4. Overview of Current CSR Communication Research
4.4. CSR Communication Models and Frameworks
As is the case with CSR communication definitions, the number of CSR communication models is also quite limited (Ihlen et al., 2011c), especially if we exclude the ones focusing on altering buying behavior (e.g. Bhattacharya, et al., 2008; Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010) and the ones with an internal focus (Morsing & Schultz, 2006a; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2007). Morsing & Schultz (2006b) have introduced a framework of CSR communication strategies consisting of three paradigms or developmental stages. Their framework in Figure 4-1 builds on PR theory (Grunig & Hunt, 1984), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), and sensemaking theory (Weick, 1995). The model consists of three stages or approaches. The three stages can be seen as an expression of increasing corporate recognition of a more sophisticated understanding of CSR communication: the more the companies work with CSR, the more they see the advantages and rationale of incorporating and engaging stakeholder groups:
29 Figure 4-1: Morsing & Schultz’ (2006b) framework of CSR communication strategies
The stakeholder information strategy
The stakeholder response strategy
The stakeholder involvement strategy Communication ideal
(Grunig & Hunt, 1984)
Public information, one-way communication
Two-way asymmetric communication
Two-way symmetric communication Communication ideal:
sensemaking and sensegiving
Sensegiving Sensemaking
↓ Sensegiving
Sensemaking ↕
Sensegiving – in iterative progressive processes Stakeholders Request more information
on corporate CSR efforts
Must be reassured that the company is ethical and socially responsible
Co-construct corporate CSR efforts
Stakeholder role Stakeholder influence:
support or oppose
Stakeholders respond to corporate actions
Stakeholders are involved, participate and suggest corporate actions Identification of CSR
focus
Decided by top management
Decided by top
management. Investigated in feedback via opinion polls, dialogue, networks and partnerships
Negotiated concurrently in interaction with
stakeholders
Strategic communication task
Inform stakeholders about favorable corporate CSR decisions and actions
Demonstrate to stakeholders how the company integrates their concerns
Invite and establish frequent, systematic and pro-active dialogue with stakeholders, i.e. opinion makers, corporate critics, the media, etc.
Corporate communication department’s task
Design appealing concept message
Identify relevant stakeholders
Build relationships
Third-party endorsement of CSR initiatives
Unnecessary Integrated element of
surveys, rankings and opinion polls
Stakeholders are themselves involved in corporate CSR messages
The framework is not a linear stage model, nor does one communication strategy eliminate the others. Simultaneous use of more than one strategy is possible as different contexts call for different
30 strategic approaches. Morsing & Schultz (2006b, p. 335), however, underline the benefits of the stakeholder involvement strategy by stating that
instead of imposing corporate norms for CSR initiatives on stakeholders, the invitation to participate and co-construct the corporate CSR message increases the likelihood that these stakeholders and those who identify with them will identify positively with the company.
The framework of CSR communication strategies reflects the development in CSR communication definitions treated in the beginning of this chapter. The first definition made by Morsing & Schultz (2006a) is representative of the stakeholder information strategy with its focus on the dissemination of information to a passive audience. The second definition by Podnar (2008) is more in line with the stakeholder response strategy by way of its focus on being attentive towards stakeholder concerns. Finally, the definition by Ihlen, Bartlett & May (2011c) approximates a match with the third communication strategy, the stakeholder involvement strategy, as both definition and strategy attribute stakeholders importance and influence in what is regarded a co-constructive process.
It could be argued that this framework proposes a more dialogical approach to CSR communication which goes beyond the traditional ways of reporting CSR through e.g. annual reports and websites.
This dialogical approach is also supported by Ihlen, May & Bartlett (2011, p. 7) who argue that
“there are several good reasons, both ethical and pragmatic, for why corporations should embrace dialogue. Such dialogue can ideally create effective decision-making, stakeholder engagement and improve corporate governance”. The two-way symmetric communication strategy also ties in well with the idea of responsiveness (Arvidsson, 2010; Christensen, 2007; Seeger & Hipfel, 2007) suggesting that “responsive organizations are able to be more socially responsible by virtue of their willingness to hear and respond to social needs, standards, and values” (Seeger & Hipfel, 2007, p.
157).
What the Morsing & Schultz framework model fails to address, however, is how this meta-strategy of engagement and co-creation is compatible with the often recommended rhetorical strategies of subtle, discreet, indirect, and sometimes even silent communication of CSR that we find in the literature. Furthermore, it is questionable how symmetrical this dialogue or communication between company and stakeholder can be. Communication will always, essentially, take place on the companies’ terms.
This introduction to the field of CSR communication suggests a discrepancy between the meta-strategy offered by Morsing & Schultz (2006b) and the micro-strategies for how to rhetorically execute CSR communication that we find in current literature. The inconsistency takes on importance in relation to the target group consisting of young consumers. Current research on consumer-oriented CSR communication tends to see consumers as a homogenous group predominantly skeptical of corporate talk on responsibility. However, this may not be the most appropriate approach to understanding the dynamics of CSR communication between companies and consumers in dealing with young consumers. While understandings of CSR are both historically and socially contingent, it would be reasonable to assume that a new understanding or frame of CSR is developing in response to the rise of a new consumer generation. The aim of this
31 dissertation is to move one step closer to how this supposedly beneficial strategy of involving stakeholders can be rhetorically executed by examining and rethinking current perceptions or frames of CSR in view of the characteristics of the next generation of consumers.
32
33
METHODOLOGY
34
35
5. Theoretical Presuppositions
This chapter accounts for the scientific position of the dissertation. The reflections regarding the different potential positions will be discussed in relation to the subject field explored as it forms part of the basis for determining and arguing for the position taken. The choice of research design and methods that follows from the scientific approach will be explained in Chapter 6.
5.1. Comparing Interpretative and Functionalist Approaches
This research is not driven by a particular scientific orientation and its associated methods. Instead, the intent has been to take an open approach to the questions, allowing for pragmatic considerations and choices in identifying an appropriate methodology. This has resulted in an eclectic approach incorporating both functionalist and interpretive elements.
When working with the issues of communicating CSR, a functionalist approach (Darmer &
Nygaard, 2005) is effective in identifying patterns, documenting normative approaches, and testing their accompanying strategies. The interpretative approach, with its focus on alternative and multiple interpretations (Darmer & Nygaard, 2005), is also suited for this dissertation due to its potential in providing a richer and more nuanced picture of a very complex communication process.
The aim is, thus, for the research to conclude with a new framework within which consumer-oriented CSR communication can be analyzed. Even though the functionalist approach is partly adopted, the aim is not to offer generalizations in the traditional statistical sense, but rather to provide room for analytical generalizations (Halkier, 2003; Neergaard, 2007). This means that understandings, patterns, or theories generated in specific contexts can be recognized and transferred, by the readers of the research, to other similar contexts (Neergaard, 2007). By applying a mixed methods approach, a stronger claim for this kind of generalization can be made as the validity of the results can be tested on a representative sample (Höijer, 2008). This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. The findings of this study are, however, not of a nature that allows for statistical generalizations, but they can be used for “mapping or representing socio-cultural fields of communication, for clarifying theoretical concepts at all levels of applicability, and for interpreting or explaining communication phenomena in dynamic and detailed ways” (Halkier, 2003, p. 122).
An interpretive approach was prioritized because it is clear that CSR communication is not a question of simply transmitting a message from sender to receiver (see Chapter 2 on theoretical approach to communication). Financial, political, societal, and technological changes and processes influence how this interaction between company and consumer takes place (Wenneberg, 2000). For example, young consumers are of research interest in a CSR communication context due to changed media patterns and value systems (societal and technological changes and processes). Likewise, Danish corporations facing the challenge of communicating CSR are of research interest due to reductions in welfare state benefits and the consequent rise in demands and expectations from both state and citizens (financial and political changes and processes). The communication process does not take place in isolation, but is highly influenced by context, for which reason an interpretive approach may be helpful in identifying alternative explanations.
36
5.2. Multiple Paradigms
The approaches to research discussed above are sometimes referred to as paradigms1 which serve as
“the net that contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises … or an interpretive framework, a ‘basic set of beliefs that guide action (Guba, 1990, p. 17)’” (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2005, p. 22). The so-called war of paradigms or paradigm debate (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009) refers to the conflict between competing scientific worldviews in which the lines between the positions are clearly drawn, as for example Guba & Lincoln’s (1994) tables of basic philosophical and methodological differences and contrasts between paradigms. By clearly demarcating paradigms, it is suggested that they are not compatible which is the essence of the so-called incompatibility or incommensurability thesis (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) which greatly limits the methodological freedom of the researcher. This dissertation does not concur with a thesis of incompatibility as it is variously positioned on the continuum, not firmly fixed:
Figure 5-1: The pragmatic approach of this dissertation
The continuum running from functionalism to interpretivism can also be seen to depict the positions of Post-positivism and Social Constructivism. Figure 5-1 employs this dichotomy and serves to illustrate that the constructivist paradigm is an umbrella under which the findings from the three studies can be situated and interpreted (indicated by the circle with Synthesized findings placed close to the interpretive, social constructivist end). Research which moves along the continuum depending on the nature of the research question posed is sometimes referred to as the pragmatic approach (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), especially in the mixed methods literature (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009). Mixed methods form the basis for the current research design (see Chapter 6).
The three studies also make use of methods typically used in a post-positivistic paradigm, but the domain within which the findings are analyzed remains social constructionist and interpretative.
1 Kuhn (1970, p. viii) originally coined the term paradigm in the scientific sense by stating that a scientific paradigm is the “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners”.
37 This is of course possible for scholars subscribing to the multiple paradigms thesis (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009), but even advocates of the single paradigm thesis recognize that “within each paradigm, mixed methodologies (strategies) may make perfectly good sense” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 200).
For each part of the project, careful considerations have preceded the decision of choice of method.
Thus, the research spans from qualitative interviews to a survey inspired by experimental design, but the overall approach has remained the same, namely moderate constructivism (Wenneberg, 2000). So even though traditional functionalist methods have been employed, the frame within which they are embedded, understood, and analyzed is still an interpretative one. This is also evident in the pragmatic choices of analytical strategies and frameworks which belong primarily in the interpretive paradigm, e.g. the quantitative data derived from the experimental survey in Article 3 are embedded in a value-theoretical framework. Such a pragmatic worldview (Creswell, 2009, p.
10):
arises out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in postpositivism).
There is a concern with applications – what works – and solutions to problems. … Instead of focusing on methods, researchers emphasize the research problem and use all approaches available to understand the problem.
The pragmatic approach (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007) with its focus on “using pluralistic approaches to derive knowledge about the problem” (Creswell, 2009, p. 10) has thus been favored over the more stringent, classical academic approach adhering to one particular scientific tradition.
5.3. A Social-Constructivist Position
In the constructivist paradigm, reality is something that is constructed by the components involved in that particular reality. In the case of this dissertation, the relevant components are companies, consumers, and communication, respectively. The social constructivist perspective entails that it is not the ambition to provide positivistic truth claims about companies’ or consumers’ perceptions of CSR engagement and communication. Instead, the aim is to gain an understanding of how consumers and companies construct reality in dealing with CSR communication. Through insights into participants’ perceptions of the reality of CSR communication, we can gain a better understanding of their evaluations and understandings of their relationship with CSR communication (Nygaard, 2005).
At the heart of social constructivism lies the very basic belief that our understanding of the world is influenced by our social and cultural context (Wenneberg, 2000). But the degree to which reality is socially constructed is a matter of contention among scholars subscribing to this position depending on what they see as being socially constructed: the natural/physical reality, the social reality, or the subjective reality (Wenneberg, 2000). Social constructivism thus comes in many shapes and sizes from a very moderate position to a very radical position, sometimes referred to as the epistemological and ontological positions (Collin, 2003). A more detailed description of the types
38 of understandings of social constructivism is introduced by Wenneberg (2000) using the metaphor of a slide:
Figure 5-2: The social constructivism slide. Adapted from Wenneberg (2000)
Figure 5-2 illustrates how the slide starts with a very moderate position, Social constructivism I (critical perspective), and as you go down the slide, the more radical the position becomes till you reach Social constructivism IV (as ontology). At the top of the slide, Social constructivism I posits that we should disprove the assumption that social phenomena have a form of “naturalness” about them which is predetermined and consistent through time (Wenneberg, 2000). Social phenomena are socially constructed, and what we see on the surface is not necessarily what happens below the surface (see e.g. Goffman’s (1959) theatre metaphor of front stage and back stage). Social constructivism IV, at the bottom of the slide, is the most radical position. Researchers taking this position contend that even physical reality is socially constructed to the extent that the physical world only exists in so far as we as humans have ideas and conceptions about it. The first type of social constructivism is the weakest form of constructivism, but also the most widely used (Wenneberg, 2000).
This dissertation is positioned at the top of the slide covering Social constructivism I and II. In the corporate world, social order demands that corporations engage in CSR. Political, financial and social changes in society have created this social order which the majority of companies adhere to.
Through communication and interaction about CSR between corporations and consumers, the CSR engagement can be socially constructed very differently, and in consequence this can affect and create multiple perceptions and evaluations (Moses & Knutsen, 2007) of corporate CSR efforts.
In subscribing to a social constructivist position, even in the moderate version, and the interpretative paradigm which posits that there is neither one true reality nor one single truth (Moses & Knutsen, 2007), it follows that science is subjective and created through the interplay between the researcher
Social constructivism I As a critical perspective
Social constructivism II As social theory
Social constructivism III As epistemology
Social constructivism IV As ontology
39 and the researched (Darmer & Nygaard, 2005). The obvious choice would then be to make a research design based on qualitative methods as these are traditionally associated with the interpretative, constructivist approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Moses & Knutsen, 2007).
This is not the case for this dissertation. The choices made in regard to research design and method will be presented and discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
40