Corporate Social Responsibility and the Communication Imperative

Abstract

This study examines the communication imperative for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on in-depth interviews with CSR managers in large domestic and global corporations in India, the study furthers scholarly efforts to situate communication as central to the enactment of socially responsible behavior. The article begins by explicating the three prominent approaches—instrumental, relational, and constitutive—advanced in CSR scholarship, as a basis for understanding how CSR managers construct or articulate the case for communication in CSR. Participant discourses suggest an important and multi-dimensional role for communication, emphasize the need for subtlety and balance in communicating CSR, and point to the role of the media as a potential (dis)enabler for “getting the word out.” The study also reflects on the intersections and departures between scholarship and practice of CSR communication.

Keywords

corporate communication corporate social responsibility (CSR)constitutive approach India instrumental relational

Introduction

Conversations about the communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are a burgeoning research topic in academic scholarship. Fueled by concerns for transparency and the need to build trust and confidence of stakeholders, CSR communication and reporting has become a mainstream management function. Globally, reporting on CSR has seen a steady rise (Global Reporting Initiative, 2011) as have analyses of web-based CSR communication (e.g., Capriotti, 2011; O’Connor & Shumate, 2010). Indeed, the editors of The Handbook of Communication and CSR argue that CSR communication “should be studied in its own right” (Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011, p. 4).

Despite the growing scholarly emphasis on the role of communication in CSR, there are, as yet, few empirical studies of practitioner perspectives on the communication imperative for CSR. This exploratory research aims to fill the gap and extends the investigation to a non-Western, emerging market context of India. I begin with an overview of extant scholarship to unpack the different perspectives on the role of communication for CSR to provide a context for the study. Specifically, I argue that communication is conceptualized in terms of instrumental (manifested in the business case for CSR), relational (the ubiquitous need for stakeholder engagement and dialogue), and more recently, constitutive (foregrounding the role of language and communicative processes in the construction of CSR meanings) approaches. However, a central question remains: How do organizational actors conceptualize the role of/for communication?

CSR managers in large organizations in India were interviewed for their perspectives on the communication imperative for CSR. Participating managers expounded on the “important” role of communication, emphasized the need for subtlety and balance in communicating CSR, and pointed to the role of the media as a potential (dis)enabler for “getting the word out.” The findings of the study also illuminate the intersections and departures between scholarly and practitioner understanding. Next, I present a review of pertinent literature to elucidate prominent approaches towards communication in CSR scholarship.

An Overview of the Communication Imperative in CSR Scholarship

There are at least three dominant perspectives on the communication imperative in CSR scholarship whereby communication serves an instrumental, relational, and constitutive role in the enactment of CSR. Each of these is unpacked below.

Instrumental Approaches

In this perspective, communication is conceptualized as a strategic tool and mechanism for optimizing CSR gains. Such an approach rests on the business case or the bottom line reasons for engaging in CSR (see Carroll & Shabana, 2010), for example, risk mitigation (e.g., Godfrey, 2005), competitive advantage (e.g., Porter & Kramer, 2006), reputation enhancement (e.g., Fombrun, 2005), employee recruitment and engagement (e.g., Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2008; Greening & Turban, 2000), and customer loyalty (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999).

The role of communication is to align diverse stakeholders in a manner that allows organizations to reap the strategic business benefits of CSR. Stakeholders are individuals or groups that “can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25) and encompass employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, managers, government and nongovernment organizations, media, competitors, and special interest groups.

Indeed, Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen (2010) note that the twin goals of CSR communication—creating awareness and minimizing stakeholder skepticism—are critical factors for the success of CSR strategy. Stakeholder support, then, is a key purpose and outcome of CSR communication. Morsing (2006) theorizes that although the corporate communication of CSR is often targeted toward external stakeholders, it also has a positive (or negative) effect on organizational identification among internal stakeholders. Conceptualizing CSR communication as strategic auto-communication, she explains that the endorsement of the CSR “meta-text” by external stakeholders lends legitimacy and authority to the CSR message, and favorably influences positive identification among employees and organizational members. Conversely, the negative assessment of CSR messages by an external audience may result in dis-identification among internal constituents. Viewed through a critical lens, however, such communication becomes a form of organizational control as it shapes and reinforces “corporate self-images and identities” (Morsing, 2006, p. 175) under the guise of “promoting solidarity and stakeholder participation” (p. 177).

The need to foster stakeholder engagement through communication is underscored by Bhattacharya et al. (2008), who argue that organizations need to bring employees closer to CSR activities in the organization. They emphasize the need for clear and open internal communication. Two-way communication, they argue, is necessary to keep employees informed of CSR programs (rationale, specifics, resource allocation, challenges, and successes), provide guidance for implementation, offset employee cynicism (that may result from external sources considered “credible” and “objective”), encourage participation, and provide feedback on CSR-related performance. Involvement in CSR activities is proposed as a way to increase employee identification as well as enhance the “employee value proposition” (Bhattacharya et al., 2008, p. 37).

In sum, the corporate communication of CSR serves several interrelated functions including building an organization’s image, identity, and reputation; inviting stakeholder support and identification by creating awareness, information-sharing, and proactive deflection of (anticipated) criticism. Most studies of web-based CSR communication are recognized as persuasive attempts to gain legitimacy (Hooghiemstra, 2000) by influencing stakeholder perceptions. The assumption here is that organizational stakeholders are passive recipients of CSR messages delivered through effective and efficient forms of communication.However, the advent of the Internet and, more recently, social media, purport to alter the relationships among organizations and stakeholders and challenge the simplistic sender-based model of communication in favor of a knowledge sharing orientation (see Capriotti, 2011, for a review). Equally, these digital forms of communication present stakeholders an opportunity to organize around common interests and to lead coordinated action against irresponsible business practices. The extent to which these new social and communicative arrangements are being realized by organizations and stakeholders and the attendant implications for CSR communication is yet an evolving area of investigation.

Relational Orientation

Premised on stakeholder theories, a relational approach to corporate communication situates dialogue, relationships, and trust at its core. Because of its ability to put “names and faces on the societal members who are most urgent to business, and to whom it must be responsive” (Carroll, 1991, p. 230), stakeholder theory has a decisive influence on CSR scholarship. Indeed, Waddock and Smith (2000) assert that CSR, fundamentally, is about the mutually respectful, dialogic, and values-based relationships that an organization develops with its stakeholders.

Participatory approaches to CSR (see Pedersen, 2006) advocate a dialogic, relational approach in favor of including stakeholder inputs and feedback into corporate decision-making. Inclusion, openness, tolerance, empowerment, and transparency are advanced as normative dimensions of stakeholder dialogue (Pedersen, 2006). Arguing the ethicality of a dialogic approach, scholars note that unlike an instrumental view, “dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication equal with the organization” (Botan, 1997, p. 196) and ensures behavioral outcomes based on trust, mutual satisfaction, genuineness, and commitment (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Specifically, public relations (PR) scholars affirm the centrality of relationship management for PR practice (see Ledingham, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). Furthermore, Starck and Kruckeberg (2003) argue that PR professionals are best qualified to contribute to social responsibility by assuming a leadership position within the organization and by “influencing organizational culture through communication to help affect behavioral outcomes” (p. 39). Others challenge the notion that PR practitioners can be corporate conscience and argue that the strategic nature of CSR is contradictory to the moral basis of public relations and question organizational motivation in enacting socially responsible behaviors (e.g., L’Etang, Lugo-Ocando, & Ahmad, 2011).

Unlike stakeholder “information” strategies that center on corporate attempts at persuasion, stakeholder “involvement” strategies, grounded in iterative processes of sensemaking and sensegiving, allow stakeholders and organizations to mutually negotiate CSR processes and foci (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). The goal of communication, then, is to build relationships by inviting dialogue with stakeholders and involving them in the construction of CSR messages (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Other scholars too note that dialogue is the means through which “companies learn which issues are important, how to attach meanings to them, and how to integrate them successfully into corporate social responsibility strategy” (Golob & Podnar, 2011, p. 232). However, translating stakeholder dialogue into practice may be challenging and constrained by organizational consciousness, ability, commitment, and interests—factors that may impede the participatory ideals of stakeholder dialogue and leave organizations open to criticism from stakeholders regarding limitations to inclusivity and participation (Pedersen, 2006).

In sum, the objectives of a relational approach, grounded in trust and dialogue, is purported to play a role in gaining understanding of stakeholder interests and concerns, develop mutually agreeable solutions, foster shared meanings, and increased level of trust all of which are important determinants for the success of CSR practices (see Golob & Podnar, 2011). Although stakeholder dialogue and engagement have assumed a normative status in CSR research with prescriptions of interactivity through corporate websites, CSR reports, and in devising CSR programs, how this dialogue is enacted and whether it necessarily leads to greater stakeholder participation is questionable. Stakeholder theories have been critiqued for their conceptual vagueness and pragmatic ambiguity in defining and assessing who “relevant” stakeholders are and the assumption that all stakeholders enjoy equal influence with the organization (e.g., Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Scholars have urged a reexamination of the “ideationally neutral” (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005, p. 507) stance of stakeholder engagement and a critical look at whether those considered stakeholders are indeed able to participate in decision making and multistakeholder initiatives (e.g., Cloud, 2007; Deetz, 2007).

Communication as Constitutive

The constitutive view argues that organizations are, in fact, constituted in and through communication. In other words, organizations are systems of communication and discursive constructions (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). From a CSR perspective, this implies that CSR is not a preexisting, out there idea, but one that is constructed, legitimized, and sustained through communication. Such a view blurs the distinction between words and actions because “. . . communication and action are intimately linked in all processes of organizing, because saying is doing and because actions speak” (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2011, p. 460; Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). Sure, this perspective does not assume or argue “that there is a simple one-to-one correspondence between what an organization says and what it is (in other words, an organization that describes itself as a responsible corporate citizen does not emerge as such simply by talking this way); however, the ways organizations talk about themselves and their communication practices are not neutral undertakings but constitutive activities that contribute to the continuous enactment of organizational reality” (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 461; 2013).

A constitutive perspective, then, treats CSR itself as a communicative process/phenomenon and brings attention to how CSR is constructed by organizations and stakeholder groups. Indeed, CSR has been variously defined and identified as an essentially contested concept (Okoye, 2009), a term with cultural meanings (Lenssen, 2007), and a value-laden concept (Deetz, 2007). Furthering the constitutive approach, Schoeneborn and Trittin (2013) posit that CSR communication is one among the universe of organizational communication practices and its influence or authority depends on how well it is integrated with other communication practices. Next, they note that by involving third parties such as NGOs and stakeholder groups, CSR communication serves to extend the (permeable and communicatively constituted) boundaries of organizations. An empirical study of ‘active moms’ illustrates the coconstruction of CSR whereby this stakeholder group defined CSR in metaphorical terms of “walk the line,” the line being “the social values, norms, and expectations participants have regarding corporate behavior” (O’Connor, Shumate, & Meister, 2008, p. 347). Finally, these authors articulate the need to attend to “non-human agents” especially the texts, routines, and communicative processes that act on behalf of, or once embedded and institutionalized, as independent of, individual agents in the organization.

The communicative construction of CSR also has implications for the construction of socially responsible organizational identities (e.g., Grant & Nyberg, 2011). Livesay and Graham (2007) note how Shell’s eco-talk served a performative function, allowing the corporation to construct and enact sustainable development practices. Aras and Crowther (2011) observe that corporate communication performs a mythic role to create certainty and construct the organization as a unified whole that binds all organizational members in a unified culture, within (reinforced) organizational boundaries. Through the use of a common format, style, and language (“natural, accounting and nonlinguistic”), CSR communication, specifically reporting, becomes a symbolic representation of the organization and the CSR report comes to represent “the authoritative discourse of organizational existence and activity” (p. 525). Communication of CSR via institutionalized channels (for example, Global Reporting Initiative) and the production of CSR messages is akin to “rituals of verification” (Wehmeier & Schultz, 2011, p. 462) that allow organizations to demonstrate accountability for their practices. Also, Schultz and Wehmeier (2010) theorize how organization(al) actors infuse “an empty concept,” aka CSR, with meaning and how CSR is institutionalized within corporate communication. Drawing upon institutional and sensemaking perspectives, these authors posit an iterative model whereby CSR is negotiated and institutionalized at a macro level and internally translated and interpreted by individual members of an organization, based on their own value systems and constructions of reality. The process(es) of translation, negotiated within sensemaking processes at a micro-level, serve to legitimize particular versions of CSR and/or result in reinterpreting CSR practices and meanings.

The preceding review suggests a diversity of approaches to understanding the role of communication in CSR enactment. Although dialogic and interactional approaches grounded in two-way symmetrical communication often assume a normative orientation, there is a need to develop “more realistic understanding of the different communication processes” (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010, p. 23). This article responds to the call by attending to how CSR practitioners/managers understand the communication imperative. In order to contextualize the study, I provide an overview of the research site (India) and contemporary CSR discourses.

The Research Context

Guided by the goal to contribute to the internationalization of organizational communication research (e.g., Broadfoot & Munshi, 2007; Monge, 1998; Stohl, 2001) and the specific need to explicate grounded and contextualized understandings of the CSR phenomenon, this research was conducted in India as part of the author’s doctoral dissertation. The history of CSR in India is well-documented elsewhere (e.g., Mitra, 2007; Mohan, 2001; Sundar, 2000), and while India has a historical tradition of philanthropy and industrial welfare, globalization processes are believed to be decisive in propelling/ushering the concept of corporate social responsibility on to the Indian horizon . As such, recent scholarship of CSR in India has focused on web-based CSR communication (e.g., Chaudhri & Wang, 2007), CSR practices and drivers (e.g., Arevalo & Aravind, 2011; Gautam & Singh, 2010; Planken, Sahu, & Nickerson, 2010), company-specific case studies (e.g., Amaladoss & Manohar, 2013; Srivastava, Negi, Mishra, & Pandey, 2012), impact on financial performance (e.g., Mishra & Suar, 2010), and culture-centered approaches to CSR (e.g., Mitra, 2012).

At a macro level, the rationale for CSR is framed in terms of business participation in equitable social development. Expectations from business to contribute to the provision of services such as education, infrastructure, health care—which is generally seen as the government’s responsibility in developed countries—is affirmed in scholarly literature on CSR in developing countries (e.g., Visser, 2008). CSR as a means to contribute to sustainable development and fill in “institutional voids” is seen by some as part of a wider trend in developing countries with weak institutions and poor governance, in which responsibility is often delegated to private actors (e.g., Matten & Moon, 2008). However, some scholars have argued the problematics of such an association noting that by framing CSR in terms of nation building and community development, corporations deny agency to the affected, subaltern communities (Mitra, 2012). For instance, Pal and Dutta (2013) note that the macro Discourses¹ of development, modernization, and progress have effectively silenced alternative voices and framed them as antinationalist/anti-Indian.

In 2009, The Ministry of Corporate Affairs—the apex body for regulating the functioning of the corporate sector—proposed a set of voluntary CSR guidelines to “enable business to focus as well as contribute towards the interests of the stakeholders and the society” (Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Guidelines, 2009, p. 6). The guidelines reiterated the separation of CSR from philanthropy, the voluntary nature of CSR (“what companies will like to do beyond any statutory requirement or obligation”), and urged the formulation of a CSR policy incorporating such core elements as stakeholder engagement, ethical functioning, workers’ welfare, human rights, social/inclusive, and environmental development. Organizations are also expected to allocate specific amount in their budgets for CSR activities² and maintain CSR-related communication with stakeholders and the public at large through the corporate website, annual reports, and other media (Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Guidelines, 2009).

There is evidence to suggest that CSR is becoming a mainstream business function in India, and consumer sentiment favors socially responsible organizations (CONE Communication/Echo Global CSR Study, 2013). Business leaders are seen as important drivers for CSR. In a self-authored article, Azim Premji, Chairman of Wipro Technologies, notes that the challenges facing India cannot be solved by the government alone and urges that as “equal participants” of a democratic society, individuals and organizations must “play a more active role in these systemic issues” (2009, para 4). Furthermore, Cappelli, Singh, Singh, and Useem (2010) have found that Indian business leaders are creating “social missions” for their organizations that are often integral to their business strategy (p. 97), and that 40% of Indian organizations (as compared to 17% of U.S. organizations) reportedly monitor progress on CSR targets on a regular basis.

In sum, CSR developments in India point to a (growing) recognition of the importance of CSR as an organizational and societal attribute; however, how do organizational actors see the role of communication in CSR? The question is particularly relevant to advance the communication perspective on CSR and contribute to empirical research of practitioner perspectives.

The View From CSR Practitioners

Only a handful of empirical (especially, interview-based) studies have addressed the practitioner perspective on the corporate communication of CSR; however, the findings are telling. Juholin’s (2004) study found only a “vague and obscure” role for corporate communication in CSR strategy that translated, at best, into a tactical/supporting function far removed from the strategic decision-making process. Ironically, while stakeholder dialogue was cited as important by CSR managers in this study, it was not seen as a communicative function. Furthermore, Juholin (2004) reports that under the veneer of a two-way symmetrical model of communication lay a mechanistic and asymmetrical model singularly aimed at bolstering the company’s citizenship image.

In a study of Swedish Investor Relation managers (IRMs), Arvidsson (2010) found that despite a growing interest in communicating CSR to a wide audience (including stakeholder groups), most CSR communication was still directed at stockholders and financial actors which, along with the company itself, were the most important audiences for and “users” of CSR information. Participants in the study also admitted to communicating CSR less as a value-creation activity and more as a preventive act to deflect potential criticism. The threat/fear of negative impact as a motivator for CSR communication problematizes scholarly assertion of proactive communication for reputation enhancement.

Others recognize the reputational value of communicating CSR but contend that organizations may be caught in a “Catch-22” situation (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008) whereby they are simultaneously encouraged to engage in CSR and discouraged from communicating their engagement. One way in which practitioners (may) negotiate the communication dilemma is by following an “inside-out” approach which situates employees at the center of CSR communication. Employee buy-in, involvement, and commitment to CSR, then, becomes a starting point for credible CSR communication where employees themselves become champions of the organization’s social responsibility efforts. Communication efforts may subsequently be extended to other stakeholders (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008).

The preference for an “inside-out” approach toward communication is confirmed by Nielsen and Thomsen (2009) in their study of Danish managers of small and medium companies (SMEs). The reluctance to communicate externally, the authors hypothesize, is indicative of the challenge facing SMEs as they try to balance an “authentic” relationship-management approach with a global, strategic orientation toward strengthening corporate reputation.

Arguably, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach for CSR communication, and the need to understand the diversity of communication processes necessitates further empirical research. This study contributes perspectives from CSR practitioners in India that were invited to participate in the author’s doctoral research. Using a purposive sampling of organizations that have made an expressed commitment to CSR and/or won awards for their programs, I sent IRB-approved requests for participation to 35 domestic and global corporations in India. Nine multinationals and domestic organizations across business sectors agreed to participate in the study and their CSR managers were interviewed in 2009 (6 organizations) and 2010 (3 organizations) in two locations, the National Capital Region (NCR) of India and the country’s financial capital of Mumbai. It is estimated that over 6,000 global and domestic organizations are headquartered in the NCR as well as urban areas of the adjoining states—the largest concentration in the country—making this an appropriate region for this study. Still, geographic considerations could be perceived as a limitation of the study since it precluded the participation of organizations headquartered elsewhere in the country.

Managers were chosen because of their role in representing “the organization in its relations with other stakeholders” (Scott & Lane, 2000, p. 47) and as proponents of “organized interests” (Crable, 1990, p. 120; also Cheney & McMillan, 1990). While recognizing their organizational roles, research also suggests that managers’ individual values can decisively impact organizational commitment to CSR (e.g., Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004; Waldman et al., 2006). Foregrounding the role of the individual, Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) bring attention to “individual discretion” by which managers may exercise influence and agency on CSR policy and decision-making. Managerial discretion, the authors note, can manifest in three ways, formal (e.g., freedom to allocate resources to CSR), unintended (due to ambiguity in rules and policies), and/or entrepreneurial (as an expression of resistance to organizational control), and their enactment is dependent upon bureaucratic structures, management styles, and organizational cultures. Affirming the impact of managers’ values and decision-making on organizational-level CSR outcomes, Waldman et al. (2006) found that managerial orientation (e.g., stakeholder or shareholder or community) toward CSR is guided by national culture (e.g., power distance) and economic development. Specifically, managers in countries with low economic development were more likely to demonstrate a community orientation as a way to compensate for institutional voids.

Although my study did not explicitly examine individual motivations and personal values, I acknowledge the importance of CSR managers to my study, and focus on their roles as organizational representatives, “as the organization” (Scott & Lane, 2000, p. 47, italics original). In all, 12 in-depth semistructured interviews, ranging between 29 and 88 minutes, were conducted with 11 individuals (including a follow-up interview with one participant and interviews with three executives in another organization). Interviews were conducted in English, although some participants would slip into Hindi to illustrate a point. In such cases, I have provided an English translation in parenthesis. With one exception, all interviews were conducted in person, and audio recordings were transcribed for accuracy.

Given the qualitative and interpretive nature of this study, it was appropriate, indeed necessary, to foreground participant voices. These communicative constructions represent the participants in “their own words and concepts” (Maxwell, 1992, p. 289) and individual discourses were organized thematically by recurrence (“same thread of meaning, even though different wording indicated such a meaning”), repetition (“repetition of key words, phrases, or sentences”), and forcefulness (vocal qualities that served to stress or subordinate words and phrases) (Owen, 1984, pp. 275-276). Themes were then checked against the data to ensure they maintained the integrity of the data. Finally, the relationships among the themes were interpreted, and the data revisited to find further evidence to support or refute the assertions being forwarded. Overall, it was important for me to let the “data tell their own story” and to present “respondents in their own words” (Patton, 2002, p. 457).

Table 1 provides an overview of the participating organizations as well as the differential structuring of the CSR function within these organizations. Names have been disguised to maintain confidentiality. Participating organizations represent diverse industry sectors and organization types (e.g., multinationals, Indian companies, and one state-owned enterprise). Some of the participants are members of the United Nations Global Compact (a global initiative of the United Nations spanning areas of human rights, labor, environment and anticorruption), listed among Fortune’s Global 500 largest companies by revenue, and/or rank among the top 500 organizations in India by revenue/turnover as per the Economic Times (ET) 500 ranking.

Table 1.

Participating Organizations.

Organization and industry	Size indicator and global CSR membership	Select/focal India programs	Interviewee designation and reporting structure
Global IT (Information Technology)	Fortune Global 500 UNGC member	-Digital inclusion -Education and employable skills	Lead CSR (reports to Corporate Affairs)
Global Insurance (Insurance)	Fortune Global 500 UNGC member	-Education for underprivileged children	Marketing Communication; Corporate communication
GlobalF&B (Food and Beverage)	Fortune Global 500 UNGC member	-Replenishing water -Partnership with farmers -Waste to wealth -Healthy kids	Lead CSR (part of External Affairs which reports to the CEO)
Indian IT (Information Technology)	Economic Times (ET) 500	-Education -Environment -Friend in need -Child rescue and rehabilitation	Lead CSR (reporting to Human Resources and CEO)
IndianConsPro (Consumer Products and Services)	Economic Times (ET) 500	Innovation research and education	Principal Consultant (reporting to Human Resource and Strategy as well as company Chairman
IndianConlg1 (Diverse business sectors)	Economic Times (ET) 500	-Education for the girl child -Environment -Health -Employee program	Chief CSR; CSR Council (senior management across Group companies)
IndianCongl2 (Diverse business sectors)	Economic Times (ET) 500	-Healthcare -Education -Sustainable livelihood -Infrastructure -Social reform	Group Executive Vice-President (EVP), Corporate Communication (reporting to the Chairperson of the CSR Center)
IndianPaper (Paper Manufacturing)	Economic Times (ET) 500	-Focus on “marginalized stakeholders” -HIV/AIDS -Community development -Support for primary education	Chief General Manager, CSR (reports to Group Chairman)
OilCo. (Oil and Gas)	Fortune Global 500; Economic Times (ET) 500 UNGC member	-Disaster relief -Education scholarships -Community development -Donations/Charity	Director, HR (reports to company Chairman)

Perspectives From India

CSR Communication Is Important and Multidimensional

Participant discourses suggest an important and multifaceted role for the corporate communication of CSR. One participant’s articulation of the communication imperative—“you may be doing fantastic work, but if you are not being able to communicate this work very well, then you are not . . . you may be doing a disservice to yourself” (IndianConsPro)—illustrates the centrality of communication for CSR.

For most participants, the communication imperative is constructed in terms of building awareness of CSR activities. Indeed, the most compelling need for communication reported by participants is to create awareness so that “people know what has been done and how it has been done.” As such, corporate communication of CSR—whether structured or informal—serves as an expression of the organization’s accountability.

Participants also explain communication in terms of internal and external, and while goals may overlap, there is a sense of certainty, even “control,” when communicating internally. One participant voiced this dilemma: “communication with employees is critical. With the external world, I can only do so much, but with the employees I can do lot” (GlobalInsurance). Specifically, this translates to “aligning employees to objectives of company and helping them do CSR if they feel they should be involved” (GlobalInsurance).The need to engage employees is reiterated by other organizations, many of which encourage volunteerism in structured or informal ways.

The multidimensionality of communication manifests in the spectrum of objectives and approaches—instrumental to constitutive—from which managers’ construct the role of communication. It is notable that even though participants converge on the importance of communication, they differ on the salience of specific communication roles (e.g., creating awareness, employee engagement, consumer trust, etcetera). For example, organizations in this study that rely on voluntary contribution (of time, resources, and expertise) from their members were more emphatic about internal communication to share information about CSR activities and to “boost employee morale”:

What we have found to be really effective and we have used it…we have an employee meeting every year and we use case studies from these meetings to come and address the entire audience . . . and it’s more like I was this and I was that and I learned this and I learned that and this is what happened to me. And suddenly you see a person who is just a class 10 or 12 pass-out from rural somewhere, speaking fairly articulate English, or somebody translating for him or her, and saying this is how my life was impacted, is a sudden sea-change. (GlobalIT)

In sharing these narratives of transformation in the voice of the “impacted,” organizations communicatively construct the social value of CSR and in so doing, position themselves as socially responsible actors. Indeed, the demonstration of impact assumes importance in CSR communication because of its, arguably, tangible quality (x children educated, y facilitates set up), and because it deflects (anticipatory) criticism while reaffirming CSR as a solution for societal challenges. Stories of ‘ordinary’ people who have transformed into exemplars serve a constitutive function for CSR enactment that legitimize corporations as “good citizens” and institutionalize CSR as a (symbolic) act of the corporate actor privileging society. Through storytelling and narratives, organizations also create a culture whereby employees learn what it means to be a member of a socially responsible organization and as a mechanism to engage employees to contribute (monetarily) toward CSR and/or to participate/volunteer in the organizations’ CSR activities.

Much internal communication reportedly takes place via the intranet, email, and through house organs such as a journal in which a participant writes “one article based on my interaction with the villagers and seeing what they’ve done and seeing how our people have changed their lives” (IndianCongl2). For another, the company’s annual conference—especially the company Chairman’s address—is an important platform for creating awareness (IndianConlg1). In addition, communication serves to demonstrate accountability so if an organization asked employees to contribute, it needs to provide “facts and figures of how the money was used, where it was used, and how many people benefited so that people are familiar with what all we did” and are willing to contribute again (GlobalIT).

Several participants also report having “engagement models” to seek feedback from employees and external stakeholders on an annual basis. For employees, the goal often is to seek input on CSR initiatives and programs, as well as the CSR performance of the organization (“does my company do enough for the stakeholders? Do you think we should we do more? What do you know about it?” [GlobalF&B]). Especially for organizations working in sectors (e.g., paper, food and beverage) that involve use of natural or community resources, stakeholder relations are cited as a given, and the solicitation and incorporation of community needs suggests an “active” role for stakeholders in guiding CSR decisions and programs. IndianConlg2 highlights its “participatory rural appraisal process” which involves understanding the needs of the community, securing commitment on available funds, and getting the community sign-off. Often, such collaboration extends to local government authorities and community-level organizations whose involvement may be integral to the implementation and sustenance of CSR programs. Stakeholder buy-in gives organizations the ‘social license to operate’ in the community (for a critique, see Pal & Dutta, 2013). However, should stakeholder influence extend too far, the CSR policy is invoked as a mechanism to negotiate demands. Especially, one participant explained his organization’s approach:

You see we have certain framework, we have certain policy. Sometimes, the local forces, they try to deviate from that. We make them understand that this is the framework where we can operate, these are the areas. For example, somebody asks for construction of the road, now that is not within our framework, so we tell them politely that this is not in our framework. If there is some urgent or important requirement, we do deviations also sometimes, but very rarely, generally not. (OilCo)

In the contemporary environment, communication is also cited as an important “signaling” mechanism for stakeholders and peer organizations. For peer organizations that are interested in CSR, the corporate communication of CSR is seen as a way of “sharing” information and creating a ripple effect so that more organizations get involved and “you see so many more beneficiaries getting helped” (IndianCongl1). Communication with “external” stakeholders is also perceived to create social capital and reputation insurance so that they may be more forgiving of an organization in the event of a crisis. The (problematic) assertion that organizations can use CSR as a way to craft a “halo image” rests on the assumption of passive stakeholders, and invokes suspicion and skepticism of CSR as a management function.

For one organization, being transparent and building trust with stakeholders is important, so to “create consumer confidence,” the organization invites communities “to come and visit our plants and units and see the manufacturing process . . . how paper is made, what we are doing inside, that we are not polluting” (IndianPaper). Through communicative acts such as site visits, participants arguably seek to invite stakeholder identification by positioning their organizations as responsible entities that are upfront about business practices.

Openness and honesty also helps gain the approval and appreciation of shareholders. Although the shift from shareholders to stakeholders has diverted attention from the former’s role in CSR, some participants explicitly acknowledged the importance of shareholder approval. Scholars posit about shareholders’ motivations noting that while CSR may not “generate” shareholder value, it lends an “insurance-like protection” to organizations that “preserves” shareholder value in the event of a negative act (Godfrey, Merrill, & Hansen, 2009, p. 246). The public trust and goodwill thus garnered can serve as a risk management tool by insulating companies from consumer backlash if and when controversy arises.

CSR Communication Is Subtle and Balanced

Participants are quick to point out that CSR communication, while important for the reasons elucidated above, needs to be undertaken in a “balanced,” “low-profile” and “subtle” manner. One participant drew upon Hindu mythology “karma karo, don’t expect anything back” [do your good deed without any expectation of results], but noted that the need for subtle communication is not specific to the Indian context; even “Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given away so much money and they are always talking about the cause, and the work of the Foundation, not the greatness or the money spent” (IndianConsPro).

The unstated notion underlying the emphasis on balanced communication reflects a central problematic in CSR communication research, the gap between deeds/actions and words. Indeed, the case of Enron which looked like an exceptional corporate citizen with all “status symbols in place” is well-known in CSR scholarship (Sims & Brinkman, 2003, p. 243). Since Enron, CSR scholars and practitioners have fervently debated the action/communication divide. For participants, then, communication is a cautious exercise:

When we do [communicate], at least in our case, we feel that it shouldn’t be a chest-thumping exercise, so we are very understated and very low profile, and he [the Chairman] says, we do it not to talk about it, we do it because it’s our duty and we believe in it. (IndianCongl2)

Often, participants attribute the selfless nature of CSR work to the commitment and passion of the head of their organization. Indeed, the chairman/director/CEO is positioned as the most important stakeholder for CSR. Whereas trust in business leaders has declined globally driven by corporate scandals, evidence from India reveals the highest trust (across all countries) in the company CEO as a credible spokesperson (73% versus 54% for the government; Edelman’s Trust Barometer, 2013).

The normative claim to be understated and balanced also appears to be a way to counter skepticism about CSR communication. Thus, communication requires a certain sensitivity, a “delicate balance,” whereby organizations face the paradox of demonstrating social responsibility without communicating it overtly (e.g., Morsing et al., 2008). Striking the elusive balance, then, is a constant endeavor to simultaneously be credible, informative, and engaging. The vexing predicament is explained thus:

If it [communication] becomes too much of thumping the chest and lauding the best, then people kind of take you with a pinch of salt, saying I don’t know how much of it is genuine. . . . If we do it only with numbers, it doesn’t strike the emotional chord amongst the employees. So you have to keep striking the balance and seeing what will work, when. (GlobalIT)

The need for balance also figures in decision-making about using communication channels—such as websites—that require minimal spend. One participant notes that her organization “will not go out of our way to advertise” and has made a commitment to spend a significant proportion of CSR funds toward education of the girl child (IndianCongl1). In 2005, the organization had decided to progressively reduce spend on “fundraising, advocacy, and communication” to 5% of the total funds, dedicating the rest (95%) toward education of the girl child. At the time of the interview, the manager reported that the organization was well on its way to that goal, with 90% already going toward the cause.

The Quest for Media Endorsement

Participants in the study foreground the role of the media as a potential enabler for CSR but lament that the “negative” attitude of the media is a hindrance to “getting the word out.” The need to get the word out acknowledges the importance of communicating CSR engagements. In doing so, the argument is that (more/other) organizations will benefit from that shared knowledge and experience, the assumption being that CSR is well-understood and practiced by large organizations and it is the smaller ones who need to catch up.

The media, then, are not just an avenue for sharing information about one organization’s CSR program but also a source of information and “encouragement” for other organizations and for “more beneficiaries getting helped” (IndianCongl1). Although the envisioned proliferation of CSR activity is positioned in terms of societal benefit, one participant explicitly noted that greater uptake of CSR will have a positive impact on the “attractiveness” of CSR because “anything that is successful is very attractive.” Communication about the impact of CSR, in particular, as an expression of “success,” is perceived as a legitimization mechanism for the CSR function at a macro level:

Anything that is successful is very attractive, everybody wants to be there. If there are 10-12 companies who are doing some good CSR work, these 10 go to 100 and there’s a lot of visibility for the work being done, and credible work, not just for reporting in the media, where impact is being shown, I guess there are others who will get attracted towards this space. (IndianConsPro)

One participant spoke about media’s expectations about what is CSR and their skepticism about corporations’ ability to be socially responsible, “there’s the media—they have an idea that CSR means to build hospitals etcetera so there’s a different mindset and that needs to change. People don’t believe that companies have the ability to do good” (IndianPaper). The need to have a common language and understanding of what it means to be socially responsible is suggested as a way to address the difference in “mindsets” and to bring the media and organizations on the same page, so to speak.

Another compared media attitudes noting that whereas Indian media liked to report “a negative story than a positive one,” in the West, one could find “many positive and feel-good stories”—a difference she attributed to commercial viability in that “negative publicity sells more, gets more eyeballs” (GlobalIT). A study of the UK media also found that despite the stated willingness to cover positive CSR stories, journalists most often reported negatively on CSR with a bias toward uncovering issues of corporate irresponsibility (Tench, Bowd, & Jones, 2007).

As powerful social institutions, the media’s own responsibilities in creating spaces for CSR conversation and practice merit more attention. Perhaps a telling example of the privileged position that media are accorded is a participant’s story of a seminar on CSR communication where she learned about the need to make “CSR reporting sexy so that media will take attention.” The ability to get media attention, then, comes to define “adequate and appropriate communication skills” (IndianConsPro).

With the growing popularity of the Internet as a tool for corporate communication and the fact that all participants have dedicated CSR sections on their corporate websites, the reliance on traditional media as an important or “the only way” way to communicate CSR, opens up questions. In fact, the plethora of research on web-based CSR communication (see Capriotti, 2011) is predicated upon the ability of the internet to bypass gatekeepers in print and electronic journalism and to permit proactive, multistakeholder dialogue (Esrock & Leichty, 1999). What, then, explains the quest for media endorsement?

Further research is needed to understand whether corporations in India have embraced the internet for corporate communication but initial possibilities include the relatively low reach and accessibility of the internet in India, the high trust in the media institution (e.g., Planken et al., 2010), the pragmatic need to be “subtle and balanced” in their approach toward CSR communication (as previously stated), and the differential needs of stakeholder groups. Morsing et al. (2008) found that an indirect (aka “endorsed communication”) process whereby corporate communication of CSR is first directed at a group of “experts” (e.g., politicians, media, NGOs) and henceforth transmitted via these expert groups to other stakeholders (e.g., general public and consumers) may be a way to alleviate skepticism of CSR claims. In their study of the Danish context, the authors found that endorsed communication activities could deflect the perception of the organization as “self-complacent and self-serving” (p. 107). Media, in addition to employees, are perceived to be an important stakeholder group, which may explain the desire for media support.

Discussion and Implications

Communicating CSR can be a reputation enhancer (Fombrun, 2005), yet organizations confront paradoxical expectations to engage in CSR but not be very vocal about their engagements (Morsing et al., 2008). This study aimed to explicate the perceptions and perspectives of CSR managers on the role of communication for CSR enactment. As stated in the results, participants were in agreement about the importance of communication although they differed in the relative salience of the perceived role(s) of communication in CSR. Moreover, participant discourses emphasize the need for balance, subtlety, and modesty that privilege the “doing” of CSR and their perspectives confirm and reflect ongoing conversations about the relationship between CSR communication and action.

In advancing the communication imperative for CSR, participants in this study position communication primarily in terms of an instrumental approach aimed at building awareness, sharing information, and garnering support for their respective CSR activities. Corporate communication of CSR is reportedly undertaken as a proactive endeavor and there is an assumption that being open and transparent will also yield relational benefits for instance, fostering an organizational culture of CSR, and building trustworthy relationships with stakeholders. Corporate communication of CSR, as an expression of the organization’s commitment, is also seen as a reputational shield in the event of a crisis.

Most of the illustrations suggest a process of “sensegiving” (e.g., Morsing & Schultz, 2006) or the organization speaking unto. By providing favorable CSR information, the goal is to persuade stakeholders that the organization is socially responsible Participants also speak of a stakeholder involvement strategy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) especially with employees (inviting feedback and encouraging participation) and the community (decisions about CSR activities/support areas). Often, however, these efforts are guided and bounded by the interests of the organization and the need to maintain “control.”

The stated need to exercise “control” in the corporate communication of CSR is worthy of more discussion. CSR managers allude to an, arguably, false sense of control in communicating with employees that is reportedly missing for “external” communication. Consistent with a transmission view of communication (e.g., Axley, 1984), these discourses assume predetermined and fixed organizational boundaries that separate internal and external stakeholders. Although the internal-external dichotomy has been challenged (e.g., Cheney & Christensen, 2001) in favor of blurring boundaries, it serves an important demarcation function among practitioners in this study.

While organizations actively seek and incorporate employee input in making decisions about specific CSR programs/areas, the involvement of “external” stakeholders is a cautious exercise. Even when organizations report community participation in making strategic decisions, there is an underlying need to ensure boundaries. Hence, the CSR policy becomes a communicative tool to negotiate stakeholder demands. The policy defines the boundaries of organization-stakeholder engagement by specifying the limits of CSR and warding off demands do not fall within its purview. Indeed, the artifact that is the CSR policy assumes agency that transcends the specific individual responsible for its creation and becomes an institutionalized communicative practice (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). While CSR managers have been the subjects of most analyses in CSR research (including this study), the role of nonhuman agents posited by the constitutive approach (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013) is worthy of further investigation.

Perhaps the need for control also explains the disenchantment with (negative) media attitude toward CSR. As a key stakeholder group, media support and visibility is perceived to lend credibility to CSR communication. Thus, the inability to influence positive outcomes in the media is perceived as a challenge to effective CSR communication. Attracting media attention, then, is highlighted as a special skill that, arguably, necessitates a centralized communication effort. Among the organizations interviewed for this study, corporate communication of CSR is a coordinated effort led by designated spokespersons (generally the CEO and the CSR manager/team) with strategic input from stakeholders (e.g., employee testimonials in corporate publications).

Although the constitutive approach views CSR communication as a boundary extension function involving the active participation of third party stakeholders, participants in this study engage with the media for primarily instrumental reasons. Arguably, the relationship with the media seeks to actively maintain organizational boundaries between “us” and “them,” guided by differences in CSR expectations and attitude. The effect of social and new media on the centralization of CSR communication and the permeability of organizational boundaries is yet unexplored in the Indian context.

Contrary to the “arm’s length” approach with the media, organizations appear willing to cede control with the community by inviting them to visit factories, and encouraging “beneficiaries” of CSR (for example, those getting educated or learning vocational skills) to share their stories. The latter’s presence within organizations is perhaps the most visible expression of the impact of CSR, legitimating the business case for CSR, and of telling the CSR story to and on behalf of the organization. Stories, Mumby (1988) explains, “do not simply transmit information about the organization to its members, but play a fundamental role in the creation and reproduction of organizational reality” (p. 18; also Boje, 1991, 1995). As coauthors of the CSR story, these “exemplars” contribute to organizations’ efforts to construct socially responsible identities.

Critics often argue that communicative events such as site visits may be doctored to “show the organization in good light, and after, everything goes back to what it was before. . . It’s a one-time visit, they are standing guard” (S. Hanspal, personal conversation, January 2010). Such critique is reminiscent of much theorizing that treats communication and action as separate, treats communication of CSR as greenwashing, and/or accords greater importance to the “doing” of CSR (actions) over “saying” (communication). Communication scholars, in particular, proponents of the constitutive perspective, note that communication and “talk” has a performative function such that even “aspirational talk” may provide the “raw material for constructing the organization” (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 461, italics original; Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). Even when acknowledging that there is not a simple correspondence between words and actions, such disconnect presents a pragmatic dilemma that is instructive from a research perspective for it problematizes the reliance on the organizational, and in particular, the managerial voice.

In sum, this exploratory study finds indications of the diverse perspectives with regard to the role of communication in CSR. Assessing organizations’ claims against and in conjunction with stakeholders and alternate sources of data are suggested as a way to alleviate the corporate bias in CSR communication research. How organizations communicatively engage with stakeholders, the specific processes of creating CSR cultures, and the role(s) of new media in altering, facilitating, or challenging CSR communication are potential areas of further investigation to fully understand the role of communication in CSR. In the end, one participant’s reflection on the communication imperative and the central desire to be seen, acknowledged, and rewarded is telling:

Koi dekh raha hai if I’m being good or not? [Is anybody watching if I am being good or not?] Because if nobody watches you, being bad is easy. . . If nobody could see how fat or ugly we were, how many people would put in the effort to get on the treadmill?. You want to feel good. Unless people see you and say you are looking good, how would it matter . . . it is the truth of the matter, I guess. (GlobalIT)

Footnotes

Author’s Note

A previous version of this article was presented at the ICA preconference, “CSR and Communication: Extending the Agenda,” in London, 2013.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is part of the author’s doctoral dissertation completed in May 2011 under the supervision of Stacey Connaughton, Associate Professor and Associated Head of the Brian Lamb School of Communication at Purdue University, USA. The author’s dissertation research was supported by a 2009-2010 Purdue Research Foundation (PRF) grant.

Notes

Author Biographies

Vidhi Chaudhri is an Assistant Professor in media and communciation at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Previously, she was Assistant Professor in communication at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA). Her research interests span CSR, public relations, organizational identity, crisis communication, and corporate reputation. She has published peer-reviewed journal articles (Management Communication Quarterly, Public Relations Review, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship), book chapters (The Handbook of Crisis Communication, Corporate Reputation Decoded), and co-authored several business cases on CSR.

References

Alvesson

Kärreman

(2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149.

Amaladoss

M. X.

Manohar

H. L.

(2013). Communicating corporate social responsibility—A case of CSR communication in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20, 65–80. doi:10.1002/csr.287

Aras

Crowther

(2011). Commentary: The view from management. In Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 516-533). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Arevalo

J A.

Aravind

(2011). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: Approach, drivers, and barriers. Corporate Governance, 11, 399-414.

Arvidsson

(2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 339-354.

Axley

S. R.

(1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

Korschun

(2008, January 1). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49, 37-44.

Blowfield

M. E.

Frynas

J. G.

(2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81, 499-513.

Boje

D. M.

(1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126.

10.

Boje

D. M.

(1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-land.” Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997-1035.

11.

Botan

(1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 188–202.

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

13.

Broadfoot

K. J.

Munshi

(2007). Diverse voices and alternative rationalities: Imagining forms of postcolonial organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 249-267.

14.

Cappelli

Singh.

Singh

J. V.

Useem

(2010). Leadership lessons from India. Harvard Business Review, 88, 90-97.

15.

Capriotti

(2011). Communicating corporate social responsibility through the Internet and social media. In Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 358-378). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

16.

Carroll

A. B.

(1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.

17.

Carroll

A. B.

Shabana

K. M.

(2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85-105.

18.

Chaudhri

Wang

(2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility on the Internet: A case study of the top 100 IT companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 232-247.

19.

Cheney

Christensen

L. T.

(2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication. In Jablin

F.M.

Putnam

L.L.

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Cheney

McMillan

J. J.

(1990). Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 93-114.

21.

Cloud

D. L.

(2007). Corporate social responsibility as oxymoron: Universalization and exploitation. In May

Cheney

Roper

(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 219-231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

22.

Christensen

L. T.

Morsing

Thyssen

(2011). The polyphony of corporate social responsibility: Deconstructing accountability and transparency in the context of identity and hypocrisy. In Cheney

May

Munshi

(Eds.) The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 457-474). New York, NY: Routledge Curzon.

23.

Christensen

L. T.

Morsing

Thyssen

(2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20, 372-393. DOI: 10.1177/1350508413478310

24.

CONE Communication/Echo Global CSR Study. (2013). Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.conecomm.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/fdf8ac4a95f78de426c2cb117656b846/files/2013_cone_communicationsecho_global_csr_study.pdf

25.

Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Guidelines. (2009). Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. Retrieved from http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/latestnews/CSR_Voluntary_Guidelines_24dec2009.pdf

26.

Crable

R. E.

(1990). Organizational rhetoric as the fourth great system: Theoretical, critical, and pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 115-128.

27.

Deetz

S. A.

(2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In May

Cheney

Roper

(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267-278). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8-19.

29.

Edelman’s Trust Barometer. (2013). Retrieved May 17, 2013, from http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/trust-2013/

30.

Esrock

S. L.

Leichty

B. G.

(1999). Corporate World Wide Web pages: Serving the news media and other publics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 456-467.

31.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Putnam

(2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5-26.

32.

Fombrun

C. J.

(2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking—building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards. Reputation Review, 8, 7-12.

33.

Freeman

R. E.

(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

34.

Gautam

Singh

(2010). Corporate social responsibility practices in India: A study of top 500 companies. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2, 41-56.

35.

Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). GRI sustainability reporting statistics. Retrieved June 20, 2013, from https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Reporting-Trends-2011.pdf

36.

Godfrey

P. C.

(2005). The relationships between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 777-798.

37.

Godfrey

P. C.

Merrill

C. B.

Hansen

J. M.

(2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425-445.

38.

Golob

Podnar

(2011). Corporate social responsibility communication and dialogue. In In Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 231-251). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

39.

Grant

Nyberg

(2011). The view from organizational studies: A discourse-base understanding of corporate social responsibility and communication. In Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 534-549). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

40.

Greening

D. W.

Turban

D. B.

(2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39, 254-280.

41.

Hemingway

C. A.

Maclagan

P. W.

(2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 33-44.

42.

Hooghiemstra

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

43.

Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

44.

Juholin

(2004). For business or the good of all? A Finnish approach to corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 4, 20–31.

45.

Kent

M. L.

Taylor

(2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.

46.

Ledingham

J. A.

(2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 181–198.

47.

Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(1998). Relationship management and public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.

48.

L’Etang

Lugo-Ocando

Ahmad

Z. A.

(2011). Ethics: Corporate social responsibility, power and strategic communication. In Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 170-187). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

49.

Lenssen

(2007). Foreword. In May

Cheney

Roper

(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. v-vi). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

50.

Livesey

S. M.

Graham

(2007). Greening of corporations? Eco-talk and the emerging social imaginary of sustainable development. In May

Cheney

Roper

(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 336-350). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

51.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

Hult

G. T. M.

(1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 455-469.

52.

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.

53.

Maxwell

J. A.

(1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-300.

54.

Mishra

Suar

(2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 571–601. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0441-1

55.

Mitchell

R. K.

Agle

B. R.

Wood

D. J.

(1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.

56.

Mitra

(2007). It’s only business! India’s corporate social responsiveness in a globalized world. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

57.

Mitra

(2012). “My country’s future”: A culture-centered interrogation of corporate social responsibility in India. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 131-147.

58.

Mohan

(2001). Corporate citizenship: Perspectives from India. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2, 107-117.

59.

Monge

(1988). 1998 ICA presidential address: Communication structures and processes in globalization. Journal of Communication, 48, 142-153.

60.

Morsing

(2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 171-182.

61.

Morsing

Schultz

(2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323-338.

62.

Morsing

Schultz

Nielsen

K. U.

(2008). The “Catch 22” of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14, 97–111.

63.

Mumby

D. K.

(1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

64.

Nielsen

A. E.

Thomsen

(2009). Investigating CSR communication in SMEs: A case study among Danish middle managers. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18, 83-93.

65.

O’Connor

Shumate

(2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 529-551.

66.

O’Connor

Shumate

Meister

(2008). Walk the line: Active moms define corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 34, 343-350.

67.

Okoye

(2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.

68.

Owen

W. F.

(1984). Relational themes in interpersonal communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287.

69.

Pal

Dutta

M. J.

(2013). “Land is our mother”: Alternative meanings of development in subaltern organizing. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 6, 203-220.

70.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

71.

Pedersen

E. R.

(2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111, 137–163.

72.

Planken

Sahu

Nickerson

(2010). Corporate social responsibility communication in the Indian context. Journal of Indian Business Research, 2, 10-22.

73.

Porter

M. E.

Kramer

M. R.

(2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78-92.

74.

Premji

(2009, August 23). No such thing as quick victories: Azim Premji. The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-company/corporate-trends/No-such-thing-as-quick-victories-Azim-Premji/articleshow/4924498.cms

75.

Schoeneborn

Trittin

(2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 193-211.

76.

Schultz

Wehmeier

(2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications. Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15, 9-29.

77.

Scott

S. G.

Lane

V. R.

(2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25, 43-62.

78.

Sims

R. R.

Brinkman

(2003). Enron ethics (Or: Culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 243-256.

79.

Srivastava

A. K.

Negi

Mishra

Pandey

(2012). Corporate social responsibility: A case study of TATA group. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 3, 17-27.

80.

Starck

Kruckeberg

(2003). Ethical obligations of public relations in an era of globalisation. Journal of Communication Management, 8, 29-40.

81.

Stohl

(2001). Globalizing organizational communication. In Jablin

Putnam

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 323-375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

82.

Sundar

(2000). Beyond business: From merchant charity to corporate citizenship in India. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw Hill.

83.

Taylor

J. R.

Van Every

E. J.

(2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

84.

Tench

Bowd

Jones

(2007). Perceptions and perspectives: Corporate social responsibility and the media. Journal of Communication Management, 11, 348-370.

85.

Visser

(2008). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries. In Crane

McWilliams

Matten

Moon

Siegel

D. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 473-499). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

86.

Waddock

Smith

(2000). Corporate responsibility audits: Doing well by doing good. Sloan Management Review, 41, 75-83.

87.

Waldman

D. A.

. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 823-837.

88.

Wehmeier

Schultz

(2011). Corporate communication and corporate social responsibility: A storytelling perspective. In Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(Eds.) The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 467-488). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.