Lai Shan (Lisa) Tam

B.A., M.Strat.PR. (Sydney)

Candidate for Master of Philosophy

School of Journalism and Communication

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Discourse of Corporate Social Responsibility:

What are Public Relations Agencies Selling?

2

Purpose of Study

Issue:

Without a standard definition, communicators can package the concept of CSR

with any labels in accordance with social norms.

Objective:

To investigate how public relations agencies have “packaged” the concept

through the presentation of information used to promote CSR communication

services on their web sites.

PR Firms in sample:

Based on “PR Firms Ranking” on the O’Dwyer’s PR Firms Database. Only

those with a dedicated page on CSR or related concepts are studied using

textual analysis.

3

Research Question 1

Friedman (1970): the sole responsibility of business is to make a profit.

Carroll (1979): economic, legal, ethical, discretionary/ philanthropic

O’Connor (2008): active moms identify “money making” as the primary motive

for engaging in CSR

McMillan (2007) and Waddock (2007): corporations’ inherent nature in profit

making.

Arvidsson (2010): corporate scandals exert pressure on management for

engaging in CSR.

RQ1: What information is presented as the need for CSR communication?

4

Research Questions 2 & 3

Ihlen (2008): the stakeholder theory and the situational theory are inadequate.

The “public sphere” concept should be used.

Burchell and Cook (2008): many groups are defining the discourse on CSR;

corporations are not the only group. Engaging in a dialogue with social actors

is crucial.

Kallio (2006): the taboos of CSR are avoided for the same reason other

things are told.

Greenwood (2007): the more does not equal the better; engaging does not

equal responding.

RQ2: What services are provided by the agencies?

RQ3: How do agencies differentiate themselves from other firms?

5

Research Question 4

L’Etang (1994) and Clark (2000): public relations and CSR can complement

each other, with the former providing the technical function of communication

to the latter.

Morsing and Schultz (2006): emphasizing relationship building with

stakeholders through processes of stakeholder engagement to get involved in

the co-production of meanings with stakeholders.

Grunig and Hunt (1984): two-way symmetrical communication

Hutchins et al. (2007): building mutual understanding; different social

purposes of different discourse communities require to be bridged through

dialogue

RQ4: To what extent is two-way communication presented in CSR

communication?

6

Findings (n=22) Rank Name of Agency Category

Rank #1: Edelman, New York CSR, Citizenship and Sustainability

Rank #2: APCO Worldwide, Washington D.C. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY – CR3GSM

Rank #3: Waggener Edstrom, Bellevue, WA Social Innovation

Rank #4 Ruder Finn, New York Corporate Social Responsibility

Rank #5 Text 100 Global PR, San Francisco Corporate Social Responsibility

Rank #7 MWW Group, East Rutherford, NJ Sustainability

Rank #8 Qorvis Communications, DC Marketing Communications

Rank #10 Schwartz Comms., Waltham, MA Cleantech and Green Public Relations

Rank #11 Regan Comms. Group, Boston Green and Technology

Rank #14 Coyne PR, Parsippany, NJ CSR/Sustainability

Rank #16 Allison & Partners, San Francisco Social Impact

Rank #19 Zeno Group, New York Corporate and Public Affairs

Rank #22 Peppercom, New York GreenPepper (communication practice)

Rank #23 Capstrat, Raleigh Blog posts: Corporate Social Responsibility

Rank #24 5W Public Relations, New York Blog posts: Corporate Social Responsibility

Rank #28 Widmeyer Communications, Wash., DC Blog posts: Corporate Social Responsibility

Rank #29 CJP, New York Environmental and Climate Change

Rank #32 Kaplow, New York CSR and Cause Marketing

Rank #34 Levick Strategic Comms., Wash., DC Blog posts: Corporate Social Responsibility

Rank #35 Sparkpr, San Francisco Greentech

Rank #45 Airfoil PR, Southfield, MI Cleantech Public Relations

Rank #50 Beckerman, Hackensack, NJ Cleantech

7

RQ1: What information is presented as the

need for CSR communication?

The performance-driven approach (Maignan and Ralston, 2002)

•“business continuity”, “employee morale”, “market expansion”, a license to

grow”, “an asset to pay dividends”

• equivalent to managers’ approach of viewing it

The stakeholder-driven approach (Maignan and Ralston, 2002)

•Public demanding it

•Employees prefer it

The legitimacy-driven approach:

•Strengthening brands and construction of reputation

•Proactive approach can prevent legitimacy issues from arising.

The promotion-driven approach:

•Avoid being criticized for “window dressing”

•Differences between “help” and “hype”

8

RQ2: What services are provided by the

agencies?

•Stakeholders

-Conducting stakeholder relations

-Prioritize certain stakeholder groups

-Building partnerships with government and NGOs

-Correcting misconceptions

-Releasing reports

•Environment

-“Green public relations” or “greentech”

-Experts’ advice

•Products and Services

-Assisting in product launch of green products and practices

-Integrate CSR into core business functions, such as product safety

•Society

-“social innovation” and “social impact”

-Using a variety of platforms to present information to the public

9

RQ3: How do agencies differentiate

themselves from other firms?

Expertise

•Edelman: expertise in branding and management

•Waggener Edstrom: references to other sources

•Having media contacts

•Being familiar with technology

Experiences

•Running campaigns and developing programs

•Edelman: reputable clients

•APCO and Text100: what they have done without referring to clients

•MMW Group: working with the United States and the United States

government

Innovation

•Going beyond “traditional considerations”

•Using new media platforms, such as online media, to engage stakeholders

•Carrying out online campaigns

10

RQ4: To what extent is two-way

communication presented in CSR

communication?

One-way communication

•Purpose-driven goal

•Improve reputation and eliminate criticisms

•Kant: exploitative relationship

Two-way communication:

•Two-way assymetrical communication portrayed by Edelman

•Stakeholder concerns to be addressed for mutual benefits

•To help clients persuade but not engage

•Stakeholder engagement and stakeholder relations seen as one-way

communication for client.

11

Summary I

Businesses’ Self-representations Agencies’ Promotional RepresentationsMotivating Principle: value-driven,performance-driven, stakeholder-driven

Motivating Principle: performance-driven,stakeholder-driven, legitimacy-driven,promotion-driven

Managerial Processes: philanthropicprograms, sponsorships, volunteerism,code of ethics, quality programs, healthand safety programs, management ofenvironmental impacts

Managerial Processes: philanthropicprograms, CSR management programs,stakeholder programs, environmentalprograms, product and services programs,volunteerism

12

Summary II

Three CSR Communication Strategies Agency Discourse (Examples)The stakeholder information strategy:one-way communicating aiming atinforming stakeholders about favorableCSR actions

- Correcting misconceptions- Running employee volunteerism

programs to complement communityinvestment

The stakeholder response strategy: two-way asymmetrical communicating aimingat demonstrating how stakeholderconcerns are being addressed

- Releasing reports to explain goodwill inCSR

- Engaging with the public to get themspeak for the corporations

The stakeholder involvement strategy:two-way symmetrical communicatingaiming at maintaining an ongoingproactive dialogue with stakeholders andinvolve them in the CSR messages

- Establishing public-private taskforce tosolve problems

- Working with NGOs to identify theirneeds

13

Conclusion and Limitation

1. Agencies believe communication could avoid criticisms and strengthen

reputation.

2. Agencies believe that potential clients would need management advice,

stakeholders’ service environmental services and product services

3. Agencies would portray their experiences, expertise and innovative

approaches

4. Agencies believe their clients would want stakeholder engagement to be

“sense-giving” communication rather than “making sense” with the public.

5. Agency discourse aligns with the management discourse.

6. Limitation: sampling and research methods could be a limitation.

Interviews or surveys with practitioners in agencies would enhance validity.

Content analysis could be done in future research to identify frequencies.