Corporate Communications: An International Journal

Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication

Dennis Schoeneborn Hannah Trittin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dennis Schoeneborn Hannah Trittin, (2013),"Transcending transmission", Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 193 - 211
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319481
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 11 January 2016, At: 02:32 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 81 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2468 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Urša Golob, Klement Podnar, Wim J. Elving, Anne Ellerup Nielsen, Christa Thomsen, Friederike Schultz, (2013),"CSR
communication: quo vadis?", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 176-192 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319472
Elanor Colleoni, (2013),"CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media", Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 228-248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319508
Friederike Schultz, Stefan Wehmeier, (2010),"Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate
communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives", Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 9-29 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281011016813

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

Transcending
Transcending transmission transmission
Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR
communication
Dennis Schoeneborn and Hannah Trittin 193
Department of Business Administration, University of Zurich, Zurich,
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Switzerland Received 5 January 2012

Revised 28 September 2012
22 January 2013
Accepted 22 January 2013
Abstract
Purpose – Extant research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication primarily relies
on a transmission model of communication that treats organizations and communication as distinct
phenomena. This approach has been criticized for neglecting the formative role of communication in
the emergence of organizations. This paper seeks to propose to reconceptualize CSR communication by
drawing on the “communication constitutes organizations” (CCO) perspective.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper that explores the implications of
switching from an instrumental to a constitutive notion of communication.
Findings – The study brings forth four main findings: from the CCO view, organizations are
constituted by several, partly dissonant, and potentially contradictory communicative practices. From
that viewpoint, the potential impact of CSR communication becomes a matter of connectivity of CSR to
other practices of organizational communication. Communication practices that concern CSR should
not be generally dismissed as mere “greenwashing” – given that some forms of talk can be action.
Consequently, there is a need to investigate which specific speech acts create accountability and
commitment in the context of CSR. The CCO view shows that CSR communication potentially extends
the boundary of the organization through the involvement of third parties. Thus, it is fruitful to study
CSR communication as a set of practices that aims at boundary maintenance and extension.
Organizations are stabilized by various non-human entities that “act” on their behalf. Accordingly,
CSR communication should also take into account non-human agency and responsibility.
Originality/value – This paper links the literature on CSR communication to broader debates in
organizational communication studies and, in particular, to the CCO perspective. By applying the CCO
view, it reconceptualizes CSR communication as a complex process of meaning negotiation.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, CSR communication, Corporate communications,
Communication constitutes organizations, Polyphony, Social responsibility
Paper type Conceptual paper

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) originates in the field of

organization and management studies. Recent publications in this area (e.g. Basu and
Palazzo, 2008; Vaara and Tienari, 2008) point out that CSR also poses a communicative
challenge: how can a corporation gain and maintain legitimacy in and through
communication? In response to this question, a new research area of “CSR
communication” has emerged, which interconnects insights from the fields of
organization and communication studies (for a recent overview, see Ihlen et al., 2011). A
Corporate Communications: An
International Journal
This research is part of a larger project on organizational legitimacy and communication, funded Vol. 18 No. 2, 2013
by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; grant no. 129995). The authors would pp. 193-211
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
furthermore like to thank Andreas Georg Scherer and Lars Thøger Christensen for their fruitful 1356-3289
comments on earlier versions of this paper. DOI 10.1108/13563281311319481
 CCIJ significant part of this literature, however, tends to exhibit an instrumental or
18,2 mechanistic understanding of communication (e.g. Birth et al., 2008; Du et al., 2010),
which implies that information and meaning are transmitted in “packages” from one
sender to one or more receivers. This “transmission view” of CSR communication can
be criticized for reducing communication to a mere instrument and for neglecting the
formative role of communication in constituting, altering, and perpetuating
194 organizations (see Christensen and Cheney, 2011).
In this paper we propose to switch from a transmission view to a “constitutive”
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

understanding of CSR communication. The constitutive view (e.g. Craig, 1999)

underscores the formative role of communication in all kinds of social phenomena,
including organizations (Cooren, 2012). From that viewpoint, communication is
understood as a complex process of continuous meaning negotiation (e.g. Ashcraft
et al., 2009). This view has recently come to be known as the “communication
constitutes organizations” or “CCO” perspective (Ashcraft et al., 2009; Cooren et al.,
2011; Putnam and Nicotera, 2009). Within this perspective, Ashcraft et al. (2009)
distinguish between explicit strains of CCO thinking – that is, works that directly
address the constitutive role of communication in organizations (e.g. Luhmann, 2000;
McPhee and Zaug, 2000; Taylor and Van Every, 2000) – and embedded strains, where
the constitutive assumption is rather implicit (e.g. Deetz, 2005; Monge and Contractor,
2003; Mumby, 2001). Drawing on these works and especially on the explicit strains, we
will explore how switching from a mechanistic to a constitutive notion of
communication alters the understanding of CSR communication.
Our application of the CCO view to CSR communication yields four main findings.
First, the CCO view proposes that organizations are constituted by many partly
dissonant and contradictory communicative practices (Cooren et al., 2011). Consequently,
CSR-related communicative practices can only gain influence if they are resonant with
other communicative practices that are at the center of an organization’s value creation
(i.e. typically the ones driven by an economic logic).Second, the CCO view is grounded in
speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969), which argues that certain forms of talk can
be action and that certain speech acts (such as promises) can talk the communicative
reality they speak of into being. On those grounds, corporations that engage in practices
of CSR communication should not generally be accused of “decoupling”talk from action
or of mere “green-washing” (e.g. Laufer, 2003), because CSR communication can at least
trigger a “creeping” commitment to CSR practices over time (Christensen et al., 2010;
Haack et al., 2012).Third, practices of CSR communication can extend the boundary of
the organization. According to the CCO view, the organizational boundary is not given
but needs to be continuously (re-)established through communication (Luhmann, 2000;
McPhee and Zaug, 2000). This becomes particularly evident in the case of CSR, where
practices of stakeholder involvement invite third parties to co-constitute these
communicative boundaries. This trend became more pronounced with the advent of
social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, or blogs), through which various members of an
organization engage in dialogue with stakeholders and the broader public (Capriotti,
2011). Thus, the CCO view points out a direct connection between practices of CSR
communication and the fundamental question of boundary maintenance. Fourth,
proponents of the CCO view (e.g. Cooren, 2006) assume that the organization as a
communicative entity is constituted and stabilized over time by various non-human
entities (e.g. texts, processes, scripts, routines) that “act” on its behalf and whose
 influence extends beyond local and situational circumstances. Accordingly, CSR Transcending
communication will also need to take into account the agency and responsibility of transmission
non-human entities.
The contribution of our paper is threefold: first, we contribute to the emerging
literature on CSR communication by proposing the alternative theoretical lens of the
CCO perspective (Craig, 1999). The CCO view perceives CSR communication not
simply as an instrument for achieving strategic goals but, crucially, as one of several 195
voices that invoke notions of ethics and responsibility within the entire organization.
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Second, we contribute to research on CSR more generally: the constitutive view

ascribes to communication a primary role in the study of organizational phenomena
(Ashcraft et al., 2009), emphasizing that third parties (such as NGOs and other
stakeholders) contribute jointly to the communicative constitution of organizations. In
doing so, it acknowledges the dynamic processes through which corporate social
(ir)responsibility is attributed to certain actors and argues that this process cannot be
fully controlled by CSR communication and management (Lange and Washburn,
2012). Third, our conceptual paper helps expand the CCO view by addressing the role
of communication in the constitution of individual organizations, as well as in their
embeddedness; that is, in inter-organizational relations – for example, between a
corporation and its various stakeholders (Koschmann et al., 2012; Kuhn, 2008).

CSR communication as a research field and underlying models of

communication
The research field of CSR communication has grown significantly in recent years. A
number of edited volumes (e.g. Ihlen et al., 2011; May et al., 2007) and journal articles
(e.g. Du et al., 2010; May and Zorn, 2003) provide a comprehensive overview of the
relevant research. This research area is influenced by studies from public relations and
corporate communication (e.g. Ellerup Nielsen and Thomsen, 2009; Hagen, 2008; Morsing,
2006; Morsing and Schultz, 2006), organizational communication (e.g. Christensen and
Cheney, 2011; May, 2011; May and Zorn, 2003; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010), marketing
communication (e.g. Maignan and Ferrell, 2004; Podnar, 2008), and organization and
management studies (e.g. Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Humphreys and Brown, 2008; Vaara
and Tienari, 2008). In the following, we will differentiate between the main streams that
can be discerned in this heterogeneous body of research by looking at which (explicit or
implicit) notion of communication they center on.

The transmission view

In a classic article, Axley (1984) analyzed a wide range of publications in organization
and management studies that address the topic of communication. He arrived at the
conclusion that most of these works at least implicitly draw on a “transmission” or
“conduit” metaphor of communication. This mechanistic metaphor represents
communication primarily as a means of achieving a certain goal, or as the channel
through which information or messages are transported from a sender to a receiver as
though in packages (Shannon and Weaver, 1949). Axley (1984) criticizes this approach
for reducing communication into a linear, unidirectional process of dissemination of
information. In his view, the idea that information can be transferred in packages from
sender to receiver is highly problematic, given that meaning can always be subject to
contestation and a one-to-one transfer of meaning is hardly possible. Therefore, and in
 CCIJ order to capture the complexity of communication, the followers of Axley’s view
18,2 suggest that communication should be conceptualized instead as a dynamic and highly
selective process of continuous meaning negotiation (e.g. Ashcraft et al., 2009;
Luhmann, 1992).
The transmission model of communication is prevalent in a large proportion of
publications on CSR communication, especially in works originating in the fields of
196 public relations, marketing communication, or management studies. For instance,
Golob and Bartlett (2007) grasp CSR communication as a tool for disseminating
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

information about a corporation’s social activities. Similarly, Esrock and Leichty (1998)
elaborate on the opportunities that CSR communication creates for agenda-setting.
These publications describe CSR communication primarily as a means of influencing
the way in which stakeholders perceive the corporation (e.g. Birth et al., 2008; Du et al.,
2010). Consequently, these works explore mainly how CSR communication can be
calibrated to fulfill a corporation’s strategic goals most effectively. Furthermore,
according to May (2011, p. 102), extant research on CSR communication focuses
primarily on external communication, i.e. what firms communicate to their
environment through brochures, reports, or websites. At the same time, some of
these works pursue the idea of “integrated communication” – that is, the effort to get
an organization to speak “homophonically”, i.e. in accord with each other (Maignan and
Ferrell, 2004). Below we provide a few typical examples of how the transmission model
is presented in works on CSR communication (emphasis added):
How to think strategically about CSR communication and its consequences, and how to
employ different communication tools to meet stakeholders’ (and especially customers’)
expectations of CSR issues? (Podnar, 2008, p. 76).
Corporate messages can also emphasize the affiliation linking stakeholders to the firm based on
a shared concern for, or commitment to, a specific issue. Such communications establish CSR as
a potential bond between the firm and its stakeholders (Maignan and Ferrell, 2004, p. 15).
Our major objective is to review and synthesize the existing literature on CSR communication
to provide insights into how companies can communicate their CSR activities more effectively
(Du et al., 2010, p. 9).
Terms like “tools” or “messages”, or attributes such as “strategic” or “effective”, are
suggestive of an instrumental notion of communication. In a related strand of the
literature, however, the strategic-instrumental view of CSR communication is
complemented by the idea of bidirectionality and dialogue. In a widely cited article,
Morsing and Schultz (2006, p. 326) differentiate between three main strategies in CSR
communication:
(1) the stakeholder information strategy (i.e. public information, one-way
communication);
(2) the stakeholder response strategy (i.e. two-way but still asymmetric
communication); and
(3) the stakeholder involvement strategy (i.e. two-way symmetric communication).

Although the authors acknowledge the significance of all three strategies, they argue
that CSR communication will benefit from developing further in the direction of the
stakeholder involvement strategy; that is, by involving third parties (like NGOs) as
 symmetric partners in corporate communication (Morsing and Schultz, 2006, p. 336). A Transcending
number of scholars have responded to this call; for instance, by emphasizing the transmission
importance of interactivity that is facilitated by technological means (e.g. Capriotti, 2011;
Capriotti and Moreno, 2007) or by shedding light on the effectiveness of dialogue in CSR
communication (e.g. Golob and Podnar, 2011; Johansen and Ellerup Nielsen, 2011).
Nevertheless, the works on CSR communication we have discussed in this section
appear to share the underlying assumption that organizations and communication are 197
distinct phenomena; that is, they view organizations as entities that exist separately
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

from communication: “Contemporary notions of business ethics [. . .] operate with [. . .]

a ‘container metaphor’ of organizational communication according to which
organizations produce communication, not as their general way of being or existence
but as something distinct from their organizational practices” (Christensen et al., 2010,
p. 461; emphasis in original). Consequently, according to this view, it makes sense to
investigate how corporations can make use of communication most effectively.
Notwithstanding its merits, especially the guidance it provides to business practice, the
transmission view has been criticized by organizational communication scholars for
neglecting the fundamental constitution of organizations by communication
(e.g. Christensen and Cheney, 2011). Accordingly, we will now turn to works
oriented towards a constitutive understanding of CSR communication.

The constitutive view

In his “constitutive” model of communication, Craig (1999) proposes that the
transmission model of communication can be transcended if the fundamental role of
language in shaping the perception of social reality is acknowledged: “Communication
is theorized as a process that produces and reproduces – and in that way constitutes –
social order” (Craig, 1999, p. 128). He goes on to argue that the constitutive model is
advantageous because it defines communication as the fundamental modality of social
reality (see also Taylor and Van Every, 2000): “The constitutive model offers the
discipline of communication a focus, a central intellectual role, and a cultural mission
(i.e. to critique cultural manifestations of the transmission model)” (Craig, 1999, p. 125).
In the field of CSR communication research, an increasing number of publications
adopt this constitutive understanding of communication either explicitly
(e.g. Christensen and Cheney, 2011; Christensen et al., 2010) or implicitly (e.g. Bartlett
et al., 2007; May, 2011; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010). For instance, Christensen and
Cheney (2011, p. 491) assert that:
The basic premise is that communication is not simply a mechanism through which
organizations convey their objectives, intentions, and avowedly good deeds, including their
various CSR activities, but a continuous process through which social actors explore,
construct, negotiate, and modify what it means to be a socially responsible organization.
This social-constructionist understanding of CSR communication can be traced back to
earlier works by Cheney and his colleagues. Cheney and McMillan, for instance, put
forth a constitutive understanding of organizations and of their relations with
stakeholders as early as in 1990: “The organization emerges [. . .] through the
communicative practices of its members and stakeholders” (Cheney and McMillan,
1990, p. 101). Similarly, Bartlett and her colleagues emphasize “how [CSR
communication] practices emerged out of social construction between organisations
and stakeholders” (Bartlett et al., 2007, p. 294). In this view, CSR communication is
 CCIJ simply one of many communicative practices that collectively constitute the
18,2 phenomenon we call organization (together with other communicative practices that
address topics such as marketing, accounting, finance, etc.). At the same time, the
constitutive notion of communication naturally points to the inherent interrelations
and dynamic interplay between external and internal communication (see,
e.g. Christensen and Cornelissen, 2011; Christensen et al., 2010; Morsing, 2006;
198 Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010).
Taken together, these works can be seen as an important first step towards
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

grounding CSR communication research in a constitutive notion of communication

(e.g. Christensen and Cheney, 2011). In this paper we aim to advance this trend by
linking CSR communication to what is called the explicit CCO view (Ashcraft et al.,
2009). To the best of our knowledge, the topic of CSR communication has yet to be
systematically investigated from a constitutive perspective that includes most of the
recent works that define the CCO view as a broader theoretical inquiry (e.g. Ashcraft
et al., 2009; Brummans et al., 2013) – and this is what we aim to achieve in the
following sections.

The “communication constitutes organizations” (CCO) perspective

The CCO perspective puts forth the idea that organizations can be seen first and
foremost as phenomena of communication; that is, that organizations arise in and
through language use (Putnam and Nicotera, 2009; Taylor and Van Every, 2000). This
theoretical perspective has been gaining ground in journals of organization and
communication studies over the past decade (for a most recent overview, see
Brummans et al., 2013). The CCO perspective addresses the ontological question “what
is an organization?” (Taylor and Van Every, 2000, p. ix) – one of the most fundamental
issues in organization studies. In response to this question, proponents of the CCO
perspective argue that organizations essentially consist of communication (Ashcraft
et al., 2009). By conceptualizing organizations as interlocking networks of unfolding
communication processes (Taylor and Van Every, 2000), the CCO perspective turns the
common understanding of organization “inside out” (Blaschke et al., 2012) arguing that
it is through communicative practices, and not primarily through specific individual
human members, that organizations are created and sustained. In other words,
according to this view, organizations do not consist of directors, managers, and other
employees but result from the interactions among these members, as well as between
those and third parties (see McPhee and Zaug, 2000; Robichaud et al., 2004).
In a recent handbook article, Brummans et al. (2013) list the structuration theory
approach of McPhee and his colleagues (e.g. McPhee and Zaug, 2000), the approaches
developed by the Montreal School of Organizational Communication (e.g. Taylor and
Van Every, 2000), and Luhmann’s theory of social systems (Luhmann, 1995; Seidl and
Becker, 2005) as the three most prominent “schools” of explicit CCO thinking. In the
following, we draw primarily on the works of the Montreal School and of Luhmann
because their underlying social-constructionist epistemologies contrast most starkly
with the transmission model that was described above.
In one of the most influential works of the Montreal School, Taylor and Van Every
(2000) conceptualize organizations as alternating episodes of conversation (where the
organization is accomplished in situ) and textualization (where the organization is a
recognizable actor that creates textual representations of itself): “The textual
 dimension corresponds with the recurring, fairly stable and uneventful side of Transcending
communication [. . .], while the conversational dimension refers to the lively and transmission
evolving co-constructive side of communication” (Ashcraft et al., 2009, p. 20). Similarly,
Luhmann (2000) grasps organizations as self-referential and inter-connected events of
communication. In this context, however, we need to consider that conversations, as
the main “building blocks” of organizations (Ashcraft et al., 2009, p. 7), are inherently
ephemeral in character (Hernes and Bakken, 2003, p. 1522). Organizational 199
continuation and survival depend on whether dispersed communication events can
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

achieve “connectivity”; that is, whether they can interconnect in a self-referential

manner (Luhmann, 2000; McPhee and Zaug, 2000; Weick, 1995). This echoes the
emphasis that certain CCO scholars place on the “precarious” character of
organizations as communicative phenomena. These scholars define organizations
“as ongoing and precarious accomplishments realized, experienced, and identified
primarily [. . .] in communication processes” (Cooren et al., 2011, p. 1150). In a similar
vein, Cooren and Fairhurst (2009) raise the question of how local and ephemeral
interactions collectively form longer-lasting and stabilized forms of organization: “It is
this source of stability that needs to be unveiled” (p. 123; emphasis in original).
In response to this crucial issue, we identify in the CCO literature four main tenets
that can explain the stabilization and perpetuation of organizations as communicative
entities:
(1) Organizations are sites where meaning is continuously negotiated. Consequently,
according to this notion, various potentially contradictory communicative
practice scoexist within the organization (Christensen and Cornelissen, 2011). As
Cornelissen (2012) points out, in situations of high complexity and undefined
meaning, actors within and outside the organization tend to engage in discursive
struggles on sensegiving and framing. In this view, conflicts are a key driver of
organizational perpetuation, because they create the need for engaging in further
communication and decision-making (Nassehi, 2005).
(2) Drawing on speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969), proponents of the
CCO view assume that certain forms of talk can represent action; in other
words, that acts of language use have the potential not only to reflect but also to
create processual instances in the world, such as organizational phenomena
(Cooren, 2012).
(3) In order to stabilize their existence in communication, organizations also have
to establish and maintain a boundary between what is included in and what is
excluded from the organization. However, in the CCO view, this boundary is
drawn through acts of communication, which necessitates its continuous
reproduction and maintenance (Luhmann, 2000; McPhee and Zaug, 2000).
(4) Finally, proponents of the CCO view emphasize the importance of non-human
agency for the stabilization and perpetuation of organizational phenomena:
non-human entities (e.g. texts, tools, technologies, or other artifacts) are seen as
agents in their own right, in the sense that they have the capability to “act”
(Cooren, 2006) by virtue of their mere presence (e.g. a sign at the entrance of a
restaurant stating that a private party is being held stops those not invited from
entering). Such entities remain robust over time, as they become detached from
their authors’ intentions and the initial context of their creation (Kuhn, 2008).
 CCIJ With relation to organizations, we can conclude that, in effect, organizations come into
18,2 existence with the help of various forms of “non-human” entities that act on behalf of
the organization and thus help to maintain its processual existence over time (Taylor
and Cooren, 1997).

Towards an explicit constitutive view of CSR communication

200 After our brief introduction to the CCO perspective (e.g. Ashcraft et al. 2009; Cooren
et al., 2011; Putnam and Nicotera, 2009), we can now apply this theoretical approach to
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

the field of CSR communication (e.g. Du et al., 2010; Ihlen et al., 2011; May et al., 2007).
Our application leads to four main conclusions on CSR communication that draw
directly on the four central tenets of the CCO perspective, as described above.

The impact of CSR communication practices depends on the extent to which they become
connected to and are resonant with other organizational communication practices
Starting from the idea that communication is constitutive of organizational phenomena,
the CCO perspective focuses on the interplay of various communicative practices that
collectively constitute the organization (both internally and externally; see Cheney and
Christensen, 2001). At the same time, the CCO perspective grasps organizations as
polyphonic in nature; that is, as constituted collectively by partly dissonant and
contradictory communicative practices (Kornberger et al., 2006). As Humphreys and
Brown (2002, p. 422) put it, “organizations are not discursively monolithic, but
pluralistic and polyphonic, involving multiple dialogical practices that occur
simultaneously and sequentially”. Thus, CSR communication is merely one of
various communicative practices that collectively constitute the organization and
evolve in continuous competition with one another; indeed, CSR communication in
itself is subject to continuous contestation (Christensen and Cheney, 2011). Like other
practices of this type, CSR communication involves various forms of storytelling,
narration, and attempts at sensemaking (Caruana and Crane, 2008; Humphreys and
Brown, 2008; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010). The question that arises is whether specific
practices of CSR communication can be deemed “authoritative” and legitimate (Kuhn,
2008). To shed light on this question, it would be fruitful to study the interplay of
various polyphonic practices in their continuous struggle for meaning and recognition
(see Christensen and Cheney, 2011).
The idea of polyphony and contestation suggests that CSR-related communicative
practices can only become authoritative and influential if they establish a close
connection to other communicative practices that are at the center of an organization’s
value creation (i.e. typically those driven by an economic rationality; see Battilana and
Dorado, 2010); in other words, instead of being confined to the periphery of the
organization (e.g. to a “satellite” CSR department), CSR practices ought to become
integrated with other organizational (communication)practices across the firm. One
way of achieving this would be to translate CSR into the “language of profitability” by
defining it as a means of reducing reputational risks (cf. Haack et al., 2012). Thus,
translation of this kind can increase the chances of CSR finding resonance throughout
and beyond the organization (Humphreys and Brown, 2008; Schultz and Wehmeier,
2010). This suggestion is in accord with the existing literature on the “business case for
CSR” (e.g. Carroll and Shabana, 2010) and alludes to the question of whether ethical
affordances can indeed be compatible with profit maximization. The CCO perspective
 on CSR communication makes clear that, in order to manage CSR communication, Transcending
actors need to be able to cope with the contradictions and paradoxes that may arise transmission
between different motives for practicing CSR and to balance between the ideal of
corporate citizenship (e.g. Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Matten and Crane, 2005) and
demands for profitability (e.g. Porter and Kramer, 2006). Rather than striving for a
unified “voice”, the constitutive view can help articulate more pluralistically the
paradoxes and contradictions that are inherent in these two different logics 201
(Christensen and Cornelissen, 2011; Scherer et al., 2012) and enable mutual
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

sensemaking between their proponents (Humphreys and Brown, 2008).

Unlike the CCO perspective, the transmission view can be criticized for
overemphasizing the external side of CSR communication: “To date, the emphasis
has been almost exclusively on the external communication of CSR. [. . .] Ideally,
though, researchers would also begin to explore the integration (or lack thereof)
between CSR communication that is externally and internally focused” (May, 2011,
p. 102). The CCO view instead avoids making a clear-cut distinction between external
and internal communication processes by emphasizing that both dimensions
contribute significantly to the communicative constitution of the organization
(e.g. Christensen and Cornelissen, 2011). Thus, the CCO perspective addresses CSR
communication more broadly, encompassing both the communicative practices that
corporations employ strategically to inform external stakeholders (such as CSR
reports) and internal communicative practices that can be affected by issues of CSR
(e.g. existing practices of accounting, marketing, or finance).

Practices of CSR communication should not be dismissed as mere “greenwashing”,

given that talk can be action
The second of the four tendencies discerned in publications that take a critical look at
CSR communication is that corporations use such CSR practices as “greenwashing”
(e.g. Banerjee, 2008; Laufer, 2003). The notion of “greenwashing” refers to the efforts to
create through communication activities an environmentally responsible public image
that does not match an organization’s actual activities. Most of these works are
characterized by the classic distinction between talk and action (Brunsson, 1989). A
similar distinction is encountered in institutional theory, where the concept of
decoupling describes the gap between an organization’s façade, i.e. talk, and its actual
activities, i.e. action (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). As Christensen and Langer (2009) note
in the context of CSR communication: “Many of us tend to focus and insist on the
differences between what the organizations say and what they do” (p. 143; emphasis in
original). This reflects the assumption that talk is “cheap”, whereas action is what
really matters. In this view, practices of CSR communication are justified only if they
fully correspond to an organization’s deeds.
However, CSR communication scholars who follow the CCO view (e.g. Christensen
et al., 2010) emphasize that decoupled CSR communication practices may have
important further consequences. With their concept of “aspirational talk”, Christensen
et al. (2010) highlight that even if the public self-representation of an organization as a
socially responsible corporate citizen is decoupled from actual business practices, this
form of talk can nevertheless be a powerful driver of organizational change:
If communication is the “essential modality” (Taylor and Van Every, 2000) for organizational
life, we should not disregard aspirational talk, as we often find in programmes of corporate
 CCIJ social responsibility, as something superficial or detached from organizational practice.
Talking about actions is talking about communication. And vice versa. Talk about plans and
18,2 intentions is action just as actions in these areas simultaneously speak. [. . .] Even when
corporate ambitions to do good vis-à-vis society do not reflect managerial action, talk about
such ambitions provides articulations of ideals, beliefs, values and frameworks for decisions
– in other words, raw material for constructing the organization (Christensen et al., 2010,
p. 461; emphasis in original).
202
From this viewpoint, even the most “greenwashed” (Laufer, 2003) forms of
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

communication can have a performative character (see Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969), in
the sense that they generate pressure to create the very reality they refer to. Thus,
through “aspirational talk” (Christensen et al., 2010) business firms generate at least a
“creeping commitment” (Haack et al., 2012) to couple or re-couple the application of
organizational activities to their description, albeit in the future. This prompts the
crucial question of whether decoupling is stable in the long run at all and under which
conditions aspirational talk can actually lead to re-coupling. In this context, it is
worthwhile to explore the processes and dynamics of storytelling and meaning
negotiation that determine whether “aspirational talk” in CSR communication actually
becomes incorporated in organizational activities and structures or not (Haack et al.,
2012). To conclude, the CCO view invites us to differentiate between various speech
acts within CSR communication and to examine to what extent such acts can compel
an organization to give substance to the verbal commitments that such speech acts
imply.

According to the CCO view, by involving third parties, CSR communication can extend
and permeate the boundary of the communicatively constituted organization
A third characteristic of a large part of the literature on CSR communication (e.g. Du
et al., 2010) is that the organization is understood either as a “container” of internal
communication processes or as a producer of external communication processes
(Putnam et al., 1996). In contrast, from the CCO viewthe organization is perceived to
originate in communication (e.g. Taylor and Van Every, 2000). From this perspective,
literally every communicative act that refers to the organization can contribute to the
organization’s communicative constitution and act on its behalf (Taylor and Cooren,
1997). This view of corporate communication sheds new light on the classic distinction
between internal and external communication (e.g. Cheney and Christensen, 2001).
More specifically, the explicit CCO view underscores that third parties – such as the
media, NGOs, or other stakeholders – can also contribute ( jointly) to the organization’s
communicative constitution (Kjærgaard et al., 2011). For instance, an article in the mass
media or in social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, or blogs) that reports on the CSR
activities of a multinational corporation reinforces that organization’s communicative
constitution by publicly referring to it as a collective actor (for example, “BP promises
enhanced safety standards”).
From the CCO viewpoint, practices of CSR communication can play a crucial role in
extending the boundary of the organization. This is because, according to this
perspective, the organizational boundary is not given but needs to be continuously
(re-)established in and through communication (Luhmann, 2000; McPhee and Zaug,
2000). This is fully in line with Heath’s assertion that “boundaries result, not from
perimeters of an organization’s property or from membership in an organization, but
 from dimensions of zones of meaning” (Heath, 1993, p. 146). In other words, an Transcending
organization’s boundaries are not demarcated by the wired fence surrounding the transmission
company site or by work contracts that define the inclusion or exclusion of individual
actors, but by continuous communicative practices that establish, renegotiate, and
maintain the boundary (McPhee and Zaug, 2000). For instance, a farewell e-mail sent
by a former colleague who is leaving to take up a job with a different company
reaffirms through communication that his or her former colleagues remain company 203
members “within” the organizational boundaries.
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

The above shows that practices of CSR communication and stakeholder

involvement (Morsing and Schultz, 2006) invite third parties to co-constitute the
organization communicatively. As a consequence of this, however, it becomes less clear
who is a legitimate and “authorized” speaker that can talk on the organization’s behalf
and who is not (Kuhn, 2008; Taylor and Van Every, 2000). This lack of clarity is even
more pronounced in the age of social media, where various members of an organization
may engage in dialogue with stakeholders and society at large (Capriotti, 2011).
Moreover, it raises the fundamental question of boundary maintenance in the context
of CSR communication via social media; especially, how organizations cope with the
potential extension of their boundaries through CSR communication that can occur
through social media (Kjærgaard and Morsing, 2012).

It is necessary to take into account the responsibility of non-human agents in CSR

communication
Based on the idea of the fundamentally ephemeral and precarious character of
communication (Cooren et al., 2011; Cooren and Fairhurst, 2009; Hernes and Bakken,
2003), the CCO view stresses that organizations as communicative entities are
stabilized by non-human agents, such as texts, processes, scripts, or routines, which
can “act” on the organization’s behalf. Here, agency is broadly defined as an entity’s
capability “to make a difference”; in other words, the mere existence of this entity alters
patterns of behavior (Cooren, 2004, p. 373). Having agency, however, also implies
responsibility. This also applies to the organization, which Cooren (2006) perceives as a
“plenum” of multiple agencies. In that context, CSR communication concerns not only
the agency and responsibility of individual human actors but also those of non-human
actors, such as established communicative practices. This has significant implications
for the current literature on CSR, because it requires that the agency of communicative
practices is taken into account even where it is not possible to identify a specific
individual as the initial author of a practice (Kuhn, 2008). However, in this context, it
should be stressed that the CCO view does not dismiss individual responsibility for
one’s actions but argues that agency and responsibility become automatically
embedded in communicative practices and can be independent of the actors’ initial
intentions. In other words, whenever a certain communicative practice or artifact
leaves the context of its creation, its author(s) cannot have full control over its meaning,
potential interpretations, and recurrent enactments (Kuhn, 2008).
Let us illustrate these theoretical considerations with an example: a consulting firm
may have established the practice of hosting extravagant social functions that are paid
from the expenses account and then billed to the clients’ accounts. In this scenario, the
cost of alcoholic drinks, etc., is hidden within a lump sum that clients have to pay for
the consultants’ services. New consultants “learn” this practice from repeatedly
 CCIJ participating in such events. If the practice remains unquestioned and is simply taken
18,2 for granted, new recruits will most likely contribute to its reproduction in the future.
From a client’s point-of-view, however, this practice may be unethical or at least
morally questionable. If a client condemned this practice, and if the firm decided to put
an end to it, the typical reaction would be to identify the individuals who had been
involved in it and sanction them. Nevertheless, this would not resolve the question of
204 who “invented” or “authored” such a practice in the first place.
To conclude, the CCO view helps observers identify signs of institutionalization of
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

unethical business practices independently of individual human authorship (Kuhn,

2008). Thus, a constitutive notion of CSR communication requires that phenomena of
non-human (or supra-individual) agency and responsibility are also taken into account.
In the case of organizations, this means that CSR communication should acknowledge
the potential agency of various established practices, texts, etc., that collectively
constitute the organization and allow them to be placed under societal scrutiny.
The main differences between the transmission view and the constitutive view of
CSR communication that were outlined in this section are summarized and compared
in Table I.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we have argued that a significant part of the existing literature on CSR
communication (e.g. Du et al., 2010) is largely based on a transmission model of
communication. In contrast to these works, we put forward a constitutive view of CSR
communication, which acknowledges the formative role of communication practices in
the context of organizations. On the basis of this theoretical shift, our contribution to
the existing literature is three-fold. First, we contribute to the emerging literature on
CSR communication. Applying the theoretical lens of the CCO perspective (Cooren,
2012; Craig, 1999), we showed that this view is particularly useful for questioning the
strategic-instrumental notion of CSR communication. As we explained at length, from
the CCO viewpoint, organizations are perceived as polyphonic phenomena that emerge
in and through communication. In this context, CSR communication is seen as one of
several communicative practices that collectively constitute the organization.
Consequently, whether or not CSR communication has an impact within the
organization depends on the extent to which it is resonant with and becomes connected
to other communicative practices, especially those geared to profitability. Furthermore,
CSR communication processes cannot be completely and intentionally determined by
individual actors. In sum, the CCO view does not perceive CSR communication simply
as a managerial tool and in addition acknowledges the emergent, processual, and
dynamic character of communicative practices.
Second, we contribute to CSR research more generally, drawing attention to the
primacy of communication in the study of organizational phenomena (Ashcraft et al.,
2009), which is central to the constitutive view. In the context of CSR, the constitutive
view emphasizes that CSR practices come into being communicatively and that third
parties (such as NGOs and other stakeholders) co-constitute organizations through
their involvement in CSR communication. Thus, through the inclusion of various
stakeholders, CSR communication can shift the (communicatively constituted)
boundary of the organization (Heath, 1993). This, in turn, provides the opportunity
to focus on the notion that legitimacy and responsibility are constituted in complex
 Transcending
Transmission model of Constitutive model of
communication communication transmission
Organizational communication in general
Definition of communication Communication as a channel Communication as an emergent,
through which information is dynamic, and precarious process
transmitted from sender to of meaning negotiation 205
receiver
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Metaphorical notion of the Container metaphor Isomorphism (communication

relation between organization (communication occurs in activity is the organization)
and communication organizations) or production
metaphor (organization
produces communication)
Focus (Primarily) external Interplay of internal and external
communication communication
Direction and linearity Unidirectional, linear Multidirectional, non-linear
Consistency of voices Homophonic (i.e. speaking as if Polyphonic (i.e. speaking with
with one voice; ideal of partly dissonant, contradictory
integrated communication) voices
CSR communication in particular
1. Relation between CSR CSR communication as a CSR communication as one of
communication and the function of strategic instrument various practices that collectively
organization of corporations constitute the organization
2. Relation between talk and Talk does not equal action Talk can be action (see speech act
action “greenwashing” and decoupling theory): CSR communication and
can remain stable in the absence “aspirational talk” seen as
of external transparency potential drivers of
organizational change
3. Notion of the organizational The boundary of the The organizational boundary is Table I.
boundary organization is given (e.g. by maintained communicatively so Comparison of the
contractual membership) and CSR communication can transmission model and
thus unaffected by CSR permeate it by involving thrid the constitutive model of
communication parties in the co-constitution of communication:
the organization implications for
4. Scope of agency and Focus on individual human Widened focus on the agency and organizational
responsibility agency and responsibility responsibility of both human and communication in general
non-human entities (i.e. texts, and CSR communication
tools, and other artifacts) in particular

processes of meaning negotiation that involve not only the organization itself but also
various other actors (see Lange and Washburn, 2012). As we argued, these aspects of
CSR are particularly important in the age of social media (Capriotti, 2011), which
demand a new understanding of the fundamental embeddedness of corporations in the
communication processes of society at large.
Third, our conceptual paper helps broaden the CCO perspective: to date, very few
studies have applied the CCO perspective to address the role of communication in the
constitution of inter-organizational settings. Our study advances the line of thinking
developed by Kuhn and his colleagues (Koschmann et al., 2012; Kuhn, 2008), by
showing that organizations are inherently embedded in communicative interrelations
and continuous negotiations of meaning with other organizations. We believe that this
 CCIJ finding could provide an important opportunity for the CCO perspective to complement
18,2 other communication-centered approaches that are more normative in character and
emphasize the importance of deliberative dialogue for the legitimation of corporations
in a globalized world (e.g. Scherer and Palazzo, 2007).
Finally, our conceptual paper has important implications for business practice and
for how business and society interrelate. As explained earlier, switching to the explicit
206 CCO view implies that CSR communication can only gain traction within organizations
– corporations in particular – if it becomes connected to other core communicative
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

practices. In practical terms, this means that CSR communication should not be
reduced to a corporate function that is fulfilled by a stand-alone (or “satellite”)
department of CSR or corporate communications, but should be treated as a holistic
endeavor that encompasses the organization as a whole. This is particularly relevant in
the age of social media and blogging, where literally every employee, from the CEO
down to the worker on the ground, can potentially become a crucial actor of CSR
communication (Kjærgaard and Morsing, 2012) and where the polyphonic (Christensen
and Cornelissen, 2011) and contradictory (Scherer et al., 2012) nature of corporations is
increasingly visible. In this context, the constitutive view of CSR communication
implies that the role of managers in charge of CSR communication should not be
limited to the dissemination of information but should also involve the tasks of
“sensemaking” (Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Caruana and Crane, 2008) and “translation”
(Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010), which can help CSR communication practices to gain
resonance within the organization.
Furthermore, as we have emphasized by drawing on the notion of non-human
agency (e.g. Cooren, 2004), the CCO view also widens the scope of CSR communication
management, which, as CCO scholars point out, involves dealing also with the
supra-individual institutionalization of (ir)responsible business practices and their
material consequences. In other words, managing CSR communication entails
handling challenges that arise from the responsibility and agency not only of
individual organizational members but also of non-human entities, such as texts, tools,
templates, scripts, or routines. Finally, the CCO perspective allows the integration of
the field of CSR communication research into a broader theory of society (Luhmann,
1995) by grounding it in the epistemology of the communicative constitution of social
reality (Cooren, 2012). For that reason, the CCO perspective is particularly suitable for
highlighting the fundamental communicative embeddedness of corporations into
society at large and the contribution of corporations to sense-making processes also on
the societal level (Haack et al., 2012; Palazzo and Scherer, 2006).

References
Ashcraft, K.L., Kuhn, T.R. and Cooren, F. (2009), “Constitutional amendments: ‘materializing’
organizational communication”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-64.
Austin, J.L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Axley, S. (1984), “Managerial communication in terms of the conduit metaphor”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 428-37.
Banerjee, S.B. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: the good, the bad and the ugly”, Critical
Sociology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 51-79.
 Bartlett, J., Tywoniak, S. and Hatcher, C. (2007), “Public relations professional practice and the Transcending
institutionalisation of CSR”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 281-99. transmission
Battilana, J. and Dorado, S. (2010), “Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of
commercial microfinance organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 6,
pp. 1419-40.
Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility: a process model of 207
sensemaking”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 122-36.
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S. and Korschun, D. (2008), “Using corporate social responsibility to win
the war for talent”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 37-44.
Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F. and Zamparini, A. (2008), “Communicating CSR: practices among
Switzerland’s top 300 companies”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 182-96.
Blaschke, S., Schoeneborn, D. and Seidl, D. (2012), “Organizations as networks of communication
episodes: turning the network perspective inside out”, Organization Studies, Vol. 33 No. 7,
pp. 879-906.
Brummans, B., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D. and Taylor, J.R. (2013), “Approaches in research on the
communicative constitution of organizations”, in Putnam, L.L. and Mumby, D. (Eds), Sage
Handbook of Organizational Communication, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London, to be
published.
Brunsson, N. (1989), The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decision and Actions in Organizations,
Wiley, Chichester.
Capriotti, P. (2011), “Communicating corporate social responsibility through the internet and
social media”, in Ihlen, Ø., Barlett, J.L. and May, S. (Eds), The Handbook of Communication
and Corporate Social Responsibility, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 358-78.
Capriotti, P. and Moreno, A. (2007), “Corporate citizenship and public relations: the importance
and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 84-91.
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010), “The business case for corporate social responsibility:
a review of concepts, research and practice”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-105.
Caruana, R. and Crane, A. (2008), “Constructing consumer responsibility: exploring the role of
corporate communications”, Organization Studies, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1495-519.
Cheney, G. and Christensen, L.T. (2001), “Organizational identity: linkages between internal and
external communication”, in Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (Eds), The New Handbook of
Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 231-69.
Cheney, G. and McMillan, J.J. (1990), “Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism”,
Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 93-114.
Christensen, L.T. and Cheney, G. (2011), “Interrogating the communicative dimensions of
corporate social responsibility”, in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J. and May, S. (Eds), The Handbook of
Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 491-504.
Christensen, L.T. and Cornelissen, J. (2011), “Bridging corporate and organizational
communication: review, development and a look to the future”, Management
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 383-414.
Christensen, L.T. and Langer, R. (2009), “Public relations and the strategic use of transparency:
consistency, hypocrisy and corporate change”, in Heath, R.L., Toth, E. and Waymer, D.
 CCIJ (Eds), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II, Routledge, Hillsdale,
pp. 129-53.
18,2
Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Thyssen, O. (2010), “The polyphony of corporate social
responsibility: deconstructing transparency and accountability and opening for identity
and hypocrisy”, in Cheney, G., May, S. and Mumby, D. (Eds), The Handbook of
Communication Ethics, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 457-73.
208 Cooren, F. (2004), “Textual agency: how texts do things in organizational settings”, Organization,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 373-94.
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Cooren, F. (2006), “The organizational world as a plenum of agencies”, in Cooren, F., Taylor, J.R.
and Van Every, E.J. (Eds), Communication as Organizing: Empirical and Theoretical
Explorations in the Dynamic of Text and Conversations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 81-100.
Cooren, F. (2012), “Communication theory at the center: ventriloquism and the communicative
constitution of reality”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Cooren, F. and Fairhurst, G.T. (2009), “Dislocation and stabilization: how to scale up from
interactions to organization”, in Putnam, L.L. and Nicotera, A.M. (Eds), Building Theories
of Organization: The Constitutive Role of Communication, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 117-52.
Cooren, F., Kuhn, T.R., Cornelissen, J.P. and Clark, T. (2011), “Communication, organizing, and
organization: an overview and introduction to the Special Issue”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1149-70.
Cornelissen, J.P. (2012), “Sensemaking under pressure: the influence of professional roles and
social accountability on the creation of sense”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 118-37.
Craig, R.T. (1999), “Communication theory as a field”, Communication Theory, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 119-61.
Deetz, S. (2005), “Critical theory”, in May, S.K. and Mumby, D.K. (Eds), Engaging Organizational
Communication Theory and Research: Multiple Perspectives, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 85-112.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), “Maximizing business returns to corporate social
responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication”, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19.
Ellerup Nielsen, A. and Thomsen, C. (2009), “CSR communication in small and medium-sized
enterprises: a study of the attitudes and beliefs of middle managers”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 176-89.
Esrock, S.L. and Leichty, G.B. (1998), “Social responsibility and corporate web pages:
self-presentation or agenda-setting?”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-19.
Golob, U. and Bartlett, J.L. (2007), “Communicating about corporate social responsibility:
a comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility communication and dialogue”,
in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J. and May, S. (Eds), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate
Social Responsibility, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 231-51.
Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D. and Wickert, C. (2012), “Talking the talk, moral entrapment, creeping
commitment? Exploring narrative dynamics in corporate responsibility standardization”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 813-45.
 Hagen, O. (2008), “Seduced by their proactive image? On using auto communication to enhance Transcending
CSR”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 130-44.
transmission
Heath, R.L. (1993), “A rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogatives”,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 2 No. 19, pp. 141-55.
Hernes, T. and Bakken, T. (2003), “Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis
and organization theory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 1511-35.
Humphreys, M. and Brown, A.D. (2002), “Narratives of organizational identity and identification: 209
a case study of hegemony and resistance”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 421-47.
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Humphreys, M. and Brown, A.D. (2008), “An analysis of corporate social responsibility at credit
line: a narrative approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 403-18.
Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J. and May, S. (Eds) (2011), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate
Social Responsibility, Wiley, Oxford.
Johansen, T.S. and Ellerup Nielsen, A. (2011), “Strategic stakeholder dialogues: a discursive
perspective on relationship building”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 204-17.
Kjærgaard, A. and Morsing, M. (2012), “A case study of how social media guidelines are used to
discipline employee behavior”, paper presented at the European Group of Organizational
Studies (EGOS) Colloquium, Helsinki, July 5-7.
Kjærgaard, A., Morsing, M. and Ravasi, D. (2011), “Mediating identity: a study of media influence
on organizational identity construction in a celebrity firm”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 514-43.
Kornberger, M., Clegg, S.R. and Carter, C. (2006), “Rethinking the polyphonic organization:
Managing as discursive practice”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 3-30.
Koschmann, M., Kuhn, T.R. and Pfarrer, M.D. (2012), “A communicative framework of value in
cross-sector partnerships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 332-54.
Kuhn, T.R. (2008), “A communicative theory of the firm: developing an alternative perspective on
intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships”, Organization Studies, Vol. 29
Nos 8/9, pp. 1227-54.
Lange, D. and Washburn, N.T. (2012), “Understanding attributions of corporate social
irresponsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 300-26.
Laufer, W.S. (2003), “Social accountability and corporate greenwashing”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 253-61.
Luhmann, N. (1992), “What is communication?”, Communication Theory, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 251-9.
Luhmann, N. (1995), Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Luhmann, N. (2000), Organisation und Entscheidung, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
McPhee, R.D. and Zaug, P. (2000), “The communicative constitution of organizations: a framework
for explanation”, Electronic Journal of Communication, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, available at: www.
cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/010/1/01017.html
Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative
framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005), “Corporate citizenship: towards an extended conceptualization”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 166-79.
May, S.K. (2011), “Organizational communication and corporate social responsibility”, in Ihlen, Ø.,
Bartlett, J. and May, S. (Eds), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social
Responsibility, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 87-110.
 CCIJ May, S.K. and Zorn, T.E. (2003), “Forum introduction”, Management Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 595-8.
18,2
May, S.K., Cheney, G. and Roper, J. (Eds) (2007), The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63.
210 Monge, P.R. and Contractor, N.S. (2003), Theories of Communication Networks, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Morsing, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: on the role

of external stakeholders for member identification”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 171-82.
Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder
information, response and involvement strategies”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 323-38.
Mumby, D.K. (2001), “Power and politics”, in Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (Eds), The New
Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 585-623.
Nassehi, A. (2005), “Organizations as decision machines: Niklas Luhmann’s theory of organized
social systems”, Sociological Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 178-91.
Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A.G. (2006), “Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: a communicative
framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Podnar, K. (2008), “Guest editorial: communicating corporate social responsibility”, Journal of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-81.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “The link between competitive advantage and corporate
social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Putnam, L.L. and Nicotera, A.M. (2009), Building Theories of Organization: The Constitutive Role
of Communication, Routledge, New York, NY.
Putnam, L.L., Phillips, N. and Chapman, P. (1996), “Metaphors of communication and
organizations”, in Clegg, S.R. and Nord, W.R. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 375-408.
Robichaud, D., Giroux, H. and Taylor, J.R. (2004), “The metaconversation: the recursive property
of language as a key to organizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 617-34.
Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G. (2007), “Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility:
business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1096-120.
Scherer, A.G., Palazzo, G. and Seidl, D. (2012), “Managing legitimacy in complex and
heterogeneous environments: sustainable development in a globalized world”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 259-84.
Schultz, F. and Wehmeier, S. (2010), “Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within
corporate communications: combining institutional, sensemaking and communication
perspectives”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Searle, J.R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Seidl, D. and Becker, K.H. (2005), Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies, Copenhagen
Business School Press, Oslo.
 Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University Transcending
of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Taylor, J.R. and Cooren, F. (1997), “What makes communication ‘organizational’? How the many
transmission
voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization”, Journal of Pragmatics,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 409-38.
Taylor, J.R. and Van Every, E. (2000), The Emergent Organization: Communication as its Site
and Surface, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 211
Vaara, E. and Tienari, J. (2008), “A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in MNCs”,
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 985-93.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Dennis Schoeneborn can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2016. Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting. Corporate
Reputation Review 18, 210-222. [CrossRef]
2. Laura Illia, Stefania Romenti, Belén Rodríguez-Cánovas, Grazia Murtarelli, Craig E. Carroll. 2015.
Exploring Corporations’ Dialogue About CSR in the Digital Era. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
3. Hannah Trittin, Dennis Schoeneborn. 2015. Diversity as Polyphony: Reconceptualizing Diversity
Management from a Communication-Centered Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
4. J. Carlos H. Hurtado, Xavier Ferras, Nuria Arimany, Dulcinea MeijideCommunications and corporate
Downloaded by ACADEMIA DE STUDII ECONOMICE DIN BUCURESTI At 02:32 11 January 2016 (PT)

social responsibility: A canvas to build its strategy 1-8. [CrossRef]

5. Dirk C. Moosmayer, Susannah M. Davis. 2014. Staking Cosmopolitan Claims: How Firms and NGOs
Talk About Supply Chain Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
6. Säde Rytkönen, Leena Louhiala-Salminen. 2014. “Sell the Sizzle”. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal 19:4, 329-343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Glen Whelan, Jeremy Moon, Bettina Grant. 2013. Corporations and Citizenship Arenas in the Age of
Social Media. Journal of Business Ethics 118, 777-790. [CrossRef]
8. Itziar Castelló, Mette Morsing, Friederike Schultz. 2013. Communicative Dynamics and the Polyphony
of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Network Society. Journal of Business Ethics 118, 683-694.
[CrossRef]
9. Alexander Moutchnik. 2013. Im Glaslabyrinth der Kommunikation. Der Dialog mit Stakeholdern über
Umwelt, Nachhaltigkeit und CSR in Social Media. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 21, 19-37. [CrossRef]
10. Friederike Schultz, Itziar Castelló, Mette Morsing. 2013. The Construction of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Network Societies: A Communication View. Journal of Business Ethics 115, 681-692.
[CrossRef]
11. Urša Golob, Klement Podnar, Wim J. Elving, Anne Ellerup Nielsen, Christa Thomsen, Friederike
Schultz. 2013. CSR communication: quo vadis?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal
18:2, 176-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]