This study identifies the similarities and differences in corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication at the institutional and economic industry level of analysis. Findings suggest that at the institutional level of analysis, a corporate consensus exists about the scope of CSR and is largely understood as welfare capitalism. However, at the economic level of analysis, differences across economic industries exist based on value-chain position. Specifically, industries further up the value-chain focus on the safety of their employees, ethical business practices, and environmental stewardship as essential elements of CSR, whereas economic industries closer to customers in the value chain were more likely to focus on philanthropy and education as CSR.
Bostdorff, D., & Vibbert, S.L. ( 1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing organizational images, deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations Review, 20, 141-158.
2.
Carroll, A.B. ( 1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
3.
Carroll, A.B. ( 2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten , J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19-46). New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Cheney, G. ( 1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158.
5.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L.T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Deetz, S. ( 2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267-278). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. ( 1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
8.
Eisenberg, E.M. ( 2007). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication . In E. M. Eisenberg (Ed.), Strategic ambiguities: Essays on communication, organization, and identity (pp. 3-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Esty, D.C., & Winston, A.S. ( 2006). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create values and build competitive advantage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Finet, D. ( 2001). Sociopolitical environments and issues. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 270-290). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Friedman, M. ( 1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase profit. The New York Times Magazine, 33.
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. ( 1984). Ethnography and qualitative designs in educational research . San Diego, CA: Academic Press .
14.
Goldberg, D.J. ( 1999). Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Haunschild, P.R., & Miner, A.S. ( 1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42, 472-500.
16.
Hendry, J.R. ( 2006). Taking aim at business: What factors lead environmental non-governmental organizations to target particular firms? Business & Society, 45, 47-86.
17.
Jacoby, S.M. ( 1997). Modern manors: Welfare capitalism since the New Deal . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. ( 2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54, 722-750.
19.
Kendall, B.E., Gill, R., & Cheney, G. ( 2007). Consumer activism and corporate social responsibility: How strong a connection? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 241-264). New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Lammers, J.C. ( 2003). An institutional perspective on communicating corporate responsibility. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 618-624.
21.
Lammers, J.C., & Barbour, J.B. ( 2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication . Communication Theory, 16, 356-377.
22.
Lawrence, K.A. ( 1997). The barbeque on the mount: The robber baron’s gospel of self-reliance. In J. D. Hoover (Ed.), Corporate advocacy: Rhetoric in the information age (pp. 19-31). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
23.
Llewellyn, J. ( 2007). Regulation: Government, business, and the self in the U.S. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten , J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 177-189). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Lyon, A. ( 2007). "Putting patients first": Systematically distorted communication and Merck’s marketing of Vioxx. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 376-398.
25.
Marchand, R. ( 1998). Creating the corporate soul: The rise of public relations and corporate imagery in American big business. London : University of California Press.
26.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, P.M. ( 2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications . Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1-18.
27.
Melé, D. ( 2008). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams , D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 47-82). New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. ( 1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of whom and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
29.
O’Connor, A., Shumate, M., & Meister, M. ( 2008). Walk the line: Active moms define corporate social responsibility . Public Relations Review, 34, 343-350.
30.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T.B., & Hardy, C. ( 2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29, 635-652.
31.
Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. ( 2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78-92.
32.
Rowley, T., & Berman, S. ( 2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39, 397-418.
33.
Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. ( 2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing . In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Samkin, G., & Lawrence, S. ( 2007). Corporate and institutional responses to the challenge of HIV/AIDS: The case of South Africa. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 279-291). New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
Shamir, R. ( 2004). The de-radicalization of corporate social responsibility . Critical Sociology, 30, 669-689.
36.
Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). Corporate reporting of cross-sector alliances: The portfolio of NGO partners communicated on corporate websites. Communication Monographs, 77, 207-230.
37.
Taylor, J.R., & van Every, E.J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
van den Hoonaard, W.C. ( 1997). Working with sensitizing concepts: Analytical field research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Varadarajan, P.R., & Menon, A. ( 1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52, 58-74.
40.
Vogel, D. ( 2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
41.
Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. ( 1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model . Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.
42.
Werhane, P.H. ( 2007). Corporate social responsibility/corporate moral responsibility: Is there a difference and the difference it makes. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 459-474). New York: Oxford University Press.
