Page 1 of 9

ANZMAC 2009

The role of advertising in the legitimization of CSR actions: propositions and a conceptual framework Francisca Farache, University of Brighton, [email protected] Keith Perks, University of Brighton, [email protected] Aidan Berry, University of Brighton, [email protected]

Abstract Corporate Social Responsibility communication is an emerging field, with research focusing on corporate social disclosure mainly through websites and corporate reports. However, less is known about CSR advertising and further research is needed. Our paper aims to address this research gap to make a contribution by developing a set of propositions and conceptual framework to explain how corporations publicise their CSR print advertisements to legitimize their CSR actions. This provides future researchers with theorized propositions and framework to test and evaluate in an empirical study of CSR advertisements. Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, communication, advertising, organizational legitimacy

ANZMAC 2009

The role of advertising in the legitimization of CSR actions: propositions and a conceptual framework

Introduction While corporations want stakeholders to know they are socially responsible, they are reluctant to publicise their actions, for fear of criticism and creating expectations (Schlegelmilch and Pollach, 2005). Corporations are faced with increasing expectations on the part of stakeholders to engage in social responsibility and are consequently expected to communicate their CSR efforts to a varied, influential and alert audience (Beckman, Morsing and Reisch, 2006). However, there has only been limited discussion and debate about how corporations should communicate their CSR activities (Polonsky and Jevons, 2009), with research focusing mainly on websites and corporate reports. Moreover, little is known regarding CSR advertising (Farache and Perks, 2008) with some exceptions (see Zeghal and Ahmed, 1990; Schroder, 1997). Unlike other advertisements, CSR advertisements divulge a social instance, as “they inform about a company’s commitment to environmental concerns, community relations or the future of mankind, without any overt attempt to promote a specific product” (Schroder, 1997:277). CSR print advertisements permit the promotion of CSR actions to stakeholders, including greater society, as it is through communication that the association between corporations and society is established. Therefore, CSR advertising represents an approved, formalised and official perspective on CSR within the corporation. These factors point to the importance of studying CSR advertisements, as they demonstrate how companies want to be perceived (or evaluated) by society. Thus, further research is needed about CSR advertising and our paper aims to make a contribution to CSR communication theory by developing a set of propositions and conceptual framework to advance knowledge and understanding how corporations publicise their CSR print advertisements to legitimize their CSR actions.

CSR Advertising Morsing and Schultz (2006) alert to the increased importance of “subtle” CSR communication means, such as annual reports, non-financial reports and websites versus approaches such as corporate advertising and press releases. It is argued that the minimal release from reports and websites involve stakeholders in the construction of CSR communication. Although they are aware of the minimal public exposure and possible number of channels, they claim it allows greater flexibility and a better focus on content. Stoll (2002) alerts to the fact that marketing good corporate conduct must be carried out carefully, arguing that many practises used in advertising are inappropriate for CSR. Since advertisements are usually developed to appeal to emotions and superficial judgment than engage in a consistent discussion, “these sorts of practises are far more morally troublesome when used to market good corporate conduct” (ibid: 121). While these characteristics do not provide any harm when used to advertise products, they lead to suspicion when used to publicise the moral character of a company. On the other hand, McWilliams, Siegel and Wright (2006) recognise the benefits of CSR advertising, especially for corporate reputation enhancement and protection. The authors also make a distinction between persuasive and informative CSR advertising: persuasive CSR advertising tries to influence consumers regarding products with CSR attributes, whereas

Page 2 of 9

Page 3 of 9

ANZMAC 2009

informative CSR advertising solely informs the public with regard to the CSR characteristics or CSR managerial practises of the company.

Organizational Legitimacy Legitimacy theory states that organizations can only secure their existence if they are perceived to operate within the values and norms of society (Gray, Owen and Adams, 1996). This theory is based on the notion that there is a social contract between business and society in which society allows the corporation to operate as long as it behaves in accordance with a society’s norms and values. Corporations within industries that may cause greater environmental and social impact are expected to disclose information in order to secure their legitimacy (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006) in the form of corporate social and environmental reports (e.g. Gray, Kouhy and Lavers, 1995; Neu, Warsame, and Pedwell, 1998; Hooghiemstra, 2000; Branco and Castelo, 2006). According to Lindblon (1994), an organization can make use of four different strategies in response to public pressure: (a) inform stakeholders regarding the intention of the organization to improve its performance; (b) attempt to change the perceptions stakeholders have regarding events without changing corporate behaviour; (c) divert attention from the problem by focusing on a positive activity not linked with the problem; and (d) try to change stakeholders’ expectations regarding the corporations performance. CSR is a means of reinforcing both reputation and legitimacy, as it provides an opportunity to communicate to stakeholders the congruence of the organization with societal concerns (Clarke and Gibson-Sweet, 1999). We argue that CSR advertisements can be as effective as non-financial reports in authenticating reputation and legitimacy, especially for large corporations in industries under increased scrutiny.

Theory and Propositions Influence of Institutional Frameworks and Country Context on CSR Advertising Corporations communicate with their stakeholders differently depending on cultural norms and institutional frameworks (Beckman, Morsing and Reisch, 2006). There are national and cultural differences that suggest a strong influence of economic, technological, political and social contexts within which any assessment of the communication effects of CSR activities needs to be analyzed (Beckman, 2006). Maignan and Ralston (2002) argue that corporations in different countries have substantially diverse perspectives on the salience and relevance of public perceptions of their entities as being socially responsible and which CSR issues should be emphasized. As a result, businesses from different countries may not have the same level of dedication to being perceived as socially responsible. Across countries, firms identify a variety of principles, processes and stakeholder issues in order to demonstrate their commitment to CSR (Maignan and Ralston, ibid). Aguilera and Cuervo-Cazurra (2004) affirm that corporations experience various degrees of internal and external pressure to engage in social responsibility initiatives as a result of differences in national country systems. Hunter and Bansal (2007) found that communication regarding corporations’ environmental impact varies substantially across countries. On the other hand, CSR is believed to be universal in nature and cultural and market-setting differences in which managers operate may have little impact on the ethical perceptions of corporate managers (Quazi and O’Brien, 2000). Thus, corporations that have the same social

ANZMAC 2009

and environmental position across countries appear to be more credible than those that have a different discourse depending on the context (Christmann, 2004). Current research seems to support the view that a homogenization of culture is not occurring within the advertising industry (Yaprak, 2008) and suggests that corporations vary their CSR communications according to the country and cultural context (Birth et al, 2008). Thus given that the research is inconclusive, we suggest that: P1a: CSR print advertisements use different themes, appeals and images across countries to legitimize their CSR actions. P1b: CSR print advertisements use similar themes, appeals and images across countries to legitimize their CSR actions Industry Influence Corporations operating within industries that are environmentally or socially damaging are subject to questions of legitimacy when promoting and publicising CSR (Campbell, Craven and Shrives, 2003; Wheeler, Fabig and Boele, 2002). As a consequence, empirical evidence from CSR reports suggests that very large corporations (particularly extraction corporations) tend to communicate with their stakeholders about CSR in a more intense and sophisticated manner, as they face immediate and critical consequences from increasing stakeholder activism (Knox, Maklan and French, 2005). High-risk industries have been among the first to integrate ethical issues into their corporate brands (Morsing, 2006). CSR is communicated and practised systematically by large corporations facing strong social and environmental pressures (Knox, Maklan and French, ibid). According to Porter and Kramer (2006), in industries susceptible to group pressure, corporations may practise socially responsible initiatives as a form of insurance in order to develop a reputation for social awareness aimed at alleviating public criticism in the event of a crisis. Corporations in sensitive industries are under close scrutiny from the public (Coupland, 2005), obliging them to be proactive and socially responsible in addition to operating in an ethical and environmentally friendly manner (Anderson and Bieniaszewska, 2005). The publicly monitored nature of the activities of these industries (e.g. Fombrun and Rindova, 2000; Livesey, 2001; Livesey and Kearins, 2002; Shrivastava, 1995) demands an articulated relationship between business and society. Therefore, the adoption of CSR by corporations in industries under close scrutiny is fundamental. Although theoretically clear, there is no empirical evidence that addresses our next proposition: P2: Corporations in industries under close scrutiny and pressure publicise more CSR print advertisement to legitimize their CSR actions. Impression Management Impression management can be viewed as a communication process in which messages are created and distributed to an audience with the aim of transmitting a specific image or impression (Mendonca and Andrade, 2003). CSR advertising can be seen as a form of impression management to create a positive perception of the corporation, thereby contributing to the corporation’s reputation and enhancing its image. On the one hand, proactive impression management strategies are used in an attempt to be seen favourably or positively. On the other hand protective impression management encompasses tactics that seek to minimise predicaments and deal with problems (Arkin, 1981). While protective tactics seek to develop a positive impression in the short term, proactive impression management

Page 4 of 9

Page 5 of 9

ANZMAC 2009

strategies have long-term goals in an attempt to establish long-lasting identities involving credibility, competence and trustworthiness (Rosenfeld, 1997). We thus suggest: P3: Corporations use proactive impression management strategies in their advertisements to legitimize their CSR actions. Influence of Information Disclosed by Corporations Advertising receives a fair amount of criticism, regarding for example the way it increases consumerism, how minorities are portrayed, how messages are delivered in accordance with the sender’s objectives and the manipulation effects (Dyer, 1995; Leiss et al, 2005). Similarly, corporations are under constant surveillance regarding the way they behave in developing countries, the suppliers they work with and the way the workforce is treated (Julholin, 2004). Thus, corporations face a considerable deal of criticism related to the nature of their advertising and behaviour. In order to avoid these negative perceptions and increase credibility in their advertisements, we argue that corporations should provide substantial information about the programmes or actions they are publicising, such as investments, beneficiaries, possible outcomes, etc. Corporations should communicate with the necessary support in case questions about the veracity of the statements may arise (Polonsky and Jevons, 2009). Truthful information is also expected in an area that already receives an increasing amount of public scrutiny (Schlegelmich and Pollach, 2005). Similarly, the literature suggests that companies should associate themselves with third parties, such as NGOs, the government and associations, in order to increase the credibility of their CSR communication (Morsing, 2006; Schlegelmilch and Pollach, ibid; Azevedo, 2004). This discussion leads to the development of the following research propositions: P4a: Corporations communicate substantial information in their CSR advertisements in order to legitimize their CSR actions. P4b: Corporations associate themselves to third parties when communicating CSR in order to legitimize their CSR actions.

Discussion and Conceptual Framework The four theory derived propositions provide an explanation as to how corporations attempt to legitimize their CSR actions in an era when they are increasingly under scrutiny from governments, NGO’s, pressure groups and consumers. We argue that corporations will address this scrutiny and pressure through advertising in an attempt to legitimize their CSR strategy positioning and actions. The conceptual framework summarises the four propositions namely (1) the influence of institutional and country contexts which we propose either results in different or similar messages; (2) the influence of industry context specifically those industries under close scrutiny will have more intensive and consistent CSR advertising strategies and content to legitimize their CSR actions; (3) corporations use impression management proactive strategies in their advertising content to legitimize their CSR actions and (4) corporations communicate substantial information and associated themselves to third parties with the aim of legitimizing their CSR actions. The propositions in the framework are independent influences on the legitimization of CSR actions. The framework provides an orienting deductive framework (Miles and Huberman, 1994) for inductive evaluation and further development.

ANZMAC 2009

Page 6 of 9

Conclusions Our paper focuses on CSR advertisements, which is a relatively under-researched area within CSR in need of further development and attention. The paper contributes to CSR communication theory by developing a set of propositions that deepen our knowledge as to how CSR advertisements are used by corporations to legitimize their CSR actions. On the other hand, this CSR legitimization is important to corporations as they need to be perceived as operating within the values and norms of the society. The present conceptual framework (Figure 1) might assist practitioners in developing CSR print advertising campaigns, as the techniques used for other advertising (products or services) are not, according to Stoll (2002), suitable for the disclosure of good corporate conduct. The conceptual framework also provides researchers with a platform to further develop the role of communications, especially advertising, in legitimizing CSR actions which could be carried out in a range of industry and country contexts. Further research should apply the conceptual framework empirically in an analysis of CSR advertising campaigns in two different country contexts. Figure 1 – Conceptual Framework-Theorized Propositions and Legitimization of CSR Actions through print advertisements P1a: CSR print advertisements use different themes, appeals and images across countries P1b: CSR print advertisements use similar themes, appeals and images across countries

P2: Corporations in industries under close scrutiny publicise more CSR print advertisement

P3: Corporations use proactive impression management strategies and tactics in their advertisements

P4a: Corporations communicate substantial information P4b: Corporations associate themselves to third parties

Legitimization of CSR actions

Page 7 of 9

ANZMAC 2009

References Aguilera, R.V., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., 2004. Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger? Organization Studies 25 (3), 417-446. Anderson, C. L., Bieniaszewska, R. L., 2005. The role of corporate social responsibility in Oil Company’s expansion into new territories. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 12(1), 1-9. Arkin, R.M, 1981. Self-presentation styles, in Tedeschi, J.T (Ed), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp.311-333. Azevedo, M. T., 2004. Publicidade Cidada: como comunicar responsabilidade social empresarial [Advertising with responsibility: how to communicate corporate social responsibility]. In Instituto Ethos de Responsabilidade Social Responsabilidade social das Empresas A contribuicao das universidades Volume 3. Editora Peiropolis, Sao Paulo, SP, pp. 334-384 (in Portuguese). Beckmann, S.C., 2006. Consumers’ perceptions of and responses to CSR: little is known so far. In Morsing, M., Beckmann, S.C. (Eds), Strategic CSR Communication. DJOF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp 163-184. Beckmann, S.; Morsing, M., Reisch, L., 2006. Strategic CSR communication: an emerging field. In: Morsing, M., Beckmann, S. (Eds) Strategic CSR communication. DJOF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp. 11-32 Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., Zamparini, A., 2008. Communicating CSR: practices among Switzerland's top 300 corporations. Corporate Communications: an International Journal 13 (2), 182-196. Branco, M. C., Rodrigues, L. L., 2006. Communication of corporate social responsibility by Portuguese banks: a legitimacy theory perspective. Corporate Communications: an International Journal11 (3), 232-248. Campbell, D., Craven, B., Shrives, P., 2003. Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 16 (4), 558-581. Clark, J., Gibson-Sweet M., 1999. The use of corporate social disclosure in the management of reputation and legitimacy: a cross sectoral analysis of UK Top 100 corporations. Business Ethics: A European Review 8(1), 5-13. Coupland, C. ,2005. Corporate social responsibility as argument on the web. Journal of Business Ethics 62(4), 355-366. Christmann, P., 2004. Multinational corporations and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal 47(5), 747760. Dyer, G., 1995. Advertising as Communication, Routledge, London. Farache, F., Perks, K. J., 2008. Corporate social responsibility advertisements in the oil industry; using impression management to maintain legitimacy. In Perks, K. J, and Shukla, P. (Eds.). Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy Conference. Brighton, CD Rom. Fombrun, C., Rindova, V., 2000. The road to transparency: Reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell. In Schultz, M.; Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, H. (Eds.). The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 77-96.

ANZMAC 2009

Gray, R., Kouhy, R., Lavers, S., 1995. Corporate social and environmental reports: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8 (2), 44-77. Gray, R., Owen D., Adams C., 1996. Accounting and Accountability, changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting, Prentice Hall, London. Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management – new perspectives why corporations engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27 (1/2), 55-68. Hunter, T., Bansal, P., 2007. How standard is standardized MNC global environmental communication? Journal of Business Ethics 71(1), 135-147. Juholin, E., 2004.For business of the good of all? A Finish approach to corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance 4 (3), 20-31. Knox, S., Maklan, S., French, P., 2005. Corporate social responsibility: Exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE corporations. Journal of Business Ethics 61(1), 7-28. Leiss, W., Kline, S., Jhaly, S., Botterill, J., 2005. Social Communication in Advertising: Consumption in the mediated marketplace. Routledge, Abingdon, NY. Lindblom, C. K., 1994. The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York. Livesey, S. M., 2001. Eco-identity as discursive struggle Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar and Nigeria. Journal of Business Communication 38 (1), 58-91. Livsey, S. M., Kearins, K., 2002. Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by The Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization and Environment 15 (3), 233-258. Maignan, M., Ralston, D. A., 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses' self presentations. Journal of Business Studies 33(3), 497- 515. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., Wright, P. M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18. Mendonca, J. R. C., Andrade, J. A., 2003. Gerenciamento de impressoes: Em busca da legitimidade organizacional [Impression Management: In the search of the organizational legitimacy]. RAE 43(1), 36-48 (in Portuguese). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: a European Review 15(4), 323-338. Morsing, M., 2006. Corporate moral brands - the question of aligning employees. Corporate Communications: an International Journal 11 (2), 97-108. Neu, D., Warsame, H., Pedwell, K., 1998. Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organisations and Society 23(3), 265-282. Polonsky, M., Jevons, C., 2009. Global branding and strategic CSR: an overview of three types of complexity. International Marketing Review 26 (3), 327-347.

Page 8 of 9

Page 9 of 9

ANZMAC 2009

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. Quazi, A., O,Brien, D., 2000. An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 25(1), 33-51. Rosenfeld, P., 1997. Impression management, fairness and the employment interview. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (8), 801-808. Schlegelmilch, B. B., Pollach, I., 2005. The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal of Marketing Management 3-4 (21), 267-290. Schroder, K. C., 1997. Cynicism and ambiguity: British corporate responsibility advertisements and their readers in the 1990s. In: Nava, M., Blake, A., MacRury, I., Richards, B. (Eds.). Buy this book Studies in advertising and consumption, Routledge, London, pp 276290. Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. The Academy of Management Review 20 (4), 936-960. Stoll, M. L., 2002. The ethics of marketing good corporate conduct. Journal of Business Ethics 41 (1-2), 121-129. Wheeler, D., Fabig, H., Boele, R., 2002. Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics 39 (3), 297-318. Yaprak, A., 2008. Culture study in international marketing: a critical review and suggestions for future research. International Marketing Review 25 (2), 215-229. Zeghal, D., Ahmed, S. A., 1990. Comparison of social responsibility information disclosure media by Canadians firms. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 3 (1), 38-53.