Legit or Counterfeit:
An Extensive Analysis of the Effect of CSR Communication and Positioning on
Corporate Legitimacy
Master Thesis
Corporate Communication Master, Graduate School of Communication
Eva Ooms Student ID: 10979425
Thesis Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.M. (James) Slevin Date: 26-06-2020
Abstract
This study explores the effect of CSR communication on consumer’s perception of
legitimacy, and how this effect is moderated by a corporation’s (strategic) CSR positioning. Corporations in the past were evaluated on their ability to deliver goods and services, but this is no longer the sole criterion upon which legitimacy is attributed. Society has now come to expect a moral foundation. One way to attain such moral merit is through corporate social responsibility (CSR). This research contributes to the social and academic understanding of corporate legitimacy and can in turn guide corporations on how to best communicate
(strategic) CSR and leverage it for legitimacy. To explore the effects of CSR communication and positioning on corporate legitimacy, a quantitative content analysis rooted in Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory was conducted. A total of N=20737 comments of N=877 Instagram posts of four corporations, over the past full year (2019) were coded. The findings propose that a strategic CSR positioning can positively moderate certain (negative) effects of CSR communication such as extrinsic motives and a high impact, but that a certain ‘Catch 22’ of CSR communication is also at play.
Keywords: Perceived corporate legitimacy, Habermas’ validity claims, CSR communication, social media, CSR positioning, strategic CSR, B-corporations
Introduction
In today’s globalized and highly competitive market, with consumers who are increasingly more aware and vocal, corporations need to be legitimate in order to operate. Corporate legitimacy is the general recognition that a corporation’s actions and existence are desirable within the expected norms and values, socially constructed and laid upon them by society (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006;Pollach, 2015). Corporations thus strive to maintain
legitimacy, as the core of their existence depends on it (Suchman, 1995). Over time, however, the essence upon which corporate legitimacy is based, has shifted.
While corporate legitimacy was initially grounded in economic contributions and was largely profit-driven (Carroll, 2015), a more conscious society has grown to expect more from organizations. In an attempt to satisfy the growing expectations of society,
organizations have turned to, inter alia, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in order to maintain their ‘license to operate’ (Lock & Seele, 2017) and in doing so address social problems. As a result, corporations aspire to fulfill the underlying, deep-rooted ethical expectations society has for them, through CSR (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).
On this account, CSR and specifically the communication thereof has become crucial for corporations to enhance and maintain their legitimacy (Lock, & Schulz-Knappe, 2019). As the definition above delineates, legitimacy is ascribed to an institution by society, and thus awareness of an organization’s CSR initiatives through communication is of utmost
importance. Moreover, to attain moral legitimacy – which is imperative to corporate legitimacy (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006) – it needs to be discursively discussed (Schultz,
Castelló & Morsing, 2013). Social media offers an accessible platform for such discussions to occur, which is why many organizations take to their social media channels to communicate CSR (Araujo & Kollat, 2018).
Besides communication, various factors influence how an organization’s legitimacy is perceived, such as its CSR positioning (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007). As CSR is not fully mandated by law yet (George, 2019), corporations still vary in their approach and the extent to which CSR initiatives are incorporated into their core identity. While some organizations merely engage in philanthropic activities or donations (Carroll, 2015), other organizations embed CSR into their philosophy spanning every aspect of the business. This latter CSR positioning has been termed “strategic CSR” (Werther & Chandler, 2005). While CSR has not always been considered a strategic tool, organizations are now starting to “strategize” it, making it a priority amongst top management and becoming critically part of their identity, vision and purpose (Gond, Cabantous, & Krikorian, 2018; Polonsky & Jevons, 2009).
Little is known however, about the effect of a corporation’s CSR positioning – and specifically the communication thereof – on perceived legitimacy (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009). Research has examined the effect of CSR positioning on tangible business outcomes such as purchase intent, identification, loyalty and advocacy (Du et al., 2007), but there is a noticeable gap regarding legitimacy, especially on social media. This leads to the research question: To what extent does the use of strategic CSR positioning moderate the effect of online CSR communication on consumer’s perception of corporate legitimacy?
Accordingly, this thesis aims to gain a nuanced understanding of these effects in order to deliver guidance to corporations on how to communicate (strategic) CSR, and how to best leverage it for legitimacy. This is achieved by investigating these constructs – CSR
positioning, CSR communication, and corporate legitimacy – in conjunction. CSR continues to be a growing field of interest to not only academic scholars, but management and
communication professionals alike, because of its increasing impact on a multitude of organizational aspects including legitimacy (Crane & Glozer, 2016). In terms of the social
relevance, guidance in the form of organization-specific advice based on the findings is thus not only useful, but necessary.
With respect to the academic relevance, consumer perception of legitimacy in relation to CSR communication is currently still underdeveloped, lacking empirical research
(Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2018; Crane & Glozer, 2016). Moreover, current research lacks ecological validity as most studies consist of survey or experimental research (Cho & Hong, 2009; Lock & Seele, 2017), taking the phenomenon out of its natural setting. By translating and adapting current survey-based studies into a quantitative content analysis, the thesis will allow for analysis of CSR communications’ effects on perceived legitimacy in its real-life setting. In addition, research in this area has predominantly focused on CSR reports, websites or traditional media (Ihlen & Pallas, 2014; Lock & Seele, 2017), and the limited research on social media misses a distinct focus beyond the corporate lens or surface-level user
engagement (Colleoni, 2013; Etter, 2013; Kent & Taylor, 2016). From an academic perspective, it is therefore relevant to explore these missing gaps in the literature and
contribute a new avenue of analysis for a contemporary understanding of the relation between these constructs.
Theoretical Framework The Changing Notion of Corporate Legitimacy
Corporate legitimacy, as defined by Palazzo & Scherer (2006), is “the conformation with social norms, values, and expectations, [which] is subjectively perceived and ascribed to actions or institutions by social construction” (p. 71). In other words, whether an
organization’s existence is deemed desirable or appropriate by society (Pollach, 2015). An important underlying notion in this definition is the dependence on society for legitimization (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). Van Ruler & Verčič (2005) in their definition further accentuate that the legitimacy of an organization depends on its moral justifiability. Accordingly,
organizations exist and survive by virtue of their attributed legitimacy (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006). This is furthermore what differentiates ‘legitimacy’ from its often-confused
counterpart, ‘reputation’. While a tarnished reputation would perhaps make business or sales more burdensome, a corporation can survive. When its legitimacy is questioned on the other hand, its entire existence is questioned and their ‘license to operate’ is in danger (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012).
The key defining characteristic of corporate legitimacy as we currently understand it, however, is its amalgamation of three specific types of legitimacy: pragmatic, cognitive and moral legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). Individually, these different types of legitimacy serve various research paradigms and correspond to different points in time. As such, pragmatic legitimacy alone is frequently examined from an instrumental perspective, where
stakeholders “succumb to the organization’s ability to instrumentally manipulate symbols to gain societal support” (Schultz et al., 2013, p. 683). Cognitive legitimacy, although still instrumental, goes further and refers to corporations’ ability to “adapt to broader community values” (p. 683). These two types of legitimacy were once enough to satisfy the expectations of stakeholders (Carroll, 2015). Corporations that were profitable and able to provide goods and services were deemed legitimate. But as society has become more conscious, vocal and eminently skeptical (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Sethi, 2002), these two forms no longer suffice to constitute corporate legitimacy (Schultz et al., 2013; Seele & Lock, 2015). Greenwashing practices, corporate scandals and the disclosure of inadequate social and environmental practices are amongst the reasons for the rise in corporate skepticism and the increase in questions about a corporation’s ultimate role in society (Colleoni, 2013; Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Seele & Gatti, 2017; Waddock & Goggins, 2011). Thus, to achieve corporate legitimacy, moral legitimacy – a positive normative evaluation – is required.
Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory
Unlike the other two forms, moral legitimacy cannot be achieved through influence, manipulation or power – it should emerge through a “dialogic, ‘Habermasian’ process of deliberative communication with stakeholders” called moral reasoning (Schultz et al., 2013, p. 684). Consequently, in order to achieve corporate legitimacy, it must be socially
constructed, through a deliberative and ongoing communication process, through which various stakeholders collectively make sense and meaning of the actions of the corporation (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011).
The arena where this communication usually occurs is the media (Patriotta et al., 2011). It is “central for building normative, regulative, and cognitive bases on which corporations are evaluated” (Ihlen & Pallas, 2014, p. 7). However, to merely rely on
traditional media in the present-day is severely limiting. Largely due to social media, societal actors have gained the agency to challenge corporations through communication themselves. Not only can stakeholders dialogically discuss the legitimacy of organizations, but
organizations themselves can partake in this same debate, in order to arrive at mutual reasoning. Habermas’s Communicative Action Theory (1984) underpins this deliberative communication (Schultz et al., 2013). His theory does not determine what morality is or how corporations can achieve it. Rather, he “provides a moral grounding [to create an]
intersubjective procedure for developing norms … through public communication” (Meisenbach, 2006, p. 40). The Communicative Action Theory’s inherent communicative foundation provides a solid base for organizational ethics and thus also corporate legitimacy.
Habermas further conceptualized communication as comprising of four validity claims: truth, sincerity, appropriateness, and understandability (Lock & Seele, 2016), upon which the credibility of a statement is judged. These claims constitute the basis of a rational process for societal actors to evaluate legitimacy, whether implicitly on a daily basis, or
explicitly in public discussion. Habermas (1984), as cited in Lock & Seele (2017, p. 589), defines the validity claims as such:
• Truth: objective truth of propositions or factual truth • Sincerity: subjective beliefs underlying the statements
• Appropriateness: communication that is appropriate in its normative context • Understandability: ensuring that the statement is understandable to the reader.
Meeting these underlying presuppositions is essential for corporations to be deemed legitimate. The communicative process is an iterative, on-going, and subjective process, as various stakeholders have different expectations. Therefore, corporations need to satisfy the majority of relevant stakeholders in order to attain a legitimacy that is “robust enough to withstand public scrutiny” (Patriotta et al., 2011, p. 1828), reaching a point of shared reality (Habermas, 1990).
Lines of CSR Theory
Many corporations are thus finding resolution in CSR as a way to not only prove to society that they deserve to operate, but to appeal to a wide variety of stakeholders in order to achieve such a robust level of difficult-to-tarnish legitimacy. As the prominence of CSR has increased over the decades, it has come to be seen as an indicator of legitimacy (Crane & Glozer, 2016) or even a form of brand insurance (Werther & Chandler, 2005).
While many approaches to CSR employ an instrumental perspective (i.e. Carroll’s [2015] CSR pyramid, Elkington’s [1998, 2018] Triple Bottom Line, or Porter and Kramer’s [2011] Creating Shared Value), this view is often criticized for its insufficient
acknowledgment of the role of communication, as well as its reliance on pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy (Barnett, 2019; Elkington, 2018; Jenkins, 2004; Wettstein, 2012).
Hence, this thesis supposes the Communicative Constitution of Organizations (CCO)
perspective (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011; Cooren, 2020), to overcome the shortcomings of the instrumental perspective. In this COO view, organizations are not seen as entities which communicate – rather, organizations are constituted in communication. CSR legitimacy is thus also constituted through communication between the different stakeholders.
Regarding this study, the communicative approach not only proves useful as it is able to adequately address the role of CSR communication and the extent to which it shapes consumer’s perception of legitimacy, but it provides a new perspective to the hitherto primarily business-dominated research. Moreover, the research question’s explicit focus on strategic CSR demands a larger theoretical perspective which not only addresses the
instrumental power, but the normative validity of CSR as well (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).
Defining Strategic CSR Positioning
While CSR practices have become common place in all businesses over the past decades, corporations vary in the extent to which CSR is incorporated and fully embedded into their strategy and identity, referred to as CSR positioning (Du et al., 2007). Corporations engaging in strategic CSR positioning have strongly internalized it, essentially blurring the line between CSR and business; “It is one and the same” (Gond et al., 2018, p. 256). Strategic CSR does not entail random acts of philanthropy, but rather socially responsible actions that make sense to the business (Ooi, Amran & Yeap, 2017; Werther & Chandler, 2011).
Strategic CSR can thus be defined as:
“The incorporation of a holistic CSR perspective within a firm’s strategic planning and core operations so that the firm is managed in the interest of a broad set of
stakeholders to achieve maximum economic and social value over the medium to long term” (Werther & Chandler, 2011, p. 40).
CSR in this view is ingrained in and constitutes all aspects of the corporation’s
strategy (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009), and does not comprise one stand-alone strategy (Gond et al., 2018; Sheehy, 2015) or a social add-on (Gond et al., 2018) that requires minimal
commitment (Werther & Chandler, 2005). CSR becomes a “strategic necessity” (Werther & Chandler, 2005, p. 319), holistically integrated, driving the corporate character, image, brand, and its actions (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009). Adversely, corporations whose corporate missions are not intertwined with their CSR missions, are considered to be engaging in a more
‘traditional’ CSR positioning (Du et al., 2007).
Communicating CSR Critique
Since awareness is one of the prerequisites for forming beliefs about a corporation’s CSR initiatives (Du et al., 2007), communication is of utmost importance, regardless of CSR positioning (Chomvilailuk & Butcher, 2018). This CSR communication is increasingly happening in an online environment, especially on social media, “given [its] ability to foster dialogue” (Araujo & Kollat, 2018, p. 419).
However, some scholars acknowledge that the complexity of communication can actually impede or stifle its ability to facilitate consensus and instead break up dialogue (Colleoni, 2013; Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). Moreover, Habermas himself is precarious about the internet’s potential to achieve a higher degree of discursive balance in the public sphere, in that it possibly fragments “politically focused mass audiences into … isolated issue publics” (Habermas, 2006, p. 423). Nonetheless, Habermas has been critiqued for being too rationalistic (Elmer, Langlois & McKelvey, 2012; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010), with scholars contesting that social media does make the playing field somewhat more equal, as a
result of fewer gatekeepers (Gerhards & Schäfer, 2010), which at least offers an opportunity for these discussions to occur, whether fragmented or not. Considering some form of
dialogue is in fact taking place on social media, there is an appropriate incentive to thus study social media’s communicative and sensemaking ability, especially regarding legitimacy.
Framework of CSR Communication
From a communicative perspective, reality is socially constructed and constituted through communication (Schultz et al., 2013) initiating a collective sensemaking process between individuals (Crane & Glozer, 2016). Whether a corporation is perceived as legitimate lies in the eye of the beholder. Along this line of reasoning, there is no singular ‘recipe’ for legitimacy, as it needs to be attained through dialogue with stakeholders to collectively define standards and expectations (Pollach, 2015).
Nevertheless, extensive research has found various factors that can influence
reputation or stakeholder relationships (Coombs & Holladay, 2013; Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010); factors which are also likely to influence legitimacy (Crane & Glozer, 2016). Scholars affirm that these business outcomes are ultimately contingent on awareness, and thus
communication (Colleoni, 2013; Du & Vieira, 2012; Fieseler, Fleck & Meckel, 2010). So, before establishing the specific effects of CSR communication on legitimacy, a general relation between these constructs needs to be established. The following effect is expected:
H1: Communication of a corporation’s CSR initiatives influences consumer’s perception of corporate legitimacy.
Du et al. (2010) thoroughly analyzed and created a framework of the role of CSR communication and its effect on the aforementioned outcomes. Notably, Legitimacy is
missing from the framework, a gap this thesis aims to fill. Even so, their framework provides a solid starting point to analyze CSR communication (Figure 1). Having already established social media as the message channel, this study focuses on certain message content aspects of the framework: commitment, impact, motives and fit. These factors were chosen as they relate to a “corporation’s involvement in various social causes, rather than on the social causes themselves” (Du et al., 2010, p. 10).
Commitment
The first key aspect that a corporation can emphasize in their CSR communication is their commitment to the cause(s). For instance, donations and providing corporate resources both demonstrate a corporation’s dedication (Du et al., 2010). While at first sight committed brands may give the impression to be more legitimate, research asserts a certain ‘Catch 22’ of CSR communication is at play (Morsing, Schultz & Nielsen, 2008): ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.
The paradox of CSR. While stakeholders are increasingly demanding more CSR, they simultaneously do not want organizations to communicate this “too loud” (Morsing et al., 2008, p. 108). With societal trust in corporations at its lowest (Colleoni, 2013; Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Waddock & Goggins, 2011), CSR communication solicits ample skepticism (Morsing et al., 2008). Lowered trust has evolved into the CSR communication paradox: The more corporations communicate, the more they open themselves up to be critiqued, and the more illegitimate corporations are perceived to be (Du et al., 2010; Polonsky & Jevons, 2009; Waddock & Goggins, 2011). Conversely, those that are not as committed or active, are critiqued less (Morsing et al., 2008). This paradox ultimately affects consumers’ perception of legitimacy:
H2: A higher degree of communicated CSR commitment leads to more criticism, and thus a worse perception of corporate legitimacy.
Per contra, research shows that strategic CSR positioning attempts to re-gain societal trust through external accreditation and holistic incorporation (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009), and scholars indicate that it is a strong contender to subdue the paradoxical effect of CSR communication (Waddock & Goggins, 2011), decreasing the amount of criticism. Thus:
H2a: Strategic CSR moderates the effect of communicated CSR commitment on perceived corporate legitimacy, such that this negative effect becomes weaker.
Impact
The extent to which a corporation communicates its impact on a cause is another factor that affects favorable outcomes, such that those who have amassed more impact,
accrue greater benefits (Du et al., 2010). Because the communication of CSR impact revolves around the quality and not quantity of CSR, the aforementioned CSR communication paradox is not likely to have an effect on this factor. Therefore:
H3: A higher degree of communicated CSR impact leads to a better perception of corporate legitimacy.
As strategic CSR pertains to the full incorporation of CSR into an overall strategy, the impact these corporations have is more continuous compared to a one-off initiative.
Furthermore, the thin line between business and CSR suggests that good CSR simultaneously results in good business. Seeing as consumers prefer to engage with corporations whose CSR impacts also enhance the business (Morsing et al., 2008), a strategic CSR positioning is likely to enhance perceived legitimacy. Accordingly:
H3a: Strategic CSR positively moderates the effect of communicated CSR impact on perceived corporate legitimacy.
Motives
Regarding a corporation’s motives, CSR initiatives and communication can either be perceived as predominantly intrinsic (self-less motives that care for the impact on society) or extrinsic (self-interested motives improving the welfare of the corporation) (Du et al., 2007). Considering the CSR communication paradox, consumers “easily become leery of extrinsic motives when companies promote their CSR efforts” (Du et al., 2010, p. 17) or when pure extrinsic motives are at play (Du et al., 2007; Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos &
H4: Communicated extrinsic CSR motives leads to a worse perception of corporate legitimacy.
Per contra, a strategic CSR positioning is likely to subdue the negative effect extrinsic CSR motives has on legitimacy. The moral underpinnings of the holistic approach are likely to prove resistant to “self-interested manipulations and … pragmatic considerations” (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006, p. 73). Moreover, as CSR initiatives are embedded within the corporate strategy, extrinsic motives go hand in hand with intrinsic motives, which positively influences this negative effect (Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006). As such:
H4a: Strategic CSR moderates the effect of communicated extrinsic CSR motives on perceived corporate legitimacy, such that this negative effect becomes weaker.
Fit
Lastly, the degree of perceived fit or congruence between a corporation and its CSR initiatives also affects favorable outcomes (Bigné, Currás-Pérez & Aldás-Manzano, 2012). The fit between a corporation’s core operations and chosen cause, based on either product, target audience or corporate image, can either be aligned – leading to positive associations – or non-aligned, “likely to increase cognitive elaboration and make extrinsic motives more salient, thereby reducing stakeholders’ positive reactions to a company’s CSR activities” (Du et al., 2010, p. 12). As such, the following is expected:
H5: A higher degree of communicated CSR fit leads to a better perception of corporate legitimacy.
Seeing as corporations engaging in strategic CSR positioning have already ingrained their CSR initiatives into their core operations, perceptions of fit are likely to be higher (Menon & Kahn, 2003). Even more so, a questionable fit is likely to be overlooked or perceived as fitting to that brand (Du et al., 2010). Therefore:
H5a: Strategic CSR positively moderates the effect of communicated CSR fit on perceived corporate legitimacy.
The proposed hypotheses are summarized in the following conceptual framework (Figure 2).
Methodology Research Design
By means of an extensive quantitative content analysis, consumer perceptions of strategic and traditional CSR communication in the form of comments on social media, will be analyzed. This method was chosen as it allows for a systematic analysis of textual,
observational data in real time, rather than measuring perceived legitimacy in a hypothetical setting (Abitbol & Lee, 2017). It aims to capture realistic manifestations by investigating the attitudinal responses to CSR communication, which provide academic insights that can then be used to guide corporations. Hitherto, most scholars have conducted experiments,
interviews or surveys to establish the effects of CSR on perception of legitimacy (Cho & Hong, 2009). Interestingly, scholars are not examining perception of legitimacy by analyzing the content. Translating the current survey-based studies to a content analysis will thus not only increase ecological validity, but shape a new avenue for research as an unobtrusive observer.
The social media platform Instagram was chosen for the analysis as many
corporations choose to communicate their CSR practices through this channel (Ros-Diego & Castelló-Martínez, 2012), yet there is a notable lack of empirical research. Its popularity as a channel not only results in sufficient data for the study, but also in relevant data. While the effects of CSR on perceived legitimacy have previously been studied for both earned media (news media; Cho & Hong, 2009) and owned media (CSR websites and reports; Du & Vieira, 2012; Lock & Seele, 2017), the minimal empirical research on social media demands further examination. Although 84% of consumers report reading CSR reports when visiting websites in 2009 (Lundquist, 2017), and as such it has been dubbed a “prime channel” for CSR
communication (Lock & Seele, 2017, p. 587), only 31% of consumers read reports in 2017, a significant decline. Contrarily, CSR-intake on social media is increasing (Lundquist, 2017). Instagram is thus a compelling channel for investigation.
Furthermore, the understanding of legitimacy as outlined above requires “explicit public discussions” (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006, p. 72) to occur, which social media makes possible due to the nature of the platform (Araujo & Kollat, 2018). Compared to Twitter and
Facebook, Instagram also has the highest engagement rate (West, 2019), leading to a sufficient amount of comments and discussion for analysis.
Sample and Data Collection
Four corporations who engage in either strategic or traditional CSR positioning were chosen: TOMS, Ben&Jerry’s, Starbucks and Adidas Women (Table 1). These corporations were determined by a few criteria:
• same sector/industry (to minimize the effect of sector/industry-specific bias); • similar in size or prominence (measured by Instagram followers);
• active on Instagram in the past year (posting weekly); • engaged in CSR initiatives (as disclosed on their website); • B2C corporations (to ensure consumer perceptions).
All chosen corporations are furthermore global, as legitimacy carries more weight for such corporations (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006). The consumer goods sector, clothing and food & beverage industries were chosen, as these contain familiar brands to the average consumer, who are thus likely to engage with them. A timeframe of the last full year (2019) was chosen to keep comparisons consistent.
Table 1.
Overview of chosen corporations
Company Sector Industry Size Instagram Handle
Strategic CSR
TOMS Consumer Goods Clothing 960000 @toms
Ben & Jerry's Consumer Goods Food & Beverage 1100000 @benandjerrys Traditional CSR
Adidas Women Consumer Goods Clothing 2900000 @adidaswomen Starbucks Consumer Goods Food & Beverage 18300000 @starbucks
Operationalization of Strategic CSR
A clear-cut operationalization of corporations that have a strategic CSR positioning are B-corporations. Certified B-Corporations are corporations that have been externally accredited by B Lab (NGO) as creating (positive) value for employees, communities and the environment (https://bcorporation.net/). This new organizational accreditation indicates that these corporations maintain the highest standards in society (Kim, Karlesky, Myers & Schifeling, 2016). Created in 2007, 3358 corporations currently sport the accreditation in 71 different countries. This seal of approval ensures that organizations “balance purpose and profit” and are “legally required to consider the impact of their decisions on their workers, customers, suppliers, community, and the environment” (“Certified B-Corporation,” 2020). CSR is thus embedded throughout all business aspects.
To avoid the uncertainty of nuances in defining ‘strategic CSR corporations,’ this study maintains the highest level of accreditation; only B-corporations are seen as those engaging in strategic CSR. Contrarily, corporations that engage in CSR initiatives but whose mission and strategy is not necessarily imbued with these practices, are labeled as
corporations engaging in traditional CSR positioning in this study.
Sampling Strategy
The sampling strategy employed is a two-phase purposive sampling technique, which was necessary to analyze only those Instagram posts that were related to CSR. All Instagram posts from the past year (2019) were analyzed, and only the CSR-related posts were selected based on the CSR-criteria outlined by Saxton, Gomez, Ngoh, Lin, Dietrich (2019), to create a sample frame. A full year was chosen to avoid incident-based biases, and to have a
comprehensive selection of the population (no clustered selection). This resulted in a total of N=185 posts of the 877, of which the captions and images were analyzed. In the second
purposive sampling phase, the comments under each relevant post were analyzed, for a total of N=20737 comments, of which 2487 pertained to legitimacy. Comments were roughly evenly split between the two CSR positionings (Appendix B, Table 2). This sample amount exceeds the statistical standard of 80% power for a moderate-to-large effect size as outlined by Van Voorhis & Morgan (2007). To collect the data, a social-media scraper
“exportcomments.com” was used.
Measures
Dependent variable
The operationalization of “perceived legitimacy” was adapted from Lock & Seele’s (2017) survey-research to assess CSR reports, based on Habermas’ four validity claims: trust, sincerity, appropriateness, understandability. They developed a 16-item scale of perceived credibility, which is imperative in establishing legitimacy (Lock & Schulz-Knappe, 2019; Lock & Seele, 2017). The 16-items, which fall under the four validity claims, were adapted and used as guiding questions in the codebook (see Appendix A). In measuring legitimacy, a comment only needs to question one of the validity claims to be considered as ‘questioning legitimacy’.
Independent variables
In order to operationalize CSR communication, the Instagram posts and captions were examined according to the ‘message content’ aspect of the framework by Du et al. (2010) (see the codebook for detailed examples). Commitment was operationalized as the “amount of input, the durability of the association and the consistency of input” (Du et al., 2010, p. 11) such as donations. Impact was measured as the output, or benefits accrued, through facts and figures. Motives are commonly operationalized as either intrinsically or extrinsically
motivated, confirming business-oriented motives or social motives (Du et al., 2007; Vlachos et al., 2009). Fit is operationalized as either aligned with the company based on the product, target audience, or brand association, or non-aligned (Bigné et al., 2012).
Control variables
Through the selection of the corporations, the control variables are controlled for. As mentioned above, corporations are from the same industry/sector, similar in size, B2C corporations, and additionally have no crisis history in the year of analysis (Cho & Hong, 2009).
Intercoder Reliability
To code the data as objectively as possible, the coding process was validated by an intercoder reliability test (Lombard, Snyder‐Duch & Bracken, 2002). After a 2-hour coder training session, a random 20% sample (Posts N = 50; Comments N = 326) of the data was coded by two coders and revisited as necessary. All Krippendorff’s alphas were ≥ .667, a sufficient threshold for this study with the majority ≥ .800 (Appendix B, Table 3).
Results
In order to answer the research question by predicting whether the legitimacy of the communicated CSR initiatives on social media would be questioned or affirmed, a series of analyses have been conducted on N=185 CSR-related posts and N=2478 legitimacy-related comments, across four corporations in 2019.
Descriptive statistics
To get an idea of legitimacy at a glance, a sentiment analysis was conducted. Overall, almost half of the comments pertaining to legitimacy (47.7%), questioned legitimacy.
Looking specifically at the CSR positioning, corporations engaging in a strategic CSR positioning had 40.2% negative, legitimacy-questioning comments, while corporations engaging in a traditional CSR positioning had 58,4% negative, legitimacy-questioning comments, almost 20% more.
Comparing the two CSR positionings also reveals a slight difference regarding the validity claims. For the strategic CSR positioning, comments most often pertain to the
appropriateness (44%) followed by sincerity (32.5%). However, understandability (70%) and truth (62.4%) were most often questioned (Figure 3). For traditional CSR positioning,
comments most often pertain to the sincerity (45.6%) and appropriateness (27.4%). However, understandability (86.7%) and sincerity (75.8%) were most often questioned (Figure 3).
Hypothesis Testing
The dependent variable which measures the questioning of legitimacy (based on Habermas’ four validity claims) was measured as yes (1) if legitimacy was contested or no (0) if legitimacy was affirmed. Considering the discrete, dichotomous nature of the dependent
variable, a linear regression model would be heteroskedastic and would predict the probability values beyond the (0,1) range (Whitehead, 1998). Thus, a hierarchical binary logistic regression model is better suited to test the hypotheses.
Before performing a hierarchical binary logistic regression, three main assumptions need to be met: sample size, multicollinearity, and outliers (Pallant, 2010). Firstly, the sample size needs to be large enough. As previously mentioned, the N=2478 comments sample size is sufficient (Van Voorhis & Morgan, 2007). This assumption is met. Next, lack of
multicollinearity to ensure there is no strong relationship between variables (Field, 2009) was tested by means of a collinearity diagnostics test and Pearson’s correlation (R). The
collinearity diagnostics test indicated that the highest variance inflation factor (VIF) value was well below 10 (Tolerance = 0.729, VIF= 1.371), causing no concern for multicollinearity (Field, 2009). Additionally, no Pearson’s correlation is over 0.9, the cut off for
multicollinearity (Senaviratna & Cooray, 2019), with the highest value being 0.374 (Table 4). This assumption is fulfilled. Lastly, Cook’s distance was used to check for outliers. No value was >1, with the highest value being 0.010, indicating there were no significant outliers causing an unwarranted effect on the model (Pallant, 2010). This assumption is also met.
Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviations, Pearson’s Correlations)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 CSR Positioning 0.580 0.493 1 Commitment 1.180 1.028 -.113** 1 Impact 0.330 0.470 -.008 .374** 1 Motives 0.100 0.303 -.280** .033 -.081** 1 Fit 0.390 0.489 -.371** .195** .155** .361** 1 Questioning Legitimacy 0.480 0.500 -.179** .019 -.008 .095** .096** 1 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Hierarchical Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
A four-step hierarchical binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore whether the four factors of communicating CSR could predict the questioning of legitimacy. The first step is the intercept-only model (model 0), which does not contain any of the predicting variables and thus serves as the reference model. Any improvement over this baseline model will determine the predictive power of the next models (Peng, Lee &
Ingersoll, 2002). The intercept-only model has a 52.2% classification accuracy of predicting the questioning of legitimacy.
Model 1 contains the addition of the predictor variables: commitment, impact, motives and fit. The model was able to correctly classify 55.6% of the cases, a positive increase relative to the intercept-only model (52.2%), and was statistically significant, c2(4, N = 2478) = 33.79, p < .001. However, the Cox & Snell R2 = 0.014 and Nagelkerke R2 = 0.018, demonstrate that the model only explains between 1.4% and 1.8% of the variance in
questioning legitimacy. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test for Model 1 was significant c2(7, N = 2478) = 28.001, p < .001, rejecting the null hypothesis that predictions made by the model perfectly fit with observed group memberships. However, the test suffers from some issues, such as its reliance on a test of significance (Wuensch, 2014). With a large sample size (N= 2478), the Hosmer-Lemeshow test may be significant, even when the fit is good (Wuensch, 2014). Since the fit of the model is significant (p < .001), we can assume that the overall model fit is good, despite a significant Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
Model 2 contains the addition of the interaction terms of the predictor variables and moderator variable, in order to analyze the complete influence of all predictors on the dependent variable. Interaction terms were calculated by multiplying the predictor variables with the moderator variable (IDV*MDV) (Field, 2009). This model was statistically
59.1%. However, the Cox & Snell R2 = 0.022 and Nagelkerke R2 = 0.029, demonstrate that only between 2.2% and 2.9% of the variance in questioning legitimacy can be explained by this model. Similarly to Model 1, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was significant c2(8, N = 2478) = 39.099, p < .001, but it is not used as a relevant indicator of model fit in this study due to the previously described large sample size bias, and considering the overall model fit was highly significant (p < .001).
Model 3, the final model, is the result of a model reduction. A model reduction is necessary when multiple predictors are statistically insignificant and can thus cloud the precision and significance of the other variables (Minitab, 2019). The model reduction was carried out manually by reducing one insignificant term at a time. Both the predictors commitment (H2; b*=0.054 [8], p =.297 CI [0.954, 1.168]) and fit (H5; b*=0.065 [6], p =.614 CI [0.829, 1.374]) were removed, as these predictors were highly insignificant. Accordingly, H2 and H5 can be rejected. Despite removing these two terms, the overall classification accuracy remained the same (59.1%), affirming the need for a model reduction. The final model was statistically significant at the .01 level, c2(6, N = 2478) = 53.009, p < .001). However, the Cox & Snell R2 = 0.021 and Nagelkerke R2 = 0.028, demonstrate that the model only explains between 2.1% and 2.8% of the variance in questioning legitimacy. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was significant c2(6, N = 2478) = 42.504, p < .001, but as previously described is not being used as a relevant indicator of model fit. Compared to the intercept-only model, the classification accuracy increased by 6.9%. While a minimal increase, H1 can be confirmed, as the overall model is significant, suggesting that the four aspects that
comprise CSR communication have some predictive power in the questioning of legitimacy. Altogether, a total of three models have been carried out of which the results are presented in table 5 (excluding the null model). The next section will explicate these results,
by examining the odds ratio to determine the individual effect each predictor has on the likelihood of questioning legitimacy.
Table 5.
Logistic Regression Results with Model Reduction
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Exp(B) S.E. Sig. Exp(B) S.E. Sig. Exp(B) S.E. Sig.
Commitment 1.109 .043 .666 1.055 .052 .297 Fit 1.346 .091 .001** 1.067 .129 .614 Impact .929 .940 .434 1.235 .151 .164 1.373 .123 .010** Motives 1.568 .147 .002** 1.881 .174 .000*** 2.012 .155 .000*** Commitment *Positioning 1.079 .076 .061 .897 .063 .084 Impact *Positioning 1.882 .195 0.039* .596 .170 .002** Motives *Positioning 1.079 .366 0.021* .397 .355 .009** Fit *Positioning 1.079 .183 .072 1.473 .134 .004** Constant .780 .067 .000*** .839 .070 0.012*** .874 .061 .027* Model Chi-Square [df] 33.793*** [4] 54.541*** [8] 53.009*** [6] % Correct Predictions 55.600 59.100 59.100
Cox & Snell R2 .014 .022 .021
Nagelkerke R2 .018 .029 .028
Hosmer-Lemeshow [df] 28.001*** [7] 39.099*** [8] 42.504*** [6]
Note: The Wald statistics are distributed chi-square with 1 degree of freedom. *= p ≤ .05, **=p ≤ .01, ***=p ≤ .001
Results of the individual predictors
In addition to the insignificant predictors commitment (H2) and fit (H5) which have already been removed from the final model, the moderation of commitment by CSR
positioning (H2a) in the final model is also insignificant (b*=-0.209 [6], p =.0.84 CI [0.60, 0.83]) and cannot predict the questioning of legitimacy. Therefore, H2a can also be rejected.
The results from Model 3 indicate that the odds ratio for the predictor impact was statistically significant (p =.010) and indicates that when all other variables are held constant, a high impact is almost 1.4 times (ExpB = 1.373) more likely to receive comments
questioning legitimacy than posts communicating a low impact. Therefore, H3 can be rejected. When a high impact is moderated by the strategic CSR positioning, the effect is significant (p =.002). The 0.6 odds ratio (ExpB = 0.596) and the negative coefficient b*= -0.518 [df=1], 95% CI [0.427, 0.832] indicate that the odds of questioning legitimacy are 0.6 times less likely to occur for corporations with a strategic CSR positioning communicating high CSR impact. H3a is thus confirmed.
The effect of motives on predicting the questioning of legitimacy is significant (p < .001) with an odds ratio of 2 (ExpB = 2.012). Accordingly, CSR posts that communicate extrinsic motives are twice as likely to receive comments that question legitimacy than posts with intrinsic motives. H4 can thus be confirmed. When extrinsic motives are moderated by the strategic CSR positioning, the effect is significant p = .009. The 0.4 odds ratio (ExpB = 0.397) and the negative coefficient b*= -0.924 [df=1], 95% CI [.198, .796] indicate that the odds of questioning legitimacy when communicating extrinsic motives with a strategic CSR positioning are only 0.397 times those of communicating extrinsic motives with a traditional CSR position. H4a is thus confirmed.
Although the fit alone (H5) did not yield significant results in predicting the
questioning of legitimacy, the moderation of this variable by strategic CSR positioning was statistically significant (p = .004) with an odds ratio of 1.5 (ExpB = 1.473). Contrary to what was expected, the positive coefficient b*= .387 [df=1], 95% CI [1.134, 1.914] indicates that the odds of questioning legitimacy are 1.5 times more likely to occur for corporations with a strategic CSR positioning communicating a high fit. H5a is thus rejected.
Discussion
The main aim of this thesis was to address the research question, “To what extent does the use of strategic CSR positioning moderate the effect of online CSR communication on consumer’s perception of corporate legitimacy?” in order to understand the effects of CSR communication and provide corporate guidance on communication practices. Broadly speaking, this research confirmed the effect of CSR communication and CSR positioning on perceived legitimacy, but not entirely as was predicted by theory. Interpreting the results from the analysis in light of the theory, some key findings and adjustments are in due place.
Regarding the first hypothesis, the overall effect of CSR communication on perceived legitimacy was significant, and thus affirms the hypothesis as well as previous theory (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Du et al., 2010). However, when critically examining this outcome the effect is not as large as expected. Despite the model being statistically significant and an
improvement over the null model, it was only able to correctly predict 59% of the cases, implying a very limited predictive power. While research thus far has found support for the effect of CSR communication on multiple business outcomes (Du et al., 2010), the findings from this study suggest that perhaps the communication of CSR initiatives alone might not be enough to moderately impact legitimacy. As such, legitimacy is in a different realm
compared to more tangible outcomes such as purchase intent, identification, loyalty and advocacy (Du et al., 2007). This makes sense according to theory, as legitimacy is far more
complex (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006) and its effects weigh more heavily on the existence of the business (Lock & Seele, 2017; Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). Nonetheless, the significance of the model affirms previous theories that CSR communication is imperative in increasing legitimacy (Colleoni, 2013; Du & Vieira, 2012; Fieseler et al., 2010).
Concerning the individual factors comprising CSR communication, not all were equally influential on perceived legitimacy. A high level of communicated commitment (H2 and H2a) was expected to negatively impact the effect on perceived legitimacy, due to the paradox of communicating CSR “too loud” (Morsing et al., 2008). However, the results of this study do not support the theory, as no significant effect was detected. One explanation lies in the different ways to measure commitment (Du et al., 2010). As such, this study focused on commitment within communication; namely how corporations communicate their commitment through, time, money and input. However, commitment can also be examined through the frequency of posting. Corporations engaging in strategic CSR posted 23.4% related content compared to traditional CSR corporations posting only 16,2% CSR-related content. Ruling out commitment as an effective factor based on this study is therefore not entirely justified, and more research is encouraged.
The second factor, impact, also did not coincide with existing theory (H3 and H3a), which proposes that the more impact is communicated, the better the perceived legitimacy (Du et al., 2010). However, this study found that prominently communicating impact actually leads to more comments questioning legitimacy. Critically reflecting upon the negative effect of impact, the CSR communication paradox could also apply to impact. Explicitly
communicating the exact impact of a corporation’s actions treads a thin line between delivering good work, and bragging or virtue signaling (Payne, Moore, Bell & Zachary, 2013). Moreover, explicitly communicating the impact invites people to critique those actions (Du et al., 2010, Polonsky & Jevons, 2009; Waddock & Goggins, 2011). Considering
corporate trust is at its lowest (Colleoni, 2013; Waddock & Goggins, 2011), many CSR efforts will never be enough to some, instigating the questioning of legitimacy.
However, this study did find support for the moderated effect of strategic CSR positioning. Communicating a high impact with a strategic positioning resulted in less comments questioning legitimacy, upholding theory that positioning is a strong contender to subdue the paradoxical effect of CSR communication (Waddock & Goggins, 2011).
Motives was another factor that was significant on the individual and moderated level (H4 and H4a), suggesting a notable influence on the perception of legitimacy. These findings fully support theories that consumers are quick to question extrinsic motives when CSR efforts are being communicated (Du et al., 2010, Vlachos et al., 2009). As CSR has become commonplace (Carroll, 2015), the corporate intention to capitalize on the benefits pertinent to CSR communication (Du et al., 2007) increases. A pure business orientation, however, defeats the purpose of CSR, failing to fulfill the public’s moral expectations (Carroll & Shabana, 2010), who ultimately ascribe legitimacy to these corporations. As a result, extrinsic motives are questioned.
The effect of extrinsic motives on perceived legitimacy was less drastic for corporations engaging in a strategic CSR positioning. As theory outlines, a strategic
positioning blurs the line between business and CSR, becoming one and the same (Gond et al., 2018). Often these corporations engage in CSR through – not in addition to – their business, and thus extrinsic motives are likely accompanied by intrinsic motives (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006). Due to this unique combination, extrinsic motives are less likely to provoke the questioning of legitimacy, as these findings support.
Lastly, the degree of perceived fit was only significant when moderated by CSR positioning (H5a). Although theory suggests that a high fit moderated by a strategic CSR positioning is less likely to lead to the questioning of legitimacy compared to traditional
positioning (Du et al., 2010), this study found it to be almost 1.5 times more likely. Unlike impact, the CSR communication paradox is dismissed as a probable justification for this finding, considering the fit of a CSR initiative does not impact the ‘loudness’ of that
communication. A plausible explanation is that the effect of fit is overshadowed by the other factors. Considering consumers do not take in the ‘fit’ alone, perhaps the other factors of the messaging are weighed more heavily. As theory outlines, even a questionable fit can be overlooked or perceived as fitting to that brand (Du et al. 2010; Menon & Kahn, 2003), and so consumers are more likely to focus on the other aspects of the communication.
Practical and Academic Implications
Reiterating: there is no singular ‘recipe’ for corporate legitimacy, as it emerges out of communication and dialogue (Meisenbach, 2006; Schultz et al., 2013). However, this study provides support that there are some factors of communication that corporations can
emphasize or downplay while communicating their CSR initiatives, to reduce the chance of consumers questioning their legitimacy.
Firstly, communicating a strong moral reasoning beyond extrinsic business motives is likely to reduce chances of questioned legitimacy. As such, intrinsic motives are better perceived by society. Secondly, communicating the impact of the corporation should be done in moderation. While it can be necessary for accountability, it should not be communicated too loudly which may come across as virtue signaling. While commitment and fit had no significant impact in this study, previous theories have outlined the positive impact of
communicating these aspects (Du et al., 2010). Howbeit, further research needs to be done to establish a concrete effect.
Concerning the academic implications, this study establishes an empirically grounded relationship between CSR communication, CSR positioning and corporate legitimacy, with
high ecological validity. Hereby a new avenue of research provides scholars with the opportunity to study this topic from a new perspective in its naturally occurring setting.
Limitations & Future research
While this study was insightful in unmasking the effects of communication on corporate legitimacy, some limitations need to be acknowledged. Firstly, while a content analysis was paramount to evaluating this phenomenon in real time to establish the current situation, and to approach this topic from the CCO perspective which puts communication first, it can be difficult as an unobtrusive observer to fully capture the perceived legitimacy from written text. The extensive codebook and coder-training session seek to minimize these assumptions. However, sarcasm and other connotations can be difficult to understand through text, and without the means to directly ask consumers what they believe, full accuracy in reflecting the actual feelings of the consumer cannot be guaranteed.
Secondly, certain communication aspects within Du et al.’s (2010) framework were not taken into account, such as the issues at hand, as well as aspects outside of Du et al.’s (2010) framework, such as specific communication formats beyond the channel. Within Instagram, message format such as video versus photo can also affect audience interpretation (Tutaj & Van Reijmersdal, 2012).
Thirdly, in terms of sampling limitations, the analysis depends on the categorization of four companies into two groups. Moreover, this categorization process is contingent on the categorization of the B-corporations, which might not reflect the full distinction or spectrum between strategic and traditional CSR positionings.
Lastly, a content analysis provides the possibility to do a time series analysis, to analyze a pattern over time. Due to the many strict assumptions, dichotomous variables and scope of this study, a time series analysis was not feasible.
Such limitations, however, can be channeled into future research. Future studies could build on this research and conduct a time series analysis to see changes over time, or analyze a broader spectrum of corporations. Moreover, having established the current landscape on Instagram, differences with other social media channels and thus other audiences need to be examined. Instagram is by no means fully representative of all social media (e.g. because of its younger users’ group [Chen, 2020]) and was chosen specifically for its relevance as a popular CSR channel. Additional survey or experiment research could also reinforce these findings, to obtain a more overt, rather than a latent understanding of each factor.
Having focused on one part of the ‘dialogue’ of the socially constructed, deliberative and ongoing communication process (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Patriotta et al., 2011), future research can also look to the corporate responses, to analyze how they maintain their
legitimacy. Within the scope of the study, it was necessary to spotlight the consumers’ perception, but this does prompt a good opportunity for future research to examine different stages or sides of the dialogue, for a fuller picture.
Conclusion
To conclude, this study’s objective was to examine the effect of specific CSR-related communication factors and CSR positioning on a consumer’s perception of legitimacy, to guide corporate communications. Within the theoretical framework of Habermas’
Communicative Action Theory, the study provides support of the overall effect of
communication on the perception of legitimacy, but the degree to which individual factors have an effect varies. Moreover, as a highly complex construct, communication cannot be seen as solely responsible for the effect on corporate legitimacy. Future research can thus further explore these findings to broaden and expand the understanding of corporate legitimacy and the factors that influence it.
References
Abitbol, A., & Lee, S. Y. (2017). Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 796–808.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.05.002
Araujo, T., & Kollat, J. (2018). Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter. Internet Research, 28(2), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2017-0172
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
Barnett, M. L. (2019). The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critique and an Indirect Path Forward. Business & Society, 58(1), 167–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316660044
Bigné, E., Currás-Pérez, R., & Aldás-Manzano, J. (2012). Dual nature of cause-brand fit. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 575–594.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211202620
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x
Certified B-Corporation. (2020). Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://bcorporation.net/ Chen, J. (2020, May 15). Social media demographics to inform your brand's strategy in 2020.
Cho, S., & Hong, Y. (2009). Netizens’ evaluations of corporate social responsibility: Content analysis of CSR news stories and online readers’ comments. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.012
Chomvilailuk, R., & Butcher, K. (2018). The impact of strategic CSR marketing
communications on customer engagement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(7), 764–777. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2017-0248
Christensen, L. T., Cornelissen, J. (2011). Bridging Corporate and Organizational Communication: Review, Development and a Look to the Future. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 383–414.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910390194
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319508
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2013). The pseudo-panopticon: the illusion created by CSR-related transparency and the internet. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 18(2), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319490 Cooren, F. (2020). A Communicative Constitutive Perspective on Corporate Social
Responsibility: Ventriloquism, Undecidability, and Surprisability. Business & Society, 59(1), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318791780
Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching Corporate Social Responsibility
Communication: Themes, Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12196
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65– 91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Du, S., & Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social
Responsibility: Insights from Oil Companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1490-4
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.01.001
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐ century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
Elkington, J. (2018). 25 years ago I coined the phrase triple bottom line. Now it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review, 25.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976 Elmer, G., Langlois, G., & McKelvey, F. (2012). The Permanent campaign: New media, New
politics. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Etter, M. (2013). Reasons for low levels of interactivity: (Non-) interactive CSR communication in Twitter. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 606–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.06.003
Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 599–614.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0135-8
George, E. (2019, October 11). Can Corporate Social Responsibility Be Legally Enforced? Forbes (University of Houston). Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2019/10/11/can-corporate-social-responsibility-be-legally-enforced/#3151c82f3d44
Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341444
Gond, J. P., Cabantous, L., & Krikorian, F. (2018). How do things become strategic? ‘Strategifying’ corporate social responsibility. Strategic Organization, 16(3), 241– 272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017702819
Göttler, M. (2019). Uncovering frames and motives in corporate and media messages regarding CSR communication in the luxury industry sector (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from
https://scripties.uba.uva.nl/search?id=703730
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). (McCarthy, T. Trans.). Boston: Beacon press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (Lenhardt C. & Weber Nicholson, S. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research 1. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
Ihlen, Ø., & Pallas, J. (2014). 18. Mediatization of corporations. In Mediatization of Communication. De Gruyter Berlin, Boston.
Jenkins, H. (2004). A Critique of Conventional CSR Theory: An SME Perspective. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700402900403 Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo dialogicus: Rethinking
social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.003
Kim, S., Karlesky, M. J., Myers, C. G., & Schifeling, T. (2016). Why companies are becoming B corporations. Harvard Business Review, 17.
Lock, I., & Schulz-Knappe, C. (2019). Credible corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication predicts legitimacy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2018-0071
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.060 Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Measuring Credibility Perceptions in CSR Communication: A
Scale Development to Test Readers’ Perceived Credibility of CSR Reports. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 584–613.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917707592
Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
Lundquist. (2017). Lundquist CSR Online Awards (7th ed., pp. 1-35, Rep.). Milan: Lundquist. Retrieved from https://lundquist.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lundquist_CSR-Online-Awards_Europe-2017.pdf
Meisenbach, R. J. (2006). Habermas’s Discourse Ethics and Principle of Universalization as a Moral Framework for Organizational Communication. Management
Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906288277 Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate Sponsorships of Philanthropic Activities: When
Do They Impact Perception of Sponsor Brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_12
Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or Bridge? Environmental and Organizational Determinants of Public Affairs Activities in American Firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(4), 975–996. https://doi.org/10.2307/256617 Minitab. (2019). Model reduction. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from
https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab-express/1/help-and-how-to/modeling-statistics/regression/supporting-topics/regression-models/model-reduction/
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608
Ooi, S. K., Amran, A., & Yeap, J. A. (2017). Defining and Measuring Strategic CSR: A Formative Construct. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 9(4 SI), 250–265.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x
Payne, G. T., Moore, C. B., Bell, R. G., & Zachary, M. A. (2013). Signaling Organizational Virtue: an Examination of Virtue Rhetoric, Country‐Level Corruption, and
Performance of Foreign IPOs from Emerging and Developed Economies. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(3), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1156
Peng, C. Y. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An Introduction to Logistic Regression Analysis and Reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598786
Pollach, I. (2015). Strategic corporate social responsibility: the struggle for legitimacy and reputation. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 10(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2015.068685
Polonsky, M., & Jevons, C. (2009). Global branding and strategic CSR: an overview of three types of complexity. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 327–347.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330910960816
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism - and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. (Cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(1).
Ros-Diego, V., & Castelló-Martínez, A. (2012). CSR communication through online social media. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 67, 47–67.
