Lipstick on a Pig: Is CSR Communication Authentic or Cosmetic?

Mavis Amo-Mensah; Ralph Tench

doi:10.63772/jocmas.v5n1.2

Authors

Mavis Amo-Mensah University of Education, Winneba Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7930-2532
Ralph Tench Leeds Business School, Leeds Beckett University Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7760-2606

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63772/jocmas.v5n1.2

Keywords:

Lipstick, CSR Communication, Multinational Telecommunications

Abstract

With increased scrutiny of business and its activities, many companies have put corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the top of their agenda. However, the push for CSR has also given rise to the assumption that companies make false claims about their practices and policies. This paper explores how the six multinational telecommunications giants in Ghana present their CSR initiatives online. Using discourse analysis methods, the study examines and compares the CSR communication strategies the industry players adopt. The study finds that the companies demonstrate commitment to communicating CSR, emphasising more ethos than logos strategies which suggest credible CSR messages to a large extent. Relational values and the organisation of CSR messages were quite similar across the companies, although some strategies differed. The study not only suggests a linguistic framework for analysing CSR communication messages, it also provides new empirical data that adds to the growing body of literature on CSR communication particularly in the Ghanaian context where studies have been found to be sparse. Again, the findings deepen our understanding of CSR communication issues and its dynamics which will help managers identify potential gaps that may need improvement particularly in developing country contexts. With a few exceptions, a linguistic approach to examining CSR communication content has not received much scholarly attention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Usage Statistics

Abstract Views: 8
PDF Downloads: 7

References

Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2006). Accessibility and functionality of the corporate website: Implications for sustainability reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 275–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.531

Amaladoss, M. X., & Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating corporate social responsibility: A case of CSR communication in emerging economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(2), 65–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.287

Amo-Mensah, M., & Tench, R. (2015). In the club but out of the game – Evaluation of Ghana Club 100 CSR communication. Tripodos, 37, 13–34.

Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimacy. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177?journalCode=orsc DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177

Atuguba, R., & Dowuona-Hammond, C. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Ghana. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES). http://www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.5190&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Baughn, C. C., Bodie, N. L., & McIntosh, J. C. (2007). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(4), 189–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.160

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of knowledge: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284

Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., & Zamparini, A. (2008). Communicating CSR: Practices among Switzerland’s top 300 companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(2), 182–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280810869604

Borglund, T., De Geer, H., & Hallvarsson, M. (2008). Värdeskapande CSR: Hur företag tar socialt ansvar [Value-creating CSR: How corporations take their social responsibility]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.

Brummans, B., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). Approaches in research on the communicative constitution of organizations. In L. L. Putnam & D. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Capriotti, P. (2011). Communicating corporate social responsibility through internet and social media. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 358–378). Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118083246.ch18

Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Communicating corporate responsibility through corporate websites in Spain. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(3), 221–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710776833

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three–dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/257850

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 30–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2011). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x

Cerin, P. (2002). Communication in corporate environmental reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(1), 44–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.7

Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2011). Integrating the communicative dimensions of corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 491–504). Wiley.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258888

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of the 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106

Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Skepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.631569

Elving, W. J. L., & Van Vuuren, M. (2011). Beyond identity: Corporate social responsibility in the age of scepticism. Slovenian Scientific Journal of Marketing, 17, 49–56.

Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1999). Corporate World Wide Web pages: Serving the news media and other publics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 456–467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600304

Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2000). Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. http://www.monoskop.org/images/b/b9/Foucault_Michael_Power_2000.pdf

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34

Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2014). Critical points of CSR-related dialogue in practice. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(3), 248–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12049

Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W. J., Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C., & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: Quo vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 176–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319472

Gond, J. P., & Matten, D. (2007). Rethinking the business-society interface: Beyond the functionalist trap. ICCSR Research Paper Series, 47. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/assets/researchpapers/47-2007.pdf

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2013). Cohesion in English (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836010

Ihlen, Ø. (2011). Rhetoric and corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 147–166). Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118083246.ch8

Kim, S., Kim, S. Y., & Sung, H. (2014). Fortune 100 companies’ Facebook strategies: Corporate ability versus social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 18(4), 343–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2012-0006

Korschun, D., & Du, S. (2013). How virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value: A framework and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1494–1639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.011

Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Liu, S., & Schneider, A. M. (2009). CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 426–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00758.x

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458

May, S. (2011). Organizational communication and corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 87–109). Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118083246.ch5

Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14–31). London: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n2

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really count. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259247

Mohr, L. A., Eroğlu, D., & Ellen, S. P. (2008). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1), 30–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00399.x

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608

National Communications Authority. (2015). http://www.nca.org.gh

Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: The limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs, 81(3), 541–557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x

Okoye, A. (2009). Theorizing corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 613–627. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0021-9

Podnar, K. (2008). Guest editorial: Communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 75–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856350

Pollach, I. (2003). Communicating corporate ethics on the World Wide Web: A discourse analysis of selected company websites. Business and Society, 42(2), 227–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650303042002006

Pomering, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 285–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9729-9

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–69.

Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 285–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmeltz, L. (2012). Consumer-oriented CSR communication: Focusing on ability or morality? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(1), 29–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281211196344

Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914527000

Schoeneborn, D., & Trittin, H. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 193–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319481

Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024480

Tschopp, D. J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: A comparison between the United States and the European Union. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12(1), 55–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.69

Van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. xx–xx). London: Sage.

Visser, W. (2006). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid: An African perspective. In E. R. Pedersen & M. Huniche (Eds.), Corporate citizenship in developing countries (pp. xx–xx). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Vos, J. F. J. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 141–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.39

Wanderley, L., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & Sousa, F. J. (2008). CSR information disclosure on the web: A context-based approach to analysing the influence of country of origin and industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 369–378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9892-z

Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–14). London: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n1

Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2012). European Communication Monitor 2012: Challenges and competencies for strategic communication. Results of an empirical survey in 42 countries. Brussels: EACD, EUPRERA.