W HAT  ROLE  DOES  INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY  HAVE  IN  THIS ?

The  term  “globalisation”  has  over  the  last  50  years  been  used  as  a  multifaceted  and  complex   phenomenon,   in   which   it   has   described   a   variety   of   economic,   social,   political,   and   cultural   changes  that  have  shaped  our  world  (Guttal,  2007).  While  the  definition  of  globalisation  has   brought  a  wide  range  of  power  and  effect  to  the  world  i.e.  in  regards  to  technological  progress,   economic   prospect   and   political   convergence,   companies   have   as   institutions   of   global   capitalism   expanded   their   business   procedures   throughout   the   world   and   integrated   into   other  countries  local  and  national  economies.  Because  of  this,  CSR  has  become  an  increasingly   globalised  business  concept,  as  it  through  globalisation  has  been  structured  and  practiced  by   multinational   companies   (MNC)   (Amaeshi,   2008).   However,   some   multinational   companies   are   often   being   challenged.   Based   on   their   CSR   initiatives   and   programmes,   as   their   supply   chains   have   global   reach,   MNC’s   irresponsible   practices   may   be   detected   throughout   their   supply   chains.  “The   possibility   of   irresponsible   practices   puts   global   firms   under   pressure   to   protect  their  brand  even  if  it  means  assuming  responsibilities  for  the  practices  of  their  suppliers”  

(Amaeshi,  2008,  p.223).    

According   to   experts,   well-­‐informed   pressure   groups   have   acknowledged   this   burden   and   have  tried  to  take  advantage  of  these  situations  by  examining  companies  very  carefully  (Etter  

&   Fieseler,   2010).   Given   the   statement   above,   global   brands   such   as   Coca-­‐Cola,   Nike,   and   Apple   are   often   under   intense   pressure   from   external   groups,   whose   work   is   to   inspect   responsible   supply   chain   management.   As   it   can   be   difficult   to   go   up   against   global   brands   directly,  a  lot  of  pressure  from  NGOs  and  activists  often  originates  from  the  supply  chains  in   order  to  pressure  companies  indirectly.  When  these  attacks  occur,  which  they  frequently  do,   they   are   often   made   based   on   exploitation   of   cheap   labour   cost   in   developing   countries   (Amaeshi,  2008).  

As   previously   mentioned,   stakeholders   are   individuals   or   groups   who   can   affect   or   will   be   affected  by  a  company.  Companies  should  therefore  operate  in  a  sustainable,  environmental,   and  economic  manner,  as  this  would  influence  their  stakeholder  relationship  positively.        

In  line  with  the  development  of  information  technology,  the  availability  of  revealing  evidence   to   support   CSR   misalignment   has   risen   and   made   companies   and   their   suppliers   more   vulnerable  (Ihator,  2001).    

Knowing  that  information  technology  has  altered  and  minimized  the  power  structure  and  the   relationship  between  a  company  and  their  stakeholders,  the  public,  and  the  media,  it  is  not   surprising   that   modern   information   technology   has   created   a   new   landscape   for   business   communication   (Ihator,   2001).   These   alterations   have   affected   message   forms   and   content,   communication   channels,   modes   and   methods   of   communication,   feedback   and   corporate   personae,   gatekeeping,   and   the   timing   and   controlling   of   communication,   in   which   all   have   become  more  difficult  to  manage  in  the  information  age.  

While   previous   inventions   of   mass   media   such   as   printing   press,   radio,   and   television   has   already  radically  changed  our  societal  culture,  this  new  invention  of  information  age  is  quickly   altering   new   approaches   to   how   company   communication   can   accomplish   objectives   and   goals  (Ihator,  2001).  This  affects  the  way  companies  should  manage  their  public  issues  and   how  they  should  react  to  sustaining  and  emerging  crisis.    

Furthermore,  with  progress  in  information  technology,  companies  should  know  the  current  

“stage”  of  their  issue  or  emerging  crisis  (Cornelissen,  2011).  For  example,  it  can  be  important   for  a  company  to  know  whether  their  issue  could  be  classified  as  an  “active”  or  “intense”  issue,   depending   on   the   amount   of   public   debate   and   the   pressure   upon   a   company   to   act   on   the   issue.   According   to   Healey’s   framework   the   “life   cycle”   of   an   issue,   there   are   four   stages   an   issue  can  go  through;  1)  emergence,  2)  debate,  3)  codification,  and  4)  enforcement.  With  the   amount   of   online   information   available   today,   stakeholders   can   easily   gain   knowledge   concerning  companies  (mis)-­‐behaviour.  This  means  that  the  time  from  an  issue  emerge  to  the   issue   is   publicly   debated   can   happen   within   hours.   Companies   should   therefore   actively   engage  in  the  issue,  giving  them  the  opportunity  to  positively  influencing  the  issue,  before  it   becomes  codified  and  enforced  through  governmental  legislation  or  consumer  boycotts.    

Companies  can  no  longer  decide  whether  they  want  to  interact  through  social  media  or  not,   they   are   simply   forced   by   external   pressure   to   do   so   (Etter   &   Fiesler,   2010).   As   online   communication  has  become  one  of  the  most  important  information  channels,  companies  are   today  forced  to  shift  from  focusing  on  their  company  website  to  focus  more  on  social  media.  

Since  social  media  provides  a  broad  spectrum  of  access  points  to  stakeholders,  that  they  have   not  previously  been  able  to  reach  as  intensely,  companies  are  enabled  to  personalised  their   interactions  more  and  thus  create  more  dialogue  (Etter  &  Fieseler,  2010).  Furthermore,  with   the  amount  of  distribution  capabilities  through  social  media,  companies  and  consumers  have   the  ability  to  spread  information  in  no  time.  Companies  have  especially  felt  the  impact  from   consumers,   as   information   technology   has   given   them   the   power   to   distribute   information   regarding   companies’   mis-­‐behaviour,   thereby   weakening   company’s   ability   to   handle   a   scandal  geographically  or  quietly.    

By   engaging   in   dialogue   with   stakeholders,   in   connection   to   CSR   issues,   companies   aim   to   build  close  relation  to  their  stakeholders  and  will  therefore  appear  more  transparent  in  their   communication   of   business   activities   including   CSR   issues.   Thus   the   willingness   of   being   vulnerable,   transparency   is   seen   as   a   primary   factor   for   establishing   and   maintaining   trustworthy  relationships.

According   to   Amaeshi   (2008)   companies   should   be   transparent   in   all   of   their   business   activities  from  the  start  of  production  to  the  customer’s  buying  process.  By  working  for  full   transparency   of   CSR   responsibilities,   companies   are   obligated   to   invest   time   and   money   in   their  long  and  wide  network  of  suppliers.  In  order  to  protect  one's  brand,  corporations  should   expect  to  be  held  accountable  for  the  seeming  irresponsible  behaviour  of  their  suppliers.  

Turilli   and   Floridi   (2009)   define   the   meaning   of   transparency   in   regard   to   information   management,   business   ethics   and   information   ethics,   as   it   refers   to   the   forms   of   visibility,   which   is   increased   by   either   reducing   or   eliminating   obstacles.   By   applying   the   term  

“information”   to   transparency,   it   indicates   what   is   made   accessible   i.e.   transparent   to   the   consumers.   Transparency   is   key   for   companies   given   the   context   and   the   purpose   in   which   the   information   is   used.  “Information   providers,   such   as   companies   and   public   institutions,   shape   their   own   transparency   in   their   ability   to   determine   who   should   gain   access   to   their   information  and  how”  (Turilli  &  Floridi,  2009,  p.  106).  By  choosing  which  information  could   and  should  be  disclosed,  companies  are  able  to  make  such  choices  based  on  evaluating  their   legal   and   ethical   constraints   and   implications.   This   does   not   per   se   mean   that   information   technology   is   an   ethical   principle.   However,   information   technology   can   easily   be   seen   as   a   pro-­‐ethical   condition,   when   disclosed   information   can   have   an   impact   on   ethical   principles.  

The   balance   between   what   information   is   needed   to   address   a   certain   issue,   in   order   to   be  

fully   transparent,   while   also   being   able   to   regulate   the   information   flow   in   what   can   be   accessed,  used,  and  storaged,  is  thin.  However,  from  a  rational  approach,  companies  should   never   provide   stakeholders,   the   public,   or   the   media   with   full   disclosure   nor   completely   withhold   information   regarding   company   activities,   as   this   merely   will   fail   to   guarantee   positive   ethical   implications   while   risking   to   establish   negative   ones   (Turilli   &   Floridi,   2009).        

Another  aspect  of  transparency  and  the  changes  it  has  brought  to  information  technology  is   its   alteration   of   audience   literacy,   which   has   always   been   important   in   relation   to   segmentation  and  understanding  the  public  (Ihator,  2001).  Traditionally,  literacy  has  focused   on  what  is  text-­‐based  i.e.  the  ability  to  read  and  write.  Today,  information  age  is  pushing  for   document   literacy   i.e.   the   ability   to   use   information   and   interpret   it   from   different   kinds   of   non-­‐prose   formats,   such   as   charts,   maps,   and   graphs,   in   which   information   is   not   created   through  sentences  or  paragraphs.  Furthermore,  tool  literacy  is  another  form  of  information   age,  which  uses  images,  graphics,  audio,  and  video  to  present  information.    

Just   as   CSR   has   evolved   from   CSR   1.0   to   2.0,   Visser   (2011)   argues   that   the   web   has   seen   a   similar   development.   The   similarity   mainly   resides   in   the   integrational   aspect.   Where   the   characteristics   of   web   1.0   are   one-­‐way   communication   with   little   interaction,   dialogue   and   focus   on   the   sender,   web   2.0   can   broadly   be   defined   as   ‘web   applications   that   facilitate   interactive   information   sharing,   inter-­‐operability,   user-­‐centered   design   and   collaboration’  

(Visser,  2011)  and  thus  opens  up  for  new  matrix  structures  of  communication,  and  creates  a   space   where   companies   are   heavily   outnumbered   compared   to   connected   consumers.  

Furthermore,   while   web   1.0   did   not   hold   great   consumer   engagement,   web   2.0   created   a   massive  communication  channel  for  consumers,  as  it  provided  them  with  several  social  media   platforms  and  suddenly  information  gathering  and  distributing  was  a  common  daily  activity.    

Figure  9  shows  the  differences  between  web  1.0  and  2.0  and  have  notable  similarities  with   the  notion  of  CSR  1.0  and  2.0    

Figure  8  –  Differences  between  web  1.0  and  web  2.0    

It   is   no   surprise   that   new   forms   of   corporate   communication   are   challenging   the   old   ones   (Cornelissen,  2011).  While  companies  have  been  used  to  being  the  sender  of  information  and   their  audience  the  receivers,  information  age  has  provided  companies  with  a  highly  intense   form  of  two-­‐way  communication.  For  a  long  time  companies  have  been  used  to  managing  and   controlling   their   own   channels   of   communication,   providing   them   with   the   opportunity   to   structure   their   messages   in   correspondence   with   company   goals.  “Corporations  have  always   been  careful  to  create  and  maintain  good,  recognizable  and  distinct  identity”  (Groza  et  al,  2011,   p.   203).   Based   on   a   company’s   behaviour,   reputation,   social   responsibility,   communication   style,   logos,   and   visual   identification,   some   companies   may   have   to   revisit   some   of   these   elements  within  their  corporate  identity  in  the  new  information  age  (Ihator,  2001).  

It’s   important   to   acknowledge   that   while   the   Internet   has   empowered   consumers   with   the   new  information  age,  employees  also  find  themselves  in  a  new  and  empowered  position  due   to   the   new   technology.   Employees   today   have   the   ability   to   interact   and   share   information   directly   with   company   networks   and   their   corporate   audience   (Ihator,   2001).   They   can   not   only  distribute  their  own  news  releases,  they  are  also  able  to  communicate  directly  with  their   sources  of  information  and  express  these  information  with  the  general  public,  if  an  employee   find  it  necessary.  With  this  new  technology,  employees  can  demand  fairness  and  justice  and   companies   have   recognized   the   very   strong   influence   their   employees   can   have   on   the   company’s   image   and   reputation.   Thereby   said,   employees   have   gained   the   power   of   easily   creating  potential  damage  and  spread  rumours  rapidly  (Ihator,  2001).      

Web  1.0   Web  2.0  

A   flat   world   just   beginning   to   connect   itself   and   finding   a   new   medium   to   push   out   information   and  plug  advertising.  

Being   defined   by   watchwords   like   ‘collective   intelligence’,   ‘collaborative   networks’   and   ‘user   participation’.  

Saw   the   rise   to   prominence   of   innovators   like   Netscape,  but  these  were  quickly  out-­‐muscled  by   giants  like  Microsoft  with  its  Internet  Explorer.  

Tools   include   social   media,   knowledge  

syndication  and  beta  testing  

Focused   largely   on   the   standardised   hardware   and   software   of   the   PC   as   its   delivery   platform,   rather  than  multi-­‐level  applications.  

Is  as  much  a  state  of  being  as  a  technical  advance   –   it   is   a   new   philosophy   or   way   of   seeing   the   world  differently.