Corporate social responsibility according to European Union:
a discourse analysis.
Business Administration:
Strategy Track
Master’s thesis
Wojciech Czerwinski
Student № 11083956
Abstract:
The present research was conducted to explore the processes of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) policy development inside the European Union (EU). The main focus of the
study was the language used by the European Commission throughout the time period of 2006
– 2016. Critical Discourse methodology was adapted in order to identify and analyse the
potential themes surrounding the concept of CSR as well as expose rhetoric strategies used
by EU. Findings suggest that underlying theme throughout CSR debate is the theme of
tensions, with three sub-themes representing different types of tensions, these include:
“Follower vs Leader”, “Stakeholder Engagement vs Profitability” and “Regulation vs
Voluntarism”. As “Stakeholder Engagement vs Profitability” and “Regulation vs Voluntarism”
were previously investigated by academics working with CSR and EU, “Follower vs Leader”
offers new insight as it has been examined to a limited extent by researchers. Based on these
findings, new areas of research are proposed. In addition, the relevance of the findings for
managerial practice is discussed.
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Wojciech Czerwinski who declares to take 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
Contents
Abstract: ... 2 1. Introduction ... 4 1.1 Background ... 4 1.2 Research Gap ... 7 1.3 Research Questions... 9 2. Literature Review ... 10 2.1 CSR ... 10 2.2 Tensions ... 15 3. Methodology ... 20 3.1 Research Design ... 20 3.2 Sampling ... 23 3.3 Data Gathering ... 24 3.4 Data Analysis ... 304. Empirical findings & discussion ... 33
4.1 Leader vs Follower ... 34
4.2 Stakeholder Engagement vs Profitability ... 36
4.3 Regulation vs Voluntarism ... 37
4.4 Discussion ... 39
5. Conclusion ... 43
5.1 Summary of main findings ... 43
5.2 Managerial implications ... 44
5.3 Suggestions for future research ... 45
Corporate social responsibility according
to European Union: a discourse analysis.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
European companies have a long history of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as
business firms have been engaging in such activities since the 18th century (Bakker, 2016). For
years discussion about CSR in the region mostly concentrated on what might be considered to
be appropriate rights and responsibilities of businesses, the degree of duty owed and to
whom, and the ways in which businesses should be responsible (Fairbrass, 2011). However,
only recently we witnessed growing widespread interest in corporate social responsibility
among academics as well as public-policy makers. According to an analysis of the Social
Science Citation index (SSCI), during the last 10 years, we could observe an explosion in articles
about CSR with more than 250 articles published only in 2008 (Muhle, 2010). Main reasons
why CSR issues have been brought to public attention, were continuous international
scandals, involving large business organisations like Italian Parmalat or more recent German
Volkswagen, exposed by media and non-governmental organizations (Fairbrass, 2011). Due to
these events, new trend has arrived; national governments, as well as intergovernmental
organizations, have been gradually increasing its pressure on companies in order to intensify
At the same time academics started broadening the research on CSR form various
perspectives, Aguinis’s review gives examples of different research including: Peloza (2009)
focused on how to measure the influence of CSR on financial performance, Carroll (1999) and
Waddock (2004) explored the operationalization of CSR, Wood (2010) reviewed the literature
on how to measure CSR, and Peloza and Shang (2011) conducted a review of how CSR can
create value for stakeholders. In addition, other reviews of the CSR literature have focused on
specific disciplines such as marketing (Enderle & Murphy, 2009; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004);
organizational behaviour, human resource management, and industrial and organizational
psychology (Aguinis, 2011); operations (Brammer, Hoejmose, & Millington, 2011); and
information systems (Elliot, 2011).
Parallel to growing concern about CSR, companies have been gradually increasing their
political power over the years. With the fall of the Iron Curtain (and planned economies) and
accelerating globalization, this trend has been spreading rapidly. Activities which were
previously considered as governmental only, now have been organised by private companies
as firms started to engage in public health, education or even military (i.e. Academi - former
Blackwater). The power balance between private and public actors changed: the
taken-for-granted assumption that corporations were regulated by governments and thus tamed by the
rule of law became questionable (Barber, 1992). Multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating
in a number of countries started to have higher bargain power towards individual national
governments as they could pick and choose the countries they operate in for their own
benefit, the perfect example are tax havens such as Panama or Luxembourg. Number of MNEs
operate on the supranational level where they have more authority than individual
Furthermore, it seems like companies will only increase their political influence in the future,
bringing us closer to “Global Corporatocracy”
On the other hand, we have a political constructs also operating on supranational level
such as European Union (EU), where instead of hand-picked managers and CEOs we have
democratically elected representatives (at least to some extent). EU is an extraordinary case
on the global scale where member-states agreed to give up so much authority to its
institutions. EU for years have put great emphasis on CSR and sustainability issues. It has the
most extensive environmental laws of any international organisation (Jordan and Adelle
2012). The EU environment policy consists of more than 300 directives, decisions and
regulations, some of which directly affecting the corporate world (Delbard, 2008). Social
aspect incorporated in the cohesion policy is one of the cornerstones of Maastricht Treaty
(1992) which formed EU as we know it today. Moreover, EU considers itself a global leader in
sustainability, The European Council in December 2009 confirmed that "sustainable
development remains a fundamental objective of the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty”. In 2011 EU announced Europe 2020 programme which places CSR as a central
concept.
Because of EU’s singularity and the fact that EU together with MNEs operate on similar
supranational level it is interesting to investigate how EU manages the growing public concern
on CSR with the increasing power of corporations. In other words, dynamic environment
forces EU institutions to actively manage their attitude/policies toward CSR. Identifying
potential themes in the EU – CSR official policies as well as other EU CSR initiatives’ documents
would contribute greatly to academic literature on CSR in EU as well as would have important
1.2 Research Gap
Starting with Green Paper 2001 European Union has 15 years long history of official
dealings with CSR, most of that period is characterised by conflicts between parties favouring
voluntaristic and regulatory approaches (Kinderman 2013). This struggle is fuelled by the
ambiguity of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as multiple academics and institutions have
their own definitions of CSR. Dahlsrud (2008) presents a review of 37 definitions of CSR which
are categorized into five dimensions (identified through a content analysis of the definitions)
including: stakeholder, environmental, social, voluntariness and economic dimensions. In the
end, CSR is viewed as a social construction and, as such, it is not possible to develop an
unbiased definition (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). This brings a question if academics are so
divergent in defining CSR what happens in a much more pliant world of politics, leaders can
just pick and choose one of the multiple definitions in order to satisfy their current political
needs. Kinderman (2013) gives an example in the history of EU CSR policy development when
“facilitated by CSR’s inherent ambiguity, the (CSR) agenda has shifted from social-liberal to neo-liberal and back again”. Depending on the current political wind, CSR descriptions and
attitudes are changing over time, for example, Matten and Moon (2008) talk about a recent
movement from implicit to more explicit approach toward CSR inside EU.
It is clear that the way we talk about it defines the very nature of CSR as well as the
level of actions considered as CSR, therefore the use of language in case of CSR is extremely
important. This relationship has been already highlighted by many scholars including Hao
Liang et al. (2014), whose research presents the language used by corporations as a strong
is a common topic of research through the notion of discourse. For example Burchell and Cook
(2006) in their work try to demonstrate, through the application of Fairclough's critical
discourse analysis framework, that the discourse surrounding corporate social responsibility
has broader implications. Besides, discourse analysts also tackle the topic of EU public policies
for example: Erjavec et al. (2009) conduct Critical Discourse Analysis of the Current Common
EU Agricultural Policy Reform Agenda or more recently Hawes (2015) analyses EU Foreign
Policy through the lens of discourse analysis. Finally, some academics already have looked at
the EU’s language on CSR by means of discourse including Fairbrass (2011) who conducted a
discursive institutionalist analysis of EU policies on CSR.
Previously mentioned room for CSR interpretations as well as the complex structure of
CSR concept makes it possible for tensions to emerge. Specifically, common topics are the
tensions arising from the Triple Bottom Line – the environmental, social and financial aspects
of CSR. While a focus on financial aspect has served to legitimize corporate sustainability
research, this stream of research has created a gap in our understanding of how sustainability
tensions are addressed. Hahn et al. (2015) review the literature on CSR’s tensions as well as
propose a framework designed to manage tensions in CSR through paradox lenses. However,
little exploration has been done on tensions in EU’s public policies on CSR. Delbard (2008)
explores the CSR European regulatory paradox, however, he focuses only on French legislation
and sustainability reporting practice. This gap in the literature of tensions and critical discourse
1.3 Research Questions
Because of the strong relationship between language and CSR, I investigate the use of
language as a tool for implementing changes in CSR. Specifically, I examine EU’s rhetoric
strategies through the notion of discourse. Previously mentioned ambiguity of CSR as well as
its dependence on the use of language made it possible for opposite parties (i.e. pro- and
anti-regulation) to use different rhetoric strategies in order to establish a relation of domination in
that particular sector and move the vague concept of CSR towards a more favourable
outcome.
In 2011 European Commission changed the CSR definition to “the responsibility of
enterprises for their impacts on society”. The EU reformulated its CSR agenda and now follows
an enabling approach in facilitating CSR in member states and at multinational enterprises
(Garsten and Jacobsson, 2013; Vallentin and Murillo, 2012). The reason behind this alteration
is the financial crisis which produced a political climate more favourable towards regulation
(Kinderman 2013). The current EU – CSR policy changes have been examined to a limited
extent by CSR researchers. Therefore it is interesting to conduct a more recent and wider
discourse analysis on EU CSR public policies. In order to expose and analyse rhetoric strategies
and EU’s potential attempts to establish the feeling of domination across CSR issues, I conduct
Critical Discourse Analysis of EU’s official documents with an aim of answering research
questions: What themes could be identified in recent EU – CSR policy development? What
2. Literature Review
2.1 CSR
Starting point for my thesis is the phenomena of globalization which can be defined as
“a process of intensification of cross-border social interactions due to declining costs of connecting distant locations through communication and the transfer of capital, goods, and people. This process leads to growing transnational interdependence of economic and social actors, an increase in both opportunities and risks, and to intensified competition” (Beck, 2000;
Giddens, 1990; Held et al., 1999). For past decades globalization has been continuously
striping national governments of their power. The so-called ‘Westphalian world order’ has
been shaken and the political scientists and philosophers now speak of a ‘post-Westphalian’
order (Falk, 2002; Kobrin, 2001; Santoro, 2010) or a ‘post-national constellation’ (Habermas,
2001).
The post-national constellation caused by globalization can be characterized by the
loss of the regulatory power of national governments due to “the fragmentation of authority,
the increasing ambiguity of borders and jurisdictions; and the blurring of the lines between the public and the private sphere” (Korbin, 2009). Due to this phenomena, many business firms
have started to assume social and political responsibilities that go beyond legal requirements
and fill the regulatory vacuum in global governance (Scherer et al. 2011). In other words,
companies started to act as regulators on the supranational level because individual countries
cannot enforce regulations beyond their national territories and international institutions are
not able to sufficiently regulate the global economy and to provide global public goods (Kaul
The idea of the corporation as a politicized actor was proposed as a reaction to the
regulatory opening up around the activities of MNCs (Cashore and Vertinsky, 2000; Matten
and Crane, 2005; Palazzo and Scherer, 2006; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007). Scherer et al. (2016)
give three reasons behind this trend, namely in the late 1980s, corporations had started to
create ever more complex global production networks which profited from three types of
regulatory gaps: First, there is no legally binding international law for global private actors.
Second, MNCs can operate with high institutional flexibility; they can avoid strict regulation or
even negotiate regulation with local authorities (Scherer and Smid, 2000). Third, MNEs are
increasingly present in geopolitical contexts that are poorly regulated or repressive because
of the growing need for resources and the progressive outsourcing of production. In
combination, those three types of regulatory problems challenge the neoliberal assumption
that the law is the (reliable) limit of profit maximization (Scherer and Palazzo, 2011).
As Scherer et al. (2011) states “since the year 2000, over 5000 business firms have
subscribed to the UN Global Compact’s call to engage in self-regulation in order to fill the regulatory vacuum that has emerged as a result of the process of globalization.” This
self-regulation is part of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR) agenda which suggests an
extended model of governance with business firms contributing to global regulation and
providing public goods. Businesses not only influence politics via lobbying, they turn into
political actors themselves – i.e., they co-create their institutional environment (Barley, 2010;
Scherer and Palazzo, 2011). Additionally, according to Scherer et al. (2011) “The decline in
governance capability of nation-states is partly compensated by the emergence of new forms of global governance above and beyond the state”. Indeed, in case of European continent,
European Union, as a politico-economic union of 28 (27?) member states which developed
the role of the new form of global governance. This fact underlines the importance of EU’s
attitude towards CSR including the development of official EU CSR policies as well as other EU
CSR initiatives such as CSR Europe or European CSR Awards. EU’s first official CSR policy was
only presented in March 2000 in Lisbon when the European Council appealed to business
organizations’ sense of corporate responsibility in assisting with the EU’s strategic goals as
part of the Lisbon Strategy (European Council, 2000). From that point, the European
Commission effectively took responsibility for driving and orchestrating EU CSR policy
development.Especially the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs and Equal
Opportunities were set to provide the base for the CSR policy.
According to Fairbrass (2011) the development of EU CSR public policy has been
characterised by conflict between competing actors and significant asymmetries of power.
Even the simplest things such as the shortcut “CSR” itself has different expansions depending
on the organisation. Businesses prefer not to use ‘corporate social responsibility’, choosing to
omit the word ‘social’ because they regard it as having inappropriate connotations. Instead,
they tend to favour expressions such as ‘corporate citizenship’ or ‘global citizenship’,
‘corporate philanthropy’, ‘corporate community involvement’ or ‘corporate social marketing’
(O’Riordan and Fairbrass, 2008), which they regard as lending a more favourable light to their
activities.
Despite the differences and previously mentioned 37 definitions, academic world
mostly adapts definition of CSR as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that
take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Carroll, 1999; Peloza, 2009; Waddock, 2004, Aguinis 2011).
European Union until recently has been using CSR definition stated in Commission Green
concern in their business operation and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. While this definition clearly draws from Anglo-Saxon theory, with its focus
on the voluntary nature of CSR and its fundamental links with stakeholder models, it is clearly
the product of a compromise between business stakeholders and non-business stakeholders:
while non-business stakeholders naturally call for more regulation on companies (Delbard
2008). This dependence is also evident in Fairbrass’s (2011) work where she employs
discursive institutionalism as underpinning analytical framework focusing on EU – CSR public
policy development in two different modes of implementation: “voluntary” and “regulated”.
The analysis showed that ‘voluntary’ approach prevails over the ‘regulated’ mode of policy
implementation. “During the process of policy formation the private sector was well
represented, with individual business and their collective organizations playing an active and decisive role. Civil society organizations, such as social and environmental interest organizations, also participated but in much lower numbers and with a limited impact on the shape of the policy” (Fairbrass 2011). We can infer from the analysis, the non-private actors
who argued for regulation were in a minority and were less successful in shaping EU CSR public
policy. Similarly Delbard (2008) states that the CSR alliance launched in 2008 has been
criticized by non-business stakeholders (NGOs and labour unions) which point to the very
liberal nature of the strategy and feel excluded from the process of formulation of the project.
Previous analysis of business and non-business stakeholders involved in CSR debate
can be linked back to the Habermas’ theory (2001) on “post-national constellation” where
companies act as regulatory actors on supranational level even in the presence of a form of
global governance such as European Union. Link between Habermas’ thesis of the
post-national constellation and CSR is further developed by scholars who work with Political
threat by economic actors, and PCSR has built on this analysis of eroding state power. It was
proposed about ten years ago as a reaction to major geopolitical changes in the aftermath of
the fall of the Iron Curtain (Scherer et al. 2016). “Political CSR developed as a critical alternative
to the instrumental view on corporate social responsibility and corporate political activity”
(Scherer and Palazzo, 2007, 2011). Advocates of PCSR build on a notion of politics that
emphasizes deliberations, collective decisions, and a concern for global public goods (Scherer
et al., 2014; Young, 2004).
Existing PCSR definitions have highlighted different aspects of the phenomenon.
Scherer and Palazzo’s (2011) work emphasized that PCSR “suggests an extended model of
governance with business firms contributing to global regulation and providing public goods”.
While this definition stresses some important cornerstones of the debate (e.g., the role of
public goods), it over-emphasizes the global aspect of business regulation. Frynas and
Stephens (2015) define PCSR “as activities where CSR has an intended or unintended political
impact, or where intended or unintended political impacts on CSR exist”. On the other hand
Scherer et al. (2016) suggest treating PCSR as an umbrella concept and proposes longer
definition of Political CSR “responsible business activities that turn corporations into political
actors, by engaging in public deliberations, collective decisions, and the provision of public goods or the restriction of public bads in cases where public authorities are unable or unwilling to fulfil this role. This includes, but is not limited to, corporate contributions to different areas of governance, such as public health, education, public infrastructure, the enforcement of social and environmental standards along supply chains or the fight against global warming, corruption, discrimination or inequality. These corporate engagements are responsible because they are directed to the effective resolution of public issues in a legitimate manner,
often with the (explicit) aim of contributing to society or enhancing social welfare, and are thus not limited to economic motivations”
2.2 Tensions
Previously presented complex nature of CSR is a fertile ground for tensions. Multiple
definitions which include Triple Bottom Line or a need for an involvement of different
stakeholders creates an environment which fosters conflicts. Academics began to investigate
tensions in organizational processes as contradictory demands, tensions, paradoxes started
to be increasingly significant and frequent due to environments becoming more global, fast
paced and more complex (Lewis, 2000). Organization studies provide many examples
including tensions between collaboration vs control (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003),
individual vs collective (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), flexibility vs efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas,
& Levine, 1999), exploration vs exploitation (Smith & Tushman, 2005) or profit vs social
responsibility (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Lewis and Smith (2011) propose an organizing
framework of paradoxes which builds on the earlier research including Quinn’s (1988) and
Lewis’s (2000). The framework consist of four categories of paradox which represent core
activities and elements of organizations: learning (knowledge), belonging
(identity/interpersonal relationships), organizing (processes), and performing (goals).
Learning paradoxes surface as dynamic systems change, renew, and innovate. These efforts
involve building upon, as well as destroying, the past to create the future (O’Reilly & Tushman,
2008). Complexity and plurality drive belonging paradoxes, or tensions of identity. These
tensions arise between the individual and the collective, as individuals (Brewer, 1991; Kreiner,
distinction. Organizing paradoxes surface as complex schemes create competing designs and
processes to achieve a desired result. These include tensions between collaboration and
competition (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), empowerment and direction (Denison, Hooijberg,
& Quinn, 1995), or routine and change (Flynn & Chatman, 2001) Finally Performing paradoxes
come from the plurality of stakeholders and result in competing strategies and goals. Tensions
surface between the differing, and often conflicting, demands of varied internal and external
stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).
This last category of paradox refers to tensions deeply rooted in the nature of CSR -
Triple Bottom Line, corporate sustainability requires firms to address economic as well as
environmental and social outcomes simultaneously (Elkington 1997), which creates various
desirable but mutually dependent objectives. Performing paradox manifests itself when
different stakeholders aim for one of the aspects of the Triple Bottom Line i.e. NGOs opt for
social/environmental aspect while stockholders for economic one. This situation implies that
there is a high risk of unintended consequences, because a solution to one issue could be
harmful to that of another (Newton 2002). Given that sustainability encompasses a number
of contradictory yet interrelated elements, researchers have tried to construct a
comprehensive response to tensions in CSR by using a win-win, trade-off, integrative or
paradox approach (Van der Byl and Slawinski, 2015).
Win-Win approach addresses the tensions simply by avoiding them. It concentrates on links
and alignment between social, environmental, and economic goals. That is, any progress in
one dimension of sustainability should improve the other dimensions, or at least should not
reduce performance in another area (Bonacchi & Rinaldi, 2007). In this way, researchers
examine how firms attempt to realize financial gains by improving their sustainability
McWilliams & Siegel, 2011). For example Orlitzky et al. (2003) and Albertini (2013) present
positive relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance.
On the other hand we have Trade-Off approach represent a choice between options given by
conflict/tension (Orsato, 2006). Here trade-off is defined as “an exchange of one thing in
return for another: especially relinquishment of one benefit or advantage for another regarded as more desirable” (Angus-Leppan, Benn, & Young, 2010). In this definition, a trade-off results
in a win-lose proposition where the net sum gain to sustainability is positive and the influence
on economic performance is negative. The tension between contradictory goals is removed
when companies choose one goal over another (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
While a win-win approach leads to an avoidance of the tension by focusing on those areas
where alignment exists, and a trade-off approach eliminates the tension by forcing a choice,
an integrative approach seeks to bring together the three elements of sustainability
holistically— economic, social, and environmental—without favouring any one element.
Articles that use an integrative approach assume that divergent sustainability goals can be
balanced. Unlike the win-win perspective, the integrative approach manages then tension by
counterbalancing the heavy focus on economics with an approach that places more weight on
environment and social considerations. (Van der Byl, Slawinski, 2015)
Finally the paradox lens has emerged as a theoretical perspective on managing tensions, with
clearer distinctions between constructs and a guiding model (Smith & Lewis, 2011). While
integrative view focuses on balancing the conflicting issues inside CSR, paradox approach goes
deeper into associated complexities and tensions (Van der Byl and Slawinski 2015) The
paradox lens explains why embracing tensions is so challenging. Actors have a tendency to
polarize contrary information using systems that help them make sense of complex reality as
contrasting opposites. Paradoxical tensions arise as actors cognitively and socially construct
their environment but often engage in defensive reactions that can reinforce the tension
rather than address it (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Hahn et al. (2015) specifically deal with tensions in CSR using paradox theory, they
propose the integrative framework which argues that firms need to pursue different
sustainability aspects in all three dimensions simultaneously—even if they appear
contradictory. This view is built on tension literature which illustrates paradox as a situation
where oppositional elements co-exist (Clegg et al. 2002; Lewis 2000; Smith and Tushman
2005), because there are two or more elements that are accepted individually, ‘‘but taken
together they seem to be inconsistent or incompatible’’ (Poole and Vande Ven 1989). Their
idea builds on paradoxical thinking to embrace—rather than eliminate—tensions (Luscher and
Lewis 2008; Smith and Tushman 2005) and argues that achieving corporate sustainability
depends on the ability of management to pursue seemingly conflicting sustainability aspects
simultaneously. Organizational paradox theory contends that there is a benefit to
acknowledging the coexistence of opposite sides or tensions. Such tensions can be explored
for both possibilities rather than either solutions, as in the case of trade-offs. Through this
exploration, the interrelatedness of competing demands can be discovered leading to creative
solutions to complex problems such as sustainability (Smith & Lewis, 2011). These solutions
include stakeholder management through collective action and negotiation over time (Wijen
& Ansari, 2007).
There also have been some attempts to apply paradox lenses specifically on CSR EU’s
public policies. In 2008 (therefore before 2011 change of CSR definition) Oliver Delbard has
been investigating the tension regarding the application of voluntary and regulatory stance in
initiatives and proactive sustainability strategies, the European approach to CSR seems very
much in line with international practices, thus reassuring both international investors and
managers. But it also seems paradoxical with regards to the high level of environmental
regulation that EU has been introducing for years. Delbard reflects on the paradox of EU
adopting strict environmental regulations while opting for a liberal approach to CSR. “This
ambiguity seems to be at the core of CSR policies in Europe where strict CSR regulations and fully voluntary initiatives coexist, giving a rather blurred image of EU sustainable development strategies today” (Delbard 2008). Whereas environmental regulation has kept on increasing
over the last 30 years in the EU, the CSR policy direction is leading to a contradiction between
the environmental side of development and the social implications of corporate sustainability,
thus questioning the place and purpose of sustainable development within the EU. Author
points out three main contradictions inherent in the EU CSR approach: regulation vs voluntary
initiative, corporate strategy vs civil society expectations, environmental vs social issues.
These three contradictory elements of CSR policy in EU can be linked back to previously
mentioned theories and frameworks on CSR and tension. Where “regulation vs voluntary
initiative” in CSR reflects the struggle between the modes of implementation - “voluntary”
and “regulated” mentioned by Fairbrass (2011). Kinderman (2013) is basing on the similar
type of tension while explaining the history of EU public policy development where CSR
agenda “shifted from social-liberal to neo-liberal and back again” (Kinderman 2013).
“Corporate strategy vs civil society expectations” and “environmental vs social issues” reflect
the tensions inherent in CSR, namely the tensions between social, environmental and
economic aspects of corporate social responsibility mentioned by Hahn et al. (2015). Delbard
(2008) states that these tension are core to a specifically European approach to sustainability
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
As I mentioned in the introduction the connection between language and CSR is crucial,
therefore language analysis seems most appropriate for my research. Because of the
reoccurring tensions throughout the history of EU CSR public policy development and the fact
that my primary focus is on the EU’s language my thesis takes an abductive form of archival
research. It makes use of EU’s administrative records and documents (secondary data) as the
principal source of data. In order to expose rhetoric strategies and EU’s potential attempts to
establish the feeling of domination across CSR issues, I conduct Critical Discourse Analysis of
EU’s official documents.
Critical discourse analysis
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study
of discourse that views language as a form of social practice. Scholars working in the field of
CDA generally argue that (non-linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one
another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and
reinforced through language use. (Fairclough, Norman 1995). CDA usually focuses on the
relations between discourse, power, dominance, social inequality as well as position of the
discourse analyst in such social relationships. It explores the role of discourse in the
production of dominance, critical discourse analysts is trying to explore what structures,
strategies or other properties of text, talk, verbal interaction or communicative events play a
(like other discourse approaches) CDA offers a different "perspective" of theorizing, analysis,
and application throughout the whole field.
Fairclough and Wodak (2005) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. The link between text and society is mediated
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action.
Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it does not have a unitary theoretical
framework. Within the aims mentioned above, there are many types of CDA, and these may
be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Yet, given the common perspective and the
general aims of CDA, we may also find overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are
closely related. Common CDA theme mentioned by Van Dijk (1997) is “power as control”. It is
visible in most CDA where there is clear the analysis of power, and more specifically the social
power of groups or institutions. It focuses on defining social power in terms of control and it
looks into the power of leading groups which are integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits. CDA
academics are trying to answer the question such as “how do (more) powerful groups control
(Van Dijk 2001) Among many other resources that define the power base of a group or
institution, access to or control over public discourse and communication is a major
“symbolic" resource. (Van Dijk 1996). Members of more powerful social groups and
institutions, have more or less exclusive access to, and control over, one or more types of
public discourse. These notions of discourse access and control are very general, and it is one
of the tasks of CDA to spell out these forms of power.
Abductive reasoning
Critical Discourse Analysis’ methodology aims to be abductive because the categories
of analysis are first developed in line with the research questions and constant movement
back and forth between theory and empirical data is necessary (Wodak et al. 2001). Abductive
form of analysis is based on logical inference which goes from an observation of a data to
a theory which serves as explanation for the data – ideally seeking to find the simplest and
most likely explanation (Elliot, 2001). Consequently my work is based on similar way of
thinking where I analyse the data through the lenses of my research questions and the
characteristics of CDA; on one hand, to see whether any of the previously mentioned modes
of operation and rhetoric strategies are identifiable among official EU’s documents on CSR,
and on the other hand finding new themes specific for these kind of texts and creating a
“critical” framework, suited for explaining the dynamics inside European power struggle for
3.2 Sampling
Major changes in the EU’s approach to CSR happened around year 2011 when
European Commission in its communication have defined Corporate Social Responsibility as
“the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society” – a shift from the previous
definition of CSR as an approach “whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concern in their business operation and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”. The change of definition is a clear response to Financial Crisis erupting in
2008, Commission in its communication states: “the current economic and financial crisis has
shown that sustainability is also a key factor for our financial systems and the economy as a whole.” This is the reason why I sample the data from years 2006 – 2016, in order to identify,
expose and compare the patterns and dynamics in rhetoric strategies used by the EU officials.
A span of ten years capturing before and “after” the crisis gives me enough data for identifying
differences in language used around/on CSR. EU’s reaction to crisis in case of CSR provides
great opportunity to examine techniques used at supranational level while trying to
implement or establish a relation/feeling of domination in previously unspoiled (purely
voluntaristic) issue. This is particularly fit for the “tug of war” between parties favouring
voluntaristic and regulatory approaches.
While sampling I chose documents produced by European Commission as it represents
the highest level of executive power in the EU. European Commission is responsible for
proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the
day-to-day business of the EU. It is the best example of supranational form of governance as
it was set up from the start to act as an independent supranational authority separate from
governments and it has been described as "the only body paid to think European" (Interview
Its independence, high level of authority and European perspective are the main reasons why
I chose it for the analysis. Moreover, if we look at the history of EU’s initial official dealings
with CSR, first relevant policy was presented in March 2000 in Lisbon when the European
Council appealed to business organizations’ sense of corporate responsibility in assisting with
the EU’s strategic goals as part of the Lisbon Strategy (European Council, 2000). From that
point, it was the European Commission which effectively took responsibility for driving and
orchestrating EU CSR policy development. Commission has the most important impact on the
shape of CSR policies, as well as other EU institutions rely on Commissions’ effort: “The Council
and the European Parliament have both called on the Commission to further develop its CSR policy”(European Union Communication 2010), that’s why the analysis of their work provides
most valuable insight.
3.3 Data Gathering
I gathered the data using the official EU online database – EUR-Lex. EUR-Lex provides
free access, in the 24 official EU languages, to the authentic Official Journal of the European
Union: EU law (EU treaties, directives, regulations, decisions, consolidated legislation, etc.),
preparatory acts (legislative proposals, reports, green and white papers, etc.), EU case-law
(judgements, orders, etc.) international agreements, EFTA documents, summaries of EU
legislation. For data filtering, I used “CSR” phrase, specific year and institution as an author of
Following I present a number of distinctive steps taken during the process of data collection.
Additionally, I explain the logic behind data filtering and the number of documents that came
up.
1. Access the EUR-Lex website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en
2. Type in “CSR” in a search window: 900 results
3. Refine a query by author – European Commission: 433 results
4. Refine a query by years 2006 - 2016: 332 results
5. Further filtering required opening each of the 332 documents and searching for “CSR”
phrase inside the document. If the “CSR” phrase appeared at least once (excluding
references), the document was ranked for further analysis. However, throughout the
process, I noticed that in a portion of documents European Commission use shortcut “CSR”
also for different expansion such us: Country Specific Recommendation, Comprehensive
Spending Review, Common Structural Rules or Code of State Regulations. None of which
had anything to do with Corporate Social Responsibility. More detailed refining was
necessary in order to check whether CSR actually stands for Corporate Social
Responsibility. After excluding misleading use of shortcut CSR and CSR appearing only in
references, a total number of documents added up to 37 with 1599 pages in total. These
37 documents include: 14 communications, 14 staff working documents, 2 green papers 4
impact assessments, 2 reports and 1 proposal for a directive.
Following I present a complete list of documents analysed, table consists of name of the
Table #1
Title Type Year Number of pages Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council and the European Economic and Social Committee - Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs : making Europe a
pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility
Communication 2006 13 Commission working document - First progress Report on the strategy
for the simplification of the regulatory environment
Staff working
document 2006 75 Green Paper - Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union : a
European vision for the oceans and seas - "How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean" attributed to Arthur C. Clarke
Green paper 2006 49 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions - Promoting decent work for all - The EU contribution to the implementation of the decent work agenda in the
world
Communication 2006 10 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament - Investing in people - Communication on the thematic programme for human and social development and the financial
perspectives for 2007-2013
Communication 2006 27 Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion "To
be part of the information society" - Impact assessment
Impact asesment 2007 18 Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Small, clean and competitive - A programme
to help small and medium-sized enterprises comply with environmental legislation
Impact assesment 2007 20 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament - Progress Report on the Sustainable Development Strategy 2007
Communication 2007 14 Communication from the Commission on the european competitiveness
report 2008 Communication 2008 12 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Supporting developing countries in coping with the crisis - Where does the EU go from Doha ? - What prospects for
meeting the EU targets of 2010 and 2015 ? - Annual progress Report 2009 on financing for development
Communication 2009 54 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Mainstreaming sustainable development
into EU policies : 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development
Table #2
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A new partnership for the modernisation of
universities: the EU Forum for University Business Dialogue
Communication 2009 54
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Youth on the Move
An initiative to unleash the potential of young people to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the European Union
Communication 2010 26
Commission staff working document - Financing for Development - Annual progress Report 2010 - Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending? accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development
Goals
Staff working
document 2010 78
Commission staff working document - Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010- 2013 accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development
Goals
Staff working
document 2010 41
GREEN PAPER Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis Green Paper 2010 22
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU Accountability Report 2011 on Financing for Development Review of progress of the EU and its
Member States Accompanying document to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Staff working
document 2011 102
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EU Accountability Report 2011 on Financing for Development Review of progress of the EU and its Member
States
Staff working
document 2011 161
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility
Communication 2011 15
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS AND THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
"Responsible Businesses" package
Communication 2011 4
JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY AT THE HEARTOF EU
EXTERNAL ACTION –TOWARDS A MORE EFFECTIVE APPROACH
Table #3
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Communication Report on the Review of the water scarcity & droughts policy in the EU
Staff working
document 2012 38
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS INDUSTRIAL POLICY COMMUNICATION UPDATE A STRONGER EUROPEAN INDUSTRY
FOR GROWTH AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Staff working
document 2012 82
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on Consumer Policy (July 2010 - December 2011) Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A European Consumer Agenda - Boosting confidence and
growth
Staff working
document 2012 37
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Trade as a driver of development
Staff working
document 2012 70
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS INDUSTRIAL POLICY COMMUNICATION UPDATE A STRONGER EUROPEAN INDUSTRY
FOR GROWTH AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Staff working
document 2012 12
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical document Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Towards a Quality Framework on Traineeships
Second-stage consultation of the social partners at European level under Article 154 TFEU
Staff working
document 2012 58
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as regards disclosure of
non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups
Staff working
document 2013 89
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain
large companies and groups
Proposal for a
directive 2013 14
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as regards disclosure of
non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies and groups
Staff working
Table #4
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT (Impact Assessment) Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a
Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold
originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas
Impact assesment 2014 66
JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
Responsible sourcing of minerals originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. Towards an integrated EU approach
Joint communication 2014 13
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Stronger Role of the Private Sector in Achieving Inclusive and
Sustainable Growth in Developing Countries
Communication 2014 16
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement
Report 2015 16
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EU ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY TO 2020
Staff working
document 2015 77
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT assessing the potential for further transparency on income tax information Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings
and branches
Impact assessment 2016 161
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea
Free Trade Agreement
Report 2016 12
Total number of documents: 37 Total number
3.4 Data Analysis
Before I assumed a specific framework for data analysis I read collected documents in
order to initially identify potential themes recurring in EU’s language on CSR. A theme is a
cluster of linked categories conveying similar meanings and usually emerges through the
inductive analytic process which characterises the qualitative paradigm (Mogashoa 2014).
Since data familiarisation is a key to this kind of analysis I decided to get familiar with data first
in order to match the best framework for the further data analysis. I paid attention to context
surrounding CSR in EU including: descriptions of CSR and CSR actions in EU, arguments for CSR
in general, arguments for CSR in Europe, arguments for stronger CSR regulation, arguments
for increased efforts on CSR in EU lead by EU intuitions instead of national governments, as
well as future and current CSR practices inside EU. I copied relevant quotes from the
documents into a table using software Microsoft’s Excel. In the column next to selected quotes
I wrote a short description of each quote, following the Critical Discourse Analysis – taking a
critical stance and spelling out the logic behind the arguments. At this stage, I analysed the
frequency of my descriptions with similar meanings in order to identify themes. During that
process, I found contradictions, conflicting issues,inconsistencies between explanations of the
EU’s arguments. The arguments were contradicting each other as they could be accepted
individually, but taken together they seem to be inconsistent. Following the abductive
reasoning I matched the opposing arguments witch each other, this resulted in three themes
These themes include:
“Follower vs Leader”, where contradicting arguments consist of “Follower” part which refers to quotes expressing the need for catching up with wider (international)
standards in CSR and “Leader” part which refers to quotes showing EU as a leader in
CSR debate
“Stakeholder Engagement vs Profitability” where contradicting arguments consist of “Stakeholder Engagement” part which refers to quotes underling the need for
stakeholder engagement “Profitability” part refers to quotes underling the CSR
profitability,
“Regulation vs – Voluntarism” where “Regulation” part refers to quotes suggesting more regulation in EU around CSR, “Voluntarism” part refers to quotes underling the
voluntary nature of CSR inside EU.
Evaluation of Quality
Main methodological limitation to this approach is the reliance solely on secondary
data as a main source of data. I based my research only on publicly available official
documents. Lack of triangulation restricts the quality of this research. Moreover relying only
on official documents does not tell the whole story, dealing also with unofficial/non-publicly
available/primary data sources would definitely help fill that gap and get a better picture of
CSR tensions. Second limitation comes from the nature of CDA approach. CDA does not
provide definite answers but rather provides with insight or knowledge based on continuous
debate and argumentation (Olson 2007). It is biased approach as critical discourse analysis is
commitments. These commitments should always be borne in mind when we interpret their
work. Breeze (2011) claims that CDA practitioners have frequently been accused of using
methodology involving general feelings or thoughts rather than specific knowledge while
analysing text. However I followed authors’ advice and took extra care to make sure that I
applied the same standards of rigour when handling language data as in any other area of
linguistics. I tried to be disciplined and systematic in analysing the text in order to overcome
this problem. Another frequent critique of critical discourse is that it moves too quickly from
the language data to the stage of interpretation and explanation of those data in terms of
social theory. In order to allow readers to test interpretations against the available data
objectively researchers need to do justice to the text itself, so that their interpretations are
well-grounded.
For the last twenty years, CDA has mainly focused on the discourse which is used to
maintain unequal power structures. Perhaps because of CDA’s self-image as a “critical” force,
the emphasis of this work has been largely negative, and seems to spread a deterministic
vision of society (Breeze 2011). There is evident deficiency in discourse which explores
positive changes in social language. However I bring tensions notion as a central part to my
thesis, instead of focusing on positive and negative sides I rather focus on a conflict itself and
try to meaningfully analyse it in order to come up with valuable insight.
On the other hand CDA approach also has some advantages. Discourse analysis and
critical thinking is applicable to every situation and every subject, no technology or funds are
necessary. Authoritative discourse analysis can lead to fundamental changes in the practices
of an institution, the profession, and society at large. Morgan (2010) specifies the following
unacknowledged aspects of human behaviour, making salient either hidden or dominant discourses that maintain marginalised positions in society; It can reveal or help to construct a variety of new and alternative social subjects positions that are available, which in itself can be very empowering to the most vulnerable individuals; Critical discourse analysis can provide a positive social psychological critique of any phenomenon under the gaze of the researcher; It has a relevance and practical application at any given time, in any given place, and for any given people: discourse analysis is context specific; Understanding the function of language and discourse enables positive individual and social change, therefore it presents a critical challenge to traditional theory, policy and practice in many contexts; A reflective stance is incorporated wherein researchers cannot be neutral observers. “
4. Empirical findings & discussion
After preliminary analysis, I was able to identify a number of specific themes relying on
the context as well as separate linguistic techniques used to spread the feeling of domination
in CSR debate. However, the underlying theme visible across analysed documents was the
theme of tension between different arguments and descriptions. Arguments for CSR were
contradicting each other, argumentation and descriptions were inconsistent, for example,
main point of an argument visible in one document was undermined in the next one (examples
will be shown later). Moreover lacking explanations of central concepts made CSR descriptions
full of contrasts or even paradoxes. The notion of tensions seemed appropriate based on initial
reading since Leader vs Follower, Stakeholder Engagement vs Profitability, Regulation vs
Voluntarism, all of these themes are portions of the general theme of tension. In order to
specialise in these kinds of conflicting issues. Several scholars have done research on tension
topics, for example Hahn et al. (2015) specifically deal with tensions in CSR, Lewis (2000)
focuses on general concept of paradoxes in organization studies where she proposes a
framework consisting of four categories of paradox which represents core activities and
elements of organizations: learning (knowledge), belonging (identity/interpersonal
relationships), organizing (processes), and performing (goals). In my work I analyse discovered
themes through the lenses of the tensions frameworks with an aim of showing symbolic
techniques and linguistic strategies employed by European Commission.
4.1 Leader vs Follower
First identified theme is a tension between EU’s roles in CSR debate. It seems like EU
cannot decide whether it wants to take a role of a leader or a follower. It is using
characteristics of both roles in order to push for greater effort in CSR. On one hand picturing
itself as a leader invoking greater responsibility in CSR matter; “In recent years, the EU has
been at the forefront of the fight against climate change” (2009). It is drawing from the
ambition of the readers, encouraging increased effort in CSR and sustainability as it is
necessary due to EU’s leader’s responsibility to give an example to other nations and
institutions. Moreover, it uses generalization/unification when it talks about Europe assuming
responsibility for the whole continent “In 2005 the European Council set out principles to guide
Europe on a sustainable path of development” (2007). However, not all the European
countries are in the EU (actually, the number is dropping as UK just decided to leave). On the
other hand, EU is assuming a role of a follower. It shows and explains its actions promoting
community. “(CSR strategy) It ensures follow-up to the application of the internationally
recognised principles and guidelines, and identifies possible ways to implement the UN's Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights.” (2011). Arguments rely on the feeling of
belonging to a wider social group, EU is trying to push for CSR by acknowledging the expertise
of the outside body and trying to convince the reader that EU should do at least as good as
“everyone else”.
The paradox manifests itself in EU’s approach to responsibility, at one point it’s taking
it and then it is giving it away. M. Lewis deals (2000) with paradoxes in organizational studies,
proposed a framework which presents paradoxical tensions as cognitively or socially
constructed polarities that mask the simultaneity of conflicting truths. Paying attention to
paradoxes is extremely important during the discourse analysis on CSR as language feeds the
tendency to polarize. Conceptual boundaries help actors distinguish what belongs and what
does not, thereby giving meaning to both sides of a polarity (Vince & Broussine, 1996). EU’s
“Leader vs Follower” problem is a paradox which M. Lewis (2000) categories as paradox of
belonging which signifies complex relationships between self and other, highlighting the
problematic nature of individuality, group boundaries, and globalization.
Encountering the paradox can invoke different reactions including defence
mechanisms which are in fact reinforcing cycles intensifying the paradox. However "staying
with the paradox makes it possible to discover a link between opposing forces and opens up the framework that gives meaning to the apparent contradictions" (Vince & Broussine 1996)
Therefore if we embrace a paradox of leader and follower we could come up with valuable
insights. M. Lewis (2000) gives an example of studies which demonstrate that the stronger
fragmentation. Recent events concerning EU such as a rise of euro-scepticism in Maastricht (a
birthplace of EU) has proven that EU also experiences this kind of paradox.
4.2 Stakeholder Engagement vs Profitability
Second identified theme is the tension between stakeholder engagement and
profitability of CSR. EU is trying to implement a dialogue on CSR with a wide spectrum of
stakeholders, showing that engaging stakeholder is a vital part of CSR “raise the awareness of
both private companies and public opinion in the field of CSR, and ensure that all stakeholders engage in an active dialogue”. On the other hand, EU is praising CSR by making it look as a
profitable and important investment for companies “CSR is increasingly important to the
competitiveness of enterprises”. This tension is deeply rooted in the very nature of CSR - Triple
Bottom Line, corporate sustainability requires firms to address economic as well as
environmental and social outcomes simultaneously (Elkington 1997), which creates various
desirable but mutually dependent objectives. This implies that there is a high risk of
unintended consequences because a solution to one issue could be harmful to that of another
(Newton 2002). Finally, CSR involves the simultaneous recognition of changing, but often
contradictory demands of a wide set of stakeholders (Clarkson 1995) who tend to apply
different decision logics than managers (Hahn 2012).
However, EU does not define the term “stakeholder” in any of the analysed
documents, this lack of precision is creating an additional layer of conflict and confusion
between being profitable and stakeholder engagement. According to Freeman's classic
definition “a stakeholder in an organization is any group or individual who can affect or is
