'Catch 22' of communicating CSR - CiteSeerX

Journal of Marketing Communications Vol. 14, No. 2, April 2008, 97–111

The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study Mette Morsinga*, Majken Schultza and Kasper Ulf Nielsenb a

Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark; bReputation Institute, Denmark This research explored the apparent ‘Catch 22’ of communicating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Although companies are regularly encouraged to engage in CSR, they are simultaneously discouraged to communicate about this engagement. We contribute with two models that may help to explain how companies can best communicate about their CSR initiatives. Based on a reputation survey and two case studies of Danish corporate CSR frontrunners, first we develop an ‘inside-out approach’ to suggest how managers can manage their CSR activities to achieve favourable CSR reputation in a ‘Catch 22’ context. Employees appear as a key component in building trustworthiness as CSR communication is shown to evolve when taking an ‘inside-out approach’. Second, we develop a CSR communication model with two CSR communication processes targeting different stakeholder groups: ‘the expert CSR communication process’ and ‘the endorsed CSR communication process’. Integrating these models and processes may help companies strategically capture reputational advantage from their CSR initiatives. Keywords: CSR communication; corporate communication; reputation management; stakeholder communication; employees; explicit and implicit communication

Introduction: The challenge of being perceived as socially responsible It seems more important than ever before for companies to be perceived as respectable and socially responsible organizations in modern society, i.e. to build a corporate reputation of social commitment (Hooghiemstra 2000; Maignan and Ferrell 2004; Morsing and Beckmann 2006; Fombrun and van Riel 2007). Even companies with a positive reputation for CSR face the challenge, the boycott of Starbucks being a good example (Smith 2003). Research indicates that the companies most active within CSR are also the most criticised, whereas companies doing the least are correspondingly the least criticised (Vallentin 2003). In this perspective, Shell’s explicit and conspicuous dedication to Profits and Principles (Grolin 1998; Fombrun and Rindova 2000; Kuhn and Ashcraft 2003) gives an excellent background for hyper-exposure in the media whenever Shell’s ethical motives or activities are drawn into question. Critical journalists, consumer groups or NGOs may feel particularly compelled to test the validity of the corporate CSR claims; are these companies as ‘good’ as they say they are? (Brown and Dacin 1997). While some research on consumer attributions and responses to CSR indicates a positive link (Scholder, Webb, and Mohr 2006), other consumer research highlights that customers may leave if they perceive that corporate CSR initiatives are achieved at the expense of product quality (Sen and Bhattacharaya 2001). Similarly, *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1352-7266 print/ISSN 1466-4445 online # 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13527260701856608 http://www.informaworld.com

98 M. Morsing et al. consumers may not want to engage with the company if they perceive that its CSR efforts do not enhance its corporate abilities (Sen and Bhattacharaya 2001). The challenge is for companies to be perceived as socially responsible across stakeholders. The difficulty is in how to make it known, and acknowledged by stakeholders, that the company is dedicated to a path of social responsibility, and further, to what extent and how the company deliberately should communicate it. The paper first outlines the research method, while the following section introduces the specific results of the reputation survey. Based on empirical data an ‘inside-out approach’ is suggested as a method for companies to motivate organizational support for the corporate CSR communication. Then, a CSR communication model is developed, which proposes two different communication processes for targeting internal as well as external stakeholders with corporate CSR messages. This paper concludes with implications for the management of corporate CSR communication. Communicating CSR in a Danish context Although prior research suggests that communicating CSR generally requires sophisticated communication techniques, Denmark represents a ‘unique case’ (Yin 1984) in comparison with 10 other countries who participated in the reputation survey in 2004 because CSR is the most important driver of corporate reputation in Denmark compared to the other countries, and because the Danes emerge as the most sceptic citizens to the question of whether companies should communicate their CSR initiatives or not. Study of media mention of CSR in the business press (Guthey, Morsing, and Langer 2006; Buhr and Grafstro¨m 2007) supports our findings that CSR has become an explicit national concern. Our findings show that in spite of the population’s positive reception of corporate CSR activities, the Danes are rather sceptical towards conspicuous corporate CSR communication. Matten and Moon’s study (2007) helps us conceptualizing this hesitance. According to Matten and Moon, companies operating in a US context have traditionally been expected to contribute to social improvements and in response therefore, companies have developed explicit CSR policies and communication. This is referred to as an ‘explicit CSR approach’. In a European context, corporate engagement in social initiatives has been embedded in the national institutional systems, and European companies, therefore, have not developed explicit and articulated CSR strategies. This is what Matten and Moon label the ‘implicit CSR approach’. We believe that the hesitant interest among the Danish population to corporate CSR communication may be seen as reflecting an ongoing shift from an implicit to an explicit CSR approach. Research method This paper builds on two sets of empirical data: a national reputation survey, which points to a unique CSR communication challenge for Danish companies, and two case studies, which illustrate how Danish companies handle the apparent CSR communication challenge. The first set of empirical data is the national reputation survey in which the apparent paradox of CSR communication is identified. Data was collected as part of

Journal of Marketing Communications

99

a study of corporate reputations in Denmark conducted by Reputation Institute using a standardized measure of corporate reputation applied around the world (see www.reputationinstitute.com) to generate comparable reputation rankings of the most visible companies in a country based on a representative sample of the general public (Fombrun, Gardberg, and Sever 2000). Reputation Institute has been conducting such studies since 2000 in the US and since 2002 in Denmark and Holland. In 2006, Reputation Institute enlarged the sample to include measurement of the largest companies in each of 29 countries. Based on the most recent 2007 findings released by Reputation Institute, social responsibility remains a key driver of corporate reputation. The latest global study released by Reputation Institute in March 2007 showed that the importance of social responsibility to corporate reputation has increased globally. In Denmark, analysis of the results of the 30 largest companies showed that social responsibility was still the most important driver of corporate reputation, followed closely by products and services. We focus here on the results of Reputation Institute’s annual surveys from 2002 to 2004. The 2004 results are based on a sample of 3242 respondents from the public in Denmark and their ratings of the 15 most visible companies in Denmark. All interviews were conducted by telephone or via the Internet in February and March 2004. Six dimensions of reputation were measured by Reputation Institute: social responsibility, vision and leadership, financial performance, workplace environment, products and services, and emotional appeal (see Figure 1). We found Reputation Institute’s measure of corporate reputation particularly relevant because the relative influence of CSR on corporate reputations is highlighted in comparison with other countries and because the relevance of CSR to reputation is not reduced to a single stakeholder’s perception of corporate reputations, as corporate managers or as customers. In contrast, Reputation Institute’s measure provides a broad representation of the Danish public’s perception of CSR’s relevance. The second set of empirical data consists of case studies of two Danish companies that describes how they achieved a high position on the CSR dimension and managed the CSR communication challenge. We selected two Danish companies that are perceived as CSR frontrunners by the Danish public: Novo Nordisk and Danfoss. We also selected them because they belong to different industries (pharmaceuticals and industrial heating/cooling systems), enabling generalizability beyond a single particular industry. Novo Nordisk, a world leader in diabetes healthcare, has won comprehensive recognition for its CSR activities. For the last 30 years, the company has integrated issues of environmental concern into its corporate strategy and has published annual sustainability reports since 1997. In 2002, the United Nations’ Environmental Program ranked Novo Nordisk’s Sustainability Report as having the world’s second best reporting on soft values. For a number of years, it has also been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index as well as the Dow Jones STOXX Sustainability Indexes. Danfoss, a world leader in refrigeration, air conditioning, heating and industrial controls, has a history of CSR activities and it is known for the founding family Clausen’s strong values for social responsibility. The company has also been involved in numerous projects to promote social responsibility in the local community. In Denmark, Danfoss generally has a strong reputation and a particularly strong reputation for CSR, which is reflected, for example, in the fact

100 M. Morsing et al.

Figure 1. Harris Interactive and Reputation Institute’s dimensions of corporate reputation. Source: Reputation Institute and Harris Interactive. Note: This analysis was conducted by Reputation Institute and Harris Interactive. The structural equation model reveals the importance of Emotional Appeal (Trust, Admiration, Good Feeling) in terms of driving overall corporate reputation. Of the remaining five dimensions, Products and Services followed by Social Responsibility play the largest roles in driving Emotional Appeal, and therefore, overall reputation. Also significant, albeit not as strong, are public perceptions of the Workplace Environment. The results are extremely similar to those found in 2002.

that in 2004, the company had the highest score for CSR among Danish companies measured by Reputation Institute. For both companies, documentary research was done using corporate websites, annual reports, corporate brand and advertising campaigns, as well as corporate communication to employees and external stakeholders. Interviews with corporate communication managers in the three companies were also done. The findings from the three case studies were then compared and contrasted (Eisenhardt 1989) in order to understand similarities and differences in their ways of handling corporate CSR communication. Last, we presented our findings to three groups of Danish corporate communication managers which stimulated our final data collection. Findings from Reputation Institute’s 2004 study in Denmark Based on the results provided by Reputation Institute in 2004, the importance of having a reputation for being socially responsible has grown over time. The 2004


101

results indicate that 96% of the Danish public believes that Danish companies should take on social responsibility. Using a structural equation analysis, Reputation Institute examined which of the dimensions had the most influence on a company’s ‘emotional appeal’ – the trust, admiration, and good feeling stakeholders have towards a company. In most countries, perceptions of a company’s products and services have been the most powerful predictor of the overall corporate reputation, followed closely by CSR. Although the results 2004 (see Figure 2) show a slight decrease in the average importance of CSR by the general Danish population, social responsibility along with products and services continue to play the biggest role in driving emotional appeal, and thus overall company reputation. The attributes of ‘social responsibility’ include responsibility towards society (community responsibility), concern for the environment (environmental responsibility) and philanthropic behaviour or corporate social initiatives (support good causes), entailing, as such, a broad variety of CSR activities. However, there are different ways and different components with regard to what it means for a company to be socially responsible. The findings of Reputation Institute’s study of public perceptions in Denmark (see Figure 3) indicate that ‘treatment of employees’ is perceived as an absolutely essential Corporate Social Responsibility by 45% of the general Danish population in 2004, while ‘local community’ gets only 4% of the attention and ‘charitable and other good causes’ only 2%. By the same token, philanthropic activities such as advertising and charity are considered less important. Thus, donating money to worthy causes does not contribute considerably to building a strong reputation for being responsible in Denmark. However, Reputation Institute’s survey of the Danish public also shows that Danes are more reluctant to welcome CSR messages in corporate communication than North Americans are and even neighbouring Swedes and Norwegians (see also

Figure 2. The drivers of reputation for the RQ in Denmark (2003). Source: Reputation Institute and Harris Interactive.


Figure 3. Corporate citizenship – what is MOST essential? Source: Reputation Institute and Harris Interactive.

´ peria, Brønn, and Schultz 2004) than in previous two years. In support of the A hesitation towards conspicuous CSR communication, the findings show concern about which channels companies should use. Corporate advertising and public relations are considered slightly less important than the less bold channels such as annual reports and corporate websites (Figure 4). Thus, the results from Reputation Institute’s research in Denmark highlight and support our claim about the apparently paradoxical nature of communicating social responsibility. On the one hand, the general population has a high regard for those companies associated with social responsibility, while on the other hand, the majority of Danish citizens encourage companies either not to communicate about their social responsibility or to communicate in a less conspicuous way. Furthermore, Reputation Institute’s findings confirm the importance of treating employees well in order to achieve a favourable reputation in Denmark. The question is how Danish companies react towards the communication challenge and the balance between simultaneous expectations to implicit and explicit CSR strategies. CSR management: ‘The inside-out approach’ The second set of empirical data suggests the development of a normative descriptive model of how managers manage their CSR communication. We identified that the communication of CSR to internal as well as to external stakeholders relies on what we refer to as ‘the inside-out approach’. In practice, the inside-out approach has two implications. First, companies should base their CSR communication on ensuring employee commitment before they start communicating about their CSR activities to external stakeholders. Second, companies should communicate those CSR activities that relate to employees as indicated by Reputation Institute’s research. Both activities require the close involvement of employees in CSR activities and they


103

Figure 4. Should companies communicate corporate citizenship?

present, to some extent, overlapping activities. This is elaborated upon in the rest of this section. Managers in Danfoss and Novo Nordisk agree independently that their first priority for CSR management is to ensure that employees are committed to the corporate CSR policies and actions. An organizational anchoring of CSR activities is a precondition for trustworthy CSR communication, and this implies active involvement of employees in the CSR activities themselves. Mike Rulis, Vice President, Corporate Communications in Novo Nordisk, puts it this way: If employees do not experience the company as a socially responsible company then we become totally untrustworthy when we try to portray ourselves as trustworthy to other stakeholders. This is why our CSR strategy started from inside the organization with simple issues like a better work environment, including sick leave, alcohol policies, etc. This is all forgotten now because people talk about saving the world when they talk about CSR – but it all started with the simple things.

The companies also agree that when an acceptable level of internal commitment is reached concerning internal CSR issues then the next step is to engage employees in CSR in the local communities. This may include issues on social programs as well as environmental protection and may imply dialogue with politicians as well as local interest groups. Next a more encompassing CSR approach towards the national and international levels may develop. The ‘inside-out approach’ to CSR activities means that initially, employees are the key stakeholders of concern for CSR activities. The main point is that employees are involved ‘all the way’. In return, this will increase the likelihood that employees


Figure 5. CSR management: ‘the inside-out approach’.

feel committed and organizationally support the corporate CSR agenda. This process is illustrated by the arrows in Figure 5. The companies report that the inside-out approach builds a strong organizational commitment to the corporate CSR agenda, thus encouraging employees to contribute to the further development and support of the corporate CSR policies and activities. CSR activities may be promoted and supported by top management, but if employees do not develop a sense of ownership, the activities will not find organizational support and not create a basis for the continuation of the activities themselves nor for a trustworthy communication about them. All managers in both case studies emphasize that if CSR activities are perceived by employees to only enjoy top managerial rhetorical support, it is likely to meet strong scepticism – also in the long run among Danish citizens. The Danish companies encourage development of an organizational culture of active engagement in corporate CSR programmes. An example from Novo Nordisk demonstrates a concrete initiative: We started an internal campaign ‘‘Take Action’’, which is focused on different ways the individual employee can get involved in social activities. This can be done in many different ways, by raising money for a certain course or by engaging in specific projects. The point is that the employees themselves have to pro-actively search for projects which they find worthy of support and then to argue why this is a particularly worthy project for Novo Nordisk to support. This process evokes many discussions among employees about why and how their workplace can contribute to society. We find this an enormously healthy process – not only for the personal development of our employees, but also for the development of our business; employees themselves identify areas on the boundary between the company and our stakeholders on how we can improve our relationships in a way that is mutually beneficial. (Mike Rulis, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Novo Nordisk.)

Another example from Danfoss demonstrates how a CSR project intended to improve conditions for employees turned out to be a contribution to the local community as well as a contribution to pride amongst employees.


105

Since we live on a small island far away from the nearest public hospital, we found it necessary to have our own corporate ambulance and ambulance personnel who are able to give first aid. The public ambulance could not respond quickly enough. Our ambulance was a success, and it was suggested that we should make an agreement with local politicians so that our ambulance could service the whole island and not only our employees. It is not a project that was designed to make us look good, but to make good sense for our employees. Although it was designed for our employees, it soon turned out to contribute to our local community as well. We are all rather proud of this project. (Ole Daugbjerg, Vice President, Corporate Communication and Reputation Management, Danfoss.)

The findings obtained from Reputation Institute’s public polls indicate that CSR efforts should focus on improving conditions for employees, not only strategically in order to gain the commitment of employees, but also to fulfil the expectations of the public in Denmark, and thereby to achieve a favourable reputation. As such, it can be concluded that there is a shared interest between companies and the public to involve employees either as the subject of corporate CSR activities or as being actively involved in defining and implementing corporate CSR activities. In the following, we develop a model for CSR communication, which builds on a strong employee commitment to corporate CSR activities, i.e. companies engaged in ‘the inside-out approach’. One model and two processes for CSR communication To understand how to manage the CSR communication challenge, we explored how the two Danish corporate CSR frontrunners managed their CSR communication to different stakeholders to remain attractive in the Danish public opinion. Based on the findings from Danfoss and Novo Nordisk, a model for CSR communication was developed which suggests two interdependent processes for communicating CSR to a variety of stakeholders in a society that appreciates CSR initiatives but is generally sceptical towards corporate CSR statements. In line with Reputation Institute’s findings in Denmark, the case studies clearly indicate that the companies perceive CSR as a primary driver for achieving a favourable reputation – regardless of the business the company is in. Across companies, there is also general agreement that it is not effective to communicate directly to the public or to consumers to achieve a favourable CSR reputation. Instead, the companies target their direct corporate CSR communication towards an exclusive group of experts, i.e. politicians, local authorities, the media, investors and critical interest groups, which the companies themselves regard as ‘elite readers’ of corporate CSR messages. We label this the ‘expert CSR communication process’. CSR communication towards the public and consumers is conducted in an indirect way, because companies rely on the ‘elite readers’ to convey the corporate CSR messages in positive ways to the larger groups of stakeholders in society. We label this the ‘endorsed CSR communication process’ (see also Morsing and Schultz 2006). The expert and the endorsed CSR communication processes are depicted in Figure 6. The expert CSR communication process Consistent with the findings of Reputation Institute’s public surveys, the cast studies show that Danes favour companies that communicate their social responsibility in a


Figure 6. A model of CSR communication: expert and endorsed communication processes.

less bold style, which corresponds to the findings in the case studies. CSR activities are principally conveyed through corporate websites, internal personnel magazines, sustainability reports and in face-to-face meetings with stakeholders. The case studies further demonstrate that both companies use a substantial and informative style filled with facts and figures when they articulate their CSR activities. Moreover, they agree that corporate CSR communication is directed at an exclusive group of respected opinion makers – not at the public or at customers in general. We found that the communication style of CSR messages expresses, at times, an almost scientific discourse, which uses facts, figures, statistics and curves, and yet remains rather congenial. CSR communication from these companies is generally not easily understood by someone who is not already knowledgeable about CSR issues. We label this ‘the expert CSR communication processes’. Mike Rulis at Novo Nordisk emphasizes that this type of communication is directed at those stakeholders who are already knowledgeable about CSR issues and are interested in understanding what the company is quite specifically doing in that area. The way we communicate about CSR is very elitist. Our communication is centred on large CSR conferences and our sustainability reports, which are not simple or popular reports. Our communication is for people who are really interested and who have extensive basic knowledge about the field. Also, if you look at how much we communicate CSR internally at meetings or in employee magazines … it is rather substantial. You cannot open an issue of our corporate magazine without finding CSR related articles. (Mike Rulis, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Novo Nordisk.)

Note that once again employees are highlighted as central to CSR activities and as important readers of corporate CSR messages. The two companies engage their managers and employees in direct communication with critical interest groups like


107

NGOs or politicians, who may even act as partners in the development of business strategies related to CSR. Both companies argue that they have never engaged in an advertising campaign to present their corporate CSR activities to Danish stakeholders. The preferred channels of communication on the Danish market are websites, reports, magazines and personal communication, which confirms Reputation Institute’s survey findings showing that a relatively high percentage of the Danish public encourage little or no communication on CSR issues from the companies themselves. As a result, information about corporate CSR activities is available in an inconspicuous way, with the companies agreeing that the interested reader will find it. The endorsed CSR communication process However, it is not enough to make a small exclusive group of expert stakeholders aware of corporate CSR activities to achieve a favourable reputation at national level. Our case studies indicate that communicating CSR via third party experts is a muchappreciated strategy. We label this ‘the endorsed CSR communication process’. Endorsed CSR communication activities are perceived as key to avoid appearing as a self-complacent and self-serving organization in the eyes of the general public and customers in Denmark. Ole Daugbjerg from Danfoss expresses this as follows: I do not think the general public minds that something is said about CSR – they just do not want us to say it. If the media communicates it, then it is okay. The evident part is third party endorsement – that it is not you who say you are good, but someone else. That is a key factor that we are highly aware of in our CSR communication. Reactions depend on the communication channels. When an international company makes an advertising campaign on their corporate trucks explaining how they bring out medicine to the poor and suffering people in Africa, it makes the Danes feel sick. If WHO made a documentary from Africa where it was mentioned, then it would have been great! (Ole Daugbjerg, Vice President, Corporate Communication and Reputation Management, Danfoss.)

At Danfoss, employees and the media are emphasized as key third party stakeholders. In order to encounter the Danish scepticism towards top managerial claims, Danfoss’ corporate communication department often asks employees to talk to the media. According to Ole Daugbjerg, this serves two purposes: first, it commits the employee to the corporate CSR activity in question (e.g. the inside-out approach), and second, it sends messages to the public about that employee commitment. As such, it contributes to making the company appear more trustworthy and socially committed without communicating the CSR activities in a top managerial fashion. Both companies agree that customers do not read corporate CSR communication, but rather base their assessment of corporate reputations on other stakeholders’ opinions about the company. However, Novo Nordisk and Danfoss report that large international B2B customers increasingly ask for information about their CSR activities. In these cases, sustainability reports serve the purpose of informing the B2B customers, i.e. turning them into ‘expert stakeholders’. Interdependence between the two CSR communication processes While the two CSR communication processes are described as separate processes, we highlight that they are interdependent. The endorsed process relies on successful

108 M. Morsing et al. communication to an exclusive group of opinion makers, and that these expert stakeholders generate and disseminate a favourable image of the company. Therefore, the expert CSR communication process must, for example, take into consideration those CSR issues that not only expert stakeholders value, but that the general public and customers favour; for example ‘treatment of employees’ as with Reputation Institute’s survey findings in Denmark. This may not be an issue of interest to expert stakeholders in the same way it has been demonstrated to be a central issue for the public in Denmark. Nevertheless, in the design and implementation of corporate CSR communication to experts, Danish companies may find it worthwhile to relate this issue in ways that experts find attractive enough to further communicate to the public. Direct and indirect CSR communication processes should ideally happen simultaneously in order to serve the purpose of communicating CSR activities in an inconspicuous but attractive way to meet the communication challenge. Conclusion Our paper has pointed to one of the challenges for companies operating in Denmark, as they engage in CSR activities and want to be perceived with a favourable CSR reputation. On the one hand, there is an expectation by the public that companies engage in CSR activities. On the other hand, the public does not appreciate that companies communicate too ‘loud’ to them about this engagement. We label this the ‘Catch 22’. Moreover, we suggest that this challenge may be of relevance for companies operating in other welfare states, as they possibly – like in Denmark – move from expectations about implicit to more explicit CSR approaches (Matten and Moon 2007). Other research has pointed to this tendency as a possible ‘Americanization’ of European CSR communication strategies (Beckmann, Morsing, and Reisch 2006). We have pointed out that although companies located in Denmark are likely to achieve favourable reputations if they engage in initiatives that demonstrate their commitment to social responsibility, corporate managers should also be rather concerned with both how and the degree to which they communicate their social initiatives. First, our empirical findings demonstrate that the basis for trustworthy CSR communication is the involvement and commitment of employees to the corporate CSR policies in what we refer to as an ‘inside-out approach’. Without employee commitment, CSR communication is perceived as pure top managerial rhetoric, of which the Danes are sceptical. Second, the three case studies point to the use of an ‘expert CSR communication process’ for highly involved stakeholders and an ‘endorsed CSR communication process’ for the general public and customers. The challenge of communicating CSR to stakeholders is managed by balancing expert and endorsed CSR communication processes. The implications for management of CSR communication in a Danish context can thus be summarized in the following statements:

N

An inside-out approach, i.e. start with involving and committing employees on all issues of corporate CSR policies – beginning with CSR efforts concerning employees themselves, then local communities and later national and international stakeholders.


N N N

109

Address expert stakeholders with a high level of interest and knowledge about CSR. Use an ‘expert CSR communication process’ towards expert stakeholders, i.e. critical stakeholders, local decision makers and the media. Use an ‘endorsed communication process’ towards the general public and customers, as they are being reached via expert stakeholders, local decision makers, etc.

In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated that communicating CSR shifts the corporate communication logic of achieving a favourable reputation by directly targeting the general public and customers towards producing commitment and involvement beginning with organizational members, and then later with politicians, local communities, critical interest groups and the media. In this way, CSR communication becomes explicit in an implicit way. However, this does not automatically imply that corporate communication of CSR activities completely escapes the paradox of demonstrating CSR engagement without being perceived as communicating it too loudly. Experiences from the Danish case indicate that there is a need for a new level of sensitivity and sophistication for those companies wanting to enjoy the reputational benefits from a CSR engagement. While our research has pointed at models and processes to manage CSR communication, we also acknowledge that ‘the case of Denmark’ provides a narrow laboratory to study corporate communication. We think our study has pointed to the need for a fuller understanding for two dimension of the CSR communication process: first, more analysis is needed on how employees are integrated into the CSR communication process. Second, there is a need to understand better, how the corporate communication processes differ in implicit and explicit CSR approaches, and how these approaches may be managed in international companies operating in both explicit and implicit CSR contexts.

Acknowledgments The authors should like to thank Dr Charles Fombrun and Reputation Institute for his comments on earlier versions of this manuscript and for permission to utilise and cite some of the materials in this paper. The authors also thank Mike Rulis from Novo Nordisk and Ole Daugbjerg from Danfoss for providing us with generous access to their companies. In addition, the authors should like to thank special issue editor Klement Podnar and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and ideas.

Notes on contributors Mette Morsing is Professor of CSR at CBS and Director of CBS Center for Corporate Social Responsibility. Her research interests are CSR in the perspective of communication, management and identity. She has published in a number of international journals and her most recent books are Corporate Social Responsibility at Palgrave MacMillan with Andrew Kakabadse (2006) and Corporate Communications: Convention, Critique and Complexity at Sage Publications with Lars Thøger Christensen and George Cheney (2008). Morsing is member of a number of European boards and scientific committees on CSRrelated issues.

110 M. Morsing et al. Majken Schultz (www.majkenschultz.com) is Professor at CBS, Associate Dean for the CBS Full Time MBA and partner in The Reputation Institute. Her research interests are located at the interface between culture, identity and image, corporate branding and reputation management. She has published more than 50 articles in international journals. Recent books are The Expressive Organization with Oxford University Press; Organizational Identity both with Mary Jo Hatch and Corporate Branding with CBS Press. Together they are publishing Taking Brand Initiative with Jossey Bass in 2008. She serves on several company boards and is active in the public debate. Kasper Ulf Nielsen is Managing Partner of Reputation Institute the world leading organization in reputation management. Kasper has been engaged in international reputation management since 2000 helping companies create value from their reputation in a range of industries such as Pharmaceuticals, Information Technology, Food and Beverage, Public Transportation, and Financial Services. Kasper has made numerous presentations at international conferences on reputation management, as well as published a number of articles in Corporate Reputation Review. Kasper is a graduate from Copenhagen Business School.

References ` peria, T., P.S. Brønn, and M. Schultz. 2004. A reputation survey of the most visible A companies in the Scandinavian countries. Corporate Reputation Review 7, no. 3: 218–30. Beckmann, S.C., M. Morsing, and L. Reisch. 2006. Strategic CSR Communication: An emerging field. In Strategic CSR Communication, eds. M. Morsing and S.C. Beckmann, 11–36. Copenhagen: DJOF Publications. Brown, T.J., and P.A. Dacin. 1997. The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 51, no. January: 68–84. Buhr, H., and M. Grafstro¨m. 2007. The making of meaning in the media: The case of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Financial Times. In Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action. Talking, Doing and Measuring, eds. F. Hond, F.G.A. de Bakker, and P. Neergaard, 15–32. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Company. Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4: 532–50. Fombrun, C., and V. Rindova. 2000. Constructing competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 20, no. 8: 671–91. Fombrun, C., N.A. Gardberg, and J.M. Sever. 2000. The reputation quotient index: A multistakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management 7, no. 4: 241–55. Fombrun, C.J., and C.B.M. van Riel. 2003. How successful companies build winning reputations. New York: FT Prentice Hall. Grolin, J. 1998. Corporate legitimacy in risk society: The case of Brent Spar. Business Strategy and the Environment 7, no. 4: 213–22. Guthey, E., M. Morsing, and R. Langer. 2006. La responsibilidad social corporative como moda de gestio´n empresarial. Harvard-Deusto Business Review, no. 150, October: 56–67. Hooghiemstra, R. 2000. Corporate communication and impression management. New perspectives why companies engage in social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27: 55–68. Kuhn, T., and K.L. Ashcraft. 2003. Corporate scandals and the theory of the firm. Management Communication Quarterly 17, no. 1: 20–57. Maignan, I., and O.C. Ferrell. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32, no. 1: 3–19.


111

Matten, D., and J. Moon. 2004. A conceptual framework for understanding CSR. In Corporate Social Responsibility across Europe, eds. A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wegner, and R. Schmidpeter, 335–356. Berlin: Springer. Morsing, M., and S.C. Beckmann, eds. 2006. Strategic CSR communication. Copenhagen: DJOF Publications. Morsing, M., and M. Schultz. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15, no. 4: 323–38. Scholder, E.P., D.J. Webbm, and L.A. Mohr. 2006. Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34, no. 2: 147–57. Sen, S.m., and C.B. Bhattacharaya. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corproate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research XXXVIII: 225–43. Smith, N.C. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review 45, no. 4: 52–73. Vallentin, S. 2003. Pensionsinvesteringer, etik og offentlighed – en systemteoretisk analyse af offentlig meningsdannelse. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Yin, R. 1984. Case study research. Design and methods. Applied social science methods series. London: Sage.