Author:
Ellerup Nielsen Anne,Thomsen Christa
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to answer the call for CSR communication research to develop and substantiate outcomes that may better explain CSR communication strategies and practices. The paper takes the research a step further, exploring the role of legitimacy in CSR communication research.
Design/methodology/approach
A literature collection methodology, combined with directed content analysis, was used to identify central themes in the literature.
Findings
The following categories of studies were identified: perception, impact and promotion studies; image and reputation studies; performance studies; and conceptual/rhetorical studies. Addressed from a legitimacy perspective, the study found that the most important types of legitimizing communicative practices articulated in the four types of studies were related to: seeking knowledge about stakeholders through perception, impact and promotion activities; monitoring and controlling the environment through image and reputation activities; creating stakeholder value through collaboration and engagement; and persuading and convincing stakeholders through rhetorics, CSR models and concepts. The study also found that practices and activities related to perceiving stakeholders’ expectations, needs and requirements are assumed to be most effective for corporations aiming at building or maintaining legitimacy.
Originality/value
The key contribution of the paper lies in exploring how corporate legitimacy is anticipated and extrapolated in the CSR communication literature, including which pinpointed CSR communication strategies and practices are assumed to be more effective than others in bridging stakeholders’ perceptions of corporations’ social and environmental actions. Until date, no reviews exist of the role of legitimacy in CSR communication research.
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Industrial relations
Reference141 articles.
1. Readability of corporate social responsibility communication in Malaysia;Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,2011
2. Gap (RED): social responsibility campaign or window dressing?;Journal of Business Ethics,2011
3. Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002), “Unfolding stakeholder engagement”, in Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Sutherland Rahman, S. (Eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 19-42.
4. Communication of corporate social responsibility: a study of the views of management teams in large companies;Journal of Business Ethics,2010
5. The double-edge of organizational legitimation;Organization Science,1990
Cited by
79 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献