Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

31

Figure 1: The CSR p yramid (Adapted from Carroll & Buchholtz, 2003:40)

As can be seen from figure 1, the legal and economic responsibilities are both components that are required whereas the ethical and philanthropic categories are expected to be taken into consideration.

We find that this definition provides a very concrete but also very comprehensive description of the blurry area of CSR and we will, therefore, be using it throughout our thesis when dealing with this concept.

32

To develop an understanding of communication processes, the theory of sensemaking might prove productive it is argued (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking is defined as: “we make sense of things in organizations while in conversation with others, while reading communications from others, while exchanging ideas with others” (Nijhof, Fisscher &

Honders, 2006). In the case of companies, basically this means that managers need to develop an understanding of the organisation’s internal and external environme nts and ascribe meaning to it (Thomas & McDaniel, 1990). Sensemaking is then to be followed by action in terms of articulating an abstract vision which is presented to stakeholders.

This is referred to as sensegiving “i.e. attempts to influence the way another party understands or makes sense” (Gioia, & Chittipeddi, 1991). For instance, if managers sense that stakeholders expect them to act more responsibly within the field of marketing or health, they can, accordingly, manifest that sensegiving in e.g. a formulation or revision of company CSR policy or maybe even a change in their stance on a given issue in accordance with what they have sensed that stakeholders wish for and, thus, influence the way those stakeholders perceive of the company (Morsing &

Schultz, 2006).

Morsing and Schultz (2006) argue that three strategies of CSR communication exist which they link to stakeholder relations. Basically, these describe the ways in which companies might engage in CSR communication in relation to their stakeholders.

Following is a description of the three strategies.

3.3.2.1 The Three CSR Communication Strategies Stakeholder Information Strategy

Here communication is always one-way, from the company to the stakeholders. The intent is to inform (“give sense” to) the public in an objective manner about the company. This model assumes that stakeholders are significant in the sense that they can either support the company by e.g. showing loyalty or buying its products or oppose it by e.g. boycotting or demonstrating against it. The influence of stakeholders necessitates information from the company to those stakeholders in order for it to portray its good intentions, decisions and actions. The mindset for top management

33

working this model is that positive stakeholder support can be maintained by efficiently informing the general public about what it is doing (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).

Stakeholder Response Strategy

This model is a two-way asymmetric communication model. Companies adhering to this model let communication flow to and from the public, however, they do not change themselves as a result of public relations but rather try to change public opinion. Market surveys and polls are strategies used to evaluate whether communication has been succesful. This process of “make sense” is then followed by “give sense”. Even if this approach is seen as two-way communication the response to stakeholders is rather sender oriented in the sense that the intention of the company is to convince its stakeholders of its attractiveness (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).

Stakeholder Involvement Strategy

This two-way symmetric model actually assumes a dialogue with the stakeholders as opposed to the two-way asymmetric model. Influence is mutual in the sense that stakeholders will try to change the company and vice-versa. A company following the involvement approach rather negotiates with its stakeholders than imposing its CSR initiatives on them. Furthermore, the strategy holds that frequent and systematic dialogue with stakeholders is necessary in order for both parties to benefit from any CSR related action, subject to a willingness to change on both sides. Thus, an ongoing iterative process of sensegiving and sensemaking is preferred (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).

3.3.2.2 Communication of CSR in Commercials

According to Morsing and Schultz (2006) companies should avoid placing themselves in situations that might further accusations. This can only happen if “managers can develop and maintain an ongoing awareness towards themselves and their environment”

(Morsing & Schultz, 2006) which is rendered possible with the theory of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Basically this implies that organisations obtain the most effective communication by entering a dialogue with external stakeholders and that the actual

34

challenge is to be able to engage in this dialogue. Thus, Morsing and Schultz (2006) argue that the Stakeholder Involvement Strategy is an ideal.

This ideal could, however, be difficult to achieve in the case of commercials as communication basically is one-way and does not assume dialogue. Rather than involving stakeholders, the strategy of information is applied in the sense that commercials inform them of selected company products i.e. they “give sense” to their audiences with a wish to convince the stakeholders to buy the product shown. That is not to say that the selected companies have not chosen to follow the Stakeholder Response Strategy or Stakeholder Involvement Strategy as an overarching strategy but that these strategies are not possible to apply in the case of commercials.

It is important to note, however, that Schultz and Morsing (2006) focus on how companies directly and actively communicate their CSR principles while our aim is to look into how, when and to what extent CSR principles have influenced the market communication of those companies. That is, Schultz and Morsing (2006), mainly, have PR and corporate communication as a point of departure while ours is limited to market communication, commercials in particular. We are aware that the area of market communication compared to the one of PR is not necessarily expected to be the primary communication forum for discussion of CSR issues; however, it cannot be denied that this area should provide us with a reflection of whether CSR principles are translated into practice through communication. Thus, to assess whether or not the notion of sensemaking or sensegiving is detectable in the commercials and if so to what extent, will also be an aim of ours.