The Influence of a Corporation’s Customer Base on
Corporate Social Responsibility Communication:
Comparing Business-to-Customer and Business-to-Business Organizations
Master Thesis Author: Karim Rabbani 10216537 Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.M. Slevin University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme—Communication Science
Abstract
Organizations strive to obtain a competitive advantage in order to grow. To do so, they appeal to their stakeholders through several means, including ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility’ (CSR). By investing, participating and communicating in and about CSR activities organizations are able to profit from customer loyalty, a positive reputation and higher revenues. As such, the question arises whether CSR should be considered an act of goodwill or a marketing campaign.
The aim of this thesis is to encourage companies to develop a more ethical form of CSR by critically reflecting on current business practices in terms of CSR communication. Insights are given into organizations’ motivation for communicating their CSR activities. This is accomplished by addressing the influence of a corporation’s customer base on CSR
communication through research as to how B2B organizations communicate their CSR activities in comparison to B2C organizations.
Through quantitative content analysis this paper concludes, rather surprisingly, that companies with significantly different customer bases employ fundamentally similar strategies when it comes to the style of their CSR communications – both business types employ persuasive elements in their CSR communication. The extent to which a company decides to invest in CSR-related communications is not necessarily driven by the nature of its customer base. This conclusion conflicts with current conventional wisdom, which holds that the extent to which a company will invest in CSR and related communications will depend on the extent to which its business is subject to public scrutiny.
Ethically and morally conducted CSR is highly appreciated by organizations’ stakeholders, however, investing in CSR for the sake of persuasion and increased profits is not. As such, corporations should discard the persuasive nature of CSR communication. A new, alternative, form of CSR communication should be developed together with relevant stakeholders highlighting transparency, ethical behavior and other similar virtues.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility Communication, Business-to-Business, Business-to-Customer, Instrumental View.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2
CORPORATE STRATEGY 2
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 5
BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS VERSUS BUSINESS-TO-CONSUMER 7
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMUNICATION 8
METHODOLOGY 13 DESIGN 13 SAMPLE 13 PROCEDURE 15 MEASURES 15 RESULTS 15 ISSUE 16 INITIATIVE 16 IMPACT 17 MOTIVES 17 FITS 18 CONCLUSION 19 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 21 DISCUSSION 22
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 22
REFERENCES 25
APPENDIX A: CODEBOOK 29
APPENDIX B: VARIABLE ASSESSMENT 36
APPENDIX C: FREQUENCY TABLE 38
Introduction
This thesis addresses the extent to which a corporation’s customer base influences the corporation’s use of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and related communications. CSR can be defined as a commitment to improving societal well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Although this primarily relates to the responsibility of corporations to conduct their business ethically while taking into account the interests of the community and society at large, research has shown that business organizations benefit significantly from engaging in CSR activities. Among other things, CSR activities foster loyalty amongst consumers, enable companies to charge higher prices for their products and services, build a reputational buffer against negative news and attract employee talent and investment (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
According to many contemporary academics, the most dominant view on CSR today is the so-called “instrumental” view (Schultz, Castello & Morsing, 2013). The instrumental view holds that CSR is an operational and manageable resource, which provides pragmatic legitimacy to otherwise selfish corporate actions. Pragmatic legitimacy is referred to as an organization's ability to instrumentally manipulate and deploy evocative symbols in order to gain societal support (2013). As such, by aiming to achieve these forms of legitimacy, CSR and the communication of CSR becomes a rhetorically persuasive instrument, a matter of presenting and exploiting attractive features associated with CSR to create a positive reputation (2013). According to the instrumental view, CSR is essentially a marketing tool intended to bolster a corporation’s reputation as a means of securing the ultimate corporate objective of increasing profits.
A key purported characteristic of CSR is business ethics (Carroll, 1991). Pursuant to the instrumental view, however, it is legitimate to question whether it is indeed ethical for companies to pose as organizations who seemingly care for wide-scale social issues when in actuality their ultimate reason for being is to generate corporate profit. The debate as to whether ethics and profits are mutually exclusive in the context of CSR is an important one and, as we shall see, is relevant to the key question addressed by this paper.
Current conventional wisdom, holds that the extent to which a company will invest in CSR and related communications will depend on the extent to which its business is subject to public scrutiny. For instance, one would expect that Business-to-Customer (B2C) companies which offer goods or services to consumers in their daily lives (and are thus under public
scrutiny) would likely be persuaded by the need to engage in communications with a high emotional emphasis (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) as a means of establishing and protecting their corporate reputation. One would similarly expect that organizations which deliver products and services that are under a lower level of public scrutiny, such as businesses which provide goods or services to other businesses (so-called “Business-to-Business” or “B2B” organizations) would not be as inclined to promote their CSR activities to the same degree or in the same manner.
The aim of this thesis is to encourage companies to develop a more ethical form of CSR by critically reflecting on current business practices in terms of CSR communication. Practically, this is accomplished by addressing the influence of a corporation’s customer base on CSR communication within the framework of the instrumental view. Furthermore, insights are given into organizations’ motivation for communicating their CSR activities.
The research in this paper analyzes the CSR communications of several companies and attempts to discern whether different customer bases lead companies to employ fundamentally different CSR communication strategies. Through quantitative content analysis, CSR communication by B2B and B2C companies will be compared, the influence of a company’s customer base on CSR communications will be explored and conclusions will be drawn regarding the role of CSR for companies with different target audiences. The conclusions lead to practical implications and suggested improvements related to CSR communication.
The research question that will guide this research, is as follows:
RQ1: To what extent do B2B and B2C organizations differ in their communication style of CSR reporting?
Theoretical framework
Corporate Strategy
Structure and strategy is at the heart of every organization. Most successful organizations have a business or strategic plan, which defines the organization’s objectives and goals. Numerous goals can form the foundation for business activities of an organization such as profits, market share, customers or sales targets. These goals are often set to be achieved within a certain time frame, and accordingly, after this time frame passes the goals are assessed and new goals established for the following time frame. As such, organizations
are goal-driven entities that set goals and develop a clear structure and plan to ensure that an organization is meeting its established targets (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002).
In order to develop feasible plans to accomplish their goals, organizations often employ an approach, which clearly defines how their goals are to be achieved. Set by management, strategy fulfills this gap by allowing rules, norms and techniques for achieving the set goals an organization strives for and how an organization is managed (Bowman & Helfat, 2001).
According to Porter, Goold and Luchs (1996), one is able to differentiate between two types of strategy, namely business unit strategy and corporate strategy. Business unit strategy focuses on the distinctive business units within a corporate organization in order to develop a competitive advantage within this specific business unit. Corporate strategy, on the other hand, takes a more holistic perspective when formulating strategy. Specifically, it aims to answer two different questions: “What businesses the corporation should be in and how the corporate office should manage the array of business units” (Porter, 1989). The ultimate goal of formulating and applying corporate strategy is to subsequently have the corporate whole add up to more than the sum of its business unit parts. This, in turn, results in achieving the set goals identified by an organization and realizing an organization’s mission and vision while actively influencing the total corporate influence on profitability (Bowman & Helfat, 2001; Joziasse, 2000).
The planning and applying of these strategies is an internal process often decided upon by the “dominant coalition” within an organization. The dominant coalition can be defined as a group of individuals within an organization, including top management, who have the authority to define the direction an organization is heading toward, identify and develop the goals an organization wants to achieve and finally establishing and determining the strategy that will be used to achieve these goals (Berger, 2005).
In today’s increasingly complex, open and transparent world, organizations are faced with a double-edged sword. On the one hand, organizations are constantly under public scrutiny and as a result are susceptible to criticism when something goes wrong. At the same time, organizations strive to be in the public eye and be the center of attention while being admired and related with by all stakeholders such as shareholders, customers, employees, actual and potential investors, governments, special interest groups and the general public among others (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Ruler, Vercic & Sriramesh, 2007). As such, business unit strategies and corporate strategies that are developed and applied internally must be
matched with an external counterpart in order to obtain and maintain the proper balance in today’s business landscape.
Where the earlier mentioned strategies are practical in their orientation, one is also able to identify a more abstract level of strategy intertwined with these concepts: strategic communication. Whereas earlier types of communication within an organization were dispersed (marketing, PR, political communication, technical communication etc.), strategic communication aims to integrate all communication functions of an organization while applying communication to fulfill an organization’s mission (Hallahan et al., 2007). Strategic communication offers corporations a way to organize and manage the communication of their corporate activities in relation to the diverse communication platforms and increasingly dispersed audiences. In turn, the integration of communication allows for efficiency, effectiveness and less redundancy (Hallahan, 2004). As such, strategically integrated communication is designed as a response to the needs and concerns of the audience (Duncan, 2001; Duncan & Caywood, 1996; Hallahan, 2006; Moore & Thorson, 1996).
Generally speaking, the concept of strategy bears a negative connotation. The word has its origins in ancient Greek, meaning ‘generalship,’ and is mostly associated with warfare (Oliver, 2001). In current times, strategy is used in a variety of ways and in many different contexts. However, its origin remains relevant. When reflecting on modern day business, the business landscape could, metaphorically, be described as a warzone in which competitors are battling for profits and market shares. Their approach to warfare can be considered strategy and the outcome is defined by the success of plans intended to implement that strategy. Within business, strategy can be understood along the lines of the following definition: “Strategy is understanding an industry structure and dynamics, determining the organization’s relative position in that industry, and taking action to either change the industry’s structure or the organization’s position to improve organizational results” (Oliver, 2001).
During the 1970s, when strategic communication was developed and organizations began integrating organizational communication, the methods employed were not as sophisticated as they are today. However, their purpose was the same: To maximize profits and minimize losses. According to Duncan and Caywood, (1996) the main reasons for integrating communication were the potential financial benefits. Integrated or strategic communication has significant influences on corporate balance sheets and early attempts were focused on improving return on investments. “Attempts to integrated communication were rooted in own benefits instead of that of the customer” (1996). Furthermore, it has proven to have a long-term impact on a company’s competitive position (Joziasse, 2000).
As such, one might question the position of stakeholders in the modern day warzone between businesses. This is especially the case when realizing that the negative connotation of strategy continues to be proven correct. This is apparent when taking into account numerous scandals which large corporations are involved in, such as the Enron scandal, the global financial crisis and most recently the Volkswagen scandal, in which the core motivation behind the corporation’s actions was profit at the cost of employees and society at large.
The following sections will address the motivation behind corporate strategy and corporate communication. Specifically, it will focus on the most recent strategic resource in an organization’s arsenal: CSR. Can CSR be considered the newest and most advanced weapon an organization has to further influence and persuade, with the ultimate goal to advance profits? Or is CSR a means for organizations to improve and contribute to society and/or to make up for corporate wrongdoings of the past? Is CSR a sin or a virtue?
Corporate Social Responsibility
Increased globalization has positioned large corporations into the world’s spotlight. Moreover, the large amount of corporate scandals and improper business activities has led to an increase in environmental and social awareness with regard to the activities of these organizations. As a consequence, organizations feel pressured to act more ethically when conducting business. In order to find the correct “balance” between profits and ethics, many organizations have turned to CSR. According to Capriotti and Moreno (2007), over 80% of companies listed in the Fortune 500 not only invest in CSR endeavors, but also actively communicate about their activities. As such, CSR has become the standard to address social issues while maintaining a corporation’s legitimacy (Gond, Kang, & Moon, 2011).
Although CSR has been discussed extensively in academic terms for some time now, theorists have yet to reach a consensus on defining the concept. Since the 1950s, many definitions have been proposed. However, these definition mainly focused on the relationship between economic objectives and legal standards (Lee & Carroll, 2011). However, with increased awareness, corporations recognized that they also had a responsibility towards their stakeholders and society to act ethically (McGuire, 1963; Epstein, 1987). Today, the most widely used definition of CSR, developed by Carroll (1979), revolves around four concepts namely, economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility (figure 1). These concepts reflect multiple responsibilities a corporation aspires to meet.
Economic responsibility is rooted in the ambition to be profitable as a business by producing goods and services that are desired by society. Not only is this an ambition, it is essential if a business wants to survive. Furthermore, a business needs to take into account the law and work within legal and regulatory parameters. In doing so, a business is acting within guidelines of legal responsibility. In addition, organizations bear an ethical responsibility, which stipulates that organizations should conduct business in an ethical and moral manner. One may think of paying fair wages when acting ethically. The philanthropic responsibility, which is perhaps the most sought after responsibility in recent times, describes activities that go beyond what is required in order to contribute to the improvement of society. Philanthropic responsibility can be achieved through, for example, donations to good causes, volunteering and through corporate goodwill programs.
Figure 1: The corporate social responsibility pyramid (Carroll, 1991).
As such, CSR allows organizations to contribute to society alongside their core business. Instead of being solely focused on generating profit and consolidated market power, CSR allows for organizations to engage in activities that are beneficial for society. In this way, the organization participates as a responsible corporate citizen and shares its goodwill with the larger public. As an example, consider the extreme amounts of pollution by the factories and businesses during the time of the Industrial Revolution and the poor living conditions that many of their workers endured. When confronted with this, some employers moved their factories outside of the cities to reduce the effects of pollution and, further, provide proper housing for their employees with the necessary amenities such as clean water
(Smith, 2003). However, the motivation behind the company’s ostensibly benevolent acts, which was an exception at the time and is much more common today, remains questionable.
According to Verboven (2009), CSR can be perceived by companies as their “license to operate.” Organizations can be profitable and do well without investing in CSR activities, however, organizations can do even better if they (a) employ CSR activities and (b) communicate about those activities in a positive manner. As such, many scholars question the rationale behind CSR (Verboven, 2011). Within the field of CSR, the most dominant view is the instrumental view. As stated above, the instrumental view is a goal-driven self-presentation by an organization (Schultz et al., 2013).
This view is focused on the ‘business case for CSR’, which entails developing a positive influence of corporate social performance on corporate financial performance (Schultz et al., 2013). As such, CSR is treated as functional instrument in order to develop pragmatic legitimacy, an ‘‘organization’s ability to instrumentally manipulate and deploy evocative symbols in order to gain societal support’’ (Suchman, 1995). Through presenting itself as a good corporate citizen, organizations can reap benefits through value creation (Porter & Kramer, 2011), improved corporate reputation (Carroll, 1979) and ultimately better financial performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes, 2003). According to Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2010) through CSR, corporations can foster customer loyalty, ask higher prices for their products and develop a positive information flow while developing resilience to negative information concerning the company and as such improving brand awareness and credibility. Moreover, positive reputation among stakeholders may lead to the attraction of investments, potential employees seeking employment with the company while motivating current employees (Du et al., 2010). If this is true, then the communication of CSR activities can be considered a persuasive tool which is aimed at developing a sense of trust among stakeholders and the general public which has a considerable influence on corporate profitability and market share (Lamberti en Lettieri, 2009).
Business-to-Business versus Business-to-Consumer
According to Silberhorn and Warren (2007) who studied CSR among companies in Germany and the UK, external factors play a dominant role in the development of CSR activities. Moreover, organizations feel pressured to participate in CSR activities by their stakeholders while fully realizing that they are able to profit from these endeavors in terms of
corporate image and revenue (Silberhorn & Warren, 2007; Barnett, 2007). However, is this the case for all organizations?
If companies feel pressured by external entities to participate in philanthropic activities, we may suspect that the instrumental view of CSR is in place and further assume that CSR in this instance is being used as a marketing tool. In order to determine whether this is the case, two types of companies will be analyzed: ‘Business to Business’ (B2B) and ‘Business to Customer’ (B2C) companies. The rationale behind this is that the external pressures of these companies differ significantly enough to warrant an analysis.
B2C organizations supply goods and services to customers who are the end users of a product and their marketing is targeted towards a particular segment of the general public. As such, their products and business activities are relatively transparent and under public scrutiny. Thus, being in the public eye is generally anticipated to lead to higher external pressures to be involved in CSR activities (Bowen, 2000; Hall, 2000). Furthermore, B2B organizations drive commerce between organizations and not directly to the end users. By definition, their business is less public and the external pressures to be involved in CSR activities are likely significantly less. Based on this we can presume and theorize that B2B organizations are less likely to be as involved in CSR activities and the communication of their activities need not be as intense since they do not feel the same pressure to promote their CSR activities in comparison to B2C companies. Moreover, Jensen and Jepsen (2007) found that B2B marketing is focused on rationality, whereas B2C marketing has a high emotional emphasis. As such, one can assume that the respondents to B2B marketing are more rational while B2C respondents are more emotional. Hence, it could be assumed that these differences in marketing will result in differences in CSR reporting style between B2B and B2C companies.
Corporate Social Responsibility Communication
Not only has awareness amongst companies grown to engage and participate in CSR activities to benefit society, but companies also recognize the advantage of reporting on these activities publicly. On the one hand these reports are often in a standard form and are used to disclose information related to external factors, such as industry standards (Howard et al., 1999) and rules by regulatory institutions (Porter & van der Linde, 1995; Rivera-Camino, 2001). On the other hand, CSR reporting represents a competitive advantage for the company in question while increasing corporate legitimacy (Bansal & Roth, 2000), an opportunity to
increase visibility of a firm (Bowen, 2000) and improve stakeholder relations (Waddock & Graves, 2000).
Regardless of the underlying motives for discussing CSR activities in a corporate report, one can presume that it is in the company’s best interest to share its involvement in CSR activities to showcase its achievements. As the trend to publish CSR reports is on the rise, guidelines have been developed on how to prepare and develop the contents of CSR reports. Examples of these are the ‘GRI Sustainable Reporting Standards’, ‘AA1000 Accountability Principles Standard’ and standardization reports published by ‘ISO’. These reports offer standards for reporting and disclosing on CSR, or relevant activities, as well as guiding companies on its implementation. Overall, these reports are very useful for organizations since they offer them a holistic perspective on what should be included in the reports as well as its format. However, these reports lack a communicative view on the matter and don’t present a framework on how to communicate the reports in terms of content.
According to Du et al. (2010) the two largest current issues facing organizations with regard to CSR activities are, first, that stakeholders tend to be unaware of them and, second, that stakeholders are generally skeptical of CSR and its communication. As such, they have developed a framework related to the implementation aspects of CSR communication (see figure 2). “CSR activities are key prerequisites for reaping CSR’s strategic benefits, it is imperative for managers to have a deeper understanding of key issues related to CSR communication” (Du et al., 2010). Their study focuses on how companies can communicate CSR more effectively and propose methods on how to overcome the earlier mentioned hurdles by implementing favorable attributions concerning CSR communication. Specifically the study focuses on “what to communicate (content), where to communicate (message channel) and how to understand the company- and stakeholder-specific factors that impact the effectiveness of CSR communication” (Du et al., 2010).
Du et al., (2010) have further developed a framework which is in line with the instrumental view of CSR which is represented in the title ‘Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication’. By investigating attributions which are favorable to the public, this framework allows for organizations to not only achieve pragmatic legitimacy “the organization’s ability to instrumentally manipulate and deploy evocative symbols in order to gain societal support” (Suchman, 1995), but also “cognitive legitimacy” by relating communication to values which are favorable in society (Schultz et al., 2013). By utilizing the favorable attributions of this framework, CSR
communication can be regarded as persuasive rhetoric in order to build the business case (i.e., financial returns) for CSR.
This framework is relevant for this study since it allows for the recognition of favorable attributions used in CSR communication. As such, one is able to analyze and compare CSR messages by B2B and B2C organizations. Since not all these factors are relevant or feasible for this particular study, it will only focus on message content. Each category of favorable attributions and related expectations will be discussed in the following sections.
Figure 2: Framework of CSR communication (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010).
Issue
The issue category predominantly examines the primary focus of the message content and whether it focuses on the social issue or the company profile. Organizations can share their CSR communication to inform readers regarding a social issue or, alternatively, they can use the opportunity to profile the organization and its products. The issue category is inspired by the ‘schemer schema’, which looks at suspicion among consumers through advertising due to perceived ulterior motives (Friestad & Wright, 1994,). When organizations focus the issue around the company, this can be perceived as a form of influencing perception concerning the company. Since B2C marketing has a high emotional emphasis (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007), it is assumed that CSR communications used by a B2C company will also employ emotional messaging. Hence, it is assumed that B2C CSR communication will be more focused on the importance of a social issue relative to CSR communications employed by a B2B company.
Furthermore, due to the rational focus of B2B communication (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) the CSR communication employed by a B2B firm would be expected to associate the importance of a CSR endeavor with the company, therefore:
H1a: B2C organization’s CSR communication will be more focused on the importance of a social issue than B2B organizations.
H1b: B2C organization’s CSR communication will more often associate the importance of a CSR activity with the social issue instead of the company than B2B’s CSR communication. H1c: B2B organization’s CSR communication will more often associate the importance of a CSR activity with the company instead of the social issue than B2C’s CSR communication.
Initiative
Besides the issue category communication, the manner in which involvement in a CSR initiative is discussed by the organization can influence the target audience’s perception. This category is related to the input by an organization, which is defined in terms of its commitment. There are three aspects of commitment by an organization that will be tested for presence in a CSR message: first, the amount of input; second, the durability of input; and, third, the consistency of input. Since B2C marketing has a high emotional emphasis (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) it is assumed that the same counts for its CSR communication. Therefore, it is expected that B2C CSR communication will include more persuasive elements to persuade readers of their CSR activities. Hence, it is assumed that B2C CSR communication will mention the amount of input, the durability of input and the consistency of input more than B2B CSR communications due to B2B’s rational focus (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007), therefore: H2a: B2C organization’s CSR communication will mention amount of input more often than B2B organizations.
H2b: B2C organization’s CSR communication will mention durability more often than B2B organizations.
H2c: B2C organization’s CSR communication will mention consistency more often than B2B organizations.
Impact
After testing the input by a company involved in a CSR endeavor the output will be tested. Consequently, the impact an organization has had, or will have, on the targeted audience as a result of their involvement will be analyzed. According to Sen, Du and Bhattacharya (2009), discussing social impact is a very efficient strategy since it is factual and
is not seen as bragging. Moreover, impact can give a good impression of the underlying motives of the organizations, since impact can also be discussed in terms of results for the organization. Since B2C marketing has a high emotional emphasis (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) it is assumed that the same counts for CSR communication. Therefore, it is expected that B2C CSR communication will include more persuasive elements to persuade readers of their CSR activities. Hence, it is assumed that B2C CSR communication will discuss the impact a CSR activity has in relation to the target audience while B2B CSR communications will discuss the impact a CSR activity has had in relation to the company due to its rational focus (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007), therefore:
H3a: B2C organizations will discuss the impact a CSR activity has had more in relation to the target audience than B2B organizations.
H3b: B2B organizations will discuss the impact a CSR activity has had more in relation to the company than B2C organizations.
Motives
Motives can be defined in two categories namely, intrinsic motives or extrinsic motives. Analysis will determine whether the message focuses on business-serving motives, firm-serving motives or social motives. Since B2B marketing emphasizes rationality (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) it is assumed that the same counts for their CSR communication. Therefore, it is expected that B2B CSR communication will relate their motives for investing in CSR activities in terms of business and firm serving motives while B2C organizations will relate their motives to social interests due to their emotional marketing emphasis (Jensen & Jensen, 2007), hence:
H4a: B2B organizations will discuss the business motives related to a CSR activity more than B2C organizations.
H4b: B2B organizations will discuss the firm-serving motives related to a CSR activity more than B2C organizations.
H4c: B2C organizations will discuss the social interest motives related to a CSR activity more than B2B organizations.
Fit
CSR fit relates to the “the perceived congruence between a social issue and the company’s business” (Du et al., 2010). It is understandable or fair to expect that companies should be involved in CSR activities that have a reasonable association with their core
business. As such, a good fit between a company and a CSR activity improves stakeholder perception and support for the organization. A fit can be based on an organization’s core business, an organization’s products, an organization’s target audience or the corporate identity. Since B2C marketing has a high emotional emphasis (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) it is assumed that the same counts for CSR communication. Therefore, it is expected that B2C CSR communication will include more persuasive elements to persuade readers of their CSR activities. Hence, it is assumed that B2C CSR communication will associate themselves more with the CSR activity through their core business, products, target audience and past involvement compared to B2B CSR communications, therefore:
H5a: B2C organizations will have a higher congruence between a social issue and the company’s core business than B2B organizations.
H5b: B2C organizations will associate a CSR activity more with their products than B2B organizations.
H5c: B2C organizations will associate a CSR activity more with their target audience than B2B organizations.
H5d: B2C organization will associate a CSR activity more with the brands past involvement than B2B organizations.
Methodology
Design
A quantitative content analysis will be conducted in order to examine the communicated CSR of the selected companies. CSR reports from several companies will be analyzed based on the message content of these reports. Subsequently, the CSR reports of these companies will be divided into two groups namely, B2B CSR reports and B2C CSR reports. The framework provided by Du et al. (2010) will allow for the analysis of the message content for each report and eventual comparison between the favorable attributions. The identification of favorable attributions will be determined by classifying the CSR reports based on a codebook.
Sample
In order to compare B2B organizations with B2C organizations, ten companies from each type of organization were selected for analysis (see table 1). The companies were
selected from the Forbes 2000 ‘The Worlds Biggest Public Companies’ list (the world’s biggest public companies, 2015). This ensures comparability between the companies since they are all roughly similar in size. Moreover, all companies on the list are for-profit organizations and are publicly listed, thus ensuring a high degree of transparency and access to corporate documents. This proved essential to this research as corporate documents were studied to analyze CSR communication by the organizations. Corporate documents, such as annual reports, CSR reports, sustainability reports and other relevant documents (depending on where the companies in question have decided to publish their CSR information) will be studied thoroughly as these documents are deemed a valuable source of information that is controlled by the publishing organization (Du et al., 2010). As such, they are considered an important source to determine CSR activity information due to the high degree of credibility, often being used as the only source of information by stakeholders and widespread distribution (Unerman, 2000). For each organization the most recent reports will be analyzed. The sampling method employed for this research is non-probability purposive sample since the units were selected with a “specific purpose defined as selecting units (e.g., individuals, groups of individuals, institutions) based on specific purposes associated with answering a research study’s questions” (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). This study will compare the CSR information of the related companies in order to make an inference concerning the favorable attributions of CSR communication. Specifically, it will focus on element of the CSR documents that discuss philanthropic activities as defined by Carroll (1991) related to social or community corporate goodwill programs. This will allow for comparability across the CSR information that will be analyzed of the selected companies.
Procedure
The variables used to measure favorable attributions or CSR reports between B2B and B2C organizations were determined by utilizing a codebook. Each CSR activity mentioned in the CSR reports will be coded individually.
The codebook contains 12 questions and multiple sub-questions. Further, the codebook clearly outlines the general guidelines for coding, followed by questions 1-4, which asks the coder to provide details of the general characteristics of the CSR report. In order to proceed with questions 5 through 12, the coder was asked to read the CSR report thoroughly after which the coder is required to answer several questions and sub-questions concerning the message content of the CSR reports. The codebook can be found in appendix A.
Measures
The variables included in this study are based on the CSR communication framework obtained from Du et al. (2010). The framework allows one to analyze message content based on multiple favorable attributions, which can be included in the CSR reports in order to communicate more effectively and overcome trust issues among stakeholder for strategic benefits. The variables can be categorized into multiple categories, which have been explained in the former chapter: issue, initiative, impact, motives and fit. The assessment of the variables can be found in appendix B.
Results
The CSR reports (n = 53) included 20 different companies. Among them, 26 reports were published by B2B companies, while 27 reports were published by B2C companies. The most distinctive differences were found among the following variables: ‘amount of input’, ‘benefits for the target audience’, ‘firm-serving motives’ and ‘association target segment’. Moreover, the variable ‘association past involvement’ was not present in either the B2B or the B2C CSR reports. An overview of the frequency distribution of all variables is visualized in table 2 (see appendix C).
0 5 10 15 20 B2B B2C
Amount of input
Yes No IssueA chi-square test for association was conducted between business type (B2C and B2B) and the discussed issue focus on the social issue or the company of CSR communication. Two expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (50%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was no statistically significant association between business type and issue focus, p = .682.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the importance of social issue discussed. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There was no statistically significant association between these variables, χ2(1) = 2.540, p = .111.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the described importance focus. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There was no statistically significant association between these variables, χ2(1) = 1.315,
p = .251.
Initiative
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the discussed amount of input in the CSR communication. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There was a statistically significant association between business type and the discussed amount of input, χ2
(1) = 5.443, p = .020. There is a strong association between business type and the discussed amount of input, V= .320 (see figure 4).
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the discussed amount of durability input in the CSR communication. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There is not a statistically significant association between these variables, χ2
(1) =.468, p = .494.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the time frame of durability discussed in the CSR communication, namely long term or short term. Two expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (50%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was no statistically significant association between business types and time frame of durability, p = .683.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the consistency of input of CSR communication. Four expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (66.7%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was no statistically significant association between business type and the consistency of input, p = .683.
Impact
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and benefits for the target audience in the CSR communication. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There was no statistically significant association between these variables, χ2
(1) =1.602, p = .206.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and benefits for the company in the CSR communication. Two expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (50%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was no statistically significant association business type and benefits for the company, p = .192.
Motives
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the business motives discussed in CSR communication. Two expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (50%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was no statistically significant association between business type and business motives, p = 1.000.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 B2B B2C
Firm serving motives
Yes No
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and firm-serving motives in the CSR. Two expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (50%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was a statistically significant association between business type and business motives, p = 0.050. There was a strong association between business type and the firm serving motives, V= .308 (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Firm serving motives
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) social interest motives in the CSR communication. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There was no statistically significant association between these variables, χ2
(1) =1.768, p = .184.
Fits
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and congruence of a social issue and the company’s core business in the CSR communication. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. There was no \statistically significant association between these variables, χ2(1) =1.003, p = .317.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and association based on product dimension in CSR communication. One expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (25%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was no statistically
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 B2B B2C
Target segment
Yes Nosignificant association between business type and association based on product dimension, p = 1.000.
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the association based on target segment in CSR communication. One expected cell frequencies were smaller than five (25%). Therefore a chi-square test could not be conducted. In order to test significance, a Fisher's Exact test was conducted. There was a statistically significant association between business types and association based on target segment, p = .001. There is a worrisomely strong association between business types and association based on target segment, V= .473 (see figure 6).
Figure 6: Target segment
A chi-square test for association was conducted between business types (B2C and B2B) and the association based on past involvement in CSR communication. However, no statistics were computed as the variable was a constant (not one company had an association based on past involvement).
An overview of the earlier mentioned hypotheses and their acceptance or rejection can be found in table 3 (see appendix D).
Conclusion
By analyzing CSR communication by different types of businesses, one is able to draw conclusions concerning the use of favorable attributes as defined by (Du et al., 2010). Specifically, B2B organizations and B2C organizations were compared which allowed for conclusions to be made concerning the differences and similarities in the manner of communicating about CSR endeavors. B2B and B2C organizations were chosen to be
compared due to the differences in target audiences and customers. Moreover, the differences in marketing communication between these types of organizations (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007) raised questions concerning the differences between CSR communications. By conducting this research, conclusions can be drawn concerning the guiding research question namely: To what extent do B2B and B2C organizations differ in their communication style of CSR reporting?
Overall, one is able to see that businesses in general tend to apply favorable attributes in their CSR communication. In total eight of the 16 attributes assessed were present in each reporting. This shows that favorable attributes are used by both types of corporations, knowingly or unknowingly, which appeal to the emotions of their stakeholders. When looking at the differences between B2B and B2C organizations in terms of CSR communication, we can see that the manner of communication does not significantly differ. However, some significant differences were found.
This research has shown that there is a significant difference between B2C organizations and B2B organizations when discussing the amount of input for their CSR endeavors (p = .020). B2C organizations use this attribute significantly more compared to B2B organizations. This confirmed previous expectations. According to Sen et al. (2009) discussing the amount of input is a very effective communication strategy since it is an objective and factual statement. As such, readers are not given the impression that a company is bragging about its input in a CSR endeavor and showing it is truly committed and dedicated to the CSR activity they are investing in. Moreover, by applying this strategy, companies are able to develop pragmatic legitimacy by including suggestive and manipulative symbols, which contribute to societal support (Schultz et al., 2013).
Furthermore, there is a significant difference between B2C organizations and B2B organizations in terms of discussing firm-serving motives (p = 0.05). Overall, B2C organizations discuss their firm-serving motives more often than B2B organizations. This was surprising since it was expected that B2B organizations would discuss firm-serving motives more than B2C organizations. It was expected that B2C organizations would relate their motives for investing in a CSR endeavor to social interests due to the larger external pressures in comparison to B2B organizations. Moreover, relating CSR endeavors to social interests evokes emotions among stakeholders, which can be considered manipulative in order to obtain pragmatic legitimacy. However, these results show the opposite. Discussing firm-serving motives is a tool for showcasing the motives for investing in a CSR activity in terms
of values related to the organization such as its culture or core values. This is closely related to rational marketing which is a characteristic for B2B organizations (Jensen & Jepsen, 2007).
Moreover, there is a significant difference between B2C organizations and B2B organizations in discussing the association based on target segment in their CSR (p = .001). However, V=.473 meaning that there is a worrisomely strong association. Although this outcome was previously expected this relationship is no longer included in the research. Due to the worrisomely strong association between these variables no conclusions could be drawn regarding business type and the association based on target segment.
Overall, it is noteworthy that only three significant differences were found. This is contrary to the overall expectation since it was expected that B2C and B2B organizations would have a different communication style in terms of favorable attributes related to CSR communication instead both business types are very similar in their CSR communication. Since external pressures play a dominant role in the development of CSR activities (Silberhorn & Warren, 2007) it seems that both business types face similar external pressures in relation to their CSR activities.
This research has shown that both B2C and B2B organizations apply similar favorable attributions in their CSR communication. As such, this may mean that organizations don’t fundamentally differentiate between their CSR audiences, however this remains speculative. Moreover, the application of favorable attributes by all of the companies is concerning due to the fact that this shows the pursuit for pragmatic legitimacy by both business types. Both B2B and B2C exploit favorable attributes in their CSR communication to create and harness a positive reputation. As such, we can conclude that the instrumental view concerning CSR is very much in place and is actively applied.
Practical implications
Over the years, investing in CSR activities as well as communicating about these endeavors has become the norm among corporations worldwide. As such, research
concerning a highly relevant topic, namely CSR communication, brings practical implications to several interest groups.
First, this study can provide practical implications to stakeholder groups. Stakeholders are the ones that are subject to the persuasive nature of CSR communication. As such, this study can provide them with tools to recognize the authenticity of CSR communications and realize its persuasive elements.
In addition, organizations can profit from this research as they are the ones developing the communication sources related to CSR activities. As a result of this study organizations can come to the realization that truly ethically and morally conducted CSR is highly
appreciated by their stakeholders, however, investing in CSR for the sake of persuasion and increased profits is not. Stakeholders realize that being financially healthy is the foundation of all other CSR responsibilities (Carroll, 1991), however, the driver for philanthropic
responsibility should not be an economic one. Moreover, the perception, by certain companies, that CSR is a company’s “license to operate” (Verboven, 2009) is flawed. Organizations should distance themselves from this Machiavellian conduct and realize that CSR should be a company’s license to being.
Stakeholders appreciate ethical conduct and will reward this behavior. As such,
corporations should discard the persuasive nature of CSR communication. A new, alternative, form of CSR communication should be developed together with relevant stakeholders
highlighting transparency, ethical behavior and other similar virtues.
Discussion
This research sought to find the extent to which B2B and B2C organizations differ in their communication style of CSR reporting. The variables used in this research were: issue, initiative, impact, motives and fit (Du et al., 2010).
It was expected that there would be vast differences between B2B’s and B2C’s communication style of CSR reporting. However, most hypotheses were not supported. The research did find that B2C organizations significantly more often mention the amount of input than B2C organizations in their CSR reporting. Further, B2B organizations significantly more often mention firm-serving motives in their CSR communication than B2C organizations.
As to date there has been limited to no research conducted in this area, this paper serves as a groundwork for future research. In order to draw adequate conclusions about B2B organizations’ and B2C organizations’ usage of CSR communication, more research is needed.
Limitations and future research
This research contains certain limitations. Firstly, several improvements could be made to the overall sample. This research was conducted based on a relatively small sample size. To improve this, more companies and sources of CSR communication could be added to
improve the reliability of this research. Moreover, when selecting the companies for the sample, no distinction was made within B2B or B2C organizations in terms of CSR usage. This means that some companies might be more actively involved in CSR activities, which could result in statistically significant differences in CSR reporting style. Research is needed to verify whether this is indeed the case.
Secondly, some improvements could be made to the framework used to analyze CSR communication. This research was based on the earlier conducted research namely,
‘Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication’ (Du et al., 2010) which allowed for most of the analysis method and interpretations. However, while conducting the analysis it became evident that several favorable attribute categories could have been improved to reduce the amount of subjective interpretation on behalf of the researcher. In addition, several favorable attribute categories could be added to improve the overall quality of the research. An example of this is visual imagery. Research has shown that visual imagery plays a significant role in influencing emotions and decisions (Joffe, 2008). As such, by adding this category, the conducted analysis can be made more complete.
Thirdly, there was no distinction made concerning the potential influence that the different favorable attributions could have on the recipients of CSR communications. It is possible that several categories are more influential in terms of persuading its target audience. As such, future research should investigate the weight of each category in terms of influence and include this in the analysis when forming conclusions.
Finally, a research method based on content analysis can always be improved since it is impossible to prevent some degree of subjective interpretation by the coder (Bryman, 2012). This is very relevant since the final conclusions are based on content analysis and, therefore, interpretation can be considered an obstacle to the desired level of objectivity. To mitigate against this risk, multiple coders should be included in future research to ensure a reliability benchmark based on intercoder reliability.
Future research should pay attention to the limitations of this research to improve the overall quality. Furthermore, future research can make several interesting changes and build on this research to further analyze the field of CSR communication. A suggestions for future research would be to research the communicative outcomes of applying favorable attributes in CSR communication. This research has been able to confirm the presence of favorable
outcomes of these different categories were not included. It would be interesting to research this to obtain a more complete impression of this field of research.
Future research might also want to explore differences among different business types. This research focused on differences between B2B and B2C companies. Future researchers may apply this research model to research the difference between CSR communications among companies operating in different industries, companies of different sizes and companies based in different countries. Another interesting suggestion for future research would be to combine this research with research concerning stakeholder models. Research can show whether differences in stakeholder characteristics and stakeholder types of different companies have an influence on CSR communications by a company and the application of favorable attributes. Furthermore, this research did not take into account whether the actual investments (in terms of funds and time) differ between B2B and B2C organizations. It would be interesting if future research would study this.
As this research is the first of its kind in this particular field, the research can be used as a groundwork for future research.
References
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of management journal, 43(4), 717-736.
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794-816. Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on
public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5-28.
Bowen, F. E. (2000). Environmental visibility: a trigger of green organizational response?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(2), 92.
Bowman, E. H., & Helfat, C. E. (2001). Does corporate strategy matter?. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1), 1-23.
Bryman, A. (2012), Social Research Methods, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, New York. Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The
importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public relations review, 33(1), 84-91.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate 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(4), 39-48. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social
responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
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.
Duncan, T., & Caywood, C. (1996). The concept, process, and evolution of integrated marketing communication. Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices, 13-34.
Duncan, T. (2001). IMC: Using advertising and promotion to build brands. New York: McGraw-Hill.
social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness. California management review, 29(3), 99-114.
McGuire, J. W. (1963). Business and society. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 1-31.
Jensen, M., & Jepsen, A. (2007). Low attention advertising processing in B2B markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(5), 342-348.
Gond, J. P., Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2011). The government of self-regulation: On the
comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Economy and Society, 40(4), 640-671.
Hall, J. (2000). Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of cleaner production, 8(6), 455-471.
Hallahan, K. (2004). Communication management. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (Vol. 1, pp. 161–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hallahan, K. (2006). Integrated communication: Implications for public relations beyond excellence. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 299–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., Van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3-35.
Howard, J., Nash, J., & Ehrenfeld, J. (1999). Industry codes as agents of change: Responsible care adoption by US chemical companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(5), 281.
Joffe, H. (2008). The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes, 55(1), 84-93.
Joziasse, F. (2000). Corporate strategy: bringing design management into the fold. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 11(4), 36-41.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Hoboken.
Lamberti, L., & Lettieri, E. (2009). CSR practices and corporate strategy: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 153-168.
Lee, S. Y., & Carroll, C. E. (2011). The emergence, variation, and evolution of corporate social responsibility in the public sphere, 1980–2004: The exposure of firms to public debate. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 115-131.
Moore, J., & Thorson, T. (1996). Strategic planning and integrated marketing
communications programs: An approach to moving from chaotic to systematic. In. E. Thorson & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 135–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Oliver, R. W. (2001). Real-time strategy: What is strategy, anyway?. Journal of Business Strategy, 22(6), 7-10.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Porter, M. E. (1989). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. In Readings in Strategic Management (pp. 234-255). Macmillan Education UK.
Porter, M. E., Goold, M., & Luchs, K. (1996). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Managing the multibusiness company: Strategic issues for diversified groups, 285, 285-314.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-
competitiveness relationship. The journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), 97-118. Rivera‐ Camino, J. (2001). What motivates European firms to adopt environmental
management systems?. Eco‐ Management and Auditing, 8(3), 134-143. Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social
responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of business ethics, 115(4), 681-692.
Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). Building relationships through corporate social responsibility. Handbook of brand relationships, 195-211.
Silberhorn, D., & Warren, R. C. (2007). Defining corporate social responsibility: A view from big companies in Germany and the UK. European Business Review, 19(5), 352-372. Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Nor Whether, But How?. Centre for
Marketing Working Paper 03–701 (London Business School, London).
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.
The world’s biggest public companies. (2015). Retrieved from
Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues-Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667-681.
Verboven, H. (2009). Tussen moraal en winstmaximalisering [Between Morality and Profit Maximization]. Kapellen, Belgium: Uitgeverij Pelckmans.
Verboven, H. (2011). Communicating CSR and business identity in the chemical industry through mission slogans. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 415-431.
Waddock, S. A., Graves, S. B., & Gorski, R. (2000). Performance characteristics of social and traditional investments. The Journal of Investing, 9(2), 27-38.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2002). The nature of organizational leadership:
Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders (Vol. 12). John Wiley & Sons.
Appendix A: Codebook
Codebook ‘The Influence of a Corporation’s Customer
Base on Corporate Social Responsibility Communication’
Master Thesis Author: Karim Rabbani 10216537 Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.M. Slevin University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme—Communication Science
June 24th, 2016
This codebook is based on the codebook from the Research Practice Seminar by Anke Wonneberger in January 2015
Introduction
The aim of this research is to highlight differences in CSR communication found in CSR reports between Business-to-Business and Business-to-Customer organizations.
In recent years, CSR communication has increased by corporations. This research will study the CSR usage by analyzing CSR communication of multiple corporations. To
determine these differences, CSR communication by business-to-business organizations will be compared to business-to-customer organizations.
Sample
Organization Type Organization # Sum Coders B2B Boeing ... … … Cisco … … … Hewlett-Packard … … … IBM … … … Intel … … … Maersk … … … Microsoft … … … Siemens … … … Oracle … … … BASF … … … B2C P&G ... … … Coca-Cola … … … Walt Disney … … … McDonald’s … … … Toyota … … … Walmart … … … VW Group … … … PepsiCo … … … Heineken … … … H&M … … … Total sample … … …
Units of analysis
The units of analysis are CSR reports of (MENTION AMOUNT) organizations. These organizations are retrieved from the Forbes 2000 ‘The Worlds Biggest Public Companies’ list (The world’s biggest public companies, 2015).
To start off with, a number of essential formal variables regarding publication and content are to be coded. Subsequently variables on CSR attributions in CSR reports will be coded.
The coding structure is visualized in the following coding scheme:
Article ID c02 c03 c04 c05 c06 c07 c08 c09 c10 001 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 002 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 003 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 004 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
