Abstract
The mass marketization of the luxury industry obligates the industry to be mindful of the social and environmental consciousness of nouveau luxury consumers. To meet complex stakeholder expectations, luxury brands have to manage the dual goals of maintaining their elite branding while staying socially and environmentally responsible. These oppositional endeavors unleash uneasy tensions encapsulated in the notion of the corporate social responsibility (CSR)–luxury paradox. Using theoretical frameworks in paradox management and CSR communication, this study examined how luxury brands discursively navigated the CSR–luxury paradox on their websites. Qualitative content analysis conducted across 43 luxury brand websites revealed two discursive strategies used to manage CSR–luxury tensions: (a) harmonious coexistence of paradoxes and (b) convergence of paradoxes. These active, both-and strategies and corresponding substrategies show specific ways in which CSR–luxury tensions are managed and sustained. The findings are instructive not only for the luxury sector but also for organizations faced with oppositional goals in general.
Keywords
Companies the world over struggle to navigate multiple tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes as they attempt to balance divergent economic, social, and environmental goals while communicating their commitment to diverse and sometimes oppositional goals to their publics (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010; Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011). These tensions are accentuated for companies in the luxury industry as they embark on mass-marketing strategies, engaging a fast-widening pool of stakeholders who are increasingly socially and environmentally conscious (Bain & Company, 2015; Kapferer, 2015). An important implication of the democratization of the luxury market is the resulting need to resonate with the social and environmental consciousness of nouveau luxury consumers. When consumers experience guilt about the self-indulgent consumption of luxury, they could seek a justification to indulge, a justification offered by brands that associate themselves with social causes and charities (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2016). However, attempting to meet the dual goals of maintaining their elite branding and staying socially and environmentally responsible creates uneasy tensions for luxury brands. At issue is the belief that the concepts of luxury, on one hand, and sustainability and commitment to social and environmental causes, on the other, are incompatible or even paradoxical (Kathuria, 2013; Torelli, Monga, & Kaikati, 2012).
Although the concept of luxury is built on self-oriented values such as elitism, hedonism, excess, and extravagance, notions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability are underpinned by other-oriented values such as equality, universalism, and moderation. These competing values lead to the CSR–luxury paradox (Kathuria, 2013; Torelli et al., 2012), such that luxury brands must discursively navigate tensions triggered through the pursuit of such oppositional goals.
Paradox theory provides a richly productive lens to examine myriad organizational tensions and paradoxes (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Putnam, 2013), and management scholars have applied paradox theory to examine issues of corporate sustainability (e.g., Van der Byl & Slawinski, 2015). Organizational communication and public relations scholars have also underscored the importance of studying tensions, paradoxes, and dialectics in matters of corporate sustainability and CSR. These scholars have called for more empirical research on how organizations navigate tensions triggered by the pursuit of economic, social, and environmental goals (Castelló & Lozano, 2011; Dhanesh, 2014, 2015; Golob, Johansen, Nielsen, & Podnar, 2013). This study also answers the call for more research to fully explore the discursive strategies used by organizations that pursue oppositional goals (D’Enbeau & Buzzanell, 2011).
Accordingly, this study uses Lewis and Smith’s (2014) articulation of paradox as a metatheory from organizational studies and Du et al.’s (2010) framework for CSR communication from marketing communication literature to examine the discursive strategies used online by luxury brands as they navigate the complexities of the CSR–luxury paradox. CSR communication on websites was chosen for analysis because websites are one of the most commonly used channels for communicating CSR with stakeholders. The findings of this study generate greater understanding of the discursive strategies used by companies to manage tensions that emerge due to clashes between conflicting goals. These strategies, in turn, could offer lessons for companies in other sectors attempting to navigate similar tensions. The following sections will review previous work on CSR communication, the concept and evolution of luxury, and paradox management.
Literature Review
CSR and CSR Communication
Although laissez-faire advocates argue that corporations only need to obey the law and maximize shareholder value, others argue for an era of humane corporations where organizations are judged using criteria beyond profitability. Indeed, the fundamental idea behind CSR is that corporations, as an integral part of society, should act ethically and responsibly toward stakeholders and society. Thus, this study has adopted Carroll’s (1979, 1991) four-part conceptualization of CSR, one of the most durable and widely accepted definitions in CSR literature.
According to Carroll (1979), “the social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time” (p. 500). In other words, a socially responsible corporation must meet its economic responsibility to be profitable, be a law-abiding entity that behaves ethically in whatever context it is embedded, and fulfill discretionary or philanthropic responsibilities such as supporting local charities or environmental causes. Although studies of CSR straddle various disciplines such as management, marketing, consumer behavior, communication, public relations, law, and accounting, this study takes a communication perspective.
CSR communication scholarship often adopts one of four epistemological perspectives (May, 2011). Although a substantial body of work adopts a normative, or functionalist, perspective, others focus on the interpretive, which explores how organizational realities are created, maintained, and transformed via organizational narratives. Others apply a critical perspective, with some assuming a dialogic stance that examines the concepts of fragmentation, textuality, and resistance within CSR discourse. Although CSR communication scholarship within the field of public relations has tended to adopt mostly functionalist or critical perspectives, the field of organizational communication has leaned toward the critical and, to a lesser extent, toward the dialogic. This study answers a call for more research within the interpretive tradition (May, 2011).
Considering the reputation building function of CSR, its communication is integral to attaining a socially responsible identity. However, companies often falter in their CSR communication efforts when they encounter a paradox of CSR communication: stakeholders’ high regard for CSR and low regard for conspicuous CSR communication (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008). To reduce audience skepticism, boost positive CSR attributions, and aid CSR communication effectiveness, Du et al. (2010) developed a framework for studying various aspects of CSR communication, specifically, the dimensions of message content, channel, stakeholder characteristics, company characteristics, internal outcomes, and external outcomes. The message-content dimension is of particular relevance to this study, as it includes issue importance, commitment, impact, motives, and fit.
According to Du et al. (2010), the message-content dimension of issue importance refers to whether communication focuses predominantly on the social issue or on the brand’s involvement in the issue. Scholars have found that audiences may suspect ulterior motives when companies focus on the social issue rather than on corporate involvement in the issue (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Menon & Kahn, 2003). Hence, Du et al. suggested that while companies emphasize the importance of a social issue, they should also communicate a lack of vested self-interest by focusing on issues not highly related to the company’s core business. The commitment dimension includes the nature of involvement in CSR along with substantial input and durability aspects. Substantial input refers to a high level of resources used to engage in CSR, while durability refers to sustained, long-term commitment to CSR. The impact dimension covers the effects of CSR, and Du et al. recommend articulation of actual, tangible benefits accrued instead of abstract representations. Companies’ motives may be intrinsic or extrinsic, out of genuine concern for others or for the sake of generating returns for the organization. Communicating extrinsic, firm-serving motives alongside more altruistic, intrinsic motives may enhance the credibility and authenticity of CSR messages. The fit dimension is the perceived congruence between a social issue and the company’s business. High fit usually engenders positive responses to a company’s CSR activities, but in certain circumstances, low fit can increase consumers’ acceptance of CSR communication.
Although this framework offers a structure for CSR communication research, most of this work has been conducted from a functionalist, message-design perspective. Still lacking is a more interpretive approach to how this CSR communication framework can be used, a gap this study aims to fill, specifically in the context of the luxury industry.
The Concept and Evolution of Luxury
Chandon, Laurent, and Valette-Florence (2016) argued that luxury brands “sell the dream attached to their name and the world they symbolize” (p. 301). In contrast, Heine (2012) defined luxury as “anything that is desirable and more than necessary or ordinary” (p. 40). Although there may be little consensus over what “luxury” entails, certain core characteristics include scarcity, or limited availability (Kapferer, 2015), exceptional quality, high price, and ancestral heritage (Heine, 2012). This article adopts Heine’s (2012) definition to denote “luxury brand”: “Images in the minds of consumers that comprise associations about a high level of price, quality, aesthetics, rarity, extraordinariness and a high degree of non-functional associations” (p.60).
Withstanding centuries of criticism, the luxury sector continues to expand globally to new markets across consumer segments (Chandon et al., 2016). In the days of antiquity, luxury was limited to a privileged few, mostly royals, nobles, and aristocrats who procured custom-made pieces from master craftsmen. The Renaissance and early capitalist societies saw the spread of luxury to bankers and captains of industry. With the advent of the industrial revolution, mass production and wider distribution of luxury goods expanded the luxury market from a happy few to a happy many (Chandon et al., 2016).
The modern luxury market expanded globally and dramatically from the 1980s through the 1990s due to an increase in consumers’ wealth. This expansion ushered in a democratizing era of mass-marketed prestige, or “masstige,” brands (Cavender & Kincade, 2015). Although the luxury industry slumped at the turn of the millennium due to incidents such as 9/11 of 2001 and the global financial crisis of 2007, the industry recovered with the emergence of new luxury markets in Russia, China, and the Middle East (Dewey, 2009).
An important implication of this expansion into more diverse customer segments is the industry’s need to resonate with the social and environmental consciousness of nouveau luxury consumers. Some consumers might experience guilt, triggered by a sense of moral transgression about the self-indulgent consumption of luxury. In such cases, consumers may seek justifications to indulge, and those justifications could be offered by brands that associate themselves with social causes and charities (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2016). These brands might then encounter the challenge of the CSR–luxury paradox.
The CSR–Luxury Paradox
Scholars across fields such as marketing, hospitality, and economics have highlighted the presence of a CSR–luxury paradox, reflecting a divergence of values between CSR and luxury. According to Torelli et al. (2012), the role of values lies in their ability to trigger motivational conflicts, including those related to CSR and luxury. Values associated with luxury brands can activate audiences’ conflicting moral values, resulting in negative brand evaluations.
Scholars have identified an array of values associated with CSR and with luxury, many of which are included in Schwartz’s (1992) circular theory of human values. Circular theory includes 10 distinct values: power, achievement, hedonism, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, stimulation, and self-direction. These values can be further categorized into four broad types: (a) self enhancement—promotion of dominance over people and resources; (b) self transcendence—going beyond personal interests to consider the welfare of others; (c) conservation—protection of the status quo; and (d) openness—the pursuit of fresh ideas and experiences. These four broad types can be grouped further into two orthogonal dimensions: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence, and openness versus conservation. According to Torelli et al. (2012), the CSR–luxury contradiction is the result of a clash within these orthogonal dimensions: CSR’s underlying self-transcendence value-group clashes with luxury’s self-enhancement value-group, and CSR’s conservation value-group clashes with luxury’s openness value-group.
Some of these underlying values have been identified as particularly relevant in the discussion of the CSR–luxury paradox (Kathuria, 2013). These values include elitism and hedonism (self-enhancement); equality and universalism (self-transcendence); excess and emotions (openness); and moderation and rationality (conservation). These values give rise to the paradoxes between luxury and CSR of elitism–equality, hedonism–universalism, excess–moderation, and emotions–rationality.
Related to the elitism–equality paradox, luxury is often been regarded as a symbol of social distinction, a sign of a higher social class, reserved for the happy few and out of reach for the masses. This concept of social distinction contradicts the notion of equality, a core value of CSR. Similarly, the hedonism–universalism paradox pits luxury’s notions of concern for self and indulgence against CSR’s universalistic notions of altruism and concern for people and nature (Kapferer, 2015). The excess–moderation paradox is characterized by the clash between concepts related to extravagance and overindulgence and concepts related to moderation, namely, austerity and preservation. Luxury evokes the inequality inherent in the ownership of rare resources and their excessive consumption, which are threats to CSR’s ecological aims of moderate consumption. Finally, the emotions–rationality paradox results from pitting the ideas of dreams, myth, and creativity against those of reality and empiricism. Luxury is often related to the realm of dreams and emotions, in contrast to CSR, which is often linked to rationality, taking responsibility, and facing the facts of organizational action (Kathuria, 2013).
The simultaneous activations of conflicting values create a “sense of unease or disfluency” (Torelli et al., 2012, p. 950), reinforcing negative brand evaluations by audiences. The CSR–luxury paradox could be problematic from the perspective of brand owners too because it unsettles the deep-rooted organizational belief in branding-consistency across audiences and geographies, a belief that has been critiqued by scholars (Karmark et al., 2016). Indeed, organizational studies have shifted from considering tensions and paradoxes as problems to accepting them as a normal part of organizational life (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016).
Paradox as a Meta Theoretical Framework
Organizations are inherently paradoxical and rampant with tensions, such as those between exploration and exploitation and between autocracy and democracy (Jarzabkowski, Le, & Van de Ven, 2013; Lewis & Smith, 2014). These tensions are exacerbated in contexts of complexity and rapid change (Putnam, 2013; Smith & Lewis, 2011) or when organizations seek multiple goals (Lewis & Smith, 2014). This is the case of CSR communication by the luxury industry, which must balance organizational identities built on luxury while subscribing to the tenets of social responsibility.
Exploring these tensions is challenging because the field of paradox studies is plagued by a lack of conceptual clarity, evident in the numerous terms adopted to describe tensions in general, including “dilemma,” “contradiction,” “dialectic,” and “paradox” (Smith & Lewis, 2011; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Although a dilemma refers to a tension between competing advantages and disadvantages (Smith & Lewis, 2011), a contradiction refers to situations featuring directly opposed ideas or actions (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Dialectic refers to the dynamic interplay and unity of opposites, while paradox refers to contradictory elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time (Putnam et al., 2016) or to situations in which the pursuit of one goal is undermined, often unintentionally, by the pursuit of another one (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). A paradoxical approach moves organizational research from “either/or” debates to more holistic “both/and” ways of thinking (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Putnam, 2013).
Much of the conceptual work on paradox theory deals with strategies to manage paradoxes, typically stressing how to live with paradoxes rather than eliminating them (Lewis & Smith, 2014). Scholars have also clustered strategies to manage paradoxes into two groups, defensive or active thinking. Defensive is either-or thinking, and active is both-and thinking (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Defensive responses are short-term, allowing actors to temporarily overcome paradoxical tensions without providing a new way to work within or understand them (Lewis & Smith, 2014). These responses include repression, reaction-formation, and ambivalence (Lewis, 2000). Repression denies the awareness of experiences or tensions. Reaction–formation involves excessive inclination toward one pole of the paradox and generating opposition against the other. Ambivalence signifies the reluctant compromise of conflicting emotions, thus eroding the vitality of the extreme positions.
In contrast, active responses attempt to deal with paradoxes on a longer-term basis (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Lewis & Smith, 2014). Active responses include acceptance, confrontation, and transcendence (Lewis, 2000). Acceptance signifies a proclivity to balance the elements that cause tension. Confrontation strategies directly address and work through the sources of tension. Transcendence indicates shifting to a higher plane of understanding in which paradoxical elements are dealt with as complex interdependencies rather than competing interests. This is accomplished by reframing the paradox or the paradoxical thinking.
Scholars in the fields of management and organizational studies have applied paradox theory to examine strategies adopted by managers in their daily decision making. However, Van der Byl and Slawinski (2015) found that although paradox theory offers a rigorous approach to understanding tensions in CSR and corporate sustainability, little empirical work has been done in this area. Although scholars have started examining tensions, paradoxes, and dialectics in the field of CSR communication (Dhanesh, 2015; Golob et al., 2013), the discursive management of paradoxes in CSR communication has not yet been fully explored. This focus is rich with possibilities because corporate sustainability is rife with tensions as firms seek to balance divergent economic, social, and environmental goals. Accordingly, the present study examined the following research question: How do luxury brands discursively navigate the tensions arising from the oppositional goals of marketing luxury and communicating the brands’ commitment to sustainability and social and environmental responsibility?
Method
Qualitative content analysis is one of the most flexible methods for analyzing textual data from a naturalistic paradigm and is useful in examining manifest or latent meanings, themes, and patterns in a particular text (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). An inductive content analysis was first carried out to derive emergent concepts, which were combined with theoretically derived concepts. The combined concepts were then used in a qualitative content analysis to understand how brands used rhetorical devices to navigate the CSR–luxury paradox.
Sampling Procedure
This study explored luxury brand websites because websites have been found to be companies’ most preferred channel of communication regarding CSR issues. Apparel, beauty, jewelry, and watch brands were selected over other categories such as spirits and automobiles because the former have traditionally been seen as more ambivalent toward CSR. Yet, in recent years, consumers of these products have grown increasingly aware of CSR and have demanded such efforts (Cross, 2013).
To construct a comprehensive sampling frame, a list of luxury brands was created from the World Luxury Brand Directory (Heine, 2012) and the 100 most valuable luxury brands in 2012 from the World Luxury Association (PR Newswire, 2012). Duplicate brand names were removed. Group websites such as Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton’s were not listed, as these often include a cluster of different brands, some of which are not part of the luxury sector. The apparel, beauty, jewelry, and watch brands (n = 81) were selected from this sampling frame, and the websites that contained CSR communication (n = 43) formed the sample. CSR communication was defined as any content that refers to one or more indicators of CSR, as adapted from Maignan and Ferrell’s (2000) operationalization of CSR based on Carroll’s (1991) definition.
The website was the unit of analysis to account for differences in the number of web pages allocated to CSR communication across brands. Web pages containing textual and visual elements, including videos of CSR communication, were selected. Six sets of these web pages were color-printed on the same day for coding. Moving visuals were coded on the same day they were printed. These tactics controlled for changes in website content.
Sample Characteristics
European luxury brands made up 84% of the sample, followed by North American (14%) and Asian (2%) brands. Twenty-one percent of these brands came from Switzerland, while another 21% came from Italy, followed by France (16%), the United States (14%), the United Kingdom (14%), Germany (12%), and Japan (2%). With regard to level of luxury, 47% of the sample represented top-level luxury brands, followed by medium-level (30%) and entry-level (23%) brands; 65.1% of the sample marketed products from more than one product category: 60.5% marketed apparel brands, followed by watches (53.5%). Brands in the jewelry category made up 44.2% of the sample, while 39.5% of the sample engaged in the beauty business.
Coding and Analysis
Six social-science undergraduates from a large university in Singapore were coders for this study. The coders first conducted an inductive content analysis on all 43 websites within the sample to allow for emic concepts to emerge from the texts. A systematic approach encompassing open, axial, and selective coding was used, with the coders constantly scanning and comparing the research material (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The coders met regularly to compare their independent analyses. Differences were discussed until consensus was achieved, thus enabling the verification procedure of investigator triangulation. An average intercoder reliability score of .86 was achieved, using Cohen’s kappa, which took into account chance-agreement among coders.
The inductive analysis lasted until the coders reached a saturation point where no new concepts were detected. Five emergent concepts were derived from the inductive content analysis: the environmental dimension of CSR; the standardization, partnership, and nascent aspects of CSR commitment; and the notion of abstract impact, used to frame CSR impact in intangible terms. The coders then mapped out a list of 13 theoretical or etic codes according to Carroll’s (1991) CSR pyramid and Du et al.’s (2010) CSR communication framework. These codes included the discretionary, ethical, legal, and economic components (CSR issue); brand and issue foci (issue importance); substantive input and enduring commitment aspects (commitment); tangible impact (impact); concepts of altruistic and strategic CSR (motives); and congruence and dissonance (fit).
After the codes were mapped, a qualitative content analysis was conducted to examine how luxury brands navigated the CSR–luxury paradox. This approach used a systematic analysis of the rhetorical devices, or linguistic elements such as metaphors, exemplars, depictions, catchphrases, and images associated with each aspect of CSR communication listed above.
Findings
The research question asked how luxury brands discursively manage the CSR–luxury paradox on their websites. Findings revealed two key discursive strategies—harmonious coexistence and convergence—were used to mitigate CSR–luxury tensions. Both strategies involve holistic both-and thinking that enables organizations to live and thrive with inherent tensions and to explore the possibilities of managing paradoxes synergistically (Lewis & Smith, 2014). Although the idea of coexistence seems to be synonymous with the idea of convergence, the key difference is that while strategies of coexistence enable managers to treat opposing poles of the paradox as discrete and distinct, strategies of convergence blur the boundaries between opposing poles and even suggest an integration or synthesis of opposing aspects of the paradox. The idea of coexistence is similar to Poole and Van de Ven’s (1989) idea of acceptance, where the two poles of the paradox are kept separate and their contrasts appreciated. On the contrary, the notion of convergence is similar to the strategic response of synthesis, where differences are dissolved and oppositions merged.
Coexistence and convergence strategies are enacted symbolically through the use of framing and rhetorical devices, a careful analysis of which reveals richly nuanced ways in which organizations navigate the CSR–luxury paradox. Subsumed under each main strategy were substrategies that articulated the specific ways in which the larger strategy was carried out. Together, these strategies provide repertoires of specific tactics that might be useful for organizations in comparable situations.
Harmonious Coexistence between CSR and Luxury
The strategy portraying harmonious coexistence between CSR and luxury had two substrategies for depicting coexistence specifically within the dimensions of hedonism–universalism and emotions–rationality.
Seeking harmonious coexistence within the hedonism–universalism paradox
In navigating the hedonism–universalism paradox, several brands balanced the notions of strategic CSR with altruistic CSR. The goal was to convince readers that the hedonistic, self-enhancing, strategic motives of business could coexist with universalistic, self-transcendent, altruistic motives of safeguarding the environment and stakeholders at risk. Jaeger-LeCoultre, for example, used the “guardian” metaphor to describe its role as a fair, esteemed protector of human capital and the environment. By highlighting an altruistic motive of protecting nature and vulnerable communities, the brand assumed the mantle of the Hippocratic oath, which is fundamentally based on the universalistic values of beneficence and justice. The brand promoted coexistence between hedonism and universalism, conveying that strategic and altruistic motives were not mutually exclusive: “Jaeger-LeCoultre has proved able to strike just the right balance between nature and culture, growth and respect for the environment, international expansion and local roots.” Rather than falter before the inherent tensions between hedonism and universalism, Jaeger-LeCoultre embraced them. In particular, “growth and respect for the environment” conveyed Jaeger-LeCoultre’s recognition of the clash between the strategic, hedonistic concept of “growth” and the altruistic, universalistic concept of “respect for the environment,” establishing a middle ground between the disparate concepts.
In another instance, Tod’s highlighted in its section on sustainability its strategic motive for supporting human capital:
The creation of a product of excellence destined to stand the test of time depends on the talent of the people involved in every stage in the processes necessary to make it. For this reason, we back up the creativity and hard work of the people who contribute their talent day after day.
Going beyond strategic concerns, Tod’s highlighted its universalistic care for its staff: “Aware of the difficult economic situation in which Italy currently finds itself, Tod’s decided to make an even more concrete contribution to the alleviation of the economic difficulties which its workers and their families are having to face.” By highlighting intentions to alleviate the “economic difficulties” of its workers, Tod’s framed its motive as altruistic.
Bulgari also communicated its recognition that altruistic respect for workforce diversity has strategic importance: A “well managed work force not only helps the company realize its full potential, but also expands Bulgari’s skills, knowledge and cross-cultural understanding.” The jeweler expounded on its goal to eliminate discrimination and on its adherence to national and local employment laws. In these ways, Tod’s and Bulgari’s strategic motives of ensuring a talented workforce for product excellence transitioned smoothly to their altruistic motives of doing more for their employees. This created an effortless coexistence between strategic and altruistic motives, easing the hedonism–universalism paradox.
Although coexistence was clearly and convincingly articulated by these brands through various communicative maneuvers, several brands failed to achieve balance between the poles of the hedonism and universalism paradox, diverging to anthropocentrism or prioritizing one over the other. Achieving balance between strategic and altruistic CSR appeared to be challenging for these brands. Several brands slipped from one to the other, resulting in shifting representations of their true motives. Guerlain, for example, noted that it engaged in CSR “because this world needs to be preserved and valued,” thus framing its motive as altruistic. Guerlain, however, then claimed that “raw materials” were synonymous with the “longevity” of its products. Here, the brand diverged to anthropocentrism, subtly replacing “nature” with “raw materials” and morphing the concept of the natural environment to one of a strategic resource. This showed little attempt to balance the notions of strategic and altruistic CSR, hence failing to promote coexistence between hedonism and universalism.
Seeking harmonious coexistence within the emotions–rationality paradox
Several brands negotiated the emotions–rationality paradox through representations of the harmonious coexistence of their CSR programs’ impacts. Most brands effectively used both abstract and tangible measures of impact, balancing luxury and CSR seamlessly. The apparent purpose of this substrategy was to reflect the brands’ aptitude and inclination for both emotion and spectacle, as well as to anchor these representations in rational logic and substantial evidence.
For instance, Harry Winston used abstract terminology on its Commitment to Philanthropy web page to describe the impact of its Hope Foundation in China: “The curriculum has demonstrated a significant impact in other countries by reducing school dropout rates, increasing chances for employment, and bolstering young people’s attitudes and hope toward the future.” The phrases “bolstering young people’s attitudes” and “hope toward the future” represent abstract, dreamy depictions of Harry Winston’s CSR impact. The brand subsequently used more tangible articulations, communicating impact through statistics: “Harry Winston is proud to support Robin Hood to fund innovative schools and education programs that enable 45,000 disadvantaged students in New York City . . .”
Omega communicated about its initiative to support Orbis International in a partnership to fight vision disorders in underdeveloped countries. Omega’s communication provides accountability and evokes emotion by announcing key statistics and the creation of “miracles.” In a style akin to financial reports, Omega notes, with charts, “92 countries visited since 1982,” “22,000 medical professionals trained in 2013,” and “5.7 million medical and optical treatments in 2013.” It describes how its Orbis aircraft, as a mobile eye clinic, “can perform miracles.” This representation can lead audiences to view the statistics cited as rational evidence of the “miracles” resulting from Omega’s support, thereby balancing the coexisting rational and the emotional aspects of the paradox.
Similarly, Burberry’s Corporate Responsibility web page highlighted its impact of “inspiring sustainable action” in supporting the “next generation of creative thinkers.” These qualitative, emotive references contributed to the abstract framing of the brand’s impact. Burberry then discussed tangible impact, providing concrete figures on the communities and organizations helped. It described the Burberry Create program: “Designed to leverage the full range of Burberry’s competences to develop young people’s creative thinking and problem solving skills . . ., the programme enriched the lives of 155 young people in London, New York, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing.” Here, the brand represented its CSR impact as both abstract and tangible, balancing emotional representations with factual, rational depictions of the people it had helped, thus smoothing the emotions–rationality paradox.
In summary, a main strategy that luxury brands used to discursively manage the CSR–luxury paradox was the articulation of the harmonious coexistence of tensions. First, the brands established harmonious coexistence of the hedonism–universalism aspects by portraying a seamless coexistence of strategic and altruistic motives of CSR. To do this, the luxury brands portrayed themselves as hedonistic entities focused on the strategic, self-centered notion of organizational growth, using talent as instrumental creators of excellence. They balanced this hedonistic portrayal with universalistic depictions of themselves as protectors of nature and the vulnerable, guardians who demonstrate care and respect for the human and environmental communities in which they are embedded. Luxury brands also portrayed the harmonious coexistence of otherwise antithetical ways of communicating the impact of their CSR programs. They discursively portrayed the abstract and the emotional with the tangible and the rational in order to manage the emotions–rationality aspect of the paradox. Together, these substrategies discursively emphasize the hedonistic and emotional realms of luxury while portraying the brands as caring, respectful, rational, and accountable entities. These representations draw upon the universalistic and rational notions underpinning CSR.
Convergence of CSR and Luxury
The luxury brands discursively articulated the convergence of CSR and luxury in a second strategy. Two substrategies indicate how luxury brands seamlessly fuse tensions within the excess–moderation and elitism–equality aspects of the CSR–luxury paradox, using the concepts of congruence, brand involvement, discretionary CSR, and enduring commitment. Combined, these strategies show how luxury brands discursively resolve some of the apparent tensions between CSR and luxury.
Convergence within the excess–moderation paradox
In the substrategy of navigating the excess–moderation paradox, brands utilized the dimensions of issue importance, discretionary CSR, and enduring commitment. La Mer, for example, peddled its Crème de la Mer as part of its World Oceans Day campaign, focusing on the La Mer brand rather than the actual environmental issue of marine conservation. Importance was framed in images from a brand perspective rather than an issue perspective. Nevertheless, the notions of excess and moderation converged where the blue hues of the ocean encased the packaging and surroundings of the Crème de la Mer bottles. The embedding of the bottles in what appeared to be a seabed portrayed La Mer as a natural product of the ocean, appealing to the value of resource preservation, and, hence, moderation.
Tiffany and Co.’s Corporate Responsibility page highlighted the CEO’s pledge that the luxury brand would “honour the earth, which provides us with so much beauty, by doing everything we can to leave it whole.” As the brand, like many others, extracts natural resources such as diamonds for its own economic benefit and targets those who can afford the gems, Tiffany and Co. discursively weaves this aspect of excess and extravagance into its efforts to preserve as much of the Earth as possible. Diamonds—symbols of class accessible only to those with expendable income—are depicted as only a slight strain on the environment because of the moderate methods Tiffany and Co. uses to extract them. The excessiveness of diamond production and its bearers’ quest for rarity is thereby depicted as acceptable because of the convergence of excess in consumption and moderation in production.
In another example that used the dimensions of discretionary CSR and enduring commitment, Louis Vuitton’s Charities web page seamlessly fused the concepts of ancestral art techniques and artwork preservation with that of its own products:
Louis Vuitton has brought the riches of the world around us to its collections, precious treasures that demand respect and which we need to protect . . . [P]reserving this heritage is achieved by passing it on to new generations, like a family heirloom that needs the greatest care.
Depicting both traditional artwork and its own products as “treasures” and “heirlooms,” Louis Vuitton highlighted the strong convergence between its business and heritage, which were commonly linked to preservation and, by association, moderation. Such discourse framed the brand as assuming the role of discretionary patron of the arts and art as the aesthetic and social guarantor of luxury, thus converging the roles of luxury and art. The accompanying image of baton-passing visually anchored the notion of “passing on” valuable traditions, a moderation-related idea. Similar to the age-old tradition of passing the Olympic torch, this baton-passing imagery framed Louis Vuitton’s efforts as an enduring commitment to the discretionary preservation of the arts. The otherwise abstract, semantic void of profit and excess is then avoided. Instead the multidimensional, semantic richness of artistic heritage is displayed, helping to mitigate the excess–moderation paradox.
Convergence within the elitism–equality paradox
To navigate the elitism–equality aspect of the CSR–luxury paradox, several brands highlighted similar underlying values, using the dimensions of congruence, partnership, and enduring commitment. Others interwove notions of elite populations with the common good as well as high art with folk art. The likely goal of the brands was to convince audiences that luxury, contrary to popular belief, upholds equality in various ways. For instance, using the congruence frame, Cartier introduced the idea of “excellence” as the commonality between its brand and CSR activities:
Since 1847, the Cartier Maison has embodied a tradition of excellence. A tradition which has become our duty. This duty of excellence in our creations, savoir-faire and quality of service also extends to the way we conduct our activities—ethically, socially, and environmentally.
Piaget, too, referenced the “excellence” standard on its Ethics & Environment web page: “Piaget’s excellence and prestige are not affected by our level of proactivity; on the contrary, Piaget’s image and our pride in being part of it are strengthened.”
This extension of “excellence,” from the brands’ heritage and attributes to CSR, framed the brands’ fit with their social responsibility initiatives as highly congruent. By refabricating and infusing new meaning into “excellence”—an underlying value of elitism—the brands diluted elitism’s darker connotations of domination and inequality, permitting an integration of positive elitism with CSR and, hence, equality.
Several brands emphasized the convergence of equality and elitism through the concept of partnership. A case in point was Hermès’ blurring of social distinctions between management and employees on its Employer web page. Words and phrases such as “family” and “close relationships” communicated Hermès’ commitment to partnership and equality between employees and management, obliterating elitist social distinctions. These were visually enhanced by an animated cartoon: A figure clad in a top hat and Hermès’ signature orange—a symbol of “management”—went down into a Hermès workplace, interacting with employees. In the process of representing the integration of equality into its operations, however, Hermès ironically reinforced elitism in subtle ways. The figure, for instance, went around examining how its employees were doing their work, taking a top-down view. Here, management’s role was to monitor, rather than to participate in a partnership.
Similarly, Loewe’s rhetoric on employee partnership appeared contradictory. By encouraging its staff to “get actively involved” and by communicating that employees “have always been part of the brand’s commitment to sustainability,” Loewe portrayed a highly engaged workforce whose opinions were valued. These phrases framed its CSR commitment as one promoting partnership and enduring commitment. Yet, the tropes of equality and partnership seemed, at best, perfunctory. Loewe stated, “We plan to implement a new dynamic involving all our employees . . . among whom we will promote commitment to a sustainable future and identification with the brand.” Here, management’s role was to “implement,” while employees were encouraged to identify with the brand and comply with top-down initiatives. This hint of employee subjugation was reinforced by the juxtaposition of employees devoid of color and identity against the vivid hues of Loewe products. Thus, some brands undermined their own efforts to mitigate the elitism–equality paradox, even magnifying inherent tensions by reinforcing elitism in subtle ways, especially with regard to employees.
The convergence of elitism and equality also takes the form of celebrity ambassadorship. Omega deploys this tactic skillfully, using Cindy Crawford’s celebrity stature to unite elite stardom with the disadvantaged in Peru. Crawford is depicted as visiting “healthcare professionals and young patients” with eye diseases and blindness. This representation attempts to lift the elitist veil of celebrity prestige by delving into common health issues. Nevertheless, Omega’s intent to converge elitism and equality sputters in its narration of Crawford’s treatment in Peru: “At the local airport the baggage handlers await a unique visitor . . .” Although this “unique visitor” refers literally to the Flying Eye Hospital aircraft that travels to Peru, Crawford’s arrival is glazed with star treatment and directly tied to this “unique visitor.” This use of celebrity endorsement erodes Omega’s attempt to merge the values of elitism and equality, but rather accentuates their disparity.
In sum, these two sets of substrategies articulate how luxury brands discursively blend CSR–luxury tensions. First, brand discourse exposes how luxury brands equate notions of excess and moderation in their role as guardians of ancestral heritage, highlighting their commitment to the care and preservation of the environment while extracting from Earth. Second, they navigated the paradoxical elements of elitism and equality by using notions of excellence, not only in their products but also in their commitment to ethical, social, and environmental issues. By seamlessly merging notions of prestige and the commonplace, they elided elitism and equality. Together, these substrategies are enacted to make luxury palatable to an ever-widening pool of socially and environmentally conscious consumers.
Discussion and Conclusion
The luxury industry has been expanding into mass markets, where companies encounter nouveau luxury consumers who are increasingly socially and environmentally mindful. As a result, luxury brands need to address CSR–luxury tensions that arise as the brands strive to maintain their self-enhancing positionality of luxury while they subscribe to self-transcendent values underpinning notions of sustainability and CSR (Kathuria, 2013; Torelli et al., 2012). Communication scholars have called for more empirical research on how organizations discursively navigate tensions triggered by the pursuit of divergent economic, social, and environmental goals (Castelló & Lozano, 2011; Dhanesh, 2014; Golob et al., 2013) and for research that fully explores discursive strategies used by organizations that pursue oppositional goals (D’Enbeau & Buzzanell, 2011). This study reveals how the luxury industry articulates and enacts discursive strategies to navigate conflicting goals. This study found that two main discursive strategies—coexistence and convergence—were combined to mitigate these tensions. These findings and their implications for scholarship on CSR communication and paradox management are considered next.
The luxury brands that use paradox coexistence enacted this strategy with substrategies that navigate the hedonism–universalism and emotions–rationality aspects of the CSR–luxury paradox. Luxury consumers’ perceptions of the clash between luxury’s values of hedonism and CSR’s values of universalism are assuaged by the brands’ portrayal of harmonious coexistence of the two poles of the paradox. In these representations, luxury’s self-oriented ideas of people as instruments of growth and excellence are counterbalanced with universalistic notions of care and respect for people and nature. This masterful interweaving of strategic and altruistic motives supports an emerging body of research that suggests the coexistence of intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of CSR (Dhanesh, 2015; Muller & Kolk, 2010). Furthermore, strategically using intrinsic and extrinsic motives of CSR to discursively frame the coexistence of hedonism and universalism also indicates the luxury brands’ sophisticated understanding of the principles of effective CSR communication (Du et al., 2010). Similarly, luxury brands navigate the emotions–rationality paradox by simultaneously depicting abstract, emotional spectacles of the impact of CSR programs while grounding these depictions in concrete and tangible accounts of impact. Thus, the brands conform to principles of effective CSR communication by highlighting the factual impacts of their CSR programs as recommended by Du et al.’s CSR communication framework. The brands also demonstrated their knowledge of persuasion principles by blending facts and concrete markers of impact with creative stories and narratives that can evoke cognitive and affective responses in audiences.
The second convergence strategy negotiates the excess–moderation and elitism–equality aspects of the CSR–luxury paradox. Lest nouveau consumers feel guilty about the self-indulgent extravagance of luxury consumption, the brands soften the conflict of excess and moderation by highlighting their care and preservation of Earth, from which rare and precious resources are often violently extracted. Similarly, the ideas of preserving heritage and handing rare and precious heirlooms down many generations help blend notions of excess and moderation. In addition, luxury brands attempt to mitigate any potential clash between the paradoxical notions of elitism and equality by applying the notion of excellence to their commitments to social and environmental causes as well as to product attributes. With celebrity ambassadorship, luxury brands smoothly fuse notions of stardom with the vulnerability of disadvantaged communities to navigate the elitism–equality paradox.
Using these two strategies and related substrategies, luxury brands attempt to mitigate CSR–luxury tensions by discursively constructing peaceful coexistence and by reconciling or even fusing opposing poles of paradoxes. These strategies can enable luxury brands to attract nouveau luxury consumers who are caught between the lure of luxury and their sense of moral transgression. They can assuage consumers’ guilt by highlighting the brands’ commitment to sustainability and social and environmental causes. The predominant rhetoric of balance, coexistence, and even convergence of opposing poles reflects the active, long-term strategy of acceptance, or a willingness to find a way to balance and even integrate the elements causing the paradox (Lewis, 2000). Luxury brands did not engage in defensive or either-or strategies that privilege one end of the contradiction over the other. Instead, the apparent contradictions of hedonism–universalism, emotions–rationality, excess–moderation, and elitism–equality were portrayed through the sophisticated use of rhetorical and linguistic devices as seamlessly coexisting or merging with each other. These representations demonstrate complex interdependencies between the poles of each of the paradoxes. By using active paradox-management strategies that reflect both-and thinking (Lewis & Smith, 2014), luxury brands are able to discursively link ideas of luxury and CSR. As a result, consumers’ guilt about excess and extravagance can be assuaged as they come to believe they are supporting sustainability and CSR through their consumption.
This rhetoric of coexistence and convergence also resonates with both-and dialectical thinking, wherein the brand actively portrays the coexistence of both poles of the contradiction (Putnam et al., 2016). Thus, the findings of this study further strengthen the emerging body of work that argues that both-and or dialectical thinking could offer a richly productive theoretical lens to examine paradoxes in CSR communication more broadly (Dhanesh, 2014; Golob et al., 2013). The findings also add to the emerging body of work that considers paradoxes not as problems to be solved but as a normal part of everyday organizational life, as tensions that need to be embraced and managed through sense-making and paradoxical thinking (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Putnam et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The luxury brands examined in this study do not appear to be daunted or intimidated by the tensions triggered by the CSR–luxury paradox. Instead, they actively engaged with the tensions and paradoxes, discursively framing a narrative of coexistence and even assimilation.
Despite the preponderance of active, long-term paradox-management strategies, luxury brand discourse also demonstrated, to a lesser extent, the employment of short-term, defensive strategies. For example, reaction–formation, with its prioritization of either side of the CSR–luxury paradox, provokes a domination of, rather than a balance with, the other side (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). This was the case with employee-management policies wherein some brands appeared to reinforce in rather subtle ways elitism at the expense of equality. Most of the luxury brands, however, tended to discursively navigate multiple facets of the CSR–luxury paradox using both-and thinking and active, long-term strategies of paradox management, particularly the strategy of acceptance. This key finding has important implications for scholarship on CSR communication and paradox management.
Theoretical Implications
This study delved into the intricacies of how communicative strategies mitigate or complicate paradox management and generated insights into how luxury brands communicatively navigate multiple aspects of the CSR–luxury paradox. This exploration of how the paradox is navigated on the brands’ websites revealed mostly the deployment of sophisticated, active, and long-term communicative strategies that balance the multiple poles of contradiction between CSR and luxury.
The findings also revealed that, similar to most organizational paradoxes, the CSR–luxury paradox may be managed but not truly eliminated (Lewis & Smith, 2014). Indeed, the findings revealed that the constant challenge of attempting to negotiate tensions and contradictions between the notions of CSR and luxury often inadvertently creates other tensions or intensifies current ones, with brands slipping into defensive, short-term discursive strategies.
This is one of the first data-driven studies to draw from and connect theoretical concepts and frameworks from disparate fields such as CSR communication and paradox management. This important contribution is consistent with scholars’ emerging claims that paradox-management theories are highly conducive to the examination of CSR (Dhanesh, 2014; Van der Byl & Slawinski, 2015). Furthermore, this study adds to the sparse body of interpretive work in CSR communication that examines how organizational narratives create, sustain, and alter organizational realities. Finally, the discursive strategies discussed in this study offer lessons on balancing oppositional forces and could be used by other organizations attempting to navigate similar tensions or oppositional goals.
Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusion
Despite its strong contributions, this study has limitations. First, the sample represented luxury brands with significant economic standing, raising the question of transferability to less established and niche luxury brands. To enhance transferability, research on a wider range of luxury brands, product categories, and countries-of-origin could be conducted. Future studies examining the negotiation of paradoxes across different media also would be of value, because generating content for websites such as those used in this study is an interactive, two-way process shaped by different publics. Finally, this study examined the discursive ways in which luxury brands navigated the CSR–luxury paradox, but did not address the effectiveness of those strategies. Future research should examine whether these discursive strategies and substrategies effectively mitigate consumer tensions and dissonance regarding the CSR–luxury paradox.
Despite its limitations, this article has achieved its goal of applying paradox theory to examine how luxury brands use paradox-management strategies to navigate the CSR–luxury paradox. In conclusion, luxury brands increasingly must address CSR–luxury tensions to advance their economic goals. Exploring the interactions among multiple and competing paradoxes associated with luxury and CSR sheds light on how these tensions are embraced, altered, and managed by luxury brands. Continuing research will reveal more fully the nuances of communicatively navigating paradoxes in CSR and sustainability.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Linda Perry for her feedback on various drafts of the manuscript. The authors would also like to thank the Editor and the three anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions that strengthened the article and for the quick turnaround time.
Authors’ Note
This study was conducted while both authors were at the National University of Singapore.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.