1

Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders – the role of strategic ambiguity in

CSR communication

ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to explore how the concept of strategic ambiguity could have a role in

CSR communication to stimulate collaboration with diverse stakeholders. The research is

undertaken through a multiple case study in the food and drink value chain in Western

Europe.

The findings suggest a number of drivers for strategic ambiguity and connect these to

active versus passive stakeholder response. Further it advises how strategic ambiguity may

be applied in CSR communication both across the wider stakeholder community and to

specific stakeholder groups. In theoretical terms, the findings offer an essential advance in

communication and stakeholder management practices around CSR philosophies by

introducing strategic ambiguity in the format of branding, which could unify diverse

stakeholders, stimulate innovation and facilitate collaboration and co-creation. The presented

communication framework, by being more universal, offers profitability in not only

environmental and social aspects, but also in financial and management terms.

Key words: Strategic ambiguity; CSR communication; Sustainability; Stakeholder

management; Sustainability program brand

JBR-D-15-00333

1. Introduction

Over the past decades the business literature has widely addressed sustainability, which

Crane and Matten define as (2010, p. 34): “… the long-term maintenance of systems

according to environmental, economic and social considerations.” Sustainability calls for a

value chain approach, whereby firms need to take wider responsibility and collaborate with a

range of stakeholders to ensure that unsustainable practices are addressed (Vurro et al., 2009;

Savage et al., 2010; Sakarya et al., 2012; Crane et al., 2014). The United Nations

Environmental Programme (UNEP) also emphasizes this value chain approach

(www.unep.org): “The organization must 'go beyond its facility boundaries' and be willing to

expand its scope of collaboration and communication to all stakeholders in its value chain.”

While the UNEP quote mentions collaboration and communication as separate

prerequisites for sustainable development, a view may be taken of these two concepts as

interlinked, as communication forms the foundation for collaboration (Andriof and Waddock,

2002; Gregory, 2007; Du et al., 2010).

So while communication is an essential building block to facilitate collaboration on

sustainability initiatives, a substantial part of the extant Sustainability/CSR1 communication

literature takes a limited approach and primarily focuses on consumers as the target audience

with the purpose of creating trust and brand loyalty (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Brunk,

2010; Öberseder et al., 2013; Blombäck and Scandelius, 2013; Golob et al., 2013), so as to

safeguard competitiveness in the marketplace (Dowling, 2004; Gurau, 2013). This notion on

CSR communication doesn’t require much of an active response from stakeholders, other

than purchasing the products or services on offer, or refraining from criticizing the

corporation.

1 In line with a number of prominent scholars (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Moon, 2007; Sotorrio et al., 2008; Perez-Batres et al., 2010; Lourenco et al., 2012) we make the assumption that the concepts of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and sustainability, while not identical, can be used interchangeably.

2

JBR-D-15-00333

Such narrow stakeholder focus, aiming primarily for a passive response, results in an

increasing criticism of the marketing domain as considering the interests of primarily the

customer without major concerns on how other stakeholders are faring (Maignan et al.,

2005). As a response, a more contemporary view of marketing is emerging through the

service-dominant marketing logic, whereby value should be co-created with customers and

other stakeholders, with an outcome benefitting not only the firm but also the network of co-

creators (Vargo and Lusch, 2004 and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). It should here be

clarified that co-creation can be viewed as collaboration with higher involvement and

creativity, leading to shared value (Ind et al., 2013).

Inspired by the ideas of co-creation as opposed to passive stakeholders response, Roos

and Gustafsson (2011) empirically find that active customers are more likely to remain loyal

to the organization compared to passive customers, leading to more positive outcomes also

from the participants’ perspective (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009). Merz et al. (2009)

emphasize that in order to optimize value-creation, communication should move away from a

dyadic customer focus to address the entire stakeholder community. These thoughts seem to

fit particularly well in a CSR context, where active collaboration and co-creation with a range

of stakeholder groups is essential (Crane et al., 2014; Vurro et al., 2009; Savage et al., 2010;

Sakarya et al., 2012).

Collaboration and co-creation with a multitude of stakeholders poses, however, some

challenges. Stakeholders with whom the firm seeks collaboration on CSR initiatives might

possess different and even competing values, motives and views on the most optimal route

towards more sustainable practices (Ingenbleek et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2007; Kim et al.,

2013). In addition, even within a specific stakeholder group there could be diversity (Neville

and Menguc, 2006; Gyrd-Jones and Kornum, 2013; Waligo et al., 2014).

3

JBR-D-15-00333

The potential tension or skepticism stemming from these challenges could become

dysfunctional, if not managed properly, which may delay actions towards more sustainable

business practices. In order to reap the benefits of a CSR strategy, for not only the firm, but

also its stakeholders and the wider society, it is therefore vital to find an effective

communication strategy that helps to harness possible tension between stakeholders to create

interest and collaboration instead of conflict (Du et al., 2010; Corus and Ozanne, 2012). On

this note, one could argue that the CSR communication strategy should ideally not only be

effective, resulting in a positive societal outcome, but should additionally be efficient in the

use of the firm’s resources (Perez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2012).

The academic literature strand on strategic ambiguity offers some interesting notions on

how to deal with stakeholder diversity. Davenport and Leitch define strategic ambiguity as

(2005, p. 1604): “…the deliberate use of ambiguity in strategic communication in order to

create a ‘space’ in which multiple interpretations by stakeholders are enabled and to which

multiple stakeholder responses are possible.”

Dickinson-Delaporte et al. (2010) give a practical example of strategic ambiguity

applied in the marketing of a Trappist beer, i.e. beer brewed by monks for funding social

programs. They find that there is significant tension between key stakeholders. The monks

for example emphasize the importance of tradition and are furthermore concerned that their

religious values are exploited by aggressive marketing. Marketing on the other hand faces a

competitive market with changing consumer behavior and strive to build a differentiated

brand image based on trust. The solution to this challenge is to apply the ambiguous keyword

of ‘authenticity’ in positioning the beer, which appeals not only to the monks’ interest in the

religious morals, but also to the marketers’ aim of building a trustworthy brand that is

differentiated from regular beer brands and attracts those consumers who want to drink

genuine and high quality beers that are not seen as purely commercially driven. Thus, with

4

JBR-D-15-00333

the ambiguous keyword of ‘authenticity’, each of the stakeholders could identify an

appealing interpretation and find common ground. In contrast, other beer brands use more

concrete messages, for example ‘Australian for beer’ by Fosters clearly highlights its origin,

or ‘Probably the best beer in the world’ by Carlsberg positions the Carlsberg brand as

premium.

Extant research suggests that the use of strategic ambiguity allows flexibility in

interpretations, which can aid in (1) overcoming differences between diverse stakeholders;

(2) facilitating organizational change; (3) preserving privileged positions; (4) maintaining the

possibility of later denying certain interpretations of a message (Eisenberg, 1984); and (5) for

an organization to buy itself time while undergoing a change of internal procedures or

strategies while still being able to communicate the changing goals to external stakeholders

(Leitch and Davenport, 2002).

Eisenberg’s work (1984) is conceptual and largely suggests passive outcomes from

strategic ambiguity (overcoming differences, preserve privileged positions, etc. as mentioned

above). His theories have empirical verification, however this has hitherto primarily focused

on reaching the co-existence of different perspectives aiming at achieving passive

endorsement from a few stakeholders, predominantly customers (Dickinson-Delaporte et al.,

2010; Leitch and Davenport, 2007), or seeking engagement from internal stakeholders to

create value for the organization itself (Leitch and Davenport, 2002), or from a power

relationship standpoint exploring the outcomes and risks of deploying strategic ambiguity in a

public funding context (Davenport and Leitch, 2005). These ideas raise the question of

whether the deployment of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication can have a positive

effect to achieve not only passive stakeholder endorsement, but also active engagement from

diverse stakeholders.

5

JBR-D-15-00333

The occurrence of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication is indeed confirmed

through content analyses (Frischherz, 2010; Guthey and Morsing, 2014), but with limited

insights into why and how strategic ambiguity is applied.

Following these notions, this study aims at exploring how the application of strategic

ambiguity in CSR communication could assist in creating not only stakeholder endorsement

(passive response) but also importantly collaboration/co-creation (active response) with a

multitude of stakeholders. The specific research objectives are to explore:

(1) the antecedents and consequences of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication,

including both passive and active stakeholder response;

(2) the format(s) of strategic ambiguity applied in CSR communication in order to create

passive and active response from stakeholders.

The findings suggest that strategic ambiguity has the potential in facilitating CSR

communication leading to both passive and active responses from stakeholders. Importantly

one emerging discovery is that strategic ambiguity in the format of sustainability program

brands can serve as a particularly effective and efficient CSR communication strategy.

‘Performance with Purpose’ by PepsiCo is one example of such a sustainability program that

has been branded with an ambiguous message to allow multiple interpretations to co-exist

and therefore facilitating collaboration with diverse stakeholders.

As such, this research has impacts on not only the strategic ambiguity literature, but

also contributes to the literature strands of CSR communication, stakeholder management and

the new service-dominant marketing logic. It should be noted that the application of strategic

ambiguity must not have the intention to misguide, but rather to allow multiple interpretations

to avoid conflict and stimulate collaboration.

The next section provides an overview of the current knowledge of strategic ambiguity,

forming the foundation for this research. This is followed by a discussion on the research

6

JBR-D-15-00333

methodology applied, the findings and finally concludes with a discussion of the implications

of the findings for theory and practice.

2. Theoretical background to strategic ambiguity

2.1 Introduction to strategic ambiguity

Eisenberg first brought the concept of strategic ambiguity into the organizational

communication literature in his seminal article (1984), where he defines strategic ambiguity

as (1984, p. 230): “those instances where individuals use ambiguity purposefully to

accomplish their goals.”

Eisenberg argues that while clarity is an important aspect of communication, it might be more

pragmatic to avoid being too specific in contexts where multiple contradicting goals exist.

There are some limited notions on the application of strategic ambiguity in the context

of CSR communication, for example, the conceptual paper by Wexler (2009) suggesting that

the concept of TBL reporting (triple bottom line, that is, reporting on economic, social and

environmental performance) allows for multiple interpretations and as such stimulates

consensus in a diverse stakeholder context. Furthermore the recent paper by Guthey and

Morsing (2014) concludes, based on a content analysis of the Danish press, that as the CSR

concept in itself is ambiguous and because of the often conflicting expectations from

stakeholders, CSR communication benefits from strategic ambiguity to allow for sense-

making among a diverse audience. Another study (Frischherz, 2010) based on 56 texts

accessed from websites from a variety of organizations, reveals a significant tendency to use

metaphors in sustainability communication, with ‘sustainability as a journey’ and

‘sustainability as war’ being the most frequently used metaphors.

A recent study in the marketing field also raises the benefits of ambiguous wording

(albeit not specifically referring to strategic ambiguity) to resolve issues that require actions

7

JBR-D-15-00333

from a multitude of actors (Ritvala and Salmi, 2011). Their case study, with ecological issues

in the Baltic Sea as the focus, suggests that (Ritvala and Salmi 2011, p. 895):

“… if the issue and its possible solutions were framed in an interesting but loose manner,

firms responded positively, because they could incorporate the issue into their strategies and

control needed resource commitments.”

The extant research on the topic of strategic ambiguity is, however, richer in other

areas, particularly from an organizational theory perspective, which the following section

presents.

2.2 Advantages and pitfalls of strategic ambiguity

The existing research empirically verifies strategic ambiguity as a useful management

tool in a range of non-CSR contexts, in addition Yannopoulou and Elliott (2008) find that

audiences receive ambiguous messages in advertising positively, as they have to engage more

in the communication and therefore the message is more memorable. Strategic ambiguity can

also have a positive contribution in the creation of common ground in social enterprise

marketing on sensitive topics (Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010), in facilitating organizational

change or merger (Leitch and Davenport, 2002; Davenport and Leitch, 2005; Miller et al.,

2000; Contractor and Ehrlich, 1993; Denis et al., 2011), in finding consensus on controversial

topics in policy documents (Tracy and Ashcraft, 2001; Leitch and Davenport, 2007) and to

allow flexibility in crisis communication (Ulmer and Sellnow, 2000).

While the authors above agree on the usefulness of strategic ambiguity, there are

warnings of instances when strategic ambiguity may cause more harm than good. There is

empirical evidence suggesting that lack of clarity could reduce trust in contexts where trust is

important, especially where previously strict control characterizes the management style

(Davenport and Leitch 2005). These observations are noteworthy as they raise the question as

8

JBR-D-15-00333

to how strategic ambiguity sits in an ethical context. In a CSR communication context,

creating trust with stakeholders is vital, especially with the notion of consumer skepticism

following the practice of ‘greenwash’ by some organizations. Therefore, in order to reap the

benefits of strategic ambiguity it is thus imperative that strategic ambiguity is practiced in a

responsible and ethical fashion.

Research on the ethical aspect of strategic ambiguity suggests that ambiguous

communication is unethical if the objective is to create false perception or preferential

treatment for certain stakeholders (Ulmer and Sellnow 2000) or to avoid responsibility (Paul

and Strbiak 1997).

Also Driessen et al. (2013) warn about equivocality as it may reduce the clarity

required for stakeholders to take appropriate actions. Some research further claims that

strategic ambiguity can cause indecision and passivity (Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Denis et

al., 2011; Davenport and Leitch, 2005), or active resistance through unconstructive

interpretations (Davenport and Leitch, 2005), and may create ‘false consensus’ where

stakeholders believe they are in agreement and take actions accordingly that might lead to

delayed tension (Denis et al., 2011) and may also portray the management as incompetent, or

not capable of taking decisions on their own (Leitch and Davenport, 2002).

Despite the many dangers, the majority of the authors in the strategic ambiguity

literature agree on the usefulness of ambiguous communication if applied responsibly. The

literature advises to refrain from using wordings that are negative, inconsistent or

contradictory as this might lead to even more tension. In addition, to make strategic

ambiguity work, it is important to frame the message in accordance with the capability of

each stakeholder group and not least to ensure that the message and the objective of the

communication are fully understood within the organization itself (Leitch and Davenport

2002). The literature also stresses that it is important to frame the ambiguous message

9

JBR-D-15-00333

correctly based on the knowledge and complexity of the stakeholders receiving the message

(Ullmer and Sellnow 2000). Leitch and Davenport (2002) similarly question whether

strategic ambiguity is appropriate for all stakeholder groups.

Leitch and Davenport suggest (2002, p. 137) that in order for strategic ambiguity to be

successful the stakeholders must possess:

- The internal resources and capability to respond

- A strong incentive to engage

- Goodwill and trust towards the organization.

Denis et al. (2011) raise the importance of strong leadership with the support of

sufficient resources (also suggested by Miller et al. 2000) and the avoidance of too long time

horizons.

Being aware of these strengths and weaknesses of strategic ambiguity, the next section

addresses how to apply strategic ambiguity.

2.3 Formats of strategic ambiguity

Denis et al. (2011) identify the following practices of ambiguity:

- Equivocal language: the use of vague words or the complete removal of certain

details regarding sensitive topics in contracts or other official documents in order

to stimulate a greater number of participants to feel comfortable to sign such

documents.

- Inflation: slightly exaggerated promotion of proposals to encourage participation.

Denis et al. suggest that it should be obvious to the participants that the

exaggeration is not fully realistic, but to remain unclear on what aspects will need

to be removed during implementation.

10

JBR-D-15-00333

- Postponement: “leaving controversial issues open in order to maintain

commitment.” (ibid., p. 239)

- Preservation of rights to participate in the future: to encourage settlement on a

particular issue where there are still some aspects that are not agreed, Denis et al.

suggest to give all participants reassurance of equal rights in future decision

making with commitment on revision possibilities at a later date.

- Equivocal commitment: when participants sign a commitment they may add

conditions, thus giving the actors a chance of reciprocal ambiguity.

While the contracts and policy documents form the basis of the suggestions above,

there is further research into other contexts suggesting the use of ambiguous wordings

(equivocal language) in job descriptions (Eisenberg and Witten, 1987; Miller et al., 2000), or

in an organization’s mission statement (Contractor and Ehrlich, 1993), as in a case study from

the public sector in New Zealand where an organization deployed an ‘investment metaphor’

to stimulate a dialogue with its stakeholders (Leitch and Davenport, 2002).

Policy documents may also successfully apply ambiguous keywords, for example with

the purpose of driving the development of the biotechnology industry in New Zealand (Leitch

and Davenport, 2007). The documents frequently use keywords like ‘growth’, ‘co-existence’,

‘community’ and ‘sustainability’ throughout, and with multiple meanings assigned.

The insights discussed above, based primarily on contributions from organizational

theory, provide a useful departure point for further research on the role of strategic ambiguity

in a CSR communication context. The following section outlines the research methodology

applied in order to shed some light into this query.

3. Method

11

JBR-D-15-00333

A qualitative multiple case study appears as an appropriate methodology to explore

how a phenomenon like strategic ambiguity is practiced, as it requires deep insights into the

decision making process (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). The inclusion of more than one case

also allows for different perspectives and could avoid possible shortcomings arising from a

study using a single case and thus increase the robustness of the emerging propositions (Yin,

2009).

As there are limited empirical studies on the concept of strategic ambiguity in a CSR

communication context, an inductive approach is adopted, enabling an on-going interplay

between empirical data, theory building and literature (Van Maanen et al., 2007).

3.1 Research context

This research selects the Western European food and drink industry as the context, as

firstly, this industry sector is in the spotlight for having a significant impact on the

environment and social welfare in those countries that source the raw materials (Pullman et

al., 2009; Lehtinen, 2012). Secondly, there are also reports on power imbalance and tension

between the food/drink manufacturers on the one hand and the retailers on the other hand,

where accusations exist of retailers controlling market access and consumer buying behavior

(Dawar and Stornelli, 2013). Finally, despite this power imbalance and tension, these actors

need to collaborate in order to make progress on the sustainability agenda (Sibbel, 2012). The

context of the food and drink value chain, and in particular the food/drink manufacturers and

retailers, is thus ideal for exploring how the application of strategic ambiguity could harness

this tension and allow the actors to find common ground to facilitate positive change on

sustainability issues.

3.2 Sampling and data collection

12

JBR-D-15-00333

In total a selection of 20 cases is made (see Tables 1 and 2), split between retailers (6

cases); manufacturers, which are here referred to as brand owners (7 cases); and stakeholders

(7 cases). The selection ensures that the cases include a wide range of company sizes both for

retailers and brand owners. Interviews were conducted with three types of stakeholders: trade

organizations, a governmental organization and opinion formers/experts in the area, as

depicted in Table 2. The data collection occurred during the period from June 2011 to April

2012.

Within each case in-depth interviews with one or more senior managers/directors who

would be directly involved in designing their firm’s CSR communication strategy took place,

as is portrayed in Tables 1 and 2 (with interview questions presented in Appendix A). The

sample selection technique applied in this study is convenience sampling, utilizing the

authors’ existing network, combined with snowball sampling. The selection only included

companies with an implemented CSR communication strategy.

Table 1. Case companies: Sampled food/drink brand owners and retailers

INSERT TABLE 1 (note to reviewer: please see tables and figures at the end of the paper)

Table 2. Case companies: Sampled stakeholders

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

In addition to the interviews, other sources of information include one focus group and

the observation of a panel debate, both in case company 6. The focus group consisted of the

public affairs and communication team (10 participants in total, including the head of

stakeholder engagement and corporate responsibility, whom the researcher had previously

interviewed). Case company 6 also invited the researcher to observe a webcast panel debate.

The researcher took the role as a ‘complete observer’, meaning that the observer did not

13

JBR-D-15-00333

participate in the discussions. This event was conducted as part of stakeholder engagement in

order to consult stakeholders on the firm’s newly launched sustainability plan.

3.3 Data analysis

This research views each organization as one individual case, and therefore each

interviewed organization as a unit of analysis (Yin, 2009). The first step in the analysis was to

create case study reports for each sampled company, based on the interview transcripts and

secondary data from the company’s website. After completion of the case analyses, the study

conducted a cross-case synthesis to identify relationships and patterns, and to verify

conclusions (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

3.4 Ensuring good research quality

In order to ensure good research quality, this research follows a structured approach,

conducting semi-structured recorded interviews and subsequent transcriptions. While the

introduction of bias cannot be completely avoided, being aware of this as a weakness and

therefore taking precautionary actions will limit the negative effects of this. Furthermore,

taking into consideration not only a broad range of companies but also a number of other key

stakeholders in the food and drink value chain offers a more solid and broader view of a

subject (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In addition, the study achieved triangulation through

four sources of data (Yin 2009): (1) semi-structured interviews, lasting an average of 1 hour;

(2) one focus group; (3) observation of a stakeholder panel debate; and (4) secondary data

from the case companies’ websites.

4. Findings

14

JBR-D-15-00333

As the term ‘ambiguous’ can have negative associations, the researcher stressed during

interviews that strategic ambiguity was not about using false claims but phrasing words more

generally to allow for multiple understandings. Based on this definition, the interviews reveal

that strategic ambiguity is applied in CSR communication (this is disclosed by 16 out of the

20 case companies). The following sections present how the application of strategic

ambiguity overcomes challenges in CSR communication, highlighting the stakeholder

responses from this communication and the format of strategic ambiguity.

4.1 The role of strategic ambiguity to overcome CSR challenges and the resulting

stakeholder response

During the interviews, the respondents discussed the key challenges of CSR

communication, the role of strategic ambiguity to overcome those challenges and how this

leads to various stakeholder responses, with the results presented in a framework (Figure 1),

supported by explanations and evidence (Table 3). The framework is explained and discussed

in detail below.

Figure 1. Strategic ambiguity as a vehicle to overcome CSR communication challenges

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

Table 3. Explanation and evidence to the framework in figure 1

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

4.1.1 Complexity

The complexity of sustainability emerges as an important challenge in CSR

communication. Sustainability/CSR has many definitions and may be difficult and confusing

to understand, in addition it might not be known how to best achieve a sustainable solution to

15

JBR-D-15-00333

an issue. As an example, the chairman of the packaging and environment group at case

company 2 explains that CSR communication has evolved over time from being purely

technical to becoming much more complex, both in terms of the boundary of responsibility

and the sheer number of issues or factors to communicate. Further the respondent warns that

complexity can cause indecision and passivity with stakeholders, and suggests that

simplification, through for example ambiguous goals, is important to overcome these

drawbacks and to enable efficient and effective communication.

Another example of the complexity of sustainability is the challenge of accurately

assessing the sustainability of a process and/or product. As firms have progressed from taking

a fairly technical approach (focusing primarily on their own activities with relatively easily

measurable issues), to a more holistic strategic approach (considering the broader value chain

and a life cycle perspective of products), the assessment of the impact becomes very

challenging as many of the issues under debate are not easily measurable. This study

therefore suggests that where there are no coherent and widely accepted assessment methods

or where it is not known what a sensible target is, specific communication is not possible and

ambiguous wordings can add value.

As can be seen in Figure 1, and explained in Table 3, strategic ambiguity offers

flexibility and simplification to a complex context, thereby allowing both passive and active

stakeholder responses. Respondents imply that by leaving a message less specific, there is

more room for flexibility in interpretation, which can stimulate stakeholders to take initiatives

to improve sustainability practices, or to be more innovative finding novel solutions –

perhaps in the manufacturing process, transportation of goods, or in product development.

Sometimes the aim from the communicating firm is to encourage the stakeholder (often a

supplier) to take these actions on their own, or in other contexts the firm might seek

collaboration/co-creation from suppliers, industry colleagues, NGOs, etc. to collectively find

16

JBR-D-15-00333

innovative solutions. There are, however, stakeholders who might not have the interest to

collaborate, or the firm might not seek active engagement from those stakeholders and

instead are primarily seeking those stakeholders’ passive endorsement, for example to ensure

that consumers remain loyal to the firm and that the firm is perceived as a good citizen in the

views of stakeholders like the local community, shareholders and NGOs. Strategic ambiguity

may here offer simplification, allowing stakeholders to get a general understanding of the

complex topic, facilitating endorsement.

4.1.2 Stakeholder diversity

A firm is surrounded by a multitude of stakeholders, who might possess conflicting

goals and objectives, for example, consumers seeking good value for money, investors

looking for a good return on investment, the local community expecting employment

opportunities, etc. Strategic ambiguity, allowing flexibility in interpretation by the various

actors, can therefore act as a lubricant to create passive responses (endorsement), as well as

active participation and collaboration with several stakeholder groups. It is, however,

essential to carefully manage the application of strategic ambiguity in this context so as to

avoid creating false consensus. The chairman of case company 6 advises that ambiguous

messages therefore need to be backed up with some specific communication to reduce this

risk.

4.1.3 Stakeholder capability

Varying capabilities of the stakeholders (in terms of possessing experience, knowledge

and resources to make sustainability progress) may also be a challenge that can be addressed

by deploying strategic ambiguity. This seems to primarily relate to suppliers, and in the

context of the firm seeking active response from partners, to drive the sustainability agenda.

17

JBR-D-15-00333

The European affairs manager at case company 18 believes that more companies might take

action when specific objectives are avoided (as seen in Table 3). Thus strategic ambiguity in

the form of loose goals can prevent the exclusion of less capable companies to collaborate/co-

create.

4.1.4 Strategic/long-term

Another motive for using strategic ambiguity is when the communication topic is at a

strategic level, taking a long-term holistic perspective. On this note, the focus group at case

company 6 suggests that while specific communication is preferred at an operational level,

more loosely framed communication is favored at a strategic level, as longer term goals

might require innovation and development of new tools for assessment. The health, safety

and sustainability manager at case company 8 highlights that when a business first starts

implementing a CSR/sustainability agenda, the actions are initially quite operational and

focused on good housekeeping and resource efficiency. However, with the achievement of

the first ‘easy’ targets, a more strategic approach should be taken, which should be long term

and one that adopts a life cycle approach. This involves not just the internal stakeholders, and

consequently communication needs to move from specific objectives to more general visions,

both to stimulate active stakeholder response as well as ensuring endorsement from the wider

stakeholder audience. An organization may, through the application of strategic ambiguity in

their published sustainability strategy, be able to change the principle of their strategy as

greater understanding of a suitable goal develops. The opinion-former at case company 19

emphasizes the importance that strategic ambiguity is founded on a genuine sustainability

agenda that is driven from the top of the company, and to balance ambiguous messages with

specific communication in order to avoid stakeholder skepticism and any perception of the

management as incompetent.

18

JBR-D-15-00333

4.1.5 Relationship trust level

The relationship trust level seems to be primarily applicable in contexts of active

collaboration. The level of trust in the relationship with a stakeholder seems to determine

how to best frame communication, but there are slightly different voices on how the

relationship between trust and ambiguity works. On the one hand, the head of environment at

case company 7 mentions that with a new supplier they would be more specific as, until the

relationship has matured, it is more effective to communicate specific and measurable

objectives. As the relationship progresses the communication becomes more generic, with

aspirational goals to stimulate innovation and co-creation. On the other hand, in contexts

where an organization approaches several (and possibly competing) suppliers simultaneously,

for example in collaborative supplier meetings, ambiguous communication is preferred in

order to avoid exposure of individual stakeholder’s intellectual capital (as suggested in Table

3).

In contrast, the focus group at case company 6 suggests that a higher level of

transparency and specific communication is possible when there is trust in the relationship.

However, when the motive is to stimulate innovation, ambiguous communication is

considered as more effective.

The risk of strategic ambiguity causing stakeholder resistance or portraying the

management as incompetent can be significant and needs to be managed. The opinion-former

at case company 19 suggests, based on her experience with case company 5, that companies

have two options here: either being very specific in communication (which might not be

viable given the discussed CSR communication challenges), or to firstly build trust with

stakeholders before applying strategic ambiguity:

“Instead of getting into the nitty-gritty of the issues, if case company 5 manages to

19

JBR-D-15-00333

sufficiently convince opinion formers and people who know a bit, and the opinion formers

then rely that case company 5 is leading the way, then effectively, they don’t necessarily need

to go into every detail of all the different issues they’re addressing.”

(Case company 19, Opinion-former)

4.1.6 Resource intensity

Finally there is a suggestion that ambiguous communication with wide appeal that can

be applied across various stakeholder groups requires fewer resources and could therefore be

useful not only for smaller organizations that might lack resources to tailor the

communication strategy to different audiences, but also for large organizations so as to ensure

consistency in communication. Strategic ambiguity could here possibly be seen as an

efficient tool to communicate.

This section has presented the findings related to why and how strategic ambiguity can

aid in overcoming CSR communication challenges, thereby fulfilling research objective 1, as

portrayed in Figure 1. The next section highlights the format of how strategic ambiguity can

be applied, as per research objective 2. The format of strategic ambiguity is presented in

Figure 2, illustrating the connection between Figure 1 and 2, whereby Figure 2 is a detailed

component of Figure 1.

.

4.2 Format of strategic ambiguity

The interviews reveal that strategic ambiguity is applied at two tiers, as depicted in

Figure 2, where communication to five stakeholder groups (consumers, shareholders, NGOs,

suppliers, employees) is portrayed.

Figure 2. The format of strategic ambiguity to diverse stakeholders

INSER FIGURE 2 HERE

20

JBR-D-15-00333

4.2.1 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted across stakeholder groups

Firstly, strategic ambiguity is applied in general CSR communication that is

standardized and targeted to the wider stakeholder community. This communication context

faces substantial challenges due to the wide audience, as presented in the previous section.

During the data collection it emerged that strategic ambiguity in the format of a sustainability

program brand is employed to overcome these challenges, allowing a coherent

communication strategy across all stakeholders. The firms have thus developed a specific

brand, which is related to the corporate and product brands but that is still a brand in its own

right and is underpinned by the firm’s CSR strategy. To better illustrate the essence of these

sustainability program brands, while protecting the anonymity of the case companies, some

examples from secondary research of corporate websites are provided. In the UK for

example, the ‘Plan A’ brand of Marks & Spencer is well known. Other examples include

Starbucks ‘Shared Planet’, ‘Performance with Purpose’ by PepsiCo and ‘Brewing a Better

Future’ by Heineken. Each firm has founded these sustainability program brands on its

CSR/sustainability strategy and has used the brand as a communication platform for any

interaction with stakeholders regarding goals, objectives and performance. Taking

‘Performance with purpose’ as an example, PepsiCo describe it as follows:

“Performance with Purpose is our goal to deliver sustained financial performance by:

providing a wide range of foods and beverages, from treats to healthy eats; finding

innovative ways to minimize our impact on the environment and lower our costs through

energy and water conservation, as well as reduced use of packaging material; providing a

safe and inclusive workplace for our employees globally; and respecting, supporting and

investing in the local communities in which we operate.”

(http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Performance-with-Purpose)

21

JBR-D-15-00333

This statement uses a very general language that can be interpreted in multiple ways,

and can thus more easily appeal to various stakeholders. Marks and Spencer for example,

mention how their sustainability program brand ‘Plan A’ is targeted across stakeholder

groups:

“Through Plan A we are working with our suppliers and employees to inspire our customers,

be in touch with the communities we depend on to succeed, innovate to improve things for the

better and act with integrity.”

(http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/about-plan-a)

Measurable objectives under these branded programs tend to be specific, while other

messages are far vaguer, lacking a numerical objective and/or the path to get there. A similar

approach is observed in several of the case companies participating in this research, with a

generic vision of the firm’s environmental and social responsibility, broken down to a

number of objectives or commitments that are a mix of specific and general statements.

The respondents reported that a sustainability program brand is useful as a platform for

all CSR communication to allow consistency:

“And that has been really helpful because it [the sustainability program brand] provides a

banner, a label, you know, a coat-hanger to put all the initiatives on and, you know, it trips

off the tongue neatly, it basically communicates what it’s about […]. So, if one can find a

banner like that I think it’s really helpful. I mean, Marks and Spencer’s Plan A is another

one, it just, everybody knows what it is.”

(Case company 7, Chairman)

4.2.2 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to consumers

22

JBR-D-15-00333

While strategic ambiguity through a sustainability program brand offers possibilities for

standardized CSR communication across stakeholder groups, it is also applicable in a second

tier of more tailored communication for individual stakeholder groups. For example, in order

to appeal to consumers (who make up a very heterogeneous group), an organization may

deploy strategic ambiguity in the format of symbols, storytelling, metaphors and sometimes

in the format of leaving certain information out to allow diverse interpretation. For example

case company 6 engages with consumers in town centers, at music festivals, etc., asking

people to pick up and bring empty bottles and in return they get a T-shirt made of recycled

bottles. The communication to these consumers takes a very symbolic form as the head of

recycling expresses:

“Do you realize that the item I’m giving you is made out of plastic bottle, […], and did you

realize that plastic bottles can be recycled into fabric or into new plastic bottles, that we need

them, that we are short of them?”

(Case company 6, Head of recycling)

In case company 10 one participant suggested that sometimes communication on a

topic has to wait until the consumers are ready for such information, which slightly resembles

what Denis et al. (2011) describe as ‘postponement’. As an example, company 10 wanted to

change from cardboard to plastic crates, as the total life cycle impact would be improved

using the plastic crates, however as the consumers perceive plastics as environmentally

harmful this communication is postponed until the consumer perception changes.

4.2.3 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to shareholders

In general, the respondents feel that shareholders are not interested in detailed

information about the firm’s CSR strategy, other than feeling reassured that there is a strategy

in place. Consequently, most of the communication to this stakeholder group is general and

23

JBR-D-15-00333

focuses on the financial benefits of pursuing a CSR strategy. Case company 1 uses the

keyword ‘value creation’ in their CSR communication, while in the annual report examples

are given how the CSR strategy creates value for shareholders and in other contexts the value

creation takes the meaning of value for society or for the environment.

4.2.4 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to NGOs

Another stakeholder group that is significant for a firm’s CSR strategy is NGOs; these

organizations typically facilitate in respect of gaining a license to operate and in providing

expert feedback on environmental and/or social issues. As this study has already reported in

general terms, measurable topics are presented with specific communication, whereas longer-

term strategy and vision are typically presented through policies and values, which are based

on equivocal language. Case company 9 for example presents their policy on social and

environmental impact using very general terms, such as the reference of ‘being a good

neighbor’:

“Our social and environmental policies are derived from the commitments expressed in our

Values. There are explicit statements in those Values about the community and the

environment, but we also refer to sustainable success, fulfilled customers and employees,

total quality, integrity and pride – all of which have relevance to our impact on society and

the environment. ‘Doing Things Right’ in this context essentially means being a good

neighbor, in the widest meaning of that phrase.”

(Case company 9’s social and environmental impact policy)

4.2.5 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to suppliers

Supplier codes and score cards are used to assess how well the supplier is following

sustainable principles. These questions often use equivocal language, allowing flexibility for

24

JBR-D-15-00333

the supplier in how to respond and flexibility for the firm to interpret the response. A telling

example of this is from case company 11:

“We basically rely on the buyer’s knowledge and judgment and discretion with dealing with

these things. Obviously we are in a business so pricing is very important also, so it’s very

difficult to go for the most ethical, pristine option you can find when your customers then turn

round and tell you that it’s too expensive and they don’t want to buy it. So there’s always a

balance and we use general terms so we have the flexibility within those terms to make the

right decision, the right decision for us and the customers, but we will always try and choose

the most ethical option that we can.”

(Case company 11, Sustainability project manager)

4.2.6 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to employees

Communication to internal stakeholders seems to take two approaches, starting with

communication applying strategic ambiguity on a strategic, senior management level. The

aim of this communication is to inspire richer generation of ideas and to facilitate

collaboration between departments through the flexibility in interpretation.

Middle management subsequently translate these equivocal directions into more

specific objectives where possible, to target employees on an operational level. Some case

companies (for example case companies 5 and 7) employ ‘sustainability champions’ among

the employees, whose task is to stimulate and encourage interest, initiatives and innovation.

The messages to these champions are ambiguous allowing the champions to apply the most

appropriate interpretation in his/her work context.

As these examples illustrate, strategic ambiguity is applied in two tiers, both in CSR

communication targeted to the wider stakeholder community and as there is still

heterogeneity even within a stakeholder group, strategic ambiguity is also applied in a more

25

JBR-D-15-00333

tailored manner to allow for flexibility and diversity within that target group, as depicted in

Figure 2. A sustainability program brand assists the communication on both tiers, offering an

element of consistency in the communication as well as flexibility, simplification, inclusion,

etc. thereby facilitating consensus and collaboration.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This section discusses the findings from a theoretical and practical contribution

perspective and concludes with recommendations for future research.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Strategic ambiguity is applied to overcome a number of challenges in CSR

communication, including:

1) The topic of CSR/sustainability is complex, with numerous definitions and limited

methods for accurate measurement.

2) The stakeholders of a business are diverse and their goals and objectives might differ

from those of the firm.

3) In order to make progress towards sustainable development, actions are required from

stakeholders in the form of initiatives, innovation and collaboration/co-creation; however

the stakeholders’ capabilities to do so might differ.

4) CSR communication includes aspirational goals on a strategic level as well as operational

objectives.

5) The trust levels between the firm and its stakeholders may vary.

6) To design a CSR communication strategy can be resource intense, especially if the CSR

communication strategy is tailored for different stakeholders.

26

JBR-D-15-00333

The framework presented in Figure 1 illustrates how strategic ambiguity offers

simplification to the complexity of CSR communication through flexibility in interpretation;

inclusiveness of stakeholders of varying capabilities; protection in contexts of low trust in

the relationships between the firm and its stakeholders or between stakeholders; and resource

efficiency in CSR communication. The outcome is a combination of passive (in terms of

stakeholder endorsement) and active (in terms of initiatives, innovation and collaboration/co-

creation) stakeholder response.

While the extant literature in strategic ambiguity articulates notions of complex issues

(as in point 1 above) and diverse stakeholders (point 2) as motives for applying strategic

ambiguity (Eisenberg, 1984; Eisenberg and Witten, 1987; Leitch and Davenport, 2002 and

2007; Davenport and Leitch, 2005; Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010), this study broadly

confirms these notions in a context spanning beyond organizational change in the public

sector with limited stakeholders, to include CSR communication between firms and all their

stakeholders. Importantly, however this study offers significant contributions to the strategic

ambiguity literature, as it not only discovers additional drivers for strategic ambiguity but

also connects these to active versus passive stakeholder responses.

Stakeholder capability (as in point 3) as a motive for the application of strategic

ambiguity is a factor not previously suggested in the strategic ambiguity literature. Leitch

and Davenport (2002: p. 137) rather suggest the opposite, stating that in order for strategic

ambiguity to be effective, the stakeholders need to possess “the internal resources and

capability to respond”. This study argues, based on the findings, that strategic ambiguity

seems to offer better inclusion of stakeholders in collaborative efforts, as the flexibility in

interpretation allows also stakeholders with lower capabilities to buy into the goal from their

perspective, thereby stimulating active engagement from stakeholders of varying

capabilities. It should be noted that this contradiction to previous research might be linked to

27

JBR-D-15-00333

the type of communication. While Leitch and Davenport (2002) base their research on a

context of static one-way communication, this study discovered the notion of capability in a

context of on-going two-way communication between a firm and its stakeholders. Dynamic

two-way communication could possibly enable the less capable stakeholders to enjoy further

support from the focal firm, as a two-way balanced dialogue benefits not only the firm but

also its stakeholders through the development of capabilities to transform and progress

(Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Bowen et al., 2010; Herremans et al., 2015). This could

potentially prevent the pitfalls of indecisions and passivity (Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Denis

et al., 2011; Davenport and Leitch, 2005).

A further contribution to the literature is the observed relationship between strategic

ambiguity on the one hand, and strategic versus operational communication on the other hand

(as in point 4 above). The findings show that strategic ambiguity is better suited for

communicating strategic/long-term goals, whereas communication of more operational

objectives benefit from clear directions. The respondents’ given rationale for using strategic

ambiguity for goals is the visionary aspect of those goals, which partly is linked to the

rationale of ‘complexity’ in that an appropriate goal might not (yet) be understood, nor (yet)

measurable. The management needs to be mindful though not to be seen as incompetent

(Leitch and Davenport, 2002), while ambiguous communication should ideally be balanced

with specific communication. In addition strategic ambiguity in strategic communication is

linked to the ‘diversity’ aspect in the sense that an appropriate and/or common goal is not

agreed upon among the stakeholders. The motive here is thus similar to Eisenberg’s (1984)

notion on ‘deniability’ whereby an equivocal vision or goal allows the firm to later, when

perhaps a more suitable goal has evolved, or in case the goal was not achieved, deny certain

interpretation of the seemingly ‘outdated’ goal.

28

JBR-D-15-00333

The trust level in the stakeholder relationship (as per point 5) is another driver for the

application of strategic ambiguity where active stakeholder response is sought. Eisenberg

(1984) warns that if trust is low, strategic ambiguity can be harmful, however in situations

with a high trust level, clear communication may give stakeholders new insights, leading to a

potential negative re-evaluation of the firm. One might question if this is an ethical

application of strategic ambiguity, as it may indicate that the firm has managed to build trust

from its stakeholders while keeping questionable information away from the public.

The findings in this study, however, indicate that the relationship between trust and the

application of strategic ambiguity is multifaceted. Trust is the foundation that will allow an

organization to successfully apply strategic ambiguity. At the same time, however, strategic

ambiguity is recommended in communication contexts of low trust between stakeholders as it

offers protection to stakeholders from exposing their intellectual capital to competition. It is

thus not necessarily limited to the trust between the firm and its stakeholders, as in the

context described by Eisenberg (1984), but in addition the trust between the stakeholders. As

sustainability progress might require collaborative networks of stakeholders, of whom several

might be in direct competition, this is an important factor. On this note, Hatch and Schultz

(2010) studied collaboration and co-creation in a Lego community and discuss the dilemma

between dialogue and access versus transparency and risk. While Hatch and Schultz conclude

that transparency invites benefits in terms of increasing the understanding of other

stakeholders’ objectives and sharing knowledge and best practices, their context of a firm and

primarily its consumers, is a much less competitive environment compared to collaboration

between (competing) firms in an industry sector. Perhaps, the trust level versus ambiguous

communication is also dependent on the expected outcome. The findings in this study suggest

that when the stakeholders (suppliers) should meet measurable objectives then clear

29

JBR-D-15-00333

communication is advised, whereas when the goal is unknown and perhaps requiring

innovation the respondents agree on ambiguity, irrespective of trust level.

A novel addition to motives for strategic ambiguity is the resource intensity of adapting

communication to various stakeholder groups. Applying less specific communication opens

the opportunity for standardized communication to stakeholders, both where a more passive

response is expected as well as when active engagement is sought.

This brings us to research objective 2, where sustainability program brands emerged as

a novel approach to enable different stakeholder outcomes from consistent brand

communication, allowing both communication resource efficiency and effective stakeholder

response. The respondents report that a sustainability program brand that applies a generic

slogan and/or brand name that broadly presents the strategic sustainability goal allows the

firms to address the wider stakeholder community with one coherent message (brand), which

due to its equivocal nature allows for multiple interpretations, facilitating endorsement and

collaboration. The sustainability program brand forms a platform for standardized CSR

communication to the wider stakeholder community, but is also relevant on a second level

with a more tailored format of strategic ambiguity, albeit still based on the overall

sustainability program brand, to achieve goals for specific stakeholder groups (as depicted in

Figure 2).

On this second tier of CSR communication, strategic ambiguity takes the form of, for

example, equivocality and postponement, as suggested in previous research (Denis et al.,

2011). Dickinson-Delaporte et al. (2010) suggest ‘playing down’ certain features as a form of

strategic ambiguity and a similar understanding is seen in this research; however an opposite

observation is made in the format of ‘emphasizing’ certain aspects that are considered

positive by the targeted stakeholder group. For example this ‘emphasizing’ is portrayed in

communication to shareholders by stressing how a CSR strategy creates financial value.

30

JBR-D-15-00333

Following the above discussion, the sustainability program brand facilitates a consistent

approach in communication and seems therefore connected to integrated marketing

communication (IMC). The IMC literature suggests that consistency and impact can be

achieved by strategically combining and streamlining different marketing communication

channels and messages (Duncan and Mulhern, 2004; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009), which is

also the aim and execution of sustainability program brands. Following the definition of

Duncan and Mulhern (2004), IMC is (1) an on-going process; (2) that is dialogic; (3)

dependent on cross-functional programs; (4) puts a focus on the brand communication as

opposed to marketing communication; and (5) involves all stakeholders. All these points are

applicable for a sustainability program brand, with the difference that while the IMC

literature, despite promoting the inclusion of all stakeholders, still focuses empirical research

primarily on value creation for the firm and its customers. In contrast, a sustainability

program brand is more holistic as it should offer value to social and environmental

stakeholders and also through its ‘ethical’ promise.

Another literature strand related to the sustainability program brand and IMC is that of

the emerging notion of ethical corporate brands (Balmer et al., 2007; Fukukawa et al., 2007),

which emphasize strong relationships between the firm and its stakeholders (Balmer et al.,

2007) and the importance of the firm ensuring its communication and actions are congruent,

as stakeholders otherwise will see communication as mere rhetoric (Fukukawa et al., 2007;

Balmer et al., 2011). While the ethical corporate brand embodies the overall firm’s aims and

brands, the sustainability program brand in itself is focused on the sustainability agenda of

the firm. This study is, however, not investigating how the sustainability program brand is

aligned with the ethical corporate brand and whether the sustainability program brand

supports the ethical corporate brand or if it is rather creating confusion; there is another

challenge here in that the sustainability program brand might develop through a higher degree

31

JBR-D-15-00333

of co-creation with external stakeholders, compared to an ethical corporate brand. This

intensive interaction with stakeholders poses another challenge to the approach of ‘one sight,

one sound’, as it is no longer the firm that is in sole control of the message delivery (Kitchen

and Schultz, 2009).

Equally, a sustainability program brand appears to sit well within the emerging service-

dominant marketing logic with its wider stakeholder considerations (Vargo and Lusch, 2004

and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). Duncan and Moriarty (2006) suggest that IMC and

service-dominant marketing logic are connected based on the principles of extended value

creation and long-term relationships, where IMC acts as the vehicle for co-creation. This

connection may be extended to include the concept of sustainability program brands, based

on the logics discussed above on IMC versus sustainability program brands. The brand

element offers the chance of emotional attachment, which may strengthen stakeholder

relationships (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The notion of

consistency is clearly visible in the sustainability program brand with its overall values and

goals that are linked to the brand, which forms the foundation for all communication.

Close engagement with key stakeholders, turning them from passive receivers to active

co-creators, is key in this context. Merz et al. (2009) suggest, in the context of service-

dominant marketing logic, a model of contemporary marketing based on brand value co-

creation, where all stakeholders and the firm are resource-integrators and collectively co-

create a brand’s value. As such “brand value is co-created by community-based negotiations

and symbolic interpretation of brand-related information, as well as personal narratives

based on personal or impersonal experiences with the brands.” (Muniz et al., 2001, p. 338)

On this note, Roos and Gustafsson (2011) find that active participation leads to more stable

and longer relationships and that stakeholders that are active participants in the co-creation

process enjoy a more positive outcome (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009). Even when the firm is

32

JBR-D-15-00333

primarily expecting passive response from stakeholders, the sustainability program brand can

still stimulate some activity in the form of stakeholders engaging in order to interpret the

meaning, improving their recollection of the overall communication (Yannopoulou and

Elliott, 2008). Stakeholder involvement requires firms to challenge earlier understandings of

stakeholder management principles and embrace the value of the co-creation process and

ensure there are resources available to materialize successful outcomes (Vargo and Lusch,

2004 and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). Based on these thoughts, this study proposes that

the concept of sustainability program brands, by enabling long-term inclusion and active

participation of a range of diverse stakeholders, could serve as an important tool within the

domain of service-dominant marketing logic. This research is thus responding to calls for

research on different types of brand value co-creation practices (Merz et al., 2009). As a word

of warning, it is mentioned that misinterpretation of messages can cause negative value-

creation. With strategic ambiguity promoting flexibility in interpretation, the firm has limited

control of how its stakeholders understand the message.

While previous scholars in strategic ambiguity list antecedents for strategic ambiguity,

this research transforms these to more concrete challenges and furthermore demonstrates how

strategic ambiguity can address those challenges, leading to passive or active stakeholder

response. The active stakeholder responses are particularly interesting as other researchers

have emphasized that in order to achieve viable progress in sustainable development

(collaborative) innovation is a pre-requisite (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Eccles and Serafeim,

2013).

The paper further adds to the academic literature on corporate communication on

CSR/sustainability to the wider stakeholder community. For example, Du et al. (2010)

present a conceptual framework on what to communicate and which channels to use, raising

the issue of communicating CSR to diverse stakeholders. This paper adds to the CSR

33

JBR-D-15-00333

communication literature where there have been numerous calls for further research into CSR

communication, and specifically beyond consumers as the target for communication (Podnar,

2008; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Brunk, 2010; Öberseder et al., 2013; Blombäck and

Scandelius, 2013). It further adds to the CSR communication literature by seeking methods

for communication to diverse stakeholders in order to not only disseminate information but

also to stimulate active collaboration and co-creation (Podnar, 2008; Du et al., 2010; Golob et

al., 2013).

The collaboration aspect is closely related to the stakeholder management literature,

where numerous scholars (Freeman, 1984; Porter and Kramer, 2006; Savage et al., 2010;

Minoja, 2012; Sakarya et al., 2012; Corus and Ozanne, 2012; Eccles and Serafeim, 2013;

Waligo et al., 2014) emphasize the importance of effective communication to stimulate active

stakeholder engagement, however the format of such communication is previously not well

specified. Thus the findings in this paper contribute also to stakeholder management theories.

5.2 Practical implications

The presented CSR communication framework provides an easy-to-use strategic tool

for business managers wishing to create efficient and effective communication on

sustainability to their multitude of stakeholders. Strategic ambiguity could take the format of

a sustainability program brand based on equivocal words or phrases that allow diverse

stakeholders to attach different meanings to the communication, thus permitting multiple

interpretations to co-exist. Setting innovation goals that are not too specific, possibly

combined with certain specifications for example on budget, can allow for improved

engagement and freedom to develop new ideas.

The sustainability program brands should be fully integrated across the organization,

being based on genuine commitment and supported from senior management in order to

34

JBR-D-15-00333

deliver well and to establish trust with the stakeholders. On this note it is also important to re-

emphasize the importance of ensuring a fully ethical application of strategic ambiguity as

suggested in previous research. Strategic ambiguity must not involve untruthful, inconsistent

or contradictory communication, but should use wordings that allow diverse stakeholders to

find common ground and thus enable collaboration. As previous research has advised (Leitch

and Davenport, 2002), strategic ambiguity is more likely to be efficient if the targeted

stakeholders have incentives to engage.

5.3 Limitations

While the research has a number of strengths as highlighted above, there are of course

possible limitations to the research process, as listed below:

1) External validity or generalizability is often considered as a weak point in qualitative

research, especially if there is only one case company. This study includes 20 case

companies and, while this design does not allow as deep research as for a single case

company study, it allows a broad approach searching for evidence across a number of

food and drink manufacturers and retailers in Western Europe, thus allowing some

generalizability within the Western European food and drink value chain, however not

beyond this industry sector and not beyond Western Europe.

2) The research primarily takes the standpoint from one focal organization and thus takes

a simplistic perspective, as opposed to taking a network approach to stakeholders

(Rowley, 1997; Roloff, 2007).

3) Linked to the above limitation, the study does not include an exploration of how the

stakeholder audiences perceive strategic ambiguity. As sustainability communication

can be viewed as a social process it is important to research also the reception of

sustainability communication (Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010).

35

JBR-D-15-00333

Some of the limitations listed here offer an interesting departure point for future

research, which is discussed in detail in the next section.

5.4 Further research

This research examines the motives behind, and the format of, the application of

strategic ambiguity; however it does not consider the resulting interpretation by the targeted

stakeholders. Further research aimed at assessing how effectively strategic ambiguity can

fulfill such motives would greatly validate the findings. The research could be conducted for

example as an experiment, or as a longitudinal study reviewing an ambiguous communication

strategy and its effect.

The emerging concept of sustainability program brands as a form of strategic ambiguity

is novel and would benefit from further research and validation. There is very limited

research in this area, as the vast majority of research into brands concerns either product

brands or corporate brands. Building on insights from previous research (Kitchen and

Schultz, 2009; Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Balmer et al., 2007, Balmer et al., 2011; Fukukawa

et al., 2007), it would be interesting to further explore how to align communication from a

sustainability program brand with the overall corporate brand communication to ensure

consistency and to advance the understanding of the connection between IMC and

sustainability program brands. On this note, additional research is needed to improve

knowledge on how to ensure communication consistency in a context where the firm is not

fully in control of message delivery due to stakeholders’ co-creation of communication

(Kitchen and Schultz, 2009). In addition, it would be beneficial to further explore how a

sustainability program brand can contribute to the literature in service-dominant marketing

36

JBR-D-15-00333

logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004 and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014), based on the notion of

creating resilient relationships with value creation to the extended stakeholder context.

Another angle of interest for future research is the management of the sustainability

program brand, especially the notion of co-creation taking a heuristic or dynamic orientation

to achieve value creation for the firm and its stakeholders (Högström et al., 2015).

Following the diverse findings on how the level of trust in a relationship is linked to the

application of strategic ambiguity and the suggestion of the importance of reducing

equivocality in a relationship, as suggested in the conceptual paper by Driessen et al. (2013),

further research into this specific connection would be of interest. The focus of such research

could be the process of the formation of a collaborative relationship and specifically when

and how strategic ambiguity can add value in this development.

The presented framework could also benefit from further research into the relationship

between the CSR communication challenges and the pitfalls of strategic ambiguity, as

suggested by Davenport and Leitch (2005). This connection was not a key focus of this

research; however, some interesting findings evolved, especially on the note of trust versus

stakeholder resistance and management incompetence.

This research is limited to the food and drink value chain in Western Europe. Previous

research on CSR communication reveals that stakeholder selection and engagement are

culturally specific (Habisch et al., 2011), and one could question whether this applies also for

strategic ambiguity. It would therefore be interesting to study the applicability of the

framework across different countries. Likewise it would be beneficial to validate the

framework also in other industry contexts.

37

JBR-D-15-00333

6. References

Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding Stakeholder Engagement, in J. Andriof, S.

Waddock, B. Husted, S. Sutherland, Rahman (ed.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking

1: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.

Balmer, J. and Greyser, S. (2002). Managing the Multiple Identities of the Corporation,

California Management Review, Vol. 44(3), pp. 72–86.

Balmer, J., Fukukawa, K. and Gray, E. (2007) The Nature and Management of Ethical

Corporate Identity: A Commentary on Corporate Identity, Corporate Social

Responsibility and Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76(1), pp. 7–15.

Balmer, J., Powell, S., Greyser, S. (2011) Explicating Ethical Corporate Marketing. Insight

from the BP Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe: The Ethical Brand that Exploded and

then Imploded, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102, pp. 1–14.

Blombäck, A., Scandelius, C. (2013) Corporate Heritage in CSR Communication: a Means to

Responsible Brand Image?, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

Vol. 18(3), pp. 362–382.

Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010) When Suits meet Roots: The

Antecedents and Consequences of Community Engagement Strategy, Journal of

Business Ethics, 95(2), pp. 297–318.

Brunk, K.H. (2010) Exploring Origins of Ethical Company/Brand Perceptions – A Consumer

Perspective of Corporate Ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), pp. 255–262.

Conchie, S.M. and Burns, C. (2008) Trust and Risk Communication in High-Risk

Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research, Risk Analysis, Vol.

28(1).

38

JBR-D-15-00333

Contractor, N.S. and Ehrlich, M.C. (1993) Strategic Ambiguity in the Birth of a Loosely

Coupled Organization: the Case of a $50 Million Experiment, Management

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6(3), pp. 251–281.

Corus, C., Ozanne, J.L. (2012) Stakeholder Engagement: Building Participatory and

Deliberative Spaces in Subsistence Markets, Journal of Business Research, 65(12),

pp. 1728–1735.

Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2010) Business Ethics, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J. and Matten, D. (2014) Contesting the Value of the

Shared Value Concept, California Management Review, Vol. 56(2).

Davenport, S. and Leitch, S. (2005) Circuits of Power in Practice: Strategic Ambiguity as

Delegation of Authority, Organization Studies, Vol. 26(11), pp. 1603–1623.

Dawar, N. and Stornelli, J. (2013) Rebuilding the Relationship between Manufacturers and

Retailers. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 54(2), pp. 83–90.

Denis, J-L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., Rouleau, L. (2011) Escalating Indecision: Between

Reification and Strategic Ambiguity, Organization Science, Vol. 22(1), pp. 225–244.

Dickinson-Delaporte, S., Beverland, M., Lindgreen, A. (2010) Building Corporate Reputation

with Stakeholders – Exploring the Role of Message Ambiguity for Social Marketers,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44(11–12), pp 1856–1874.

Dowling, G. (2004) Corporate Reputations: Should you Compete on Yours, California

Management Review, Vol. 46(3), pp 19–36.

Driessen, P.H., Kok, R.A.W., Hillebrand, B. (2013) Mechanisms for Stakeholder Integration:

Bringing Virtual Stakeholder Dialogue into Organizations, Journal of Business

Research, Vol. 66(9), pp. 1465–1472.

39

JBR-D-15-00333

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S. (2010) Maximising Business Returns to Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication, International Journal of

Management Reviews, Vol. 12(1), pp. 8–19.

Duncan, T., Moriarty, S. (2006) How Integrated Marketing Communication’s Touchpoints

can Operationalize the Service-Dominant Logic. In: Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. eds. The

Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, Dialog, Debate and Directions. ME. Sharpe,

Inc.

Duncan, T. and Mulhern, F., eds. (2004) A White Paper on the Status, Scope and Future of

IMC, IMC Symposium, Northwestern University and University of Denver: McGraw

Hill.

Eccles, R. and Serafeim, G., (2013) The Performance Frontier, Harvard Business Review,

91(5).

Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication,

Communication Monographs, Vol. 51(3), pp. 227–242.

Eisenberg, E. and Witten, M. (1987) Reconsidering Openness in Organizational

Communication, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12(3), pp. 418–426.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of

Management Review; Vol. 14 4), pp. 532–550.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Frischherz, B. (2010) Metaphors of Sustainability: A Study of Metaphors in the Public

Discourse on Sustainability, BRASS Working Paper, 62,

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.187.1229&rep=rep1&type=pdf, [Accessed on 12.03.14].

40

JBR-D-15-00333

Fukukawa, K., Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2007) Mapping the Interface Between

Corporate Identity, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 76(1), pp. 1–5.

Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W.J., Ellerup Nielsen, A., Thomsen, C., Schultz, F. (2013)

CSR Communication: Quo Vadis?, Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, Vol. 18(2), pp.176–192.

Gregory, A. (2007) Involving Stakeholders in Developing Corporate Brands: the

Communication Dimension, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol 23(1–2), pp. 59–

73.

Gurau, C. (2013) Developing an Environmental Corporate Reputation on the Internet,

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31(5), pp. 522–537.

Guthey, E., Morsing, M. (2014) CSR and the Mediated Emergence of Strategic Ambiguity,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 120(4), pp. 555–569.

Gyrd-Jones, R.I., Kornum, N. (2013) Managing the Co-Created Brand: Value and Cultural

Complementarity in Online and Offline Multi‐Stakeholder Ecosystems, Journal of

Business Research, Vol. 66(9), pp. 1484-1493.

Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., & Schwartz, C. (2011) Different Talks with Different

Folks: A Comparative Survey of Stakeholder Dialog in Germany, Italy, and the US

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100(3), pp. 381–404.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010) Toward a Theory of Brand Co-Creation with Implications

for Brand Governance. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17(8), pp. 590–604.

Harris, F., De Chernatony, L. (2001) Corporate Branding and Corporate Brand Performance,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35(3/4), pp. 441–456.

41

JBR-D-15-00333

Herremans, I., Nazari, J.A., Mahmoudian, F. (2015) Stakeholder Relationships, Engagement,

and Sustainability Reporting, Journal of Business Ethics, First online: 29 March 2015,

pp. 1–19.

Högström, C., Gustafsson, A., Tronvoll, B. (2015) Strategic Brand Management: Archetypes

for Managing Brands through Paradoxes, Journal of Business Research Vol. 68(2),

pp. 391–404.

Ind, N., Iglesias, O., Schultz, M. (2013) Building Brands together: Emergence and Outcomes

of Co-creation, California Management Review. Vol. 55(3), pp. 5–26.

Ingenbleek, P., Binnekamp, M., Goddijn, S. (2007) Setting Standards for CSR: A

Comparative Case Study on Criteria-Formulating Organizations, Journal of Business

Research, Vol. 60, pp. 539–548.

Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J., Shaw, D. (2010) Strategic Ambiguity as a Rhetorical Resource

for Enabling Multiple Interests, Human Relations, Vol. 63(2), pp. 219–248.

Jones, T., Felps, W., Bigley, G. (2007) Ethical Theory and Stakeholder Related Decisions:

The Role of Stakeholder Culture. Academy Of Management Review [serial online].

32(1):pp.137–155.

Kim, C.H., Amaeshi, K., Harris, S., Suh, C-J. (2013) CSR and the National Institutional

Context: The Case of South Korea, Journal of Business Research Vol. 66, pp. 2581–

2591.

Kitchen, P.J. and Schultz, D.E. (2009) IMC: New Horizon/False Dawn for a Marketplace in

Turmoil? Journal of Marketing Communication, 15 (2/3), pp. 197–204.

Lehtinen, U. (2012) Sustainability and Local Food Procurement: a Case Study of Finnish

Public Catering, British Food Journal, Vol. 114(8), pp.1053–1071.

Leitch, S. and Davenport, S. (2002) Strategic Ambiguity in Communicating Public Sector

Change, Journal of Communication Management, Vol 7(2), pp 129–139.

42

JBR-D-15-00333

Leitch, S. and Davenport, S. (2007) Strategic Ambiguity as a Discourse Practice: the Role of

Keywords in the Discourse on Sustainable Biotechnology, Discourse Studies, Vol.

9(1), pp. 43–61.

Lourenco, I.C., Branco, M.C., Curto, J.D. and Eugenio, T. (2012) How Does the Market

Value Corporate Sustainability Performance? Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108(4),

pp. 417–428.

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2014) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing:

Dialog, Debate, and Directions. Routledge.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C., Ferrell, L. (2005) A Stakeholder Model for Implementing Social

Responsibility in Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39(9/10), pp. 956–

977.

McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T. Sweeney, J.C. (2009) Customers as

Resource Integrators: Styles of Customer Co-creation. Naples Forum on Services.

Vol. 24.

Merz, M.A., He, Y. and Vargo, S.L. (2009) The Evolving Brand Logic: a Service-Dominant

Logic Perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37(3), pp.

328–344.

M&S Plan A Report. (2014) Available on

<http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/about-plan-a>, [accessed 14.1.15].

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edition, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage

Miller, K., Joseph, L. and Apker, J. (2000) Strategic Ambiguity in the Role Development

Process, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 28(3), pp. 193–214.

Minoja, M. (2012) Stakeholder Management Theory, Firm Strategy, and Ambidexterity.

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109(1), pp. 67–82.

43

JBR-D-15-00333

Moon, J. (2007) The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Sustainable

Development, Sustainable Development, Vol. 15, pp. 296–306.

Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility Communication:

Stakeholder Information, Response and Involvement Strategies, Business Ethics: A

European Review, Vol. 15(4), pp. 323–338.

Neville, B. and Menguc, B. (2006) Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the

Interactions between Stakeholders, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66(4), pp. 377–

391.

Paul, J. and Strbiak, C.A. (1997) The Ethics of Strategic Ambiguity, Journal of Business

Communication, Vol. 34(2), pp. 149–159.

Pérez , A. (2015) Corporate Reputation and CSR Reporting to Stakeholders: Gaps in the

Literature and Future Lines of Research, Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, Vol. 20(1), pp. 11–29.

Perez-Batres, L.A., Miller, V.V. and Pisani, M.J. (2010) CSR, Sustainability and the Meaning

of Global Reporting for Latin American Corporations, Journal of Business Ethics Vol.

91(2), pp. 193–209.

Perez, A., Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2012) The Role of CSR in the Corporate Identity of

Banking Service Providers, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 (2), pp. 145–166.

Podnar, K. (2008) Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility - Guest Editorial; Journal

of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14(2), pp. 75–81.

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006) Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive

Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84

(12), pp. 78–92 .

44

JBR-D-15-00333

Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Carter, C.R. (2009) Food for Thought: Social Versus

Environmental Sustainability Practices and Performance Outcomes, Journal of Supply

Chain Management, Vol. 45 (4), pp. 38–54.

Ritvala, T. and Salmi, A. (2011) Network Mobilizers and Target Firms: The Case of Saving

the Baltic Sea, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40(6), pp. 887–898.

Roloff, J. (2007) Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder

Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, pp. 233–250.

Roos, I. and Gustafsson, A. (2011) The Influence of Active and Passive Customer Behavior

on Switching in Customer Relationships. Managing Service Quality: An International

Journal Vol. 21(5), pp. 448–464.

Rowley, T.J. (1997) Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder

Influences, Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 22(4), pp. 887–910.

Sakarya, S., Bodur, M., Yildirim-Öktem, O., Selekler-Göksen, N. (2012) Social Alliances:

Business and Social Enterprise Collaboration for Social Transformation, Journal of

Business Research, Vol. 65, pp. 1710–1720.

Savage, G.T., Bunn, M.D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E.J. and Williams, E.S.

(2010) Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice.

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96, pp. 21–26.

Schultz, F., Wehmeier, S. (2010) Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility

within Corporate Communications: Combining Institutional, Sensemaking and

Communication Perspectives, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

Vol. 15(1), pp. 9–29.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001) Does doing Good always Lead to doing Better? Consumer

Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.

38(2), pp. 225–243.

45

JBR-D-15-00333

Sibbel, A. (2012) Public Nutrition and the Role of the Food Industry, British Food Journal,

Vol. 114(6), pp.784–797.

Sotorrio, L.L., Sanchez, J.L. and Fernandez. (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility of the

Most Highly Reputed European and North American Firms. Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 82(2), pp. 379–390.

Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005) Corporations, Stakeholders

and Sustainable Development I: A Theoretical Exploration of Business-Society

Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61(3), p. 263.

Tracy, K. and Ashcraft, C. (2001) Crafting Policies about Controversial Values: How

Wording Disputes Manage a Group Dilemma, Journal of Applied Communication

Research, Vol. 29(4), pp. 297–316.

Ulmer, R.R. and Sellnow, T.L. (2000) Consistent Question of Ambiguity in Organizational

Crisis Communication: Jack in the Box as a Case Study, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 25, pp. 143–155.

Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J., Mitchell, T. (2007) Introduction to Special Topic Forum – The

Interplay between Theory and Method, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32(4),

pp. 1145–1154.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a New Dominant Logic of Marketing,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 1–17.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008) Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36(1), pp. 1–10.

Vurro, C., Russo, A. and Perrini, F. (2009) Shaping Sustainable Value Chains: Network

Determinants of Supply Chain Governance Models. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.

90, pp. 607–621.

46

JBR-D-15-00333

Waligo, V.M., Clarke, J., Hawkins, R. (2014) The Leadership–Stakeholder Involvement

Capacity Nexus in Stakeholder Management, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67,

(7), July, pp. 1342–1352.

Wexler, M.N. (2009) Strategic Ambiguity in Emergent Coalitions: the Triple Bottom Line,

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14(1), pp 62–77.

Yannopoulou, N. and Elliott, R. (2008) Open versus Closed Advertising Texts and

Interpretive Communities, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27(1), pp. 9–36.

Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research – Design and Methods, Fourth edition, Vol. 5, Sage Inc,

Thousand Oaks, California, US.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Murphy, P. E. (2013) CSR Practices and Consumer

Perceptions. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, pp. 1839–1851.

<http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Performance-with-Purpose>, [accessed on 11.2.15].

<http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/about-plan-a>, [accessed 14.1.15].

<http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SustainableandResponsibleBusiness/

LifeCycleManagement/tabid/78904/Default.aspx>, [accessed on 19.05.14].

47

48

Table 1. Case companies: Sampled food/drink brand owners and retailers

Case number

Number of Employees

Turnover (million £)

Value chain position

Respondent’s position

1. 330,000 56,400 Brand owner (1) Environmental sustainability expert2. 171,000 37,900 Brand owner (1) Chairman packaging and environment group; (2) Company buyer packaging3. 218,000 24,700 Retailer (1) Vice president corporate responsibility4. 131,000 17,700 Retailer (1) Packaging development manager5. 78,000 9,900 Retailer (1) Chairman; (2) Head of climate change; (3) Head of sustainable business6. 13,200 5,100 Brand owner (1) Chairman and CEO; (2) Head of stakeholder engagement and CR; (3) Head of

UK recycling; (4) Focus group: public affairs and communications; (5) Panel debate: CEO and head of corporate responsibility and sustainability and a number of stakeholders.

7. 803 1,500 Retailer (1) Chairman; (2) Head of environment8. 8,723 562 Brand owner (1) Health, safety and sustainability manager9. 408 55 Brand owner (1) CEO10. 380 36 Retailer (1) Sustainability project manager11. 150 N/A Retailer (1) Sustainability project manager12. 8 N/A Brand owner (1) Founder/marketing director13. 4 N/A Brand owner (1) Founder

JBR-D-15-00333

Table 2. Case companies: Sampled stakeholders

Case number Type of stakeholder Respondent’s position

14. Trade organization for food and drink manufacturers (1) Director of communications; (2) Environment policy manager15. Trade organization for retailers (1) Head of environment and chair of communications working

group at product sustainability forum16. Trade organization for the packaging industry (1) CEO; (2) Director17. Government organization for reducing waste and

resources(1) Head of food and drinks program

18. Trade organization for retailers (1) European affairs manager19. Opinion former/expert, independent consultant (1) Opinion former/expert20. Food industry consultant focusing primarily on SMEs (1) Food industry consultant

49

50

Table 3. Explanation and evidence to the framework in figure 1Arrow number

The role of strategic ambiguity Evidence/comments

1a) In a context of complexity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility in interpretation, thereby encouraging stakeholders to find innovative solutions.

“I think what we’ve... we’ve made progress in the last year in coming up with sort of very high-level, generic commitments which drive a lot of change.”“Well, you don’t know what the solutions are. You might know what the issue is, but there’s no point, you don’t want to constrain people’s thinking around what the solution is by being too specific too soon.” (Case company 5, Head of climate change)

1b) In a context of complexity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable passive stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity may simplify a complex topic, allowing more stakeholders to understand and endorse the strategy.

“It commits us to a new challenge: to go beyond neutrality, to no longer strive to ‘do less’ but to seek to make a positive contribution to the world’s future.”(Example given by the focus group of Case 6, illustrating how strategic ambiguity can be applied to achieve endorsement from a wide range of stakeholders)

2a) In a context of diversity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility in interpretation, thereby facilitating for multiple opinions to co-exist.

“But it is, it’s very difficult to try and fight when there’s 120 people all with a very strong opinion about what we’re doing. Things have to be left a little bit loose, if you have a very strict, very definite plan then you know it’s not going to be right somewhere along the line, so you kind of have to leave things quite broad and quite loose so you’ve got room to maneuver within… you know, have your founding principles and move within those principles as much as you need to is sort of the way that we work.”(Case company 11, Sustainability project manager)

JBR-D-15-00333

Arrow number

The role of strategic ambiguity Evidence/comments

2b) In a context of diversity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable passive stakeholder response. The flexibility in interpretation offered by ambiguous communication allows endorsement from a diverse audience with different priorities and sensitivities.

“So you know, I think it’s, generally speaking, specific messages which we’re putting out rather than ambiguous ones, but, you know, we’re also ensuring that the sensitivity which we’re aware of is recognized in that communication.”(Case company 17, Head of food and drink program)The quote suggests that fact-based communication is preferred, however on sensitive topics, where not all stakeholders agree or where a stakeholder might even be disadvantaged, communication tends to be more ambiguous.

3) In a context of varying capabilities among stakeholders, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity can improve inclusiveness for stakeholders lacking experience or knowledge on sustainability.

“Yeah, but the reason that we avoid specific targets, is that it might prevent other companies who cannot reach those targets to join the collaborative work.”(Case 18, European affairs manager)

4a) In a context of setting strategic goals, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility in interpretation and application allowing room for various innovations to achieve long-term strategic progress.

“Should we just do another five year plan or should we do it longer and less specific because a lot of the progress that has now to be made is very strategic. It actually involves a lot of investment, and redirection of the business. The first five years is straightforward efficiency, group business practice, good housekeeping in energy and water. Now is much more balanced investment by changing plans, which have to be strategic business decisions.”(Case 8, Health, Safety and sustainability manager)

51

JBR-D-15-00333

Arrow number

The role of strategic ambiguity Evidence/comments

4b) In a context of setting strategic goals, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable passive stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity allows flexibility in interpretation and thus tolerates the essence of the strategy to move over time.

“The bits that we need to keep loose are the long-term vision and the long-term aims and the long-term strategy because we’re changing as a business all the time because we’re changing as members all the time and the business is the members, so we need to give us room to maneuver as much as we possibly can.”(Case company 11, Sustainability project manager)

5) In a context of low stakeholder trust, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers protection from too much insight into a firm’s strategy or innovations. The aim, however, should be to establish a high level of trust between the focal firm and its stakeholders to serve as a foundation for successful application of strategic ambiguity.

“Yes, I think that for example when we have the annual supplier sustainability summits we have maybe been too specific and recently we have changed our communication to more ambiguous, if you like.”(Case 6, Head of stakeholder engagement and CR)

6a, b) In a context where CSR communication is seen as too resource intense due to fragmented and/or tailored communication to various stakeholders, strategic ambiguity offers resource efficiency that can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active and passive stakeholder response.

Case company 18 suggests that ambiguous communication with wide appeal allows simple and consistent communication that can be addressed across audiences, thus saving costs for the firm.

52

53

Figure 1. Strategic ambiguity as a vehicle to overcome CSR communication challenges

JBR-D-15-00333

Figure 2. The format of strategic ambiguity to diverse stakeholders

54

JBR-D-15-00333

Appendix A

Protocol for the semi-structured interviews

1. What is your sustainability strategy?

2. Is sustainability integrated into the corporate strategy? How? Why/why not?

3. What are the boundaries of the responsibility of sustainability of your

organization?

4. Is sustainability part of your brand? How? Why?

5. Do your sustainability objectives need collaboration and/or co-creation from any

of the stakeholders? Which stakeholders? Why? What do you expect from them?

6. What is your CSR/sustainability communication strategy to achieve your

sustainability objectives?

7. What are the main challenges in this communication? How do you overcome

these communication challenges?

8. How are the communication objectives translated into messages (describe the

rationale behind the choice of words/language/symbols/framing) for

communication with stakeholders?

9. Is the choice of words and framing different for different stakeholders? How and

why/why not?

10. Do you use more specific or vaguer communication, leaving it up to the

stakeholders to make the interpretation? Why/why not?

11. What is the expected outcome?

12. Do you have a clear strategy on what each stakeholder category should do or do

you leave this to them to reach the goal?

13. Do the stakeholders take the expected actions? Why/why not?

55

JBR-D-15-00333

14. How do your stakeholders approach you in their CSR/sustainability

communication?

15. Are you familiar with the term strategic ambiguity [definition provided]? Would

you say that your CSR/sustainability communication strategy involves strategic

ambiguity? How? Why?

56