Search results

The translation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) values in customer awareness and engagement with the CSR values with the corporate brand is a key challenge for UK retailers. This chapter examines the incorporation of CSR in the core brand discourse of Marks & Spencer (M&S), focusing on the interrelationship between CSR reporting and brand heritage.

Using Fairclough’s (1989) method of critical discourse analysis, this chapter reports on the key discourses around CSR to emerge from annual reports of M&S in the period from the 1940s to 2010s.

Findings identify how messages relating to CSR are shaped and presented to stakeholders, noting the textual patterns that emerge in the M&S discourse. Patterns included a substantial reliance on relational values, the strategic adoption of expressive values toward specific groups (employees, suppliers), and textual cues such as metaphor and over-wording as a means to draw out links to M&S brand heritage.

The chapter highlights how we, as academics, need to consider both (a) the evolution of CSR reporting and how this reflects brand messages over time and (b) how CSR reporting is becoming integral in brand positioning for UK retailer brands.

In dealing with archival materials, it is necessary to be selective and this can limit the range of textual patterns that might be articulated in the discourse analysis.

Limited research to date has examined the integration of CSR and brand heritage in organizational discourses. This study offers an in-depth examination of how this integration of CSR messages in brand communication has evolved for M&S – one of the United Kingdom’s foremost retail brands.

To demonstrate, through the application of Fairclough's critical discourse analysis framework, that the discourse surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR) has broader implications.

Argues that the evolution of CSR has become a two‐way process of interaction between business and civil society.

As companies place increasing emphasis on their ability to act responsibly as “corporate citizens”, CSR provides new opportunities for social actors to assimilate these strategies; enabling them to scrutinise, question and oppose the business practices of global corporations and challenging them to prove that there is more to CSR than merely corporate rhetoric.

Demonstrates that the discourse surrounding CSR has broader implications.

This paper seeks to analyse and discuss what organizations say and how they say it when reporting Corporate Social Responsibility. It raises the question whether organizations report consistently on CSR in terms of genres, media, rhetorical strategies, etc.

The analysis takes critical discourse analysis of selected corporations' CSR reporting, on the one hand, and theories and research on CSR and stakeholder relations, on the other hand, as its starting‐point. A model of analysis is proposed which presents discourse as a result of four kinds of challenges facing corporations today. The model serves to establish an ideal typology of CSR concepts and discourses and to analyse these discourses from a modern organizational and corporate communication perspective.

The analysis shows that annual reports are very dissimilar with respect to topics on the one hand and dimensions and discourses expressed in perspectives, stakeholder priorities, contextual information and ambition levels, on the other hand. The paper argues that corporations seem to be wrapped in divergent configurations of interest stemming from different institutional affiliations, such as government, regional institutions and NGOs.

The contribution of the paper is to highlight the value of the discourse and the discourse types adopted in the reporting material. By adopting consistent discourse types which interact according to a well‐defined pattern or order it is possible to communicate a strong social commitment, on the one hand, and take into consideration the expectations of the shareholders and of the other stakeholders, on the other hand.

This article looks at corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a discursive social practice that attempts to interrogate the global market economy and its neoliberal underpinnings and that reflects as well as frames and shapes domestic and global politics and institutions. Drawing upon Karl Polanyi’s notions of reciprocity and redistribution while also emphasizing the normative content of the concept, the article inquires into the position that the CSR discourse occupies in addressing the corporate transnational risks derived from social tensions and conflicts and more generally, in answering social expectations for justice. The Polanyian perspective highlights the CSR discursive quest for a missing conceptual consistency and implicitly, for a constructive “critical” core. From this perspective, the article shows CSR to reside within controversial conceptual boundaries; a discursive social practice that engages with the social aspiration of embedding market economy in society while it is also in need of reclaiming its critical core and its potential for social change.

The purpose of this paper is to get a deeper understanding how not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) discursively legitimize their corporate engagement through cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) in general, and particularly how they construct legitimacy for partnering with firms involved in the commodification of water. The paper seeks to shed light on the values embedded in these discursive accounts and the kind of societal effects and power relations they generate, and the authors are particularly interested in understanding the role of modernity in shaping their responsibilities (or lack of them) via various technologies and practices

Drawing on critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1995), the authors analyze the discursive accounts of three water-related CSPs involving the three biggest bottled water producers in the world (Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Danone) and three major non-profits (The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the World Wildlife Foundation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

The NPO’s legitimate their corporate engagement in the water CSPs through the use of two global discourses: global governance discourse and the global climate crisis discourse. Relief from responsibility is achieved through three processes: replacement of moral with technical responsibility, denial of proximity and the usage of intermediaries to whom responsibility is outsourced.

This paper explores the processes of legitimizing accounts for CSPs, particularly focusing on NPO discourse and their use of CSR elements and the consequences of such discursive constructs, and this has received little to no attention in previous research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how well water companies in four different nationalities and political cultures are engaged in the CSR discourse. This question is relevant after more than 20 years of privatization of the public administration's bureaucracy and its adoption of management styles, behaviours and thinking from the private business sphere. This paper seeks to critically examine how water companies take part in the CSR discourse, by which institutional mechanisms this managerial “thinking” in terms of institutional “logics” has come about, and which adopted “meanings” lie behind.

The paper shows a qualitatively, ethnographic investigation and discourse analysis of privatized water companies from four different political and market economy nations; small- and medium-sized water companies from the social-democratic state of Denmark; large size companies from the conservative and liberal market economy of the UK; large- and multinational companies from the USA and medium-, large- and multinationals from South Africa. Seven companies are chosen in each country from the smallest to the largest in order to obtain maximum variety and express analytical generalizations across nations and company sizes if possible.

The findings of the cross-geographical, -political, -market economical study of maximum variety of companies show how institutional logics are transferring from “implicit” CSR towards “explicit” CSR through coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism: companies that are only engaged in coercive isomorphic “implicit” CSR show a hesitant and resistant engagement, whereas companies engaging in normative and mimetic isomorphic “explicit” CSR translate their discourses in a more authentic way. However, the findings also question the credibility of this authenticity when most CSR-reports from the water companies are made without third party accreditation, without performance indicators and only through narratives that are hard to scrutinize.

The research has limitations towards the discourse analysis, which in Denmark was possible to conduct from both oral texts such as interviews, observation studies and document analysis, whereas in the UK, the USA and South Africa is based only on written texts from documents, CSR-reports, annual reports and written communications between regulators and companies. The research implications suggest a further replication of the findings from a more in-depth analysis of the institutional logics in these companies in the UK, the USA and South Africa by replication of the study from Denmark.

The practical implications of this study suggest a transformation of political instrumentation from rule-setting to incentives making to make public water service companies even more engaged in “explicit” CSR to obtain more authenticity and a higher level of legitimacy in the field compared to the strong tradition of “explicit” CSR seen in the private business sphere.

The originality and value of this research is shown by the empirical findings of the theoretical suggestions by Matten and Moon in how “implicit” CSR is transferred to “explicit” CSR in the privatization of public service companies in the water sector across nations, cultures, political and market economical spheres. It shows through the discourse analysis of institutional logics how institutional isomorphism is prevalent in this sector and how New Public Management systems need to conform from instrumental rule-making to incentive-making to make public service adopt CSR in a more authentic way.

Research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting highlights an increasing lack of transparency in the information reported along with concerns surrounding overall reporting practices. One area that needs exploration is how chief executive officers (CEOs) convey messages in relation to CSR. This paper aims to investigate the linkage between CEO’s statements (words and images) in relation to CSR and the performativity of such communication.

The study analysed CEOs statements from five Malaysian companies contained in 2016, 2017 and 2018 standalone sustainability and annual reports. The texts and visuals are analysed by using discourse analysis.

The findings uncover three main discourses (economic, environmental and social) along with other discourses (achievements and recognition and challenges). The texts and images are found to be lacking in clarity and consistency and in many ways leave the stakeholders to make their own conclusions about the reported information.

The research indicates that while the leaders can be more direct to their stakeholders, however, the opportunity is not always capitalised. Overall, the analysis suggests an increasing scientism in CEOs messaging in relation to CSR as a tool to enhance perceived accountability of the business. The study also suggests avenues for improvement. This paper contributes to the emergence of different types of discourses that are being upheld by CEOs in their statements on CSR in Malaysian context. The discourses identified provide interesting insights into how CSR is perceived by the leaders.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how language (choice) in CSR reports of leading oil companies in Nigeria is used to portray an image of “responsible organisation”.

This paper draws insights from communication studies (persuasion theory) and critical discourse analysis (CDA) studies to discursively unpack all those subtle and visible, yet equally invisible, linguistic strategies (micro-level elements): wording (single words), phrases and chains of words (clauses/sentences). These linguistic strategies (micro-level elements) proxy organisational discourses (meso-level elements), which are reflective of wider social practices (macro-level elements). The authors base the investigation on CSR reports of six leading oil companies in Nigeria from 2009 to 2012.

The findings of this study reveal that (leading) Nigerian oil companies linguistically use CSR reports to persuasively construct and portray the image of “responsible organisation” in the eyes of wider stakeholders (the communities) despite serious criticism of their corporate (ir) responsibility.

As opposed to the previous content analysis based studies, this paper contributes to the emerging stream of CDA studies on CSR reporting by providing a finer-grained linguistic analytical schema couched in Fairclough’s (2003) approach to CDA (and persuasion theory). This helps to unravel how persuasive language/discourse of responsible organisation is enacted and reproduced. The authors thus respond to the calls for theoretical plurality in CSR reporting research by introducing persuasion theory from communication studies literature which has hitherto been rarely applied.

The chapter addresses the use of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an indicator of social change and progress towards sustainability by analysing how stakeholders shift their CSR perceptions in different economic conjunctures between visions that are closer to communication or to governance as structures of network interaction. A matrix is presented that defines four models of CSR perception by integrating theoretical approaches of CSR framed by market or by society, by communication or by governance. Stakeholders’ perceptions are then positioned in the matrix through qualitative analysis of the diverse definitions, constructions and positions with respect to CSR made and adopted by corporate agents, social stakeholders and communicators in their discourses. The study proves that changes in how actors perceive and explain self-governed CSR do not depend so much on economic factors as on the networks of stakeholder interaction through communication and governance. Mapping CSR stakeholders’ perceptions indicates changes and limiting actors, but is not enough to isolate the triggers of those changes. The maps provide a starting point for further exploration of (de)politicization, framing, and understanding of CSR communication and governance, and for the analysis of the limitations of the current model of CSR self-governance. The theoretical approach and methodology provide a framework that integrates communication and governance as relational structures of network interaction in CSR.

This chapter proposes using a dialectical approach infused with elements of dialogism to analyze polyphonic discourses of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in order to create more nuanced understandings of the contradictions, oppositions, tensions, and complexities that characterize the conceptualization, enactment, and communication of CSR.

This chapter draws upon the notion of dialectics discussed by scholars such as Hegel and Marx and infuses it with Bakhtinian notions of dialogism to create a dialectical framework for analyzing discourses of CSR.

This chapter illustrates the conceptual argument for a dialectical approach to examining discourses of CSR by using the example of the dualistic discussion of corporations as agents of empowerment or exploitation. When examined through a dialectical lens, the empowerment–exploitation debate reveals, among others, the dissolution of boundaries between the categories of empowerment and exploitation, the coexistence and interplay of a multitude of related oppositions, and raises questions on praxical patterns employed by social actors to manage the dialectical tensions inherent in everyday organizing.

A dialectical approach in communication studies could open possibilities for acknowledging the co-existence of and interplay among multiple voices in society, thus opening spaces for engaging with diverse perspectives and creating a more holistic understanding of complex social constructs such as CSR.

A dialectical approach that attends to tensions negotiated by social and organizational actors as they try to conceptualize, enact, and communicate CSR can enrich the study of polyphonic discourses of CSR by generating more textured and insightful understandings of CSR than those currently examined through mostly dualistic lenses.