Business News Framing of Corporate Social Responsibility in the United States and the United Kingdom: Insights From the Implicit and Explicit CSR Framework

Abstract

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of business news coverage of corporate social responsibility (CSR) within a comparative international context by investigating two business newspapers, The Wall Street Journal from the United States and The Financial Times from the United Kingdom. Drawing on the news framing research and the implicit and explicit CSR framework of Matten and Moon, this content analysis shows that business news coverage of CSR in the United States and in the United Kingdom differs in terms of news framing (thematic vs. episodic), motive attributions of CSR as a concept, motive attributions of referenced companies in relation to CSR, general tone toward the concept of CSR, and the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR. Most significantly, findings suggest that business news plays different roles in constructing and legitimizing CSR in the two countries. In the United States, CSR’s legitimacy and its conceptual positivity may be more implied through the coverage of singular events or actors (episodic framing), whereas in the United Kingdom, CSR’s illegitimacy and its conceptual negativity may be more exposed for further discussion through the coverage of larger societal contexts (thematic framing). Other theoretical as well as practical implications are also discussed.

Keywords

business news content analysis corporate social responsibility framing implicit–explicit framework

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an essential business consideration that aims to address the public’s wider societal concerns that go beyond the conventional corporate role involving efficiency and profits (Deegan, 2002; Hooghiemstra, 2000). Together with the general strategic value of CSR, scholars also have paid increasing attention to the subtle yet significant differences among the CSR initiatives of different countries. One example of such difference between the United States and Europe has been consistently noted. Based on the distinction of coordinated (European) and liberal (American) economies, scholars have uncovered meaningful differences between the United States and Europe (Matten & Moon, 2008), for example, with respect to the approaches to mandated CSR reporting (Tschopp, 2005), leadership styles (Angus-Leppan, Metcalf, & Benn, 2010), and stakeholder dialogues (Habisch, Patelli, Pedrini, & Schwartz, 2011). However, efforts to compare the CSR initiatives between the United States and Europe have not yet been addressed the issue of business news coverage.

The significance of understanding the different approaches in business news coverage of CSR becomes evident in light of the role business news plays in interpreting and shaping the meaning of CSR—a concept that still remains controversial at a fundamental level (Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Deephouse & Heugens, 2009; Grafström & Windell, 2011; Sahlin-Anderson & Engwall, 2002). In fact, Milton Friedman’s argument that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game”—still stands as a crucial challenge to the idea of CSR (Friedman, 1970, p. 126). The controversy surrounding the concept of CSR is also observed in academia, where, although many focus on the practical or strategic value of CSR with respect to financial profits, reputation management, or corporate identity (David, Kline, & Dai, 2005), other scholars strictly emphasize the normative and ethical values of CSR that should be separated from consideration of corporations’ self-interest (L’Etang, 1994, 1995).

In the context of the international reach of CSR (Husted & Allen, 2006; Stohl, Stohl, & Townsley, 2007; Townsley & Stohl, 2003), it has become even more important for scholars as well as practitioners to understand how the news media cover CSR in different countries. Thus, a steady flow of research on news coverage of CSR in different countries is now evident. This line of research has mainly focused either on one country (Tang, 2012) or on a comparison of an Asian country and Western country based on the classification of individualism–collectivism (Lee & Kim, 2010). However, to the best knowledge of the authors, a systematic analysis that compares the news media coverage of CSR in two Western countries (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) by focusing on the distinct national business systems such as coordinated (European) and liberal (American) economies, has not been conducted.

This study, therefore, presents a theoretically driven content analysis of CSR-related articles in the two leading business newspapers in the United States and the United Kingdom, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times, respectively, from 2005 to 2014. It draws from the implicit–explicit framework of CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008) and the news framing approach (Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016; Iyengar, 1991; Scheufele, 2000) to analyze business news content in the two countries. Since Matten and Moon (2008) first developed the framework by comparing CSR practices in the United States and Europe, several scholars have adopted the framework to explain various aspects of CSR from international comparative perspectives (Angus-Leppan et al., 2010; Hofman, Moon, & Wu, 2017; Hiss, 2009; Jamali & Neville, 2011; Young & Marais, 2012). In particular, although the United Kingdom was often included in the explicit CSR countries with the United States, scholars also have indicated that significant differences in CSR exist between the United States and United Kingdom (Aguilera, Williams, Conley, & Rupp, 2006; Cheah, Chan, & Chieng, 2007; Maignan & Ralston, 2002), thereby positioning the United Kingdom as illustrative of “the dynamics of the explicit and implicit CSR balance” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p. 419). We posit that the implicit–explicit framework of CSR and its subsequent applications can provide insights for scholars as well as practitioners to understand the ways that American and British business news cover CSR. Specifically, by applying the implicit–explicit framework of CSR, this study aims to contribute to expanding the existing research on CSR news coverage by providing a meaningful analytic dimension in terms of distinct national business systems.

The Role of Business News in the Construction of the Meaning of CSR

News media provide dominant and socially acceptable perspectives to which other members of society defer (Altheide & Snow, 1979). The portrayal provided by media is accepted as legitimate by audiences, and therefore, “[t]he legitimizing function of media is the essence of media influence” (Altheide & Snow, 1979, p. 237). To illustrate the legitimizing function of news media, Dunwoody and Griffin (2002) cited a study by Phillips, Kanter, Bednarczyk, and Tastad (1991), which showed that academic studies that received positive coverage in The New York Times were found to receive 73% more citations in peer-reviewed literature than the ones with presumably equivalent quality but no media visibility.

In a similar vein, previous research suggests a strong relationship between business news coverage and the construction of business concepts such as CSR (Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Deephouse & Heugens, 2009; Grafström & Windell, 2011; Sahlin-Anderson & Engwall, 2002). Invoking different theoretical concepts such as active carriers (Sahlin-Anderson & Engwall, 2002), infomediaries (Grafström & Windell, 2011), or agenda setters (Carroll & McCombs, 2003), research has shown that business news, by spreading as well as constructing business concepts such as CSR, functions as the grantor of legitimacy.

Among these approaches, the inquiry into the role of the news media in shaping public opinion on business has been expanded most significantly through agenda-setting theory (Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Deephouse & Heugens, 2009; McCombs & Shaw, 1972), which traditionally focused on political issues. In light of the significant increase in news media coverage of corporate activities (Buhr & Grafström, 2007; Grafström & Windell, 2011), Carroll and McCombs (2003) proposed that agenda-setting theory could also be applied to business communications. Subsequently, Carroll (2004) applied the agenda-setting theory to business news, finding support for the relationship between amount of media coverage and the public’s higher degree of awareness of corporations, as well as for the correlation between more media coverage of the attributes of executive performance and the workplace environment, and the public’s association of those attributes with the corporation. In a similar vein, research revealed that business news significantly affects media salience, media favorability of corporations’ activities, and the attributes that the public associates with organizations (Carroll, 2011a). Expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the amount of coverage, this line of inquiry also revealed that business news coverage with a positive tone (Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990), or with stories of the success of companies as well as criticisms from competitors (Meijer & Kleinnijenhuis, 2006), improves corporate reputation. In particular, the study by Einwiller, Carroll, and Korn (2010) on stakeholders’ perceptions and media coverage indicated that the tone taken toward an organization’s social and environmental responsibility significantly correlated with, and also predicted the stakeholders’ perceptions on, several dimensions of corporate reputation, including social and environmental responsibility, products and services, and emotional appeal. This study strongly suggests the significance of CSR news coverage, because only the tone of news coverage of CSR was found to be significantly correlated with and predictive of corporate reputation. In a similar vein, David and colleagues (2005) also suggested that public perception of a firm can be influenced by the public’s familiarity with the firm’s CSR initiatives and by news media coverage of those efforts. Acknowledging the importance of business news, Crane and Kazmi (2010) therefore proposed that it is essential for firms to continuously monitor news media coverage of their CSR activities.

Business News Coverage of CSR

Research into the content of business news coverage of CSR has been relatively scarce, and most has appeared only in recent years (Carroll, 2011b; Guthey & Morsing, 2014; Kim & Reber, 2008). Geographically, research has focused mainly on two regions, the United States and the United Kingdom, with some studies of other European countries such as Denmark, or Asian countries such as China and South Korea.

Research into U.S. business news suggests that coverage of CSR has increased over time (Carroll, 2011b; Hamilton, 2003), and some scholars indicate that the tone of news articles has become increasingly negative (Lee & Carroll, 2011). Hamilton’s (2003) analysis of The New York Times reported a significant increase in the number of articles that mentioned the term “corporate social responsibility” in the early 1970s, followed by a slight decrease in subsequent years. The analysis of Lee and Carroll (2011) of the opinion pieces of nine U.S. newspapers indicated that a negative tone toward CSR increased over the span of 25 years and that no clear trends have emerged in terms of the continued prominence of specific CSR issues.

With regard to the business news coverage of CSR in the United Kingdom, scholars have found a similar trend in the increase of coverage over time, but offer somewhat different observations in terms of overall tone toward CSR. In reviewing The Financial Times, Buhr and Grafström (2007) found that tone was generally positive, but the conceptual conflict between CSR and corporations’ ideal of profit maximization was also frequently implied in the articles. In their analysis of The Financial Times and The Guardian, Grafström and Windell (2011) discovered that CSR stories were framed as individual, isolated, and concrete events, thereby rarely addressing in-depth and reflective discussions about how firms could be more socially responsible in terms of, for example, issues with larger societal implications, such as child labor, carbon emissions, and so forth.

Research into CSR news coverage also has been conducted recently in other countries such as Denmark, China, and South Korea (Guthey & Morsing, 2014; Lee & Kim, 2010; Tang, 2012). These investigations have found that the conceptual ambiguity of CSR is reflected in business news coverage and that cultural differences exist in coverage. For example, Guthey and Morsing (2014) determined that around 60% of the reviewed Danish business news articles did not explain company motives behind CSR, thereby indicating a lack of conceptual clarity of CSR in Danish business news coverage. In addition, they argued that the ambiguity of CSR that is reflected in, as well as amplified by, business news has strategic implications for CSR to function as a forum for sense-making where diverse opinions can be expressed and exchanged (Guthey & Morsing, 2014). Similar studies of Asian countries confirm that differences exist with respect to the news coverage of CSR, thereby justifying the need for further comparative analyses of news coverage of CSR in different countries. In her analysis of leading Chinese newspapers, Tang (2012) found that the overall tone of news coverage of CSR was favorable. Furthermore, Tang (2012) linked this tendency in tone to the domination by corporations and the government of the news media discourse over CSR in China, and thus argued that the news media have failed to mediate meaningful social discourse about CSR. Comparing the news coverage of CSR in the United States and South Korea, Lee and Kim (2010) found that significant differences exist based on individualist versus collectivist perspectives, short-term versus long-term orientations, and a strong preference for uncertainty avoidance.

A comprehensive review of the literature reveals three neglected aspects in the research on CSR news coverage in terms of the theoretical framework and methodological approach used, which this study attempts to address. First, although many studies on CSR news coverage have focused on the general tendency of news coverage, for instance, in terms of volume and salience of specific issues under the approach of agenda setting (e.g., what information is presented), the more detailed and nuanced research into the role of business news as an interpretive package for the concept of CSR, especially based on the approach of news framing (e.g., how information is presented), has been scarce. Second, previous research has not simultaneously considered CSR as a concept as well as the referenced companies in news articles. To illustrate, in some studies, the focus of the analysis was the resulting impact on the referenced companies in the CSR news coverage (Lee & Carroll, 2011), whereas other studies looked at CSR as a concept in and of itself, independent from the companies mentioned in the news coverage (Buhr & Grafström, 2007). Third, the exploration of CSR news coverage in a comparative context has been scarce, especially in the research on the tone of news coverage, as Carroll (2011b) indicated that “no comparative studies of the tone of CSR stories exist across continents” (p. 435). We therefore explore business news coverage of CSR based on the concept of framing, by simultaneously considering both the affected companies (Lee & Carroll, 2011) as well as CSR as a concept (Buhr & Grafström, 2007) through the comparative context of the United States and the United Kingdom.

News Framing and the Implicit–Explicit CSR Framework

We build on the concept of framing to investigate business news coverage of CSR by specifically focusing on its influence on the construction and interpretation of social issues. Framing provides a distinctive research area in the study of news media’s influence on the construction and interpretation of social issues and concepts (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997; Scheufele, 2000; cf. McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). The key distinctive feature of framing as compared with other communication approaches, such as agenda setting, lies in the involved cognitive processes (Cacciatore et al., 2016). Whereas agenda setting relies on the accessibility (salience) of information, framing looks to people’s tendency to “detect patterns in pieces of information that were consistent with preexisting cognitive schemas” (Cacciatore et al., 2016, p. 12). In other words, framing studies posit that how information is presented (framed) influences applicable schema that would process that information (Cacciatore et al., 2016), and in turn, “how [the] audience think about issues” (Scheufele, 2000, p. 309).

Most important in the context of this article, social issues or concepts such as CSR can be described in terms of the characteristics of its systematic causes, trends, and consequences (thematic framing), or through a specific event or an actor that serves as an anecdote of a broader issue (episodic framing; Iyengar, 1991). Media tend to use episodic framing to appeal to a broad audience through simplification, personalization, and symbolization of stories (Entman, 1993), but such a practice may result in audiences’ disorganized and isolated, rather than contextual, understanding of issues. Thus, episodic framing is deemed to help sustain the status quo by scarcely positioning social issues in a broader context. In particular, the effect of episodic versus thematic framing manifests in the resulting predisposition of audiences to differently attribute the cause as well as the responsibility for the social issues addressed in the news. Episodic framing suggests individual causes and responsibilities, whereas thematic framing implies systematic ones (e.g., larger social conditions are responsible; Iyengar, 1991). In the case that the responsibility falls on individual actors (e.g., episodic framing), changes at the mere individual level would be implied as a solution, whereas in the case that the responsibility falls on society (e.g., thematic framing), solutions would implicate more fundamental changes of larger social conditions, such as social norms or governmental/policy actions (Ryan, 1976).

Research into news framing is particularly significant to the research of CSR, a concept with inconsistent and unclear definitions and social evaluations, because the news media, as a crucial source of information and a powerful framer, may influence the way corporate activities are constructed and presented to the public. This study therefore conducts a comparative framing analysis of the business news coverage of CSR in two newspapers in two countries, the United States and the United Kingdom, by incorporating insights from the implicit–explicit CSR framework that has been adopted increasingly in business literature to explain the differences between the United States and Europe in the context of CSR implementations (Angus-Leppan et al., 2010; Hiss, 2009; Jamali & Neville, 2011; Young & Marais, 2012).

The Implicit–Explicit CSR Framework

Drawing on institutional theory, Matten and Moon (2008) proposed the concepts of implicit and explicit CSR as the basis for a framework of comparative understanding of CSR in the United States and Europe. Focusing on the differences between coordinated (European) and liberal (American) economies, they explain how and why the social discourse and corporate implementation of CSR initiatives have long been relatively more explicit in the United States than in Europe (Hiss, 2009; Matten & Moon, 2008, p. 411). More specifically, Matten and Moon (2008) suggested that the strict regulatory regimes in European countries implicitly direct the organizational level of CSR, whereas comparatively less regulated economies, such as the United States, allow organizations to design their own CSR policies and standards explicitly. In practice, the explicit form of CSR is observed in descriptions of “corporate activities” that “consist of voluntary corporate practices, programs, and strategies,” whereas implicit CSR emerges in descriptions of the “corporations’ role” in “society’s interests and concerns,” which consist of “values, norms, and rules that result in (often codified and mandatory) requirements for corporations” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p. 210).

Although scholars have suggested that the institutional changes that involve political, financial, and other societal structures are leading to the spread of explicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008) by which “the binding force of implicit CSR standards is crumbling” in the face of the “shift from an implicit and mandatory CSR to explicit and voluntary CSR” (Hiss, 2009, p. 434), this framework of implicit–explicit CSR remains productive and valid. In fact, the implicit–explicit CSR framework has been applied increasingly even outside the United States and Europe (Angus-Leppan et al., 2010; Hofman et al., 2017; Jamali & Neville, 2011) in terms of various aspects of CSR initiatives, such as leadership styles (Angus-Leppan et al., 2010) and stakeholder dialogues (Habisch et al., 2011). This continued expansion of the scope of the implicit–explicit framework suggests its potentially wider applicability in helping explain the diverse aspects of CSR initiatives (Matten & Moon, 2008).

The implicit–explicit CSR framework can provide significant insights for the study of CSR news coverage. For example, in countries such as the United States, where explicit CSR has been prevalent, the discretionary and voluntary nature of CSR activities can presumably be more easily and positively perceived by the business news media. However, in European countries, where implicit CSR has wielded comparatively significant influence, CSR may still be regarded as complying with societal requirements, such as minimum standards, and therefore, organizations’ vocalization of their own CSR initiatives may not be perceived quite as positively as expected. Although this implicit–explicit framework can explain many aspects of CSR initiatives, it has not yet been applied to explain how such differences may manifest in or affect news media coverage of CSR.

Therefore, this study aims to apply the implicit–explicit CSR framework to investigate and explain business news coverage of CSR in the United States and the United Kingdom, focusing on how the framework relates to news framing of CSR. The United Kingdom was purposefully chosen because it effectively reflects the increasing influence of explicit CSR in Europe (Hiss, 2009; Matten & Moon, 2008). Although Matten and Moon (2008) noted that the United Kingdom exhibited “longer and stronger manifestations of explicit CSR” (p. 419) than the rest of the Europe, they also pointed out that the United Kingdom still remained “more European” (p. 419), as suggested by having government as a strong CSR driver (Moon, 2004). Thus, Matten and Moon (2008) stated that the United Kingdom illustrated well “the dynamics of the explicit and implicit CSR balance.” (p. 419). This unique position of the United Kingdom in the representation of the implicit and explicit CSR framework presents an opportunity to explore how and whether the framework actually manifests in business news coverage under the changing circumstances where explicit CSR has become increasingly influential in Europe (Hiss, 2009). Furthermore, the United Kingdom’s position as the “geographical center of gravity” of CSR (Vogel, 2005, pp. 7-8) makes it “an important test case for understanding institutional effects on CSR” (Kinderman, 2012, p. 32).

Therefore, the focus of this study, as reflected in the decision to investigate business news coverage in the United States and the United Kingdom, is to explore the manifestation of the implicit–explicit CSR framework in business news coverage by taking into account the growing influence of explicit CSR. Of course, the United Kingdom does not represent all European countries at this point in time, especially the continental European countries with “historic and abiding differences” (Matten & Moon, 2008). Our comparative study will show whether the CSR news coverage in the United Kingdom—a European country that is known for leaning more toward explicit CSR—indeed reflects the growing influence of explicit CSR in its news framing, as compared with the United States.

Thematic and Episodic Framing: Indicators for the Implicit and Explicit CSR Framework

Based on a review of previous conceptualizations of the implicit–explicit CSR framework by Jamali and Neville (2011), Young and Marais (2012), and Angus-Leppan and colleagues (2010) (see Table 1), this study first posits that the framework can be conceptualized in the context of news framing as follows: Implicit CSR is described in business news coverage as obligatory or mandatory activities with respect to enforceable legal regulations or strong societal expectations (such as industry standards), and the focus is on societal context, not individual corporations. Explicit CSR is described in business news as voluntary corporate activities that focus on corporate programs or initiatives rather than societal implications.

Table 1.

Conceptualization of the Implicit–Explicit CSR Framework by Authors.

Authors	Conceptualization
Jamali and Neville (2011)	“Explicit CSR is gauged through the explicit voluntary deliberate design of CSR, and the explicit deployment of CSR agendas, vocabulary, policies, and programs in the organization” and “implicit CSR is gauged through perceptions of customary CSR” (emphasis added, p. 608).
Young and Marais (2012)	“‘[I]mplicit’ CSR would be more likely to be reported in Annual Reports and Codes of Conduct and include those policies and practices that are regarded as ‘minimum standards’ and regulated, while explicit CSR would be more likely to be reported on websites and in CSR reports and be seen as ‘voluntary’ in nature” (emphasis added, p. 440).
Angus-Leppan, Metcalf, and Benn (2010)	Explicit CSR indicators are “reference to publicizing and formalizing CSR and organizational values. Reference to processes surrounding CSR such as reporting either externally or internally on organizational values,” and implicit CSR indicators are “reference to expressed personal values, informal discussion of CSR and ethical issues, and CSR or organizational values not publicized or promoted” (emphasis added, p. 198).

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

Next, to apply this conceptualization of the implicit–explicit framework to the current study of business news coverage, this study then posits that thematic and episodic framing can provide indicators for the implicit–explicit CSR distinction because of the conceptual similarities between these two types of framing (see Table 1). Thematic framing is defined as the representation of an issue in terms of the characteristics of its systematic causes, trends, and consequences, whereas episodic framing is defined as the portrayal of issues through a specific event that serves as an anecdote of a broader issue or through the story of a corporation that could serve as a humanizing dimension of the issue (Iyengar, 1991).

Drawing on the conceptual similarity of thematic/episodic framing, and the implicit–explicit CSR framework, this study investigates business news coverage of CSR in two newspapers from the United States and the United Kingdom by focusing on thematic and episodic framing. Based on the literature, this study also examines the attribution of motives for CSR as a concept, the attribution of motives for referenced companies in relation to CSR, the overall tone toward CSR as a concept, and the overall tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has yet examined CSR news framing and the above variables based on the implicit–explicit CSR framework. Therefore, due to the lack of empirical data available for this study, we have formulated the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do the United States and the United Kingdom differ in terms of (a) the framing of CSR (thematic vs. episodic), (b) the attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept, (c) the attribution of motives concerning referenced companies in relation to CSR, (d) the general tone toward CSR as a concept between the United States and United Kingdom, and (e) the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do the business news articles with episodic and thematic framing differ in terms of (a) the attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept, (b) the attribution of motives concerning referenced companies in relation to CSR, (c) the general tone toward CSR as a concept in the United States and the United Kingdom, and (d) the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR?

Method

Following the guidelines set out by Riffe, Lacy, and Fico (2014), we conducted a content analysis of business news articles regarding CSR. Content analysis was used for this study because of its usefulness in analyzing media texts (Riffe & Freitag, 1997), especially in news framing studies (Entman, 1993). The Wall Street Journal was chosen from the United States because of its significant influence as an elite business newspaper in the United States (Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007; Mooney, 2004). The Financial Times was chosen from the United Kingdom because of its significant role as an elite business newspaper in the United Kingdom, as well its increasing role in the European public sphere in general (Corcoran & Fahy, 2009; Raeymaeckers, Cosijn, & Deprez, 2007).

Sampling

News articles published between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014, were selected from the Factiva database, using “social* w/1 respons*” as the keywords to include various expressions that implicate the concept of “corporate social responsibility” following Guthey and Morsing (2014). This approach enables the inclusion of “all possible variants of social (e.g., socially) and responsibility (e.g., responsible, responsibly), thereby minimizing the risk of missing out on important data” (Guthey & Morsing, 2014, p. 562). Although this search method provides a larger dataset as compared with previous studies, which generally used the exact phrase “corporate social responsibility” (Grafström & Windell, 2011), or “corporate social responsibility” with its abbreviated form, “CSR” (Buhr & Grafström, 2007), an admitted limitation is that this search method does not cover the CSR news articles which do not use the variations of the search term in the areas of, for example, environment, child labor, and corruption, or related concepts such as sustainability and corporate citizenship.

The initial search for the 10-year period yielded 493 articles in the United States and 1,707 articles in the United Kingdom. For the purpose of making the number of articles more manageable, and utilizing statistical inference, 35% of the searched articles (173 articles in the United States and 598 articles in the United Kingdom) were selected by random sampling. These articles were then reviewed to remove those that had no relevance (e.g., event announcements, book reviews, CSR awards). Finally, a total of 332 news articles were selected for analysis: 117 articles in the United States newspaper and 215 articles in the U.K. newspaper.

Measures and Intercoder Reliability

Two independent coders coded the articles. Krippendorff’s α was used for the intercoder reliability check (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). Coder training was conducted in two stages. At the pilot testing stage, two coders checked reliability using 20 articles that were not from the final sample to determine whether the coding protocol was designed properly and to revise and set additional rules, if necessary. Based on this pilot testing, the coding protocol was revised, and a series of training workshops was conducted. Reliability testing was then performed using a set of randomly selected subsamples (n = 34 or 10%). Six variables were measured to respond to the research questions. Krippendorff’s α values ranged from .72 to .87 for the following variables: industry sector = .80, thematic versus episodic framing = .72, motive attribution of CSR = .75, motive attribution of companies = .76, tone toward companies = .87, and tone toward CSR concept = .87.

Industry sector

Industry sector was coded according to Standard and Poors’ global industry sector categorization, which includes consumer discretionary, consumer staples, energy, financials, health care, information technology, industrials, telecommunication services, and utilities. An article was coded as “other” when it did not mention specific companies or industry sectors, or when it did not mention specific CSR activities of the referenced companies or industry sectors.

Thematic versus episodic framing

Framing was coded under the two categories of thematic and episodic. An article was coded as thematic when it placed CSR in a larger and more abstract social context, with the primary focus on providing contextual and big-picture information through the use of historical data, statistics, and expert interviews. For example, an article titled “Emergence of a More Moral Multinational; Analysis: Corporate Responsibility” was coded as thematic because it provided contextual and big-picture information when the article addressed the different trends of CSR in the United States and the United Kingdom by mainly analyzing and quoting a consulting firm’s finding that “there was a clear difference in how U.S. and British companies approached CSR” (Smith, 2014, p. 24). An article was coded as episodic when it involved storytelling, wherein CSR was presented in terms of a specific event or case, with the primary focus on telling specific individual stories that described specific events, and/or presenting individual cases through the use of typical storytelling techniques, such as characters, plots, and the development and resolution of conflicts. For example, an article titled “Whole Foods to Newark: Upscale Grocer Expects to Open Store in 2016 After Being Courted by Booker” was coded episodic because it presented CSR in terms of a specific event based on the storytelling techniques using characters when the article addressed how a specific local resident’s efforts affected the grocery chain’s decision to open a store in the area by offering lower prices and employing local residents (Haddon, 2013).

Motive attribution of CSR

Motive attribution of CSR was coded under the three categories of business case, social case, or neutral/mixed. An article was coded as a business case when the concept of CSR itself was referenced in terms of the benefits to companies (e.g., reputation, profit, good investment, employee retention, financial performance, or sales). For example, an article titled “Agency Finds Social Responsibility Niche—Ethos Helps Companies Gain Marketing Benefit From Do-Good Efforts” was coded as a business case because it referred to CSR in terms of its marketing value when the article emphasized how the CSR marketing campaigns substantially increased the ad business due to the rising fervor around social issues and companies’ implementation of related ad campaigns (Kang, 2007). An article was coded as a social case when the concept of CSR itself was referenced in terms of the benefits to society (e.g., contributions to community). For example, an article titled “Calls for Consumers to Back Ethical Revolution; Raw Materials; Silver” was coded as a social case because CSR was referenced in terms of the benefit to society when the article praised the value of CSR in promoting the need for fair trade and transparency in the silver trade (Kyriakou, 2014).

Motive attribution of companies

Motive attribution of companies was coded under the four categories of social pressure, business case, social case, or neutral/mixed. An article was coded as social pressure when the companies were portrayed as having been influenced by social pressure (e.g., harsh criticism from local communities, media criticism, legal or regulatory compliance, or local residents’ boycott) to pursue CSR initiatives. For example, an article titled “Standard Chartered Launches Impact Reports” was coded as social pressure because the banks were portrayed as having been affected by social pressure when the article pointed out that the initiative to disclose their social activities came out “amid public criticism of banks and bankers for their role in causing the financial crisis” (Jenkins, 2010, p. 24). An article was coded as a business case when it depicted the business as chasing certain profits in terms of CSR initiatives (e.g., image restoration, maximizing profits). For example, an article titled “Commerce and the Arts Need a Truer Love” was coded as a business case because it depicted the business as chasing profits in terms of CSR when the article specified the business motive behind companies’ CSR by stating that “[i]t is the same as any other sort of CSR spending: unless the company sees it as central to its business, it will cut it the moment time turns rough” (Skapinker, 2012, p. 16). An article was coded as a social case when it portrayed the business as sincere in its attempts to make contributions to society through CSR initiatives. For example, an article titled “Cool Reception for Asia’s Gay Workers: Homosexual Employees Face Discrimination Across the Region but Global Investment Banks Are at the Forefront of Change” was coded as a social case because it depicted the banks as sincere in their CSR efforts to recruit gay employees who in many cases face harsh treatment in their home countries (Minder, 2008).

Tone toward CSR concept

Tone toward CSR was coded under the three categories of positive, negative, or neutral/mixed. An article was coded as positive when CSR was referred to with positive emotional appeal (e.g., as worthy of respect and trust). For example, an article titled “It Matters What You Do When No One Is Watching” was coded as positive because it mentioned CSR with positive emotional appeal when the article focused on the undeniable value of CSR to win companies’ “staff’s hearts and minds,” and the need for CSR to “extend deep into business governance, structure, and culture” (Newing, 2013). An article was coded as negative when CSR was referred to with negative emotional appeal (i.e., as unworthy of admiration, respect, or trust). For example, an article titled “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility: The Ideal That Companies Have a Duty to Address Social Ills Is Not Just Flawed, But It Also Make It More Likely That We’ll Ignore the Real Solutions to These Problems” was coded negative because it referred CSR with negative emotional appeal when the article argued that “in cases where private profits and public interests are aligned, the idea of corporate social responsibility is irrelevant” (Karnani, 2010, p. R1).

Tone toward companies

Tone toward companies was coded under the three categories of positive, negative, or neutral/mixed. An article was coded as positive when the company was referred to with positive emotional appeal (i.e., as worthy of respect and trust). For example, an article titled “Tapping Into a New Generation: Robert Iger of Disney Talks About How Environmentally Aware Consumers Offer Plenty of Challenges and Opportunities” was coded positive because it referred to Disney with positive emotional appeal when the article favorably highlighted Disney’s “growth and interest in corporate social responsibility” (Murray, 2010). An article was coded as negative when the company was referred to with negative emotional appeal (i.e., as unworthy of admiration, respect, or trust). For example, an article titled “Fast Retailing Stays Out of Peers’ Safety Pact” was coded as negative because it negatively mentioned Uniqlo based on the company’s failure to support the Bangladesh accord of labor safety, which more than 30 European retailers supported (Negishi, 2013).

Findings

Descriptive Findings

As shown in Table 2, the breakdown of the industry sectors of the referenced companies in the resulting sample of 332 news articles (117 articles from the United States and 215 articles from the United Kingdom) are as follows: in the United States, consumer discretionary (n = 31, 26.5%), consumer staples (n = 17, 14.5%), energy (n = 7, 6.0%), financials (n = 11, 9.4%), health care (n = 1, 0.9%), information technology (n = 2, 1.7%), materials (n = 4, 3.4%), and other (n = 44, 37.6%); in the United Kingdom, consumer discretionary (n = 30, 14.0%), consumer staples (n = 19, 8.8%), energy (n = 5, 2.3%), financials (n = 20, 9.3%), health care (n = 14, 6.5%), information technology (n = 14, 6.5%), materials (n = 6, 2.8%), and other (n = 107, 49.8%). The resulting sample did not include any business news coverage of companies from the industrial, telecommunication, or utilities sectors. The yearly breakdown of the number of articles is shown in Table 3.

Table 2.

Comparison of Industry Sector of Referenced Companies by Country/Newspaper.

Industry type	The Wall Street Journal (the United States)(n = 117)		The Financial Times (the United Kingdom)(n = 215)
Industry type	n	%	n	%
Consumer discretionary	31	26.5	30	14.0
Consumer staples	17	14.5	19	8.8
Energy	7	6.0	5	2.3
Financials	11	9.4	20	9.3
Health care	1	0.9	14	6.5
Information technology	2	1.7	14	6.5
Materials	4	3.4	6	2.8
Other	44	37.6	107	49.8
Total	117	100.0	215	100.0

Table 3.

Yearly Breakdown of Number of Articles by Country/Newspaper.

Year	The Wall Street Journal (the United States)(n = 117)		The Financial Times (the United Kingdom)(n = 215)
Year	n	%	n	%
2005	9	7.7	19	8.8
2006	12	10.3	26	12.1
2007	15	12.8	21	9.8
2008	14	12.0	33	15.3
2009	14	12.0	24	11.2
2010	12	10.3	15	7.0
2011	10	8.5	25	11.6
2012	8	6.8	24	11.2
2013	10	8.5	17	7.9
2014	13	11.1	11	5.1
Total	117	100.0	215	100.0

Results for Research Questions

RQ1a explored differences in business news framing of CSR between the United States and the United Kingdom in the respective newspapers. As shown in Table 4, the results of the chi-square tests of independence indicate that differences in framing (thematic vs. episodic) can be explained by country: χ²(1, N = 332) = 10.317, p < .01. According to the results of the post hoc z tests that compared across country with adjusted p value (Bonferroni method), U.S. coverage of CSR was significantly more likely to rely on episodic framing, while U.K. coverage of CSR was significantly more likely to rely on thematic framing.

Table 4.

Comparison of Business News Coverage of CSR by Country/Newspaper.

	The Wall Street Journal (the United States)(n = 117)		The Financial Times (the United Kingdom)(n = 215)
	n	%	n	%
Framing
Thematic	47	40.2^a	126	58.6^b
Episodic	70	59.8^a	89	41.4^b
χ² = 10.317, df = 1, p < .01
Attribution of motives toward CSR
Business case	36	30.8^a	38	17.7^b
Social case	71	60.7^a	123	57.2^a
Neutral/mixed	10	8.5^a	54	25.1^b
χ² = 16.776, df = 2, p < .001
Attribution of motives toward companies
Social pressure	30	25.6^a	12	5.6^b
For-profit	30	25.6^a	27	12.6^b
Social good	45	38.5^a	108	50.2^b
Neutral/mixed	12	10.3^a	68	31.6^b
χ² = 48.294, df =3, p < .001
General tone toward CSR
Positive	70	59.8^a	161	74.9^b
Negative	17	14.5^a	16	7.4^b
Neutral/mixed	30	25.6^a	38	17.7^a
χ² = 8.646, df = 2, p < .05
General tone toward companies
Positive	39	33.3^a	125	58.1^b
Negative	34	29.1^a	32	14.9^b
Neutral/Mixed	44	37.6^a	58	27.0^b
χ² = 19.885, df =2, p < .001

Note. The column proportions test table assigned a superscript letter (e.g., ^a,b) to the categories of the column variable. For the pair of columns, the column proportions were compared using a z test. If a pair of values is significantly different, the values have different superscript letters assigned to them. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

RQ1b explored differences in business news attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept between the United States and United Kingdom in the respective newspapers. As shown in Table 4, the chi-square test of independence indicates that the differences in attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept can be explained by country: χ²(2, N = 332) = 16.776, p < .001. According to post hoc z tests that compared across country with adjusted p value (Bonferroni method), the ratio of attribution of “social case” was similar for the two countries (the United States = 60.7%, the United Kingdom = 57.2%), but the United States exhibited a significantly higher ratio of attribution of “business case” than the United Kingdom (the United States = 30.8%, the United Kingdom = 17.7%), whereas the United Kingdom exhibited a significantly higher ratio of “neutral/mixed case” than the United States (the United States = 8.5%, the United Kingdom = 25.1%).

RQ1c explored differences in the business news attribution of motives concerning referenced companies in relation to CSR between the United States and United Kingdom in the respective newspapers. As shown in Table 4, results of the chi-square test of independence indicate that the differences in attribution of motives concerning referenced companies in relation to CSR can be explained by country: χ²(3, N = 332) = 48.294, p < .001. According to the results of the post hoc z tests that compared across country with adjusted p value (Bonferroni method), the United States exhibited a significantly higher ratio of attribution of “social pressure” and “for-profit” than the United Kingdom (social pressure: the United States = 25.6%, the United Kingdom = 5.6%; for-profit: the United States = 25.6%, the United Kingdom 12.6%), whereas the United Kingdom exhibited a significantly higher ratio of attribution of “social good” and “neutral/mixed” than the United States (social good: the United States = 38.5%; the United Kingdom = 50.2%; neutral/mixed: the United States = 10.3%, the United Kingdom = 31.6).

RQ1d explored differences in the general tone toward CSR as a concept between the United States and the United Kingdom in the two respective newspapers. As shown in Table 4, the results of the chi-square tests of independence indicate that the differences in the general tone toward CSR as a concept can be explained by country: χ²(2, N = 332) = 8.646, p < .05. According to the results of the post hoc z tests that compared across country with adjusted p value (Bonferroni method), the United States exhibited a significantly higher ratio of negative tone than the United Kingdom (negative tone: the United States = 14.5%, the United Kingdom = 7.4%), whereas the United Kingdom exhibited a significantly higher ratio of positive tone than the United States (positive tone: the United States = 59.8%, the United Kingdom = 74.9%).

RQ1e explored the differences in the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR between the United States and the United Kingdom in the respective newspapers. As shown in Table 4, the results of the chi-square tests of independence indicate that the differences in the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR can be explained by country: χ²(2, N = 332) = 19.885, p < .001. According to the results of the post hoc z tests that compared across country with adjusted p value (Bonferroni method), the United Kingdom exhibited a significantly higher ratio of positive tone toward the referenced companies than the United States (positive tone: the United States = 33.3%; the United Kingdom = 58.1%), whereas the United States exhibited a significantly higher ratio of negative and neutral/mixed tone than the United Kingdom (negative tone: the United States = 29.1%, the United Kingdom 14.9%; neutral/mixed: the United States = 37.6%, the United Kingdom = 27%).

RQ2 explored the differences in the business news attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept (RQ2a), the attribution of motives concerning referenced companies in relation to CSR (RQ2b), the general tone toward CSR as a concept (RQ2c), and the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR (RQ2d), focusing specifically on articles that incorporated episodic and thematic framing. The chi-square tests of independence indicate that the differences in the attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept and referenced companies in relation to CSR, together with the tone toward referenced companies, are not explained by framing. However, as shown in Table 5, the tests of independence indicate that the differences in the general tone toward CSR as a concept can be explained by framing: χ²(2, N = 332) = 18.506, p < .001. According to the results of the post hoc z tests that compared across framing with adjusted p value (Bonferroni method), the articles with thematic framing exhibited a significantly higher ratio of negative tone toward CSR as a concept than those with episodic framing (negative tone: thematic = 16.2%, episodic = 3.1%), whereas the articles with episodic framing exhibited a significantly higher ratio of positive tone toward CSR as a concept than those with thematic framing (positive tone: thematic = 61.3%, episodic = 78.6%).

Table 5.

Comparison of the General Tone Toward CSR as a Concept by Framing.

	Thematic framing		Episodic framing
	n	%	n	%
General tone toward CSR
Positive	106	61.3^a	125	78.6^b
Negative	28	16.2^a	5	3.1^b
Neutral/mixed	39	22.5^a	29	18.2^a

Overall, the results show significant differences between the leading business newspapers of the two countries in terms of CSR news coverage for all five examined variables. In the United States, the business news about CSR exhibited a higher ratio of episodic framing than in the United Kingdom; the attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept exhibited a higher ratio of business cases than in the United Kingdom; the attribution of motives concerning referenced companies exhibited a higher ratio of social pressure and for-profit than in the United Kingdom; the general tone toward CSR as a concept exhibited a higher ratio of negativity than in the United Kingdom; and the general tone toward referenced companies exhibited a higher ratio of negativity than in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the business news about CSR exhibited a higher ratio of thematic framing than in the United States, the attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept exhibited a lower ratio of business cases than in the United States, the attribution of motives concerning referenced companies exhibited a higher ratio of social good than in the United States, the general tone toward CSR as a concept exhibited a higher ratio of positivity than in the United States, and the general tone toward referenced companies exhibited a higher ratio of positivity than in the United States. In addition, in the United Kingdom, the ratio of neutral/mixed attribution of motives concerning CSR as well as referenced companies, together with the ratio of neutral/mixed tone toward referenced companies, was higher than in the United States. Moreover, the results also show significant differences between the thematic and episodic framing in terms of the general tone toward CSR as a concept. Specifically, the articles with thematic framing exhibited a higher ratio of negative tone, and the articles with episodic framing exhibited a higher ratio of positive tone.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study’s results suggest that substantial differences exist between the United States and the United Kingdom in business news coverage of CSR, as evidenced by comparison of articles from a leading business newspaper in each country.

Most importantly, analyses of the framing used clearly show that the U.S. news coverage of CSR is more likely to focus on individual CSR activities (episodic framing), whereas the U.K. news coverage is more likely to emphasize the systematic causes, trends, and consequences involving CSR (thematic framing). These findings provide support for the application of Matten and Moon’s (2008) implicit–explicit CSR framework to the business news framing of CSR, because this study adopted thematic versus episodic framing as indicators for the framework.

Next, the analysis of tone toward CSR as a concept by thematic and episodic framing shows that the articles with thematic framing exhibited a significantly higher ratio of negative tone toward CSR as a concept than those with episodic framing, whereas the articles with episodic framing exhibited a significantly higher ratio of positive tone toward CSR as a concept than those with thematic framing. In light of the prevalence of episodic framing in the United States and thematic framing in the United Kingdom, together with the framing’s influence on the attribution of causes and responsibilities (Iyengar, 1991), the results suggest that the U.S. business news—which relies more on episodic framing—may construct CSR as a positive concept by, for example, highlighting individual CSR events or corporations’ activities or downplaying corporate misconduct as instances of individual companies’ failures. In addition, the results also suggest that the U.K. business news—which adopts more thematic framing—may construct CSR as a negative/skeptical concept by thematically exposing more fundamental doubts/questions about CSR.

Significantly, this difference in the framing of business news of CSR suggests different roles that business news may play in constructing and legitimizing the concept of CSR in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States (with its more explicit CSR practices), CSR’s legitimacy and conceptual positivity may be more implied through the coverage of singular events or actors (episodic framing), whereas in the United Kingdom (with its more implicit CSR practices), CSR’s illegitimacy and conceptual negativity may be more exposed for further social discussion through the coverage of larger societal contexts (thematic framing). To the extent that framing and tone toward CSR as a concept are concerned, we can infer that business news in the United States seems to function as a grantor of legitimacy, whereas business in the United Kingdom appears to play a role as more of a challenger of legitimacy.

The results of the analysis of attribution of motives concerning CSR as a concept and referenced companies in relation to CSR, respectively, also suggest clear differences between business news coverage in the United States and the United Kingdom. More business case attributions (toward CSR as a concept), together with social pressure and for-profit attributions (toward referenced companies) in the United States, may suggest that the explicit CSR practices in the United States may have influenced business news media’s rather critical and objective awareness of CSR as a concept, and referenced companies by more looking to the rationales connected to the self-interest for motive attributions. The result that U.K. business news exhibits more social good attribution toward referenced companies may suggest that comparatively more implicit CSR practices in the United Kingdom may have affected the positive motive attributions of companies involved in CSR activities, thereby implying difficult questions for CSR practitioners and communicators to the effect of the explicit vocalization of CSR activities. In the same vein, the significant difference in the number of articles found in the United States and the United Kingdom also casts meaningful doubt on the influence of explicit CSR implementation or vocalization in the United States in generating more business news coverage.

The analysis of tone toward CSR as a concept and toward referenced companies in relation to CSR shows that U.S. business news coverage exhibits a relatively more negative tone in general toward CSR as a concept and toward referenced companies than United Kingdom business news coverage. Together with the results of motive attributions, this result also casts into question the effectiveness of the explicit CSR practices that are more prevalent in the United States, in the context of generating positive tones from business news. From a broader perspective, it is important to note that the overall tone toward CSR as a concept seems to be more positive than negative in both countries, because the result suggests CSR’s potential to contribute to the relationship between business and society. However, a clear trend of negative tone toward referenced companies is observable in both countries, implying that companies in the two countries are perceived in the business news as not fulfilling the full potential or value of CSR.

This study provides interesting and challenging implications for CSR practitioners as well as scholars in terms of the differences in news framing used for CSR in the two countries. Although CSR’s legitimacy and conceptual positivity may be more implied in the U.S. business news through episodic framing and the positive tone toward CSR as a concept, the presumably more explicit communication of CSR activities does not seem to result in more positive media coverage. This may suggest a caution to be taken for the active vocalization of CSR activities in explicit CSR countries such as the United States. Specifically, in light of the status of CSR as a concept with presumably more positivity and legitimacy in the United States through episodic framing, the more negative tones from business news may indicate a fairly critical evaluation of business news toward the involved companies. In addition, although the United Kingdom is deemed a liberal business system, and thus regarded as showing the tendency of an explicit CSR country, comparable with the United States, the results of this study imply that the United Kingdom still exhibits clearly implicit CSR characteristics to the extent that business news framing in The Financial Times is involved.

The findings of this study also provide practical insights for CSR practitioners and communicators. With regard to the United States, an explicit CSR country, the findings of attribution of business-related motives and a potentially more negative tone than in the United Kingdom suggest that the implementation as well as the communication of CSR initiatives in an explicit CSR country should also be devised more carefully in consideration of the business news media’s potential skepticism and negativity. With respect to the United Kingdom, a comparatively more implicit CSR country than the United States, the findings of attribution of social motives and potentially a more positive tone than in the United States, an explicit CSR country, imply that the implementation as well as the communication of CSR initiatives can be managed more subtly in the context of fulfilling social obligations than by vocalizing an individual contribution of a company’s programs.

Limitations and Future Research

Like all research, this study has limitations. First, articles from only two newspapers—The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times—were analyzed from two countries. Thus, inclusion of more newspapers would strengthen the validity of this study. Although The Financial Times in the United Kingdom was purposefully chosen to reflect the changing dynamics of the increasing influence of explicit CSR in Europe and the newspaper’s increasing role in the European public sphere in general, research looking at more countries, especially from continental Europe, would benefit the understanding of the implicit–explicit CSR framework. Nevertheless, this study contributes to the understanding of the application of the implicit–explicit CSR framework to business news coverage, by showing the reflection of the framework on the business news framing of CSR and providing practical insights into CSR communication, as well as theoretical implications as to the construction of the legitimacy of CSR in business news.

This study focused on business news coverage of CSR with the intent to expand understanding of CSR in a comparative context. Thus, future research that examines a more diverse spectrum of news media, such as TV or the Internet, would add value to the current study for the purpose of generalizability. In addition, the same effort can be made to investigate companies’ communication practices concerning CSR or related governmental discourses in the United States and Europe. As Matten and Moon (2008) have indicated, their CSR framework can be expanded to be applicable outside the United States and Europe. Therefore, future studies examining other regions of the world would contribute to this line of research.

Future research looking at related concepts such as sustainability and corporate citizenship may further extend the attempts of this study to expand the comparative understanding of CSR. Although these concepts have often been used interchangeably with CSR (e.g., Moreno & Capriotti, 2009), meaningful differences have also been noted. To illustrate, Marrewijk (2003) introduced various ways to distinguish CSR and corporate sustainability, including the hierarchical approach regarding corporate sustainability as the ultimate goal, as compared with CSR, which embodies an intermediate stage where organizations address the Tripple Bottom Line (Wempe & Kaptein, 2002). In a similar vein, Matten and Crane (2005) advanced an extended view of corporate citizenship in relation to “the role of the corporation in administering citizenship rights for individuals,” thereby suggesting that “the corporation administers certain aspects of citizenship for other constituencies” (p. 173). In particular, these related concepts’ emergence in comparatively recent years, and the influence of the “instigation of corporate actors” in the case of corporate citizenship (Matten & Crane, 2005, p. 167), suggests that the research into these terms may provide meaningful insights into business and society relations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Tae Ho Lee (JD, Emory) is a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina (UNC)–Chapel Hill School of Media and Journalism. His research areas include business ethics, corporate social responsibility, organizational transparency, strategic and organizational communication, communication law and policy, and mass communication theory and research methodology. He has published articles in peer-reviewed journals including Communication Law & Policy and Public Relations Review.

Daniel Riffe (PhD, Tennessee) is the Richard Cole eminent professor at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Media and Journalism. His teaching and research areas include mass communication theory and research methodology, political communication, mass communication and environmental risk, international news, government–press relations, and the treatment of women and minorities in the media. He has published three books or monographs and 86 refereed journal articles and more than 90 refereed conference papers. Former editor of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, he received the Eleanor Blum Award for Distinguished Service to Research in 2014 from the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. He taught previously at Southern Illinois, Alabama, and Ohio University, where he also served as director of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism.

References

Aguilera

R. V.

Williams

C. A.

Conley

J. M.

Rupp

D. E.

(2006). Corporate governance and social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 147-158.

Altheide

D. L.

Snow

R. P.

(1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Angus-Leppan

Metcalf

Benn

(2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 189-213.

Buhr

Grafström

(2007). The case of corporate social responsibility in the financial times, 1988-2003. In Hond

F. D.

Bakker

A. D.

Neergaard

(Eds.), Managing corporate social responsibility in action (pp. 15-31). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Iyengar

(2016). The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 7-23.

Carroll

C. E.

(2004). How the mass media influence perceptions of corporate reputation: Exploring agenda-setting effects within business news coverage (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2004/carrollce30855/carrollce30855.pdf

Carroll

C. E.

(2011a). Corporate reputation and the news media: Agenda-setting within business news coverage in developed, emerging, and frontier markets. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Carroll

C. E.

(2011b). Media relations and corporate social responsibility. In Ihlen

Ø.

Bartlett

J. L.

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 423-444). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Carroll

C. E.

McCombs

(2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 36-46.

10.

Cheah

E. T.

Chan

W. L.

Chieng

C. L. L.

(2007). The corporate social responsibility of pharmaceutical product recalls: An empirical examination of U.S. and U.K. markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 427-449.

11.

Corcoran

Fahy

(2009). Exploring the European elite sphere. Journalism Studies, 10, 100-113.

12.

Crane

Kazmi

(2010). Business and children: Mapping impacts, managing responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 567-586.

13.

David

Kline

Dai

(2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 291-313.

14.

Deegan

(2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 282-311.

15.

Deephouse

D. L.

Heugens

P. P. M. A. R

. (2009). Linking social issues to organizational impact: The role of infomediaries and the infomediary process. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 541-553.

16.

Dunwoody

Griffin

R. J.

(2002). Judgments, decisions, and public policy. In Fox

J. C.

Gowda

(Eds.), Judgmental heuristics and news reporting (pp. 177-198). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Einwiller

S. A.

Carroll

C. E.

Korn

(2010). Under what conditions do the news media influence corporate reputation? The roles of media dependency and need for orientation. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 299-315.

18.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.

19.

Fombrun

Shanley

(1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258.

20.

Friedman

(1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 122-126.

21.

Grafström

Windell

(2011). The role of infomediaries: CSR in the business press during 2000-2009. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 221-237.

22.

Guthey

Morsing

(2014). CSR and the mediated emergence of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 555-569.

23.

Habisch

Patelli

Pedrini

Schwartz

(2011). Different talks with different folks: A comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 381-404.

24.

Haddon

(2013, October 10). Whole foods to Newark—Upscale grocer expects to open store in 2016 after being courted by Booker. The Wall Street Journal, p. A19.

25.

Hamilton

J. T.

(2003, March). Media coverage of corporate social responsibility (The Joan Shorenstein center on the press, politics and public policy working paper series). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

26.

Hayes

A. F.

Krippendorff

(2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.

27.

Hiss

(2009). From implicit to explicit corporate social responsibility: Institutional change as a fight for myths. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 433-452.

28.

Hofman

P. S.

Moon

(2017). Corporate social responsibility under authoritarian capitalism: Dynamics and prospects of state-led and society-driven CSR. Business & Society, 56, 651-671. doi:10.1177/0007650315623014

29.

Hooghiemstra

(2000). Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55-68.

30.

Husted

Allen

(2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 838-849.

31.

Iyengar

(1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

32.

Jamali

Neville

(2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 599-621.

33.

Jenkins

(2010, October 4). Standard chartered launches impact reports. Financial Times, p. 24.

34.

Kang

(2007, August 17). Agency finds social responsibility niche: Ethos helps companies gain marketing benefit from do-good efforts. The Wall Street Journal, p. B3.

35.

Karnani

(2010, August 23). The case against corporate social responsibility. The Wall Street Journal, p. R1.

36.

Kim

S. Y.

Reber

B. H.

(2008). Public relations’ place in corporate social responsibility: Practitioners define their role. Public Relations Review, 34, 337-342.

37.

Kinderman

(2012). “Free us up so we can be responsible!” The co-evolution of corporate social responsibility and neo-liberalism in the UK, 1977-2010. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 29-57.

38.

Kiousis

Popescu

Mitrook

(2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 147-165.

39.

Kyriakou

(2014, January 20). Calls for consumers to back ethical revolution; Raw materials; Silver. Financial Times, p. 5.

40.

Lee

S. Y.

Carroll

C. E.

(2011). The emergence, variation, and evolution of corporate social responsibility in the public sphere, 1980–2004: The exposure of firms to public debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 115-131.

41.

Lee

Y. J.

Kim

(2010). Media framing in corporate social responsibility: A Korea–U.S. comparative study. International Journal of Communication, 4, 281-301.

42.

L’Etang

(1994). Public relations and corporate social responsibility: Some issues arising. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 111-123.

43.

L’Etang

(1995). Ethical corporate social responsibility: A framework for managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 125-132.

44.

Maignan

Ralston

D. A.

(2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497-514.

45.

Marrewijk

M. V.

(2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95-105.

46.

Matten

Crane

(2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166-179.

47.

Matten

Moon

(2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404-424.

48.

McCombs

Ghanem

S. I.

(2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In Reese

S. D.

Gandy

O. H. J.

Grant

A. E.

(Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 67-81). New York, NY: Routledge.

49.

McCombs

Shaw

(1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

50.

Meijer

M. M.

Kleinnijenhuis

(2006). News and corporate reputation: Empirical findings from the Netherlands. Public Relations Review, 32, 341-348.

51.

Minder

(2008, January 15). Cool reception for Asia’s gay workers: Homosexual employees face discrimination across the region. Financial Times, p. 18.

52.

Moon

(2004). Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility: The UK in comparative perspective (ICCSR Research Paper Series No. 20-2004). Available from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/assets/researchpapers/20-2004.pdf

53.

Mooney

(2004). The editorial pages and the case for war. Columbia Journalism Review, 42, 28-33.

54.

Moreno

Capriotti

(2009). Communicating CSR, citizenship and sustainability on the web. Journal of Communication Management, 13, 157-175.

55.

Murray

(2010, March 8). Tapping into a new generation: Robert Iger of Disney talks about how environmentally aware consumers offer plenty of challenges and opportunities. The Wall Street Journal, p. R4.

56.

Negishi

(2013, May 27). Fast retailing stays out of peers’ safety pact. The Wall Street Journal. Available from http://www.wsj.com

57.

Newing

(2013, June 12). It matters what you do when no one is watching. Financial Times, p. 6.

58.

Phillips

D. P.

Kanter

E. J.

Bednarczyk

Tastad

P. L.

(1991). Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. The New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1180-1183.

59.

Price

Tewksbury

Powers

(1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.

60.

Raeymaeckers

Cosijn

Deprez

(2007). Reporting the European Union. Journalism Practice, 1, 102-119.

61.

Riffe

Freitag

(1997). A content analysis of content analyses: Twenty-five years of journalism quarterly. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 515-524.

62.

Riffe

Lacy

Fico

(2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

63.

Ryan

(1976). Blaming the victim. New York, NY: Vintage.

64.

Sahlin-Anderson

Engwall

(2002). The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows, and sources. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

65.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 297-316.

66.

Skapinker

(2012, March 8). Commerce and the arts need a truer love. Financial Times, p. 16.

67.

Smith

(2014, October 13). Emergence of a more moral multinational; Analysis: Corporate responsibility. Financial Times, p. 24.

68.

Stohl

Townsley

(2007). A new generation of global corporate social responsibility. In May

S. K.

Cheney

Roper

(Ed.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 30-43). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

69.

Tang

(2012). Media discourse of corporate social responsibility in China: A content analysis of newspapers. Asian Journal of Communication, 22, 270-288.

70.

Townsley

N. C.

Stohl

(2003). Contracting corporate social responsibility: Swedish expansions in global temporary agency work. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 599-605.

71.

Tschopp

(2005). Corporate social responsibility: A comparison between the United States and the European Union. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 12, 55-59.

72.

Vogel

(2005). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.

73.

Wempe

Kaptein

(2002). The balanced company: A theory of corporate integrity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

74.

Young

Marais

(2012). A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: The implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20, 432-450.