19-09-2013, 04:31 PM
Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility – Brand management
Communicating Corporate.pdf (Size: 250 KB / Downloads: 45)
Abstract
Corporate action is subject to more
scrutiny than ever. An attempt to
legitimize the corporate role is seen
in corporate social responsibility
as a part of a triple bottom line
framework. Corporate principles are
communicated in various forms to
a wide set of stakeholders. Ideally,
what is communicated in terms
of principles is also seen in busi-
ness practice. In cases where the
principles and actions differ, the
platform for creating a brand terri-
tory is limited. The communication
platform is affected by, for example,
corporate documents, actions and
media perceptions. The studied
cases, from the construction indus-
try, illustrate how media portrays
business conduct. It shows that the
corporate communication strategy is
affected by media’s verdicts. Driven
by outside pressure.
Introduction
”Business is not divorced from the rest
of society. How companies behave affects
many people, not just shareholders. A
company should be a responsible mem-
ber of the society in which it operates”
(Internet, World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, 1, 2006).
Businesses and their role in society are
subject to more intense scrutiny than ever.
What is the main purpose of a company’s
existence? Is it simply to maximize prof-
its in order to satisfy the owners’ requests
and demands, or is it possible to see the
company in a larger perspective in soci-
ety? Should this perspective go beyond
pure financial aspects of the activities?
The quotation above refers to the ongo-
ing debate about corporate responsibil-
ity. Besides being a profitable business,
the responsibility of a company can, for
example, be connected to programs for
fair treatment of employees, using sus-
tainable environmental friendly methods
and participating actively in discussions
about ethical social dilemmas (Löhman
& Steinholz, 2003; Philipson, 2004).
It is a discussion about how companies
choose to do business, solely with finan-
cial objectives or in a responsible way that
might affect the financial return, support-
ing other values.
Enacting verbal communication
“For most companies, the question is not whether to commu-
nicate but rather what to say, to whom, and how often” (Kotler,
2003, 563). “Companies are concerned with their customers
and it is about time they treated society as a whole in the same
manner.” (Veludo-de-Oliveria, 2006, 26).
These quotes suggest that it is not a question of whether or
not to communicate, for companies today. It is a question of how
to communicate. Integrated corporate communication refers to
the fact that a company sends “a message” to a wide set of stake-
holders with everything it does (Arnold, 1993; Best, 2004; Löh-
man & Steinholz, 2003). Business cards, letters, homepages, the
way the employees are headed, the way customers are treated - it
is all a part of how business is conducted. The business conduct
with regards to CSR matters is included (Hollender & Fen-
ichell, 2004; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Löhman & Steinholz,
2003; Internet CSRwire, 2005).
Socially mature businesses lead the way for incorporating
CSR principles in business conduct. Socially active companies,
like the Body Shop and Ben & Jerry’s, have been pioneers in
the work and communication of CSR (Hollender & Fenichell,
2004; Mbare, 2004; Thayer Robins, 2001). Large corporations
have followed in their footsteps; McDonalds (Nilsson, 2005)
has implemented social and environmental programs, for exam-
ple, promoting fish conservation, and Unilever has started pro-
grams by including references about human rights in its busi-
ness principles (Takala, 1996).
Stakeholders in a dialogue
CSR communication is still an area to be explored (Maignan
& Ferrell, 2004; Takala, 1996). The relevant partners in a CSR
dialogue need to be identified in order to provide grounds for
investment in CSR conduct and a meaningful continued dia-
logue. These partners, sometimes labelled senders and receivers,
are referred to collectively as stakeholders (Maignan & Ferrell,
2004), sometimes with a division in primary, indispensable, and
secondary, supportive stakeholders (Whitehouse, 2006).
Internal and external stakeholders (Figure 1) are mutually
dependant on one another, presented in relation to the com-
pany, illustrated as the gray circle in the middle. Internal stake-
holders are a part of, and heavily dependant on, daily operations
that limit a company’s relative strengths and weaknesses on a
market. The external stakeholders constitute the framework of
the company that may affect the company’s opportunities and
threats.
Conclusions – Brand as a CSR investment
In recent years, corporations have faced increasing CSR expec-
tations from their societal environment (Balmer & Greysner,
2006; Michael, 2003; Whitehouse, 2006). CSR refers to com-
pliance with legal obligations as well as moral rules above and
beyond “business as usual”. In a search for societal acceptance
and legitimacy, businesses communicate their ethical grounds
for conducting business in CSR actions.
Communicating CSR requires an understanding of consum-
er insights in other words the profile. Customers may attribute
value based on, for example, personal positive experiences or
positive verdicts from trusted sources, the so-called ambassa-
dors. But what about CSR- values? They represent credence val-
ues that are difficult to see, measure and confirm. The credence
values are founded in the corporate ethical stands. These values
are based on trust, and they are sensitive to a negative verdict
from, for example, media. Media’s role in relaying information
is not neutral by any means. News that attracts attention will
affect the territory for corporate communication. Media may
take on the role as a critical screen to distinguish CSR strategies
from CSR stunts, forcing corporations to communicate their
ethical stands.