a necessary process in the operationalization of corporate social responsibility, as a complimentary rather than conflicting body of literature” (Matten et al. 2003: 111).
The stakeholder theory represents a reaction to Friedman's shareholder approach and it was introduced by Edward R. Freeman in 1984. According to Freeman, a stakeholder is by definition “any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of an organization's objectives”
(Freeman, 1984: 46). He suggests that for any business to be successful, it needs to create value not only for its financiers (shareholders, banks and other groups being economically interested in the company), but also for all the other individuals that might have an interest (a stake) in or might be influenced by a company's actions and operations. These individuals are typically a company’s customers: its suppliers, distributors and employees, but also the government, potential competitors and the local community in which a company operates. Companies must therefore put forward strategies to deal with the different groups who might affect or interfere with the company's operations (Freeman, 1984: 46).
As Mitchell et al. (1997) suggest, Freeman's definition of stakeholders is one of the broadest and therefore it could include virtually anyone. “Excluded from having a stake are only those who cannot affect the firm (have no power) and are not affected by it (have no claim or relationship)” (Mitchell et al., 1997: 856). An organization needs to understand who are its stakeholders, which are the stakes of each group and how to deal with their concerns in order to better manage the relationship, by using stakeholder maps and charts. Of course, the number of stakeholders depends on the size of an organization, but having a good “Stakeholder Management Capability” (Freeman, 1984) is essential for both large and small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
1.2.4 Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
The concept of the Triple Bottom Line (otherwise known are TBL or 3BL) was introduced in 1994 by the activist John Elkington, the co-founder of the consultancy SustainAbility2, who dedicated his life to encourage companies to adopt sustainable business models and think about the social and environmental impacts of their activities. The term was first used by Elkington in an article in the California Management Review in 1994 and further developed later in 1997 his book Cannibals with
2 SustainAbility is a British consultancy on sustainability development issues founded in 1987 by John Elkington and Julia Hailes with the aim to help companies to integrate sustainability into their core business.
Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business.
The TBL is an accounting framework which is useful to measure three aspects of corporate performance over a period of time: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions are also commonly referred to as the 3Ps: People, Planet, Profit3. The idea behind this concept was that
“companies should be preparing three different (and quite separate) bottom lines. One is the traditional measure of corporate profit—the “bottom line” of the profit and loss account. The second is the bottom line of a company's “people account”—a measure in some shape or form of how socially responsible an organisation has been throughout its operations. The third is the bottom line of the company's “planet” account—a measure of how environmentally responsible it has been” (The Economist, 2009)4.
Profit maximization has been traditionally seen as the only bottom line, but there are others. The idea of the TBL is that there is more to business activity than just making profits, and businesses are encouraged to measure not only their financial performance but also their social and environmental performance, that is the impact of their activities on society and on the environment.
While defining the TBL is not tricky, measuring it represents a challenge because the 3Ps do not have a conventional unit of measurement (Slaper & Hall, 2011: 4). Profits are measured in terms of cash, but what is the best unit to measure planet and people accounts? “The full cost of an oil-tanker spillage, for example, is probably immeasurable in monetary terms, as is the cost of displacing whole communities to clear forests, or the cost of depriving children of their freedom to learn in order to make them work at a young age” (The Economist, 2009). People are perhaps the hardest element of the TBL to measure, because it is tricky to calculate the extent to which a business is being socially responsible and even comparing the social responsibility of one business with another is undoubtedly challenging.
Slaper and Hall (2011) suggest some solutions for companies to face this measurement problem, such as calculating the TBL by monetizing all the three dimensions – thus trying to put a monetary value on social and environmental issues – or by using an index. Each of these suggestions however involves a high degree of subjectivity and each user (be it a business, an NGO or the government) can adapt the general framework according to its own needs. As a matter of fact, there is no universal method for calculating the TBL.
In the way of thinking about CSR and businesses having obligations towards the society in which
3 The 3Ps formulation was developed in 1995 and later used by Shell, one of the first companies to adopt the TBL, for its 1999 sustainability report that was titled “People, Planet & Profits”. Available at http://www.shell.com/sustainability/sustainability-reporting-and-performance-data/sustainability-
reports/previous/_jcr_content/par/expandablelist/expandablesection_798609223.stream/1454157668957/5169e5f9ed02 90cb9dd4fe338d7e6e96ef4f4b1829841f47fc1edf16ee6d1b3b/shell-sustainability-report-1999-1998.pdf
4 Available online at http://www.economist.com/node/14301663 [Accessed on November 17, 2017]
they live in, the TBL model is similar to Carroll’s CSR pyramid that has been discussed above.
However, a few substantial differences can be noted between the two approaches: firstly, while Carroll’s model expressly states the importance of a business to act in respect of the law, the TBL approach does not explicitly take into account legal responsibilities; secondly, TBL’s dimensions are graphically given the same priority, while Carroll’s responsibilities are hierarchically ordered; finally, Carroll’s pyramid model does not explicitly take into account the environmental dimension of corporate responsibility.
Despite the challenge in measuring the 3Ps and in ensuring that two businesses performance are comparable, the TBL represents a useful guideline for companies that are interested in making environmental and social considerations an essential part of their corporate agenda. Moreover, since there is no universal standard to calculate the TBL, this flexibility “allows organizations to apply the concept in a manner suitable to their specific needs” (Slaper & Hall, 2011: 8).
1.3 Corporate Responsibility (CR) reporting: a global and increasing trend
As we have seen in the previous paragraphs, the growing attention on sustainability has lead corporations all over the world to adopt CSR policies. Companies are now fully aware of the fact that society expects them to be socially responsible, but how can stakeholders make sure that firms actually respect societal demands and expectations?
Companies throughout the world have long been required to publish annual reports, which are documents containing information about a company’s financial performance (Crane et al., 2014:
401).
At first, CSR reporting issues were only included in specific sections of annual reports. Then, they took the form of separate and stand-alone CSR reports (Incollingo, 2014: 18). The rise of CSR has allowed reporting on a company’s non-financial information – that is, reporting on social and environmental issues – to become a top priority in recent years. This is precisely shown in a recent survey published by KPMG (October 2017). KMPG is an accounting firm that provides services related to Corporate Responsibility (CR) reporting and that issues a research on CR reporting global trends every two years. The 2017 KPMG survey covered a number of 4,900 companies across 49 countries and regions. Results showed that 92 percent of the world’s largest 250 companies report on their CSR activities (KPMG, 2017). In 2011 the survey’s reporting rate was only 64 percent, followed by a rise to 71 percent in 2013 (KPMG, 2013). These numbers confirm the positive growth in CSR reporting.
1.4 Reasons behind the growth of CSR reporting
There are a number of reasons why companies feel growing pressure to report on their non-financial performance.
According to Crane et al. (2014) the previously mentioned classification of CSR theories by Garriga and Melé (2004) could be functionally applied here:
1. Economic reasons. The default in taking care of sustainability issues may jeopardize a company’s economic performance. Hence, the need for firms to be aware of social and environmental problems by publishing CSR reports in order to better manage the risks that they entail.
2. Political reasons. As pointed out when dealing with CSR theories classification (see Section 1.3), some large corporations exercise significant influence and power that sometimes surpass those of governments and institutions. This extended control might require a more transparent and accurate account of how a company influences society.
3. Integrating demand from stakeholders. Issuing CSR reports is a way for companies to enhance their relationship with stakeholders, by showing they care about their needs and that they are actively striving to meet their expectations.
4. Ethical reasons. CSR reporting has become a focus for evaluating corporate behavior.
Companies are expected to respond to external pressures from governments, investors, customers, competitors (Crane et al., 2014: 403) and to have “moral, ethical and philanthropic obligations to the local community and – in a larger sense – to the global community” (Haerens & Zott, 2014: 20).
Other two reasons that might explain the rise in CSR reporting are (i) legislative reasons and (ii) reasons related to the diffusion of sustainability reporting guidelines.
CSR reporting has long been seen mainly as a voluntary activity, but nowadays there is an increasing number of government and stock exchange regulations that require companies to report on their non-financial performance regularly. According to the KPMG’s latest survey, legislation represents the primary driver of CR reporting. For example, this year’s (2017) introduction of new regulations concerning reporting in countries like Mexico, New Zealand and Taiwan, as well as the approval of the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive 5 for EU member states, have resulted in an
5The Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council requires large companies with more than 500 employees to disclose non-financial information about their performance and social impact to stakeholders interested in their activities. EU countries are free to disclose information in the way they prefer, provided that they include data on their policies on environmental, social and employee matters, anti-corruption and bribery issues, respect for human rights
evident growth in CR reporting in those countries (see KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017).
Also, the proliferation of sustainability reporting guidelines has made it easier for companies to disclose non-financial information.
1.5 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
Reporting on social and environmental issues has become easier for corporations thanks to a number of organizations offering and promoting guidelines for companies when drafting sustainability reports (Beal, 2014: 76).
Some of the most popular international reporting standards and guidelines will be presented below, namely the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the United Nations Global Compact, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and SA8000.
1.5.1 Global Reporting Initiative and the GRI Standards
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a non-profit international organization dedicated to the promotion of economic, environmental and social sustainability. It has provided, since its official birth in 1997, different reporting guidelines that companies interested in communicating their social and environmental impact can refer to when building their CSR reports.
The GRI G4 Guidelines have recently been revised and replaced by the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (GRI Standards), that represent the ultimate evolution of the original sustainability reporting guidelines.
The innovation of GRI Standards lies primarily on their structure. They are formed by three Universal Standards and three series of Topic-specific Standards that address the three key issues of sustainability: economic, social and environmental problems. The first – being universal – are used by every organization to prepare its sustainability reports, while the second contains a set of standards a company can choose to follow in accordance with its own material topics (GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2016).
According to the KPGM, the GRI provides the most widely recognized and adopted standards for
and diversity on board of directors. If a company does not have policies for each one of these matters, it must explain why. The Directive amended Directive 2013/34/EU and started to be applicable from December 5, 2014. EU member states were expected to incorporate the directive into their national law within December 6, 2016.
Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095 [Accessed on October 25, 2017]
sustainability reporting. Up to now, GRI standards remain the most popular framework for CSR reporting, adopted by 93% of the world’s largest 250 companies (KPGM, 2017).
1.5.2 The UN Global Compact and the Ten Principles
Other similar reporting guidelines are being promoted by the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary initiative that often collaborates with the GRI. Companies that are part of the UN Global Compact are urged to publish an annual Communication on Progress (COP), a document aimed at showing to stakeholders the company’s commitment to sustainability. The COP should contain a description of the company’s engagement and actions to apply and respect the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact in their business strategies and operations.
The Ten Principles cover four main areas: human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption which are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact.
Source: adapted from the UN Global Compact website https://www.unglobalcompact.org/.
1.5.3 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and ISO 26000
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an independent non-governmental international organization based in Geneva, Switzerland. It was founded in 1946 and since then it has
published a number of International Standards covering almost every aspect of business. Its goal is to provide a framework to help companies creating safe and reliable goods and services, minimizing waste and social and environmental impacts. The International Standards are extensively widespread, in fact, the ISO counts a number of 162 member countries, which is almost four fifths of the world’s entire nations.
In particular, the ISO 26000 deserves an honorable mention because it is a standard on social sustainability. It was developed and published in 2010 and it provides “guidance on how businesses and organizations can operate in a socially responsible way” (ISO 26000, 2017).
The ISO 26000 is designed to help organizations understand what social responsibility is, while providing guidance on how to “operate in a socially responsible way” (ISO, GRI 2014: 3) It also emphasizes the importance of transparency and of reporting on a company’s sustainable activities and operations to its stakeholders.
1.5.4 The Social Accountability International (SAI) and the SA8000
Last but not least, we will refer to the Social Accountability International (SAI).
SAI is an international non-governmental organization founded in 1997 whose mission is to promote and safeguard human rights in the workplace.
SAI’s most significant achievement is the creation of the SA8000, a globally recognized certification that provides guidelines and helps organizations managing and safeguarding their workers’ rights. Companies operating in the new ongoing and dynamic global economic environment cannot ignore social issues such as human and workers’ rights and child labor. As a result, being granted a SA8000 certification represents a precious opportunity for a company to show it is upholding social expectations while assuring fair treatment for its workers.
Regarding global diffusion of SA8000, there are currently 72 certified countries throughout the world, the first one being Italy with a number of 1081 accredited organizations, followed by India (953) and China (654). Worthy of note are the pie charts available on SAI website, where Asian regions have the highest number of SA8000 certified organizations in the world.6
In these paragraphs, we have introduced some of the most popular international reporting standards. It is worthwhile pointing out that companies are encouraged to use the standards and guidelines in conjunction. That is, they are not expected to choose and refer to one and only
6 For more detailed information, please visit:
http://www.saasaccreditation.org/SA8000_Certified_Organisations_Pie_Chart_by_Country [Accessed on October 26, 2017]
sustainability guideline, but they can and should make use of different guidelines concomitantly.
1.6 The importance of CSR communication
After describing the development and evolution of the main CSR definitions and theories, as well as showcasing the most popular international reporting standards, this paper will now address some aspects of CSR communication. Thus, the following paragraphs will focus on the role of CSR communication, CSR communication audiences, and the main CSR communication channels.
As corporate social responsibility practices have now become an intrinsic part of a company’s business, the way in which organizations communicate with their stakeholders about their sustainable behaviour is now a subject of strategic importance for corporations (Crane & Glozer, 2016: 1224).
The existing literature on CSR communication is increasing and, as various scholars have noted, it is characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Golob et al., 2013).
However, compared to the vast literature available on corporate social responsibility, research studies concerning the communication of CSR are still insufficient (Ihlen et al., 2011: 4).
It is widely acknowledged that stakeholders play such a key role in today’s business world that their demands and expectations toward corporations’ activities cannot be ignored. In particular,
“[f]indings from both academic research and marketplace polls suggest that key stakeholders such as consumers, employees and investors are increasingly likely to take actions to reward good corporate citizens and punish bad ones” (Du et al., 2010: 8). Moreover, since they are likely to become sceptical about organizations’ actual social engagement, corporations need to carefully communicate CSR, because having a clear, trustworthy and transparent CSR communication could be a good way to
“win” their scepticism. This scepticism should not be surprising. The mere fact that it is a company itself to communicate about its CSR behaviour could inevitably generate doubts on the factuality of its CSR involvement and of the goals and aims hidden behind CSR communication. Also, it is impossible to deny that some corporations actually manipulate their CSR communication, saying that they are acting good without really doing so (e.g. greenwashing). This risk exists, and it is undeniable.
Companies should carefully plan their CSR communication not only because it is a way to connect, interact and create a bond with their stakeholders but also because communicating authentic CSR endeavours is essential in enhancing their corporate image and reputation.
In fact, we should take into account that the current marketplace is unarguably characterized by fierce competition. This means that products and services available in the market are increasingly similar and it is becoming more and more difficult for a brand to differentiate its products from those of its competitors. In this context, having an accurate and credible CSR communication could serve
as a way for the company to heighten its reputation, its image and to position itself in the minds of stakeholders more convincingly.
1.6.1. CSR communication strategies
CSR communication enjoys widespread attention in today’s globalized world, where stakeholders’
expectations are becoming an essential part of a business’s corporate agenda. In particular, Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2010) identify two key challenges for CSR communication: the first is to increase stakeholders’ awareness of a company’s CSR activities, while the second challenge deals with the minimization of stakeholder’s scepticism. On the one hand, stakeholders are usually willing and eager to know a company’s efforts and engagement in CSR issues; on the other hand, they are also likely to become suspicious about a company’s real CSR efforts, especially if these are
“aggressively promoted” (ibid.), resulting in a loss of corporate credibility (with probable loss of returns as well).
In their research study, Du et al. (2010) also pinpoint four main communication strategies that are essential in CSR communication.
The first strategy is CSR commitment. A company can show its social engagement in several ways, for example by donating funds, contributions or by devoting its resources to a social cause, such as human capital (employees) and research and development (R&D) activities.
There are usually three main aspects of CSR commitment: the amount of input (the amount of resources the company is devoting to CSR initiatives), the durability of the company’s engagement in a cause and the consistency of the input. A firm can choose to emphasize all aspects of its commitment or focusing on just one. For example, in its 2017 Environmental Report, Google declares
“Since 2010, we’ve committed to invest nearly $2.5 billion in renewable energy projects with a total combined capacity of 3.7 GW” (Google Environmental Report 2017: 14). This sentence includes at least two of the aspects of CSR commitment mentioned above: the amount of input (“$2.5 billion”) and the durability of the input (“Since 2010”).
The second strategy is CSR impact. An effective CSR communication should include the social consequences or actual benefits that have occurred or will occur thanks to the company’s CSR activities. According to Du et al. (2010), “Emphasizing a company’s CSR commitment or the social impact of its CSR endeavour is an effective communication strategy because […] CSR communication should be factual and avoid the impression of bragging” (ibid.).
The third communication strategy is commonly labelled as CSR motives. In communicating its CSR endeavours, a company can also focus on the reasons behind its commitment to a particular
cause. We can distinguish between philanthropic, altruistic motives, and business-related, self- interested motives. As Porter and Kramer (2006) pointed out, a company should pursue social and business interests alike, as its CSR commitment benefits both society and the company itself.
Finally, CSR fit is another essential communication strategy which deals with the reasonable link that should exist between the company’s social initiatives and the company’s business. Generally,
“[c]ompanies that focus on initiatives linked to their own business requirements are seen as more credible in their approaches” (Ipsos MORI, 2015). In fact, if stakeholders have difficulties in understanding why a particular company is involved in social activities perceived as distant from the company’s core business, they might become more readily suspicious and drop their positive attributions towards the company. Consequently, the firm might lose its credibility and its stakeholders’ trust (Dawkins, 2004; Du et al., 2010).
In summary, everything that has been said so far underlines the massive importance of communicating with stakeholders in a transparent, trustworthy and straightforward way. In the next paragraphs, we will briefly discuss some of the available and most exploited means for communicating CSR information.
1.6.2. CSR communication channels
As we have seen in the previous section, the importance of stakeholders in today’s business world is undoubted, given their power and influence over the company’s business. But how can a company efficiently communicate its social commitment to stakeholders?
There are several accessible ways for a company to communicate its involvement in CSR initiatives and the most popular channel is probably issuing Corporate Social Responsibility reports (Du et al., 2010: 13). As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, CSR reporting is a growing trend which is being adopted by an ever-increasing number of firms (see Section 1.5). In addition to, or instead of, CSR reports companies can also devote specific sections of their corporate website to CSR, often proposed as a set of hyperlinked webpages containing CSR disclosures (Morhardt, 2009:
2).
Other CSR communication channels can range from different forms of advertisements (e.g. TV commercials, magazines) and press releases, to product packaging (Du et al., 2010: 13). For example, Head and Shoulders launched a Beach Bottle Project which lead to the creation of a new shampoo bottle made of recycled beach plastic. The packages’ front cover contains clear reference to the brand’s commitment to sustainability, both ichnographically and linguistically7.
7 For further information about Head and Shoulders’ project, please visit: https://www.headandshoulders.com/en-
