The right to remain silent:
An explorative study of strategic silence used by corporations on social
media
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Science
Master’s Thesis
Corporate Communication
Maura Feeney
Student ID: 11192925
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Iina Hellsten June 17, 2020
Abstract
Over the last couple of decades, there has been a significant rise in social media use by corporations. This new frontier of communication has facilitated unprecedented efficiency in two-way communication processes between corporations and stakeholders. This explorative study, however, focuses on the use of silence, a highly underrepresented topic in communication science literature, amid this highly communicative time. To thoroughly examine the use of strategic silence by corporations, this study draws on theories of corporate reputation, corporate legitimacy, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and greenwashing. A quantitative content analysis of 384 tweets published by a multinational corporation showed that strategic silence was applied on social media as a form of greenwashing. The findings of this early study on strategic silence provide several suggestions for future research, especially in regard to corporate
reputation and legitimacy management.
Keywords: strategic silence, corporate reputation, corporate legitimacy, CSR, social media,
Introduction
Amid significant technological and ideological transformations of the last several decades; the role of “the corporation” in society has been redefined. Stakeholders are now expecting transparency and the integration of ethical norms and values in corporate activity, in what can be referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Lange et. al., 2011; Boyd et. al., 2016). The sole focus of maximizing shareholder wealth is no longer, and, more than ever, corporations engage in social, environmental, and political causes with additional stakeholders in mind (Serafeim, 2013). Stakeholders can be defined as any group or individual that can affect or can be affected by an organization (Freeman, 2010). The vastness of these CSR-related
expectations leads to amplified risks for corporations' reputation, as reputation often depends on a corporation’s ability to fulfill the expectations of its stakeholders (Wartick, 1992). Failure to maintain a positive reputation can negatively affect corporations’ “license to operate”, otherwise known as corporate legitimacy (Demuijnck & Fasterling, 2016). It is essential for corporations’ to effectively manage their reputation and legitimacy, as both have been proven indispensable towards corporations’ overall success and prosperity (Pollach, 2015; Wartick, 1992).
The simultaneous growth and widespread use of social media is undoubtedly a
contributing factor in shaping the new role of corporations. As of January 2020, there were over 4.5 billion internet users and over 3.5 billion social media users worldwide; a number up by more than 9% since January 2019 (Kemp, 2020). This extensive use of social media has facilitated unprecedented global dialogue, allowing for rapid information sharing as well as individual examination of corporations (Balmer & Powell 2011; Colleoni, 2013; Jenkins, 2006; Tench & Jones, 2015). One notable result of vast social media use is the activation of “consumer activism”, a movement in which consumers publicly “like” or “dislike” corporations’ CSR
related actions on social media platforms (Boyd et. al, 2015). As social media users encompass infinite and unique interests and expectations; there is a high likelihood that corporations will fail to appease all stakeholders, resulting in an inevitable public "dislike" towards the corporation with possible reputation-threatening implications. The instantaneous and unfiltered nature of social media accelerates the visibility of corporate actions and crises as well as amplifies the voices of dissatisfied stakeholders (Tench & Jones, 2015).
Social media creates an environment that both catalyzes crises while also providing corporations unparalleled opportunity to reach stakeholders and more effectively deconstruct crises (Patriotta et. al., 2011). A crisis can be defined as an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders that can seriously damage an organizations' performance and generate negative outcomes (Coombs, 2007). Crises create what is known as a credibility gap and occur when an organization performs actions that misalign with the expectancies of its stakeholders (Lock & Seele, 2017). Poorly managed crises can result in detrimental
consequences to corporate reputation and legitimacy (Patriotta et. al., 2011; Coombs, 2007; Colleoni, 2013). Corporations draw on various elements of strategic communication to invoke a post-crisis communication strategy that works to reduce such consequences. Studies have shown that corporate communication via social media is perceived as more “interactive, dialogic, authentic and credible”, allowing for more effective two-way communication from corporation to stakeholders in response to a crisis (Patriotta et. al., 2011; Colleoni, 2013). These findings suggest that corporations will turn to social media to communicate post-crisis strategic communication.
While many scholars have examined this new dynamic between post-crisis
and under researched. Le et. al., (2019) note that silence in communication theory is often referred to as “a lack of communication by an organization”, presenting a contradiction to communication as well as indicating an absence of material to be analyzed (p. 163). This definition does an injustice to the role of strategic silence that must be re-evaluated. Perhaps a shift from this limited definition of silence towards a broader understanding of silence as being both deliberate by and symbolic of the corporation will attract more research (Le et. al., 2019; Dimitrov, 2019). Especially during a time of heightened communication that is creating unprecedented crises for corporations, the analysis of silence as a post-crisis communication strategy is vital in order to gain a more well-rounded understanding of corporate communications on social media.
Dowling (2000) contends that thousands of corporations suffered reputational damage as a result of CSR related crises. It is reasonable to assume that the numbers presented in Dowling’s (2000) study have increased significantly alongside immense social media growth, as there is an established relationship between social media and increased CSR communication in the
literature. The purpose of this study is to fill the gap in research regarding corporations’ use of silence as a communication strategy in combating damage to corporate reputation and legitimacy during a CSR crisis. More specifically, how corporations apply strategic silence as a form of greenwashing (Carlos & Lewis, 2018). It is important to note that this is an explorative study that will ultimately lay the foundation for more thorough research on strategic silence in the future.
This study considers the global plastics crisis to be a CSR crisis that has had significant consequences on corporations. Plastic is a widely used material by corporations because of its low cost and durability (Seijo, 2019). Unfortunately, these same attributes have led to excessive use of the material and that has resulted in increasing numbers of plastics found in oceans,
destroying eco-systems, and infiltrating food systems (Smith, 2019). The Coca-Cola Company, known for its bottled beverages, is one of the many corporations facing consequences as a result of the growing attention towards the global plastics crisis (Segran, 2019). This study focuses on communication by The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) on social media to analyze the use of strategic silence to mitigate against threats to its corporate reputation and legitimacy during this ongoing crisis. This study works to answer the following research question:
To what extent do corporations apply strategic silence as a form of greenwashing to build corporate reputation and legitimacy on social media?
Theoretical Framework
Corporate reputation
Defining corporate reputation
Many scholars discuss the vast disparity in definitions surrounding the term corporate reputation in literature. The frequent use of terms such as corporate image and corporate identity, which oftentimes have overlapping attributes in the literature, complicate the definition of
corporate reputation, highlighting the demand for a more concrete definition of the term
(Wartick, 2002). Barnett et. al., (2006) evaluated 62 different definitions of corporate reputation found in literature and categized them into three distinct groups; asset, assessment, and
awareness. Barnett et. al., (2006) further define corporate reputation as "observers, or
and environmental impact attributed to the organization over time," (Barnett et. al., 2006, p.32). This study adheres to this definition when discussing corporate reputation.
Benefits of positive corporate reputation
The resource-based view of organizations contends that for a firm to have a competitive advantage in the industry it operates, it must possess "a bundle of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources” (Pollach, 2015, p.58; Barney, 1991). Competitive advantage is desired by corporations as it is a prerequisite to success and growth (Barney, 1991). A positive corporate reputation is as an intangible asset, making it both valuable and difficult to imitate whilst ultimately serving as a basis for competitive advantage (Barnett & Pollock 2014; Pollach, 2015). Corporations with positive reputations experience a multitude of benefits such as
improved access to resources, increased selectivity in hiring new employees, and immense financial success as a result of higher product prices and access to additional markets (Barnett & Pollock 2014; Zavyalova et. al., 2016).
Another benefit of a positive reputation is what Coombs (2007) refers to as reputational capital. In other words, corporations with positive reputations have satisfied stakeholders and generated a stock of social assets and economic benefits (Coombs, 2007). In times of crisis, this capital helps protect corporations’ reputation because stakeholders are more willing to give the corporation ‘the benefit of the doubt’ and are less inclined to attribute bad intentions to the corporation (Zavyalova et. al., 2016). Reputational capital is essential in times of crisis. Due to the unpredictable nature of crises, as well as the fundamental benefits a positive reputation can provide a firm; it is imperative for corporations to regularly allocate resources towards both building and managing reputation.
Reputation and CSR
A relationship between organizational reputation and CSR has been well-established in communication science literature (Fombrun, 2005; Bhattacharya et. al., 2010; Pollach, 2015). This relationship can be regarded as reciprocal. According to Bhattacharya et. al., (2010), corporate reputation positively moderates the effectiveness of CSR communication. This is a result of accumulated reputation capital that indicates to stakeholders to trust and accept the CSR messages from the corporation as credible (Bhattacharya et. al., 2010). Similarly, CSR initiatives have been proven to positively influence reputation among “consumers, potential employees, and investors” (Pollach, 2015). This is especially true when the communicated CSR closely aligns with the mission of the corporation that positively impacts both internal and external
stakeholders (Pollach, 2015).
Signaling theory can be used to further describe the relationship between reputation and effective CSR communication. According to Su et. al., (2016), signaling theory highlights "information asymmetries between two parties where the sources of asymmetric information are mainly concerned with information about quality or information about intent" (p. 480). Put simply, corporations serve as the information source and work to "signal" information to stakeholders relating to the quality, unobservable aspects such as strong work culture, and intent, moral considerations such as hiring a diverse workforce, attributes of the corporation. Communicating CSR related activity, therefore, signals to stakeholders' that the corporation is acting approvingly (Greening & Turban, 2000). Corporations must signal these otherwise hidden attributes to external parties in order to experience the potential reputational benefits associated with such attributes (Spence, 1973).
Corporate legitimacy
Defining corporate legitimacy
The topic of corporate legitimacy is often discussed alongside corporate reputation, which leads to some misperception on the distinction between the two concepts. To put simply, corporate reputation is affected more easily and frequently, whereas corporate legitimacy exists based off of a corporation’s ability to identify with the normative value and belief system in which it operates and is harder to damage. Suchman (1995) notes two distinct groups in the literature that work to define corporate legitimacy, the strategic and the institutional. The strategic approach describes legitimacy as a result of instrumental associations and strategic use of symbols to earn societal support (Dowling & Pfeffer 1975; Suchman 1995). The institutional approach describes legitimacy as a product of sector norms that overpower corporations’ autonomy, resulting in extensive mimicry among corporations of the same sector (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991, 2012; Suchman, 1995; Pollach, 2015). This study focuses more on the strategic definition, contending that legitimacy is attained through the use of careful and considered corporate discourse designed to influence stakeholders.
It is also important to distinguish the three different types of legitimacy; cognitive, pragmatic, and moral, that are discussed in the literature. Cognitive legitimacy is based on the "taken for granted" assumptions about an organization," (Suchman 1995; Seele & Gatti, 2017, p. 242). Moral legitimacy relies on assessments about how corporate actions and behaviors
conform to ideas of right and wrong (Suchman, 1995; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Pragmatic
legitimacy, on the other hand, depends on subjective perceptions of how well the corporation is doing for each stakeholder's self-interests (Suchman, 1995; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Maintaining
overall corporate legitimacy depends on corporations' ability to operate desirably and normatively.
Benefits of corporate legitimacy
Maintaining legitimacy is vital to corporations’ ability to operate successfully in society (Suchman 1995; Deephouse & Carter, 2005). Suchman (1995) emphasizes two dimensions by which corporate legitimacy is measured; continuity versus credibility and passive versus active support. In the first dimension, “legitimacy enhances both the stability and comprehensibility of organizational activities” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). This occurs when corporations share the same institutionalized system of beliefs as stakeholders, further establishing what is right and wrong, or acceptable versus unacceptable behavior (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman, 1995; Deephouse & Carter, 2005). When corporations act acceptably within the system of beliefs; stakeholders view the corporation as credible and reward it with both a perception of legitimacy as well as economic benefits (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman 1995). It can therefore be contended that continuity and credibility are not mutually exclusive, but rather credibility enhances continuity and vice versa (Suchman, 1995).
In the second dimension, legitimacy depends on the degree to which corporations "seek active support or merely passive acquiescence" (Suchman, 1995, p. 575). Corporations that are linked to a specific stakeholder group or audience are oftentimes viewed as less legitimate (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman, 1995; Deephouse & Carter, 2005). Legitimacy in this regard is greater achieved when corporations participate in widely accepted normative systems. Maintaining legitimacy in this dimension is challenging because corporations must balance between adhering to an institutionalized belief system while also not being too restrictive in the
audiences it attracts. Terreberry (1968) also notes that corporations that are involved with too many different stakeholder groups may come off as illegitimate (Meyer & Scott, 1983; Powell & DiMaggio,1991). It can, therefore, be contended that legitimate corporations are consistent in their beliefs, thus leading to continuity and credibility that ultimately benefits corporations both tangibly, economic, and intangibly, higher legitimacy.
Legitimacy and CSR
The rise of corporate social responsibility demonstrates a shift in the institutionalized set of beliefs stakeholders have towards corporations. These changing societal norms and values present corporations with a "legitimacy crisis" or what Lock and Seele (2017) describe as a credibility gap (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975, p. 128). Since the legitimacy depends on corporations' acting desirably and within a specific set of norms, corporations must incorporate CSR to
maintain legitimacy (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Bachman & Ingenhof, 2016; Seele & Gatti, 2017). According to Bachman & Ingenhof (2016), corporations must apply discretionary CSR disclosures through the use of instrumental communication to gain legitimacy by stakeholders.
Social Media
Many scholars have examined a relationship between the rise of social media and corporate social responsibility (Mangold and Faulds, 2009; Bernacchi et. al., 2013; Boyd et al., 2015; Tench & Jones, 2015). This is largely due to the existence of the “new-generation
consumer” who is native to social media and adamant on ethical consumption decision-making (Castelló-Martínez & Ros-Diego, 2012). This new generation takes on a “watchdog” role that is threatening to corporations’ reputations and legitimacy one click, share, and like at a time (Boyd
et. al, 2015). The emergence of social media has created unforeseen crises for corporations by facilitating an environment in which constant dialogue and visibility occurs (Roshan et. al., 2016). This study must acknowledge the role of social media when analyzing corporate use of strategic silence as a form of greenwashing, as social media is most likely the platform in which this type of strategic communication will take place.
Social-Mediatization of Corporate Social Responsibility
Social media has become an increasingly trustworthy source of information than traditional news media (Mangold and Faulds, 2009; Bernacchi et. al., 2013). Social media has generated what is known as CSR activism, in which social media users seek to influence the CSR activities of corporations via their presence on social media (Boyd et al., 2015).
Corporations need to gain a presence in this communicative sphere for two reasons; to gain raw and unfiltered insights from consumers; to act proactively in communication CSR activity to satisfy the expectations of CSR activists on social media.
The increasing role of social media in corporations’ management of reputation and legitimacy can be related to the process of mediatization presented by Ihlen & Pallas (2014). Mediatization describes the process by which institutions “are influenced by the working practices and preferences of the media, and that the media thus crucially shape the environment and operating conditions for other institutions,” (Ihlen & Pallas, 2014). Mediatization influences corporate reputation and legitimacy. According to Ihlen & Pallas (2014), simply being visible in the media is a prerequisite for a good reputation. Mediatization provides corporate legitimacy by pure association, or in other words, corporations' presence in media denotes a level of legitimacy
sufficient enough to allow the corporation to continue to operate within society (Ihlen & Pallas, 2014).
The shift from traditional news media to social media demands, the theory of
mediatization of corporations presented by Ihlen & Pallas (2014) to be revisited in the literature. This study draws on the definition of mediatization to coin a new and more up-to-date term:
social-mediatization. Social mediatization can be defined as the process of mediatization on
social media platforms. In other words, corporations are influenced by the working practices and preferences of social media and are therefore adjusting their communication strategies to meet the demands of this new environment. Due to the determined relationship between social media and increased CSR activity presented in the media, this study contends that corporations
discussing CSR activities on social media platforms signifies the process of social-mediatization.
Strategic silence
Defining strategic silence
Strategic silence is a scarcely discussed topic in communication studies that has yet to be concretely defined. Dimitrov (2019) contends that strategic silence is the most indirect form of communication and is “meaningless outside its concrete and situational functions” (p. 20). Smith (2005, 2013) analyzed silence during times of crisis and defined it as the decision of a
corporation “under siege to offer no substantive comment or to take no overt action” (p. 164). Corporations implement strategic silence in times when issuing a statement such as “no comment” can be interpreted as an admission of guilt (Maor et. Al., 2013; Smith, 2005; Dimitrov, 2019). Admitting guilt is more effective and necessary in the case of an acute crisis, but for corporations engaging in long-term contentious activity, implementing a strategy of
silence will better protect its reputation (Smith, 2005, 2013). Strategic silence limits transparency and disables stakeholders from easily recognizing corporations' failures to meet expectations (Maor et. al., 2013). Therefore, strategic silence can be understood as a tool that can be used by corporations to reduce reputational and legitimacy damage brought forth by a crisis.
Strategic silence and greenwashing
In an attempt to build or maintain reputation and legitimacy, corporations are oftentimes found greenwashing in their communication and marketing campaigns (Lyon & Montgomery, 2013; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Greenwashing can be defined as, “selective disclosure of positive information about a company's environmental or social performance, without full disclosure of negative information on these dimensions" (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011, p. 9). In other words, corporations apply greenwashing as a form of deliberate, or strategic, silence respective to elements of business that may have a damaging effect on stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate reputation and legitimacy. Carlos and Lewis (2018) note that greenwashing, when discovered by stakeholders, can have negative consequences to reputation and legitimacy. They present a new term “greenhushing” to describe a novel form of greenwashing in which corporations are applying strategic silence in regards to CSR related topics with the intention of experiencing the same positive reputational and legitimacy outcomes as traditional greenwashing. While
greenwashing in this form does not equate to complete silence from the corporation, it does suggest corporations’ use of instrumental language and or symbols to emphasize specific parts of business while remaining silent about others. This requires a detailed strategy with
Empirical case-study: Plastics Crisis
In 2018, The Break Free from Plastic movement, “a global movement envisioning a future free of plastic pollution”, conducted a brand audit of plastic pollution along coastlines in over 40 countries worldwide (Alegado, 2019). Nearly 10,000 volunteers participated in the process of sorting through and collecting over 187,851 pieces of plastic pollution (Alegado, 2019). The result of this audit concluded that The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), followed by PepsiCo and Nestle, was the top corporate plastic polluter, and with all three corporations
accounting for 14% of the branded plastic pollution found worldwide (Alegado, 2019). Coca-Cola is responsible for producing 3m tons of plastic, or 200,000 bottles per minute (Laville, 2019). The plastic crisis has been at the forefront of many non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) campaigns as well as political legislation worldwide (Le Guern, 2019; Miles, 2019). Coca-Cola has experienced widespread criticism for its contribution to the global plastics crisis. The researcher has chosen to examine the use of strategic silence as a form of greenwashing by Coca-Cola in relation to the global plastics crisis to answer the research question of this study.
Plastics crisis and corporate reputation
The negative publicity attributed to Coca-Cola relating to the global plastics crisis can have adverse effects to corporate reputation, as stakeholders may view the corporation as failing to fulfill their expectations. To answer the research question of this study, the researcher draws on theory relating to corporate reputation to answer the following empirical question:
E1. How do corporations apply strategic silence as a form of greenwashing to build corporate reputation on social media?
Based on Signaling Theory, it can be expected that Coca-Cola will increase its CSR communication over time to help build corporate reputation. As a form of strategic silence, it can be expected that Coca-Cola will tweet less about plastics compared to other CSR related issues in an effort to emphasize less contentious CSR activity to stakeholders in hopes of satisfying expectations.
E1.a.: The Coca-Cola Company will tweet about CSR more over time
E1.b.: The Coca-Cola Company will tweet about non-plastics related CSR more than plastics related CSR.
Despite increasing its CSR communication, the Coca-Cola company can still experience reputational threats due to its continuous and copious production of plastic products. It is,
therefore, probable that Coca-Cola will apply strategic silence in its communication to reduce the admittance of guilt. As a form of strategic silence, it can be expected that Coca-Cola will refrain from using the word “plastic” or visibly displaying plastic products on its corporate Twitter account.
E1.c.: The Coca-Cola Company will apply strategic silence in the form of “non-visible” more than “semi-plastic” in CSR tweets.
As CSR continues to become a core value for stakeholders, it is important for Coca-Cola to demonstrate a shared belief system that attributes the same value to CSR. It can be expected that Coca-Cola will make use of instrumental language and symbols, otherwise known as greenwashing, to apply strategic silence regarding the global plastics crisis. Therefore, the researcher poses the following empirical question to further discover this dynamic:
E2: How do corporations apply strategic silence as a form of greenwashing to build corporate legitimacy on social media?
E2.a.:The Coca-Cola company will apply instrumental language more than instrumental symbols in CSR related tweets.
E.2.b.: The Coca-Cola company applies greenwashing in the form of instrumental language more in CSR tweets relating to plastics than other CSR tweets.
E.2.c. The Coca-Cola company applies greenwashing in the form of instrumental symbols more in CSR tweets relating to plastics than other CSR tweets.
Carlson et. al., (1997) presents different types of greenwashing claims; product
orientation, process orientation, and image orientation. Product and process orientation claims assume functional change whereas image orientation claims do not (Carlson et. al., 1997). In the case of the plastics crisis in relation to Coca-Cola, because it is the production of plastic products that have been at the forefront of the criticism the corporation faces, it is to be expected that Coca-Cola will apply strategic silence in the form of greenwashing by making claims in the image orientation the most frequently. This is because the image orientation gives Coca-Cola the
opportunity to remain silent on the production and retailing of plastics, and, instead, include claims associating the corporation with respected external actors.
E.2.d.:The Coca-Cola Company will use more "image orientation” claims than product and process orientation claims in CSR tweets relating to plastic.
Methodology
To answer the research question, a manual quantitative content analysis of selected content, tweets, published by a large multinational corporation was administered. A content analysis was selected as the method of choice due to its ability to quantify large amounts of data into predetermined categories in a systematic and replicable manner (Bryman, 2012). The categories that the data was quantified into were corporate reputation and corporate legitimacy. The study focuses on content focusing on the CSR crisis of single-use plastics.
Sampling Method
A convenience sampling method led to the selection of Coca-Cola as the exemplary multinational corporation for the study. Coca-Cola was considered most convenient because of its designation as the number one corporate plastic polluter in the world (Alegado, 2019). The social media platform, Twitter, was chosen due to its immense popularity, with over 300 million active monthly users (Iqbal, 2020 ) Over 65% of U.S. brands are present on Twitter, as the platform is becoming increasingly known as a marketing tool for brands (Iqbal, 2020). Twitter has proven to be a valuable tool in increasing brand engagement, purchasing intent, and
one plastic polluter as well as an active Twitter user, with over 200,000 tweets and more than 3 million followers, tweets published and posted by Coca-Cola were selected as the units of analysis (Twitter).The tweets were obtained through the use of Vincinitas.io, a free online tool allowing users to scrape the last 3200 tweets.
Time Frame
The process of scraping the Twitter data occurred on May 8th, 2020, and collected data in
the following time frame, January 8th, 2018 to May 8th, 2020. The dates of the tweets selected for
the coding process ranged from January 1st, 2018 through May 5th, 2020. This is a total duration
of 855 days. For the purpose of the study, time was further divided into five distinct groups each consisting of approximately 6 months (see Table 1). This was done to provide additional clarity on results regarding the effects of time.
Table 1
Time-groups
Time Start Time End New Label N
January 1st, 2018 June 30th , 2018 Group 1 85
July 1st, 2018 December 31st , 2018 Group 2 79
January 1st, 2019 June 30th , 2019 Group 3 94
July 1st, 2019 December 31st , 2019 Group 4 68
January 1st, 2020 May 5th , 2020 Group 5 58
Sample
Since the goal of the study was to determine corporate management of corporate reputation and legitimacy, only tweets published by Coca-Cola were analyzed. Therefore, all retweets and tweet replies were selectively removed from the data, resulting in a total of 384 tweets. The researcher did not administer any additional sampling methods and coded the
remaining 384 tweets. The researcher coded both the text and visual components, images, GIFs, and videos, of each tweet (see Appendix A).
Procedure
The codebook was broken into four distinct sections. First, the "General Information" section included coder identity, tweet reference number, and time of the tweet. The second section, "Tweet Topic" identified the topic of the tweet out of a nominal list of 10 different topic options, which were concluded by the researcher after examining the Twitter page of a similar multinational corporation, PepsiCo, and noting the ten most common subjects present (see Appendix B, Table 1). The Twitter account of PepsiCo was chosen to do this initial research because it is the most similar multinational corporation to Coca-Cola by product and affiliation to the global plastics crisis, serving as the second largest plastic polluter, one place behind Coca-Cola, worldwide (Alegado, 2019).
The third section, "Corporate Reputation", is where elements of reputation management were coded. These elements were taken from various studies discussing reputation management and were operationalized by the researcher as CSR Communication, Topic of CSR, and Strategic Silence. More specifically, the variable of CSR Communication was inspired by studies by Fombrun (2005), Bhattacharya et. al. (2010) and Pollach (2015), all of which describe the positive effect CSR communication can have on corporate reputation. By coding for the CSR Communication (Absent/Present), the researcher expected the results to indicate whether or not the corporation was using CSR to build its reputation. The topic of CSR was important to operationalize as the researcher wanted to examine communication relating to one CSR topic in particular, plastics. By drawing on a study by Chae and Park (2018), which analyzed the most
discussed CSR topics found on Twitter, the researcher designated the nine CSR topics found in the study (see Table 5). Finally, to measure strategic silence the researcher created four different categories; Absent, Non-Visible, Plastic, Semi-Plastic (see Table 2).
Table 2
Strategic Silence
Grouping Strategic Silence Definition
Silent Absent No plastic or non-plastic products mentioned in the text or visible in the visual of the tweet.
Non-visible Non-plastic products mentioned in the text or visible in the visual of the tweet.
Not Silent Plastic Plastic products mentioned in the text or visible in the visual of the tweet.
Partially Silent Semi-plastic Both plastic and non-plastic products mentioned in the text or visible in the visual of the tweet.
The final section, "Corporate Legitimacy", is where elements of legitimacy management, Greenwashing, instrumental language and instrumental symbols, and Type of Claim were operationalized by the researcher. The decision to code for instrumental language and symbols was made based off of studies by Lyon and Montgomery (2013) and Seele and Gatti (2017), which both contend greenwashing is present in both written and visual forms. There was a total of 11 different forms words that were coded for instrumental language (see Appendix B, Table 2). These words were chosen based off of Chae and Park’s (2018) study. There were three main types of instrumental symbols coded in the research (see Appendix B, Table 3), The coder borrowed these distinctions in instrumental symbols from the codebook of a study conducted by Segev et al., (2016). The operationalization for the Type of Claim was also borrowed from the
codebook of a study conducted by Segev et al., (2016) (see Table 3). Segev (2016) drew on the research of Carlson et. al., (1997) to operationalize the Types of Claims. For the purpose of simplicity, only three of the five types of claims were coded in this study.
Table 3
Claim definitions (Carlson et. al, 1997, p. 221)
Type of Claim Definition
Product Orientation The text and/or visual of the tweet focuses on the recyclable-friendly attribute of a
product/service.
Process Orientation The text and/or visual of the tweet focuses on an organization’s internal technology, production technique, and/or disposal method that yields benefits relating to plastic production,
recyclability, and waste.
Image Orientation The text and/or visual of the tweet associates an organization with a plastics and/or recycling campaign, cause, or activity for which there is broad-based public support.
The goal of this study was to discover to what extent strategic silence was used as a form of greenwashing to build corporate reputation and legitimacy. To test this effectively, two empirical questions were established, each with several claims to be tested. The claims were tested using both the Chi-square and Independent Sample T-test statistical analyses. In order for these tests to be accurate, several assumptions need to be met. For the Chi-square test, which tests the association between two categorial variables, there are three main assumptions: at least 80% of the cells of the contingency table have an expected frequency of 5; no cells have a
frequency of 0, and the contingency table has at least three columns or three rows. In the case the final assumption was not met, the researcher collected the results from the Fisher’s Exact test. Otherwise, all other assumptions were met and the data collected from the Chi-square tests are
accurate. The Independent-Sample T-test, on the other hand, compares the means of two individual yet similar samples and has only one assumption: each of the two samples being compared consist of more than 30 cases. The assumption for the Independent-Sample T-test was fulfilled.
Inter-coder reliability
An inter-coder reliability (ICR) test was calculated to ensure the replicability of the study in the future. A second coder first partook in a coder training session held by the researcher in which the study was explained in thorough detail. The researcher presented the codebook and the second coder asked questions until they were confident in the coding procedure. Following the coder training session, both the researcher and the second coder coded the same 10% of the total content, resulting in 39 total tweets. These 39 tweets were selected through a systematic
sampling method of a total of 384 tweets. The intercoder reliability test indicates reliability between coders based on the Krippendorf’s Alpha value (see Appendix B, Table 4). All but one has a value of .7 or higher, including four with a value of 1. The item, Executional Framework: Plastics, with the lowest value of .653 was discussed between coders and modifications to the item were made in the codebook to increase clarity.
Results
To answer the first empirical question of the study, which examines how corporations apply strategic silence as a form greenwashing as a tool to build corporate reputation, three sub-claims were tested.
The first claim, E.1.a., stated that there was an increase of tweets relating to CSR over the course of time. To test this claim, a Chi-square test was performed. The results of the Chi-square show an increase in the percentage of tweets relating to CSR as time passed. In the most recent time group, Group 5, 77.6% of tweets related to CSR. In Group 4, 63.2% of tweets related to CSR, followed by Group 3 with 55.3%, Group 2 with 40.5%, and finally the most distant group, Group 1, with 37.6% (see Table 4). These results are statistically significant 𝑋!(4)= 30.14, p <
.001, with a weak effect, Goodman and Kruskal’s tau = .08. Therefore, the first claim can be confirmed.
Table 4
CSR tweets over time
Time Group N # of CSR Tweets Percent of CSR
Tweets Group 1 85 32 37.6% Group 2 79 32 40.5% Group 3 94 52 55.3% Group 4 68 43 63.2% Group 5 58 45 77.6%
The second claim, E1.b., states that Coca-Cola will tweet more about non-plastic related CSR more than plastic related CSR on its Twitter account. To affirm this claim, the presence of all ten CSR related topics were analyzed by the researcher. It was discovered that CSR tweets relating to plastics accounted for 33.8% of the total CSR related tweets and serves as the most represented CSR topic (see Table 5). While CSR tweets relating to plastics proved to be the most represented single topic in the data, plastics only represent approximately one third of all of the CSR related tweets on Coca-Cola’s corporate Twitter account. Therefore, this claim can be partially confirmed.
Table 5
CSR Topic N Percent of CSR Tweets Fishers Exact Business Ethics 67 32.7% .673 Corporate Volunteerism 28 13.7% .863 Environment 28 13.7% .863 Gender Equality 23 11.3% .888 Health 4 2% .980 LGBTQ+ 7 3.4% .966 Partnerships 42 20.6% .795 Resource Management 8 3.9% .961 Recycling 69 33.8% .663
The final claim, E1.c., made to answer the first empirical question, states that Coca-Cola will apply strategic silence in the form of “non-visible” more than in the form of “semi-plastic” in CSR related tweets. To test this claim, a Chi-square test was performed. The results show that of the 204 tweets discussing CSR (N= 204), 61.8% of tweets represented the “non-visible” form of strategic silence and 7.8% of tweets represented the “semi-plastic” form of strategic silence (see Table 6). The association between CSR tweets and the form of strategic silence is
statistically significant, 𝑋!(3) = 34.76, p < .001, with a very weak effect, Goodman & Kruskal’s
tau = .03. The results of this analysis confirm the final claim made in relation to the first empirical question.
Table 6
Presence of strategic silence
Greenwashing Variable N Percent of CSR Tweets
Non-Visible 126 61.8%
Semi-Plastic 16 7.8%
To answer the second empirical question of the study, which examines how corporations apply strategic silence as a form greenwashing as a tool to build and manage corporate
To test the first claim made in relation to the second empirical question, E2.a., which states that Coca-Cola will use more instrumental language than instrumental symbols; a Chi-square test was conducted. The results show that of the 204 tweets discussing CSR (N= 204), instrumental language was found in 60.8% and instrumental symbols was found in 32.8% (see Table 7). These values confirm claim E.2.a, and suggest that Coca-Cola applies instrumental language more than instrumental symbols in its CSR related tweets.
Table 7
Presence of instrumental language and symbols
Greenwashing Variable N Percent of CSR Tweets
Instrumental Language 124 60.8%
Instrumental Symbol 78 32.8%
To conclude both the second and third claims, E2.b. and E2.c, which claim that Coca-Cola used instrumental language and symbols more in CSR tweets relating to plastics more than other CSR related tweets, two separate Independent Sample T-tests were administered. The results of the Independent Sample T-test relating to claim E2.b showed that tweets discussing plastic (M = .63, SD = .49) were on average more likely to use instrumental language than tweets that do not discuss plastic (M = .28, SD = .45). The mean difference of 0.35 is statistically
significant t(382) = –4.73, p < .001, 95% CI [–.420 –.172]. The results of the Independent Sample T-test relating to claim E2.c showed that tweets discussing plastic (M = .51, SD = .50) are on average more likely to use instrumental symbols than tweets that do not discuss plastic (M = .21, SD = .41). The mean difference of .30 is statistically significant t(382) = –5.59, p < .001, 95% CI [–.468 –.223]. Therefore, both claims can be confirmed.
To test the fourth claim, E.2.d, which states Coca-Cola will use “process orientation” more than “product” and “image orientation”, a Chi-square test was performed. Of the CSR
orientation” claims accounted for 31.9%, and “image orientation” claims accounted for 49.3% of claims (see Table 8). The effect of a CSR tweet relating to plastic had on the type of claim orientation used was statistically significant, 𝑋!(3)= 159.95, p < .001, with a moderate effect,
Goodman & Kruskal’s tau = .47. Therefore, the fourth claim can be confirmed. Table 8
Presence of CSR topics
Claim Orientation N Percent of CSR
Tweets
No Claim 3 4.3%
Product 22 14.5%
Process 28 31.9%
Image 23 49.3%
Discussion & Conclusion
The goal of this study was to explore the extent to which strategic silence is used as a form of greenwashing by corporations. Based on extensive prior studies linking greenwashing to theoretical elements corporate reputation and legitimacy; this paper explores the effects of strategic silence as a form of greenwashing on these elements in particular by forming two distinct empirical questions. As a whole, this study works to further define strategic silence in communications literature as well as provide a foundation of data regarding strategic silence as a form of greenwashing for future research.
The findings of this research confirmed conclusions of studies conducted by various scholars regarding the relationship between CSR communication and social media; further suggesting that corporations are increasingly using social media to communicate CSR related content (Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Bernacchi et. al., 2013; Boyd et al., 2015; Tench & Jones, 2015). Many scholars have established a link between increased CSR and improved corporate
reputation (Bhattacharya et. al., 2010; Pollach, 2015). While the research further proves an increase of CSR communication on social media, this study proposes that corporations will apply the strategy of silence towards specific CSR issue arenas, especially those of which the
corporation has been publicly scrutinized for, in order to maintain its corporate reputation. In other words, corporations apply strategic silence as a form of greenwashing when choosing to disclose or not disclose particular CSR activities with specific intentions in mind.
In line with Signaling Theory, corporations “signal”, or communicate instrumental language and symbols via social media, positive CSR to stakeholders in an effort to gain the reputational benefits associated with increased CSR (Bhattacharya et. al., 2010; Su et. al., 2016). As proven in the study, however, corporations will be less inclined to “signal” CSR topics they have been publicly criticized for, as commenting on such issues can increase overall
vulnerability to reputational damage. While plastics were the most discussed CSR related topic, Coca-Cola applied strategic silence by excluding the word “plastic” as well as eliminating plastic products from visuals on its corporate Twitter account. The Coca-Cola excluded plastic, both in text and visuals in over half of its CSR related tweets. This strategically keeps plastic out of sight, and ideally out of the mind of stakeholders, highlighting the of strategic silence present in communication on the corporation’s Twitter.
This study, in line with Bhattacharya et. al. (2010), further contends that corporations will increase communication of specific CSR to build credibility in the eyes of its stakeholders. As proven in Bhattacharya et. al.’s (2010) study, increased credibility leads to an improved
reputation that allows for CSR communication to be accepted by stakeholders more often. It can therefore be expected that once corporations achieve gaining credibility and an improved
reputation, they will be more inclined to communicate more CSR that is at risk of skepticism from stakeholders, such as plastics for The Coca-Cola Company.
The use of instrumental language and symbols found in this study coincides with findings of prior research highlighting the use of greenwashing to enhance corporate legitimacy (Seele & Gatti, 2017). The research highlights the use of both categorizations of greenwashing. For instance, Coca-Cola applies instrumental language by using the word “recyclables” in tweets referring to plastic products (see Appendix B, Table 2). The word “recyclables” silences the issue of plastic pollution by both physically eliminating it as well as raising a solution-oriented word that can overshadow the problem of plastic. Therefore, this study contends that
instrumental language and symbols signify more than just greenwashing, but encompass exactly what strategic silence is by deliberately choosing words and images that silence stakeholder’s ability to see the corporations as it truly is.
The research also shows that Coca-Cola applied greenwashing in tweets relating to plastics more than other CSR related topics. This is in line with theory linking greenwashing and corporate legitimacy management. A consequence of Coca-Cola being publicly criticized, could be a shift in stakeholders’ perceptions on the corporation’s fundamental values and beliefs. Theory by to Bachman & Ingenhof (2016) suggests that in order for Coca-Cola to maintain legitimacy, the corporation must use strategic language and symbols to imply that the
corporation is consistently operating according to a specific set of norms and values across time and contexts.
The research suggests that Coca-Cola maintains its legitimacy by using specific types of claims, product, process, and image, when tweeting about plastics (Carlson et. al., 1997). The image orientation claim was utilized the most by Coca-Cola. The use of image orientation further
exemplifies strategic silence as a form of greenwashing as it uses the association with widely respected organizations and symbols to make a point about the corporation by implying shared values. Since Twitter is a platform with such limited space for content, when corporations make claims of the image orientation, they silence the internal voice of the corporation and fill this silence with content from external organizations or symbols. This depicts strategic silence in the utmost form because by remaining silent, corporations are more easily able to improve
legitimacy. Therefore, this study contends that corporations will apply this method of strategic silence as a form of greenwashing to mitigate against or maintain corporate legitimacy in particular.
Strategic silence has now been defined in this study in several ways. It is imperative to first acknowledge strategic silence as Smith (2005) defines it, when a corporation “under siege” chooses silence, and as Dimitrov (2019) states, the most indirect form of communication. Using these explanations as a basis for the term, this study further defines strategic silence as an additional form of greenwashing. Similar to other forms of greenwashing, strategic silence can be utilized by corporations as a tool to produce effects regarding corporate reputation and legitimacy. This is not to say strategic silence will have definite effects on these theoretical elements, but rather silence as greenwashing serves as an additional tool corporations’ can activate in times that threaten its reputation or legitimacy.
Theoretical and practical implications
The findings of this study not only build on previous literature in communication science but also lay the groundwork for future studies in its respect. Topics such as corporate reputation, corporate legitimacy, greenwashing, and corporate social responsibility have been discussed
exhaustively in the field of communication science. This research draws on these pre-determined theories and further examines them in the age of social media. Social media has created an unfamiliar environment in which all of the aforementioned theories have been challenged and rediscovered. It is imperative for this study, given the time period it was written in, to be draw on both traditional definitions of these theories whilst also explaining them in relation to social media.
This study also works to recognize the extremely underdiscussed yet irrefutably present subject matter of silence in communication theory. The research contributes to the limited discussion of silence by further acknowledging it as a communication strategy as well as breaking it down into distinct categories relating to text and visuals found on Twitter. The categories of strategic silence so closely resemble categories of greenwashing, instrumental language and instrumental symbols, that this study contends that strategic silence is, in fact, just another form of greenwashing.
These findings, while still in the beginning stage, could have immense practical
implications for corporations. If, after additional and more comprehensive research is conducted, strategic silence is proven to be another tool of greenwashing, corporate communications will be changed forever. The use of strategic silence could provide corporations the ability to focus on other aspects of business such as innovation rather than spending time and resources on
communication strategies. The practical implications strategic silence could have on stakeholders will also be interesting to observe.
There were several limitations to this study. The first and most prominent limitation of this study is a lack of prior research to draw on for variables relating to strategic silence. This challenged the coding process, as coding for something that is “silent” is contradictory.
Similarly, due to a lack of prior research, the claims of this study cannot be applied to practice and simply serve as a basis for future research to build upon. While the study suggests that strategic silence is a form of greenwashing used as a tool to manage corporate reputation and legitimacy; the motives of the corporations’ communication style and choices were not evaluated and no definitive claims can therefore be made.
Other limitations of the study were a result of the social media platform and the data-extraction method. First, the timeframe of the analyzed tweets. Due to the limitations of the researcher, an automated scraping program was used, resulting in a total of 3200 tweets over a 28-month time frame. Since plastic pollution has been in the public eye for decades, a more comprehensive study would evaluate Coca-Cola's communication of the plastic from the very beginning of the crisis. The limited timeframe also reduces the value of claims made about changes overtime. In order to measure the true effects of time, a longitudinal study of silence would be required. The second limitation of the study is the sample size. The study only
analyzed tweets published by the corporation, ultimately excluding all of the re-tweets and reply-tweets on Coca-Cola's Twitter account. The final sample size consisted of only 12% of the total scraped tweets. More tweets would need to be analyzed in order to make more definitive claims. The final limitation of the study was solely analyzing the corporation's Twitter account. Coca-Cola, like many other multinational corporations, is present on various social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
Future Research
The explorative nature of this study provides significant initial insights into a new track of research in communication science. Now more than ever, as corporations are expected to be proactive in communicating their CSR, it is easy for corporations that choose to remain silent to get lost in all of the noise. Additional research is imperative to discover the true long-term impacts of strategic silence. Future research must also conduct more investigative studies, such as qualitative interviews, regarding the motivations of corporate communication practitioners in applying strategic silence. This is crucial in determining the role of strategic silence in relation to corporate reputation and legitimacy management. Similarly, future research must conduct studies measuring how the use of strategic silence impacts stakeholders’ perceptions of corporations in regards to corporate reputation and legitimacy. Overall, a significant amount of future research is needed in order to gain a holistic understanding of strategic silence.
References
Alegado, J. (2018). Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé found to be worst plastic polluters worldwide in global cleanups and brand audits. Retrieved from
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org
Bachmann, P., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 386-394.
Balmer, J. M., & Powell, S. M. (2011). The nexus between ethical corporate marketing, ethical corporate identity and corporate social responsibility. European Journal of Marketing. Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional
landscape. Corporate reputation review, 9(1), 26-38.
Barnett, M. L., & Pollock, T. G. (2014). The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Boyd, D. E., McGarry, B. M., & Clarke, T. B. (2016). Exploring the empowering and
paradoxical relationship between social media and CSR activism. Journal of Business
Research, 69(8), 2739-2746.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods: OUP Oxford.
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018). Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 130-169.
Chae, B. K., & Park, E. O. (2018). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): A survey of topics and trends using Twitter data and topic modeling. Sustainability, 10(7), 2231.
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228–248.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate reputation
review, 10(3), 163-176.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of management Studies, 42(2), 329- 360.
Demuijnck, G., & Fasterling, B. (2016). The social license to operate. Journal of Business
Ethics, 136(4), 675-685.
Dimitrov, R. (2019). Explicit and implicit strategies of silence. Journal of Advertising and Public
Relations. 2019; 2 (1): 19-31.
Dowling, G. (2000). Creating corporate reputations identity, image, and performance. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific sociological review, 18(1), 122-136.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International journal of
management reviews, 12(1), 8-19.
Fombrun, C. (2005). Building Corporate Reputation Through CSR initiatives: Evolving Standards’, Corporate Reputation Review. vol, 8, 7-11.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & society, 39(3), 254-280. Ihlen, Ø., & Pallas, J. (2014). 18. Mediatization of corporations. In Mediatization of
communication. de Gruyter Berlin, Boston.
Iqbal, M. (2020). Twitter Revenue and Usage Statistics (2020). Retrieved from https://www.businessofapps.com
Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. NYU Press. Kesavan, R., Bernacchi, M. D., & Mascarenhas, O. A. (2013). Word of mouse: CSR
communication and the social media. International Management Review, 9(1), 58-66. Kemp, S. (2020). Digital in 2020: global digital overview. We are Social, Hootsuite, jan. Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of
management, 37(1), 153-184.
Laville, S. (2019). Coca-Cola admits it produces 3m tonnes of plastic packaging a year. Retrieved https://www.theguardian.com
Le, P. D., Teo, H. X., Pang, A., Li, Y., & Goh, C. Q. (2019). When is silence golden? The use of strategic silence in crisis communication. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal.
Le Guern, C. (2019). When The Mermaids Cry: The Great Plastic Tide. Retrieved from https://plastic-pollution.org
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Measuring credibility perceptions in CSR communication: a scale development to test readers’ perceived credibility of CSR reports. Management
Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 584-613.
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3-41.
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2013). Tweetjacked: The impact of social media on corporate greenwash. Journal of business ethics, 118(4), 747-757.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
Maor, M., Gilad, S., & Bloom, P. B. N. (2011). Organizational Reputation, Regulatory Talk and Strategic Silence. Center for Research in Social Sciences and the Levi Eshkol Institute for
Miles, T. (2019). U.N. clinches deal to stop plastic waste ending up in the sea. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com
Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804-1836. Pollach, I. (2015). Strategic corporate social responsibility: the struggle for legitimacy and reputation. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 10(1), 57-75. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis. University of Chicago press.
Ros-Diego, V. J., & Castelló-Martínez, A. (2012). CSR communication through online social media. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (67), 47.
Roshan, M., Warren, M., & Carr, R. (2016). Understanding the use of social media by organisations for crisis communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 350-361. Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and
reactions to crisis communication via Twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public
relations review, 37(1), 20-27.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio, The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 108-140.
Chicago: University of Chica
Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation‐ based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26(2), 239-252.
Segev, S., Fernandes, J., & Hong, C. (2016). Is your product really green? A content analysis to reassess green advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(1), 85-93.
Segran, E. (2019). Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the world's biggest plastic polluters- again. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com
Seijo, B. C. (2019). Plastics crisis. Chemical & Engineering News, 97(21), 2-2. Serafeim, G. (2013). The role of the corporation in society: An alternative view and
opportunities for future research.
Smith, R. D. (2005). Instructors manual to accompany strategic planning for public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, B. (2019). How Is Plastic Trash Affecting the Ocean Food Chain? Retrieved from https://sciencing.com
Spence, M. (1973). Job marketing signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87(3): 355-374. Su, W., Peng, M. W., Tan, W., & Cheung, Y. L. (2016). The signaling effect of corporate social
responsibility in emerging economies. Journal of business Ethics, 134(3), 479-491. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
Tench, R and Jones, B (2015) Social Media: the Wild West of CSR Communications. Social Responsibility Journal, 11 (2).
Wartick, S. L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation. Business & Society, 31, 33-42.
Wartick, S. L. (2002). Measuring corporate reputation: Definition and data. Business &
Society, 41(4), 371-392.
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders’ organizational identification affects the role of
Appendix A
:
Please read
and/or view all of the
visuals
present in
the
tweet
thoroughly before coding
.
Please follow the directions and utilize
the definitions
and examples
pr
ovided for c
larity when needed.
This file serves as a gu
ide and the researcher asks
the coder to p
lease use the
excel spreadsheet to fill in the c oding data. ( First, Last) Tweet #: (1 -384) Time DD/MM/YYYY Operational Definition Examples Tweet Topic only e selected ): 1. Corporate Volunteerism 2. Diversity 3. Employees 4. Environmentalism 5. Finance The
general topic of the tweet.
1.
“When communities are in need, we can use our network of resources for good. Together with our
bottlers, we’re
donating millions of beverages (and counting) to refresh first responders and make a difference in cities big and small.
”
2.
“We’re committed to achieving #genderequality and #diversity in the workplace
6. Innovation 7. Partnerships 8. Prod ucts 9. Services 10. Other 3.
“We strive to make sure that each employee feels comfortable bringing their whole self to work.
”
4.
“World Environment Day is about raising awareness and taking action to protect our planet.
”
5.
“$KO CEO Quincey: “Our emerging and developing markets are accelerating, with double
-digit organic
revenue growth year
-to
-date.”
6.
“Innovation allows us to meet consumer demand whilst doing business the right way.
”
7.
“In a first
-of
-its
-kind partnership with
Netflix,
”
8.
“Our most iconic brands continue adapting to market trends and tastes
.
Meet Sprite Ginger and Sprite Ginger Zero Sugar
.”
9.
“Our new subscription service gives Coca
-Cola ‘Insiders’ a first taste of our
newest beverages, delivered to their doorstep.
10.
"Few things in business are more frustrating to me than when I see failure without learning," says Chief Growth Officer Francisco Crespo.
” Corporate Reputation Strategic Silence 0. Absent 1. Non -Visible 2. Plastic 3. Semi -Plastic
The tweet is considered to have a plastics executional framework if it meets one or more of the following elements: Absent
:
There is no use of the
word “plastic” in the text and/or no display of plastic and/or any other plastic product in the visual of the tweet.
Non -visible: The tweet and/or vi sual displays products but
none of which are pla
stic
.
Plastic:
The use of the word
“plastic” in the text and/or
the
display of a plastic bottle and/or any other plastic product in the visual
of
the
tweet.
Semi
-plastic:
There is use of
the word “plastic” in the text but no use of plastic bottles and/or other plastic products in the visual
(if present)
of the
tweet. There is no use of the word “plastic” in the text but there is use of plastic bottles and/or other plastic products in the visual (if present)
of the
tweet. There is a mixture of plastic, glass, and aluminum (cans) products in the visual
(if
present)
of the tweet.
1. Present
Recycling:
The use of the
word “plastic”
and/or
“recycle, recycling, recyclable”
in the text and/or
the display of a plastic bottle and/or any other plastic product and/or the recycling logo and/or recycling in the visual
(if present)
of
the
tweet.
•
CSR Communication
1. Present
Communication discussing a corporation’s philanthropic, environmental, diversity and labor practices, and volunteerism efforts.
This
applies to both in text communication and visuals.
1. Business Ethics 2. Corporate Volunteerism 3. Environment 4. Gender Equali ty 5. Health 6. LGBTQ + 7. Par tnerships 8. Resource Managem en t 9. Recycling/Plastics 1.
“Since 1984, The Coca
-Cola
Foundation has given away more than $1B to some 2,400 organizations. #ThanksABillion
2.
“When communities are in need, we can use our network of resources for good. Together with our
bottlers,
we’re donating millions of beverages (and counting) to refresh first responders and make a difference in cities big and small.
”
3.
“World Environment Day is about raising awareness and taking action to protect our planet.
”
4.
“Achieving #genderequality and enabling economic empowerment strengthens the workplace and our communities
.”
5.
“We’re innovating faster to bring people the drinks they want. In 2020, we’ll introduce more choices with new flavors, less sugar and added benefits.
”
6.
ended by governments alone. The Coca
-Cola Company is proud to
have been part of this initiative since the beginning.
”
7.
“The RAIN program partners with local organizatio
ns to help provide
easy access to clean water in Madagascar.
”
8.
“Water is essential, and we have a responsibility to respect and protect water resources.
”
9.
“Recycling facilities and local infrastructure are essential to give materials a second life.
” CSR Communication more can be s elected ): • Business Ethics • Corporate Volunteerism • Environment • Gender Equali ty • Health • LGBTQ + • Par tnerships
• Resource Managem en t • Recycling/Plastics Corporate Legitimacy Visuals 0. Absent 1. Photo 2. Video 3. GIF
Executional Framework: overall green “words
-and
-
phrases”
0. Absent 1. Present *If Absent, proceed to question 3.3
A tweet is considered to have a green “
words and phrases
”
executional framework if
the
text and/or visual of the twee
t
contain
one or more of the
following elements:
•
Earth, Planet Earth,
•
Eco, Eco
-Friendly
•
Globe, Global, Globally
•
Green, Greener
•
Natural, 100% Natural, Nature
•
