Communicating CSR is a dialogue, not a monologue

Stakeholder Involvement Approach

Communicating CSR is a dialogue,

not a monologue

Author: Yessica Lorena Meléndez Gálvez (10827005)

Master Thesis

University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Business Administration – Marketing Track

Final Version – June 24th_{, 2016} Supervisor: Dr. Lars Moratis

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This document is written by student Yessica Meléndez, who assumes full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for its contents.

Preface

June 2016 – Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Handing in my Master’s thesis marks the end of an important journey, one that put me through physical and psychological challenges. However, fruitful learnings emerged from the experience of writing a thesis for the first time: in particular, innovative insights into the sensitive but yet interesting topic of Corporate Social Responsibility, specifically in the field of communications.

I would like to thank every manager who voluntarily participated in my research, who, despite their busy agendas made time to help me out with this thesis. The interviews executed with all of them were uniquely interesting and insightful as they gave me new knowledge about CSR and communication in the field. Another important thank you should definitely be given to Dr. Lars Moratis, my thesis supervisor, for his enormous support and guidance throughout this process. Furthermore, I would like to thank my family: even though they are in Mexico, they believed in me and gave me motivation to continue this difficult journey. My partner, André supported me all the time with everything he could, for the contacts of some managers, and innumerable things. Finally, I am very thankful to Deepa who helped me with proofreading and my friend Diana who gave me tips and guidance throughout my thesis.

I hope you will enjoy reading this Master’s thesis.

Sincerely,

1. Table of contents

4.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ... 14

4.2 Corporate Social Responsibility Communication ... 15

4.3 Role of stakeholders in CSR communication ... 17

4.4 CSR communication strategies ... 18

4.5 Moderators and mediators ... 24

5. METHODOLOGY ... 31

5.1 Research approach ... 31

5.2 Research strategy ... 31

5.3 Data gathering ... 33

5.4 Data analysis ... 34

6. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ... 36

6.1 CSR communication ... 36

6.2 Stakeholders’ role ... 39

6.3 Identification of CSR focus ... 42

6.4 Strategic communication tasks ... 44

6.5 Third party endorsement ... 47

6.6 Message content ... 50

6.7 Type of stakeholder ... 53

6.8 Communication channels ... 54

6.9 Culture ... 55

6.10 Challenges of involving stakeholders in CSR (communication) strategy ... 57

7. DISCUSSION ... 59

7.1 Discussion of results ... 60

7.1.1 Need of CSR communication ... 60

7.1.2 Stakeholder Involvement Strategy ... 64

7.1.3 Influencers of stakeholder involvement strategy ... 68

7.2 Overall conclusions ... 71

7.3 Limitations and future research ... 72

7.4 Managerial and theoretical contributions ... 74

8. REFERENCES ... 76

9.APPENDICES ... 86

9.1 Appendix 1: Interview overview ... 86

9.2 Appendix: Interview protocol ... 86

9.3 Appendix 3: CSR Communication Strategy Elements Coding ... 89

2. Abstract

takeholders’ interest in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of organizations, especially of well-known brands, has grown in recent years. In fact, 87 percent of people around the world stated that they believe organizations should put at least equal weight on society’s interests as their own commercial interests (Edelma Goodpurpose Study, 2012). Moreover, since companies have been identified as one of the key causes of several environmental problems (Hawken 1993; Korten 1995), managers now face the challenge of positioning their companies as an ethical and responsible contributor to society. As a result, a variety of companies now engage actively in CSR by persuading governments to adopt more significant environmental regulations, while others are more concerned about ways to communicate their CSR initiatives to their stakeholders. Concerning communication, prior research has shown that for CSR engagement to be genuinely beneficial to both the company and society, an organization investing in CSR requires a communication strategy (Husted and Salazar, 2006).

To fulfill this need, this thesis explores in detail a sophisticated CSR communication strategy, in which companies should break the traditional CSR monologic view (Shannon and Weaver, 1949) and instead use an interactive and dialogic mechanism of reciprocal influence (Ginzel et al. 2004, p.225) between companies and their stakeholders. In line with this, the primary aim of this study is to evaluate the extent to which stakeholder involvement strategy affects the credibility of CSR claims, for the first time in this area of research. Morsing and Schultz’s (2006) communication strategies form the basis of the criteria used to explore how companies currently present CSR information. Although the authors explained this approach, they did not provide further details nor explored factors that may influence the benefits of using the stakeholder involvement strategy. Thus, this research proposes four circumstances that may influence the impact of the “superior” strategy—stakeholder involvement—on credibility. Results derived from interviews conducted with three different corporations in the Netherlands will contribute to existing literature on CSR communication, stakeholders, and legitimacy.

3. Introduction

3.1 Background

n the last few years, business and academic researchers have demonstrated increasing levels of interest in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Recent debates regarding CSR and sustainability have made audiences wonder whether or not business is truly committed to sustainability and prepared to take responsibility to help make the world a better place to live in.

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland started in 20 January 2015 and was concerned about climate change. World leaders met to discuss ways to tackle this agenda. However, these world leaders discussing climate change and sustainability arrived in 1,700 private jets. As world citizens, we have to trust that our leaders discuss necessary strategies and initiatives towards a more sustainable future, but the question is: to what extent are they prepared to take the agenda seriously and pave the way to making a significant difference? One may think – if world leaders fail to commit to this agenda, how can one expect the rest of the world to start changing their behavioral patterns to combat climate change?

Research suggests that CSR may be an attractive tool to enhance the legitimacy of the firm within its stakeholders and to work out positive social responsibility images (e.g., Van den Ven, 2008; llia et al., 2013). Since the 1970s, an increasing number of stakeholders, such as consumers and investors, demand that companies to adopt environmentally friendly policies and demand greener products (Vos, 2014), for instance. This ethical consumerism is growing very popular in today’s markets, as seen by the increasing numbers of both sustainable products and practices (Gillespie, 2008). Therefore, positioning an organization as a sustainable player in such marketplace has become a strategic decision.

The growing focus on sustainability increases pressure on companies to report their environmental impact, since they have been found to be one of the key causes of climate change and other environmental problems (Hawken 1993; Korten 1995). As a result, a variety of companies now play an active role in environmental management, by going further persuading governments for more significant environmental regulations, while other

companies seek about ways to communicate their CSR initiatives to their stakeholders. This research will focus on the latter: CSR communication.

In this light, some organizations disclose positive environmental aspects while masking negative ones, creating a misleadingly positive impression of their overall environmental performance. This is also known as “greenwashing” (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Others communicate their CSR actions, ideals, and intentions as aspirational, meaning that it is an important resource for social change, even when companies do not fully live up to their aspirations. Official CSR statements, however they are communicated, represent ideals that organizations pledge to fulfill. Therefore, numerous companies are now taking part in CSR, actively signaling their societal commitment and communicating their sustainability performance results to stakeholders in order to reap the business benefits of being an “ethical” or good corporate subject.

The existence of greenwashing has been demonstrated over the last few years by corporate fraud scandals (e.g. Volkswagen scandal in 2015), in which companies declare themselves to be socially responsible are actually involved in environmental harmful actions. As a consequence, stakeholders’ perceptions are affected by an observed misalignment between companies’ claims and their actual behavior.

Becker-Olsen et al. (2006) have shown that stakeholders’ reactions to a firm’s CSR initiative are not a result of the CSR initiative itself, but of their evaluation of it in relation to the company. Previous research shows that while stakeholders have much interest in learning about firms’ CSR promises and actions, many of them do not believe that companies communicate honestly about this topic. Scholars have argued that skepticism, cynicism, suspicion and mistrust towards organizations’ CSR initiatives are entrenched in misalignment of what a corporate claims on the one hand and its actions on the other.

However, it is believed that organizations must communicate their commitment to, and fit with, a particular CSR issue in order to reduce stakeholders’ skepticism, cynicism and so on towards CSR initiatives (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). If communication is all about how and if organizations communicate their CSR story, then why do stakeholders remain skeptical? Are stakeholders involved in these communications? If a company involves their stakeholders, does it have the same effect?

An article written by Damien McGuinness regarding the Volkswagen scandal on BBC’s website may illustrate the answers to these questions. He writes: “Investors say that what has made the scandal worse is not simply the emissions rigging itself, but also poor communication with customers and shareholders since then - including the fact that VW engineers admitted using defeat devices to US regulators, but not to the rest of the world.”

Maigan et al. (1999) proved that messages concerning CSR initiatives are likely to evoke strong and often positive reactions among stakeholders, and that although these messages are generally associated with positive corporate virtues (e.g., Unilever, The Body Shop, Patagonia) and reflects the status of the related organization, corporate CSR messages also attract critical attention (Ashforth & Gibbs 1990, Vallentin 2001). Therefore, for CSR engagement to be genuinely beneficial (and positively perceived) for the company, stakeholders and society, a firm investing in CSR should act and communicate in a strategic manner (Husted and Salazar, 2006).

CSR has changed much over the last decade. Stakeholder expectations regarding CSR are higher than ever, a shift that must be carefully considered by companies. Furthermore, where stakeholders once attributed negative associations to particular industries, such as “sin stocks,” this has become more unpredictable and affects all industries (Brown & Dancin, 1997). Organizations engaging in CSR require more sophisticated and ongoing stakeholder awareness and CSR communication strategies than ever before.

For this reason, this paper deals with ways to communicate CSR without greenwashing, based on understanding the sense-making and sense-giving theory by Craig-Lees (2001) and Cramer et al. (2004) as it relates to stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). As there are various theoretical perspectives in CSR communication literature, the perspective implicitly adopted in this research is partly based on legitimacy theory (Benoit, 1997) because corporate image appears to be the main motivation for companies to communicate CSR. Therefore, this study builds on the previous study done by Morsing & Schultz (2006), who proposed three CSR communication strategies: (1) one-way communication, (2) a two-way asymmetric communication, and (3) two-way symmetric communication. Even though the authors have pointed out the stakeholder involvement as the “superior” strategy, to the best of our knowledge no prior study has explored deeply stakeholder integration in CSR messaging.

This paper aims to contribute to existing CSR literature by seeking clarity about the benefits of involving stakeholders in CSR initiatives and messaging, making this a reciprocal influence between companies and their audiences (Brennan et al. 2013). More specifically, where previous research has focused mainly on comparing the three types of communication strategy, this research will explore qualitatively whether or not CSR and communication managers see potential in stakeholder involvement strategy, particularly as a means to build a better corporate image and to be perceived as more credible in terms of CSR communication. For some companies CSR may be a sensitive topic, as some corporations remain unwilling to participate due to recent scandals CSR; to be sure, this makes the research more complex, but more fascinating at the same time.

Previous research has often used the CSR concept and its communication as a business tool to distinguish companies from their competitors. Today CSR is a standard practice for many organizations (llia et al., 2013), even a tool to overcome communication crises based on legitimacy and stakeholder theory (Brennan et al. 2013). However, Grunig & Hunt (1984) argue that when considering types of CSR communications, understanding the type of relationship with stakeholders—whether it follows a one-way or two-way communication model—make CSR more effetive.

One-way communication relates to the traditional view of communication originated by Shannon and Weaver (1949), where an organization (as the sender) transmits information to their stakeholders (the receiver), and stakeholders are regarded as being “managed” by organizations. In contrast, this research focuses on CSR communication as an interactive and engaging process of reciprocal influence (Ginzel et al. 2004, p. 225), also known as two-way symmetric communication. This underlines the role of stakeholders, and the negotiation of meaning between companies and stakeholders (Johansen and Neilsen, 2011). On the one hand, involving stakeholders in CSR strategies serves to demonstrate corporate values and reduce skepticism, while on the other, communicating CSR information may implement corporate image towards CSR credibility among stakeholders. This raises the following research question from the perceived gap in current literature: To what extent does stakeholder integration in CSR communication affect the credibility of an organization’s CSR strategy?

This paper first examines (a) how companies currently present their CSR information and then (b) whether or not they use a stakeholder involvement strategy where parties interact and listen to each other based on Morsing & Schultz’s (2006) criteria. In order to arrive to the answer of the first research question (RQ1) the following sub questions should be raised:

RQ 2: Why do companies communicate about CSR? How do they describe CSR communications?

RQ 3: To what extent stakeholders are involved in CSR decision-making? RQ 4: How Corporate CSR focus is decided?

RQ 5: How organizations communicate to their stakeholders? RQ 6: How do managers involve stakeholders into CSR strategy?

Then, as willingness to implement CSR demands willingness to communicate it, a review of CSR literature will present some factors that can influence or mediate the relationship between involvement of stakeholders in CSR communication and its credibility. These proposed factors are: (1) message content, (2) types of stakeholders, (3) communication channels, and (4) culture as an external factor. In this research, the influence of these elements on the implementation of stakeholder engagement in CSR strategy will be tested in a pattern-matching manner.

This paper will show that the influence of stakeholder engagement strategy on corporate credibility is mediated by the content of a message, in terms of what to communicate to improve a company’s image and strengthen its stakeholder-company relationship (Du et al. 2010) thus this leads to the following sub question: Does message content determine the effect of the stakeholder involvement strategy on corporate’s CSR credibility? (RQ 7). Also, this research holds that CSR communication strategy is not the only determinant of message content; rather, the communication channel used to transmit this content (Du et al. 2010) also determines whether or not stakeholders such as consumers, investors and employees react positively towards corporate intentions and behaviors – Does communication channel determine the effect of stakeholder involvement strategy on corporate’s credibility? (RQ 8). Additionally, this paper will argue that stakeholders’ characteristics influence the outcome of what is being communicated (Buchholtz et al. 2008), and that cultural context where the company comes from or operates in may also play a role in this practice (Maignan & Ferrell, 2003). These two ideas lead to the last sub question: Do stakeholders’ characteristics either

strengthen or weaken the effect of the stakeholder involvement strategy on corporate’s credibility with regards CSR? (R9). To find out if there is a counterargument of the benefits of employing stakeholder engagement strategy a last sub question is raise: What are some disadvantages or challenges of using an involvement strategy in CSR communications? (RQ 10).

3.2 Relevance

As a summary, this research will explore the relatively new strategic perspective of communicating CSR in a way that involves stakeholders, inviting them to a proactive dialogue to negotiate the best way to practice CSR; specifically, whether or not business professionals perceive the importance of stakeholder engagement in CSR communication strategy and its effect on corporate credibility. The sole focus will be on stakeholder involvement strategy. Moreover, four factors – message content, communication channel, types of stakeholders and cultural differences – that may influence the impact of stakeholder involvement strategy on corporate credibility are proposed, and will be taken into account when exploring the effect of this approach on corporate credibility in the field.

In terms of relevance, this study aims to contribute to the existing CSR communication, stakeholder and legitimacy literature in three ways. First, this research answers the call for further research by Morsing & Schultz (2006) to prove that the rise of two-way communication strategies in recent years, as their research found that organizations were hesitant to engage in this process. Moreover, this research addresses the knowledge gap on involving stakeholders in CSR strategies that include both internal and external stakeholders. Prior studies treat CSR communication only as a competitive advantage or to add value for consumers (e.g., Van den Ven. 2008; llia et al. 2013), but not as a way to build relationships with stakeholders and help diminish their skepticism towards corporate CSR claims. Thus, this study aims to explore some of the effects of the two-way communication approach.

Second, current literature misinterprets and misunderstands the complicated process of synergy and negotiation between companies and their stakeholders regarding CSR. Too much attention is placed on the ability of businesses to manage and control CSR due to the dimensions and resources at their disposal (Burchell and Cook 2006; Fassin 2009). On the contrary, this research aims for the first time to specifically understand stakeholders’ role in

engagement and communication, beyond than the perfunctory role of being “managed” by organizations. Hence, the findings of this research may contribute to understanding of CSR communication strategies, giving details to claims of the “superior” strategy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) and the salience of stakeholder types (Mitchell et al. 1997). Also for the first time, this study applies the stakeholder involvement strategy to the legitimacy of a corporation’s CSR claims.

Third, this research proposes four factors – message content, communication channel, types of stakeholders and cultural differences – that may influence the impact of the “superior” strategy on corporate credibility. Given this, the results of this new perspective will contribute to the existing literature on business performance regarding CSR (e.g., Du et al. 2010), stakeholder theory in terms of their characteristics (e.g., Mitchel et al. 1997) and differences of CSR among cultures (e.g., Maignan & Ferrell, 2003; Maignan & Ralston, 2002; Matten & Moon, 2004).

Finally, this research will contribute to managerial understanding of the best way to inform, engage with, and involve stakeholders into CSR strategy. Given the pressure that organizations face from external stakeholders to communicate publicly CSR information, and organizations’ care in doing so to avoid being accused of greenwashing, many of companies studied here show the complexity faced by managers as they involve stakeholders in CSR communication. These complexities include the improvement of their stakeholder relations, the way CSR initiatives are communicated, to what extent consumers think the corporation is responsible, and more. Therefore, this study aims to offer organizations an insight into how they can better leverage their CSR communications by adopting a two-way symmetric communication strategy. Additionally, if the factors proposed in this study are supported, then CSR and communication managers may be able to better understand circumstances that affect or improve the implementation of stakeholder involvement strategy.

In addition to its theoretical and practical relevance, this study focuses on companies that claim to be socially responsible and/or operate sustainably, and thus may have a significant societal impact. Understanding how to present CSR initiatives may help enable large and small corporations better serve their current and potential customers and other stakeholders.

3.3 Research structure

This research project is structured as follows. First, the theoretical concept of CSR is discussed in terms of its background and multiple definitions. In this theoretical framework a review of literature will be presented for the analysis of this thesis, particularly the need for CSR communication as well as strategies outlined in previous literature. The stakeholder role will be discussed, as this is an important determinant of the strategy used by a companies.

Next, this paper will clarify how the four factors—message content, communication channel, stakeholder characteristics and cultural differences—can affect the company-stakeholder relationship. Then the conceptual framework of this master thesis, based on prior research presented, will be proposed. The methodology section will then outline the research method used, a sample of the study, data gathering methods, and data analysis. In the chapter that follows, the results obtained from the analyzed interviews will be presented and discussed based on the theoretical framework. Finally, the research will be synthesized by a discussion of findings, presentation of conclusions, statement of limitations and recommendations for further research.

4. Theoretical Framework

4.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

n spite of the many definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility advanced in previous research, debate continues as to the exact features of this complex concept. Wood (1991) fused much of the past work into an insightful definition of corporate social performance as the “arrangement of the principles of social responsibility, process of social responsiveness, and protocols, programs, and visible outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships.”

However, throughout its history, the meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility has changed constantly (Carroll, 1979, 1999): a moving target (Churchill, 1974) framed by interpretations, promulgations and negotiations of legislators, corporations and other parties (Christensen and Cheney, 2011; Okoye, 2009). Therefore, the term is an unstable territory of exploration where ideals, standards and goals uninterruptedly expand and develop. Another definition of CSR describes it as a “corporation’s initiatives or attempts to assess and take responsibility for the company’s effects on the environment and social well being.” Furthermore, according to Davis (1973), CSR can be defined as “the firm’s consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm.”

Since CSR is such a broad concept, the desire to fit it in one single definition should be abandoned (van Marrewijk, 2003). Dahlsrud (2006) also recognized the lack of a single universally accepted definition, after analyzing 37 different definitions within the existing literature. Finally, he extracted five dimensions from these various definitions by looking at their content. These are the following:

1. The social dimension

2. The environmental dimension 3. The stakeholder dimension 4. The economic dimension 5. The voluntaries dimension

These five dimensions reinforce the idea of a broad concept. Moratis (2006) also claims that the term “people, planet, and profit” adds some structure to the abstract concept.

In this study CSR is defined as an organizational activity, which refers to “the firm’s consideration of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm” (Davis 1973, p. 312).

4.2 Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

CSR has become a “hot topic” as it grows ever more important for businesses; claims for transparency and responsibility from organizations operating worldwide have pushed them to place CSR on the corporate agenda. As a consequence, companies need to decide how to find a formula for communicating aspects of their responsibility to stakeholders (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007) without greenwashing. However, since there is no established communication framework, many organizations are confused by the task.

Some organizations add CSR objectives to their business strategies and relate these CSR goals to their values and core competitive advantages (Van den Ven, 2008), others define CSR as the strategic choice to take responsibility of their impact on the environmental, societal, and economical dimensions (Were, 2003). As a result, companies choose to reflect their status and activities in terms of CSR through communication (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Despite the attempt to appear ethical, CSR messages may also attract critical and negative attention from audiences, as proven by the recent scandals involving Shell and Volkswagen. The more organizations present their responsible social intentions, the more likely they are to attract critical attention from stakeholders and invite skepticism (Ashforth & Gibbs 1990). Consumers may, for instance, believe that an organization is trying to hide something by communicating CSR matters (Brown & Dacin, 1997). This demands that stakeholder expectations regarding CSR be considered carefully and on a frequent basis. Corporations engaging in CSR activities today need more sophisticated and ongoing stakeholder awareness and CSR communication strategies than ever.

Previously the CSR concept was used as a business tool by a few companies to distinguish themselves from competitors, but now CSR is a standard practice for many organizations (llia et al., 2013). Current practices hold that if an organization wants to prove the quality of its

CSR initiatives and actions as well as benefit from them, it is necessary to communicate them (Du et al. 2010). Due to the increasing need for communicating CSR efforts as a means to be perceived as responsible and ethical, different communication channels and various means of informing stakeholders have emerged (Du et al. 2010).

However, a lack of understanding persists among companies in the area of CSR and consistent communication strategies (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007). It is noteworthy to highlight other calls for the usage of CSR communication, as literature demonstrates that these can also be used to solve conflicts between organizations and their stakeholders (Brennan, Niamh M. et al., 2013). To move towards the practice of a more sophisticated CSR communication strategy, companies must be encouraged to break from the traditional communication view, whereby an organization (as sender) transmit information to their audiences (as receiver) following the behaviorist model by Shannon and Weaver (1949). Instead, organizations must use CSR communication as an interactive and dialogic mechanism of reciprocal influence (Ginzel et al. 2004, p.225) between themselves and their stakeholders. This highlights the role of communication in the negotiation of sense-making and sense-giving between companies and stakeholders (Johansen and Neilsen, 2011).

In terms of motivation, then literature on the stakeholder (Melé, 2008) and the legitimacy theory (Deegan, 2002) may help explain an organization’s main motivations to communicate CSR. If one takes into consideration the five dimensions proposed by Dahlsrud (2006), CSR communication may be considered in the stakeholder dimension. Therefore, in line with prior literature, any form of communication is needed in order to improve relationships with stakeholders and reap the positive financial implications of those improved relationships. Ultimately, it is not only by communicating CSR commitment that an organization can have positive impact on the environment and society and benefit from CSR advantages (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Involving stakeholders in related initiatives and communications may help a company survive due to its dependence is on critical stakeholders (Andriof et al. 2002). Stakeholders’ skepticism towards organization’s CSR initiatives and communications will ultimately be likely to improve favorably (Maignan et al. 1999). Hence, CSR communication is defined in this study as a process of mutual influence between organizations and their stakeholders, where an increased interest in understanding how managers can manage not the partners themselves, but rather the relationships with them is present (Andriof &Waddock, 2002).

This master thesis focuses on CSR communication literature as an ongoing dialogue between companies and stakeholders, as a means not to improve the credibility of CSR claims, but also as a means of resolving conflicts between parties. Thus it is valuable to understand what role stakeholders play in CSR communication.

4.3 Role of stakeholders in CSR communication

Before elaborating on their role, it may be valuable to review the concept of stakeholders for a better understanding of this theoretical framework. Freeman described stakeholders as “any group or individuals who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984).

CSR has existed for a long period of time. Grunig and Hunt (1984) attribute its origins to public relations. Public relations became essential in many organizations because of the vast impact businesses and the public have on each other (Grunig et al., 2009). Evidence shows that dialogism in CSR communication is an interactive and engaging process, which demonstrates power relations between an organization and a specific stakeholder (Brennan et al., 2013). Dunfee (2008) notices that stakeholders make claims towards the company that can influence or harm, and therefore can either help or prevent an organization in accomplishing its goals.

As seen in literature and in a real life context, there is a crisis in communication between both parties: the firm and its stakeholders (e.g., Wood, 1991; Benoit, 1997). This paper emphasizes that CSR communication may also function as a tool for resolving conflicts between organizations and their stakeholders. There are numerous theoretical perspectives in CSR communication literature about corporate crisis and crisis response strategies. But the angle implicitly taken in this research is based on legitimacy theory and on CSR communication strategies that may help improve the corporate-stakeholder relationship for better mutual outcomes and to safeguard the sustainability agenda. This implies that the management of a company must be aware of the power of stakeholders and should know how to better manage this in order to pursue the organization’s goals without “green washing.”

Furthermore, by implementing a CSR communication strategy that involves stakeholders may help an affected firm restore its image by altering their perceptions of the organization in crisis.As image involves audiences such as stakeholders’ perceptions of an organization and is usually associated with a presented action or event (Gioia et al., 2000).

Recently, stakeholder theory has developed a focus on the importance of involving stakeholders in long-term value creation (Andriof et al., 2002). This process focuses on developing a long-term mutual relationship between parties, rather than just focusing on immediate profit. The argument here is that in order to not only profit, but to also survive, organizations need to engage frequently with multiple stakeholders upon whom they depend. Now the emphasis has changed from stakeholders being managed by firms to a focus on the interaction that corporations have with their stakeholders based on a more relational and process-oriented point of view (Andriof et al., 2002). This value creation is even suggested as a competitive advantage, as companies that form strong teams with other organizations, institutions, or partners are in a better position to develop mutual value creation through knowledge-sharing, relation-specific assets, effective governance, and complementary source endowments (Dyer & Singh, 1998). This has created an increased interest in understanding how managers and companies can manage their stakeholder relationships. If we consider that the stakeholder relationship consists of “interactive, mutually engaged and responsive relationships,” this establishes the context of doing contemporary business and the starting point for transparency.

4.4 CSR communication strategies

Based on Grunig & Hunt’s (1984) public relations model, Morsing and Schultz (2006) proposed three models to describe how companies can strategically engage in CSR communications with their stakeholders. To these two-way communication models, the authors added the concept of sense giving and sense making. Sense making is, as Weick (1995) described, “the making sense of things in organizations while in conversations with others, reading communications from others, exchanging ideas with others.” Weick implies that no manager or firm makes sense in isolation, but rather that an organization is able to integrate the “sense making” of others, and will actually influence the individual’s or firm’s ability to achieve a productive relationship (Nijhof et al., 2006; Craig-Lees, 2001; Gioia et al., 1994).

As discussed, there is an increasing need to refine CSR two-way communication processes that are sense making and sense giving. This is not only because effective CSR communications can generate positive stakeholder attitudes, but also because they create a favorable corporate image and strengthen company-stakeholder relationships (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010), which also implies better corporate performance.

In 1984, Grunig & Hunt argued that 50 percent of companies at that time practiced one-way communication towards their stakeholders, while only 35 percent practiced two-way communication (either asymmetric or symmetric). Problems may originate from controversies that arise due to a conflict of organizational behaviors between organizations and their stakeholders. Thus, conflict resolution depends on both parties agreeing on an interpretation of the presented issue.

Today, presenting ethical-seeming CSR messages is not enough. The audience expects authenticity and organizational support: that the organization means what it actually says, that they “walk the talk.” Also, as organizational image is concerned with stakeholders’ perceptions, image restoration entails modifying their perceptions towards the organization (Gioia et al. 2000). Thus, the model by Morsing and Shultz (2006), which presents the truth of contemporary stakeholder expectations in terms of CSR communication may help to overcome some of these challenges.

This model presents three CSR communication strategies to be further discussed in the following subsections: the information strategy, the response strategy and the involvement strategy (see Table 1). The presented communication strategies criteria may help managers better understand commonly overlooked complexities of the relationship between the sender and receiver of a CSR message, which encompasses a managerial commitment to proactively involve stakeholders in the decision-making of CSR strategies.

Table 1. CSR communication strategies (Morsing et al., 2006).

Further analysis of research regarding how companies currently present their CSR information is based on the criteria presented in Table 1.

4.4.1 Information strategy

This communication strategy resembles the public information model by Grunig and Hunt in which communication flows one way, from the company to its stakeholders. This type of communication is seen as “telling, not listening” (Grunig and Hunt, 1984: 23), a monologic communication where organizations are in control of the process (Foster and Jonker, 2005). Thus, it only disseminates information with the purpose to inform the audience as objectively as possible about the company. In other words, the company “gives sense” to the public. Stakeholders cannot actively interact in a dialogue with the company, but only react to the information given by either supporting or opposing it. Usually, managers using this strategy think they are doing the right thing; they believe the company just needs to inform its stakeholders effectively (about what they are doing right and ethically) to maintain favorable stakeholder support (Morsing and Schultz., 2006).

Typically, governments, non-profit organizations and many other businesses in power primarily use this information strategy to engage in active press relations, producing information for the media in the form of magazines, press releases, facts, and numbers to inform audiences publicly. As a result, they expect stakeholders to respond either with support or opposition (Smith, 2003) and put pressure on organizations to manifest their interests (Dunfee, 2008) as a consequence of lack of interdependence between parties. Joutsenvirta (2011) argues that NGOs usually tend to be the winners in controversies that may appear in such communication, as they are powerful and politically skilful.

Moreover, in this strategy corporations want to ensure that their CSR decisions and behaviors are communicated effectively to stakeholders, and that a coherent and appealing message is conveyed (van Riel, 1995). Therefore, the company itself originates trustworthy CSR communication. Here the function of the media plays an important role to influence audiences’ opinion and credibility (Jacobs, 1999; Fassin, 2000). Thus, it may be worth noting that the communication channel used may influence the credibility of CSR communication.

4.4.2 Response strategy

This strategy is based on a two-way asymmetric communication model, contrary of the first and next strategy. In this response strategy the organization does not change as a result of the feedback it gets from stakeholders. Rather, it tries to change stakeholders’ attitudes and behavior by making decisions relevant to them in order to convince them, instead of coming to a mutual agreement. This is done because the organization needs an external endorsement. Typically, the corporate communication department conducts an opinion poll to make sense of where the company has improved in terms of CSR initiatives, to find out their acceptance and tolerance by the public. Although this strategy is two-way in terms of communication, it is still a sender-oriented approach where stakeholders only respond and their responses are measured (Morsing and Schultz, 2006).

In this strategy the authors suggest that stakeholders play an influential role, but are passive respondents to corporate initiatives. In an organization’s attempts to listen its stakeholders’ CSR concerns, it may only hear its own voice as it asks questions to stakeholders in an organizational framework that invites desired answers from partners (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). This strategy could also be interpreted as Brennan and colleagues (2013) called the

“turn-taking” interaction, where dialogue is represented as a series of interconnected opportunities to express suggestions by a sequence of “turns” in a conversation. Each turn represents a response to a preceding message from the company, where stakeholders show their understanding of the previous message presented then reveal their expectations about the next message to come (Slembrouck, 2011, p.163). Here stakeholders are engaged in a dialogue by responding to the company.

4.4.3 Involvement strategy

This two-way communication strategy is also known as the “stakeholder involvement” strategy; compared with the previous strategies, this focuses on a dialogue with its stakeholders. In this case, both sense-making and sense-giving take place. Persuasion also plays a role, but this time it comes from both parties, each trying to convince the other to change (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). Companies seek to be influenced by their stakeholders and change when necessary. Hence, negotiation is seen as means to explore stakeholder and company concerns. One of the main challenges that companies today face is to manage mutual expectations; by entering into a stakeholder-company dialogue or involvement strategy, companies may overcome this challenge (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007). Usually, organizations are capable of establishing an open-ended and systematic interaction and/or dialogue with multiple stakeholders that count as both internal and external stakeholders.

In this framework, stakeholder integration is essential for managers to consider when crafting the CSR communication strategy (Freeman, 1984). In this regard, some challenges that managers face regarding CSR communication may strengthen or weaken the firm’s credibility. Stakeholder involvement is a necessity for an organization to create added value and enhance its corporate image. Previous empirical studies in Scandinavian countries show that people generally agree that companies have a responsibility that extends beyond its shareholders to its employees and customers (annual Reputation Quotient). Moreover, reputation surveys also demonstrate the overall public’s perceptions of how firms should communicate their CSR activities and initiatives.

The involvement strategy further assumes that while communicating and surveying is necessary, it is not enough. In organizational practice, top management is expected to be responsible for ensuring that the organization is capable of creating an ongoing

communication with multiple stakeholders, where mutual understanding and rational agreement is present (Grunig and Hunt, 1984).

The authors Morsing and Schultz (2006) called for support and evidence that show companies practicing the two-way communication processes, particularly stakeholder involvement. It may be valuable to explore whether or not companies use this strategy, because as Cooper (2009) concluded, two-way dialogue between companies and their partners may serve to foster CSR, improve outcomes, and create more sustainable practices.

4.4.4 The importance of stakeholder integration – overcoming reporting

challenges

On the one hand, non-financial reporting can be seen as an attempt to increase transparency with respect to CSR actions and environmental issues (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007). A variety of sustainability index and auditing procedures have emerged as a consequence of the need to account for sustainability reporting. On the other hand, while the public and stakeholders agree that companies are responsible for more than just communicating (Morsing and Schultz, 2006), the concept of CSR communication becomes a challenge when it attempts to meet specific stakeholders’ expectations (Nielsen and Thomsen, 2007) and when an organization’s legitimacy may be in danger as a result of a communication crisis (Benoit, 1997).

Given the importance of this for managers within both large and small companies, as well the lack of investigation into how stakeholder involvement in CSR communication affects credibility, stakeholder involvement is the predominant focus of this master thesis. Prior literature suggests that communication with stakeholders is an effective approach to counteract the negative exposure caused by corporate scandals or controversies (Humphreys and Brown 2008; O’Riordan and Fairbass 2008; Lindblom 2010). The importance of communication strategy prompts this research to explore more deeply stakeholder involvement strategy as the ideal approach to report CSR information, as well as some factors that may affect credibility. If an organization fails to address the concerns of critical stakeholders on whose support it depends, its survival is in danger (Brennan et al., 2013; Freeman, 1984). Thus, there is a need for a transformation from organizational decision-making to “include more decisional opinions representing multiple business and community

values and generating value contestation” (Kuhn and Deetz, 2008 p. 186) is present. As Morsing and Shultz (2006), Nielsen and Thomsen (2007), as well as Brennan and colleagues (2013) stated, a two-way dialogue between organizations and their stakeholders fosters CSR and improve outcomes in terms of creating more sustainable business activities. Instead of a monologue, the focus now is on maintaining an open dialogue with both internal (e.g., employees) and external stakeholders (e.g., investors) negotiating for mutual agreement on CSR-related topics. Thus, involving stakeholders in CSR strategies—the focus of this study—is ultimately the more “sophisticated” and “superior” approach to overcome some of the many challenges mentioned in the literature.

4.5 Moderators and mediators

Previous sections have argued that stakeholder involvement in CSR communication strategy is the ideal approach. This approach is relevant to organizations that strive to increase CSR engagement benefits for themselves as well as for stakeholders; these benefit include favorable corporate image, better financial performance, stakeholders’ willingness to cooperate, and resolution of communication crises. This paper will now give an overview of literature on factors that may challenge the credibility of claims in CSR communication stakeholder involvement strategy. The recurring (moderating and mediating) factors of CSR communication strategies are message content (Du et al., 2010); types of stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997); message channels used (Du et al., 2010; Driessen, 2013); and cultural differences (Maignan & Ferrell, 2003).

4.5.1 Message content

While the literature argues that involvement of stakeholders is important to increase stakeholder awareness and create favorable attributions towards the company involved in CSR Du, Bhattacharya and Sen (2010) state that is also critical to communicate effectively. More specifically, they suggest a better understanding of important issues such as what to communicate in order to improve image, stakeholder attitudes, and stakeholder-company relationships, all of which are benefits of engaging in CSR (Du et al., 2010).

It is believed that firms’ CSR communication content may be either about the social cause supported or about how the firm is supporting it. Consumers are likely to be skeptical of the

company’s motives to engage in CSR if the company in question emphasizes the social cause itself in its communications (Du et al., 2010). Companies in such cases should rather emphasize the importance of the social problem and communicate a lack of established self-interest by selecting issues that are not logically related to the company’s core business, in order to both mitigate stakeholders’ skepticism and to increment CSR communications credibility (Du et al., 2010). In other words, an organization can decide to communicate their (1) commitment to the cause, (2) impact on it, (3) intention and motives for engaging in the cause, and/or (4) the fit between the cause and the firm’s core business.

(1) Commitment. Companies should communicate the amount of resources given to a cause, the consistency of those donations, and/or the length of period the company has done so. The longer the commitment, the more favorable the perception towards the company. This is because consumers view short-term commitment as a profit-driven cause exploitation (Du et al., 2010).

(2) Impact. Organizations involved in a social cause may communicate the social benefits resulting from that CSR activity. This is because emphasizing the impact is an effective way to present CSR communication, due to the fact that it functions as a “diagnostic” cue with regard to CSR motives (Du et al., 2010 p.12).

(3) Motives. Extrinsic motives in CSR messaging content increases a firm’s credibility regarding CSR (Foreh and Grier, 2003). Thus, organizations should “emphasize the matched interest of social and business, and openly acknowledge that its CSR efforts are beneficial to both society and itself as well as its stakeholders” (Du et al., 2010 p.12; Morsing et al., 2006).

(4) Fit. Congruence between a social problem and the company’s core business is also an important factor to communicate CSR matters since it affects stakeholder attribution (Du et al., 2010). Overall, the authors suggest that in order to be perceived positively and engage consumers more actively in CSR communications, companies should highlight the appropriateness of the CSR fit. Otherwise, it should clarify the connection between itself and the cause.

In contrast, organizational research has highlighted that one of the major risks for communication in practice is that managers present only the information that they find important, taking pride in it, and believe it is what stakeholders want to hear (Morgan, 1999; Christensen & Cheney, 2000).

4.5.2 Types of stakeholders

As discussed previously, Freeman (1984) describes a stakeholder as any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the accomplishments of the firm’s objectives. Also, Buchholtz and colleagues (2008) argued that the type of stakeholder may influence the organization and outcome of what it is being communicated. Hence, if the company performs badly or does not live up to expectations regarding CSR, stakeholders then may influence communcation negatively. However, this is not limited to CSR; stakeholders may influence a variety of aspects. Mitchell et al. (1997) described this in their influential model of stakeholders’ saliency. Based on this model, seven types of stakeholders can be determined based upon three criteria: power, legitimacy, and urgency (see Figure 1).

1. Dormant stakeholders. These stakeholders own the power to influence, but because they do not have legitimacy or urgency, they do not have interaction or involvement. 2. Demanding stakeholders. They have urgent issues, but they have no legitimacy or

power.

3. Discretionary stakeholders. These stakeholders do have legitimacy, but they do not have power nor urgency.

4. Dominant stakeholders. These are the most common stakeholders; they interact with organizations through formal mechanisms. They have legitimacy and power, too. 5. Dependent stakeholders. They lack power and need others to enforce their will.

6. Dangerous stakeholders. These stakeholders have power and urgency only on what they claim.

7. Definitive stakeholders. They possess all three criteria. Hence they have moderated power, legitimacy, and urgency.

Figure 1. The influential model of stakeholders’ saliency – stakeholder types (Mitchell et al., 1997)

Stakeholder types are particularly important because each type differs according to the information they need and the channel they use to consume relevant information (Du et al., 2010). How companies should communicate may change over time (Morsing et al., 2006). Therefore, the following section discusses how and mainly through which channels companies should present their CSR information, in order to strengthen or weaken the relationship between the strategy chosen and the credibility of its claims.

4.5.3 Communication channels

Companies willing to communicate their CSR initiatives and actions have a vast selection of channels through which they can present this information.

Reputation surveys presented by authors Morsing and Shultz (2006) demonstrated that citizens in three Scandinavian countries had different perceptions of how organizations should communicate their CSR messages. Only 10 percent of the public believed that organizations should not publicize CSR information, while the majority said that they should publicize this information, either minimally through websites and annual reports, or proactively and openly. Moreover, Du et al. (2010) argued that channels that are less

controlled by the company, such as consumer fora, have more credibility with stakeholders and vice versa. Previous research has shown that consumers, investors and (potential) employees react more positively towards a company’s CSR actions when they learn of them from a “neutral source, rather than a corporate source” (Du et al., 2010 p. 13). This “neutral source” can be an independent organization that provides evaluations of corporate activities without any influence from the company. Brennan and colleagues (2013) also argue that the function of media is important due to its role as a message content intermediary with the ability to influence public opinion. Stakeholders with legitimate urgent claims may, for instance, use press releases as a medium for putting pressure on companies by portraying them either positively or negatively (Dunfee, 2008). As a consequence, this may influence the way companies are perceived and evaluated by consumers and other stakeholders, and thus also impact their image and the credibility of their claims.

For this reason, companies may be recommended to try to obtain coverage from external sources that are considered unbiased and independent, and encourage informal, but credible information (e.g., stakeholder word-of-mouth created through internal communication, and/or engaging with consumers directly). Tan (2002) also agrees with this, stating that CSR communication will be perceived as more plausible if it is subtle and indirect, such as, in the presentation of more objective information in non-financial reports. In line with these findings, this research aims to explore whether the communication medium through which CSR information is presented may influence the effect of involvement strategy on credibility.

4.5.4 Cultural differences (external context)

Finally, another factor that may moderate the effect of involvement strategy on the credibility corporate CSR claims is cross-cultural differences in the types of tasks that stakeholders assign to businesses (Maignan and Ferrell, 2003). Previous studies show, for instance, that French and Dutch businesses were not as concerned as American companies about communicating CSR actions on corporate websites (Maignan and Ralston, 2002). The North American CSR approach shows a substantial tradition of philanthropic giving, and seems to encourage stakeholders to receive more conspicuous CSR communication than in European context (Matten and Moon, 2004). However, according to Williams and Aguilera (2008), European organizations lead in terms of CSR worldwide, especially in countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. Maignan and Ralston (2002) agree

on this, arguing that in the Netherlands, organizations mostly react not only to stakeholder pressures, but also to scrutiny.

Williams and Aguilera (2008) pointed out that differences between countries may fade away slowly, due to the fact that CSR is a response to globalization. Overall, this implies that the culture of the country of origin will continue to play a role, but will be diminished within global organizations, while their CSR communications are mostly visible.

As seen from the above review, there is already available knowledge on CSR communication strategies and the factors that could pose a challenge to stakeholder involvement strategy. However, there seems to be a lack of insight into how companies currently present their CSR communication, which strategy are they following, or how these various factors could be influencing the effectiveness of involvement strategy in terms of credibility of corporate CSR claims. This research proposes that the effect of stakeholder involvement strategy on credibility among stakeholders may be determined by message content and the medium through which the message is transmitted. Additionally, this research aims to answer the question of whether or not stakeholder characteristics and cultural context may strengthen or weaken the relationship between stakeholder involvement strategy and how stakeholders perceive corporate CSR claims. A diagram of this theoretical framework and propositions is presented in Figure 2, where the red and bold boxes represent the main focus of this study.

Figure 2. Conceptual model Information strategy Response strategy Involvement strategy Credibility in terms of CSR Expected Communication outcome Message content & channel CSR com m u n icat ion str ate gies Stakeholder type & culture

Proposed Moderators

Proposed Mediators

5. Methodology

5.1 Research approach

rgumentation on choosing the pertinent methodology results from the prior state of knowledge (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). In this specific case, a relationship between CSR communication strategy and the credibility of corporate CSR claims can be found in current literature, in the sense that this research should follow a deductive approach (Saunders et al., 2007). However, this study should not only follow this approach, but may also be inductive, since it will emphasize a close understanding of the research context and will attempt to develop theory from the analysis of existing data (Saunders et al., 2007). As the authors suggest, “it could be a good idea to combine approaches. A study can start with an exploratory study in order to arrive at a tentative theory inductively before actually testing that theory in a deductive piece of quantitative work” (Saunders et al., 2007 p. 126). Furthermore, this research is exploratory in nature because it aims to seek new insights, raise new questions, and assess contemporary topics in a new light (Saunders et al., 2007). Thus, this type of study demands qualitative research.

5.2 Research strategy

This study will use a comprehensive strategy, or case studies (Yin, 2013) of multiple companies in the Netherlands. This strategy allows for the study of a specific contemporary topic within its real-life context, using multiple sources of evidence (Saunders et al., 2007 p. 133). The multi-case study design will allow this investigation to retain the integrated and meaningful characteristics of real-life events such as organizational and managerial processes, international relations, and the maturation of industries (Yin, 2013). The most pertinent type of case study would be exploratory since it will attempt to answer the question: “To what extent does stakeholder integration in CSR communication affect the credibility of corporate CSR strategy?”

In a case study, behavior cannot be manipulated. Therefore, it relies upon and expounds on two sources of evidence: direct observation and (systematic) interviews, which are also a unique strength of this research strategy (Yin, 2013). This type of strategy is pertinent to this

study mainly due to its interests, which are to expand, test, and/or generalize theories—not to enumerate frequencies—as well as the type of main research question raised.

As suggested by Yin (2013), data for this study will be derived by conducting semi-structured interviews. This kind of interview uses a particular set of prearranged questions, but with the possibility to follow up on recent issues as they are presented (Bysted & Hansen, 2015). The questions in the interviews are intended to be open-ended to encourage the interviewees to give meaningful answers (Patton, 1990) and deliberately cover contextual conditions that may be highly pertinent to the phenomena of the study (Yin, 2013).

The target group of this research is CSR and communication managers or key individuals involved in these fields. This research will be supported by around 10 interviews from firms across the Netherlands. Interviewing managers or high-positioned members in the structure of an organization is key. As Swanson (1995) explained, these individuals make the CSR policy and decisions, and their attitudes and thoughts about CSR influence related activities and disclosures. Therefore, interview recruitment focuses on managers and/or high-level executives of functions closely related to CSR and/or communications. Additionally, this study may also tap other sources of evidence such as sustainability reports and/or actual news reports in order to derive results in a triangulating fashion (Yin, 2013).

Companies participating in this data collection process might be engaged, if not fully, partially within CSR initiatives. Geography may also play an important role in choosing companies to study in this research. According to Williams and Aguilera (2008), European companies lead the world in terms of CSR, particularly the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Maignan and Ralston (2002) confirmed that Dutch organizations react on stakeholder pressures and scrutiny most of the time, compared to their American counterparts, who are focused on showing what they already do regardless of pressure. The authors also state that in the Netherlands, the most influential stakeholders are regulators and customers.

In this light, CSR can be seen as highly developed in the Netherlands, thus forming a strong basis for interviewing Dutch companies and their managers in order to obtain on-ground knowledge. However, gathering data from other countries would also prove insightful, in order to draw comparisons and arrive at a well-informed conclusion and implementation of

the existing theories in different contexts. Additionally, the annual list of world’s sustainable top leaders published by the Dow Jones Sustainability™ Indices, which are maintained collaboratively with S&P Dow Jones Indices and RobecoSAM, are a useful guidance tool.

Questions for this research are based on the criteria proposed by Morsing et al. (2006) on the three CSR communication strategies, and are designed to investigate how companies currently present their CSR messages. Do they follow the stakeholder information strategy, the stakeholder response strategy, or the stakeholder involvement strategy as proposed by the authors? These, among other questions, are relevant to achieve the aim of this research. This study therefore benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions, which serve to guide this data collection and further its analysis (Yin, 2013).

The interviews were conducted face-to-face and/or on the telephone. The length of the interviews vary from approximately 40 to 60 minutes. All interviews are in English, audiotaped and follow a protocol formed by different themes based on the main question and sub-questions. All of this material can be found in the appendix.

5.3 Data gathering

An invitation to participate in the interview was sent via email to the relevant managers of seven global organizations selected from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. These contact details were derived from companies’ websites and/or sustainability reports, from the author’s network, and from the network of the supervisor of this research. The invitation mentioned the final purpose of this research, for which university this was made, the research topic, and the research question. The email also mentioned that the interview would be recorded in order for transcription purposes, and assured participants’ anonymity. Managers then scheduled either a face-to-face or telephonic interview with the researcher.

Interviewing managers from variety of industries was a key focus of the participant recruitment process. Five of the seven contacted companies replied. Two companies declined to participate due to lack of time, and two more did not respond. However, three large companies from different industries were willing to collaborate. Four high-level internal stakeholders who accepted the invitation were from a beverage company, four managers from a leading global electronics company, and two from an oil and gas company. It is important

to note that in the last organization mentioned before, only two managers were willing to help, but actually more than that were in communication but at the end they did not want to collaborate anymore. Nine out of ten interviews were conducted face-to-face in the companies’ offices. Part of the research procedure can be found in the Appendices, specifically, the interview overview in Appendix 1. The semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix 2A) contained the main questions related to the theoretical framework, as well as some sub-questions owing to incomplete or unfavorable responses from the participants.

5.4 Data analysis

This research relies on qualitative data analysis (Saunders et al., 2007). First, all the interviews were transcriped. Output gathered from these interviews were then coded by theme in order to gain detailed insights into the core issues and challenges of involving stakeholders in CSR communications. Quotes that were interpreted to have discussed a specific direction were also categorized and labeled.

An overview of first order concepts shows how concepts are linked to the theoretical framework (see Table 2).

First order concepts Theoretical concepts

Statements referring to current organizational situation in terms of CSR: organizational focus, sustainability aims, internal structures to achieve the sustainability agenda and/or internal culture

Corporate Social Responsibility definition (for the organization)

Statements referring to a need to communicate CSR to stakeholders: departments’ roles; the importance of communicating

CSR communication environment

Statements referring to the company’s behavior regarding stakeholder roles: awareness of stakeholder involvement as a tool to improve corporate reputation; stakeholders’ power; the importance of involving them and their current role within the company

Role of stakeholder in CSR communication

Statements referring to types of stakeholders engaged in CSR (communication) strategy