Journal of Communication Management

Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge

Jenny Dawkins
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jenny Dawkins, (2005),"Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge", Journal of Communication Management,
Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 108 - 119
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540510621362
Downloaded on: 16 March 2016, At: 04:04 (PT)
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8570 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mary Welch, Paul R. Jackson, (2007),"Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach", Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 177-198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847
Stewart Lewis, (2003),"Reputation and corporate responsibility", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp.
356-366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807494
Lance Moir, (2001),"What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?", Corporate Governance: The international journal
of business in society, Vol. 1 Iss 2 pp. 16-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005486

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:493295 []
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.

 Corporate responsibility:
The communication challenge
Received (in revised form): 20th April, 2004

Jenny Dawkins
is an associate director of MORI. With a background in both consumer and local government research, she is Head of
corporate social responsibility research at MORI. Jenny has extensive experience in all facets of MORI’s stakeholder opinion
research and has worked for a wide range of corporate and not-for-profit clients in this field. She graduated from Durham
University with a first class degree in English Literature.
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Abstract An ever-increasing number of companies are recognising the reputational risks

and opportunities that corporate responsibility brings, and for these companies aligning
corporate behaviour with stakeholder expectations is an ongoing business priority.
Communication, however, often remains the missing link in the practice of corporate
responsibility. The information requirements of a range of opinion leader and mass
stakeholder audiences are not currently being satisfied by many companies, so they are
not getting full credit for their responsible corporate behaviour.
Of course, there are specific challenges in communicating corporate responsibility —
including scepticism towards company messages and potentially hostile reactions from
the media, campaign groups and others. The diverse information requirements of
different stakeholder groups also present special communication challenges, and these
requirements are examined in turn.
Using MORI’s British opinion research to illustrate the case, this paper first examines
communication to opinion leader audiences (such as legislators, business press,
investors and non-governmental organisations), and in particular the opportunities and
limitations of the social report. It then goes on to address communication of corporate
responsibility to the general public and the need to trigger wider consumer engagement
in this topic. Lastly, it covers the communication opportunity presented by companies’
own employees and the internal communication challenges surrounding corporate
responsibility.
The paper suggests, in conclusion, that effective communication of corporate
responsibility depends on a clear strategy which evaluates both the opportunities and the
risks to the brand, and which tailors messages to different stakeholder groups. It calls for
a coordinated approach, which ideally embeds corporate responsibility messages into
mainstream communications. The paper also identifies internal communication as an
under-utilised and potentially powerful channel for enhancing a company’s reputation for
responsibility among its key stakeholders.

Jenny Dawkins KEYWORDS: corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, stakeholder opinion,
Head of CSR Research,
MORI, MORI House, research/market research, reporting: social/CSR/citizenship, operating and financial
79–81 Borough Rd, review (OFR), ethical consumerism, cause (related) marketing, internal communications,
London SE1 1FY, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)7347 3087; employee volunteering, corporate community involvement (CCI)
E-mail:
jenny.dawkins@mori.com

108 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 9, 2 108–119 # Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004)
 Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge
INTRODUCTION
Companies are increasingly recognising the
reputational risks and opportunities
associated with corporate responsibility,
and many large corporations are making
significant investment in policies, practices,
management and reporting systems to
ensure their corporate behaviour is
responsible in the eyes of their
stakeholders. But in a climate where the
majority of the British public think that
most companies do not listen to the public
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
and respond to their concerns on social and
environmental issues (see Figure 1),
effective communication of companies’
responsibility programmes remains a rare
achievement. Alignment of corporate
responsibility communications with
stakeholders’ concerns is essential if
companies are to break through the
communications barrier and capitalise on
the potential reputational benefits of
corporate responsibility.
There are specific challenges inherent in
communicating on corporate
responsibility. In particular, against a
backdrop of public cynicism towards
‘Most companies listen to the public and respond to public concerns on social and environmental
issues’
No opinion
2% Strongly agree 4%
Strongly disagree
9%
Tend to disagree 38%
Base: 1,044 GB adults 16+
Figure 1: Listening and responding to social/environmental concerns
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004) Vol. 9, 2 108–119
companies, the credibility of corporate
messages on social, environmental and
ethical issues is often called into question.
These debates often surround companies’
motivation for investing in corporate
responsibility, especially if they are
perceived to be aiming to gain a
marketing advantage out of proportion to
the good they are doing. For credibility,
the causes companies support have to be
seen to fit with their brand, and their
corporate behaviour as a whole has to be
seen to be consistent — or their corporate
responsibility programmes risk being
regarded as a smokescreen for unethical
behaviour. For example, Christian Aid’s
report ‘Behind the mask’,1 criticises some
leading companies’ corporate responsibility
claims as being in conflict with the reality
of their behaviour in developing countries.
A further challenge for companies
trying to communicate in this space is that
different stakeholder audiences have
different expectations of companies,
different information needs and they
respond differently to the various
communication channels available. Some
28% Tend to agree
All
%
Agree 32
Disagree 47
Net agree –15
19%
Neither
Source: MORI
Journal of Communication Management 109
 Dawkins
audiences are predisposed to have
particularly high expectations of
companies regarding corporate social
responsibility (CSR): around seven in ten
of both the British public and Labour
MPs, for instance, agree that industry and
commerce do not pay enough attention to
their social responsibilities (whereas
Conservative MPs have a very different
view). Among City audiences agreement is
lower, but still half of business journalists
and a third of institutional investors think
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
that industry does not pay enough
attention to its responsibilities. Often these
City audiences see corporate responsibility
issues in terms of risk management and in
some cases as an indicator of quality of
management. Some industry leaders
themselves are calling for more action on
these issues; two in five agree that industry
and commerce do not pay enough
attention to their responsibilities. (In
Figure 2, ‘Captains of industry’ are senior
Board Directors of the top 500 British
companies).
Certain stakeholder groups will also be
particularly interested in specific CSR
‘Industry and commerce do not pay enough attention to their social responsibilities’
Agree
General public
Business journalists
Investors 35%
Labour MPs
Conservative MPs 15%
Captains of industry
Base: All audiences 2002/2003
Figure 2: Expectations of CSR
110 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 9, 2 108–119
issues. At the broadest level, for example,
the British public consider child labour,
education and environmental issues
particularly important for companies to
address, whereas MPs commonly raise the
issues of local community contribution
(especially in their own constituencies) and
treatment of employees. Therefore, on
corporate responsibility as on other topics,
tailoring messages (or illustrations) to the
different interests, information needs and
preferred channels of different stakeholders
is crucial to effective communications.
As discussed below, there is evidence
that corporate responsibility
communications are not yet being
effectively tailored to different stakeholder
audiences — and further, that these
messages are not currently getting through
to many stakeholders. The next section
draws together findings on communicating
corporate responsibility issues to a range of
stakeholder audiences, from opinion
leaders such as legislators, business press,
investors and non-governmental
organisations to the general public and
company employees. In each case, it is
Disagree
70% 8%
50% 22%
32%
68% 12%
59%
43% 39%
Source: MORI
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004)
 Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge
Q How important is the way a company communicates its CSR actions to you personally when
judging a company?
Important
Editors
MPs
Business & financial
journalists
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
Analysts
Investors
Base: 120 MPs, 85 UK investors, 37 business & financial journalists, 30 editors, Summer 2002
Figure 3: Importance of communicating CSR
clear the potential for communicating on
corporate responsibility topics has yet to
be fully realised.
COMMUNICATING TO OPINION
LEADER AUDIENCES
In this context, opinion leader audiences
include legislators (MPs in Britain),
business press, investors (both mainstream
institutional investors and the social
responsible investment or SRI
community) and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs).
The communication of companies’
responsible behaviour is important to
diverse opinion leader groups. High
proportions among MPs and editors of
British media see the communication of
corporate responsibility as important when
they are judging a company. Even among
more hardened mainstream City audiences,
half of business press and two in five of
City analysts and institutional investors
now see companies’ communication of
their responsibility as important.
Social reports represent a prime
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004) Vol. 9, 2 108–119
Not
important
80% 20%
78% 9%
49% 46%
40% 56%
40% 59%
Source: MORI
potential channel for companies to
communicate their response to corporate
responsibility issues. The audiences for
these reports can, however, be diverse
with very different information
requirements. MORI evaluates
stakeholders’ opinions of many companies’
social reports. The research shows that
engaged audiences such as NGOs and
corporate responsibility ‘experts’
(including think-tanks, commentators,
consultants and Social Responsible
Investment analysts) are predominantly
looking for evidence of the impact of
companies’ corporate responsibility
programmes. They want to see detailed
indicators, benchmarks, targets and trends
as well as case studies. The inclusion of
external voices and stakeholder criticism is
important in gaining their trust, and they
are impressed by an integrated and cross-
functional approach to corporate
responsibility and adherence to reporting
standards such as the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) and AccountAbility’s
reporting standard, AA1000.
At the other extreme, many mainstream
Journal of Communication Management 111
 Dawkins
investors have still to be convinced of the
business case for corporate responsibility.
When they look at social reports, the lack
of established indicators and the use of
specialist jargon are barriers with this
audience. Relevance is key for mainstream
City audiences, so they look for overview
explanations of how corporate
responsibility fits within the business
strategy and its impact on the bottom line.
Identification of the risks and opportunities
specific to the company are key to
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
engagement, and linking the issues to
more familiar concepts such as employee
retention, corporate governance and risk
management can be helpful in overcoming
communication barriers.
Internationally, opinion formers are
found to have varied expectations and
information requirements regarding
corporate responsibility. At the broadest
level, different issues tend to be higher
priorities in some regions, for example
community contribution can be
particularly valued by US stakeholders,
whereas environmental issues can be a
priority for Northern European audiences
and employment issues often concern
Japanese opinion formers. Companies also
need to balance giving a clear global
overview in their reporting with
providing a detailed local picture for those
stakeholders to whom it is relevant.
Clearly, satisfying these divergent
expectations (as well as others) in one
social report can be a challenge for
companies. Clear definition of the priority
target audiences for a company’s social
reporting, and evaluation of their
information needs in relation to its specific
corporate responsibility issues, is vital to
ensure the social report is an effective
communication vehicle. An obvious first
step is for companies planning to produce
their next corporate responsibility report is
to consult priority stakeholders’ opinions
of their existing reporting before
embarking on an update, ideally through
112 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 9, 2 108–119
proactive consultation rather than just
relying on the (possibly atypical) minority
of stakeholders who respond to feedback
forms.
In addition, the number and length of
social reports being produced are
increasing, and companies are increasingly
vying for the attention of their
stakeholders. Creative communication
solutions are needed to communicate
corporate responsibility messages in a way
that will be striking, relevant and
understandable. In terms of best practice,
companies highlighted at the 2003 ACCA
UK Awards for Sustainability Reporting
include The Co-operative Bank, Shell
International, GlaxoSmithKline
(particularly strong on their environmental
reporting), BAT, BT and Powergen (the
last three mentioned for their online
reporting).2
The internet is increasingly being used
by companies to tailor their corporate
responsibility messages to different
audiences, but creative use of offline
information channels is also required.
Many audiences are not proactively
looking for information on corporate
responsibility, and while stand-alone social
reports clearly have a place for some
engaged audiences, there is a case for
embedding corporate responsibility
messages in more mainstream
communications with a clear explanation
of the relevance of the issue to the
stakeholder concerned. This could include
Annual Reports and investor information,
as well as one-to-one meetings with
investors and dialogue sessions with NGOs
and community groups. Of course, it also
relies on engaging the specialists within the
company that own each stakeholder
relationship and equipping them to address
responsibility issues in their day-to-day
communication activities.
Engaging mainstream investors has long
been an ambition of the corporate
responsibility movement. This relies on
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004)

Q How would you rate the quality of [companies’] information on environmental, social and
sustainability performance?
Analysts
Investors 54%
Journalists 63%
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
IRMs
Base: All respondents (93 analysts, 50 investors, 30 journalists, 30 IRMs)
Figure 4: Quality of company information
providing meaningful information to City
audiences, and as mentioned above, it is
essential that the relevance of corporate
responsibility issues to the business strategy
and the bottom line is highlighted to these
groups. Analysts, investors and the business
press, however, are more likely to rate
company information on environmental
and social issues as poor rather than good,
which suggests their requirements are not
being met. Ironically, the only group
which rates company information on these
issues positively is the investment relations
managers within companies, who of
course generally have responsibility for
providing this information.3
Certainly the forthcoming UK
legislation on the operating and financial
review (OFR), which will require quoted
companies to report on non-financial
information that is ‘material’ to the
business, should ensure that the boards of
many of the largest companies engage in
the debate of how to report non-financial
information in a meaningful way and how
to assess which issues are material to the
success of the business.4
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004) Vol. 9, 2 108–119
Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge
Poor Good
45% 32%
28%
20%
33% 63%
Source: MORI
Therefore, opinion research emphasises
the various information requirements of
the different opinion leader audiences
towards which social reports are
commonly targeted. Furthermore, the
mainstream investment community, one of
the audiences less engaged in corporate
responsibility issues, is particularly critical
of company information provision.
COMMUNICATION TO
THE PUBLIC
The general public is rarely a primary
target audience for specialist
communication channels such as social
reports. Nevertheless, there is public
interest in receiving information about
companies’ responsibilities; eight in ten of
the British public consider it important for
companies to spend money publicly
communicating their activities, even if that
means they have less to invest in the
programmes themselves. MORI’s research
suggests that the public is increasingly
aware of its consumer power and keen to
use that power to reward ‘good’
Journal of Communication Management 113
 Dawkins

Q Which of these statements best describes your view of the balance between programmes and
communications?

It’s important to know

Don’t know about companies’
Not important to know, no programmes, they should
money should be spent on spend significant amounts
6% 17% to tell us
communications
8%

All
%
Companies should Important 86
make an effort to
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Not important 8
tell us but should
not spend Net important +78
significant 69%
amounts

Base: 1,044 GB Adults 15+, July– August 2003 Source: MORI

Figure 5: Communication of CSR

Q Are you aware of any cases of particular companies helping the community or society in any
way?
Are you aware of any companies that are particularly socially, environmentally or ethically
responsible?

100
Awareness of companies helping
the community

80 Awareness of socially environmentally

& ethically responsible companies

60
%
40
Yes 37%
Yes 30%
20

0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Base: 982 or 1,044 GB adults 16+, July– August 2003 Source: MORI

Figure 6: Awareness of involvement — trends

companies and punish ‘bad’ ones.
Internationally, a study of public opinion
in 23 markets across the world in 1999
showed that around a quarter had
punished a company seen as socially
irresponsible in the previous year, with
North America and Northern Europe the
regions with the highest level of this
consumer activism and Asia and Eastern
Europe those with the lowest level.5

114 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 9, 2 108–119 # Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004)
 Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge

Q To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

If I had more information about companies’ social, environmental and ethical behaviour this
wold influence my decisions about what I buy

No opinion 1%
Strongly disagree 3%

Tend to disagree
8%
25% Strongly agree

Neither 14%

Agree 74%
Disagree 11%
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

49%
Tend to agree
Base: 1,044 GB adults 16+, July–August 2003 Source: MORI

Figure 7: Impact of increased information on purchase

Public awareness of responsible corporate responsibility; they are more

corporate behaviour has, however,
remained fairly low over the last ten years,
despite increasing company involvement in
the field. Only around a third of the
British public can name any specific
company that helps the community or
society without prompting, while only
three in ten can name a company that they
consider to be particularly
environmentally, socially or ethically
responsible. Therefore, there is clearly a
need to improve the effectiveness of
communicating companies’ responsibility
if mass consumer power is to be engaged
and purchase behaviour influenced.
There are indications that increased
communication of corporate responsibility
would have an impact on consumer
purchase; a quarter of the British public
strongly agree that if they had more
information about companies’ social,
environmental and ethical behaviour, this
would influence their purchase decisions.
There is a niche group of consumers
who are more open to messages on
engaged in these types of issues, and more
tuned in to communications on these
topics. MORI has identified a group
named ‘CSR activists’; they make up 15
per cent of the population and are more
likely than average to be aged 35–54, be of
higher social grades, broadsheet readers
and graduates. This group are particularly
engaged in responsibility issues, more
likely to purchase on ethical criteria, more
aware of companies’ activities in this field
and more likely to actively investigate
companies’ ethical behaviour.6 A study
across 12 European markets in 2000 found
that consumer activism in Great Britain
was in the middling to lower range
compared to other European markets. The
countries with the highest levels of CSR
activists were Switzerland, Sweden and
Belgium, while levels were very low in
France, Portugal and Italy.7 In any case,
CSR activists form a potentially lucrative
niche market for brands that are
recognised for their corporate
responsibility.

# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004) Vol. 9, 2 108–119 Journal of Communication Management 115
 Dawkins
But most consumers do not proactively
seek information on company behaviour,
even on the emotive issues they consider to
be particularly important (such as child
labour); only 5 per cent of the public have
sought information on companies’ ethical
behaviour in the last year. Companies’
most effective communication vehicles to
the public seem to be cause marketing
campaigns and other point of purchase
communication channels (alongside
informal channels such as word of mouth,
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
discussed below). Regarding cause
marketing, of course there are risks
involved in this sort of high-profile
campaign, particularly if the cause chosen
is seen to be inappropriate for the
company concerned (as was the case with
Cadbury’s Get Active Initiative, for
example), and companies certainly need to
conduct a thorough analysis of the risks
and opportunities involved. Nevertheless,
as with other audiences, there is potential
for companies to integrate corporate
responsibility messages with other
mainstream communications, especially
when they demonstrate a benefit for the
consumer as well as benefits to the society
or the environment, for example in the
marketing of service features such as
paperless billing which can have a cost
benefit to the consumer as well as an
environmental benefit. Across Europe, the
public feel the most appropriate channels
for companies to communicate their social
activities are on the product/label itself,
through voluntary reporting and through
editorial coverage on television and in the
press.8
Furthermore, companies can over-
estimate the level of public scepticism
towards the credibility of their
information on corporate responsibility.
The public would tend to trust company
information on its responsibilities to its
stakeholders; around six in ten would trust
this kind of information from companies,
only just behind the 66 per cent who
116 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 9, 2 108–119
would trust this information from NGOs
(defined in the questionnaire as
‘campaigning organisations and charities,
such as Greenpeace and Amnesty
International’). Of course, sensitivity
regarding the tone of communications is
vital here, but it does seem that, public
distrust of company information on
corporate responsibility tends to be less of
a barrier than the difficulties of getting the
message through in the first place.
In short, communication on corporate
responsibility issues is not getting through
to the majority of consumers, although the
indications are that consumers are
interested in the issue, that it has the
potential to influence their purchasing
decisions and that most are pre-disposed
to trust company information on this
topic.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
One communication channel often
underestimated by companies when
promoting corporate responsibility is their
employee base. Often the main interface
with some stakeholder groups, and
considered a particularly credible source
of information (their word carries far
more weight than a company
spokesperson or glossy brochure),
employees are potentially powerful
advocates of a company’s corporate
responsibility programme.
Corporate responsibility is an important
consideration for the majority of
employees; around nine in ten British
workers consider it important that their
employer is responsible to society and the
environment (and 59 per cent say it is very
important). Therefore, corporate
responsibility is potentially a factor in the
‘war for talent’ in attracting and retaining
the best people. Some companies say that
pages on corporate responsibility are now
among the top areas of their websites to be
accessed by graduates when researching
prospective careers.
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004)
 Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge

Q Many companies now produce a social or partnership report outlining their impact on and
contribution to society, the environment and the economy in which it operates. Which of these
statements come closest to your opinion if you were an employee of the company?

Don’t
No interest 4% know 3%
Would not expect to Would expect/like to see 88%
see, but would like
to know it was
produced 5%

Would expect
Would not expect to 65% to see a copy
see, but would be 23%
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

‘nice’

Base: 527 GB adults who are working July –August 2002 Source: MORI

Figure 8: Employees’ expectations of social reports

Employees are also generally interested companies another potential stakeholder

in receiving information about their audience for their corporate responsibility
employers’ responsibilities; for example, 65 reporting, although bespoke
per cent of workers would expect to see communications using familiar channels
their employer’s social report. This gives are often more effective for employees.

Q Which comes closest to your opinion of your company as an employer?

I would speak I would be

highly of them critical

Not aware of CSR

programmes 50% 23%

Aware, not involved 65% 19%

Involved 82% 13%

Base: c. 2,000 employees across six companies, March - May 2000 Source: MORI

Figure 9: Impact of CSR programmes on employees

# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004) Vol. 9, 2 108–119 Journal of Communication Management 117
 Dawkins
Q Which, if any, of the following have you done in the last twelve months?
Talked to friends or family
about a company’s behaviour
Advised someone against using a
company because it has not acted
responsibly
Advised someone to use a company
because it had acted responsibly
Received advice against using a
company because it has not acted
responsibly
Received advice to use a company
because it has acted responsibly
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
Base: 527 GB adults who are working, July–August 2002
Figure 10: Employees’ advocacy of companies
Nevertheless, it is important to give
consistent information both internally and
externally, not least to equip employees to
answer stakeholders’ queries on whether
the company is actually taking these issues
as seriously as it claims.
Corporate responsibility also has the
potential to increase employee motivation
and enhance their opinion of their
employer. In a study among employees
from six major corporations from several
industry sectors, among employees
involved in their company’s community
activities, their advocacy of their company
(the proportion that would speak highly
about the company to others) is
substantially higher than that among
employees who were not aware of their
employer’s community activities.9
The reach of employees as a
communication channel to other
stakeholder audiences should not be
underestimated. The most effective
communication channel to the public in
terms of generating recognition of
companies’ responsibilities are informal
channels, such as word of mouth, being or
knowing an employee. Among workers, a
third have advised someone else to use a
company because it had acted responsibly,
and a similar proportion have advised
118 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 9, 2 108–119
51%
32%
28% 2003
%
Positive advice 35
18%
Negative advice 38
17%
Source: MORI
someone against using a company.
Another internal communications issue
in many companies is generating cross-
functional involvement in managing
corporate responsibility. With regard to
communications, engaging people across
the business who own the company’s
relationships with different stakeholder
groups can be vital in winning space for
corporate responsibility messages; this of
course includes corporate communications
or public affairs, but also functions ranging
from marketing to human resources to
investor relations.
Therefore, employees are a key potential
communication channel for companies’
corporate responsibility, since they have a
wide reach among other stakeholder
groups and are considered as particularly
credible information sources.
Responsibility messages have the potential
to engage employees, and effective
internal communication of corporate
responsibility programmes is key to
winning potentially powerful advocates,
both in terms of the ‘grass roots’
employee base, and key allies within
functions across the business.
CONCLUSIONS
In order to produce effective
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004)
 Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge
communications on corporate
responsibility issues, MORI’s opinion
research highlights a number of key lessons
for companies:
— develop a clear communications strategy,
taking into account which aspects of the
responsibility programme best fit with the
corporate reputation and with
stakeholders’ concerns, and also the
opportunity and risk to the brand inherent
in the communications activity
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)
— tailor the content, style and channel of
communications to the different
expectations of the various stakeholder
audiences (while, of course, maintaining
the overall coherence of the company’s
message) and consult stakeholders when
developing or revising communications on
corporate responsibility
— coordination is key, ensure the consistency of
messages and the alignment of the company’s
communication with its behaviour. The
most effective communication in some cases
may involve embedding corporate
responsibility messages within mainstream
communications
— do not under-estimate internal
communications, employees are an under-
utilised and potentially powerful channel
for enhancing a company’s reputation for
responsibility among its key stakeholders.
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2004) Vol. 9, 2 108–119
References
1. Pendleton, A. (2004) ‘Behind the mask: The real face
of corporate social responsibility’, Christian Aid,
London, www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0401csr/
index.htm
2. ACCA (2004) ‘ACCA UK Awards For Sustainability
Reporting 2003: Report of the Judges’, The Certified
Accountants Educational Trust, London,
www.accaglobal.com/sustainability/awards
3. Business in the Environment (2001) ‘Investing in the
future: City attitudes to environmental and social
issues’, Business in the Environment, London,
www.bitc.org.uk/resources/research/
research_publications/bie1.html
4. For further discussion of the implications of the OFR
for corporate reporting, see Institute of Public
Relations (2003) ‘Reputation and the bottom line: A
communicators’ guide to reporting on corporate
reputation’, Institute of Public Relations, London,
www.ipr.org.uk/Products/productsframeset.htm
5. Environics (1999) ‘The Millennium Poll on Corporate
Social Responsibility’, Environics, Toronto,
www.mori.com/polls/1999/millpoll.shtml
6. See also Cowe, R. and Williams, S. (2000) ‘Who are
the ethical consumers?’, The Co-operative Bank,
Manchester, www.co-operativebank.co.uk/ethics/
ethicalpolicy_consumerism.html
7. CSR Europe (2000) ‘The first ever European survey of
consumers attitudes towards corporate social
responsibility’, CSR Europe, Brussels,
www.csreurope.org/publications/
europeansurvey_page3462.aspx
8. Ibid.
9. Tuffrey, M. (2003) ‘Good companies, better
employees: How community involvement can
enhance employee morale, motivation, commitment
and performance’, The Corporate Citizenship
Company, London, www.corporate-citizenship.co.uk/
employees/studies/hr3
Journal of Communication Management 119
 This article has been cited by:

1. Anna Alon, Martina Vidovic. 2016. Sustainability Performance and Assurance: Influence on Reputation. Corporate Reputation
Review 18, 337-352. [CrossRef]
2. Anupam Bawa, Anirban Saha. 2016. Strength of corporate social responsibility as a corporate brand association: general public
perspective. DECISION . [CrossRef]
3. Rajul Jain, Lawrence H. Winner. 2016. CSR and sustainability reporting practices of top companies in India. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 21:1, 36-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Alessia Montecchia, Filippo Giordano, Cecilia Grieco. 2016. Communicating CSR: integrated approach or Selfie? Evidence
from the Milan Stock Exchange. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
5. Sora Kim, Mary Ann T. Ferguson. 2016. Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectations. Journal
of Marketing Communications 1-20. [CrossRef]
6. Ganga S. Dhanesh. 2015. The Paradox of Communicating CSR in India: Minimalist and Strategic Approaches. Journal of
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Public Relations Research 27, 431-451. [CrossRef]

7. Julia Daisy Fraustino, Colleen Connolly-Ahern. 2015. Corporate Associations Written on the Wall: Publics’ Responses to
Fortune 500 Ability and Social Responsibility Facebook Posts. Journal of Public Relations Research 27, 452-474. [CrossRef]
8. Anne Toppinen, Vasylysa Hänninen, Katja Lähtinen. 2015. ISO 26000 in the assessment of CSR communication quality:
CEO letters and social media in the global pulp and paper industry. Social Responsibility Journal 11:4, 702-715. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
9. Irina Lock, Peter Seele. 2015. Quantitative content analysis as a method for business ethics research. Business Ethics: A European
Review 24:10.1111/beer.2015.24.issue-s1, S24-S40. [CrossRef]
10. Ans Kolk, Marlene Vock, Willemijn van Dolen. 2015. Microfoundations of Partnerships: Exploring the Role of Employees
in Trickle Effects. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
11. Tina Jochim, Michael C. Ottenbacher, Robert J. Harrington. 2015. What and How Are Firms in the Quick-Service Restaurant
Industry Reporting on Corporate Social Responsibility?. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 18, 258-286. [CrossRef]
12. Margaret Brunton, Gabriel Eweje, Nazim Taskin. 2015. Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility to Internal
Stakeholders: Walking the Walk or Just Talking the Talk?. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
13. Mia Andelin, Anna-Liisa Sarasoja, Tomi Ventovuori, Seppo Junnila. 2015. Breaking the circle of blame for sustainable
buildings – evidence from Nordic countries. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 17:1, 26-45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Paula Maria Bögel. 2015. Processing of CSR communication: insights from the ELM. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal 20:2, 128-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Monika Hartmann, Jeanette Klink, Johannes Simons. 2015. Cause related marketing in the German retail sector: Exploring
the role of consumers’ trust. Food Policy 52, 108-114. [CrossRef]
16. Mihai Ioan Roșca, Andrei Claudiu Sarău, Andreea-Angela VonțeaClassifying Social Causes Derived from the Communication
of CSR Initiatives Online: A Theoretical and Practical Approach 63-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
17. Irina Lock, Peter Seele. 2015. Analyzing Sector-Specific CSR Reporting: Social and Environmental Disclosure to Investors
in the Chemicals and Banking and Insurance Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
22:10.1002/csr.v22.2, 113-128. [CrossRef]
18. Carla Edgley, Michael J. Jones, Jill Atkins. 2015. The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting
assurance: A field study approach. The British Accounting Review 47, 1-18. [CrossRef]
19. Selin Türkel, Ebru Uzunoğlu, Melike Demirbağ Kaplan, Beril Akıncı Vural. 2015. A Strategic Approach to CSR
Communication: Examining the Impact of Brand Familiarity on Consumer Responses. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
20. Ángela Preciado Hoyos. 2015. El análisis del entorno como función estratégica de la comunicación en programas de
responsabilidad social de un grupo de empresas del sector eléctrico colombiano. Innovar 25, 11-22. [CrossRef]
21. Weiting Tao, Mary Ann Ferguson. 2015. The Overarching Effects of Ethical Reputation Regardless of CSR Cause Fit and
Information Source. International Journal of Strategic Communication 9, 23-43. [CrossRef]
 22. Bucur Mihaela. 2015. A Study on Business Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility in Romania. Procedia
Technology 19, 996-1003. [CrossRef]
23. Jamie Gaskill-Fox, Karen H Hyllegard, Jennifer Paff Ogle. 2014. CSR reporting on apparel companies’ websites: framing
good deeds and clarifying missteps. Fashion and Textiles 1. . [CrossRef]
24. Michael Etter. 2014. Broadcasting, reacting, engaging – three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. Journal of
Communication Management 18:4, 322-342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Gordon Liu, Wai Wai Ko. 2014. An integrated model of cause-related marketing strategy development. AMS Review .
[CrossRef]
26. Säde Rytkönen, Leena Louhiala-Salminen. 2014. “Sell the Sizzle”. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 19:4,
329-343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Lina GomezThe Importance of University Social Responsibility in Hispanic America: A Responsible Trend in Developing
Countries 241-268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
28. Asad Shafiq, Robert D. Klassen, P. Fraser Johnson, Amrou Awaysheh. 2014. Socially Responsible Practices: An Exploratory
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Study on Scale Development using Stakeholder Theory. Decision Sciences 45:10.1111/deci.2014.45.issue-4, 683-716.
[CrossRef]
29. Kumaran Rajandran, Fauziah Taib. 2014. The representation of CSR in Malaysian CEO statements: a critical discourse
analysis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 19:3, 303-317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Magnus Fredriksson and, Eva-Karin OlssonA Model for Evaluating Corporate Environmental Communication 111-130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
31. C. Meintjes, A.F. Grobler. 2014. Do public relations professionals understand corporate governance issues well enough to
advise companies on stakeholder relationship management?. Public Relations Review 40, 161-170. [CrossRef]
32. Gergely Radacsi, Peter Hardi. 2014. Substance Misuse Prevention as Corporate Social Responsibility. Substance Use & Misuse
49, 352-363. [CrossRef]
33. Laura Luukkanen, Outi Uusitalo. 2014. Young people's perceptions of the responsibilities of organizations promoting financial
capability. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-2, 192-199. [CrossRef]
34. Denni I. Arli, Jack Cadeaux. 2014. Drivers of corporate community involvement and challenges in measuring its impact.
Social Responsibility Journal 10:1, 161-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Line Schmeltz. 2014. Introducing value-based framing as a strategy for communicating CSR. Social Responsibility Journal
10:1, 184-206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Lyn Daff. 2013. Accounting Students' Reflections on a Course to Enhance their Interpersonal Skills. Accounting Education
22, 563-581. [CrossRef]
37. Angela Preciado-Hoyos. 2013. The role of public relations in corporate social responsibility programs in the Colombian
electricity sector. Public Relations Review 39, 591-593. [CrossRef]
38. Christopher A. Craig, Myria W. Allen. 2013. Sustainability information sources: employee knowledge, perceptions, and
learning. Journal of Communication Management 17:4, 292-307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Gültekin Altuntaş, Fatih Semerciöz, Aral Noyan. 2013. Linking Competitive Rivalry to Internal Communication in Private
Healthcare Organizations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99, 809-817. [CrossRef]
40. Keith J. Perks, Francisca Farache, Paurav Shukla, Aidan Berry. 2013. Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility
in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research 66, 1881-1888. [CrossRef]
41. Lars Moratis. 2013. A tale of two standards on responsible management education. Journal of Global Responsibility 4:2,
138-156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Matthew Walker, Aubrey Kent. 2013. The Roles of Credibility and Social Consciousness in the Corporate Philanthropy-
Consumer Behavior Relationship. Journal of Business Ethics 116, 341-353. [CrossRef]
43. Elanor Colleoni. 2013. CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 18:2, 228-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Claartje L. ter Hoeven, Joost W.M. Verhoeven. 2013. “Sharing is caring”. Corporate Communications: An International Journal
18:2, 264-279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 45. Alan Pomering, Lester W. Johnson, Gary Noble. 2013. Advertising corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal 18:2, 249-263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Armando Calabrese, Roberta Costa, Tamara Menichini, Francesco Rosati. 2013. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Hit the
Mark? A Stakeholder Oriented Methodology for CSR Assessment. Knowledge and Process Management 20:10.1002/kpm.v20.2,
77-89. [CrossRef]
47. Chris Mason, John Simmons. 2013. Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical
Business Practice. Business and Society Review 118:10.1111/basr.2013.118.issue-1, 47-70. [CrossRef]
48. Ivan Hilliard. 2012. Responsible Management, Incentive Systems, and Productivity. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
49. Shuili Du, Edward T. Vieira. 2012. Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Oil
Companies. Journal of Business Ethics 110, 413-427. [CrossRef]
50. Monika Kansal, Sukhdev Singh. 2012. Measurement of corporate social performance: an Indian perspective. Social
Responsibility Journal 8:4, 527-546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Mui Hean Lee, Angela Ka Mak, Augustine Pang. 2012. Bridging the Gap: An Exploratory Study of Corporate Social
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Responsibility among SMEs in Singapore. Journal of Public Relations Research 24, 299-317. [CrossRef]
52. Adam Lindgreen, Yue Xu, François Maon, Jeremy Wilcock. 2012. Corporate social responsibility brand leadership: a multiple
case study. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 965-993. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2012. The Role of CSR in the Corporate Identity of Banking Service Providers.
Journal of Business Ethics 108, 145-166. [CrossRef]
54. Elspeth N. Tilley, Susan M. Fredricks, Andrea Hornett. 2012. Kinship, culture and ethics in organisations. Journal of
Communication Management 16:2, 162-184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Ganga Sasidharan Dhanesh. 2012. The view from within: internal publics and CSR. Journal of Communication Management
16:1, 39-58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Sabine A Einwiller, Craig E Carroll, Kati Korn. 2011. Under What Conditions Do the News Media Influence Corporate
Reputation? The Roles of Media Dependency and Need for Orientation. Corporate Reputation Review 12, 299-315. [CrossRef]
57. Alan Pomering, Gary Noble, Lester W. Johnson. 2011. Conceptualising a contemporary marketing mix for sustainable
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19, 953-969. [CrossRef]
58. Augustine Pang, Angela Mak, Joanne Mui-Hean LeeSignificance of Sector-Specific Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives
295-314. [CrossRef]
59. Alan A. PomeringCommunicating Corporate Social Responsibility through Corporate Image Advertising 379-398.
[CrossRef]
60. Sandra Waddock, Bradley K. GooginsThe Paradoxes of Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility 23-43. [CrossRef]
61. References 165-176. [CrossRef]
62. Cheolhan Lee, 김김김. 2011. Effects of Reputation and Congruence on Publics’ Evaluations of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Journal of Public Relations 15, 77-101. [CrossRef]
63. Matthew Walker, Bob Heere. 2011. Consumer Attitudes toward Responsible Entities in Sport (CARES): Scale development
and model testing. Sport Management Review 14, 153-166. [CrossRef]
64. Jiyang Bae, Sun-A Park. 2011. Socio-Contextual Influences on the Korean News Media's Interpretation of Samsung's $847.6
Million Donation. Journal of Public Relations Research 23, 141-166. [CrossRef]
65. Lina M. Gomez, Ricardo Chalmeta. 2011. Corporate responsibility in U.S. corporate websites: A pilot study. Public Relations
Review 37, 93-95. [CrossRef]
66. Hyo-Sook Kim. 2011. A reputational approach examining publics' attributions on corporate social responsibility motives.
Asian Journal of Communication 21, 84-101. [CrossRef]
67. Robert Hinson, Richard Boateng, Nnamdi Madichie. 2010. Corporate social responsibility activity reportage on bank websites
in Ghana. International Journal of Bank Marketing 28:7, 498-518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Christa Uusi‐Rauva, Johanna Nurkka. 2010. Effective internal environment‐related communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 15:3, 299-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Caner Dincer, Banu Dincer. 2010. An investigation of Turkish small and medium‐sized enterprises online CSR
communication. Social Responsibility Journal 6:2, 197-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 70. Christian Fieseler, Matthes Fleck, Miriam Meckel. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere. Journal of
Business Ethics 91, 599-614. [CrossRef]
71. Candace White, Antoaneta Vanc, Gena Stafford. 2010. Internal Communication, Information Satisfaction, and Sense of
Community: The Effect of Personal Influence. Journal of Public Relations Research 22, 65-84. [CrossRef]
72. Ulla Kotonen. 2009. Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journal of Applied Accounting
Research 10:3, 176-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Alan Pomering, Lester W. Johnson. 2009. Advertising corporate social responsibility initiatives to communicate corporate
image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14:4, 420-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Lu Tang, Hongmei Li. 2009. Corporate social responsibility communication of Chinese and global corporations in China.
Public Relations Review 35, 199-212. [CrossRef]
75. Alan Pomering, Lester W. Johnson. 2009. Constructing a corporate social responsibility reputation using corporate image
advertising. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 17, 106-114. [CrossRef]
76. Angeles Moreno, Paul Capriotti. 2009. Communicating CSR, citizenship and sustainability on the web. Journal of
Downloaded by SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA At 04:04 16 March 2016 (PT)

Communication Management 13:2, 157-175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

77. Paul Ziek. 2009. Making sense of CSR communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
16:10.1002/csr.v16:3, 137-145. [CrossRef]
78. Suzanne Benn, Dexter Dunphy, Andrew Martin. 2009. Governance of environmental risk: New approaches to managing
stakeholder involvement. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1567-1575. [CrossRef]
79. Heribert Meffert, Martin Holzberg. 2009. Cause-related Marketing: Ein scheinheiliges Kooperationskonzept?. Marketing
Review St. Gallen 26, 47-53. [CrossRef]
80. Vickie Cox Edmondson, Gouri Gupte, Rexford H. Draman, Nathan Oliver. 2009. Focusing on communication strategy to
enhance diversity climates. Journal of Communication Management 13:1, 6-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Andris Pētersons, Gundar J. King. 2009. Corporate social responsibility in Latvia: a benchmark study. Baltic Journal of
Management 4:1, 106-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. 김김김, 김김김. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility as Citizen Brand. Journal of Public Relations 12, 82-107. [CrossRef]
83. Lilian Soares Outtes Wanderley, Rafael Lucian, Francisca Farache, José Milton Sousa Filho. 2008. CSR Information
Disclosure on the Web: A Context-Based Approach Analysing the Influence of Country of Origin and Industry Sector.
Journal of Business Ethics 82, 369-378. [CrossRef]
84. Apisit Chattananon, Meredith Lawley, Numchai Supparerkchaisakul, Lackana Leelayouthayothin. 2008. Impacts of a Thai
cause‐related marketing program on corporate image. International Journal of Emerging Markets 3:4, 348-363. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
85. Gregory Birth, Laura Illia, Francesco Lurati, Alessandra Zamparini. 2008. Communicating CSR: practices among
Switzerland's top 300 companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13:2, 182-196. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
86. Andrea Insch. 2008. Online communication of Corporate Environmental Citizenship: A study of New Zealand's electricity
and gas retailers. Journal of Marketing Communications 14, 139-153. [CrossRef]
87. Alexander Lyon. 2007. “Putting Patients First”: Systematically Distorted Communication and Merck's Marketing of Vioxx.
Journal of Applied Communication Research 35, 376-398. [CrossRef]
88. Paul Capriotti, Angeles Moreno. 2007. Communicating corporate responsibility through corporate web sites in Spain.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:3, 221-237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. M. Morand, L. Rayman‐Bacchus. 2006. Think global, act local: Corporate Social Responsibility Management in
Multinational Companies. Social Responsibility Journal 2:3/4, 261-272. [Abstract] [PDF]
90. Yeosun Yoon, Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, Norbert Schwarz. 2006. The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities
on Companies With Bad Reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16, 377-390. [CrossRef]
91. Dahouk Dawoudi, Anton SabellaProactive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategies: 59-75. [CrossRef]