The application of storytelling in
the field of CSR
- An exploratory and qualitative research in the financial sector -
Master Thesis
MSc Business Studies – Marketing Track
University of Amsterdam
Author: Daan Lustenhouwer Student number: 10293353
Date of Submission: 30th January 2015 (final draft)
3
Abstract
Awareness among external stakeholders about CSR activities of companies is very low and even if they have their attention, it is not very effective. In general, they are very sceptical about the
correctness and sincerity of the message. Storytelling could contribute to a solution to overcome this issue. Prior research indicates stories can restore damaged reputations, are more believable, more memorable, engender trust, are sensemaking, create awareness and clarify motivations. This study has an exploratory character to serve as a starting point for future research regarding the application of storytelling in the field. Through a qualitative research approach, ten CSR professionals who are employed in the financial sector are interviewed. This study investigates the extent the concept of storytelling is understood, if it used in the field and whether they think it can be used for more trustworthy CSR communication. The outcomes show that CSR professionals believe storytelling could send a more reliable message and provides room for a sincere and concrete explanation, which makes it less vulnerable to greenwashing accusations. Furthermore, they argue storytelling is almost essential for aspirational talk. However, actual application of storytelling in the field of CSR is a rare phenomenon. This is caused by the fact that CSR professionals have little understanding how to use it in practice. There are also organizational barriers, like the differences between CSR professionals and Marketing and Communications, and the reservation of the company regarding to external
4
Table of content
Abstract ... 3
Introduction ... 6
1. Theoretical background ... 7
1.1 The essence of effective communication ... 7
1.2 Credibility gap, scepticism and the role of marketing ... 8
1.3 Greenwashing ... 10
1.4 Storytelling ... 11
1.4.1 The added value of storytelling ... 11
1.4.2 Storytelling in CSR communication ... 13
1.4.3 Building trust and restoring reputation through stories ... 15
1.4.4 Applying storytelling ... 16
2. Problem statement and research question ... 16
A: To what extent do CSR professionals understand the concept of storytelling? ... 17
B, C and D: Do CSR professionals have experience in using storytelling, why did or didn’t they execute this and what are the (possible) barriers? ... 18
E: To what extent do CSR professionals think storytelling is valuable for a more trustworthy way of communicating with external stakeholders? ... 18
F: To what extent do CSR professionals think storytelling is valuable for using it in aspirational talk? ... 18
3. Theoretical and practical relevance ... 19
3.1 Practical relevance ... 19
3.2 Theoretical relevance ... 19
4. Design and methodology ... 20
4.1 Method and Data Collection ... 20
4.2 Sample ... 21
4.3 Coding ... 22
4.4 Data Analysis ... 22
5. Results ... 23
5.1 Understanding the concept ... 23
5.1.1 Definition ... 24
5.1.2 Added Value ... 24
5.1.3 Assumed misunderstanding of the concept ... 25
5.2 Applying storytelling and barriers ... 26
5.2.1 Application of the concept ... 26
5
5.3 Storytelling and reliability ... 27
5.3.1 Trustworthy communication ... 28
5.3.2 Preventing greenwashing accusations ... 28
5.3.3 Storytelling in aspirational talk ... 29
6. Discussion ... 30
7. Conclusion ... 32
8. Limitations and future research ... 33
Acknowledgements ... 34
References ... 35
Appendices ... 39
6
Introduction
Research suggests that most of the consumers are positive toward socially responsible companies (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001) (Brown & Dacin, 1997) and will punish firms that are perceived as insincere in their involvement (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). According to research performed by Cone Inc. and used in the article of Du, Bhattarcharya and Sen, 87% of American consumers are likely to switch from one brand to another (price and quality being equal) if the other brand is associated with a good cause. Conversely, 85% will consider switching to another product or service because of a company’s negative corporate responsibility practices, and 66% will boycott such a company’s products or services (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). As a result, many companies have adopted social causes, assuming that customers will reward them for supporting social
programs (Levy, 1999). Consumers are demanding companies to take their responsibility and act as good corporate citizens, thus influencing the strategies of these organisations to meet customers’ demands. Corporate Social Responsibility has become important in business operations,
underpinned by the fact that in the year 2000, CSR communication expenses already became the third-largest budget item for corporate communication departments in large companies (Hutton, Goodman, Alexander, & Genest, 2001). Furthermore, another Cone Inc. Research, performed in 2004 and mentioned in an article of Pomering and Dolnicar, showed that 86% of both American and UK respondents think companies should tell them how they support social issues (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009).
More and more, consumers want to be educated and demand transparency, so they can make considered purchase decisions. Informed consumers are the antecedent to support for socially responsible firms; information is one of the basic inputs of rational choice (Schuler & Cording, 2006). That seems to be the difficulty, since most companies are used to communicate in order to ‘sell themselves’. These messages are merely about persuading and seducing, rather than informing. CSR communication seems to have a different character. Morsing and Schultz argue that ‘while some messages play with pretending to be real, this is not the case for messages about ethics and CSR. In this case, the public expects another type of authenticity and organizational support, i.e. that the company actually means what it says’ (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
In the past decades accusations of greenwashing and scandals have caused serious damage to the field of CSR. There is a great mistrust amongst consumers considering CSR statements and policies of companies, and most consumers even thinks business is an enemy of the environment (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). It seems organizations are desperately trying to find out how to reach external stakeholders effectively with their CSR messages. In the field of CSR, storytelling is a
7 in restoring reputation and could deliver a message that is perceived as credible by its receivers. However, this theoretical knowledge is only meaningful for business and society if its added value is acknowledged by professionals who are working in the field of CSR. This study will provide
knowledge about the understanding, opinions, use and barriers of the concept of storytelling according to CSR professionals.
First, this paper will start with existing theory on the scepticism about CSR communication, the lack of credibility, greenwashing practices and accusations, followed by outlining the prior academic research about storytelling. Next, the problem statement, research question, relevance and methodology are described. Finally, the results, conclusions, limitations and recommendations for future research are given.
1. Theoretical background
This chapter describes the existing academic literature regarding the topic of this paper, starting with outlining the problems CSR communication faces these days. Furthermore, it describes why it is essential to find ways to communicate more effectively. It concludes with an overview of relevant, prior research about storytelling.
1.1 The essence of effective communication
Recent studies revealed that awareness of a company’s CSR activities among its external stakeholders is typically low, which is a key uncertainty in the company’s quest to gain strategic benefits from its CSR activities (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). In order to create awareness about their CSR initiatives, organizations are increasingly turning to 'pro-social’ marketing communication, but such campaigns often face scepticism and their effectiveness is therefore uncertain (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). In fact, the more companies expose their ethical and social ambitions, the more likely they are to attract critical stakeholder attention (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990). Despite this struggle, progression in the field of CSR communication is essential, since public involvement is important to drive business to act responsibly. Like Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen argue in their article: “If media and their audiences lose interest in CSR-related issues, it will probably be difficult to uphold CSR as an attractive organizational aspiration” (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2013). Consumer awareness plays a critical role for the rewarding of an organization’s ethical behaviour. Such reward is critical as it helps to make ethical business philosophy compatible with profit maximization aims, and therefore sustainable (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). It highlights the necessity for organizations to communicate their CSR policy more effectively to stakeholders.
One way this could be done is through ‘aspirational talk’. Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen argue that discrepancies between words and action may lead to decoupling, but also have possible
8 positive consequences. According to them, discrepancies between what is said, what is decided and what is done are inevitable. These differences between words and action are not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover, such discrepancies have the potential to stimulate CSR improvements (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2013). This theory arises from the CCO-perspective (communication as
constitutive in organizations), which implies that communication isn’t something a company does as one of its activities. Instead, an organization is a result of communication and not its predecessor. Additionally, Taylor and Van Every state that ‘organizations emerge in communication’. (Taylor & Van Every, 1999). This insight can offer companies an impulse to ‘walk the talk’, and thus moves the whole organization in a certain, desired direction. The CCO-perspective perceives CSR
communication not simply as an instrument for achieving strategic goals but, crucially, as one of several voices that invoke notions of ethics and responsibility within the entire organization (Schoeneborn & Trittin, 2013). According to Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen, the articulation of CSR ideals and plans in a public arena do not simply represent a non-committal version of the organization, but conjure up a future-oriented self-image that is binding in the sense that it has the potential to obligate the organization to perform certain acts. Furthermore, while there may be doubt about precisely which actions will follow from the talk, the authors argue that articulating CSR aspirations while the world is listening (and increasingly responding) is significantly more demanding than keeping the ideals to oneself (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2013).
1.2 Credibility gap, scepticism and the role of marketing
“The secrets of success in business are honesty and transparency. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made”. Groucho Marx, comedian (1890-1977).
Du, Bhattacharya and Sen state that beyond awareness, the next key challenge of CSR communication is how to minimize stakeholder scepticism (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Consumers demand information about the ethical behaviour of organizations, as described in the previous section, but also quickly become suspicious of the true motives when companies do so. This low level of confidence in the information communicated in public is probably undermining the impetus for this disclosure (Dando & Swift, 2003). A research executed by Globescan shows that there is great gap between consumer’s interest in CSR and the their trust in CSR communication (figure 11). Additionally, according to Edelman’s global study, only 58% of the public trusts companies
1
9 (Edelman, 2014). Undoubtedly, organizations experience difficulties in sending a reliable message these days. This also applies to the financial sector, the area in which this exploratory research is executed. In their article, Pomering and Dolnicar argue that the (Australian) banking sector has experienced considerable consumer disaffection over the past decade. As a result, banks see CSR as a suitable way to re-engage with communities and improve their image (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009).
It is often said that marketing contributes to this scepticism. Multiple scholars refer to the questionable image of the disciple. Jahdi and Acikdilli argue that marketing faces a great deal of cynicism and suspicion when it attempts to convey a more socially responsible image (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009). Nantes and Weeks state in their article, which is providing marketing with a more socially acceptable image, that of all the management fields, marketing is undoubtedly the field that raises the most controversy when it comes to the question of ethics. The fact that the marketing of several products is increasingly regulated by law is certainly not a credit to marketing rhetoric (Nantel & Weeks, 1996). Stoll argues that mild deception is not substantially worrisome with respect to the marketing of most goods and services, but it is a far greater moral blunder to use it to
advertise the company’s moral character. He states that if marketing can “manage” the perception of consumers to be positive about the moral behaviour of a company, when its actually rather immoral, consumers lose a vital tool in making well-reasoned decisions about the products and practices they choose to support. After all, he argues, if an organization is willing to lie about even its own moral character, something of the utmost value, then it is likely that this organisation will lie about anything whatsoever (Stoll, 2002). On the other hand, some scholars also denote that there are responsible companies that employ ethics successfully as a marketing strategy (Jahdi & Acikdilli,
10 2009) and suggesting an utilitarian aspect of the marketing, where attention is not only given to the quality of the finished products, but also to the means by which these are manufactured and marketed (Nantel & Weeks, 1996).
1.3 Greenwashing
According to Laufer, the emergence of the term ‘greenwashing’ reflects an increasing apprehension of companies that creatively manage their reputations (Laufer, 2003). It can be characterized as the selective disclosure of positive information about a company’s environmental or social performance, while withholding negative information on these dimensions. In other words, companies present positive information out of context in a way that could be misleading to individuals who lack background information about the company’s full portfolio of activities (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011) (Laufer, 2003).
In their study, Lyon and Maxwell refer to a report of Terrachoice that is released in 2007, that studied the environmental claims of 1.018 products sold in ‘big box’ retailers in the USA and Canada. The report concluded that all but one of the products made claims that were demonstrably false or risked misleading consumers (Terrachoice, The Six Sins of Greenwashing, 2007). A follow-up study in 2009 found many more products that make environmental claims: 98% of the 2,219
products making such claims committed at least one of the ”Six Sins of Greenwashing” (Terrachoice, Seven Sins of Greenwashing, 2009). Next to these studies, there are also several accusations and revelations of organizations deliberately misleading consumers. BP, for example, makes frequent public claims about its efforts to reduce global warming, yet was criticized at the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002 (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Another case is Nike, that, after it had been faced with criticism for poor labour conditions, responded by conducting independent audits to demonstrate its willingness to accept responsibility for improvement of the working conditions of its subcontracted facilities. However, evidence showed that the rose-tinted picture drawn in Nike’s audit report of a Vietnam factory did not correspondent to reality at all, and that working conditions were dismal at this factory (Bernstein, 1997) (Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005).
The rate of the greenwashing scandals that are revealed has made a big impact on the credibility of CSR communication, which is supported by the low credibility shown in Figure 1. The various cases of provision of false information have led to consumer cynicism and they often have trouble identifying truly responsible firms (Parguel, Benoi, & Larceneux, 2011). Nevertheless, despite this low level of credibility, figure 1 also shows a high level of attention to CSR. The successes of The
Body Shop, Ben & Jerry's and Green and Black's are also an indication of growing customer interest in
ethical products and firms (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009). Furthermore, according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Report (WBCSD, 2008) 96% of Europeans indicate that
11 protecting the environment is personally important for them. This gap between interest and
credibility is obviously a missed, but still existing opportunity. It indicates that there is still a lot to win, if a company with true intentions knows how to reach the consumers in the right way. It is suggested that storytelling could contribute to narrow this existing gap.
1.4 Storytelling
Storytelling has been an effective way of communicating between individuals and groups for thousands of years. The concept exist since time immemorial, and it is fundamental to all nations, societies and cultures (Denning, 2006). When observing academic literature, it becomes clear that storytelling isn’t new, but is something humans do since we exist. Academic research regarding to stories and their effect isn’t new either, like the study conducted by Martin. He compared the
reactions of people who received an abstract statement of an issue (an advertisement) in the form of statistics, a story, or both (Martin, 1982). This study was one of the first to provide evidence that narratives have a powerful cognitive impact (Sinclair, 2011). In 1991, Boje did a participant-observation study in a large office-supply firm on how people perform stories to make sense of events, introduce change and gain political advantage during their conversations (Boje, 1991). His paper supported the theory of a collective storytelling system. He was one of the first to study the role of stories and storytelling in an organization itself.
These days, the term storytelling has become a popular term in PR, marketing and media circles (Fishburn-Hedges & Jigsaw-Research, 2013). Storytelling is a narration that tells of particular acts, occurrences or events, presented in a form of text or art, that has the ability to transcend age-groups, cultures and genders, and captures the imagination and attention of listeners regardless of background (Kearney, 2002) (Gill, 2011) (Sinclair, 2011). By exploring literature, this chapter will introduce the concept further by explaining the added value of storytelling and its significance for CSR communication.
1.4.1 The added value of storytelling
“People value their own conclusions more highly than yours. They will only have faith in a story that has become real for them personally. Once people make your story, their story, you have tapped into the powerful force of faith. Future influence will require very little follow-up energy from you and may even expand as people recall your story to others. When you want to influence others, there is no tool more powerful than stories.” (Simmons, 2006)
12 Considering the numerous data-streams that all want a piece of a person’s time and attention, the majority of communication is blurred in the mass. People have become at least partly neutral and unattainable to all the information that they are exposed to. This mass marketing is considered more and more as manipulative, especially when we take in account that marketers these days also are trying to reach the unconscious of consumers in order to influence them in their buying decision. Du, Bhattacharya and Sen warn against the considerable growth in corporate communications, with CSR reports, web pages and brochures, mainly in reaction to stakeholder demands (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Lippke argues that mass marketing practices define the ideal of the good life by
manipulating our desires and by exploiting our insecurities, rather than allowing individuals the mental space to think critically for themselves about what is constitutive of the good life.
Furthermore, he states that it distracts us from the things that truly matter to us, such as developing friendships or dealing with personal flaws and insecurities in a clearheaded way (Lippke, 1989). Considering the amount of information people receive these days, it is not surprising that one of the major challenges organisations are facing is how to make their communication captivating, setting it apart from the ‘overflow of mundane messages’ (Sinclair, 2011). Telling a meaningful story can be a valuable communication strategy for organisations as it is a means to separating their own
constructive communication from this ‘mundane message overflow’ that is associated with more traditional corporate communication (Gill, 2011). Stories have a different effect on the recipient of a message than other ways of communicating, like statistics or advertisements. Martin’s research shows that information is recalled far better when it is presented as a story (Martin, 1982) (Sinclair, 2011).
A common denominator in academic research is the agreement on the significance of storytelling regarding the transfer of the message, and specifically its significance to the way the recipient processes this message. An important aspect of stories, that makes them such valuable tools, is the fact listeners, most of the times unintentionally, picture themselves in the narrative. Each listener sees him- or herself in a story and unconsciously relates it to his or her own experience (Morgan & Dennehy, 1997). According to Simmons, it is even believed that people who receive the narration often reach the same conclusion as the narrator, but by using their own decision-making processes (Simmons, 2006). Denning argues that stories can share knowledge amongst people who interpret the narration in line with their own experiences, allowing personalised perception about problems, solutions and explanations (Denning, 2006). This identification is key, because it gives the recipients the feeling they make any to the story related decisions on their own conditions and according to their own conviction. Identifying and relating with something is a process executed by the imagination and often through visualization. In a research conducted by Zemke, students were instructed to visualize the action and content of a story. As a result, these students were more able
13 to remember its key ideas and to tell it to others accurately than students who were instructed to memorize sentences from the story (Zemke, 1990).
A good story influences the interpretation people give to facts. A story delivers a context so that your facts slide into new slots of the listeners’ brains. When you tell the story first and add facts later, you stand a better chance of influencing others to share your interpretation (Simmons, 2006). In other words, a story can help to substantiate the specific message that is transferred through communication. This is also supported by Gardner’s research about the efficacy of using stories to change people’s minds, which indicates that people actually absorb the information and using it to create new insights (Gardner, 2004). However, in order to be convincing enough to influence and change a person’s mind, the message has to be an inspiration for this particular individual, both on emotional and rational level. The importance of a human’s emotions is also stated by Dowling, who says stories have a powerful influence on what we learn because of their pervasiveness and intuitive appeal (Dowling, 2006). Emotions are crucial in understanding a communicated message or a situation, and good stories trigger emotions. This is an important aspect of the value of storytelling.
Researchers with a background in areas like sociology or anthropology have also contributed to the study of storytelling. They generally perceive storytelling as a social and cultural phenomenon that people (unknowingly) use to make sense of their life, the organisation they work in and the world they live in (Sinclair, 2011). Feelings can be seen as an universal characteristic of humans. Therefore, a story that is tapping into the emotions of the audience serves as a way of
communicating without the ethnic boundaries. Snowden argues that stories can convey complex meanings across culture and language barriers, in a way that linguistic statements cannot (Snowden, 1999). Additionally, Gill states a key benefit of storytelling is its universal appeal to culturally diverse audiences who have a range of interests and learning styles (Gill, 2011). It has the ability to speak towards and inspire an individual, with a message that affects a whole group.
1.4.2 Storytelling in CSR communication
For the future existence of Corporate Social Responsibility, it is important that the trustworthiness of communications regarding these activities increases. A possible and fair competition on ethical grounds is required. An honest presentation will keep companies motivated to do what is right and companies that give false information about ethical issues will result in an inability to compete on ethical grounds (Stoll, 2002). These days this is not the case, considering the fact that it is unlikely that consumers will blindly accept social initiatives of companies as sincere actions (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006). Traditional communication doesn’t suffice anymore in reporting the ethical intentions of a company. In order to deliver the CSR message to the consumer effectively, the transmitter needs to tell its story differently. If the attention of the target audience needs to be
14 caught and held, it is no longer sufficient to rely solely on the rationality of the message: other, more emotionally appealing and popular communication methods must also be brought into play
(Reinermann, 2014). Additionally, Aarts argues that when it comes to communicating CSR messages and values effectively, traditional ways of expression don’t do the trick. Most communication professionals focus on one sided sending of formal messages, resulting in an endless stream of communication means, like press releases, newsletters, annual reports, brochures and advertising (Aarts & Van Woerkom, 2011).
Storytelling provides a way of communicating that is different than this endless stream of formal messages. Organizations begin to understand that storytelling is not an optional extra. It already exists, as an integral part of defining what the organization is; what it means to buy from it; and what it means to work for it (Snowden, 1999). These are the stories that come and go all the day long, at every workplace and through every employee. As such, the strength of a narrative is vital to strategic reputation management, but now more than ever it is also vital to the social responsibilities of a business. And communications directors are skilled senders of a message, but are they creators of sustainable change in their organisation? It is one thing to ’push‘ a message, but it is another to make an organisation completely relevant to its communities (Fishburn-Hedges & Jigsaw-Research, 2013). Is it up to CSR professionals to apply storytelling, or is it the task of communication
professionals? Since a CSR professional has the expertise in the field of CSR, it seems both worlds need to be combined in order to use the concept of storytelling for CSR.
To what extent can storytelling be of value for CSR communication? In her article, Aarts explains why narratives are distinctive compared to other ways of communicating. One of the reasons is stories help us to make sense of the world, how to understand events and phenomena, and how to deal with these in order to survive socially and physically (Aarts & Van Woerkom, 2011). This can be seen as an important factor why CSR could benefit from this way of communicating. It could provide a guideline to live our lives in order to survive socially and physically, which relates to both social and environmental challenges our world is currently facing. People and organizations need to find out what their meaning is in this world, what sense they make. Scholars describe ‘sensemaking’ as trying to figure out what others want and ascribe meaning to it (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Basu and Palazzo define it as ‘understanding what a firm thinks, says, and tends to do in relation to others’ (Basu & Palazzo, 2008). They say organizations need to give themselves a license to operate, and they need to do so by understanding the needs and thoughts of external
stakeholders. These needs and thoughts are the reason a company exists in the first place. Furthermore, the extent to which an organization is able to integrate the sensemaking of external stakeholders will influence its ability to endorse a strategically productive CSR relationship (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
15 However, in the field of CSR, developing a license to operate by understanding the needs of consumers is easier said than done. Consumers in industrialized countries lack an understanding of how their self-interest contributes to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Reinermann, 2014). They can’t oversee the influence they have as individuals, by being part of an influential collective. Stories provide tools to solve this issue. They can show a clear overview by creating context and by giving individual meaning for the bigger picture. A story has the ability of being sensemaking and is able to make a truth in the receiver’s own experience (Gill, 2011). Through stories, a person can identify with the story and is better able to remember and recall its message (Morgan & Dennehy, 1997). When an organization has an image that consumers can identify themselves with, it is likely that these
consumers will feel attracted to this organization (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2001). Research has indicated that CSR activities directly influences this attraction (Ruiz & Marin, 2007). For example, a company that supports a cause that is perceived as valuable and appropriate by consumers, will be rewarded with an increased likeability of sale (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000). If an organization is able to develop a relevant story that external stakeholders can identify themselves with and perceive as appropriate, this could be valuable for CSR.
Stories strengthen the establishment and preservation of collective norms, while they simultaneously support different types of consumers to find their own identity in existing social structures (Reinermann, 2014). Research indicates that stories and storytelling have the ability to truly reach the listener. Accepting the idea of sharing stories as a meaningful practice in the domain of communication, by means of which CSR policies are developed, implies that we should start revisiting the way communication is usually conceptualized (Aarts & Van Woerkom, 2011). According to Simmons, people don’t want more information. She says they want faith – faith in you, your goals, your success, in the story you tell (Simmons, 2006). People need to get touched and inspired again.
1.4.3 Building trust and restoring reputation through stories
Before getting inspired, one first needs to trust the message and, moreover, the source. These days, people are very sceptical about corporate communication. According to existing literature, stories can help restoring damaged reputations, because they often speak about values and morality, which lies at the heart of the reputation of individuals and companies. Stories are a natural medium for conveying the good deeds and aspirations of companies. In a corporate context, they are more believable, more memorable, and they generate more enthusiasm than the various sanitized statements (like codes of conduct, corporate plans or annual reports) that companies routinely produce (Dowling, 2006). Restoring reputation often means companies will have to deal with organisational and cultural change. Many advocators amongst knowledge management support the value of stories with best practise findings, showing that stories are useful for commencing
16 organisational change and sharing knowledge. Especially in situations where most communication fails, such as attempts to convey strategy, organisational culture or social practices (Morgan & Dennehy, 1997) (Simmons, 2006) (Sinclair, 2011).
According to Dowling, stories are a powerful communication tactic to activate emotions, and thus engender trust and confidence in leaders and their companies. Greater trust and support will help stakeholders to better appreciate the company’s corporate sustainability and social
responsibility activities (Dowling, 2006). Storytelling also enables organizations to build more understanding by clarifying the underlying thoughts and motivations. Through stories, public relations practitioners can foster trust and support for their organisation by creating an emotional bond with employees and other key stakeholders, as a result of explaining company’s behaviour in terms of its mission and morality (Dowling, 2006) (Gill, 2011). Activating the emotions of a listener creates also awareness for the message itself. This can be accurately done through stories, because a narrative can be made in a way to trigger a specific reaction. Like Harris and Barnes say: stories can entertain, teach, delight, frighten or inspire (Harris & Barnes, 2006).
1.4.4 Applying storytelling
To conclude, research indicates stories are a valuable tool in overcoming the problem of the credibility gap. Used in the right way, and with sincere intentions, it can create and convince
listeners, an important factor that is missing in traditional CSR communication. Leading companies in CSR have embraced storytelling in communicating to their stakeholders and consumers, like
Patagonia and their Footprint Chronicles2. Patagonia made an interactive mini-site that allows you to
track the impact of all their product’s supply chains, from design through delivery. They made and uploaded almost forty video’s about the ecological footprints of their products, interviews with business people, teachers and experts about sustainability and the threats to our global environment we are facing. It is one big narrative with several chapters to tell the story of their clothes and gear, from the resources until completion. Full transparency, which means their own negative impacts are also included: no greenwashing here. This example shows the possibility of applying storytelling in a CSR context. But how do CSR professionals of other organizations feel about applying storytelling in their CSR communication?
2. Problem statement and research question
Prior research indicates storytelling could contribute in narrowing the credibility gap. However, this
theoretical fundament doesn’t guarantee the application by CSR practitioners in the field; where
17 storytelling could give actual meaning for business and society. There is little known about the extent in which CSR professionals are familiar with the concept of storytelling, and the possibilities and benefits it offers, according to academic literature. This is worrisome, because if CSR professionals don’t think storytelling is meaningful, they won’t apply it, regardless of what research implies. This study will investigate to what extent CSR professionals understand the concept of storytelling and how valuable they think it could be in the field. Additionally, to make the outcomes more relevant, this research will investigate the possible barriers that CSR professionals with the intention to use storytelling face. In order to draw credible conclusions regarding to this topic, this study will try to answer the following research questions:
1. To what extent do CSR professionals use storytelling in their communications with external stakeholders?
a. To what extent do CSR professionals understand the concept of storytelling? b. Do CSR professionals have experience in using storytelling?
c. Why have or haven’t they execute this? d. What are the (possible) barriers?
e. To what extent do CSR professionals think storytelling is valuable for a more trustworthy way of communicating with external stakeholders?
f. To what extent do CSR professionals think storytelling is valuable for using it in aspirational talk?
A: To what extent do CSR professionals understand the concept of storytelling?
To examine the extent CSR professionals use storytelling in their communication toward external stakeholders, it is key to know if they acknowledge the value of it, and why (not). Despite of the numerous scientific arguments in favour of the use of storytelling that are discussed earlier, it will not be executed if CSR managers don’t think it is meaningful for them. The study of Gill refers to limitations considering storytelling and includes an integrated literature review of contemporary theories, regarding to corporate storytelling. In general, the limitations entitled in existing literature refer to the fact that storytelling is just one of the possible ways of communicating, it is uncontrolled media, considering the fact that there is lots of room for interpretation, and it is most valuable when it is executed face-to-face (Gill, 2011). Another difficulty is the diverse audience companies possibly have to deal with. We might assume that a story has one meaning, but it can have multiple different meanings to various groups (Boyce, 1996). These are possible considerations for CSR managers that do not see storytelling as a valuable tool. Do CSR professionals understand the concept well enough to understand its value and to execute it?
18
B, C and D: Do CSR professionals have experience in using storytelling, why did or didn’t they
execute this and what are the (possible) barriers?
Although it is merely a practical issue, this paper also pays attention to the experience CSR professionals have or lack with the use of storytelling. This will give extra insight about their assumptions on the execution of storytelling and the barriers they encountered, or expect to
encounter during implementation. This information is valuable because it gives understanding about the issues CSR professionals deal with in practice; an approach that has drawn very little attention in academic literature. It is relevant though, since storytelling can only create meaning for business and society when it is executed in the field.
E: To what extent do CSR professionals think storytelling is valuable for a more trustworthy way
of communicating with external stakeholders?
According to existing literature, stories can be very valuable in restoring the damaged reputation of companies. For example, scholars state stories can generate more enthusiasm (Dowling, 2006), stories can influence others by sharing the interpretation (Simmons, 2006), they can change people’s minds (Gardner, 2004) and can create an emotional bond with the receiver (Dowling, 2006) (Gill, 2011). These characteristics can be deployed in CSR communication to build up trust amongst stakeholders. However, if CSR professionals don’t acknowledge the value of storytelling, it won’t be implemented. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the way in which CSR professionals value the concept of storytelling for communicating their message is crucial, in order to explain their
motivation to implement or reject the concept.
F: To what extent do CSR professionals think storytelling is valuable for using it in aspirational
talk?
As part of their jobs, CSR professionals make efforts to make companies act more responsibly. According to academic literature aspirational talk, born out the CCO-perspective, is a significant tool for influencing an organization to move in a certain direction. Organizations ‘emerge in
communication’; the ways leaders and members speak about and account for organizational
decisions, plans and activities (Taylor & Van Every, 1999). Through the inspiring utility of aspirational talk, the company is stimulated to ‘walk the talk’ which has the potential to stimulate CSR
improvements (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2013). Storytelling has several features that makes it a very appropriate tool for aspirational talk. A key benefit of stories is the ability to speak towards and inspire an individual, with a message that affects a whole group. Its universal appeal to culturally diverse audiences, who have a range of interests and learning styles (Gill, 2011). Stories can
19 entertain, teach, delight, frighten or inspire (Harris & Barnes, 2006); characterizations of a good aspirational talk that has the ability to move an whole organization in the right direction.
3. Theoretical and practical relevance
This research will built upon existing theories of greenwashing and the decreasing credibility of CSR claims, and theories of the value of storytelling (for CSR). In this section the practical and theoretical relevance of this study will be explained.
3.1 Practical relevance
In the last decades, CSR developed into an important factor in the buying decisions of consumers, and therefore became an important element in the operations of companies. However, this growing relevance for marketing purposes resulted simultaneously in a growth of scandals (e.g. Bernstein, 1997; Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). False statements about social responsibility were made by companies and accusations of greenwashing increased, with the consequence that the trustworthiness of CSR messages decreased rapidly. Nowadays, companies with sincere motives face huge problems in communicating their CSR policy and statements, because of the arise of the credibility gap (figure 1). Their CSR message doesn’t reach the listeners properly. This status quo is obviously not desirable and could lead to a standstill in the implementation of CSR in business. Declining interest in CSR-related issues will probably result in a general declining
ambition of organization to integrate CSR in their operations (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2013), since reward is critical as it helps to make ethical business philosophy compatible with profit maximization aims and therefore sustainable (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Existing literature indicates that storytelling has the potential to overcome these problems in communicating the message of social responsibility. This study will give insight in the extent to which CSR professionals understand the concept of storytelling, and the extent to which they use it and why they (don’t) use it. A better understanding of the perception of storytelling in the field of CSR will contribute to a better insight in possible improvements regarding to storytelling in practise.
3.2 Theoretical relevance
More and more, consumers demand companies to act responsible and as good corporate citizens (e.g. Levy, 1999; Mohr, Webb & Harris, 2001; Becker-Olsen, Cudomer & Hill, 2006). However, the awareness of a company’s CSR activities amongst external stakeholders is low (e.g. Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010) and CSR communication is often encountered with scepticism (e.g. Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011; Edelman, 2014). Stories have the potential to increase the effectiveness
20 of corporate communications. Prior studies illustrate the significance of storytelling regarding to communicating values and morality (Dowling, 2006), persuasiveness (Gardner, 2004), sense-making (Aarts & Van Woerkom, 2011), activation of emotions and to engender trust (Dowling, 2006). These are all characteristics that have great value when sending CSR messages. Here lies the opportunity for CSR communication, but little is known about applying storytelling in the field. This is
acknowledged by Gill, who argues that the next phase of research about this topic is to document to what extent corporate storytelling is currently used in practice (Gill, 2011). This study builds on these theories and provides insight in the knowledge, the benefits and implications of using storytelling, according to practitioners.
4. Design and methodology
This section describes the motivation for using a qualitative approach in order to collect the right data, explains in more detail how this data is collected and it argues why the specific sample of respondents is used. Furthermore, it tends to foster understanding about the coding process and about the way the analysis has been done.
4.1 Method and Data Collection
This research has an exploratory character and a qualitative approach with in-depth interviews has been chosen for the collection of the data. Qualitative research is particularly of value when it comes to studying events about which little is known (Appleton, 1995). Furthermore, underlying the use of qualitative methods is the assumption that the investigated field has not been identified or not fully developed and further exploration is necessary to increase understanding (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Despite the fact that there is a lot of academic literature about storytelling and usefulness of storytelling in the field of CSR, thorough research about the extent to which storytelling is actually used by CSR professionals, and why, offers a new angle on this topic. Through in-depth interviews, this research attempts to find new insights considering the use of storytelling by CSR professionals.
According to Pratt (2009), qualitative research is great for addressing ‘how’ questions, rather than ‘how many’; for understanding the world from the perspective of those studied, i.e. informants (Pratt, 2009). This research focuses on understanding the deeper thoughts and explanations of the respondents, seeing storytelling from their perspective. Questioning ‘why’ leaves a very broad scope of possible answers, even possibilities that weren’t known prior to this research. Qualitative data are a source of descriptive information on and explanation of processes occurring in local contexts, and unexpected findings and new theoretical integrations can appear (idem).
21 In order to leave a broad scope of possible answers, the interviews were semi-structured with only open-ended questions. With the exception of one respondent, none of the respondents received the questionnaire before the actual meeting. Only a short explanation of the area of research preceded the interview. Therefore there was no possibility the respondents prepared for the interview, which implicates that the given answers are a trustworthy representation of their interpretations, motivations, insights and feelings regarding the topic. The semi-structured questionnaire contained nine questions (see appendices) which served as a guideline during the conversation, to make sure every topic was discussed. This was necessary for a complete data-collection, in order to have representative information which can be coded and analysed accurately. The discussed topics were about the respondents understanding of the concept of storytelling, their view of the added value of it, any practical experience with the concept and possible barriers they experienced. Furthermore, their ideas about the role of storytelling in gaining trust, dealing with greenwashing accusations and the utility regarding to aspirational talk were handled.
Prior to the interviews the respondents were told that this research is especially interested in their view as a CSR professional, rather than their role as an employee of the specific company they work for. Furthermore, before the interview started, the respondents were informed about the opportunity to act as an anonymous respondent. As a result, two of the participating professionals declared to be anonymous. Finally, every interview was recorded with permission.
4.2 Sample
Unlike a quantitative approach, qualitative findings lack an agreed-upon level of significance; there is no magic number of interviews that should be conducted in a qualitative research project (Pratt, 2009). It depends on the study itself and on the amount of data that is required to answer the research question. In this study, there has been chosen to interview 10 different respondents. As only storytelling in the area of CSR is investigated, this number of interviews is enough to broaden understanding and further explore the topic. Because the enquiry is focussing on the deeper thoughts and explanations of CSR professionals, like CSR managers and CSR advisors, only respondents in these certain positions are questioned. Since this study explores the use of
storytelling in the field, a last criterion is that they have to work for an organization, which exclude self-employed persons.
Two important criterions were considered in the respondent selection process. First, it was key that CSR was an important part of the business operations of the approached organization. The Dutch organization MVO Nederland, which contributes in several ways to CSR in The Netherlands, facilitates Het Grote Bedrijven netwerk (The network of big companies). Together, the members of this network are making effort to make CSR top of the agenda. For this research, the list of these
22 respondents is used in the selection of the respondents. The second selection criterion was the need for the company to operate in the financial sector, since there is a significant lack of trustworthiness here. In their article, Pomering and Dolnicar examine the Australian banking sector which has
experienced considerable consumer disaffection over the past decade. As a result, banks see CSR as a promising strategy to rebuild the damaged relationships with key stakeholder groups (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). However, consumer understanding of the social issues that banks engage with, is very low (idem). An important pillar this research builds upon is the existing literature about the added value of storytelling for building trust and awareness. Because of the low credibility of the sector and problematic CSR communication, the financial sector could be considered as an appropriate area to execute storytelling. However, the choice to use only respondents who are employed in the financial sector has its effect on the transferability. Although every outcome of this research could be generalized, theoretically, results could be different for CSR professionals who are working in other sectors. Nevertheless, this research has an exploratory character and the main goal is to serve as a starting point for future research regarding to the application of storytelling.
The setting of the interviews were comparable; they were held in offices of the organizations. There wasn’t a personal connection or other relationship of importance between the author and any of the respondents. The author did not know any of the informants beforehand and the author never worked in any of these organizations.
4.3 Coding
The recorded data is transcribed and the software program Nvivo is used for coding the texts. This research is mainly based on the deductive approach, the emphasis lies on the underlying motivations of CSR professionals regarding to the research topic. However, there are parts of this research that indicates the use of an inductive approach too, like gathering information about how they use storytelling in practice. Still, prior to this study any conclusion was possible.
The first set of labels used for the coding were a result of the interview questionnaire, which were complemented with new labels that were created during the dynamic process of coding, whereby new information emerged. Using coding was very important to structure the data, so during the analysis the dataset could observed to identify any patterns and commonalities.
4.4 Data Analysis
According to Yin, the best preparation for conducting analysis of qualitative research is to have a general analytic strategy, which also important for developing internal and external validity. One preferred strategy outlined by Yin is to follow theoretical propositions that led to the case study (Yin, 2014). This research is building on existing literature regarding to the added value of storytelling in
23 building trust, for aspirational talk and for marketing. The reviews of these topics in academic
literature led to the research questions of this study. This helps to focus attention on certain data and to ignore other data (idem).
However everything is done to make sure the analysis in this study is done properly and has reliable outcomes, not any conclusion can be made unequivocally. On the other hand, we need to be confident that the conclusions are not unreasonable and that another researcher facing the data would reach a conclusion that falls in the same general ‘truth space’ (Miles & Huberman, 1984). In order to guarantee that the analysis is of the highest quality, Yin advocates four principles that underlie all good social science research. Therefore, these principles are used as a guideline to assure the quality of this study (Yin, 2014). The first principle states that a study must show how it sought to use as much evidence as was available, and the interpretations should account for all this evidence and leave no loose ends. During this research, the analysis of the data is done in a systematic way using coding and labelling, and the researcher was always very critical to any deviations. Secondly, the analysis should address, if possible, all major interpretations, and thirdly, the analysis should address the most significant aspects of the study. This research focusses on only a few main topics, in order to give conclusions that are key. Additionally, these key conclusions are made on the basis of very clear patterns and commonalities. These are complemented by findings that are less obvious, but are still very interesting because of the fact that they are a significant part of the data. Fourth, the researcher should use his or her own prior, expert knowledge in the study. In order to meet this demand, this research started with a comprehensive literature review to gain the required
knowledge and to be an expert on the matter. Furthermore, the topics were well framed, which made it possible to collect and analyse the data very accurately.
5. Results
This chapter contains all the results and outcomes of the data analysis, gathered through this study. It is divided in three sections and are structured by means of the research questions. First of all the results will be outlined regarding to the extent CSR professionals understand the concept, followed by findings about applying storytelling and barriers. At the end of the chapter insights about storytelling and greenwashing, trustworthiness, marketing and aspirational talk will be demonstrated.
5.1 Understanding the concept
One main issue this study investigates is to what extent CSR managers understand the concept of storytelling, which links to research question 1a. Three pillars are used to obtain this knowledge. The first two contain information about the extent CSR professionals understand the definition and the
24 added value of the concept of storytelling. The third sections covers the results of the data analysis regarding to any (verbal) form of doubt the respondents showed about their understanding of storytelling during the interview.
5.1.1 Definition
When the respondents were asked to give a definition of storytelling in their own words, the answers varied in a wide range. For example, some respondents said it is about the customer who is telling his own story about the specific company, like a business case: “for me, it is a piece of evidence and argumentation by customers who are telling how we helped them with their issues”. Others were aiming at a corporate story: “It is about the story of the organization, telling us why we exist and which values are important for the company”. Some respondents were aiming at the concept itself: “It is a way of communicating that goes deeper, almost about the hero that needs to deal with a certain problem”. And lastly, a very few had heard of the concept, but admitted that they couldn’t really tell what it actually was. Although the answers were very diverse, some cohesion could be recognized, especially one clear shared view. Almost every participant, that is 9 out of 10, stated that storytelling is about communicating in a narrative way, mentioning things like ‘sending a message through a story’, ‘epos’, ‘a narrative about our values’ and ‘campfire’. Of course, this could be seen as stating the obvious, since the term ‘storytelling’ doesn’t leave much for the imagination.
Nonetheless, it can’t be seen as a false statement since this is the most general definition of storytelling. The fact that almost all of them were able to identify this general definition indicates that they do have a general, intuitive idea of what the concept contains. However, the various answers indicates that CSR professionals do have trouble defining the concept.
5.1.2 Added Value
When looking at the collected data regarding the added value of storytelling according to the respondents, there is one significant outcome. From the total amount of 32 types of added value perceived, over half of them (18) focuses on the intangible benefits it offers for receiving the message. There were four categories of added value that were mentioned the most: (1) creating a more understandable message, (2) tapping into the emotions of the receiver, (3) the receiver can identify with the message and (4) the receiver is better able to remember the message. Again, this top 4 shares a view regarding the added value of storytelling: the positive effect storytelling can have on receiving the message. Other less mentioned categories are more divergent, like ‘argumentation through a customer story’, ‘distinctiveness’, ‘sense-making’ and ‘valuable as a part of change management’.
25
Added value Freq. Example quote
More understandable message 6 “to send a more understandable message in the complex world of sustainability”
Tapping into emotions 5 “to tap into the mammal brain, the part where our emotions are settled” Identification with the message 4 “to communicate a message they can identify themselves with” Better able to remember the message 3 “to create a stickiness factor”
In total 18
These four main characteristics given by the respondents show that CSR professionals understand the value of storytelling, since it has great similarity with the added value pointed out in academic research. Respondents say the message is more understandable, which conforms to existing literature, which states that stories can provide tools to clarify a hard topic through sense-making (e.g. Gill, 2011; Reinermann, 2014). The questioned CSR professionals also strongly
connected storytelling with ‘tapping into the emotions’ and with the ability to remember a message. According to prior research, stories have a powerful influence on what we learn and engender trust, because they activate emotions (Dowling, 2006) (Gill, 2011). The belief of respondents about the fact that receivers identify themselves with the message in a story, is another outcome that conforms to academic research (e.g. Martin , 1982; Morgan & Dennehy, 1997; Sinclair, 2011).
5.1.3 Assumed misunderstanding of the concept
To study if CSR professionals feel comfortable about the theme storytelling and if they feel like they really understand the topic, all expressions that indicate doubt were studied. The outcome is significant: 8 out of 10 respondents spoke about their uncertainties concerning the concept of storytelling, and 6 out of 8 mentioned this more than once Their doubts becomes visible in quotes like “I don’t have a clue if this is what storytelling really contains, but this is what I think it is”, “I hesitate a bit, because I don’t really know what you specifically mean by storytelling” or “I’m afraid I don’t know enough of the concept”.
Another important aspect is that two respondents did not have a proper understanding of the concept of storytelling, and out of the remaining 8 respondents 5 of them could only picture the concept in one single way of communicating. For example, some CSR professionals only talked about storytelling in terms of customers telling their story, like a third-party endorsements. Others only thought about communicating a corporate story, like this is the only possible form of storytelling. In other words, only 3 out of 10 CSR professionals was talking about storytelling as a concept, one that could be used in multiple ways of communication.
26 These findings are in line with other results regarding the degree the concept is understood by CSR professionals. The respondents in this study have heard of storytelling and are more or less capable of defining the concept. Nevertheless, they are very uncertain about the topic and are seeking for a better understanding. This is equivalent to what is argued in a research conducted by Fishburn-Hedges and Jigsaw-Research in 2013: “This relatively new way of communicating confuses the most experienced communicators (Fishburn-Hedges & Jigsaw-Research, 2013).
5.2 Applying storytelling and barriers
During the interviews the respondents were asked what experience they have in applying the concept of storytelling. Their answers and examples are used to gain insight in the application of the concept in the field of CSR. Additionally, expected barriers were addressed during the dialogues and analysed afterwards. The results are described in this section and give answers to research question 1b, 1c and 1d.
5.2.1 Application of the concept
The application of storytelling is a rare phenomenon in the field of CSR, and when it is occasionally used, it is unintentionally done. Every participant responded negatively when they were asked if they ever used storytelling. However, during the conversations some examples of CSR practices emerged that could be addressed as storytelling. One significant commonality becomes clear while analysing the data. Most of the respondents (6 out of 10) stated that they tried encourage their colleagues to tell stories about the CSR policy and sustainability efforts of the specific company during their job or in their private life. To accomplish this, the primarily repeated the CSR message internally. This is done in various ways, like ensuring the CEO mentions the CSR policy when he speaks publicly, publishing stories of sustainability efforts of the organization, or just by telling their story to whomever and wherever they can. One of the respondents said: “I just keep on repeating the message, trying to make my colleague talk at an event, about the fact that we think sustainability is very important and how we pursue to do this”. This corresponds with the conclusions of Pomering and Dolnicar, who emphasize the importance of the employees as a key audience for CSR
communications and as a conduit that transfers the CSR message to customers (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009).
Besides stimulating the storytelling of their colleagues, some other ways of practising storytelling were mentioned during the interviews. Some respondents acknowledged the use of it in the annual reports, the use of it in business cases, the use of it in a campaign and the existence of a corporate story. However, since these are mentioned by just a few or in some cases even only by one respondent, their significance can be questioned.
27
5.2.2 Barriers
According to the collected data, there are several barriers CSR professionals would have to deal with, if they want to apply storytelling in their CSR communication. These obstacles can be divided in two categories: marketing and communications, and the abstention of organizations towards
communicating their sustainability efforts.
The marketing and communications department is often seen as a serious obstacle for CSR professionals that aspire to apply storytelling: 6 out of 10 respondents declared that marketing and communications would most likely form a problem. The respondents who underpinned this difficulty blame two main issues. First and most importantly, they stated that CSR and marketing professionals have a different point of view. This is supported by statements like “we just don’t speak the same language”, “marketing professionals are looking at texts in a totally different way”, “we don’t always see the required relevance” and “they want sales and revenues, we want impact”. A second, less obvious but still significant issue can be addressed to the fact that marketing and communications is the department that is creating all the communication. This means CSR professionals aren’t able or allowed to generate their own mode of communication. Thus for applying storytelling, a
collaboration between those departments is needed. This is a barrier, not only because of the earlier mentioned difficulties between these two, but also because of the differences is schedule and ideas about corporate communication. According to the respondents, it is hard to get their CSR ideas executed, because “marketing has their own calendars, projects and long term schedule”, “it would be executed by the communications department” and “marketers have their own story that is formed very accurately, so this isn’t adjusted in one day”.
Besides issues with the marketing and communication department, another important barrier to the application of storytelling (externally), is the fact that most organizations are very reserved in communicating about their efforts for sustainability. Half of the respondents said the organization is holding back when it comes to telling about their ethical activities. This abstention is a result of anxiety of accusations of greenwashing, a recognized by multiple scholars, who state that campaigns are encountered with scepticism (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990) (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009) (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). One of the respondents summed it up with the following
statement: “this organization is refraining itself from telling about all our ethical activities, because we are afraid of being seen as untrustworthy; there is always something the outside world can find”.
5.3 Storytelling and reliability
An important aspect of this study is clarifying whether CSR professionals think storytelling can be valuable for narrowing the credibility gap. This chapter explains whether respondents think
28 storytelling provides in communicating in a more trustworthy way and in preventing greenwashing accusations. Furthermore, it gives the results regarding to the value storytelling in aspirational talk, according to the respondents. This chapter gives results concerning research question 1e and 1f.
5.3.1 Trustworthy communication
When respondents were asked whether they thought stories could contribute to a communication that is perceived as trustworthy, their answers were almost unanimous: 9 out of 10 respondents shared this belief. After analysing the explanations, two categories are distinguished. According to the respondents, through storytelling they are able to tell about their considerations and trade-offs involved in making a certain decision. Furthermore, storytelling stimulates the organization to speak about ethical goals that aren’t reached yet. This aligns with an important aspect of storytelling mentioned in academic papers: storytelling enables organizations to build understanding by
clarifying the behaviour of the organisation in terms of its mission and morality, and thus foster trust and support (Dowling, 2006) (Gill, 2011). In short, respondents argue that stories stimulates full disclosure and enables the possibility “to explain your true intentions”.
Secondly, CSR professionals said stories illustrate the ‘human side’ of the corporation, primarily aiming on communicating about the possibility of failing, of which they think is automatically is more believable. According to respondents, vulnerability is key for a reliable message. They say storytelling “deals with the gossip that often causes the accusations of being unreliable”.
5.3.2 Preventing greenwashing accusations
An important aspect of the untrustworthy reputation of CSR communication is the great amount of accusations of window dressing and greenwashing of the past decades (e.g. Terrachoice, The six Sins of Greenwashing, 2007 & 2008; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). As a result, every CSR statement a company makes, is watched very carefully. Discussing the value of storytelling with regard to the prevention of accusations of greenwashing, brings up varied opinions. After analysis of the collected data, two large divergent groups can be identified. On the one side, there is a group of respondents that thinks it is harder to make accusations of greenwashing when storytelling is involved. They motivate this statement mainly by pointing out that stories provide a more personal message and thus are much more concrete. According to them, an accusation of window dressing is harder to make with a concrete, personal message. People can disagree with a personal message, but saying you are insincere is a different story. This corresponds to the study of Stoll, who argues that “if an
organization is willing to lie about even its own moral character, something of the utmost value, then it is likely that this organisation will lie about anything whatsoever” (Stoll, 2002). Furthermore,
