Corporate Social Responsibility Communication

in the Age of New Media:

Towards the Logic of Sustainability Communication
Uzoechi NWAGBARA1
Patrick REID

Abstract
The monopoly of traditional media is gradually being eroded as new media offers
speedy, multiple and innovative ways in which companies can better engage with other
stakeholders. It is therefore pertinent to take a look at the ways in which corporate social
responsibility (CSR) communication is being reshaped by this evolving communications
landscape. Also, new media is reshaping CSR communication for sustainability and
effective stakeholder engagement. Effective stakeholder communication facilitates
organisational success and legitimacy.
This papers aim is to contribute to the burgeoning literature on the development
of CSR concept via the lens of CSR communication by using the strategy of new media to
advance this. The methodology adopted is mainly a review of literature, which parallels the
conceptualisation of sustainability communication as articulated by Godemann &
Michelsen (2012). The paper is essentially conceptual in scope but particularly identities
how new media can be used to advance CSR communication. Thus, as this paper proposes,
as the age of new media opens a plethora of channels as well as strategies to engage with
stakeholders, organisations need to tap into these energies for a better corporate-
stakeholder engagement. Insight and timely engagement will support the achievement of
corporate objectives.

Keywords: CSR Communication; Sustainability Communication; New media;

Corporate-stakeholder Engagement; Communication Models

JLC Classification: M14.

Introduction

Hundreds of scholarly and academic papers have been published on

corporate social responsibility (CSR) exploring its meaning and definitions;
however, there is no consensus on what it precisely means (Frynas, 2009, p. 12).
This is why CSR is being referred to as an essentially contested concept
(Okoye, 2009). The emergence of CSR has been debated as being forged by rapid
growth of global communication system, more critical scrutiny of corporate
activities and criticism from stakeholders (Blowfield & Murray, 2012). Other

1
Uzoechi NWAGBARA, Greenwich School of Management, London, United Kingdom, SE10 8RD
E-mail: uzoechin@yahoo.com; Telephone: 07886331221
Patrick REID, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom, E-mail: patrick@isensa.com
400 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
management scholars have seen the rise of CSR as a consequence of filling the gap
when governments role in society is not sufficient (Jenkins, 2005).
It is to this end that CSR is a burgeoning concept that attracts the attention
of experts in management and those interested in understanding the role of business
in society (Carroll, 1979). No matter how CSR is considered, there is a thread that
runs through all the definitions or explanations given to the concept. CSR is
essentially about corporate actions that address issues, which are beyond the range
of its narrow economic, legal and technical requirements by incorporating social
and environmental factors (Visser, 2011). Further to this, according to European
Commission, CSR is defined as the voluntary integration of social and
environmental concerns in the enterprises daily business operations and in the
interaction with their stakeholders (DG Enterprise, Observatory of European
SMEs, Report 2002/No. 4: European SMEs and Social Environmental
Responsibility). Put simply, CSR is about an organisational initiative that takes into
consideration social, economic and environmental concerns as they affect the
society. With this definition in mind, CSR is about corporate actions that impact on
economic gains as well as consider the relevance of social and environmental
factors.
Consequently, communicating about CSR and corporate performance often
brings strong reactions from other stakeholders, who argue that companies are not
living up to expectations or that they are exaggerating what they do in society
(Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Stakeholders are those whose interests or stakes can be
affected or can affect an organisations business outcome (Freeman, 1984). Others
have also argued that when firms focus too much on how socially responsible they
are, they may be engaging in reputation management (Brown & Dacin, 1997).
Therefore, the way companies communicate their CSR commitment is
critical for organisational success and legitimacy particularly in the age of new
media, when information dissemination and manipulation can be hugely affected.
The process via which organisations communicate their commitment to social and
environmental concerns is called CSR communication. CSR communication is a
concept that has two dimensions: CSR and communication.
In the age in which business survival is largely based on how stakeholders
view an organisations CSR commitment, CSR communication is fundamental as it
brings to bear how stakeholders view are taken into consideration for mutual
sense-making towards sustainability (Melo & Garrido-Morgado, 2012; Bakar &
Ameer, 2011; Du, Bhattacharrya & Sen, 2010). This approach to business
management is beneficial to managers, organisational leaders and international
business managers who face multiple issues that deal with reputation management
and stakeholders criticism of their CSR practice. Thus, as firms adjust their
organisational practice to the requirements of modern business pressures
occasioned by the new media, they will be positioning themselves to be
competitive (Porter, 1985; Payton & Kvasny, 2012).
In transcending an organisations poor corporate image, communication is
important as it is a fundamental vehicle that brings mutual sense-making and sense-

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 401
giving amongst stakeholders (Morsing and Schultz, 2006). It is also an effective
platform for defusing conflict, as well as dealing with reputation management
(Venton, 2011). Given this landscape, communication is vital as business trends
move from period of conceptualising firms as essentially for profit-making
(Friedman, 1979) to a period when firms have social soul (Freeman, 1984).
The coming of new media has brought about a re-conceptualisation of the
role of business in society given its scope and reach (Rosenbloom and Larsen,
2003). Given that corporations are being stereotyped in the popular press and
media in view of their ostensible indifference to, and abuse of, basic human rights,
as well as unsustainable business culture, there is need to reinvent communications
strategies that will help address stakeholders concerns (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
This backdrop has brought to the fore two contrasting schools of thought in
theorising the business and society interface: the shareholder perspective and the
stakeholder view of business-society interface (Hartman & Desjardins, 2008;
Ferrell, Thorne & Ferrell, 2011; Porter & Krammer, 2006). The first school of
thought sees profitability as the dominant issue in business (Friedman, 1970;
Jensen, 2002); while the stakeholder view considers firms as social entities that
have benefits as well as contributions to make to society (Freeman, 1984; Du,
Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). The stakeholders are those benefiting as well as
harmed by corporations business dealings (DAmato, Hendersen & Florence,
2009). To this end, organisations owe a duty to the general public other
stakeholders to communicate their corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda
for ethical and transparent practice. In the wake of this new reality, some countries
have started to make sustainability rating a major precondition for organisations to
operate (Melo & Garrido-Morgado, 2012).
One of the major ways organisations can leverage on their business
investments, manage reputation and create market/opportunities is through the
credibility of channels and strategies they communicate their CSR efforts (Ihlen,
Bartlett & May, 2011). This process resounds with sustainable CSR
communication, which parallels Godemann & Michelsens (2012) view on
sustainability communication.
This paper is structured as thus: the first section introduces our aim and
methodological approach; the second section deals with how a transition from mere
CSR information transmission to stakeholder engagement via sustainability
communication can frame sustainable CSR communication or better corporate-
stakeholder relations. The third part of the paper explores the theoretical
framework adopted; fourth aspect of the paper focuses on CSR communication in
the age of new media; while the next part considers CSR communication,
sustainability and stakeholder interaction; and the final section of the paper deals
with conclusion.
It is expected that insight shared in this paper will be relevant to CSR
communicators and MNCs in dealing with effective stakeholder engagement. In
the age of increased criticisms of multinationals CSR communication and records,
which is precipitated by more demand by stakeholders for accountability, new

402 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
media can be used for better stakeholder engagement and sustainable
communication. This is because new media diversifies as well as democratises
CSR communication and engagement processes for legitimacy and credibility,
which shapes sustainability communication. The literature reviewed in the light of
our methodology informs how new media can facilitate sustainability
communication.
1. Between Transmission and Engagement Towards the Logic of
Sustainability Communication

Since the 1930s, communication practitioners and management experts

have engaged in ways to better explain the intricate process of human
communication with the aid of models/theories of communication (Seitel, 2007;
Smith & Taylor, 2006; Smith, Berry & Pulford, 2002). This led two American
researchers, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver to conceptualise a model for
identifying the main processes/channels of communication in explaining their
impact on telephone as well as radio telecommunications. Thus, the current
models/theories of communication even CSR communication came in the wake
of this path-finding attempt to theorise communications models.
In the view of Shannon & Weaver (1948), information flows from the
sender/speaker to the hearer/receiver in one-directional, mechanistic and unilateral
manner. Since Shannon & Weaver (1948), as telecommunications researchers
wanted to ascertain how electric signal was transmitted via wire or radio wave, the
ultimate aim, was to know what happens during this process. Thus, although this
experiment gave birth to theory of communication, it is however, not a mutual way
of communication for inclusiveness and reciprocity (Seitel, 2007). Historically,
other attempts had been made to theorise communication model before Shannon &
Weavers (1948) model came on the radar, however their work is widely known in
communication studies as pioneer communication theory.
Given the limitations of Shannon & Weavers (1948) model, other
communication theorists have emphasised the need for two-way and shared
communication models premised on feedback, dialogue and mutual sense-making.
This gave rise to Schramms (1955) model of communication that is context
specific as well as culture-oriented. Although this model of communication is less
linear, it is however bi-directional (bilateral communication) in scope and reach as
two people in such communication setting might have different views or
understanding as a result of cultural bias.
Another model was propounded by Katz & Lazarfeld (1955) in their book,
Personal Influence. This communication model is similar to Schramms (1955)
model, but a major way it distinguishes itself is that it reduces mass indoctrination
of communicators. Talking about the same communication model, which is
essentially about transmitting and receiving information, is Rogers (1962)
communication diffusion model. It deals with how information can be diffused to
different areas for mass communication. The above models of communication
belong to what is characterised in communication studies as traditional
communication models. Thus, communication models have evolved from the

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 403
traditional era to the modern period particularly in the context of social media and
new technologies. This has impacted profoundly on methods of engagement as
well as dialoguing with stakeholders within the context of CSR communication.
In the contemporary era, there are models such as communication
constructionism by Jesse Delia et al (1975), Pearce & Cronens (1980) co-
ordinated management of meaning communication model, Grunig & Hunts (1984)
model, Habermas (1984) communicative action model, and Morsing & Schultzs
(2006) stakeholder engagement model among others. It is noteworthy to say that
the models of communication mentioned are the landmark models of
communication in communication studies and management; other models are built
around the models articulated here.
Despite the model of communication conceived, managers and corporate
organisations need to ensure that communication is about sense-making and sense-
giving (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). To this end, it is therefore imperative for
organisations to put into consideration internal and external contexts during (CSR)
communication in order to avoid stakeholder criticism as well as to foreground
sustainability communication.
Therefore, a model of CSR communication that will have positive impact
on sustainability is vital. This is redoubled in the age of new media. The emergence
of Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006, as well as other social
networking applications have brought extraordinary way of re-conceptualising
communication models particularly CSR communication. Social media sites such
as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, My-Space have democratised CSR
communication (Morsing & Schultz, 2006) in ways that connectivity based on
stakeholder interaction and plurality of views are espoused.
This will in the final analysis impacts sustainability communication; hence
the process of stakeholder engagement is diversified and unrestricted. In
exemplifying this, in his study of nine corporate leaders, Aula (2010) demonstrated
how social media new technology can be used as a strategic tool by
organisations to boost sustainability as well as to manage risks associated with
CSR communication and reputation management.
As the business world experiences fast changing business culture, rapid
acceleration of technological development and mutative pressures of globalisation,
organisational success essentially depends on rethinking CSR communication and
strategies of stakeholder communication (Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Lindgreen &
Swaen, 2010; Venton, 2011). Trends in management science today are the advent
of new technologies and wave of innovation and globalisation, which have
impacted business in diverse areas.
These factors have essentially impacted hugely on how organisations
structure their communications strategies and information channels through which
they engage other stakeholders (the public) for sustainable business practice
(Barrett, 2002). Put differently, for firms to be competitive, their CSR
communication strategy needs to reflect their commitment to sustainability. In
corroborating this, Gurhan-Canli (2010) stated that it is necessary to
communicate CSR efforts to consumers in order to improve brand-related

404 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
outcomes. Clear and credible communication can enhance consumers attitude
towards a company embracing CSR (p. 100).
Thus, firms CSR communication strategies could be a potent means to
build confidence in the minds of stakeholders as well as a platform to maximise
sustainability efforts (Tench & Yeoman, 2006). In this direction, organisations are
rethinking management strategies according to stakeholders views and pressures
in order to be competitive (Barrett, 2002). The preceding argument brings to light
the need to theorise a model of CSR communication in the age of new media that
will advance CSR communication in a sustainable way. This is the motive of this
paper, which has been done via sustainability communication. It takes into
consideration a model of CSR communication that advances a re-conceptualised
communication model informed by new media realities and stakeholder concerns
for sustainability. The next section of this paper looks at this approach. We have
stated a model of CSR communication, which parallels sustainability
communication as articulated by Godemann & Michelsen (2012). This model of
communicating CSR for sustainability will be considered in detail shortly by
looking at the variables that frame such model of CSR communication.

2. Theoretical Framework

Given the plethora of criticism that organisations face in modern business

environment regarding their CSR communication and commitment, this paper
conceptualises transcending this dilemma via sustainability communication. It
deals with arriving at mutual sense-making between organisations and their diverse
stakeholders through sustainable business/communication practice (Morsing &
Schultz, 2006). Given the pressures of management strategies that resonate with
increased demand by stakeholders for organisations to engage in sustainable
culture, organisations can appropriate this framework to arrive at less criticism of
their CSR commitment, which will facilitate sustainability (Visser, 2011).
Thus, in the age of new media that has the capacity to accelerate
information dissemination and sharing as well as storage and retrieval of
information, firms can advance their sustainability efforts via this platform for
more visibility of their CSR commitment. In the new media age, social
technologies have brought an unprecedented wave of sustainability campaign and
stakeholder pressure on firms. In their recent report Mckinsey shows how
companies such as BP and others used the Internet and social media to engage
radically (Browne & Nuttal, 2013, p. 4) with other stakeholders for effective
internal and external stakeholder engagement that impact sustainability. Engaging
radically here resonates with measuring outcomes consequent on factoring in CSR
issues, observing externalities, appraising their capabilities and gains as well as
considering reputation risks.
Beyond mere corporate visibility, sustainability communication is an
essential management tool for managing stakeholders expectations regarding
CSR; it is also a potent tool for measuring how sustainable firms commitment to
socio-environmental issues is. This is because it affords other stakeholders hitch-
free access and less cost (compared to traditional media) to express their views

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 405
about CSR. Lumped together, sustainability communication deals with
communicating a companys CSR issues by taking cognisance of economic, social
and environmental concerns, as well as considering the inputs of diverse
stakeholders in the process. This process is crucial for reputation management,
maximum return to capital invested and harmonious corporate-stakeholder
relations.
However, central to this debate is the means via which CSR is
communicated. This begs the question: what is the nature and strategies of
communicating CSR for sustainability? In the age of new media, when information
dissemination and sharing is democratised, the new media can be used to advance
this process. Thus, in corroborating this assertion, [S]ustainability communication
is strongly influenced by mass media, which is needed to give it resonance
(Godemann & Michelsen, 2012, p. 7). This is mainly the case in the mediated
forms of communication (for example social media and web 2.0), which relies on
social networks and processes to be effective. Therefore, essential to this strategy is
for organisations to be viewed socially responsible by stakeholders (Morsing &
Schultz, 2006). The emergence of the internet (new media) has redoubled this
reality. To this end, the magic of the Internet is that it is a technology that puts
cultural symbolisations in all forms in the hands of all participants (Payton &
Kvasny, 2012, 83). The participants in this sense are the stakeholders, whose views
are critical for organisational survival (Dunne, 2007).
Figure 1 (sustainable communication schemata) is a diagrammatic
representation of envisioned model of CSR communication via which
organisations (MNCs) can engage with other stakeholders for sustainability. This
model of CSR communication resonates with sustainability communication as
identified by Godemann & Michelsen (2012).

Input Variables: Stakeholder Scepticism & Output Variables:

Criticism
Awareness of Sustainability Issues
CSR Issues Credible CSR
Affinity for CSR Communication
Initiatives Inclusive &
Firm Reputation Multiple
Communication Communication
of CSR activities Strategies
CSR Reports New Media
Awareness of Technology
Current CSR Socially &
Demands Environmentally
Readability & Credibility
Recognition of Responsible Culture
Stakeholders of CSR Communication

Figure 1 The Authors, Sustainable Communication Schemata (SCS)

406 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
 In the diagram above, the transition from Input Variable (IV) to Output
Variable (OV) is predicated on the interaction of stakeholder scepticism or
criticism of organisations CSR practice and the readability and credibility of their
CSR commitment. Thus, in the era of new media which is correlative of
democratic communication channels and strategies as well as diversified platforms
for corporate-stakeholder engagement, sustainability communication can be
advanced as illustrated in our Sustainable Communication Schemata (figure 1).
Thus, both IV and OV impact each other in a reciprocal way that resonates with
sustainability communication.
Apparently, this approximation will not be feasible in the era of traditional
media, which builds silos between companies and other stakeholders. Traditional
media shies away from democratised, diversified and social intelligent
(Harryson, Metayer & Sarrazin, 2012) communication strategies, which detracts
from inclusive stakeholder engagement about CSR.

3. CSR Communication in the Age of New Media

A major part of this paper borders on communications channels and

strategies that firms can utilise in order to take all stakeholders (primary and
secondary) on board. Our CSR communication schema above illustrates this. In
this direction, a major way in which communications strategies or channels can
affect CSR is by opening up multiple ways/media in which organisations could
advance their CSR agenda for sustainability. The strategies and channels of
corporate communications are vital in building relationships between firms and the
public other stakeholders. For the public other stakeholders to see firms as
socially responsible, their communications strategies need to factor in shared
views, ideals and interests of all stakeholders (Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
In this vein, Grunig & Repper consider communication involving
stakeholders as facilitating development of lasting and stable relationship that
organisations need for advancing business gains, as well as capable of deflecting
stakeholder criticisms. In consonance with this line of argument, Van Riel in his
Principles of Corporate Communication (1995) stated that
corporate communication is an instrument of management by
means of which all consciously used forms of internal and external
communication are harmonised as effectively as possible, so as to
create a favourable basis for relationships with groups, upon which
the organisation is dependent (p. 26).
According to Tench & Yeomans (2006, p. 255), organisations can manage
their image through CSR communication by incorporating diverse channels via
which stakeholders can read, understand and interpret organisational sustainability
communication. This process also affects issues that border on corporate social
responsibility.

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 407
 Since corporate communication essentially deals with external
communication, the points below should be considered for sustainable
communication practice.
Stakeholder engagement via social media Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc
Electronic surveys/focus group
Electronically mediated conferences
Blogging
Maintenance of hotlines
RSS feeds
Webcasting/Internet streaming
The above technology-enabled channels have been considered beneficial to
organisations in recent time because of their high diffusion of information, as well
as their capacities to create more forceful awareness and increase the acceleration
of information dissemination/sharing. Apart from these factors, the new technology
impact CSR communication by expanding the discursive space for shared
stakeholder engagement and CSR communication.
This process democratises stakeholder engagement. As statistics show,
firms are rethinking ways to make their CSR communication sustainable. A recent
survey conducted by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth demonstrated a
continued uptake of these new media strategies by Fortune 500 in their CSR
communication, with significant activity across social media channels (Barnes et
al. 2012). In addition, Cisco has estimated that global mobile data traffic will
increase some 18 fold between 2011 and 2016, with the number of mobile
connected devices exceeding the worlds population in 2012 (Cisco, 2012). These
statistics are essential for organisations to re-think their CSR communication model
for sustainability via the lens of new media.

4. CSR Communication, Sustainability and Stakeholders

This section of the paper stresses the centrality of CSR communication

model that takes the views of stakeholders into consideration via new media to
sustainability. The discussion above relates with this section as it endorses the
importance of new media (social media) to CSR communication for sustainability.
Before attempting trends in sustainability, it is pertinent to define sustainability.
This will give better insights into how this trend has evolved. Sustainability means
so many things to different disciplines. However, no matter how sustainability is
considered by different fields, there is an underlying framework to understanding
its essence. Sustainability rests on a three-legged framework that is being
popularised by John Elkington in his Cannibals with Folk: The Triple Bottom Line
of 21st Century Business (1997). Thus, sustainability revolves around these
tripartite variables: the economic, environmental and social for any business to be
deemed sustainable (Ferrell, Thorne & Ferrell, 2011).

408 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
 Sustainability brings together the three Ps: planet (environment), people
(social) and profit (economic) and makes them to function in a way that brings
sustainable business practice. The three Ps or Es (the economic, environmental
and equity) have to function in a manner that recognises interdependence and
interconnectedness for sustainable development. This is the logic of sustainability.
CSR is about social responsibilities (voluntary or philanthropic) that firms
take into consideration, while sustainability goes a step further in appraising how
firms have been able to achieve this commitment in a way that sustains the
environment and society apart from economic gains (Carroll, 1979; Frederick,
1978, 1994; Dunne, 2007).
Broadly, sustainability means a business culture in which business or CSR
issues are carried out in a way that supports long-term viability. In the modern era,
businesses are challenged to be socially responsible; so, pressures of modern
business realities have thrown up the challenge of incorporating sustainability
ideals into business model for organisations to be competitive. Such pressures find
expression in new media challenges that affect sustainable CSR communication
(Wood, 2010; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). In the millennial era, organisations are
rather challenged to be ethical in their business dealings, as well as to make their
presence wear the toga of social conscience (Freeman, 1984).
Linear information distribution and processing model of communications
is better suitable to organisational culture that advances managerialism, rhetoric
and brand management rather than relational or shared communication and
stakeholder engagement (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). The new media age detracts
from this thinking since it democratises stakeholder engagement processes. Thus,
Morsing & Schultzs (2006) offer is a theorisation of CSR communication based
on concurrent negotiation with its stakeholders to explore their concerns vis--
vis the company, while also accepting changes when they are necessary (p. 328).
This envisioned process of communication adumbrates a communication system
that is sustainable. The question of sustainability here means that there is a
relational exchange amongst stakeholders given the imperative of new media that
brings about more democratised way of engagement. As stakeholders views on
CSR is enabled in this process, it brings about sustainability communication, which
factors in multiple point of views on CSR commitment for social and
environmental responsibility of firms apart from the narrow economic perspective.
Thus, this re-invented CSR communication offers a method for companies
to engage in public dialogue, advance legitimacy claims and facilitate positive
relationships with stakeholders (the public), which can influence economic and
corporate operating environment, as well as delineates a firms rights, privileges
and responsibilities (OConnor and Shumate, 2010, p. 530; Bostdorff and Vibbert,
1994). This is the heartbeat of sustainability, a metonym for Godemann &
Michelsens (2012) sustainability communication. In a similar vein, as Podnar
(2008) argued, CSR communication is a process of
anticipating stakeholders expectations, articulation of CSR
policy and managing of different organisations communication
tools designed to provide true and transparent information about

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 409
 a companys or brands integration of its business operations, social
and environmental concerns, and interactions with stakeholders (p. 75).
This type of stakeholder interaction and communications strategies in the
era of new media makes CSR communication an important strategic tool for
business success. The visibility and enhanced stakeholder engagement that new
media technology affords brings decentralises source of communication by
empowering all stakeholders to be participants. To this end, the magic of the
Internet is that it is a technology that puts organisations symbolisations in virtually
all forms in the hands of participants in information dissemination and sharing (that
is stakeholders) thereby decentralising the locus of communication (Payton and
Kvasny, 2012).
In addition, new media offers greater visibility and an opportunity for
stakeholders to connect as well as engage in direct communication that impacts social
issues; this is also vital for organisations to widen their business potentials by
connecting with other stakeholders thereby deflecting criticism and unsustainable
practice. In view of the above, the ways new media can impact (CSR) communication
for sustainability are illustrated in Table 1. There are three sections on New Media
Impact on CSR Communication (Table 1). They are communication impact,
corporate impact and how CSR communication can be achieved. These sections
address how to gauge CSR communication, which is necessary for firms to ascertain
how their (CSR) communication model affects stakeholder engagement and
sustainability in the light of new media technology development.
Table 1 The Authors, New media impacts on CSR Communication
Communication
Achieved by Corporate Impact
Impact
Monitoring of communications Detailed profile of stakeholders &
Insight channels & strategies used by firms as well as ability to form
stakeholders social networks and groups
Access to channels offering Ability to accelerate impact and
Acceleration immediate & instantaneous deliver, especially timely and rich
communication on CSR at information on CSR & sustainability
minimal costs
Multiple channels offering Need to create and deploy multiple
Depth different media options across processes to simultaneously meet
diverse stakeholders & needs of diverse stakeholders on
platforms CSR communication
Immediate feedback from Need to be able to proactively
Issue Management stakeholders respond and manage as and when
needed, recognising CSR
regulations & requirements
Merge of formal and informal Stakeholders interact across media
Democratisation communications via social diverse channels with stakeholders,
media, as well as breaking of requiring clear guidelines and
monopoly of traditional media procedures on CSR & sustainability
communication

410 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
 Thus, given that firms appreciate how information is boundaryless
(Holmes, 2002) in view of new technologies, they are more circumspect with what
they do in terms of CSR since the world is a global village.
In the volatile and constantly evolving environment in which organisations
operate, it is crucial for organisations to rethink the significance of CSR
communication for sustainable business. To this end,
corporations have increasingly become conscious of their social
responsibilities This is in stark contrast to the predominant
viewpoint of the 1970s and 1980s that businesses that have social
conscience are preaching pure and unadulterated socialism
This shift in business paradigm has been both chronicled and
analysed (Dutta, Lawson and Marcinko (2012, p. 1)
This awareness is heightened in the age Fairclough (1992) called
linguistic turn in management practice, a period organisations need to rethink
their (CSR) communication strategies for business advantage and less criticism.
This communication/management strategy finds resonance in what Goodman
(2009) called a reinvented media landscape greater access to the creation of
information, fewer traditional outlets (p. 227), less emphasis on strategic
communication and stress on multi-layered information dissemination and sharing.
These factors are fundamental to a model of CSR communication that feeds
sustainability communication.

Conclusion

In concluding this paper, we have argued that the wave of new media can
be a potent strategic instrument to facilitate CSR communication and commitment
as well as sustainability, which is vitally needed for smooth corporate-stakeholder
engagement. To achieve this, this paper conceptualises sustainable communication
schemata as a gateway to this. This model parallels Godemann & Michelsens
(2012) sustainability communication framework. Also, CSR communication,
which supplies acceptance of an organisation within society in the age when
corporate citizenship is in retreat, needs to address stakeholders interests and CSR.
This can be advanced through new media that democratises stakeholder
engagement, the fountain of sustainable communication. In modern time,
organisations that want to be relevant and successful need to take seriously the
opportunities offered by new media (social media) for sustainable business
practice.
Therefore, those involved with corporate communications particularly in the
CSR circuit need to prepare themselves in a fast changing world across multiple
channels with a clear, consistent and CSR-sensitive message that will impact
sustainable stakeholder engagement. To achieve this target, firms need to appropriate
the energies new media technology affords in terms of its instantaneous CSR
communication strategy as well as multiple, inclusive and democratised platforms of

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 411
engagement. This is crucial in the modern business era for organisational success and
less criticism from stakeholders in relation to social and environmental concerns.
Moving forward, this paper hopes that further discussions can be galvanised by the
insights shared here for better corporate-stakeholder engagement, sustainability and
CSR communication. Also, future research can be advanced in this area by taking into
perspective quantitative approaches that will possibly offer empirical insights into how
sustainable (CSR) communication can be measured. In justifying our position in this
paper, it is apparent from extant literature reviewed as well as our methodology that
new media is restructuring CSR communication landscape for effective stakeholder
engagement and sustainability.

References

1. Alua, P. Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy and
Leadership, 38, 6, pp. 43-49.
2. Bakar, A. S. A. & Ameer, R. (2011). Readability of corporate social responsibility
communication in Malaysia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 18, pp. 50-60.
3. Barnes, N.G., Lescault, A.M., Andonian, J. (2012). Social Media Surge by the 2012 Fortune
500: Increase Use of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and More.
http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/socialmedia/2012fortune500/. Accessed 14th September 2012
4. Barrett, D. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic employees communication
to facilitate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7, 4,
pp. 219-231.
5. Blowfield, M & Murray, A. (2012). Corporate responsibility. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
6. Bostdorff, D. M. & Vibbert, S. L. (1994). Value advocacy: Engancing organisational
images, deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations
Review, 20, 2, pp. 141-158.
7. Brow, T. J. & Dacin, P. A. The company and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1, pp. 68-84.
8. Browne, J & Nuttal, R. (2013). Beyond corporate social responsibility: Integrating
external engagement. McKinsey Quarterly, April, pp.1-11.
9. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 4, pp. 497-505.
10. Cisco (2012). Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast
Update 2011 2016. White Paper
11. DAmato, A., Hendersen, S. & Florence, S. (2009). Corporate social responsible
business: A guide to leadership and tasks. North Carolina: Centre for Creative
Leadership.
12. Delia J. G. et al (1975). The relation theory and analysis in explanations of belief
salience: Conditioning, displacement, and constructivist accounts. Communication
Monographs, 44, pp. 166-169.
13. DG Enterprise, (2002). Observatory of European SMEs, Report 2002/No. 4: European
SMEs and Social Environmental Responsibility.
14. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B. & Sen, S. (2010). Maximising business returns to corporate
social responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Review, 12, 1, pp. 8-19.

412 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013
15. Dunne, S. (2007). What is corporate social responsibility now? Ephemera: Review
Essays, 7, 2, pp. 372-380.
16. Dutta, S., Lawson, R & Marcinko, D. (2012). Paradigm for sustainable development
theory. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 1, pp. 1-10.
17. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: the ripple bottom line of the 21 st century.
Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
18. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
19. Ferrell, O. C., Thorne, D. M. & Ferrell, L. (2011). Business and society: a strategic
approach to social responsibility (4thed). London: Houghton Mifflin.
20. Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society
thought. Business and Society. London: Sage, 33, 2, pp. 150-166.
21. ---. (1978). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought.
Working Paper No. 632, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.
22. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston:
Pitman.
23. New York Times Magazine, 13 September.
24. Frynas, J. G. (2009). Beyond corporate social responsibility: Oil multinationals and
social challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Godemann, J. & Michelsen, G. (2012). Sustainability Communication:
Interdisciplinary Perspective and Theoretical Foundations. London: Springer.
26. Goodman, M. B. (2009). Introduction. Corporate communication and strategic
adaptation: Papers from the CCI conference on corporate communication 2008.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14, 3, pp. 225-233.
27. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1994). Managing public relations. New York: Rinehart &
Winston.
28. Gurhan-Canli, Z & Fries, A. (2010). Branding and corporate social responsibility
(CSR). Brands and brand management: Contemporary research perspectives. Loken
B., Ahluwalia, R. & Houston, M. J. (eds.). New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 91-109.
29. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, vol. 1: Reason and the
Rationalisation of Society. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
30. Hansen, M. T. & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The innovation chain. Harvard Business
Review. June, pp. 121-130.
31. Harryson, M, Metayer, E. & Sarrazin, H. (2012). How social media can guide
decisions. McKinsey Quarterly, November, pp. 1-9.
32. Hartman, L. & Desjardins, J. (2008). Business ethics: Decision making for personal
integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. Holmes, P. (2002). An introduction to boundaryless Information flow. The Open
Group White Paper. San Francisco: The Open Group Press.
34. Ihlen, O., Barlett, J. L and May, S. (2011). (eds.). Corporate social responsibility and
communication. In: The handbook of communication and corporate social
responsibility. London: John Wiley, pp. 1-21.
35. Jenkins, R. (2005). Globalisation, corporate social responsibility and poverty.
International Affairs, 81, 3, pp. 525-540.
36. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate
objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly. 12, pp. 235-56.
37. Katz, E. & Lazarfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in
the flow of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
38. Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 1, pp. 1-7.

Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013 413
39. Mele, D. & Guillen, M. (2006). The intellectual evolution of strategic management and
its relationship with ethics and social responsibility. IESE Business School Working
Paper No. 658, pp. 1-24.
40. Melo, T. & Garrido-Morgado, A. (2012). Corporate reputation: A combination of
social responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 19, 1, pp. 11-31.
41. Morsing, M. & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication:
stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 15, 4, pp. 323-338.
42. OCnnor, A. & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of
analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management
Communication Quarterly, 24, 4, pp. 529-551.
43. Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested
concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 4, pp. 613-627.
44. Payton, F. and Kvasny, L. (2012). Considering the political roles of Black talk radio
and the Afrosphere in response to the Jena 6: Social media and the blogosphere.
Information, Technology & People, 25, 1, pp. 81-102.
45. Pearce, W. B. & Cronen, V. (1980). Communication, Action & Meaning: The Creation
of Social Realities. New York: Praeger.
46. Podnar, K. (2008). Communicating corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Marketing Communication, 14, 2, pp. 75-81.
47. Porter M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York: Free Press.
48. Porter, M. E. & Krammer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between
competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
(December), pp. 78-97.
49. Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.
50. Rosenbloom, B, Larsen, T. (2003). Communication in international business-to-
business marketing channels. Does culture matter? Industrial marketing management,
32, pp. 309-315.
51. Schramm, W. (1955). (ED.). How communication works: The process and effects of
mass communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
52. Seitel, F. P. (2007). The practice of public relations. London: Prentice Hall.
53. Shanon, C. E & Weaver, W. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
54. Smith, P. R. & Taylor, J. (2006). Marketing communications: An integrated approach.
London: Kogan Page.
55. Smith, P. R., Berry, C. & Pulford, A. (2002). Strategic marketing communications:
New ways to build and integrate communication. London: Kogan Page.
56. Tench, R. & Yeomans, L. (2006). Exploring public relations. Harlow: Pearson
Education Publishers.
57. Van Reil, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. Harlow: Person
Education Publishers.
58. Venton, S. (2011). Why sense-making is needed for environmental leadership.
Business Leadership Review, viii, IV, pp. 1-11.
59. Visser, W. The age of responsibility. London: Wiley.
60. Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International
Journal of Management Review, 12, 1, pp. 50-84.

414 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2013