Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 88:103–113
DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1
Marketing Communications and Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR): Marriage
of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding? Khosro S. Jahdi
ABSTRACT. This paper aims to examine the role(s) that
the various vehicles of marketing communications can
play with respect to communicating, publicising and
highlighting organisational CSR policies to its various
stakeholders. It will further endeavour to evaluate the
impact of such communications on an organisation’s
corporate reputation and brand image. The proliferation
of unsubstantiated ethical claims and so-called ‘green
washing’ by some companies has resulted in increasing
consumer cynicism and mistrust. This has made the task
of communicating with, and more importantly convinc-
ing, an organisation’s stakeholders vis-a`-vis its CSR cre-
dentials even more difficult. This paper argues that
marketing communications tools can play a major role in
conveying a company’s CSR messages and communi-
cating a more socially responsible image.
KEY WORDS: marketing, marketing communications,
corporate social responsibility, ethics
Introduction
It can be argued that marketing has been in existence
in some shape or form for as long as human beings
have lived or traded with each other. Moore and
Davis (1999) suggest that, as early as ancient Sumeria
and Babylon, large cities existed and required impor-
ted commodities. For this purpose, long-distance
trade routes were established, and for instance, agri-
cultural produce was exchanged for manufactured
goods. Phoenician city states such as Tyre, Sidon and
others gained prominence due to becoming entre-
pots, i.e. marketing transaction centres, for parties
from various locations in the Middle East and the
Mediterranean. Moore and Davis (1999) further state
that true multinational private-sector rms emerged
Springer 2009
Gaye Acikdilli
with multi-factor operations and multi-site locations.
Many of these strangely resembled Chandler’s
M-form rm, which apparently was not developed
until the late 19th century. Although these rms’
marketing activities have remained unknown, some
1,000 years later, during the medieval commercial
revolution, there is evidence of major multi-national
players such as the Medici Bank (www.lycos.com/
info/medici-medici-bank.html). In addition, market
records of the era and the arrival of the rst textbooks
on commerce inform the reader of the nature of
marketing activities (Jahdi, 2006).
Methodology
For the purpose of this paper, overall secondary
research through in-depth review of the literature
was employed. References were also made to a
case study on an ethical bank in the UK, i.e. the
Co-operative Bank, and its press advertising. The
bank not only highlights its ethical/green position in
the marketplace, but also attempts to minimise the
impact of similar advertising and publicity by other
major UK banks.
In addition, observation and anecdotal evidence
relating to the use of marketing communications
tools for the purpose of ethical/CSR message con-
veyance and so forth was incorporated. The primary
purpose was to focus on press advertising. However,
communications tools tend to impact on each other
(favourably or adversely), and as such, the in uence
of advertising might be detected on other tools such
as public relations (PR), and so forth, as well as
ultimately on the corporate image.
104 Khosro S. Jahdi and Gaye Acikdilli
Present-day marketing
Modern marketing per se, it has been suggested,
began in the period 1900–1940, and more particu-
larly, during the years 1910–1925, when a num-
ber of practical and theoretical approaches came
together. Several of the elements of marketing had
been in existence over the centuries, as mentioned
above. However, this relatively brief period wit-
nessed the emergence of a coherent, uni ed subject.
It is further suggested that the majority of such
developments occurred in the USA, while countries
such as the UK were amongst the major contributors
to specialist sub-disciplines such as advertising (Jahdi,
2006).
Balmer and Greyser (2006) write that any dis-
cussion of marketing is hampered by a variety of
problems, including the lack of consensus on its
nature. They further cite Crosier (1975) as nding at
least 50 de nitions of the term, envisioning it as a
process, a business orientation and a philosophy.
King (1985) had offered four misinterpretations of
marketing: thrust
marketing, accountant marketing and formula mar-
keting, while Gilligan and Wilson (1998, p. 4) regard
marketing as something more than a functional
process. They assert that ‘‘…marketing is increas-
ingly being conceptualised as an organisational phi-
losophy…’’ (Gilligan and Wilson, 1998, p. 4). They
view marketing as
and strategic in nature as opposed to tactical or
functional. They cite McDonald’s de nition as
underpinning such an approach:
Marketing is a management process whereby the
resources of the whole organisation are utilised to
satisfy the needs of selected customer groups in order
to achieve the objectives of both parties. Marketing,
then, is rst and foremost an attitude of mind rather
than a series of functional activities. (McDonald, 1989,
p. 8)
One problem that marketing managers encounter
is that, although most businesses appreciate the need
for marketing, there are reservations about its ability
to in uence top-line growth. The challenge facing
marketing is to convince nance-driven organisa-
tions of its importance. In the absence of large
numbers of chief executives with a marketing
background, such persuasion is an extremely hard
task to implement (Marketing, 2 February, 2005). An
even more arduous task faces those in charge of
marketing communications, in justifying their exis-
tence and contribution to an organisation’s well-
being and prosperity.
Marketing, as with any management discipline, is
rapidly changing and going through a continuous
metamorphosis. Amongst Balmer’s models of power
relationships in marketing (2006), namely, the manip-
ulative model, the transactional model, the service
model and the corporate model, perhaps the last is
the one worthy of further examination. As far as the
power balance in the marketplace is concerned,
consumers and stakeholders (but consumers represent
one among many stakeholder groups) dominate. The
origin of consumer needs/desires rests with con-
sumers and stakeholders. With respect to consumer
power type, consumer and stakeholder sovereignty
exists. The marketplace warning is: caveat societas
(company beware). And nally, the marketer’s role is
marketing,
to be the stakeholders’ servant‘marketing
and to work with department’
consumers and stakeholders.
The trouble with marketing
‘an Except forapproach
accounting and nance, to marketing per-
doing business’
haps more than other management disciplines is
viewed with a great deal of cynicism and suspicion
when it attempts to convey a more socially respon-
sible image. Nantel and Weeks (1996, p. 9) write
that: ‘‘marketing is a discipline that provokes much
debate. Very often, this controversy is linked to a
lack of understanding what the actual de nition
of marketing is’’. Most de nitions of marketing
invariably refer to customer need and want satisfac-
tion. Nantel and Weeks suggest that this is an
entirely utilitarian aspect of the de nition, providing
marketing with a more socially acceptable image.
Therefore, if the tendency in marketing is primarily
utilitarian, then on this level, it can be highly ethical,
as proposed by Fritsche and Becker (1983) and by
Fraedrich et al. (1991).
Marketing’s subsets in the form of communica-
tions vehicles are the tools by which it can strive to
 Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility
achieve CSR objectives (Jahdi, 2006). However,
defeatism and resignation to accepting the perceived
negative image of marketing does not help to dispel
what is to some extent a myth, i.e. marketing is the
cause of certain societal problems/evil. Marketing
has undoubtedly been responsible for a wide variety
of social ills; nevertheless, there are socially respon-
sible companies that employ ethics successfully as a
marketing strategy.
Fraedrich et al. (1991, p. 169) echo such a senti-
ment: ‘‘One of the most powerful arguments for
including ethics and social responsibility in the
strategic market planning process is the increasing
evidence of a link between social responsibility,
ethics, and marketing performance.’’
Basu and Palazzo (2008) suggest three funda-
mental lines of CSR inquiry prevalent in academic
literature as follows:
1. Stakeholder driven. This is a reaction to the
demands of external stakeholders that might
include NGOs, governments and pressure
groups. Since this is a reactive response and
even knee-jerk in some cases, it can be ar-
gued that the organisation’s heart is not really
in it, and this might be viewed as largely cos-
metic.
2. Performance driven. The concept of ‘good
ethics is good for business’, or to cite Carroll
(1998, p. 1): ‘‘What is business expected to be
or to do to be considered a good corporate
citizen?’’ In this case, the real motive behind
the organisation’s efforts at communicating an
ethical message/image could be purely for
nancial gains.
3. Motivation driven. Either extrinsic motives,
such as corporate image improvement, pre-
empting legal penalties and risk management,
or intrinsic motives, such as virtue ethics,
Kantian ethics and so forth. Extrinsic motives
are not dissimilar to number (2) above, while
intrinsic motives are indicative of an organi-
sation’s commitment to ethical and/or envi-
ronmental issues, such as in the example of
the Co-operative Bank.
Possible approaches to how marketing could
contribute to CSR (Jahdi, 2007) can be listed as
follows:
105
Approach How carried out
Posthumous CSR applied for damage-limitation
purposes
Pantomime Super cial; play-acting dressed
up as CSR
Piecemeal Token gestures at application of CSR
Public Communicating CSR intentions
relations to stakeholders
Parsimonious Frugal application of CSR
Parrot fashion Following competition or market leader
Pro t driven CSR application for economic gains only
Proactive Anticipation of need for and possible
bene ts of CSR
Partnership Co-operation with customer and/or
other rms
Philanthropic Attention to welfare of fellow humans
in the shape of CSR
Although some researches indicate that commu-
nicating about CSR activities does not necessarily
re ect positively on a company (Sen and Bhattach-
arya, 2001), others show that organisations com-
municating a socially responsible image are perceived
more positively and trusted more (Swaen and
Vanhamme, 2004). The Co-operative Bank and
Suma Wholefoods (another co-operative) in the UK
are prime examples of such organisations. However,
organisations that highlight their CSR credentials
come under increased scrutiny lest they err, while
those not doing so are less under the spotlight.
Benjamin Franklin, the great American inventor,
once commented that: ‘‘glass china and reputation are
easily cracked but never well mended’’. Snider et al.
(2003) warn of the considerable growth in corporate
communications, with CSR reports ‘ lling web pages
and brochures,’ mainly in reaction to stakeholder
demands. Sims and Brinkmann (2003, p. 243) cite the
case of Enron, which ‘‘looked like an exceptional
corporate citizen with all the corporate social
responsibility and business ethics tools and status
symbols in place’’.
The trouble with marketing
communications
‘‘The public increasingly wants to know about
companies that stand behind the brands and products
 106 Khosro S. Jahdi and Gaye Acikdilli
presented to them. And use their power to reward
‘good’ companies and punish the ‘bad’ ones’’ (Lewis,
2001, as cited in Bowd et al., 2006, p. 148). It is
beyond argument that CSR has gained a great deal
of prominence and, according to Jackson (2001), it
has created a new ‘fashion’ in business management.
This means that organisations are increasingly turn-
ing to CSR communications to be viewed as one of
Lewis’s ‘good’ companies. In addition, there is also a
push from academics, corporate stakeholders, pres-
sure groups and governments for companies to adopt
a CSR-orientated approach to their business,
according to Bowd et al. (2006).
However, adopting such policies requires com-
munication with the stakeholders, not only to con-
vince them that the company is serious about its
CSR strategies, but also to reap bene ts that come
with such an image, e.g. competitive edge, keeping
out new entrants, avoiding penalties for unethical
behaviour, pre-empting the impact of future legis-
lation as well as long-term investment in corporate
image. In short, this is paying due attention to the
two ‘C’s of marketing communications: Contact and
Convince. The rst part may be a great deal simpler
than the second, and this is where the importance of
source credibility becomes paramount, considering
customer cynicism and suspicion of CSR-related
communications.
It can be argued that any and every marketing
communications tool is capable of conveying a
company’s CSR messages and contributing to its
corporate image and brand equity. However, some
communications vehicles can be more powerful and
effective than others, such as public relations,
advertising and sponsorship (invariably dressed up as
cause-related marketing). Marketing communica-
tions tools, as mentioned earlier, are not perceived in
a positive light by consumers or, to a large extent, by
businesses. For instance, John Stauber of PR Watch
warns of the use of the so-called ‘astroturf cam-
paigns’ as ‘‘the appearance of democracy bought and
paid for with millions of dollars from wealthy special
interests’’ (www.corporatewatch.org.uk). These aim
to create the impression of grassroots support for or
in opposition to a given project. Occasionally PR
rms may organise discontented workers or sections
of the public to vent their anger on environmen-
talists or particular legislation that the client wished
derailed.
Schroeder and Borgerson (2005) write that ethi-
cally motivated criticisms of marketing communica-
tions are often simplistically understood as generalised
critiques of capitalism and excessive consumption,
citing authors such as Crane and Matten (2004),
Smith and Quelch (1993), and Thompson (2004) for
further reference. They tend to focus on the impact of
‘image’ in communications and write that: ‘‘visual
images exist within a distinctive socio-legal envi-
ronment-unlike textual or verbal statements, such as
products claims…pictures can be held to be true or
false. Images elude empirical veri cation…they en-
able strategists to avoid being held accountable…’’
(Schroeder and Borgerson, 2005, p. 580).
The trouble with advertising
Advertising, as the most visible communications
tool, is continuously blamed for a number of prob-
lems, including child obesity (see Kitchen et al.,
2004), for being pervasive, intrusive and pernicious
(Laczniak and Laczniak, 1985). Nairn and Fine
(2008) agree that the presence of persuasion
knowledge or cognitive defence can offer a plausible
test of fairness for informative advertising formats.
However, they state that research ndings of neu-
roscientists and psychologists indicate that advertis-
ing techniques that employ evaluative conditioning
formats manipulate consumer behaviour by means of
implicit attitude change. Nairn and Fine (2008,
p. 460) argue that: ‘‘… for these formats the
appropriate test of fairness is the ability to resist
implicit persuasion. Without this, the child is like the
target of subliminal advertising: preferences are
mediated by non-conscious, non-rational means that
are impossible to resist’’. The concern is not merely
with children, however. Nairn and Fine write that
even adolescents may have dif culty to resist implicit
persuasion, due to lack of possession of suf cient
cognitive control capacities. It can be argued that
children tend to pay more attention to and be
concerned with ethical and environmental issues
compared with their parents. Heavy press advertising
in the UK by major oil companies such as BP and
Shell, usually covering an entire page or even two
pages at times (see Shell’s advert in The Guardian
newspaper, 1st December, 2008) boasting about
their ‘green’ initiatives is one example of such a
 Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility
persuasive approach. These companies’ main prod-
ucts are pollutants, and any investment in alternative
energy tends to be a minute percentage of overall
company investment in the production of petro-
leum. In a similar manner, BP has been re-branding
itself. It uses lower case letters ‘bp’ to denote a more
friendly face, and uses the letters to highlight its
move to ‘beyond petroleum’. It, too, advertises
heavily in the UK press for reasons similar to Shell.
Greenpeace’s media head refers to the growing
amount of ‘cynical advertising’ by organisations with
poor environmental track records, such as oil com-
panies. Claims made by advertisers about their green
attempts do not negate the overall impact of their
operations and/or products on the environment.
Shell’s adverts in The Guardian suggested that it had
come to save the world (Monbiot, 2009), ‘‘tackling
climate change and providing fuel for a growing
population seems like an impossible problem, but at
Shell we try to think creatively’’. The same company
boasted in the year 2000 that it would be investing
US $1 billion in renewable energy between 2001
and 2005. However, no gures for its renewables
budget have been produced. The company states
that it is investing ‘signi cantly’ in wind energy, but
not clarifying what ‘signi cantly’ means.
Car manufacturers, too, have jumped on the
green/ethical bandwagon, and use advertising in
newspapers for this purpose. Fiat combined lower
cost and ecology to advertise its cars (see The
Guardian newspaper 29th February 2008), while
Toyota was actually criticised by the Advertising
Standards Authority (ASA) for making misleading
claims about the environmental credentials of its
Prius hybrid car (Guardian, 18th June, 2007).
Volkswagen was also under the spotlight for an
advertisement in which its Golf GT TSI was claimed
to have lower CO2 emissions than ‘other engines
with similar power outputs’. Scottish and Southern
Energy Group in the UK made an unsubstantiated
claim that it planted trees in order to balance out the
CO2 emissions of its customers’ gas heating and
household waste products. It was duly criticised by
the ASA in 2007, following a complaint. EasyJet’s
claims to have more environmentally friendly air-
planes were inaccurately portrayed as such according
to ASA, again following a customer complaint.
Indeed there could be advertisements that appear to
107
make similar claims but which may escape the
watchful eyes of critics.
Amongst the major criticisms of advertising is that,
without such expenditure, the product would cost the
consumer less money. However, companies such as
Kellogg’s that spend an approximate £50 million per
annum on advertising see it as an investment. The
results of such investment are re ected in their market
share (Lawrence, 2008). An investigative UK maga-
zine called Which? had carried out research that ana-
lysed 275 major breakfast cereals in 2006. The
outcome was that 75% contained high levels of salt,
based on the guidelines of Food Standards Agency
(FSA). Furthermore, approximately 90% of those
targeted at children were high in sugar, 13% high in
salt and 10% high in saturated fat (Lawrence, 2008).
When a UK communications watchdog, Ofcom,
proposed to restrict TV advertising to children of
unhealthy foods, Kellogg’s campaigned vigorously to
stop such limitations. According to Lawrence (2008,
p. 22) the managing director of the aforementioned
company, when asked to reduce sugar and salt content
of cereals even further (following a 25% reduction in
salt by the rm), had replied: ‘‘… and the risk is, if you
take the salt out you might be better off eating the
cardboard carton for taste’’.
With reference to breakfast cereals, they are
invariably advertised as ‘healthy eating’. However,
according to Lawrence (2008), one of the highest
costs is not the value of ingredients, nor the cost of
production, but the marketing, with a typical
20–25% of the sales value. Needless to say, a large
percentage of that expenditure is allocated to
advertising with children as the target audience.
Shimp (1997) cites the following negative effects
of advertising on society:
It is untruthful, deceptive, manipulative, offensive
and in bad taste.
• It creates and perpetuates stereotypes.
• It encourages purchase of items not really
needed.
• It plays upon individuals’ fears and insecuri-
ties.
Pollay and Gallagher (1990) offer a tabulated
consequences of advertising, some of which are cited
below:
 108 Khosro S. Jahdi and Gaye Acikdilli
When advertising appeals to It also promotes:
Mass markets Conformity
Sexuality Pornography
Fears Chronic anxieties
Status Envy, social competitiveness
Youth Disrespect of family elders
Newness Disrespect of tradition
As cited in Yeshin, 2006, p. 14.
Fan (2005), while remarking on advertising as the
most visible element of marketing, suggests that it is
branding that is at the heart of any marketing com-
munications, citing Benetton’s controversial 1990s
advertising campaigns. Schroeder and Borgerson
(2005, p. 578) write that ‘‘it is no longer satisfactory to
associate advertising solely with persuasion, rather
advertising must be seen as a representative system,
with pedagogical as well as strategic functions’’.
Research carried out by Bowd et al. (2006)
amongst stakeholders and managers of a major
northeast England retail centre relating to CSR
communications found that both groups shared a
similar view of CSR. Furthermore, the most suc-
cessful methods of communicating CSR to a wider
spectrum of stakeholders tended to be on-site mar-
keting communications techniques highly visible to
users. Amongst these were the large-screen TV in
the shopping centre, centre brochures, signs within
it as well as the actual ‘experience’, i.e., experience
from the interaction of stakeholders with the retail
mall. From a theoretical point of view, this empha-
sises the importance and relevance of the concept of
customer involvement.
The above study also found that ‘‘…only a limited
range of CSR activities were known to the stake-
holders as a whole and via a limited number of
communication methods. This level of awareness
and the success of communications methods appears
to be linked to what is communicated and evident to
centre users’’ (Bowd et al., 2006, p. 152).
A unique means of communicating company
CSR has been in the form of social responsibility
disclosure utilising marketing communications tools
such as advertising and/or the Internet, and so forth.
Gray et al. (1996, p. 3) de ne social responsibility as
‘‘…the process of communicating the social and
environmental effects of organisations’ economic
actions to particular interest groups within society
and to society at large’’. For instance, Branco and
Rodrigues (2006) examined the case of Portuguese
banks and their CSR information disclosure which
included environmental information. They found
that ‘‘…banks with a higher visibility among con-
sumers seem to exhibit greater concern to improve
the corporate image through social responsibility
information disclosure…thus suggesting that legiti-
macy theory may be an explanation of social respon-
sibility disclosure by Portuguese banks’’ (Branco and
Rodrigues, 2006, p. 232). The legitimacy theory
here suggests that better-known banks have more
reason to justify their existence to society by means
of social responsibility disclosure.
Source credibility and source
attractiveness
Recent press advertising by BP and Shell in the UK
explaining carbon footprints and so forth could not
be taken seriously coming from companies whose
products pollute the atmosphere and which mini-
mally invest in renewable energy. In a recent
interview carried out by The Guardian newspaper of
the UK, Shell’s chief executive was asked: ‘‘is there
any investment you would make on ethical
grounds?’’ (Monbiot, 2009). The chief executive
was unable to provide an example.
The critics of advertising see, for instance, the
creation of ‘hyper-reality’ by the media, where
imagery replaces reality in the society, i.e. the gap
between image and reality becomes indistinguish-
able. Mellahi and Wood (2003) state that marketing
managers have collectively gained the power to
shape the choices and lifestyles of large numbers of
consumers. Such power could also be used to alter
existing ethical norms and/or manipulate them in
the company’s interest.
As for public relations, it is invariably viewed with
suspicion in the oft-ridiculed guise of ‘spin doctor-
ing’. Ewen (2003) said that the history of public
relations (PR) is one of a battle for what reality is and
how people will see and understand it. Public rela-
tions can be employed as a major marketing com-
munications tool to convey an organisation’s CSR
policies to its stakeholders. However, if one is to cite
 Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility
Grunig and White’s (1984) four models of public
relations, perhaps the ‘two-way symmetric’ approach
would be an ideal choice.
The more recent addition, i.e. online communi-
cations in the form of websites and emails, has not
been treated with any more respect. Regarding CSR
communications the examples of British American
Tobacco (BAT) and its social responsibility website
or the British
arms
similarly titled web offerings further fuel suspicion,
cynicism and derision. The World Health Organi-
sation (WHO) states that smoking causes more death
and disability than any single disease. Sadly, pro t-
hungry companies are still permitted an unfettered
trade, as well as investing in branding designed to
attract new customers as old ones die off (The
Guardian newspaper, 2008). The defence used by the
tobacco companies refers to the advertising ban that
came into effect in the UK in 2003. Alternative
means of covert ‘advertising’ have been found by
these rms. The ash of gold that transforms Marl-
boro Lights into a handbag accessory is advertising in
all but name, according to The Guardian (2008). In
the past, without making text-based claims about
their products, visual imagery had been used, such as
the lone cowboy roaming the American West
(Schroeder and Borgerson, 2005).
Pollach (2005), in her research on World Wide
Web (WWW) and corporate self-presentation, rec-
ommends that companies use a number of persuasive
appeals, such as third-party evidence or humanisation
of their web-based messages, in order to enhance
credibility. Unfortunately, rms have a habit of
making gross overstatements when describing them-
selves. Audience involvement can also be employed
to remedy this problem. However, at times, attitude
change and image formation might be required to
help improve the situation. The former is required at
times when an existing organisation attempts to alter
adverse perception of itself and thus create loyalty
amongst customers. The latter can bene t a new-
comer in the marketplace in the absence of any
stakeholder perception.
A more credible source might be an organisation
that is well known for its CSR reputation. The
UK Co-operative organisation’s press advertising
(Guardian Magazine, 20 September, 2008, p. 80)
reads in large lettering: ‘‘our green policies are so
effective (that) other retailers are recycling them’’. It
109
says that it would be even more proud if more of its
ethical/environmental practices were ‘recycled’ by
its competitors. That particular organisation has been
voted Britain’s greenest high-street retailer. This is
related to its CSR activities, amongst which is an
investment of £1 million to supply free solar panels
to UK schools. A January 2008 press advertisement
by the respectable Marks and Spencer (M&S) com-
pany asked readers
to take their unwanted M&S
manufacturer BAE systems’
clothes to their local Oxfam, and receive a £5 M&S
voucher to use next time they spend £35 or more at
a M&S store. What were the motives behind M&S’s
advert in this case? To highlight their CSR
credentials by encouraging recycling and helping
Oxfam or to create ‘traf c’ in their stores by offering
the £5 voucher? Why was there a minimum £35
clause attached to this CSR effort?
Banks and nancial institutions do not usually
come across as heroes of morality or CSR. Social
responsibility disclosure by six Irish banks and four
international institutions incorporating websites
were examined by Douglas et al. (2004). The nd-
ings suggested that the Irish nancial institutions
seemed to be lagging behind international counter-
parts social responsibility disclosure. They seemed to
focus mainly on corporate governance and human
resources, with no environmental policy disclosures.
In addition, the Irish institutions used websites rather
than annual reports for CSR information purposes.
Media choice?
The choice of media for CSR information disclosure
is dependent on the target audience. Zeghal and
Ahmed (1990) also add that the lower cost of pro-
ducing and distributing brochures allows organisa-
tions to treat in greater depth themes of special
interest. Branco and Rodrigues (2006, p. 235) sug-
gest that ‘‘such reasoning can also be used when
analysing social responsibility disclosure through the
internet…it is natural for companies to give prom-
inence to community involvement and products/
consumers information’’.
Pollach (2005) asserts that the WWW and cor-
porate websites are superior to the conventional mass
media in a variety of ways. She cites the WWW’s
capacity to transmit an unlimited amount of infor-
mation to all potential target audiences, making a
 110 Khosro S. Jahdi and Gaye Acikdilli
reference to Sharp (2001). Furthermore, Pollach
views the WWW as a ‘pull’ medium, indicating that
audiences tend to have more control over what they
wish to view compared with the traditional media.
As active information seekers, such audiences pro-
cess the information available more effectively than
that accessed/offered via traditional media. In addi-
tion, messages conveyed to audiences by organisa-
tions are not ltered by gatekeepers, but controlled
by the rms themselves (White and Raman, 1999).
Ultimately the WWW provides organisations with
the ability to learn more about their stakeholders
by offering interaction and encouraging dialogue.
Added to the usability of the WWW, Pollach (2005)
includes credibility and value of the content as fur-
ther bene ts.
However, what Pollach fails to highlight is that,
within the choppy oceans of company websites,
locating a beacon of trust, reliability and credibility
becomes increasingly dif cult. In the absence of
media gatekeepers or watchdogs, people become
more concerned with the quality and reliability of
web-based information, especially when attempting
to put across an ethically glossy corporate image.
One method to overcome this mistrust is the pro-
vision of hyperlinks by companies to trusted
organisations such as NGOs, academic institutions
and/or government departments (Stewart, 2003).
The reference to the M&S advert earlier encourag-
ing customers to donate used clothing to Oxfam is
perhaps an example of such a tactic.
Other marketing communications tools are not
immune to criticism. In the light of the above, the task
of the marketing communications manager is not easy
and becomes even more dif cult when conveying
CSR messages. For any communication to be suc-
cessful, source reliability and credibility are essential
requirements. Therefore, the nature of the industry
and the company’s perceived image and reputation
can play crucial roles in the transmission of such
messages. Furthermore, the company must also walk
the talk, i.e. put words into action. Mere rhetoric
will not fool stakeholders. Overall, an integrated,
co-ordinated and holistic approach is required to
ensure CSR communications can be effective.
Basu and Palazzo’s (2008, p. 125) CSR dimen-
sions of the sensemaking process have the following
constituent parts:
Cognitive. What rms think: identity orientation
and legitimacy
Linguistics. What rms say: justi cation and
transparency
Conative. How rms tend to behave: posture,
consistency and commitment
For CSR communications to succeed, paying due
attention to all those main dimensions would be a
requirement. A further explanation of the second
component, i.e. linguistics, might be useful here. As
far as justi cation is concerned, this is the manner in
which rms justify their actions to others, or as
Ferraro et al. (2005, p. 16) write: ‘‘how we talk
about behaviour in uences that behaviour’’. Trans-
parency, on the other hand, can either be in a bal-
anced manner, where scienti c and documented
evidence is offered, or in a biased fashion, where
only positive results are made available.
Balmer (2006), in his six ‘C’s of corporate mar-
keting, reiterates the importance of integration and
co-ordination of all those mix elements. The absence
of or limited attention to one or more could jeopar-
dise the task of corporate marketing. Below is an
explanation of the six ‘C’s:
Character, also known as corporate identity –
‘‘what we indubitably are’’
Culture, also known as organisational identity –
‘‘what we feel we are’’
Communication, also known as corporate com-
munication – ‘‘what we say we are’’
Conceptualisations, also known as corporate repu-
tation – ‘‘what we are seen to be’’
Constituencies, also known as marketing and stake-
holder management – ‘‘whom we seek to serve’’
Covenant, also known as corporate brand man-
agement – ‘‘what is promised and expected’’
For the purpose of marketing communications
and CSR, missing from the above model are the
words consistency, integration and commitment.
Messages conveyed by the rm, whether aimed at
internal customers or other stakeholders, should be
consistent, and whatever media are employed, the
integration of marketing communications must be
taken seriously. Senior-management commitment to
CSR strategies and their implementation as well as
effective communication would also be crucial to
 Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility
the success of such endeavours. Senior management
must view expenditure on CSR and its communi-
cation as an investment and not a mere cost.
Conclusion
This paper set out with the view that marketing
communications can be employed for ethical and
corporate social responsibility purposes. It acknowl-
edged the negative perception that consumers and
many businesses have of marketing in general and
marketing communications tools in particular. The
proliferation of ethical and green claims by compa-
nies, some of which appear in the so-called ‘sin
industries’ category, has contributed to growing
consumer scepticism of such CSR communications
and green-washing. This is a prime example of what
can only be termed as a ‘shotgun wedding’ between
marketing communications and CSR. However,
there are examples of companies that use CSR and
ethics as their unique selling propositions (USPs) and
thrive. The UK-based Co-operative organisation, of
which the Co-operative Bank is a part, has been used
as a glowing example of a nancial institution that
offers the customer an ethical choice. Its communi-
cations with the stakeholders could be suggested
perhaps as more of a ‘marriage of convenience’, as far
as marketing communications and CSR are con-
cerned. Its press advertising was used in this paper to
emphasise the usability of marketing communications
in terms of message conveyance of the organisational
CSR. However, source credibility and reliability
were also cited as major requirements for CSR mes-
sage acceptance and communications effectiveness.
Examples used from the so-called ‘sin industries’, such
as tobacco manufacturers, oil companies and car
producers, desperately attempt to convey an ethically
acceptable and even attractive corporate image.
There is still a great deal of public scepticism and
suspicion in relation to CSR per se. For instance,
Frankental, of Amnesty International, views CSR as
a PR invention. The Corporate Watch 2006
Report, page 12, makes similar comments. The
latter states that ‘‘like the iceberg, most CSR activity
is invisible…It is often an active attempt to increase
corporate dominations rather than simply a defensive
‘image management’ operation’’ (www.Corporate
watch.com).
111
However, the examples of the purchase of the
Body Shop, Ben & Jerry’s and Green and Black’s by
multi-national companies is an indication of growing
customer interest in ethical products and rms.
Communications will be essential to their survival, as
well as maintaining ethical image (and reputation) or
safeguarding their competitive advantage through
CSR. Advertising, PR and sponsorship (cause-
related marketing) have the potential to make major
contributions to publicising and highlighting a
transparent, consistent and socially responsible cor-
porate image. Senior-management commitment and
dedication to CSR in a holistic manner is absolutely
crucial. ‘Shotgun weddings’ may lead to acrimonious
divorces and expenses.
References
Balmer, J. M. T.: 2006, Comprehending Corporate Marketing
and Corporate Marketing Mix, Working Paper (Bradford
School of Management, Bradford).
Balmer, J. M. T. and S. A. Greyser: 2006, ‘Corporate
Marketing: Integrating Corporate Identity, Corpo-
rate Branding, Corporate Communications, Corporate
Image and Corporate Reputation’, European Journal of
Marketing 40(7/8), 730–741.
Basu, K. and G. Palazzo: 2008, ‘Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking’,
Academy of Management Review 33(1), 122–136.
Bowd, R., L. Bowd and P. Harris: 2006, ‘Communi-
cating Corporate Social Responsibility: An Explor-
atory Case Study of a Major UK Retail Centre’, Journal
of Public Affairs 6, 147–155.
Branco, M. C. and L. L. Rodrigues: 2006, ‘Communica-
tion of Corporate Social Responsibility by Portuguese
Banks: A Legitimacy Theory’, Corporate Communica-
tions: An International Journal 11(3), 232–248 (Emerald
Publishing).
Carroll, A. B.: 1998, ‘The Four Faces of Corporate
Citizenship’, Business and Society Review 100/101, 1–7.
Crane, A. and D. Matten: 2004, Business Ethics: A Euro-
pean Perspective (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Crosier, K.: 1975, ‘What is marketing?’, Quarterly Review
of Marketing 1(2).
Douglas, A., J. Doris and B. Johnson: 2004, ‘Corporate
Social Reporting in Irish Financial Institutions’, The
TQM Magazine 16(6), 387–395.
Ewen, S.: 2003, ‘PR: A Social History of Spin’,
www.znet.org (based on an interview).
112 Khosro S. Jahdi and Gaye Acikdilli
Fan, Y.: 2005, ‘Ethical Branding and Corporate
Reputation’, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal 10(4), 341–350.
Ferraro, F., J. Pfeffer and R. I. Sutton: 2005, ‘Economic
Language and Assumptions: How Theories can
Become Self Ful lling’, Academy of Management Review
30, 8–24.
Fraedrich, J. P., O. C. Ferrell and K. Jones: 1991, ‘An
Empirical Investigation into the Ethical Philosophies
of Managers’, in T. Childers, et al. (eds.), Marketing
Theory and Applications, American Marketing Association
Winter Educator’s Conference. San Antonio.
Frankental, P.: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility –
A PR Invention?’, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal 6(1), 18–23.
Fritsche, D. J. and H. Becker: 1983, ‘Ethical Behaviours
of Marketing Managers’, Journal of Business Ethics 2,
291–299.
Gilligan, C. and R. M. S. Wilson: 1998, Strategic Mar-
keting Management (Butterworth Heinemann, London).
Gray, R., D. Owen and C. Dams: 1996, Accounting and
Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social
and Environmental Reporting (Prenctice Hall Europe,
Hemel Hempstead).
Grunig, J. and T. White: 1984, Managing Public Relations
(Holt Rineholt and Winston, New York).
Guardian Newspaper – various editions and articles, e.g.
‘Green claims are a load of hot air’ Cater, M. 18th June
2007, also references to adverts in the paper, e.g., 29th
February 2008 and 1st December 2008.
Jackson, B.: 2001, Management Gurus and Management
Fashions (Routledge, United Kingdom).
Jahdi, K. S.: 2006, A Study of Ethical Green Marketing.PhD
Thesis, Shef eld Hallam University.
Jahdi, K. S.: 2007, Social Responsibility and Marketing.
Paper Submitted to the 6th International Conference
on Corporate Social Responsibility, Malaysia, June
2007.
King, S.: 1985, ‘Has Marketing Failed, or It Never Really
Tried?’, Journal of Marketing Management 1, 1–19.
Kitchen, P. J., L. Eagle, S. Bulmer and A. De Burn: 2004,
‘Exploring the Link Between Obesity and Advertising
in New Zealand’, Journal of Marketing Communications
10, 49–67.
Laczniak, P. and G. Laczniak: 1985, Marketing Ethics:
Guidelines for Managers (Lexington Books, Lexington).
Lawrence, F.: 2008, Eat Your Heart Out: Why Food
Business is Bad for the Planet and Your Health (Penguin
Books, London).
Lewis, S.: 2001, ‘Measuring Corporate Reputation’,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6,
31–35.
Marketing, 2 February 2005, 32–34.
McDonald, M. H. B.: 1989, ‘Ten Barriers to Marketing
Planning’, Journal of Marketing Management 5(1), 1–18.
Mellahi, K. and G. Wood: 2003, The Ethical Business:
Challenges and Controversies (Palgrave Macmillan, New
York).
Monbiot, G.: 2009, ‘It will Take more than Goodwill and
Greenwash to Save the Biosphere, The Guardian
Newspaper, 6th January 2009.
Nairn, A. and C. Fine: 2008, ‘Who’s Messing with my
Mind?: The Implications of Dual-Process Models for
the Ethics of Advertising to Children’, International
Journal of Advertising 27(3), 447–470.
Nantel, J. and W. A. Weeks: 1996, ‘Marketing Ethics; Is
There More to it than the Utilitarian Approach’,
European Journal of Marketing 30(5), 9–19.
Pollach, I.: 2005, ‘Corporate Self-Presentation on the
WWW: Strategies for Enhancing Usability, Credibility
and Utility’, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal 10(4), 285–301.
Pollay, R. W. and K. Gallagher: 1990, ‘Advertising and
Cultural Values: Re ections on the Distorted Mirror’,
International Journal of Advertising 9(4), 359–372.
Schroeder, J. E. and J. L. Borgerson: 2005, ‘An Ethics of
Representation for International Marketing Commu-
nication’, International Marketing Review 22(5), 578–
600.
Sen, S. and C. B. Bhattacharya: 2001, ‘Does Doing Good
Always Lead to Doing Better?: Consumer Reactions
to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Market-
ing Research 38, 225–243.
Sharp, L.: 2001, ‘Positive Response Action; the Ultimate
Goal of Website Communication’, Journal of Commu-
nication Management 6(1), 41–52.
Shimp, T. A.: 1997, Advertising and Promotion: Supple-
mental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications
(Dryden, New York).
Sims, R. R. and J. Brinkmann: 2003, ‘Enron Ethics (or:
Culture Maters More than Code)’, Journal of Business
Ethics 45, 243–256.
Smith, N. C. and J. A. Quelch: 1993, Ethics in Marketing
(Irwin, Homewood, IL).
Snider, J., R. P. Hill and D. Martin: 2003, ‘Corporate
Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: A View
from the World’s most Successful Firms’, Journal of
Business Ethics 48, 175–187.
Stewart, K. J.: 2003, ‘Trust Transfer on the World Wide
Web’, Organisation Science 14 (1), 5–17.
Swaen, V. and J. Vanhamme: 2004, ‘See How ‘Good’ we
are: The Dangers of Using Corporate Social Activities
in Communication Campaigns’, Advances in Consumer
Research 31, 302–303.
Thompson, C. J.: 2004, ‘Dreams of Eden: A Critical
Reader-Response Analysis of the Mytho-Ideologies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility 113

Encoded in Natural Health Advertisements’, in Khosro S. Jahdi

K. Ektrom and H. Brembeck (eds.), Elusive Con- Bradford Business and Law School,
sumption (Berg, Oxford), pp. 175–204. Bradford College,
White, C. and N. Raman: 1999, ‘The World Wide Web Westbrook Building, Great Horton Road, Bradford,
as a Public Relations Medium: The use of Research, West Yorkshire BD7 1AY, U.K.
Planning and Evaluation in Web Site Development’,
E-mail: k.jahdi@bradfordcollege.ac.uk
Public Relations review 25(4), 405–420.
Yeshin, T.: 2006, Advertising (Thomson Learning, Lon-
Gaye Acikdilli
don).
Baskent University,
Zeghal, D. and S. A. Ahmed: 1990, ‘Comparison of
Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Media Ankara, Turkey
used by Canadian Firms’, Accounting, Auditing and E-mail: gaye@baskent.edu.tr
Accountability Journal 3(1), 38–53.