A Dynamic Review of the Emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication
Recent reviews show a rapid increase in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication literature. However, while mapping the literature and the field of CSR communication, they do not fully capture the evolutionary character of this emerging interdisciplinary endeavour. This paper seeks to fill this gap by presenting a follow-up study of the CSR communication literature from a dynamic perspective, which focuses on micro-discursive changes in the field. A bibliometric approach and frame theory are used to examine (dis)continuities in the development of field ‘frames’ in three consecutive periods between 2002 and 2016. The article highlights the growing fragmentation of the CSR communication field over time and the existence of 11 distinct frames during the field’s emergence, whereby the two most prominent in the three time periods are the reporting and business case frames. Regardless, they are subjected to discursive changes as well. For example, they become split into stakeholder-focused, business case and institutionalisation frame and contested by the constitutive logic, respectively. The paper argues that interdisciplinary fields like CSR communication can rarely exist without contestation. It also shows that micro-framing processes such as fragmentation, merging and extension visibly shape the identified field frames and the overall discursive dynamic of the CSR communication field while investigating their value for sustaining the field’s polyphonic state and further development. The study findings suggest that additional cross-fertilisation processes between the CSR communication literature and sustainability and digital communication research hold the potential to influence the next stage of the field’s discursive evolution.
KeywordsCorporate social responsibility Communication Review
We thank Profs. Laura Spence and Mette Morsing for sharing their valuable ideas with us on earlier versions of the paper.
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Nataša Verk, Urša Golob, and Klement Podnar declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Brown, T. (2016). Sustainability as empty signifier: Its rise, fall, and radical potential. A Radical Journal of Geography, 48(1), 115–133.Google Scholar
- Chandler, D., & Werther, W., Jr. (2014). Strategic corporate responsibility: Stakeholders, globalization, and sustainable value creation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2011). Interrogating the communicative dimensions of corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Barlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 491–504). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2015). The polyphony of values and the value of polyphony. Journal for Communication Studies, 8(1), 9–25.Google Scholar
- Dong, S., Burritt, R., & Qian, W. (2014). Salient stakeholders in corporate social responsibility reporting by Chinese mining and minerals companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 59–69.Google Scholar
- de Grosbois, D. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting in the cruise tourism industry: A performance evaluation using a new institutional theory based model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(2), 245–269.Google Scholar
- Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, GA: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, Ting. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 731–746.Google Scholar
- Fuchsman, K. (2012). Interdisciplines and interdisciplinarity: Political psychology and psychohistory compared. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 30, 128–154.Google Scholar
- Giannarakis, G. (2014). The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5), 393–416.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hartman, L. P., Rubin, R. S., & Dhanda, K. K. (2007). The communication of corporate social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 74(4), 371–389.Google Scholar
- He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
- Isenmann, R. (2006). CSR online: Internet based communication. In J. Jonker & M. de Witte (Eds.), Management models for CSR (pp. 247–256). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Jensen, K. B. (2012). A handbook of media and communication research: Qualitative and quantitative methodologies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kilian, T., & Hennigs, N. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and environmental reporting in controversial industries. European Business Review, 26(1), 79–101.Google Scholar
- Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C., & Bardecki, M. (2015). Corporate sustainability reporting in the apparel industry: An analysis of indicators disclosed. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(3), 377–397.Google Scholar
- KPMG. (2011). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. Accessed September 30, 2016, from https://www.kpmg.com/PT/pt/IssuesAndInsights/Documents/corporate-responsibility2011.pdf.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can and should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 173–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- L’Etang, J., Lugo-Ocando, J., & Ahmad, Z. A. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, power and strategic communication. In Ø. Ihlen, J. L. Barlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Lauritsen, B. D., & Perks, K. J. (2015). The influence of interactive, non-interactive, implicit and explicit CSR communication on young adults’ perception of UK supermarkets’ corporate brand image and reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 178–195.Google Scholar
- Mahoney, L. S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L., & LaGore, W. (2013). A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signalling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(4–5), 350–359.Google Scholar
- Mark-Herbert, C., & von Schantz, C. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility—Brand management. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(2), 4–11.Google Scholar
- Moon, J., & Vogel, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, government and civil society. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 303–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Nag, T., & Bhattacharyya, A. K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility reporting in India: Exploring linkages with firm performance. Global Business Review, 17(6), 1427–1440.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) management and marketing communication: Research streams and themes. Hermes—Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 49, 49–65.Google Scholar
- Patten, D. M., Ren, Y., & Zhao, N. (2015). Standalone corporate social responsibility reporting in China: An exploratory analysis of its relation to legitimation. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 35(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
- Pérez, A. (2015). Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders: Gaps in the literature and future lines of research. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(1), 11–29.Google Scholar
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.Google Scholar
- Rodríguez, M. D. M. M., & Pérez, B. E. (2016). Does the institutional environment affect CSR disclosure? The role of governance. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 56(6), 641–654.Google Scholar
- Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualising bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rosseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–310). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
- Van Raan, A. F. J. (2003). The use of bibliometric analysis in research performance assessment and monitoring of interdisciplinary scientific developments. Technology Assessment—Theory and Practice, 1, 20–29.Google Scholar
- Vollero, A., Palazzo, M., Siano, A., & Sardanelli, D. (2018). Managing CSR communication: A study of legitimacy-seeking strategies adopted by service and product companies. The TQM Journal, 30(5), 621–637.Google Scholar
- Zheng, L., Balsara, N., & Huang, H. (2014). Regulatory pressure, blockholders and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures in China. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(2), 226–245.Google Scholar