Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Corporate social responsibility communication of Chinese and globalcorporations in China

Lu Tanga,!, Hongmei Lib,c,1

a School of Communication Studies, 293 Communications Building, 1345 Circle Park, University of Tennessee,Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996-0324, United Statesb Georgia State University, Department of Communication, One Park Place, Atlanta, 30302, United Statesc The Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 March 2009Accepted 15 May 2009

Keywords:Corporate social responsibilityGlobalizationCorporate websiteContent analysisChina

a b s t r a c t

This paper explored how leading Chinese and global companies operating in China com-municate their corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles and practices to the Chinesestakeholders through a content analysis of these companies’ corporate websites. It wasfound that companies usually take one of the following three major approaches in their CSRcommunication: CSR as ad hoc public philanthropy, CSR as strategic philanthropy, and CSRas ethical business practices. Furthermore, this paper examined the effects of country oforigin and industry on companies’ CSR communication and found that whether companiesare targeting at businesses or consumers has a bigger impact on their CSR communicationthan whether they are Chinese or global. Finally, despite a tendency towards convergence,Chinese and global companies still present their CSR principles and practices differentlybecause of their different relations with major Chinese and global stakeholders.

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in China is an issue of global consequences (Li, 2005). In 2007, news media andhuman rights groups both inside and outside China raised serious concerns on the use of “slave labor” in central China, wherethousands of workers, many under-aged, were cheated into working as slave laborers in illegal brick kilns, coal mines andiron mines. In the same year, the safety of pet food and toys exported from China led to widespread worry in many countriesand was closely scrutinized by global media (Lu, 2009). Environmental pollution that accompanies the industrialization andurbanization in China also poses a global challenge, and as a result, the New York Times published a series of feature articlesin 2007 titled “Chocking on growth,” discussing the serious environmental and ecological crises in China (Kahn & Yardley,2007). At the same time, as Chinese companies expand their operations overseas, their labor and environmental practicesin other parts of the world have been examined and questioned by both domestic and global stakeholders (China’s OverseasEnvironmental Problems Cause Domestic Concern, 2008).

As global corporations have been firmly established in China, the ethical and social dimensions of their business practiceshave also become a center of debate and controversy. Global companies such as Nike, Reebok, Mattel and Gap, have beenharshly criticized for using suppliers that maintained sweatshop conditions in China (e.g. Barboza, 2008; Yu, 2008). Famousglobal brands, such as KFC and Hagen Daas have been found to fail to meet the food safety regulations in China and thesescandals were subject to widespread publicity. In 2004, Wal-Mart China and its employees entered into a dispute regarding

! Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 7070; fax: +1 865 974 4879.E-mail addresses: ltang3@utk.edu (L. Tang), hli@gsu.edu (H. Li).

1 Tel.: +1 404 413 5634; fax: +1 404 413 5634.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.016

200 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

the founding of labor union in its Chinese branches. After extensive negotiation and state intervention, the retailing giantnotorious for its anti-union stance gave in and accepted “officially sanctioned unions” (McGregor, 2004).

Southern Weekend, a leading national newspaper in China, started to rank the CSR performance of Chinese companies andthe World’s Top 500 international companies operating in China in 2006. According to its 2006 report, large global companieswere below par in fulfilling their social responsibilities for three major reasons (Chinese Media Ranks the Performances ofForeign-Owned Companies, 2006). First, the monopoly of these global companies threatened economic and social securityof China. Second, foreign companies exploited favorable tax policies and unfair advantages in competing with Chinesecompanies. Finally, many global companies lowered their environmental, labor, and ethical standards when operating inChina, taking advantage of the lack of regulations in the country. In the same report, state-owned Chinese companies werealso criticized for their inadequate contribution to different social causes and their questionable environmental practices.The report went on to state that privately owned Chinese companies have made significantly larger donations to publicphilanthropy than global companies and state-owned Chinese companies, even though the former are much smaller interms of revenues and profits.

The discussion thus far suggests that in the age of globalization, CSR is beyond the concerns of individual companies orcountries and is best understood in the tension and constant negotiation between the process of corporate globalization andthe local social, cultural and economic contexts (Stohl, Stohl, & Townsley, 2007). Since Chinese companies are increasinglycompleting in a global market, their business practices are increasingly subject to international industry standards. Chinesecompanies’ conceptualizations, practices, and communications of CSR are determined by the complicated interactions amongcompanies, governments, NGOs, other stakeholders in the Chinese society, and the institutional pressure from both thedomestic and the global communities.

CSR communication or how companies present their CSR principles and practices to the public and investors is part oftheir CSR effort (e.g. see Basil & Basil, 2008; Podnar, 2008). Companies communicate their CSR principles, activities andachievements to different stakeholders to create a favorable public image, hoping that this, in turn, leads to more investment,more sales, and increased bottom line (Poitevin, 1990). In addition, companies engage in CSR communication to maintainand increase their legitimacy and to communicate their corporate values to key stakeholders (Dawkins & Ngunjiri, 2008).To study CSR communication in China involves asking several questions. How do Chinese companies talk about CSR? Dothey adapt to Western standards or is there a distinctive Chinese version? What are the similarities and differences betweenthe CSR principles and strategies presented by Chinese and global companies? Are there industrial differences in CSRcommunication?

This paper studied how major Chinese and global companies in China communicate their CSR principles and practiceson their corporate websites. The paper began with a brief review of CSR literature developed in the Western context. Itthen discussed the changing relationship between corporations and different stakeholders in Chinese society in the lastthree decades, and the rise of CSR in the triangular interactions among corporations, the state, and NGOs. Next, it ana-lyzed the contents of the Chinese-language corporate websites of Fortune 100 Chinese companies and Fortune 100 globalcompanies with Chinese operations to examine and compare their CSR communication. The paper ended with a discus-sion of the implications of the findings in the context of globalization, limitations of the study, and directions for futureresearch.

1. Literature review

1.1. CSR and globalization

Academic study of CSR started with a philosophical debate on whether “business corporations have an obligation to workfor social betterment” (Frederick, 2006, p. 37). Recently, social responsibilities of corporations have often been discussed interms of corporate citizenship and sustainable development. The concept of corporate citizenship caught fire in the 1980sand 1990s in the context of the failure of welfare states and the rising power of multinational corporations (Mele, 2008). Beinggood corporate citizens means corporations need to fulfill their social roles and deal with social problems that governmentshave failed to solve (Mattern & Crane, 2005). It entails a shift in business organizations’ social involvement from a passiveresponse to social pressure to a proactive engagement in social issues and a belief that such engagement is an inherent dutyof business organizations as citizens of society (Mele, 2008). Sustainable development is “development that meets the needsof current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations” (WCED,1987, p. 43). It starts with the notion that companies need to develop with an eye on preserving the environment and naturalresources for long-term growth (Kuhn & Deetz, 2008). More recently, it has been extended to incorporate economic andsocial sustainability which includes equitable development and the maintenance of desirable social values and institutions(Fergus & Rowney, 2005).

While the conceptualizations and practices of CSR have been typically developed in the context of nation-states, theprocess of globalization is bringing a “paradigm shift,” as local, national, regional, multinational, and global corporations aresubject to a new economic, political and social framework that is both global and fragmented (Scherer & Palazzo, 2008). Asmultinational corporations expand into every corner of the world, they adapt their business practices to meet local needs,customs and cultures (Stohl, 2001). At the same time, local companies are increasingly adopting global business practicesand standards in order to better compete in the global market. The dialectic tension between globalization and localization

L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212 201

is one of the most prominent characteristics of corporate globalization (Stohl, 2001). This process of two-way adaptationleads to two contradicting trends: convergence and divergence.

The convergence hypothesis argues that as companies operate in an increasingly global market, they are going to adoptsimilar business and social practices (Stohl, 2001). Proponents of the convergence view promote the adoption of universalCSR standards globally. The divergence argument, on the other hand, focuses on cultural differences and argues that glob-alization leads to local diversity. Understanding CSR through a divergence perspective calls for an examination of how CSRis defined, practiced, and discussed in different parts of the world in relation to their specific cultural and social contexts(Chapple & Moon, 2005). Most of the existing studies on CSR in China focus on how the Chinese culture affects compa-nies’ CSR practices. For instance, Phoon-Lee (2006) emphasized the Confucian notion of “People First” and argued thatChinese companies would be especially committed to CSR. This is obviously inconsistent with what is happening in today’sChina and shows that it is problematic to assume a simple and direct relationship between culture and CSR. In an effortto compare companies’ CSR orientations in Hong Kong and the United States, Burton, Farh, and Hegarty (2000) surveyedbusiness students in Hong Kong and the United States, using Carroll (1979)’s theoretical framework, and discovered thatUS students emphasized non-economic responsibility of corporations as the rationale of CSR, while Hong Kong studentsemphasized the economic rationale of CSR. They attributed the latter to the prevalence of pragmatism and materialismin Hong Kong.2 At present, no systematic comparison has been conducted to explicate the differences between the waysin which CSR is conceptualized and practiced in China and in Western countries in either English or Chinese-languageliterature.

1.2. CSR in China

One central debate in the study of CSR is whether CSR should be understood in terms of companies’ relationship withsociety in general or with their specific stakeholder groups (Clarkson, 1995). The stakeholder theory of CSR states thatcorporations operate with a system of stakeholders within a particular society and need to respond to the interests andrequirements of these stakeholders (Mele, 2008). Managers understand and handle companies’ social responsibilities bymanaging their relationship with key stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995). On the other hand, the institutional perspective looks atthe development of CSR as a result of its institutional environment, including the political and legal systems, history, culture,and religion of a nation or a region (Doh & Duay, 2006; Lammers, 2003). We argue that the stakeholder perspective and theinstitutional perspective do not necessarily contradict each other. On the contrary, to study CSR in relation to globalization,researchers need to examine the interaction between individual companies and their key stakeholders in the context of theinstitutional environment both locally and globally.

To study CSR in China, we focus on companies’ relationship with the state and NGOs in the context of larger eco-nomic, social, and cultural environment. This entails three pairs of relationships: corporate–society, corporate–state, andcorporate–NGO (Stohl, Stohl, & Popova, 2007). First, CSR is the product of the specific social and cultural context in which itemerges, as May and Zorn (2003) argued that, “corporate social responsibility is, at its core, about the simultaneously con-tested and consensual nature of the relationship between organizations and culture(s)” (p. 595). To understand CSR and CSRcommunication in China, it is important to situate the analysis in the social and cultural characteristics of China and in thelarger context of globalization. Second, CSR needs to be understood in view of corporate–state relations. Schwarze (2003) sug-gested that CSR decisions are often made not within individual organizations, but as a result of interorganizational relationssuch as state–corporate interactions. The corporate–state tie is especially important in the emergence and development ofCSR in China because Chinese governments at various levels still maintain control over most of economic resources. Finally,the corporate–NGO tie is another dyadic relationship central to the development of CSR (O’Connor, Shumate, & Meister,2008). NGOs have played a critical role in influencing multinational corporations to adopt code of ethics voluntarily and inenacting legal standards of CSR (Winston, 2003). The next section of the paper will discuss these three pairs of relations inrelation to CSR in China.

1.3. Corporate–society relation in China

Corporations have been the powerhouse of economic development in China, and sources of many social problems inthe country, such as labor condition, environmental pollution, and poor product safety. Labor conditions in China havebeen labeled as a “race to the bottom” (Chan, 2001). Despite the economic boom in the last 30 years, millions of laborers,especially migrant workers from rural areas and less developed provinces, are still trapped in low wages, long working hours,and harsh treatment at workplace and can hardly benefit from such economic growth (Chan, 2001, 2003; Chan & Ross, 2003;Thorborg, 2006). Furthermore, China’s double-digit economic growth is accompanied by severe environmental damages(Kahn & Yardley, 2007). China is home to five of the world’s 10 most polluted cities. Groundwater is tainted in nine out of10 cities in China and an estimated 300 million people do not have access to clean drinking water. Environmental pollutions

2 Even though China and Hong Kong are not identical in terms of their cultures, there is evidence showing that the pragmatism and materialism identifiedin Hong Kong is also prevalent in Mainland China (Tammey and Chiang, 2002).

202 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

cause more than health consequences. In 2006, the National Bureau of Statistics and the State Environmental ProtectionAdministration of China released China’s first Green GDP report, estimating that environmental pollution caused a loss of$64 billion in 2004, a 3.05% of that year’s GDP. This figure did not even include the cost of natural resource depletion and thedamage of the ecological system (Reuters, 2007). Thus, the past three decades of economic boom in China is often viewedas a period of moral crisis (Tammey & Chiang, 2002).

A disregard or skepticism towards CSR was found not only among business owners and managers but also among intel-lectuals in China. Even though some scholars started to introduce the western notion of CSR and promote it as a model forChinese companies to emulate in the 1990s (e.g. Li, 2007; Yang, 2007), other Chinese scholars rejected the concept of CSR.For instance, Zhang Weiying, a leading Chinese economist and public intellectual, echoed Friedman in arguing that makingprofit was the sole responsibility of corporations (Zhang, 2007). Some Chinese scholars remarked that the Western notion ofCSR represents a western hegemony and a conspiracy of developed countries to circumvent the growth of Chinese economyand, thus is unfair to China and other developing countries, the growth of which largely depends on labor-intensive andresource-intensive industries such as the manufacturing industry (e.g. Xiao, 2005; Zhang, 2006).

1.4. Corporate–state relations and CSR

The relationship between corporations and the state in China has undergone fundamental changes in the past threedecades. Prior to 1979, almost all Chinese corporations were collectively owned and tightly controlled by the state andwere responsible for the welfare of their employees, including housing, health care, children’s education, retirementpensions and daily necessities (Yan, 2002). The economic privatization since 1979 started to dissolve the tie betweenthe state and corporations. Privatized medium-sized and small businesses and reformed large state-owned companieswere released of many of their former responsibilities towards their employees and society (Young, 2002). During thesame period, small businesses owned by towns and villages emerged and grew tremendously in rural areas, espe-cially on the east coast of China. They were extremely profitable, but also caused many unpredicted consequencessuch as deteriorating labor conditions, serious pollution, and unethical business practices such as embezzlement andbribery.

The state has significantly influenced the developmental trajectory of CSR in China. The state resisted the westernnotion of CSR promoted by grassroots NGOs and intellectuals at first and insisted that it had the ultimate authority todefine CSR and pass legislations to ensure CSR, arguing that the imposition of western CSR standards was an interven-tion in China’s internal affairs (Chan, 2005). In 2004, a heated debate arose among scholars, NGOs, business leaders, andthe public regarding whether China should adopt SA8000, a global social accountability standard, as a national stan-dard of labor protection. The central government stepped in to end the debate, rejecting SA8000 as inappropriate forChina. At the same time, the Chinese government started to promote its own version of CSR. In 2007, the 17th CentralCommittee of Chinese Communist Party stressed the importance of “energy, resources, ecological, and environmentalconservation” and the necessity to “put people first” in order to achieve a “balanced and sustainable development” (Hu,2007). Later in the same year, China passed its first Labor Contract Law, aiming at protecting labor rights, even thoughthe actual result of such legislations is yet to unfold. The central government has started to regulate the environmentalpractices of both domestic and global companies, no longer offering foreign and joint-ventures companies preferentialtreatment. Even though many local governments initially feared that requiring companies, especially foreign-owned com-panies, to be responsible for environmental conservation and fair treatment of laborers would discourage investmentand dampen local economic growth, they have also started to promote CSR and passing local legislations on environ-ment protection and laborers’ rights, following the directions of the central government (CSR in China 2007 Review,2007).

1.5. Corporate–NGO relations and CSR

NGOs and INGOs are increasingly more prominent players in the international arena, tackling problems that traditionalgovernmental institutions have failed to deal with (Castells, 1997) and have significant influences on corporate strategies,governmental polices, and government–corporation relationship (Doh, 2003). NGOs have been instrumental in promotingCSR around the world (Kovacs, 2006). Doh and Duay (2006) proposed that NGOs’ influence on CSR policy making should beunderstood in terms of NGOs’ access point to policy making, level of government decision-making (local, state, national orsupranational), and the traditional prominence of public interest groups in a particular society.

Traditionally, NGOs in China have little opportunity to influence policies, as political decisions are made in the centralgovernment with very little public input, and public interest groups have historically been viewed with suspicion and tightlymonitored and controlled. NGOs in China have always been plagued with the problem of autonomy (Howell, 1998). Domes-tic NGOs can be generally categorized into two groups: top-down government-organized NGOs and grass root popularlyorganized NGOs (Lu, 2007). Examples of the former category include the China Youth Development Foundation, the ChinaChildren and Teenagers’ Fund, and the Poverty Alleviation Foundation. They are also called “governmental nongovernmen-tal organizations,” and their semi-governmental status gives these NGOs legitimacy and institutional support to operate inChina (Young, 2002, p. 35). Despite the popular belief that these NGOs are merely governmental puppets (e.g. Ma, 2002), Lu

L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212 203

(2007) argued that sometimes government-organized NGOs in China enjoy “de facto autonomy” because the governmentunits in control of NGOs often do not implement the monitoring and control carefully, especially when NGOs are financiallyindependent and have officials with personal connections and influences in the government (p. 189). It is those grass-rootNGOs that are under constant pressure because of their non-official status. Traditionally, domestic NGOs in China have beenorganized for philanthropic purposes. NGOs approach both domestic and multinational corporations to request charitabledonations for causes such as education, poverty reduction, and disaster relief (Gerson, 2007). However, except for a fewprominent projects such as the Hope Project, corporate–NGO collaborations are usually irregular and short-term. Comparedto Chinese NGOs, INGOs have their special advantage in building alliances with companies to promote CSR. They are oftenperceived by companies, especially multinational companies, to be more credible, transparent, and accountable (Gerson,2007).

1.6. CSR communication in China

Corporate social reporting has been a standard practice by which corporations disclose their practices with regard toenvironmental protection, labor condition, and other aspects not directly related to their financial performance. Researchshows that communicating CSR practices to consumers leads to positive attitudes and increased purchase attention (Wigley,2008). Recently, companies are under increasing legal and institutional pressure from different stakeholders to be transparentabout the social, ethical, and environmental dimensions of their business practices (Dawkins, 2004). Researchers have beenstudying corporate social reporting as a proxy of companies’ actual CSR practices and their PR strategies (Dawkins & Ngunjiri,2008).

Content analysis of companies’ annual report and CSR report has been a frequently used method in the study of corporatesocial reporting in the social and environmental accounting literature since the 1970s (Milne & Adler, 1999). These studiesexamined the motivations, themes (e.g. employee disclosure, environmental disclosure, community disclosure, etc.), evi-dences, and amounts of corporate social disclosure in addition to financial disclosure in companies’ annual reports (Milne &Adler, 1999) and found that company size, industry, countries of operation (Van der Laan Smith, Adhikari, & Tondkar, 2005),and company profitability, among others factors, are the most important determinants of companies’ CSR reporting (for areview, see Gray, 1995).

Today, most large companies build extensive websites to present themselves to the public and create their social images(Capriotti & Moreno, 2007; Maynard & Tian, 2004). Corporate websites serve several functions, including electronic com-merce, control of information flow, information disclosure, and reduction of communication expenses (Sullivan, 1999). PRscholars have studied the websites of major companies throughout the world to understand their branding or positioningstrategies (e.g. Chun & Davies, 2001; Maignan & Ralston, 2002; Maynard & Tian, 2004; Sullivan, 1999). Recently, corporatewebsites have become an attractive tool in communicating companies’ CSR activities to their stakeholders (Chaudhi & Wang,2007; Esrock & Leichty, 2000; Fukukawa & Moon, 2004; Pollach, 2003). According to Esrock and Leichty (1998), 82% of theFortune 500 companies included at least one CSR initiative on their websites, with at least half mentioning some type ofcommunity or environmental efforts. Given that corporate websites serve an important role in global business and the com-munication of CSR, it is worthwhile to investigate how Chinese and global companies in China employ company websites intheir CSR communication. In this project, we seek to understand the major approaches companies in China take in their CSRcommunication, and this leads to the first research question:

RQ1: What are the major approaches to CSR communicated in the Chinese context?

Country of origin is an important determinant of CSR practices and CSR communication (Haniffa & Cooke, 2005;Wanderley, Lucian, Farache, & Sousa Filho, 2008). How CSR is defined, practiced, and communicated in different parts ofthe world is often related to the specific cultural and social contexts (Chapple & Moon, 2005; Golob & Bartlett, 2007). Theconcept of CSR finds its philosophical root in the traditional western concepts of democracy, citizenship, and liberty that datedback to ancient Greek thinkers such as Aristotle and Cicero (Godfrey & Hatch, 2007). When CSR is applied to a non-westerncontext, such as the Chinese context, which emphasizes obedience and duty, is it still applicable and feasible? Furthermore,CSR, as originated in the Anglo-Saxon context, is based on a classical divide between economic and social affairs rooted inthe assumption of individualism, individual rights, and responsibilities (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005). Will transplanting sucha concept to China, which is more collectivistic in nature and thus lacks such a differentiation, be potentially problematic?This leads to the next research question:

RQ2: Are there differences in the CSR communication between Chinese companies and global companies operating in Chinain terms of the rationales, major stakeholder issues, and managerial practices used?

Industry is another important determinant of how companies report their CSR activities (Cottrill, 1990; Sturdivant & Ginter,1977; Wanderley et al., 2008). Taking a stakeholder perspective, Sweeney and Coughlan (2008) argued that companies reporttheir CSR initiatives with their stakeholders in mind, and as a result, there will be differences among companies of differentindustries in their CSR communication.

RQ3: Are there differences in the CSR communication among companies of different industries in terms of the rationales,major stakeholder issues, and managerial practices used?

204 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

2. Methods

2.1. Sample

This study focused on the Chinese-language websites of leading Chinese and global companies operating in China, asits goal is to explore how these companies communicate their CSR principles and practices to Chinese stakeholders. TheChinese-language websites of the Fortune 100 Chinese companies were first downloaded. Second, an initial reading of thewebsites of the Fortune 100 global companies identified 44 companies with Chinese-language websites for their branchesor operations in China. The Chinese-language websites of these 44 global companies were also downloaded for coding anddata analysis.

2.2. Codebook, coding and intercoder reliability

An initial codebook was developed based on two existing studies on CSR: Chapple and Moon (2005) and Maignanand Ralston (2002). The codebook included three major sections addressing the research questions proposed. First, itinvestigated how companies discuss their CSR rationales, using the typology of economic, legal, ethical and discretionaryrationalities proposed by Carroll (1999). Second, it included items on what are the CSR themes and initiatives com-panies reportedly engage in, including 19 items covering companies’ responsibilities to their employees, shareholders,suppliers, customers, and the public. Companies’ responsibilities towards employees include employee health and safety,employee welfare, employee development and equal opportunities for employees. Companies’ responsibilities towardscustomers include product quality and product safety. Companies’ responsibilities towards community include the fol-lowing items: financial assistance to education, sports, arts and culture, development and poverty reduction, disasterrelief, environmental conservation, health and disability. Third, the codebook included a section examining how com-panies reportedly practice CSR, such as, through company policy, CSR report, donation, foundation, volunteering, andbuilding partnerships with NGOs, universities, and governmental agencies, etc. The codebook also included an item thatexamines whether companies discuss global CSR on their website. Finally, the codebook included items on basic informa-tion of companies, such as their industries and whether they are trading in stock markets outside China. The codebookwas adjusted and updated to incorporate new themes and practices of CSR based on the reading and interpretationof the websites until no new themes appeared. As a result, the final codebook was both theoretically and empiricallybased.

Two authors coded the company websites in the sample. The unit of analysis was the website of each company. Eachitem in the code is coded as “yes” or “no.” We did not take into consideration the frequencies each item appears on compa-nies’ websites. The two coders first coded the websites of four Chinese companies and four global companies randomlychosen and this initial coding achieved an holsti intercoder reliability of 0.707 (Holsti, 1969). They compared and dis-cussed the results case by case to resolve the discrepancies in coding (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002). Theythen coded the websites of another two Chinese and two global companies and achieved a Holsti intercoder reliabil-ity of 0.901, which was considered satisfactory. It needs to be noted that Holsti intercoder reliability does not take intoconsideration the agreements between two coders that occur by chance, and thus it is a rather liberal measurementof intercoder reliability (Holsti, 1969). Finally, the two coders divided the rest of the companies and each coded half ofthem.

3. Data analysis and results

A preliminary examination of the websites of the Fortune 100 Chinese companies indicates that 37 out of the 100 com-panies (37%) devote a specific section to CSR. Of the Fortune 100 global companies, 44 of them have operations in China aswell as Chinese-language websites, and 29 of them devoted a section of their website to CSR (65.9%). In the end, a total of 37Chinese companies and 29 global companies were included in the data analysis.

The 66 Chinese and global companies included in the data analysis belong to the following industries: electronic appliances(16.7%), energy (13.6%), auto (13.6%), mining and steel (10.6%), telecommunications (9.1%), banking and holdings (9.1%), ITand computers (6.1%), shipping (4.5%), insurance (3%), and others (13.6%). 71.2% of these companies are listed in stock marketsoutside mainland China such as Hong Kong or New York. These Chinese companies do not represent all Chinese companiesin general, but they are comparable to top global companies.

Companies identified all four types of rationalities on their websites with different frequencies, including discretionaryrationality (72.7%), ethical rationality (56.1%), legal rationality (45.5%), and economic rationality (71.2%). Companies engagein the following types of public philanthropy with descending frequencies: environmental conservation (78.8%), disasterrelief (63.6%), financial assistance to primary and secondary education (59.1%), financial assistance to higher education(53%), development and poverty reduction (51.5%), other contributions to education (48.5%), arts and culture (39.4%), andsports (34.8%). 28.8% companies mentioned responsibilities towards/of suppliers on their websites, while 36.4% mentionedresponsibilities towards shareholders. In terms of responsibilities towards customers, 69.7% of companies mentioned prod-uct quality and 42.4% mentioned product safety. In terms of responsibilities towards employees, companies in the samplementioned employee health and safety (40.9%), employee welfare (40.9%), employee development (40.9%), and equal oppor-

L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212 205

Table 1Results of factor analysis.

Item Ad hoc public philanthropy Ethical business conduct Strategic public philanthropy

Ad hoc public philanthropyDiscretionary rationality 0.551 0.03 0.382Financial aid to primary and secondary education 0.613 0.106 0.282Financial aid to college students 0.58 0.197 0.332Other types of contribution to education 0.335 0.135 0.585Sports 0.562 0.154 "0.118Art and culture 0.558 0.204 0.217Development and poverty reduction 0.553 0.242 0.126Disaster relief 0.815 0.161 0.008Health and disability 0.687 0.212 0.191Senior 0.397 0.06 0.196Sponsorship 0.708 0.124 0.173Donation 0.804 0.117 0.348Volunteers 0.51 0.238 0.357Timing: Emergence events 0.856 0.089 "0.001

Ethical business conductEthical rationality "0.04 0.633 0.387Legal rationality 0.015 0.788 0.155Economic rationality 0.252 0.529 0.229Product quality "0.046 0.59 0.278Product safety 0.082 0.431 0.318Employee health and safety "0.131 0.738 0.154Employee welfare 0.264 0.749 "0.097Employee development 0.211 0.733 "0.265Employee equal opportunity 0.273 0.653 "0.313CSR to suppliers 0.209 0.448 0.372CSR to share holders 0.3 0.691 "0.086CSR report 0.249 0.722 "0.006

Strategic public philanthropyEnvironment conservation 0.06 0.287 0.599Partnership with government 0.262 0.095 0.655Partnership with NGO 0.443 "0.058 0.606Partnership with universities 0.205 0.08 0.674Award 0.039 "0.021 0.694

Complexly determined itemsYouth 0.764 "0.023 0.416Company policy as a part of CSR practice 0.131 0.543 0.434Foundation 0.307 0.149 0.447Global CSR 0.409 0.003 0.388

tunity for all employees (22.7%). Companies practice CSR in the following ways: donation (71.2%), company policy (68.2%),sponsorship (50%), volunteering (47%), establishing foundations (45.5%), building partnership with NGOs (43.9%), universi-ties (34.8%), and governments (31.8%), publishing CSR report (27.3%), and establishing awards (21.2%). About 51.5% of thesecompanies discussed CSR on a global scale on their websites.

3.1. RQ1: What are the major approaches to CSR in the Chinese context?

To identify the major approaches to CSR presented by both Chinese and global companies, the dimensionality of the35 items in the codebook that measure the why, what, how, when, and where of CSR was analyzed using principalcomponent factor analysis. Three factors were identified based on existing CSR theories, the scree test, and the inter-pretability of the factor solution. The scree plot identified three factors. Based on the plot, these factors were rotatedusing a Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution, presented in Table 1, yielded three interpretable factors: CSRas ad hoc philanthropy, CSR as strategic philanthropy, and CSR as ethical business practice. CSR as ad hoc philanthropyfactor accounted for 19.11% of the item variance and included items such as discretionary rationality, financial aid to stu-dents and education, sports, art and culture, development and poverty reduction, disaster relief, health and disability,sponsorship, donation, volunteers, etc. CSR as strategic philanthropy factor accounted for 12.46% of the item variance,and included items such as environment conservation, partnership with government, partnership with NGOs, partner-ship with universities, and award. CSR as ethical business practice accounted for 15.64% of the item variance and includeditems such as ethical rationality, legal rationality, economic rationality, product quality, product safety, employee healthand safety, employee welfare, employee development, employee equal opportunity, CSR to suppliers, CSR to sharehold-ers, and CSR report. Results of the principal component analysis indicate that companies often take one or more of

206 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

Table 2Comparing Chinese and global companies.

Chinese firmstargetingconsumers (%)

Global firmstargetingconsumers (%)

Chi-squarevalue

Why? Discretionary rationality 86.4 68 1.627Ethical rationality 40 52 .809Legal rationality 27.3 44 1.687Economic rationality 72.7 72 .031

What?Community involvement;

public philanthropyFinancial assistance to primary and second education 72.7 60 .546Financial assistance to college students 59.1 64 .283Other contribution to education 54.5 64 .708Sports 50 40 .321Arts and culture 50 48 .000Development and poverty reduction 68.2 48 1.563Disaster relief 81.8 64 1.367Environment conservation 68.2 84 2.518Health and disability 59.1 64 .283Youth 86.4 80 .083Senior 18.2 28 .761

Customer Customer: Product quality 63.6 72 .700Customer: Product safety 31.8 60 4.330*

Employee relations Employee health and safety 27.3 32 .199Employee welfare 45.5 36 .300Employee development 40.9 32 .283Equal opportunity for employees 22.7 20 .024

Suppliers Suppliers 27.3 40 1.048Shareholders Shareholders 40.9 28 .698

How? CSR policy 45.5 72 4.207*

CSR report 18.2 36 2.113Foundation 50 56 .321Volunteering 45.5 52 .348Partnership with governments 22.7 48 3.664Partnership with NGOs 54.5 48 .095Partnership with universities 27.3 48 2.489Sponsorship 59.1 64 .283Donation 81.8 76 .051Award 13.6 28 1.627

Where? Global CSR 40.9 72 5.502*

* p < .05.

the following approaches to CSR: CSR as ad hoc philanthropy, as strategic philanthropy, and as ethical business prac-tice.

3.2. RQ2: Chinese vs. global companies

Chi-square tests were conducted to compare how Chinese and global companies communicate CSR similarly ordifferently.3 The results of the chi-square tests disclose more similarities than differences between Chinese and globalcompanies (see Table 2).

First, there is no significant difference between Chinese and global companies in their attribution of the rationales oftheir CSR engagement. The majority of both types of corporations attributed their CSR commitments to discretionary, ethical,legal, and economic rationalities. In terms of the themes on community involvement, both Chinese and global companiesemphasized their contribution to education, disaster relief, and contribution to young people’s development in general. Thereis no significant difference in their emphasis on product quality and environmental conservation. Both types of companiesmentioned donation, volunteering, sponsorship, award, and partnership with NGOs and universities as part of their CSRpractices.

Chi-square tests also identified some significant differences between Chinese and global companies. Global companiesare significantly more likely to emphasize product safety (!2 = 4.330, d.f. = 1, p = .037) and are more likely to mention companypolicies as part of their CSR practices (!2 = 4.207, d.f. = 1, p = .040). Furthermore, global companies are more likely to build

3 As there is a much higher percentage of Chinese companies that targeting at business than global companies, we only included Chinese and globalcompanies targeting at consumers in these comparisons to control for the effect of industry on companies’ CSR communication.

L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212 207

Table 3Comparing Chinese companies targeting consumers and business.

Chinese firmstargetingconsumers (%)

Chinese companiestargeting businesses(%)

Chi-squarevalue

Why? Discretionary rationality 86.4 60 3.368Ethical rationality 40 80 5.553*

Legal rationality 27.3 73.3 7.619**

Economic rationality 72.7 66.7 .157

What?Community involvement;

public philanthropyFinancial assistance to primary and second education 72.7 33.3 5.639*

Financial assistance to college students 59.1 26.7 3.776Other contribution to education 54.5 6.7 8.971**

Sports 50 13.3 5.261*

Arts and culture 50 13.3 5.261*

Development and poverty reduction 68.2 40 2.886Disaster relief 81.8 40 6.844**

Environment conservation 68.2 86.7 1.656Health and disability 59.1 26.7 3.776Youth 86.4 33.3 11.005**

Senior 18.2 13.3 .154

Customer Customer: Product quality 63.6 73.3 .383Customer: Product safety 31.8 26.7 .113

Employee relations Employee health and safety 27.3 66.7 5.639*

Employee welfare 45.5 46.7 .005Employee development 40.9 60 1.301Equal opportunity for employees 22.7 25.7 .075

Suppliers Suppliers 27.3 6.7 2.469Shareholders Shareholders 40.9 40 .003

How? CSR policy 45.5 86.7 6.440*

CSR report 18.2 26.7 .379Foundation 50 13.3 5.261*

Volunteering 45.5 33.3 .544Partnership with governments 22.7 13.3 .513Partnership with NGOs 54.5 13.3 6.440*

Partnership with universities 27.3 13.3 1.023Sponsorship 59.1 13.3 7.7474**

Donation 81.8 46.7 5.029*

Award 13.6 6.7 .449

Where? Global CSR 40.9 26.7 .794

* p < .05.** p < .01.

partnership with the government in practicing CSR (!2 = 3.664, d.f. = 1, p = .056). Next, compared to Chinese companies, globalcompanies are more likely to frame CSR as a global practice (!2 = 5.502, d.f. = 1, p = .019). However, most Chinese and globalcompanies that mention global CSR define global CSR as participating in philanthropy on a global scale, such as disaster reliefdonation to Tsunami in Southeast Asia or Katrina disaster in the United States.

3.3. RQ3: Companies targeting consumers and companies targeting businesses

To answer RQ3, we collapsed Chinese companies of different industries into two categories: those primarily targetingconsumers (such as producers of consumer products and banks) and those primarily targeting business-clients (such ascompanies in energy, raw materials, and shipping) and conducted chi-square tests to compare their CSR communication.Results of chi-square tests indicated that there are significant differences between these two types of companies in their CSRcommunication (see Table 3).

First, in terms of the themes of CSR, companies targeting consumers are more likely to present their CSR as philan-thropic efforts, such as financial aid to primary and secondary education (!2 = 5.639, d.f. = 1, p = .018), higher education(!2 = 3.776, d.f. = 1, p = .052), and other types of education (!2 = 8.971, d.f. = 1, p = .003), and contribution to sports (!2 = 5.261,d.f. = 1, p = .022), arts and culture (!2 = 5.261, d.f. = 1, p = .022), disaster relief (!2 = 6.844, d.f. = 1, p = .009), health and disability(!2 = 3.776, d.f. = 1, p = .052). In terms of how they practice CSR, companies targeting consumers are significantly more likelyto practice CSR through establishing foundation (!2 = 5.261, d.f. = 1, p = .022), building partnership with NGOs (!2 = 6.440,d.f. = 1, p = .011), sponsorship (!2 = 7.747, d.f. = 1, p = .005), and donation (!2 = 5.029, d.f. = 1, p = .025).

208 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

On the other hands, companies that target business-clients are much more likely to base their CSR engagement on legalrationalities (!2 = 7.619, d.f. = 1, p = .006) and ethical rationalities (!2 = 5.553, d.f. = 1, p = .018). These companies emphasize thatthey operate according to the requirements of laws (such as China Environment Law), regulations, and industry compacts(such as ISO9000 compact). Second, they go beyond legal requirements to set higher standards in terms of their businessconducts. They are more likely to emphasize employee health and safety as a major component of CSR (!2 = 5.639, d.f. = 1,p = .018) and more likely to reinforce their CSR philosophy through formal company policies (!2= 6.440, d.f. = 1, p = .011).

4. Discussion

Corporate social responsibility is a global issue, yet it is always closely related to the social and cultural contexts inwhich corporations operate (Stohl, Stohl, & Townsley, 2007). This study examines the CSR communication of Chinese andglobal companies in China and finds both convergence and divergence between Chinese and global corporations in their CSRprinciples and practices.

4.1. Major approaches to CSR

Content analysis of how companies communicate CSR on their websites identifies three distinctive approaches to CSR: CSRas ad hoc philanthropy, CSR as strategic philanthropy, and CSR as ethical business conduct. CSR as ad hoc philanthropy is basedon discretionary rationality, i.e. corporations need to contribute to the welfare of society. In the Chinese context, companiesengage in ad hoc public philanthropy emphasize themes such as education, sports, art and cultural events, development,poverty reduction, disaster relief, and health. They contribute to these causes mainly through donation, sponsorship andvolunteering. Companies practicing CSR as ad hoc philanthropy often acknowledge their responsibilities to society in general.However, their contributions to CSR through donation and sponsorship are often irregular, event-based, and thus lack astrategic goal and a long-term agenda.

Even though CSR as strategic philanthropy is similar to CSR as ad hoc philanthropy in that it also focuses on communityinvolvement, it has some distinct characteristics. First, the themes of CSR as strategic philanthropy are often related tothe core operations and competences of companies. For instance, an energy company contributes to academic research onenergy development and environment conservation as part of its long-term CSR strategies. Such strategic CSR investmentsmove beyond purely charitable donations and contribute to a long-term sustainable development of the company. Second,companies engage in strategic philanthropy through long-term practices such as establishing partnership with governments,NGOs and universities, or establishing awards or grants on an on-going basis to encourage societal participation in causesimportant to them. For instance, an automaker establishes an annual environmental award that gives financial rewards andsupports to research projects and proposals on environmental conservation from the public.

CSR as ethical business practice is based on economic, legal and ethical rationalities. It refers to ethical business operations,fair treatment of employees, and ethical relationship with suppliers and shareholders. In terms of business operation, manycompanies discuss the importance of transparent business practice, auditing, and the practice of chengxin (honesty andtrustworthiness). Companies also identify fair treatment of their employees, which included attention to employees’ healthand safety in production, fair wages, opportunities of career development through trainings, and equal opportunities providedto all employees against discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, gender, and age in recruitment and promotion. CSR as ethicalbusiness practices is often formalized through company policies.

4.2. Comparing Chinese and global companies

Global companies are much more likely to discuss CSR on their corporate websites than Chinese companies. However,when comparing the representation of CSR on their websites, we see a clear trend towards convergence in the CSR commu-nication of Chinese and global companies. There is no significant difference between Chinese and global companies in termsof the rationalities of their CSR practice, their participation in public philanthropy, their emphasis on employee relations,and their discussion of CSR in terms of suppliers and shareholders.

Many global companies go local by presenting CSR practices geared towards the Chinese context, emphasizing theirdonation to the “Hope Project” and other distinctively Chinese CSR themes. Chinese corporations, on the other hand, havestarted to globalize their practices. As some companies have established overseas branches and are listed in stock markets inHong Kong and New York, they are obliged to follow Western practices and standards. Indeed, a few companies, such as ChinaTelecom and China Mobile, have started the annual CSR reporting following the guidelines set up by the Global Reportinginitiative. Interestingly, China Mobile’s 2006 CSR report only has a traditional Chinese version and an English version, butnot a simplified Chinese version, which probably implies that its CSR reporting (or CSR practice in general) only caters toinvestors and other stakeholders outside of Mainland China, and that it is not compiled with Mainland Chinese audiencesand stakeholders in mind.

In terms of the “what” of CSR communication, the only significant difference between global and Chinese company isthat the former is more likely to discuss product safety as part of their CSR practices. In terms of the “how” of CSR communi-cation, global companies are more likely to report building partnerships with government. Global companies reported theirpartnerships with the government as a sign of their increasing legitimacy and prestige in Chinese society. On the other hand,

L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212 209

such legitimacy is not a major concern for Chinese companies, which often frame their relationship with the governmentin terms of their observance of governmental policies and regulations. Furthermore, global companies are more likely toinstitutionalize their CSR commitment through formal company policies. This shows that global companies are more likelyto include CSR as an inherent part of their business practices instead of some extra charity that they engage in on the side.

Not surprisingly, global companies are more likely to report CSR as a global practice than Chinese companies. This canpartly be attributed to the fact that Chinese companies have just started to establish their overseas operations and havevery limited experience in global CSR. In the several instances in which Chinese companies do engage in global CSR, they dothat through donations to other countries, such as their donations to the Tsunami relief in Indonesia. However, as Chinesecompanies expand outside China, they will gradually recognize their social responsibilities to local communities in othercountries. For instance, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), the third largest national oil company in China,devotes a significant part of their CSR website to the presentation of their CSR initiatives and activities outside China,calling this “responsibility without boundary.” In Asian countries such as Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and Myanmar, CNOOC hasbeen trying to become a good corporate citizen of local communities by respecting local cultures, hiring and training localemployees, engaging in local disaster relief, preserving the environment, and promoting public health.

4.3. Industry and CSR communication

Compared to the national and cultural origin of companies, industry is a more significant predictor of companies’ CSRcommunication. Companies targeting consumers are more likely to define CSR as ad hoc or strategic philanthropy, whilecompanies targeting businesses are more likely to present CSR as ethical business conducts. Companies targeting consumersneed to sell their products to consumers and as a result, they consider a positive public image very important to their businesssuccess. Thus, they are more likely to engage in public philanthropy, which brings them more visibility. It is not surprising ifsuch acts of public philanthropy are considered PR efforts to demonstrate companies’ goodwill to the general public, withthe objective of winning potential consumers. On the other hand, companies targeting business-clients do not consider thegeneral public as an important stakeholder, and as a result, constructing a positive public image is of low priority to them.Instead, their commitment to CSR is more likely to be bound by legal requirements or economic concerns. An alternativeexplanation of this difference is that since most of those Chinese companies targeting at business-clients are also state-ownedenterprises, and since the assets of state-owned companies belong to the central government, they do not have the right tomake any donations as they want, and when they contribute to these social causes, they are acting as the representatives ofthe government (2007 CSR Report on State-Owned Companies in China, 2007).

5. Conclusions and direction for future research

Researchers lament that, just as most other important topics in business communication studies, academic study of CSRis marked by a western focus and a western bias (Whelan, 2007). This comment is only partly true. On one hand, scholarshave started to examine how CSR is practiced in different social and cultural contexts (e.g. Sriramesh, Ng, Soh, & Luo, 2007;Whelan, 2007). Indeed, there is a recent surge of scholarly works examining CSR in different parts of the world, such as China(e.g. Phoon-Lee, 2006), Southeast Asia (e.g. Kraisornsuthasinee & Swierczek, 2006; Sriramesh et al., 2007; Whelan, 2007;Zulkifi & Amran, 2006), Latin America (e.g. Newell & Muro, 2006; Weyzig, 2006), the Scandinavian countries (e.g. Morsing,Midttun, & Palmas, 2007), and Africa (e.g. Amaeshi, Adi, Obgechie, & Amao, 2006; Phillips, 2006). On the other hand, despitethe acknowledgement of diversity in CSR practices and an attempt to address CSR practices in different countries, mostof these studies are stilled based on a western paradigm. A truly global perspective calls for an examination of the tensionbetween the global and the local in the conceptualization, discourse, and practice of CSR, as Stohl, Stohl, and Popova (2007)point out, “a global CSR is responsive to the multiple cultures, value sets, and communicative practices of different nationswhile recognizing that (inter)organizational contexts are no longer bounded by the nation-state” (p. 34). At the same time,a global perspective of CSR also implies a self-reflection on the existing western-centric view of citizenship and corporatesocial responsibility (Godfrey & Hatch, 2007; Stohl, Stohl, & Townsley, 2007). This paper represent an initial attempt tosystematically understand how CSR is defined and conceptualized in China by both Chinese and global companies. Specialattention is paid to understand the tension between the global and local forces and the interaction of Chinese society andthe larger global context in CSR definitions and practices.

Existing CSR research is characterized by an “ideological divide” between an economic approach and an ethical approach(Driver, 2006; Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, 2007; Matten, Crane, & Chapple, 2003, p. 111). The economic approach emphasizescorporations’ mission of making profits and attributes companies’ engagement in CSR to economic rationales (Duhé, 2009).Studies taking this approach examined the relationship between CSR engagement and financial outcomes (e.g. Margolis &Walsh, 2001; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). The ethical approach, on the other hand, emphasizescorporations’ responsibility towards society. This study shows that such a distinction is not useful in our understanding ofCSR as companies often have multiple goals and practices for their CSR initiatives. Instead, it is more useful to examine theself-representation of CSR constructed by companies that allow overlaps between these two perspectives.

Presented here is the result of a study of CSR communication in China through an examination of the websites of leadingChinese and global companies operating in China. Analysis of companies’ representation of the rationality, themes, and

210 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

practices of CSR identifies three major approaches to CSR: CSR as ad hoc philanthropy, CSR as strategic philanthropy, andCSR as ethical business practices. Furthermore, it is found Chinese companies and global companies show a clear trendtoward convergence. Chinese companies have gradually adopted the Western model of corporate social responsibility andWestern companies have also begun to adopt unique Chinese concepts to describe their CSR principles and practices in China.Furthermore, Chinese companies in the energy industry (oil, gas, coal, and power), the raw material industry (iron and steel)and the shipping industry that do not have to deal with individual consumers directly, are more likely to adopt an approach toCSR as ethical business practice. They are more likely to attribute their commitment to CSR to ethical and legal rationalities.Both Chinese and global companies targeting consumers tend to adopt either an ad hoc or strategic philanthropy approachto CSR. Among them, global companies are more likely to emphasize product safety as part of their CSR and are more likelyto practice CSR through company policies and partnerships with government. They are also more likely to frame CSR as aglobal practice.

Existing studies on CSR in China have focused on how government and NGOs affect how companies define and practiceCSR, without paying much attention to consumers as an important stakeholder (e.g. Wu, 2007). This study found that whethera company is dealing with consumers directly is an important determinant of its CSR communication.

This study only represents an initial attempt to understand CSR in China in the context of globalization. There are manytopics that require further investigation. Whelan (2007) points out that the CSR practices in Asia should be understoodthrough the lens of Confucianism, which centers social relations on bonds of family and friendship and respect for seniors.Future research need to focus on the unique Chinese aspects of CSR principles and practices in China. Indeed, global andChinese companies have begun to stress concepts such as “Chengxin” (honesty, integrity and trustworthiness) in their CSR.Such concepts stress moral values rather than professionalism that is often associated with Western CSR. Many Chinesecorporation websites have also stressed “compliance” (fu cong) of employees as ethical values. It is thus important to examinethe Chineseness of CSR in China.

We analyze how large Chinese corporations and major global corporations communicate their CSR principles and practicesin China. Such self-presentations are only images these major companies try to project. There is always the possibility ofgreenwashing (Ongkrutraksa, 2007). Future study is needed to understand the actual practices, examining the extent towhich different types of corporations devote their resources to socially responsible causes.

Next, this study only examine the CSR communication of leading Chinese and global companies operating. Most of thesecompanies are trading in stock markets outside of China. These companies are, in a sense, no longer real or typical “Chinese”companies, as their operations are largely global. As most of the existing studies of CSR, this study examines CSR as relatedto large corporations only (Andriof & McIntocsh, 2001). The label CSR itself signifies a marginalization of small to mediumenterprises (SMEs), which makes up a large proportion of the economy. Studying the social responsibility and reporting ofSMEs in China is of special importance, as Chinese SMEs have been associated with many socially irresponsible behaviors.

Finally, this study only examine the encoding process in CSR communication from the perspective of companies, andfuture research is needed to understand how CSR practices are understood and interpreted by different stakeholders inChina. Existing research shows that the public makes complex attributions to CSR initiatives (e.g. Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006;O’Connor & Meister, 2008) and is often skeptical of companies’ CSR discourses and practices, considering them mere PRefforts instead of sincere commitment to the well-being of society. Furthermore, consumers in different parts of the worldhave their own distinctive ways to respond to CSR communication (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008). It will be importantto analyze how the Chinese public responds to this largely western discourse of corporate social responsibility.

References

2007 CSR Report on State-Owned Companies in China. (2007). Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://news.163.com/07/1220/08/40551K1200011SM9.htmlAmaeshi, K. M., Adi, B. C., Obgechie, C., & Amao, O. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, 83–99.Andriof, J., & McIntocsh, M. (2001). Introduction. In J. Andriof, & M. McIntocsh (Eds.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.Barboza, D. (2008). In Chinese factories, lost fingers and low pay. Retrieved Jan 25, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/

05sweatshop.html? r=1&oref=sloginBasil, D. Z., & Basil, D. Z. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility website representations: A longitudinal study of internal and external self-presentations.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 125–137.Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the developing world. International

Affairs, 81(3), 499–513.Burton, B. K., Farh, J.-L., & Hegarty, W. H. (2000). A cross-cultural comparison of corporate social responsibility orientation: Hong Kong vs. United States

Students. Teaching Business Ethics, 4(2), 151–167.Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate

websites. Public Relations Review, 33, 84–91.Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 495–505.Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Chan, A. (2001). China’s workers under assault: The exploitation of labor in a globalizing economy.Chan, A. (2003, March). A “race to the bottom:” Globalization and China’s labor standards. China Perspectives, 46, 41–49.Chan, A. (2005, February). China says “no” to developed countries’ corporate social responsibility. Asian Analysis.Chan, A., & Ross, R. J. S. (2003). Racing to the bottom: International trade without a social clause. Third World Quarterly, 24(6), 1011–1028.Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR web site reporting. Business and Society, 44(4),

415–441.Chaudhi, V. A., & Wang, J. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility on the Internet. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 232–247.China’s Overseas Environmental Problems Cause Domestic Concern. (2008). Retrieved October 2, 2008, from http://www.chinastakes.com/story.aspx?id=147

L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212 211

Chinese Media Ranks the Performances of Foreign-Owned Companies. (2006). Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://chinascope.org/main/content/view/337/26/1/0/

Chun, R., & Davies, G. (2001). E-reputation: The role of mission and vision statements in positioning strategy. Brand Management, 8(4–5), 315–333.Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Cottrill, H. (1990). Corporate social responsibility and the marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(9), 723–729.CSR in China 2007 Review. (2007). Shenzhen, China: Corporate Social Responsibility Alliance.Dawkins, C., & Ngunjiri, F. W. (2008). Corporate social responsibility reporting in South Africa. Journal of Business Communication, 45(3), 286–307.Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 108–119.Doh, J. (2003). Nongovernmental organizations corporate strategy and public policy: NGOs as agents of change. In J. Doh, & H. Teegen (Eds.), Globalization

and NGOs: Transforming business, government, and society (pp. 1–18). Westport, CT: Praeger.Doh, J., & Duay, T. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder

perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 47–73.Driver, M. (2006). Beyond the Stalemate of economics versus ethics: Corporate social responsibility and the discourse of the organizational self. Journal of

Business Ethics, 66, 337–356.Duhé, S. C. (2009). Good management, sound finances, and social responsibility: Two decades of U.S. corporate insider perspectives on reputation and the

bottom line. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 77–78.Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsibility programs. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–159.Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24(3),

305–315.Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000). Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327–344.Fergus, A. H. T., & Rowney, J. I. A. (2005). Sustainable development: Lost meaning and opportunity? Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 17–27.Frederick, W. C. (2006). Corporation be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. Indianapolis, IN: Dogear Publishing.Fukukawa, K., & Moon, J. (2004). A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility: A study of website reporting. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 16,

45–59.Gerson, B. (2007, May–June). CSR best practices: Companies that want to improve their corporate social responsibility programs in China may learn from

the experiences of others. China Business Review, 20–25.Godfrey, P. C., & Hatch, N. W. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility: An agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 87–98.Golob, U., & Bartlett, J. L. (2007). Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia.

Public Relations Review, 33, 1–9.Gray, S. J. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosures. Accounting, Auditing

& Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391–430.Hartman, L. P., Rubin, R. S., & Dhanda, K. K. (2007). The communication of corporate social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational

corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 373–389.Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Howell, J. (1998). An unholy trinity? Civil society, economic liberalization and democratization in post-Mao China. Government and Opposition, 33(1), 56–80.Hu, J. (2007). Report to the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China.Kahn, J., & Yardley, J. (2007). Chocking on Growth: Part I: As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes. The New York Times.Kovacs, R. (2006). Interdisciplinary bar for the public interest: What CSR and NGO frameworks contribute to the public relations of British and European

activists. Public Relations Review, 32, 429–431.Kraisornsuthasinee, S., & Swierczek, F. W. (2006). Interpretations of CSR in Thai Companies. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 53–64.Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Lammers, J. C. (2003). An institutional perspective on communicating corporate responsibility. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4), 618–624.Li, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Definition, scope, and characteristics. Current Philosophy, 4, 41–46.Li, Z. (2005). Lack of corporate social responsibility behind recent China accidents. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3859Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human

Communication Research, 28(4), 587–609.Lu, Y. (2007). The autonomy of Chinese NGOs: A new perspective. China: An International Journal, 5(2), 173–203.Lu, X. (2009). A Chinese perspective: Business ethics in China now and in the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 451–461.Ma, Q. (2002). The Governance of NGOs in China Since 1978: How Much Autonomy. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 305–328.Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International

Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits: The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahweh, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1–2), 109–120.Mattern, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.May, S., & Zorn, T. (2003). Forum introduction. Management communication quarterly, 16, 595–598.Maynard, M., & Tian, Y. (2004). Between global and glocal: Content analysis of the Chinese web sites of the 100 global brands. Public Relations Review, 30,

285–291.McGregor, R. (2004, November 23). Wal-Mart Gives in to China’s Union Federation. The Financial Times.McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management

Journal, 21(5), 603–609.Mele, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate

social responsibility (pp. 46–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, 12(2), 237–256.Morsing, M., Midttun, A., & Palmas, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Scandinavia: A turn toward the business case? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J.

Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 87–104). New York: Oxford University Press.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.Newell, P., & Muro, A. (2006). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Argentina. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, 49–68.O’Connor, A., & Meister, M. (2008). Corporate social responsibility attribute rankings. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 49–50.O’Connor, A., Shumate, M. D., & Meister, M. (2008). Walking the line: External stakeholders define corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review,

34, 343–350.Ongkrutraksa, W. Y. (2007). Green marketing and advertising. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp.

365–378). New York: Oxford University Press.Phillips, F. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in an African context. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, 23–37.

212 L. Tang, H. Li / Public Relations Review 35 (2009) 199–212

Phoon-Lee, C. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and ‘putting people first’ from a Chinese cultural perspective. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22,22–25.

Podnar, K. (2008). Communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 75–81.Poitevin, M. (1990). Strategic financial signaling. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 4, 499–518.Pollach, I. (2003). Communicating corporate ethics on the World Wide Web: A discourse analysis of selected company websites. Business and Society, 42.,

277–287.Reuters (2007). Green GDP gets black mark from China stats office. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/

idUSPEK17562920070323Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 413–431). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Schwarze, S. (2003). Corporate-state irresponsibility, critical publicity, and asbestos exposure in Libby, Montana. Management Communication Quarterly, 16,

625–632.Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing

Research, 38(2), 225–243.Sriramesh, K., Ng, C. W., Soh, T. T., & Luo, W. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and public relations: Perceptions and practices in Singapore. In S. May,

G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 119–134). New York: Oxford University Press.Stohl, C. (2001). Globalizing organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances

in theory, research, and methods (pp. 323–378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Popova, L. (2007). A new generation of global corporate codes of ethics? Paper presented at the Annual conference of International

Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.Stohl, M., Stohl, C., & Townsley, N. (2007). A new generation of global corporate social responsibility. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over

corporate social responsibility (pp. 30–44). New York: Oxford University Press.Sturdivant, F. D., & Ginter, J. L. (1977). Corporate social responsiveness: Management attitudes and economic performance. California Management Review,

19(3), 30–39.Sullivan, J. (1999). What are the functions of corporate home pages? Journal of World Business, 34(2), 193–210.Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder

theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 113–124.Tammey, J. B., & Chiang, L. H.-L. (2002). Modernization, globalization, and confucianism. Westport, CT: Praeger.Thorborg, M. (2006). Chinese workers and labor conditions from state industry to globalized factories: How to stop the race to the bottom. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 1076, 893–910.Van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005). Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of

Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 123–151.Wanderley, L. S. O., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & Sousa Filho, J. M. (2008). CSR information disclosure on the web: A context-based approach analysing the

influence of origin and industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 369–378.WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Weyzig, F. (2006). Local and global dimensions of corporate social responsibility in Mexico. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, 69–81.Whelan, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Asia: A confucian context. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social

responsibility (pp. 105–118). New York: Oxford University Press.Wigley, S. (2008). Gauging consumers’ responses to CSR activities: Does increased awareness make cents? Public Relations Review, 34, 306–308.Winston, M. (2003). NGO strategies for promoting corporate social responsibility. Ethics & International Affairs, 16(1), 71–87.Wu, X. (2007). Stakeholder identifying and positioning (SIP) models: From Google’s operation in China to a general case-analysis framework. Public Relations

Review, 33, 415–425.Xiao, W. (2005). SA8000-social responsibility of the enterprises and the moral restrains. Morality and civilization, 5, 38–42.Yan, Y. (2002). Managed globalization: State power and cultural transition in China. In P. L. Beger, & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Many globalizations: Cultural

diversity in the contemporary world (pp. 19–47). New York: Oxford University Press.Yang, L. (2007). A sociological perspective to corporate social responsibility. Science and Technology for Development, 38(3), 83–89.Young, N. (2002). Three “C”s: Civil society, corporate social responsibility, and China. The China Business Review, 29(1), 34–38.Yu, X. (2008). Impacts of corporate code of conduct on labor standards: A case study of Reebok’s athletic footwear supplier factory in China. Journal of

Business Ethics, 81(3), 513–529.Zhang, W. (2007). A correct interpretation of profit and corporate social responsibility. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/

fortune/2007-08/24/content 6598171.htmZhang, X. (2006). The enlightenment of SA 8000 on the teaching of political and moral education. Journal of Yangling Vocational & Technical College, 5(2),

78–80.Zulkifi, N., & Amran, A. (2006). Realising corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 24, 101–114.