1
‘Master’s Thesis’
‘Graduate School of Communication’ ‘Master’s programme Communication Science’
Stakeholders’ growing demands for a bigger voice:
Do Sharing Companies’ engage their Stakeholders in dialogue about CSR initiatives on Social Media?
Supervisor: Dr. James Slevin
2 Abstract
Globalization and its damaging consequences raised stakeholders’ environmental and social awareness, so that they are also becoming more skeptical about the nature of CSR initiatives, especially since these are often practiced with the motive to improve corporate image and reputation. Therefore stakeholders demand a bigger voice in CSR initiatives, so that their own interests are better reflected in organizational practices. This might preclude negative
consequences which could have been caused by corporations otherwise. The aim of this research is to investigate if sharing companies actually approach stakeholders’ demands for a greater say in CSR activities. Thus it examines five sharing companies’ Facebook usage (between January and April 2015) and the extent to which they use social media to facilitate stakeholder dialogue and engagement on these CSR initiatives. For this purpose the content analysis included a textual analysis of corporate Facebook posts, examining corporations’ social media use for CSR communication, CSR topics employed, stakeholder interest and engagement evoked and finally dialogue strategies used. Findings reveal that sharing companies barely use Facebook for CSR communication. Those few cases of CSR communication found show that it is majorly practiced with promotional and advertising intentions, instead of facilitating stakeholder engagement and dialogue.
3 Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its communication have lately become one of the most important ways for organizations to describe and justify their codes of conduct towards society. This increased attention to societal issues did not only evolve in behalf of
organizations’ own, voluntary initiative to fight grievances worldwide, but rather in parallel with growing environmental and social awareness among stakeholders and their rising demands for genuine corporate responsibility. Yet research shows that organizations’ extensive CSR endeavors are often neither driven by an urge to meet stakeholders’
expectations for more transparency (in terms of accountability) nor by a moral intention to promote and contribute to social change, but more by the multi faceted returns that an effective CSR communication can render (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). Hence
stakeholders have become even more skeptical towards such ambiguous CSR initiatives, since they are well aware of the underlying financial ulterior motives CSR practices can have. Globalization and its damaging consequences (e.g. environmental degradation, offshoring and sweatshops causing dumping wages etc.) have in fact contributed to those skeptical
stakeholder perceptions and also increased stakeholder awareness. As a result these indignant stakeholders claim a greater say and involvement in CSR practices, instead of contenting themselves with plain information on annual reports stating how responsible corporations have been. Stakeholders seem to claim that their own interests are better reflected in corporate actions, so they can make sure that unintended negative consequences, which would have been caused by organizations otherwise, do not occur. But do organizations actually meet those expectations for more involvement and right to a say or rather not?
In fact the aforementioned developments led stakeholder engagement and dialogue become one of the most crucial issues of stakeholder management and particularly indispensable for decision making processes concerning CSR practices. Yet organizations could use social
4
media, which provides enough dialogic interaction for negotiation and consensus to answer stakeholders’ expectations for transparency in terms of CSR practices, by engaging them in dialogue about these issues. But how does CSR communication on social media look like in practice? Is CSR even communicated on social media, and if yes, is there an intention to generate dialogue and negotiate about its content or is it rather conveyed to impose certain, more favorable images of organizations? To shed light on the questions raised, this study examines sharing companies Facebook usage and the extent to which stakeholders are engaged in dialogue about CSR initiatives on this platform.
Hereby it is particularly interesting to investigate sharing companies’ social media usage since these promise to conduce to the problems caused by globalization and our lavish way of producing and consuming. At closer examination it becomes pretty evident that the core of the Sharing economy (or collaborative consumption) indeed contains some form of intrinsic CSR, since it challenges the conventional ways of owning and purchasing through sharing and collaborating, thus contributing to society by attenuating those issues caused by excessive production and consumption (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Yet does this intrinsic sustainability and responsibility of the sharing economy, as described above, imply that its companies also highly engage stakeholders in dialogue about societal and environmental efforts, because CSR is incorporated in its essence?
Despite its increasing importance past research on Corporate Social Responsibility and stakeholder engagement and dialogue have several limitations: First of all a majority of studies about CSR explores the phenomenon from an organizational perspective, examining if investments in CSR automatically increase returns, to what extent impalpable benefits can be measured and how CSR could be applied in the most optimal way (Brown & Dacin 1997; Fombrun 1996; Grunig 2006; Hall 2006; McWilliams & Siegel 2000; Sen & Bhattacharya 2001). Further a vast amount of studies on CSR in relation to stakeholder engagement and
5
dialogue exclusively deals with how corporations can facilitate stakeholder dialogue in offline situations and to what extent these interactions influence organizations’ codes of conduct (Burchell & Cook, 2006; Millar, Choi & Chen, 2004; Payne & Calton, 2002, 2004; van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008), thus neglecting the importance of online domains. Especially with the rise of novel ICTs, organizations are facing new problems in regards to stakeholder engagement and CSR communication. Particularly social media have become the arenas for public dialogues, so that organizations could ease stakeholders’ understanding about CSR initiatives by involving them into these conversations (Eberle, Berens & Li, 2013). On the other hand organizations are also exposed to a wider public, in which criticism can spread rapidly, making them more vulnerable after all. Thus there is still uncertainty among corporations since they are not entirely sure how to apply social media properly.
The first section of the study contains a review of the most significant literature about sharing economy, stakeholder theory, social media, CSR and public relations, recapturing the key theoretical perspectives used. This is followed by research design and methodology for collecting and analyzing the data. Last but not least findings are presented, which are finished off with a discussion and implications of this research for practice and theory.
The results of this research will add to the disciplines of stakeholder engagement and CSR communication since it examines the degree to which interactivity and dialogic features of social media are seized by sharing corporations to promote stakeholder engagement and dialogue concerning CSR practices. So far it is not known how corporations actually approach the problem of stakeholders becoming increasingly skeptical and thus demanding a greater say in corporate actions. The findings of the study, however, will ultimately reveal if sharing companies in fact meet stakeholders demands for a bigger voice, disclosing if those
6 Literature Review
Sharing Economy
Felson and Spaeth (1978) were one of the first to describe the term collaborative consumption as a joint activity, in which several individuals are engaged in, to consume economic goods or services altogether: be it gatherings to watch TV jointly (like it used to be in 70s), seeking a Laundromat or sharing a car to work. These forms of sharing, however, do not deal with those recent developments in the online domain.
A newer definition of the phenomenon focusing mainly on online domains is delivered by Botsman and Rogers (2010), who postulate an alternative form of ownership and purchasing, with reduced personal and environmental costs. In their conception, access to goods and services is more crucial than owning personal property, so that collaborative forms of consumption and sharing could in the end even attenuate (global) environmental pollution caused by the excessive way we produce and consume (ibid.).
Collaboration and sharing, however, are closely related constructs, making it difficult to draw a clear line between them. This is also mirrored in the terminology within the field, since some prefer the term collaborative consumption while others again label the phenomenon as the sharing economy. Belk (2014) even goes one step further and tries to differentiate between those overlapping concepts of collaborative consumption and sharing economy, despite their close and coherent nature. Yet in this research both concepts refer to the same phenomenon.
The idea of sharing itself is not a novel invention of modern society. Humans have been collaborating through lending, swapping, renting and sharing since ancient times (Netter, 2015). Already well before, namely in the Stone Age, collaboration was crucial for survival, which is why our ancestors have hunted and gathered in groups or packs, to increase their chances to stay alive (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). These historic and natural forms of human
7
collaboration would have been gradually disrupted through mass consumption (beginning with the 1920s) and replaced with the values of hyper consumption: purchasing abundantly luxury goods and defining oneself through their possession (ibid). This assertion can be regarded in close relation to Baudrillard’s Consumer Society, wherein he defines happiness as a state, which is individually sought through the purchase of objects that are anticipated to fulfill maximal personal satisfaction (Baudrillard, 1998).
According to Botsman and Rogers (2010) the Internet would have enabled an infrastructure that is able to revive our sharing instincts again. Hereby four main principles would play a key role in facilitating the rapid emergence of the collaboration economy: first one to mention would be (1) critical mass, defined as “a sociological term used to describe the existence of momentum in a system to make it become self-sustaining” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010, p. 75). In connection with the collaboration economy this would mean that peer-to-peer social networks and real time communication technologies, easing human communication
fundamentally, make the system successful, only if consumers are pleased by the convenience and choices it provides them over time. A second principle would be the slumbering inherent (2) idling capacity of goods and services, referring to the overall potential of unexploited goods and services, waiting to be redistributed somewhere else where they are needed. Especially in times of urgent unresolved environmental issues, it does not seem reasonable to purchase an item that is barely used for a couple of minutes in its entire time being (eg. electric drill). Next up (3) belief in the commons would describe a restored faith in community, friendship and neighborship, while (4) trust between strangers would be enhanced by the gradual detachment from conventional markets, caused by a lack of trust because of ongoing financial crises and recessions.
These last two points can be seen in close relation to the sharing economies intrinsic attribute of community development: through sharing and collaboration the sharing economy
8
postulates a new form of consumption that tackles current issues of lavish and excessive production, thus contributing to the development of communities worldwide (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). This is also the reasoning where the sharing economies inherent CSR lays, since it juxtaposes the core of its being with a social cause of community development. Yet to establish such communities, interaction among stakeholders is required, which can
subsequently lead to consensus through negotiation. Because first of all such objectives (of community development) must be conveyed to stakeholders, and then they should be involved in the decision making processes concerning these objectives. As aforementioned,
stakeholders increasingly demand a greater say in corporations decision making processes, and with the interactivity Facebook offers they could actually attain it. Moreover sharing companies’ inherent CSR in combination with stakeholders growing expectations and Facebook’s dialogic infrastructure leads to the assumption that those companies will also communicate highly about CSR practices on this social medium.
Involving CSR Communication
In the midst of the last century, CSR has become an interesting phenomenon for scholars to investigate. The increased attention towards this particular topic has grown in parallel with rising environmental and social awareness among stakeholders and organizations. Varying definitions of the concept have been proposed ever since (e.g. Bowen, 1953; Carroll, 1979, 1991; Davis & Blomstrom, 1975), depending hereby on the specific individual as well as theoretical angle taken, and did not stop to evolve in the course of time (Carroll, 1999).
Whereas initial definitions of CSR mostly dealt with more general issues such as fulfilling organizations’ economic and legal obligations, newer conceptualizations also focus on stakeholders’ wellbeing and social concerns. Therefore a large extent of scholars regards the
9
evolution of CSR in close relation to stakeholder management (Carroll, 1991; Lee & Carroll, 2011; Mason & Simmons, 2014). Building up on this CSR is often not only defined as a mean for organizations to show that they comply with economic and legal obligations, but also involve a certain kind of responsibility towards their stakeholders and society (McGuire, 1963; Doh & Guay, 2006). In his pyramid of corporate social responsibility Carroll (1991) distinguishes between economic responsibility (being profitable), legal responsibility (obeying the law), ethical responsibility (being ethical) and philanthropic responsibility: “…,
philanthropic responsibilities reflect upon the common desire to see businesses actively involved in the betterment of society beyond their economic, legal and ethical
responsibilities.” (Lee & Carroll, 2011, pp.116-117). Yet the shift towards non-economic norms as guidelines for successful CSR mirrors the increased importance of stakeholders for organizations, but also the necessity for a good reputation: conveying society that one is committed to its wellbeing eases organizations to maintain a positive reputation. Hereby it is relevant not to forget that reputations are not exclusively depending on services and goods provided, but also on the way employees are treated, to what extent social dedication is present and how finances and leadership are managed (Morsing, Schultz & Nielsen, 2008).
Communicating with stakeholders about corporate actions is fundamental for effective
reputation management and can therefore facilitate its successful implementation (Fombrun & van Riel, 1997). Especially in regard to CSR activities it is essential that corporations
communicate as these are usually not publicly observable for stakeholders, except
organizations inform and use communication as a tool to foster relationships with them by involving them in conversations about CSR practices (Epstein & Roy, 2001). Hereby it is possible to use several communication approaches for different purposes, such as informing stakeholders(one way communication), responding to stakeholders and their concerns
10
CSR activities (symmetric two-way communication)( (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Literature from the field of PR, suggest that organizations which emphasize the importance of
stakeholders should enhance their involvement through communication that is dialogic, mutual and two ways, whereas proper social media adoption could increase such an inclusion (Grunig, 1992; Grunig 2009). Employing dialogic communication practices like this is conceived more beneficial, since it is said to be more ethical and therefore conveys the perception that stakeholders are indeed a valuable part of the corporation. If such a sense of belonging can be evoked, stakeholders will be more likely to function as ambassadors of corporate CSR activities and participate in proposing new practices (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Hence Morsing and Schultz state that: “Instead of imposing corporate norms for CSR initiatives on stakeholders, the invitation to participate and co-construct the corporate CSR message increases the likelihood that these stakeholders and those who identify with them will identify positively with the company “ (ibid, p.335). Communication management should not only include the collection of information about society and its issues, but also balance and adjust what the corporation does, with what it claims to be and how this is communicated to the public (Johansson &Nielsen, 2011). Therefore communication is crucial for engaging stakeholders in ethical business practices and CSR, especially since these activities are of paramount importance for organizations (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Previous research (Elving & van Vuuren, 2011; Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010) reveals that CSR communication is oftentimes practiced for marketing and publicity intentions, which organizations pursue to manipulate stakeholders’ opinions, reinforcing thereby corporate reputation while stakeholder involvement in decision making processes about CSR activities falls short. The public,
however, is aware and skeptical towards such intriguing CSR intentions, through which organizations try to appear more responsible towards society than they are (Elving & van Vuuren, 2011; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Consequently stakeholders’ skepticism has grown
11
their demands for more involvement, expecting organizations to incorporate stakeholder interests better in corporate actions.
Dialogue for stakeholder engagement
The definition of dialogue is not new and there is an abundant range of concepts across
disciplines. Recent conceptualizations of stakeholder dialogue build upon previous findings of scholars such as Buber, Bakthin, Gadamer and Habermas (Arnett et al, 2008; Payne & Calton, 2004; Theunissen & Noordin, 2012; Kent, 2010). An outstanding characteristic of dialogue, distinguishing it from other types of two-way communication, is the high degree of openness it provides (Chapman, Ramondt & Smiley, 2005; Burchell & Cook, 2006). Following this approach, dialogue is depicted as “an intersubjective process in which parties come to a relationship with openness and respect” (Lungu, 2011, p. 266). Further it is described as mutual process in which organizations and stakeholders are able to learn altogether by creating common experiences (Schein, 2003) and strive for consensus, postulating a good-faith conduct to some extent in order to comply with stakeholders’ expectations (Susskind, McKearnan & Thomas-Larmer, 1999). In the same vein literature from the field of public relations defines stakeholder dialogue as a process in which both parties are met as equal instances and not as a means to an end (Theunissen & Noordin, 2012). Moreover stakeholder dialogue is grounded on the premise of mutuality, recognizing the inescapable relationships between corporations and their stakeholders; propinquity, the orientation and attachment of organizations and stakeholders to their relationships; empathy, describing “the supportiveness and confirmation of public goals and interests” (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 24); risk, defining unforeseeable consequences of relationships; and ultimately commitment, or the willingness to engage in dialogic interactions (Kent & Taylor, 2002). According to Stückelberger (2009) stakeholder dialogue would affect ethical corporate decisions in regard to social and
12
environmental responsibilities. As a matter of fact dialogue has become a decisive communication strategy for organizations to perpetuate accountability towards their stakeholders. And ever since information about corporate activities has become simple to access, stakeholders’ awareness of these actions has grown in parallel with their expectations for responsible and ethical corporate citizenship (Fieseler & Fleck, 2013; Johansen & Nielsen, 2011). Consequently the Internet has not just evolved into a sphere to inform oneself about corporate actions, but has simultaneously also become a platform for stakeholder opposition and resistance against inappropriate corporate behavior (Payne & Calton, 2004).
Organizations have to be actively present in these public domains in order to deliver instant and accurate information when it is needed. A variety of scholars conforms to the statement that dialogue can indeed facilitate the establishment of reciprocal relationships between corporations and their stakeholders (Cornelissen, 2014; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Nielsen & Thomsen, 2009). In fact, dialogue is believed to be a more moral way for communication with stakeholders in comparison to just spreading information, since dialogue it entails finding a compromise through negotiating ideas and meanings on a problem (Johansen & Nielsen, 2011), while corporate communication tends to approach issues from an organizational perspective. Organizations that apply dialogue as a mean to maintain stakeholder relations perceive their codes of conduct as strengthened and therefore predict an increased growth in reputation and trust, which are crucial factors for solving possible controversies and issues with stakeholders. A great number of management scholars like Stückelberger (2009), Payne and Calton (2004), Burchel and Cock (2013), Lawrence (2002) and public relations experts such as Kelleher (2007), Kent and Taylor (2002), Heath et al. (2006), Romenti, Murtarelli and Valentini (2014) and Toth (1992) consent to dialogue being the remedy for comprehending and approaching stakeholder relations properly. Dialogue, however, is not just conceived as a moral way to engage with stakeholders and a requirement for being socially and
13
organization. Because dialogue can indeed reduce conflict (Millar et al., 2004; Weick, 1995) when the opposing parties involved agree to negotiate about social concerns and if the willingness to listen and learn from another is present (Burchell & Cock, 2013; Lawrence, 2002; Romenti et al., 2014). Moreover it gives stakeholders the opportunity to freely express their ideas and concerns, whereby not every individual might feel the urge to do so, only the ones feeling directly affected by the organization itself (Freeman, 1984). So far dialogue has been defined as a result of two-way, symmetrical communication (Grunig, 2009; Lattimore, Baskin & Aronoff, 2004) and also as a philosophical point of view (cf. Heath et al., 2006; Kelleher, 2007).Yet in this conception it is more of a process than a mere outcome of communicative interactions between stakeholders and organizations. Hence stakeholder dialogue can be applied to pursue agreement (centripetal dialogue orientation) or to
encourage several perspectives (centrifugal dialogue orientation) (c.f. Bakhtin, 1990; Baxter, 1992). Further it can be designed according an inside-out approach, meaning that the subjects are selected by organizations, which does not preclude them being among the subjects as well, whereas in an outside-in approach topics are suggested by stakeholders and their interests (Nielsen, 1981; Romenti et al., 2014; van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008). By merging dialogue approaches with orientations four main dialogue strategies emerge that organization can use to engage with stakeholders (Romenti et al., 2014), which are: (1) framing, (2) concertative, (3) transformative and (4) generative dialogue strategies (see table 1). The framing strategy is mostly applied when corporations aim to strengthen their corporate image. Hereby
organizations frame the actual content of the ongoing stakeholder dialogue to such an extent, so that they can shift the original scope of the dialogue around their framed content.
Concertative strategy is employed when corporations strive for their stakeholders’ consent on their course of actions, in order to establish consensus among them. Often it is perceived as a rhetorical tool through which organizations negotiate meanings on corporate initiatives. Nielsen (1981) and Innes (2004) state that concertative conversations’ primary goal is to
14
disseminate background information to enhance consensus formation and thereby reconcile an organization’s codes of conduct. Both, framing and concertative strategies are of centripetal nature, meaning that they are used with an ulterior motive to gain control over stakeholders’ opinions.
Framing and concertative strategies are of centripetal nature, meaning that their application is mainly perceived as a means for gaining control over stakeholders’ opinions. On the other hand dialogue strategies with a centrifugal nature, like transformative or generative strategies, foster a variety of opinions by handing over control (over dialogues) to stakeholders and permit them to express themselves frankly and genuinely (Romenti et al., 2014; Theunissen & Noordin, 2012). Further transformative strategies stand for open knowledge sharing,
providing stakeholders with inside information and including them into decision making processes concerning the organization (Gray, 2007; Skordoulis & Dawson, 2007). Generative strategies explore stakeholders’ true concerns and demands towards organizations through a discursive approach, in which new solutions are created without the enforcement of framed contents. Dialogue is generally used as a mean to promote the voice of minorities (Schotter, 2008), so that stakeholders can participate in the creation of unexplored solutions.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
The above mentioned approaches are four different macro communicative strategies, which can be used to realize various organizational goals while simultaneously enhancing
stakeholder engagement. Hereby the chosen strategy depends on the purpose and context where stakeholder dialogue takes place. According Menigs and Eppler (2008) organizations should distinguish between six different macro dimensions and contexts that can influence organizations’ course of actions: first message contents and forms, secondly conversational flow among participants, third intentions of participants, fourth their mental schemata, five group dynamics, and last but not least conversational background/organizational settings.
15
Even though organizations try to push stakeholder dialogue forward, while taking the six macro strategies and their contexts into consideration, it does not imply that real dialogue is achieved (Romenti et al., 2014). If dialogue is considered more of a process than a mere outcome, the main purpose for organizations should be to create chances, so that stakeholders can express themselves more freely (Theunissen & Noordin, 2012).
Stakeholder dialogue and social media
Developments in ICT and the following emergence of social media, have not only created opportunities but also potential threats to organization’s responsibility. Especially social media being characterized by its user generated content (Safko & Brake, 2009), has altered the way organization communicate about themselves and their actions. On one hand social media offer chances for organizations so that they can undermine mass media’s role as a gatekeeper and directly engage with their stakeholders (Castelló et al., 2013; Fieseler et al., 2010). Recent studies reveal that organizations communicating through social media can evoke meaningful relationships with their stakeholders and even improve corporate
reputation, owing to social media’s capacity for interactivity (Eberle et al., 2013). In the same vein Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2010) underline that applying social media for CSR
communication can improve the effectivity of corporate communications since SM users could take on a role of a message transmitter, redistributing content in their own network. On the other hand social media can also pose a threat to organizations’ image and reputation, particularly when it used by stakeholders to express their dissatisfaction with the corporation (Elving & van Vuuren, 2011) or when it violates privacy concerns and discloses confidential content. The features of social media allow for content being rapidly spread without having real boundaries to time and space, so that negative opinions can reach millions of
16
social media have empowered stakeholders to directly address their concerns to organizations as well as to other stakeholders. Every user can initiate conversations in an online domain of which organizations have less control. All the more it is crucial for organizations to be present in these domains and scholars even underline that this is not a matter of choice, but rather a necessity to apply social media in order to participate in debates concerning the own
organization (DiStaso & McCorkindale, 2013; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012;Verhagen et al., 2013). Besides social media gives users the chance to interchange opinions, facilitating
thereby stakeholder dialogue. Dialogue, in turn, has become an essential concept that drives social media communication since it facilitates stakeholder relations and engagement (e.g. Briones et al., 2011; Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Gordon & Berhow, 2009; Henderson & Bowley, 2010; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Taylor et al., 2001). Moreover any negotiated interchange of opinions or thoughts can be defined as dialogic communication (Kent & Taylor, 2002), while it is mainly practiced according two main principles: (1) principal of mutual recognition, implying that consensus is not a prerequisite outcome of dialogue
whereas interaction and exchange are necessary to some extent; and secondly the (2) principle of intersubjectivity, stating that dialogue is not about objective truth.
Kent and Taylor’s work on dialogic theory of public relations (2002) was originally intended to describe communications in the Internet, while later studies (cf. Adams & McCorkindale, 2013; Bonsón & Ratkai, 2013; DiStaso & McCorkindale, 2013) extended its framework to social media usage, which is in comparison to the internet much more convenient for producing and interchanging content among stakeholders. The dialogic loop is described by Kent & Taylor as a process facilitated by design features of Web pages which allow for organizations to respond to issue-based information and thus can be seen as a criterion, according which it is assessed if corporations have indeed dialogues with their stakeholders on social media. In fact dialogic loop describes the degree to which stakeholders’ are free to
17
question organizations’ codes of conduct and simultaneously the extent to which those concerns are responded to. Hence it can be used to measure stakeholder engagement that organization elicit, counting thereby the amount of “likes” on a corporate Facebook post or page, or the amount of people that “follow” an organization on Twitter or even the amount of users that “subscribe” to an organization’s YouTube channel (c.f. Bonsón & Ratkai, 2013). Subscribing, following or liking, however, might mirror a particular level of stakeholder interest and awareness, which is not in line with stakeholder engagement though
(McCorkindale, DiStaso, & Fussell-Sisco, 2013). Although there are myriad conceptions of what ultimately constitutes real stakeholder engagement, this approach rather defines “engagement” in close relation with involving stakeholders into decision making processes and is marked by the quality of communications and dialogic processes between
organizations’ and their stakeholders (Greenwood, 2007). Besides stakeholder engagement includes interplay, interaction and collaborative activities (Sloan, 2009) like dialogic communications (Kent & Taylor, 1998). Thus it is proposed that dialogic loop
encompassingreciprocal communicative interactions on social media, is the best tool for measuring stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement in turn, can lead to the establishment of virtual relationships since it involves interactions between users. Another crucial element for creating dialogic relationships with stakeholders is the feature of
conversational human voice, meaning that one should reply to stakeholders in an informal but also personal and human manner (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; McCorkindale, 2011), which relates positively with commitment, satisfaction and trust in an organization.
18 Research questions
The aim of this research is to investigate if sharing companies approach stakeholders’ demands for a bigger voice and more involvement. Therefore it is examined if those companies apply social media to convey their CSR practices to stakeholders and how they engage them in dialogic communication to negotiate about these CSR initiatives. Thus following research questions are posed:
RQ I: How far is social media integrated into the communication mix of sharing companies?
RQ II: How far do sharing companies apply social media for CSR communication?
RQ III: Which CSR topics are used most for CSR communication on Facebook?
RQ IV: How much interest and engagement do stakeholders show towards CSR communication on Facebook?
RQ V: Which dialogue strategies do sharing companies employ for communicating CSR on Facebook?
19 Research design
Approach and sampling
To shed light on the research question posed, a multi case study approach was chosen (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989) since the scope of this research encompasses an examination of CSR and its different communication strategies to engage stakeholders in dialogue on social media. Six different companies, but from varying industries, of the sharing economy were chosen to be included in the sample. Such selection across industries provides more diversity and a more holistic picture of the communication tactics that sharing companies embrace, rather than focusing on one specific branch. Table 1 gives an outline of all companies scrutinized in the research.
The reason why only Facebook accounts are analyzed lays in the fact that it provides characteristics of mediated communication which mimic the richness of face to face
communication. And ever since this study investigates the extent to which interactivity, that social media provides, is seized by corporations to engage stakeholders in dialogue about CSR activities, Facebook was chosen to be the most appropriate platform with the right features to analyze. Oftentimes, companies have several social media accounts for each country they operate in. In order to avoid discrepancies within the sample, it is chosen to examine exclusively official social media accounts in English. Because of the immense amount of social media content distributed every day, it was necessary to limit the
examination to four months, between January and April 2015, resulting in a total amount of 962 Facebook messages of which only 73 (7.59%) were CSR related.
20 Method
To examine sharing companies’ CSR communication endeavors on social media a manual content analysis has been conducted. Hereby each post has been analyzed according to content and dialogue strategy. Primarily it was interesting to reveal how far social media are strategically integrated into organizations’ communication mix. Therefore four different features of strategic social media usage were scrutinized such as (1) integration of social media, (2) code of conduct, (3) human voice and (4) popularity (DiStaso & McCorkindale, 2013). Integration reflects to what extent organizations link their different social media channels with each other and to their corporate homepage. The degree of integration depends therefore on the number of links counted in the front and about page. Code of conduct refers to rules and principles determined by organizations to guide participation and communication on such platforms, since interaction on these has to function according some sort of
regulations. Human voice is only present if one perceives the interaction with the organization as personal. This can be enhanced when organizations respond to comments or posts of stakeholders with their own name or initials, so that it is possible for them to recognize another person behind the corporate post. Last but not least popularity indicates the total amount of followers and friends that these several social media channels attract.
Moreover each post and video has been analyzed for the existence of dialogic loops, CSR content, type of CSR content, stakeholder engagement and interest and dialogue strategy. The units of analysis hereby were each Facebook post or comment on the initial post. Fourteen different CSR topics were distinguished in order to differentiate CSR content from non CSR related posts (cf. Hartman et al., 2007) and can roughly be divided into social, environmental and economic categories. Corporate posts that did not belong to any of those fourteen topics were classified with “other” (all CSR topics are displayed in figure 1). Stakeholder
21
Stakeholder interest on the other hand was measured through the number of likes a Facebook post would elicit. Dialogic loops were evaluated according to the total amount of responses a corporation provides in return to stakeholders comments to the initial corporate post.
Ultimately four dialogue strategies have been classified for conveying CSR related content. For this purpose the strategies defined in the literature have been employed, ranging from framing, concertative, transformative to generative strategies. Messages that were missing a clear dialogue strategy were not taken into consideration because of their informative nature. Overall it seems evident that the methods in this research derive from the theoretical
implications of the literature reviewed. Further the study incorporates dialogue as a model for mediated face to face communication, and measures its extent through the amount of
interactivity generated. Therefore such methodology and research design are expected to generate the promised deliverables in the most suitable way, so that it is in the end possible to asses sharing companies endeavors to engage stakeholders in dialogue about their CSR initiatives.
Results
This section presents the results of the study conducted, starting with the overall adoption, integration, code of conduct and human voice, which was defined in the literature as the communication mix, followed by the proportion of CSR content present, stakeholder interest and engagement evoked. Last but not least the different dialogue strategies are examined in combination with dialogic loops, which indicate the extent to which corporations answered to stakeholders’ comments. The results will follow in the same structure as described here.
22
Facebook adoption, integration, code of conduct and human voice
All six companies examined in the study show an active adoption of Facebook. The extent to which organizations integrate their different social media channels to one another is limited though: 83% (n=5) of the companies delivered only a link to their corporate website, whereas just one company (namely AirBnB) also provided links to more than one Social Media account. Hence the overall integration of different communication channels is rather scarce than elaborate in this case.
The same applies to presenting a code of conduct, meaning that most organizations did not define particular rules to manage participation on this platform yet: 66.7 % (n=4) of the companies do not provide a code of conduct in their Facebook account. AirBnB (16.7 %) solely presents more general guidelines and only Uber (16.7 %) explicitly mentions how communication on their corporate Facebook page should function. Thus the presence of rules for communication on Facebook, referred to as code of conduct, is limited as well, implying that most organizations did not conceptualize instructions so far to handle communication on such platforms.
Human voice on the other hand is applied by almost all of the companies (83.3 %). Exclusively TaskRabbit was coded without a human voice, which lays in the fact that no corporate responses were found. Consequently it was not possible to assess if the organization indeed approaches its stakeholders with a human voice or not. The overall presence of a human voice indicates that organizations are well aware how important it is to approach customers in a polite but natural, personal and familiar way, which can increase stakeholders’ trust, satisfaction and commitment with the organization (Van Noort et al., 2014).
23
Organizations’ popularity was measured through the number of followers their Facebook profile would elicit. However it is important not to forget, that these numbers permanently change with stakeholders liking and simultaneously ‘unliking’ an account. Therefore these counts should not be perceived as an exact representation of a corporation’s popularity, but rather as a hint at stakeholders’ interest in following organizations’ social media
communication. It is evident that more prominent companies such as AirBnB and Uber obtained a higher number of followers, due to their global success, whereas less famous organizations also attracted fewer followers.
Conclusively results show that sharing companies have only a limited integration of social media into their communication mix (see table 2).
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
Sparse CSR related Social Media Content and its topics, Stakeholder Interest and Engagement evoked
There are considerable differences among the examined organizations in regards to the amount of social media content shared, stakeholder interest evoked and engagement elicited (see table 3). The most active organization was AirBnB with 339 posts, followed by
Skillshare with 188, Uber with 140, Spinlister with 113, Streetbank with 105 and last but not least TaskRabbit with 77 posts.
Altogether there was only a tiny proportion of CSR related content shared: Among all posts captured only 7.59% (n=73) were concerned with CSR topics. This percentage, however, is not representative for all companies CSR communication on Facebook. Uber (21.43%) and Streetbank (17.14%) were the companies to use social media the most for sharing CSR related content, whereas others such as TaskRabbit (10.39%), AirBnB (3.54%), Spinlister (2.65%)
24
and Skillshare (1.69%) revealed a significant smaller amount of activity that was CSR related (see Table 2). Unlike it was expected, sharing companies do barely use Facebook for CSR communication. Even the most CSR communicating sharing company Uber does not surpass a significant amount of CSR related content that indicates a thorough usage of social media for CSR communication.
Overall the most conveyed CSR topics are community development (n=20; 27.4%), corporate citizenship/philanthropy (n=14; 19.18%), safety (n=8; 10.96%) and labour practice indicators (n=8; 10.96%) (see Figure 1). It is not surprising to find community development used most frequently, taking the collaborative nature of these companies into consideration. A variety of companies claim to be devoted to enhance communities, which can be seen in relation to citizenship/philanthropy. AirBnB for example underlines that its’ main mission is “to create a world where all 7 Billion people can Belong anywhere” (AirBnB, 2015) rather than just accommodating people, juxtaposing thereby the core of its existence with a social cause of developing a global community. Community development and safety, however, were initially not included in the list of CSR topics, but added up during the coding process.
Labour practice indicators on the other hand, were mostly used by TaskRabbit: 87.5% of its CSR related posts (N=8) dealt with this particular topic. This seems logic, if one considers that TaskRabbit is a platform where users can outsource any kind of job or task to others. Hence the company wants to portray itself as a favorable alternative to the conventional labour market, thus underlining the advantages it brings along for workers.
Further results of the analysis show that for most organizations stakeholder interest is higher, if the content shared is not explicitly concerned with CSR. One exception is made by Uber, which also communicates most about CSR, so that 54.62% of its CSR posts evoked likes by stakeholders. Interest for the remaining companies’ CSR content is comparably low:
25
9.79%, Skillshare 0.74% and finally Spinlister 0.71%. Consequently results indicate that in general stakeholder interest is higher, if the content shared is not dealing with CSR related issues.
Even though Uber evoked (in comparison to all other companies) remarkable stakeholder interest through CSR posts, stakeholders’ willingness to engage in dialogue about these issues was still significantly low. Indicator of stakeholder engagement was the amount of comments made and only 2.5% of the comments Uber generated actually dealt with CSR issues. Most of the other companies’ stakeholder engagement on CSR initiatives was equally low: Streetbank engaged stakeholders with 1.45%, Skillshare 1.06%, Spinlister 0% and AirBnB 1.04% on all CSR content posted. Hereby one particular company, namely TaskRabbit, stands out, by engaging stakeholders on CSR initiatives with a level of 27.5%. Conclusively this insight reveals that the overall level of stakeholder engagement on Facebook by sharing companies is immense low.
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
Dialogue Strategies used and Dialogic Loops
The analysis of CSR posts (N=73) reveals that the investigated sharing companies
predominantly apply framing (63.01%) which is followed by concertative strategy (10.96%), no dialogue strategy (9.59%), transformative (6.85%) and ultimately generative strategy (5.48%) (see table 4). Overall framing and concertative strategy add up to a total amount of 54 CSR posts (73.97%) that were of centripetal nature, a manipulative way of communication that strives for control over stakeholders perceptions. Hence the majority of strategies used can be considered one directional, monologic, manipulative and thus for advertising purposes rather than for promoting dialogue. This assertion is supported by the small amount of
26
centrifugal dialogue strategies found, which are applied to generate a variety of opinions. With only nine CSR posts of centrifugal nature (making up together 12.33% of all CSR related posts) organizations make clear that they barely seek to foster diverse opinions concerning their CSR initiatives.
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
Moreover there is only little variance in the extent to which organizations apply those
different strategies: generative strategy is only used by Streetbank (n=4), whereas no dialogue strategy is only not employed by Skillshare. Furthermore Spinlister is the single company not to use framing in its social media posts, while Uber did so 26 times. Apart from that there was just Streetbank that employed all strategies included.
Then it was scrutinized if sharing companies prefer certain dialogue strategies for conveying particular CSR topics, revealing that the most communicated topics of community
development (70% framing), corporate citizenship/philanthropy (85.71% framing), safety (100% framing) and labour practices indicators (62.5% framing) have mainly been
communicated with a framing strategy. At the same time community development was also the only topic to be communicated twice with a transformative and three times with a generative strategy, showing that companies are to some extent interested in involving
stakeholders’ perceptions in their corporate actions, especially in regards to this specific topic.
INSERT TABLE 5
In order to find out if those companies’ social media endeavors actually generate dialogue with their stakeholders, the amount of dialogic loops is evaluated. Overall there was a total number of 376 dialogic loops of which just 6 (1.59%) were CSR related. Hence the degree to which communication about CSR initiatives between sharing companies and their
27
Mostly companies fail to answer to stakeholders comments concerning CSR whereas utterances dealing with dissatisfying customer experiences are frequently replied to by the customer service. These answers however, which mainly consist of customer service activities, make up the majority of dialogic loops as aforementioned and do not facilitate dialogue about CSR initiatives. Further results disclose that in general organizations use a polite but personal approach including a human voice like the following example
demonstrates: “Oh no! That is definitely not ok, Jordan. Can you please send us an email at support@uber.com as soon as possible? We’re ready to look into this immediately. ^JP” (Facebook, 2015, March 31, 17:12). More skeptical comments with a critical tone were rather evaded by all of the investigated sharing companies.
Conclusion
This research aimed to shed light on the problem if organizations approach stakeholders’ demands for more involvement and a greater say regarding CSR initiatives. Thus the study examined if sharing companies use social media to convey their CSR initiatives and whether they engage stakeholders in dialogue about these CSR practices. To clarify this research problem a content analysis of Facebook posts of six sharing companies was conducted within a time frame of four months (January to April 2015). On the basis of the literature reviewed, sharing companies were expected to foster stakeholder dialogue on social media, since dialogue is perceived as a moral approach of managing stakeholder relations as well as a means to build strong reputations (Eberle et al., 2013, Morsing & Schultz, 2006, Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Further sharing companies were not only expected to seek dialogue with
stakeholders, but also actively involve them into decision making processes concerning CSR. Results, however, show quite the opposite and reveal that sharing organizations do not engage
28
their stakeholders in dialogue about CSR practices on Facebook. Thus organizations do not meet stakeholders’ increasing demands for a bigger voice and more involvement.
Altogether only two out of the three different CSR communication approaches Morsing and Schultz (2006) identify are used: stakeholder information strategy, which is monologic and one way communication, and in few cases stakeholder response strategy (asymmetrical two-way), which was pretty limited in its extent. Actively involving stakeholders in CSR
practices, defined in the literature as the most ethical way of stakeholder engagement (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Morsing & Schultz, 2006), is still a rare phenomenon for organizations, even for sharing companies. Despite companies’ use of social media for CSR communication and informing stakeholders about these initiatives, the extent to which CSR issues were actually conveyed is rather restricted with only 7.59% CSR related content. Hence social media is not extensively used for CSR communication to its fullest extent, although Grunig (1992, 2009) emphasizes social media’s potential to involve stakeholders and thus show that they are valued by the organization.
Apart from that results indicate that the investigated companies do not strategically integrate social media into their communication mix, taking into account that most do not link their different social media channels to one another, nor do they present a code of conduct. Most importantly none of the companies seizes the interactivity social media offers to engage stakeholders in dialogic interactions, which is revealed by the low amount of dialogic loops found. Further most dialogic loops were actually Webcare endeavors and can thus not be considered efforts to engage stakeholders in dialogue about CSR.
The most frequent CSR topics used are community development, corporate
citizenship/philanthropy, safety and labor practice indicators. Community development dealt with the extent to which organizations contribute to or improve the development of a
29
the literature as an essential feature of the sharing economy. Corporate
citizenship/philanthropy emphasized the resources an organization would donate to help others. Safety dealt, as the label indicates, with endeavors to make the world safer, whereas labor practice indicators addressed company’s efforts to improve working conditions and employee well being. Exclusively investor relations, risk & crisis management, environmental reporting, stakeholder engagement and social reporting were among the topics that were not used on social media for CSR communication.
Overall framing strategy is most frequently used for communicating CSR initiatives. Hereby organizations try to emphasize certain positive features of their activities, reinforcing thereby a favorable image of themselves, whereas strategies supposed to promote stakeholder
dialogue are concise. The absence of these centrifugal strategies implies that organizations still hesitate to let stakeholders freely decide what they want to discuss and negotiate in terms of CSR practices. By solely applying centripetal, manipulative strategies, organizations evade true stakeholder dialogue and rather seek to reach consent. Strategies that could foster
stakeholder engagement on the other hand, such as transformative, generative or concertative are mostly not present. Hence one can conclude that the companies examined don’t perceive social media as an opportunity to approach stakeholders’ demands, where ethical, social and environmental issues could be discussed. Quite the contrary is the case: organizations seem to exclusively use social media platforms for advertising and marketing reasons, which
undermines the huge potential social media offers. This concurs with previous literature showing CSR being mainly applied for promotional purposes (Elving & van Vuuren, 2011; Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). The reasons for this might owe to the fact that organizations are still afraid of losing control of what is communicated, due to the open nature of such
platforms, where content is spread at a great pace and can harm the organization (DiStaso et al., 2011). Moreover a lot of companies still face challenges in what and how exactly to
30
communicate on social media, which contributes to their uncertainty. Nevertheless organizations cannot hide from stakeholders’ increasing demands for more involvement concerning CSR practices, especially since stakeholders’ skepticism towards such activities is permanently growing. Hence not communicating about CSR related issues is posing a threat to organizations’ reputation and image, and will continue to do so if companies do not change their behavior.
Discussion
Since community development is an intrinsic feature of the sharing economy, sharing companies were expected to communicate about these efforts to contribute to society. The results, however, contradict to this assumption: Social media is used to communicate CSR initiatives to a tiny extent with only 7,59% CSR related content being shared, undermining scholars recommendations to convey CSR initiatives extensively, since these are barely observable in public (Epstein & Roy, 2001). Only one single company, namely Uber, stands out in its CSR communication. The framework of this study, however, does not allow to dive deeper into the reasons why Uber uses CSR communication on social media more than the others. Yet such higher CSR communication on Facebook might owe to Uber’s recent
negative publicity. In various countries Uber was criticized for lacking in safety for its drivers and passengers (since both are not insured through Uber) as well as for its improper way of conducting business with unlicensed drivers. Consequently the company has been sued and subsequently banned for its operations, like for example in Germany, since it did not seem to comply with legal regulations (BBC News, 2015, March 20). Thus one could argue that such increased use of CSR communication on Facebook might constitute an endeavor to make up for this negative publicity and to appear more accountable towards stakeholders. In fact
31
results show that 26% of Uber’s CSR communication (n=8) dealt with the topic safety, implying that this particular issue is indeed a major topic for the company to handle.
Overall the level of engaging stakeholders in dialogue through CSR communication is pretty scarce, since the amount of comments and dialogic loops is concise as well. Thus these findings do not comply with the literature on stakeholder engagement and dialogue, which describes stakeholder dialogue as an ethical prerequisite and moral tactic to involve stakeholders in business practices (Eberle et al., 2013; Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Further results reveal that interactions between sharing companies and stakeholders on social media are mostly conveyed with a framing strategy, implying that communication is merely of one directional and manipulative nature. This means that
organizations do not apply social media according to the guidelines identified by the relevant literature. It does not appear that sharing companies stick to what scholars propose to be the best practice in terms of social media. But what are the reasons for this? Do organizations not know how to apply those guidelines or do they deliberately not stick to them? According Grunig “history shows that when new media are introduced communicators tend to use them in the same way that they used the old media” (Grunig, 2009, p.6). This might apply to social media too, so that professionals often doubt mediated communications potential to mimic face to face communication and exclusively use it in the same as they would with old media. That is why it rather might owe to professionals’ wrong way of using social media instead of its limited capacity to provide rich communication. In fact social media offers the right characteristics to actively engage stakeholders in dialogue about CSR initiatives: because consensus can only be reached with dialogue and interaction, when stakeholders negotiate, and this is exactly what social media provides. Clearly there is more research required to answer such questions why social media’s potential is not entirely seized by professionals. Future research could therefore investigate organizations’ true intentions for implementing social media, by examining its value on a managerial level. Moreover one could suggest for
32
future research to differentiate among countries, since local events in the corresponding country can lead to more excessive use of CSR communication. By solely analyzing official profiles, the research was limited to official accounts and thus to one particular country.
Ultimately there were also few limitations in the study: first of all it would have been more revealing to analyze various social media channels instead of exclusively examining Facebook profiles. The scope of this research, however, did not allow for such extensive analysis to create a more holistic picture of sharing companies CSR communication, thus limiting itself only to one specific kind of social media. Besides the selection of a time frame plays also a crucial role, since such sampling can exclude relevant posts in other months. Especially when crisis occur, organizations tend to communicate more about CSR than usually and with such a restricting timeframe its more likely to miss those points in time. Another limitation that was encountered during the coding process, lays in the differentiation between social media activity and Webcare. Mostly organizations used their social media profiles to practice Webcare, which was not differentiated from social media activity. Hence Webcare responses were also coded as dialogic loops and therefore as efforts to generate dialogue. However the intention behind practicing Webcare is not to enhance dialogue with stakeholders, but to deal with dissatisfying customer experiences. Therefore a clear distinction between Webcare and other forms of social media activity would contribute to the results of this research. Last but not least, and most importantly, it is not possible to access social media objectively, since each user receives individual content presented to him. Each user is
provided with tailored content, which is designed according to his profile. Hence it is practically not feasible to find objective Facebook content to analyze, but only subjective material that is contingent upon the particular account used. Conclusively one can say that this research provides empirical insights to what extent sharing companies meet stakeholders’ demands for a greater say and thus handle increasing stakeholder skepticism. According to the
33
results sharing companies barely facilitate stakeholder engagement and dialogue on social media concerning CSR practices, which will in the end not satisfy stakeholders’ expectations. In order to avoid discrepancies with stakeholders in the future, organizations should take their concerns seriously and try to involve them more into corporate actions.
34 References
Adams, A., & McCorkindale, T. (2013). Dialogue and transparency: A content analysis of
how the 2012 presidential candidates used twitter. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 357-359.
AirBnB. (2015, January 1). Creating #OneLessStranger: Stories of Belonging [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://blog.airbnb.com/creating-onelessstranger-stories-belonging/.
Arnett, R. C., Grayson, C., & McDowell, C. (2008). Dialogue as an" Enlarged
Communicative Mentality: review, Assessment, and Ongoing Difference.Communication research trends, 27(3), 3-21.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and Answerability (K. Brostrom, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures (Vol. 53). Sage. Baxter, L. A. (1992). Interpersonal communication as dialogue: A response to the “Social
Approaches” forum. Communication Theory, 2(4), 330-337.
BBC News (March 20, 2015). Uber banned in Germany as police swoop in other countries. BBC News Europe. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31942997 Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.
Bonsón, E., & Ratkai, M. (2013). A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and
social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review, 37(5), 787-803.
35
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of
environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317-319.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond zipcar: Collaborative consumption.Harvard
Business Review, 88(10), 30.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What's mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. London: Collins.
Bowen, H. R., & Johnson, F. E. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. Harper.
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How
the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships.Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37-43.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.
Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). Assessing the impact of stakeholder dialogue: changing
relationships between NGOs and companies. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(3‐4), 210-227.
Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in
business–NGO relationships through stakeholder dialogue.Journal of business ethics, 113(3), 505-518.
36
performance. Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, (34), 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional
construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
Castelló, I., Morsing, M., & Schultz, F. (2013). Communicative dynamics and the polyphony
of corporate social responsibility in the network society. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 683-694.
Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning:
Exploring the link. Innovations in education and teaching international,42(3), 217-230.
Cornelissen, J. (2014). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. Sage.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1975). Business and society: Environment and responsibility
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Distaso, M., & McCorkindale, T. (2013). A benchmark analysis of the strategic use of social media for fortune’s most admired us companies on Facebook, Twitter and
Youtube. Public relations journal, 7(1), 1-33.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO
activism in Europe and the united states: An Institutional‐Stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47-73
37
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.
Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social
responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of business ethics, 118(4), 731-746.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research,“Academy ofManagement
Review”, Vol. 14, No. 4. DOI: http://dx. doi. org/10.5465/AMR.
Elving, W., & van Vuuren, M. (2011). Beyond identity washing: corporate social
responsibility in an age of skepticism. Akademija MM (Slovenian Journal of Marketing), 17, 49-55.
Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the
key performance drivers. Long range planning, 34(5), 585-604.
Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. L. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A
routine activity approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614-624.
Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the
blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 599-614.
Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate reputation
38
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Gordon, J., & Berhow, S. (2009). University websites and dialogic features for building
relationships with potential students. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 150-152.
Gray, D. E. (2007). Facilitating management learning developing critical reflection through
reflective tools. Management learning, 38(5), 495-517.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315-327.
Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a
strategic management function. Journal of Public relations research, 18(2), 151-176.
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of
digitalisation. PRism, 6(2), 1-19.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and
communication. Excellence in public relations and communication management, 285-325.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations (Vol. 343). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring
relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research,18(1), 1-21.
39
responsibility: United States and European Union multinational corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 373-389.
Heath, R. L., Pearce, W. B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J. R., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., Roper, J., Motion, J., & Deetz, S. (2006). The processes of dialogue. Management communication
Quarterly, 19(3), 341-345.
Henderson, A., & Bowley, R. (2010). Authentic dialogue? The role of “friendship” in a social
media recruitment campaign. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 237-257.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning theory, 3(1), 5-
20.
Kelleher, T. (2007). Public relations online-lasting concepts for changing media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations
outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of communication, 59(1), 172-188.
Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational
strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(2), 395-414.
Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions in social media for professionals and scholars.Handbook of
