The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

CSR communications strategies CSR

communications
through social media and strategies

influence on e-reputation
363
An exploratory study
Received 13 January 2015
Vincent Dutot Revised 24 May 2015
Strategy and Management Department, ESG Management School, 1 October 2015
Accepted 20 December 2015
Paris, France
Eva Lacalle Galvez
E-business Department, MBA ESG, Paris, France, and
David W. Versailles
Strategy and Management Department, ESG Management School, Paris, France

Abstract
Purpose – Publics are becoming responsible customers that urge firms to improve society. By using
social media, corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions could influence organization’s commitment
and e-reputation. The purpose of this paper is to look at the influence on e-reputation of communication
strategies (i.e. corporate ability and CSR) on social media.
Design/methodology/approach – Four international companies (Danone, Renault, Orange and BNP
Paribas) were studied and a content analysis was performed: Leximancer for the social media content
(between 25 and 50 pages for each company) on a six-month period; and Social Mention for the
measurement of e-reputation.
Findings – Results show that there is a link between CSR communication strategies and e-reputation.
More precisely, by using a corporate ability strategy (focus on product quality or innovation R&D), a
company can increase its e-reputation better than on a common CSR communication strategy.
Research limitations/implications – This study is based on only four companies (from four
different industries) and would profit from a larger base for analysis. Second, the content the authors
analyzed was generated by the company on their own social media.
Originality/value – This exploratory study is one of the first to look at the influence of CSR
communication strategies on e-reputation and tries to see how companies’ action on social media can
change the way they are perceived by their customers. It completes the current literature by defining
how CSR communications strategies should be declined for in order to influence customers.
Keywords Social media, Corporate social responsibility, Communication strategies, e-Reputation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Public awareness is increasing concerning social, environmental and humanitarian
causes. Responsible customers are urging firms to behave ethically in society and to all
their stakeholders. To comply with that request and in conjunction with their corporate
social responsibility (hereafter CSR) programs, firms should maintain and expand
communication with customers and keep them informed of initiatives and projects
(Castelló and Ros, 2012). According to Brown and Dacin (1997), customers’ loyalty and
commitment will grow stronger if organizations act sensibly in terms of their Management Decision
environmental and social responsibilities (Safi and Ramay, 2013). Using media can Vol. 54 No. 2, 2016
pp. 363-389
allow CSR actions to demonstrate an organization’s commitment and influence its © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
e-reputation (Kiousis et al., 2007). DOI 10.1108/MD-01-2015-0015
MD The internet has become recognized as a relevant channel for enhancing and fostering
54,2 relations between companies and the public (Waters et al., 2009), and online channels are
becoming an important tool used to manage corporations’ reputations ( Jones, 2009;
Castellano and Dutot, 2013). Academics have suggested that companies’ websites could
provide organizations with numerous opportunities to present and explain their
corporate identity, product sales and management subjects to their stakeholders (Rolland
364 and Bazzoni, 2009). Sharing this sort of information between the brand and its
community through social networks requires a long-term social, environmental and
humanitarian commitment from a company (Castelló and Ros, 2012).
The internet and its channels (e.g. networks and e-mail) have opened the path for
personalization of messages and concrete interaction with both existing and potential
customers that could lead to a better fit between customers’ expectations and firms’
development. According to Madinabeitia (2010), three of the most important
advantages of online social networks are an affinity with the target market, an
ability to increase the brand’s reputation with reduced costs, and the capacity to
segment the public and offer real-time metrics. The relevance of the internet has
increased to such an extent that online actions are now a fundamental pillar in any
brand’s communication strategy (Castelló and Ros, 2012).
Consistently with the abductive method, this paper focusses on several areas of
improvement for the CSR theory, and responds to a lack of research in the marketing,
management and public relations scientific literature concerning CSR, e-reputation and
social media. Through content analysis, we propose a comparative exploratory case
study with four French companies, and focus on how the use of social networks in CSR
communication strategies might influence an organization’s e-reputation. We follow
two objectives.
The paper begins with a literature review of three major concepts: CSR communications
strategies, e-reputation and social media. Subsequent sections introduce the methodology
and the main results. The paper then discusses the results and comments on
recommendations for future research.

2. Literature review
A review of the literature demonstrates that marketing scholars have been researching
subjects related to CSR, social media and e-reputation for many years. They adopt a
variety of perspectives (Brown et al., 2006; Simoes et al., 2005; Jones, 2009). In our
research, we adopt a marketing and public relations perspective.

2.1 CSR communication strategies

2.1.1 CSR and the value of reputation. Since Bowen (1953), who is acknowledged as the
first scholar to define the concept, CSR has become an important research topic in
management science (Lee and Carroll, 2011; Acquier and Aggeri, 2008; Carroll, 1991;
Davis, 1960). It is now understood as a strategic component to achieve economic goals
(Garriga and Melé, 2004), to grow commitment and customer’s loyalty (Safi and Ramay,
2013) or even to influence the reputation of the organization (Carroll and McCombs,
2003; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990).
In the simplest terms, CSR means that a firm must integrate specific concerns such
as environmental, social, human or labor-related issues with its strategy and policy.
More importantly, it must be achieved through a voluntary commitment going beyond
a company’s legal or economic obligations in terms of CSR. Companies need to include
a moral dimension encompassing all areas of the business in their decision-making CSR
processes (Thorne et al., 2011). CSR does not turn a company into a non-profit communications
organization because it still seeks the maximization of profit (De Salas Nestares, 2010),
strategies
but it implies the adaptation of existing management models to new ones. Werther and
Chandler (2006) noted, for example that CSR has become one of the corporate strategy’s
dimensions because of four major issues: increasing influence, changing social
expectations, coping with the globalization of information and working proactively in 365
favor of ecological sustainability.
A distinction must be introduced here between defining a CSR strategy and adding
some CSR engagements within the company. Indeed, although an instance of
responsible behavior may seem to help a brand’s value or reputation capital, it will lead
to financial performance or profitability only when a real commitment is defined and
expressed (Villafañe, 2009). It is therefore more than obvious that one or numerous
social engagements do not constitute a CSR strategy, although they help to recognize or
favor it (Castelló and Ros, 2012). As Pinillos (2009) states, CSR 2.0 should allow firms to
quantify and understand the passage from CSR communication to its management. It
leads to new incomes and positively influences social development (e.g. customer
satisfaction and improving the working environment).
It remains important here to discriminate CSR strategies from “green washing.” We
endorse the conclusion of Lyon and Montgomery (2013) that social media reduce the
incidence of corporate “green wash.” Social media are different from traditional media
because they “[embody] two-way communication with asymmetric response” (Lyon
and Montgomery, 2013, p. 751). Lyon and Montgomery articulate a series of five
propositions with a theoretical model consistent with our research question and
appraise the potential decoupling between CSR and CSR communication strategies
after the advent of Web 2.0. They explain that the number of sources of information
available to stakeholders (incl. consumers) and the variety of social media increase the
degree of scrutiny on CSR strategies. They conclude that this leads to a better detection
of “green wash,” that social media decrease the cost of monitoring corporate behaviors,
and that social media make it easier for activists to call attention to and to mobilize
opposition against “green washing.” In the end, “[f]irms with relatively green
reputations will become less likely to promote their green accomplishments, while firms
with relatively brown reputations will become more likely to disclose their full
environmental impacts” (Lyon and Montgomery, 2013, p. 753).
This multiplication of sources lay also to more authenticity from the company as
pointed out by Liedtka (2008). The author defines it as “the notion of being true to
oneself” (p. 238). Beckman et al. (2009) find that stakeholder perceptions of authenticity
are important to the success and acceptance of CSR programs. They note that
stakeholders use available cues, such as transparency and consistency, to ascertain the
extent to which the organization is true to its self. Consumers respond more positively
to CSR actions that are perceived as driven by the organization’s values (Ellen et al.,
2006). However these studies all agree that their understanding is incomplete
(McShance and Cunningham, 2012, p. 97): there is a need for complementary
approaches that could help stakeholders in their appreciation of CSR strategies. The
authors suggest that individuals should “rely on multiple standards to inform their
authenticity judgements” (p. 97).
Brousseau et al. (2013) reinforce the concept of authenticity as it represents the best
answer to suspicion about CSR activities in their view. They introduce several
MD normative assessments here: companies should promote it at the start of CSR branding.
54,2 Firms should define what they are and then explore ways through which “the ethics of
their role in society can be presented to strengthen brand identity” (p. 62).
2.1.2 Corporate Communication strategies matching CSR strategies. The initial
typology of CSR strategies can be found in Carroll (1991) and is known as the pyramid
of CSR. It is composed of four items (cf. Table I), described as responsibilities of
366 the organization.
In their 2012 review article, Aguinis and Glavas note that predictors of CSR primarily
focus on a short list of concepts (activist group pressure, economic conditions,
stakeholder instrumental, relational and moral motives, and stakeholder psychological
needs). Although most current studies focus on only one or two dimensions introduced in
Table I, in this study, we focus instead on corporate communication strategies in a
direction related to the four dimensions presented by Carroll (1991).
Kim and Rader (2010) proposed two types of communication strategies adopted by
companies based on associations between the firm’s communication strategy and the
customer’s perception:
(1) corporate ability communication strategy (CAS): building the public’s cognitive
associations related to an organization’s expertise and capability in terms of its
products and services; and
(2) corporate social responsibility communication strategy (CSRS): building
corporate associations with stakeholders concerning an organization’s social
responsibility.
The CAS is defined using six dimensions of the company: expertise in product or
service quality, global success, implementation of a quality control program, industry
leadership, market orientation, and efforts in innovation and R&D. It appears that CAS
has a more durable effect than does CSRS in terms of customers’ evaluation because it
focusses on products and services (Kim and Rader, 2010).
Brown and Dacin (1997) suggested that, as mentioned above, CAS associations
have a greater effect on both perception of products and brand evaluation than CSRS.
Brown and Dacin proposed that the main reason for the difference is that when doing
CAS, companies are communicating with a double perspective and therefore are
more effective in influencing the consumer’s point of view. Additionally, because

CSR dimensions Description Example of items to measure it

Economic Business has to be profitable and Book value, profit, market share,
responsibility produces goods and services which are sales profitability, revenue,
desirable in a society market performance
Legal Meeting society’s expectation as Content from a lawsuit, case, suit,
responsibility established by the law settlements, indictment, court
Ethical Following the modes of conduct Special duties, right or wrong,
responsibility considered to be morally right dishonesty, corruption, fraud, damage to
the environment, claims
Philanthropic Involving actively in the betterment Social performance, environmental
responsibility of society performance, human rights, financial
Table I. integrity, charity work, volunteer
CSR dimensions Source: Adapted from Carroll (1991)
companies have multiple products and services, they tend to develop both product CSR
and corporate campaigns. As noted by Sheinin and Biehal (1999), the influence of communications
corporate communication on an individual’s perception or attitude only occurs when
strategies
the corporate brand is linked with the product advertisements, reinforcing the idea of
corporate ability as a more important influencer.
Concerning CSRS, Kim and Rader (2010) also use a six-dimension scale: the
company’s environmental stewardship, philanthropic contribution, educational 367
commitments, employee involvement, public health commitments and sponsorship of
cultural activities.
Engaging in CSR communications strategies with stakeholders is often considered
a means of contributing to public perception of the company. Freeman called this
field within the CSR the stakeholder theory. For the author, companies have no
responsibilities toward society in general but must be focussed by concerned
individuals who can be affected by their activities (Donaldson and Preston, 1995;
Clarkson, 1995). It is interesting that reputation and communication strategies are
mentioned in the survey paper authored by Aguinis and Glavas (2012) in direct relation
to CSR outcomes in the domains of intangible assets elaboration for a brand (brand
impact and reputation) and of relationships with stakeholders. A problem is that
stakeholders reduce here to customers, based on the investigation of several drivers:
customer loyalty, customer choice and evaluation of company/product. We will expand
this perspective.
In this paper, we focus on companies trying to develop their “corporate reputation”
(Rolland and Bazzoni, 2009). This term can be understood as the process of building,
over the long term, a corporation perception or good name through feedback or general
comments from stakeholders (Thorne et al., 2011). According to Rolland and Bazzoni
(2009, p. 254), a positive reputation must be viewed as a “self-interested argument for
CSR or as an extension of the economic argument for CSR.” The authors suggest that
there is a link between a commitment to CSR strategies and corporate reputation.
2.1.3 Measurement of CSR. In the literature, the operationalization of CSR has often
relied on corporate social performance. Igalens and Gond (2003) proposed five levels of
measurement: content of monthly reports of companies; pollution indicators; attitudes
or values extracted from questionnaire surveys; corporate reputation; and behavioral
measures or audits produced by external organizations.
This perspective is completely consistent with the recapitulation introduced by
Aguinis and Glavas (2012). They identify both moderators and predictors but note that
conceptual papers focus on customer information intensity, public perception of CSR,
macro-economic drivers, and cultural and institutional conditions. A problem is that the
academic literature hides behind some sort of “black box” (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012, p.
940) because at an institutional level, Aguinis and Glavas never really examine the
relationship between the predictors and outcomes of CSR. Conversely, they note the
large (“fragmented”) diversity of papers working with field research, each focussing on
very specific aspects. This knowledge gap introduces a specific difficulty concerning
the effect of CSR concepts and the development of multi-level CSR research.
This study adds to the current measurement of CSR by analyzing further the fourth
level and incorporating a social media perspective. In endorsing this perspective, we
expect to develop further the mechanisms linking CSR with outcomes in the domain of
mediation effects (Aguinis and Glavas’ 2nd knowledge gap), and we introduce a tool for
new investigations on the field (4th knowledge gap).
MD 2.1.4 CSR and industrial differences. Many researches have studied CSR strategies
54,2 in different sectors. We highlight here the main contributions within four sectors (bank,
retail, telecommunications and automobile) regarding two links: CSR and performance,
CSR and reputation/image.
The link between CSR strategies and performance is among the most investigated
links in CSR literature, but still no consensus has really emerged on the relation
368 between the two variables. Some scholars (Griffin and Mahon, 1997; Posnikoff, 1997;
Mallin et al., 2014; Arshad et al., 2012; Flammer, 2013) conclude that CSR strategies
positively impact performance; when others (Wright and Ferris, 1997) go for a negative
impact. Finally a third group (Teoh et al., 1999; Fauzi, 2009; Hasen Thuhin, 2014)
advocate CSR strategies have no effect.
Schramm-Klein et al. (2015) show that CSR has positive implications for retailers’ firm
performance and illustrates which CSR dimensions are the most important to focus on. Both
downstream (customer oriented) as well as upstream (suppler oriented) activities count.,
Those who focus about what good a retailer do also conclude that CSR communications is
of high relevance. Kweh et al. (2014) demonstrate that an investment in the social aspects of
CSR will result in better corporate performance. However they explain that less conclusive
findings available in prior studies on the relationship between CSR and corporate
performance could follow the measures and proxies used for corporate performance.
Giannarakis et al. (2011) show that the telecommunications sector is highly sensitive to CSR
issues and most European operators implement CSR initiatives. Wang et al. (2014) show
that corporate efficiency is higher for companies that implement CSR strategies than for
companies that do not. Loureiro et al. (2012) explore the overall importance of CSR for
consumer satisfaction in the automobile industry; they suggest that CSR may not only
contribute to better financial performance by directly reducing costs and increasing
productivity but may also contribute indirectly by increasing consumer satisfaction.
Research on the link between CSR and reputation seems clearer about the influence
of the former. Atakan-Duman and Ozdora-Aksak (2014) have investigated the role of
public relations and CSR practices in constructing organizational identities through a
thematic content analysis of banks’ corporate websites. They show a positive influence
of CSR strategies on corporate reputation. In the retail business, Prieto et al. (2014) say
that multinational organizations (they focus on WalMart), should be concerned with
their reputation, especially given prior results explaining that reputation can influence
the stakeholders’ perceptions (Rindova et al., 2005), the investors’ reactions (Pfarrer
et al., 2010) and long-term profitability (Roberts and Dowling, 2002; Śmigielska, 2013).
These CSR strategies not only help building a positive image for a retail organization
(whose impact on profitability is difficult to measure) but also facilitate the creation of
sustainable competitive edge (as e.g. relations with suppliers or employees), and
constitute the basis for long-term company strategy. For Boyd et al. (2010), reputation
represents an instrument by which companies maintain a sustainable competitive
advantage and endure a long-term relationship with multiple stakeholder groups.
Overall, this review shows that there is no firm consensus on the impact of CSR on
performance, suggesting a need for another approach. As presented here, some have
then focussed their research on a new moderator defined as the corporation reputation
or image. This is the path we adopt. We follow here Cohen et al. (2011) who advocate
for research protocols and results with gain greater significance when relying on
non-financial information.
The following section presents what e-reputation is and how we consider it.
2.2 e-Reputation CSR
2.2.1 From corporate reputation to e-reputation. Identity is one element that appears in communications
most of the literature on corporate reputation. The term should be understood (for a
strategies
company) as its personality (Balmer and Gray, 2000), and it refers to the essential
features that differentiate organizations. Zinkhan et al. (2001, p. 154) say that identity
represents “the ways a company chooses to identify itself to all its publics.” Therefore,
identity must be defined and presented using both internal and external dimensions. 369
Simoes et al. (2005) complete this vision by adding that corporate identity is the mix
between how the company wishes to be perceived (by its publics) and what it wants to
project or say about itself. Based on these two elements, customers or more generally
stakeholders, define a general impression of the company (that could be called the
corporate image).
Ultimately, the image could be either positive or negative (Rolland and Bazzoni,
2009). This overall evaluation reflects the corporate reputation. Companies develop
positive reputation by creating and projecting a set of skills that their constituents
recognize as unique through innovation, operational excellence or closeness to the
customer (Fombrun, 1996). Corporate reputation tends to be affected by communication
strategies that aspire to create certain impressions and to embed a positive attitude
with the public for the company (Pomering and Jonhson, 2009).
Corporate reputation forms one element of Balmer’s corporate marketing mix
(Pomering and Jonhson, 2009): it describes “what we are seen to be.” As presented
earlier, corporate reputation must be understood as a multidimensional construct
composed of stakeholders’ sets of corporate images and corporate identity beliefs
(Dowling, 2004) in which corporate image consists of beliefs about an organization and
answers the question, “what do people think about you?” (Dowling, 2004). The
attributes of a firm’s corporate identity form a key element in the construction of
favorable corporate images, and reputations are developed as companies try to build
up favorable images of them.
2.2.2 Concept of e-reputation. e-Reputation can be defined as a reputation built from
the set of perceptions that stakeholders will create from any element circulating on the
net (Paquerot et al., 2011). The e-reputation could be considered an element of the
reputation itself. Reputation may either specifically arise from digital channels (Chun
and Davies, 2001), or as a concept more comprehensive than e-reputation itself
(Castellano and Dutot, 2013). This approach is reinforced by Frochot and Molinaro
(2008); e-reputation, also coined digital reputation or web reputation, is the image that
stakeholders create of a firm according to the information it transmits on its own
websites and other content available anywhere on the internet.
Few studies have investigated e-reputation (Castellano and Dutot, 2013), and specific
measurement scales are lacking because investigations still focus exclusively on website
information. Data produced by social networks, blogs and forums are not considered,
although they now represent the main contributors of content about any firm. Chun
(2004) proposed a measurement tool for e-reputation composed of three dimensions:
e-character (personality of the firm), e-identity (structure and design of the website) and
e-experience (consistency between online experience and physical experience).
Other approaches or tools are more content-focussed. This is the case, for instance,
with free-online tools such as Social Mention. This software functions as a search and
analysis platform aggregating user-generated content (UGC). It measures e-reputation
based on four items: strength, sentiment, passion and reach.
MD 2.3 Social media
54,2 It is generally accepted within the literature that the new digital channels, also called social
media, which include, for example, social networks, blogs, video platforms, micro-blogging
and websites, favor a business orientation – but not exclusively (Castelló and Ros, 2012).
The channels enable a new customer-oriented approach – defined by Dutot (2013) as social
CRM – based on the segmentation and personalization of messages, viral marketing
370 (Castelló and Ros, 2012), and the launching of an experiential marketing that generates
customer engagement or positive evaluation of a brand through participation (Ho, 2014).
The term “social media” is linked to UGC because it is based on interactions between
many stakeholders including the company itself, customers, prospects and vectors of
influence (Vernuccio, 2014; O’Leary, 2011). By existing online, both customers and
companies can maintain a presence, interact and even co-create (Proulx et al., 2012) with
the different technologies available online (e.g. ratings platforms and forums). Overall,
social media can be defined “as the production, consumption and exchange of
information across platforms for social interaction” (Dutot, 2013, p. 55).
Of course, any generation can be linked with these tools, but it is obvious that companies
currently are attempting to encourage generation Y customers (between 15 and 25 years
old) to interact with them on social media as they would with their friends and families
(Lichy and Kachour, 2014). Customers now have new tools to search for information and
share their thoughts about anything, anywhere and anytime. Consequently, their role has
changed from a passive receiver of controlled messages to an active participant, whereas
the firm’s power has decreased (Divol et al., 2012). The luxury companies had of being able
to monitor and respond to community activity has vanished with the rise of the internet and
social media. Marketing communication has evolved into a two-way interaction between
companies and customers in which both parties influence brand building (Weman, 2011).
All of these new platforms and digital channels become decisive environments for
CSR communication strategies because they translate the digital company’s values to
the stakeholders (Castelló and Ros, 2012). Vernuccio (2014), for example, recently
studied the emerging approaches in communicating a corporate brand through social
media. The results of the study show that most corporate branding strategists are
adopting conversational forms of corporate communication to involve a large range of
stakeholders. The author also acknowledges a lack of studies on online corporate
communication and corporate branding strategy.
Customers are crucial stakeholders, and they expect companies to be present on
social media (Ho, 2014; Nair, 2011). One of the specifics of this exchange is that it can
occur almost 24 hours per day and seven days per week (Divol et al., 2012). By
providing a constant presence and interaction, companies could see a change
concerning their e-reputation. As Stenger (2014) stated, online presence is “considered
to be [a] fantastic tool […] for peer-to-peer recommendation and viral marketing” (p. 52),
but it can also damage a brand image or a reputation.
Based on the literature review, we propose the following:
P1. CSR communications strategies on social media influence the e-reputation of a
company.
P2. CAS will have a stronger effect on e-reputation than CSRS.

3. Method
This paper focusses on specific firms’ presence on social media and on the influence of
this presence on their e-reputation. In this section, we first explain our methodological
orientation and then introduce the rationales for the selection of firms for the study and CSR
the tools used for data collection with two subsections. communications
In this paper, we offer a comparative, exploratory and theory-building case study
(Yin, 2009). We adopt an abductive methodology aligned with the precepts of
strategies
grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), and more precisely with Strauss and
Corbin’s (1990) interpretation of the theory. As an inferential strategy defined as the
retrospective process of forming hypotheses (Fylkelnes, 2006), abduction is well 371
suited to dealing with incomplete evidence under conditions of complexity, and to
generating “tentative theories” that suggest hypotheses (Niiniluoto, 1999; Thomas,
2010). Our research is “conceptually driven” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 238, n2).
As Miles and Huberman put it, “we aim to account for events, rather than simply
document their sequence. We look for an individual or a social process, a mechanism,
a structure at the core of events that can be captured to provide a causal description
of the forces at work.” (p. 4, their emphasis). The abductive process becomes obvious
when improving the analysis with more précised assumptions and further steps
of data collection, thus generating greater levels of “explicitness” and “groundness”
(in Corbin and Strauss’ words).

3.1 Selection of the sample of firms

Companies were selected in reference to four criteria:
(1) the company must be valued by its CSR actions;
(2) the company must be international and French based;
(3) the company must be present and active on at least three social media
platforms; and
(4) the company must use the English language in their social media communication.
Firms selected for this investigation do not all follow the same CAS and CSRS
strategies; however, they are all comparable with respect to their clients’ expectations
for the European market. They face the very same constraints and confront the same
cultural patterns. Although they do not belong to the same industry, their sectors have
instantiated specific issues and cases generating CSR-related debates in recent years.
This is why the firms are compared with one another.
Firms selected here obviously follow different CSR strategies, have developed
different trajectories over the years, and currently register discrepant reputations. The
companies selected here installed CSR strategies as differentiating patterns supporting
their respective businesses. The issue at stake therefore does not address the
identification of “green washing” vs actual CSR content, but rather the link with
customers via social media. This research is only ruled by the customers’ perspective,
as stated through social media platforms. The analysis therefore deliberately focusses
on the data available for customers interacting with the companies via social media,
and does not relate to the status of CSR-related information as true or false. P1 and P2
introduced at the end of Section 2 relate to CAS and CSRS, and to the alignment
between communication and the firm’s strategy. From a methodological perspective, it
is here important to use the data available on social media at their face value and to
focus on the appraisal of its impact on individuals. The data introduced by companies
on social media are therefore nothing but claims in the domain of social responsibility.
“Green washing” has obviously been an issue with CSR strategies, but it is not the
question at stake in this perspective. The point links with the interaction between
MD the impact of communication on customers and social media users on the one side, and
54,2 either CAS or CSRS on the other side. In other words, we expect that customers will be
able to go beyond the mirror and appraise the very content of the claims, and link them
with the nature of communication. From the sole perspective of communication, we can
only introduce the assumption that a company will not be able to fool its customers on
the long run: with the volume of data and information available on social media,
372 customers will learn and decode the company’s strategy. This might end with either a
wrong appraisal of the company’s strategy in case of “green washing,” or the mistake
of characterizing a strategy as “green washing” while it is not.
Following that statement, the method adopted here does not focus only on the
companies’ websites. We used websites as references that companies claim for their
respective CSR strategies. We used data published on digital platforms in order to
appraise the link with customers and the customers’ reactions. This is consistent with
Lyon and Montgomery’s model and with the original roles described in their study for
social vs traditional media (cf. Table I; 2013, p. 751). Digital platforms analyzed for this
study include Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn
and Dailymotion. These platforms are the most important in terms of audience and
users’ connectivity. We also included corporate blogs in our investigation.
After inspecting the presence of these companies in the world of Web 2.0, we
performed a qualitative content analysis to identify the corporate communication
strategies they were actually using. Content analysis has been widely employed in CSR
research (Gray et al., 1995) and is the most common method of analyzing social and
environmental reporting, particularly in firms (Milne and Adler, 1999).
Leximancer (Smith and Humphreys, 2006) was the tool used for the examination of
all data collected and for the exploration of communication strategy differences.
Leximancer has already been used for both conceptual and relational analyses of
textual data (Angus-Leppan et al., 2010; Dann, 2010) and proved its effectiveness and
accuracy. Leximancer concept identification has been found to “have close agreement
with expert judgment (face validity) and an ability to handle short and ungrammatical
comments” (Campbell et al., 2011, p. 92). Leximancer is particularly well suited to
exploratory research of comprehensive mental models because it facilitates reliable and
reproducible extraction of concepts and thematic clusters (Smith and Humphreys, 2006;
http://info.leximancer.com/).

3.2 Data collection and measurement: Leximancer™ and social media™

We have used the series of indicators proposed by Kim and Rader (2010): a focus on
corporate communication strategy, influencing firms’ reputation. If the emphasis is on a
company’s product or service quality, its global achievement, its production leadership
or its innovative performance, we link results about the company with a corporate
ability strategy (CAS). Conversely, if the company’s posts document the organization´s
environmental stewardship, its humanitarian involvement, its corporate educational
commitments, employees’ contributions, any public health commitments or support of
social/societal activities, they relate to the company’s corporate social strategy (CSRS).
Leximancer generates themes by aggregating concepts. Aggregation levels vary to
gain greater insight about the interconnection between concepts (Crofts and Bisman,
2010). The program performs the following functions:
• populates a ranked list of terms using indirect and semantic extraction from
the text;
 • uses these terms to propagate a thesaurus builder that intelligently develops CSR
classifications from “iteratively extending the seed word definitions” (Smith, 2006, communications
p. 4) beyond the connections of merely two keywords;
strategies
• portrays weighted term classifications as concepts that constitute a concept
index; and
• generates concept maps that include a third hierarchical classification through 373
the application of co-occurrence matrices and clustering algorithms (from
computational linguistics).
To generate the metrics for online reputation associated with these companies, we have
used a freeware program available online called Social Mention (www.socialmention.
com). Consistent with the conceptual model, Social Mention was set to evaluate four
main indicators: strength, sentiment, passion and reach. Strength refers to the brand’s
likelihood of being discussed in social media. Sentiment is the ratio of mentions that are
generally positive to those that are generally negative. Passion is a measure of the
probability that persons talking about a brand will do so recurrently. Reach is a
measure of the range of influence, in other words, the number of unique authors or
individuals who mention a brand with respect to the total number of mentions (Mathies
and Burford, 2011).
CAS communication strategies were measured in reference to the typology
introduced by Kim and Rader (2010). The research model underlying the present study
is shown in Figure 1.
All the posts written by the companies were collected principally on Facebook and
in the companies’ blogs. The reasons remain technical; the API allowed us to implement
an automatic routine, and the complexity of the task was manageable. We compiled
data over six months, from April to October 2013. It resulted in 25-50 pages of content
for each company.

4. Case description
4.1 Presentation of the companies
Four French companies (Table II) were finally selected for the study: Renault, Danone,
Orange and BNP Paribas. Data computation used both French and English languages.
As presented in Table III, each company is present and active on at least three
digital platforms.
All four companies are present on Facebook. Two of them (Danone and Renault)
have specific Facebook pages for dedicated projects related to CSR. LinkedIn is used by

Social media
Corporate Communication
E-reputation
Strategies
Strength
Ability
communication
Passion

Sentiment
CSR communication
strategy Figure 1.
Reach
Conceptual model
MD Company Description Source
54,2
Renault Vehicle manufacturer established in 1899. It produces Renault Corporation (2013)
cars, vans (and, in the past, trucks)
Danone Food-products multinational firm. The company owns Danone Corporation (2013)
several internationally known brands such as Volvic,
Evian, Badoit, Aqua, etc.
374 Orange Telecommunication, global provider for mobile phone, Orange Corporation (2013)
internet. One of the world leaders in
Table II. telecommunication services
Presentation of BNP Paribas Bank and financial service. In 2012, fourth largest BNP Paribas Corporation (2013)
companies bank in the world

Company Facebook Twitter Google+ Blog YouTube Instagram Pinterest LinkedIn Dailymotion

Renault X X X X X X
Table III. Danone X X X X X X X
Presence on digital Orange X X X X X X X X
platforms BNP Paribas X X X X X X X X

all firms. Three companies in our sample have created and maintain a corporate profile
on Google+. Danone has also created a profile for a specific CSR program called Down
to the Earth. All companies have a corporate presence on the micro-blogging network
Twitter. Finally, all brands have a blog, and most of them open it to comments. Only
the frequency of update varies between them.

4.2 Content analysis with Leximancer™

Leximancer generates results about the frequency of occurrence of common word
clusters. For each company, we introduce maps to show the semantic clusters made
available with the social media presence and to explain how these entities relate to a
series of concepts describing CSR and CAS communications strategies. On Figures 2-5,
the concepts are shown as dots. We have also introduced tentative aggregations of
concepts with a series of themes, pictured here with circles.
Different themes emerge from the posts present on Renault’s Facebook wall and
corporate blog (cf. Figure 2). The most relevant themes include “customer,” “win,”
“experience” and “international.” These themes relate to concepts such as sales,
production, quality and design (and refer to CAS). Globally stated, Renault presents a
larger number of Facebook and Blog posts promoting corporate abilities. A large
number of messages seem to follow another type of strategy: entertaining fans with
actual data about the company and its operations. This occurs with sentences such as
the following: “Today Renault Assistance comprises a fleet of 1,130 Renault Assistance
breakdown vehicles, spread over 400 branches and 730 dealer sites”; “Renault group,
number one in Europe for low CO² emissions”; “Renault has always placed particular
importance on the quality of its vehicles” (CAS once again).
Corporate messages on Danones’s Facebook page and Blog produce a more complex
map that shows four main topics with considerable overlap (cf. Figure 3). Danone is
known as a world leader in CSR implementation and acts most often as a role model.
 Theme Connectivity Relevance
Renault 100%
customer 54%
range 46%
concept 38%
company 15%
experience 12%
world 11%
time 10%
version 09%
win 04%
drivers 03%
international 03%
communications
strategies

Leximancer’ analysis
of Renault
Figure 2.
375
CSR
 MD
54,2

376

of Danone
Figure 3.
Leximancer’ analysis
Theme Connectivity Relevance
sustainable 100%
food 77%
development 72%
social 57%
project 46%
Danone 36%
business 33%
work 31%
world 27%
countries 18%
design 13%
water 11%
local 09%
system 07%
 Theme Connectivity Relevance
projects 100%
countries 86%
training 65%
digital 48%
people 43%
world 40%
sharing 34%
community 34%
need 31%
mobile 25%
development 18%
international 13%
time 12%
ideas 12%
take 10%
involved 10%
raise 07%
communications
strategies

of Orange
Leximancer’ analysis
Figure 4.
377
CSR
 MD
54,2

378

Figure 5.

of BNP Paribas
Leximancer’ analysis
Theme Connectivity Relevance
support 100%
project 87%
services 45%
education 45%
business 41%
children 24%
social 23%
employees 19%
life 12%
initiative 12%
staff 10%
microfinance 07%
time 06%
Bnp Paribas
05%
Fortis
The theme “sustainable” is the most relevant, with 100 percent importance, followed by CSR
“food” with 77 percent relevance, then by “development” and “social” (cf. the ethical communications
responsibility dimension in Carroll, 1991). The vast majority of these concepts refer to
CSR projects and programs: “Danone communities were created to help build and foster
strategies
social businesses”; “Danone’s commitment goes further than supporting these funds:
responsibility is becoming one of the main lines in its business strategy, irrigating all
its activities”; and “the company has a major impact on the nutrition of the youngest 379
members of society and has a responsibility to encourage healthy diets and behavior”
(here in reference to philanthropic responsibility, in Carroll’s, 1991words).
Four key themes were identified for Orange, with the same level of importance:
“projects,” “countries,” “training” and “digital” (cf. Figure 4). The most important has
100 percent relevance and connectivity and is related to other themes such as “social,”
“support,” “health” and “Africa.” “Training” is linked to “young” and “development.”
Most of the messages collected were related to CSR communication strategies. More
specifically, the messages related to the ethical and philanthropic dimensions identified
by Carroll (1991): “the Orange African Social Venture Prize is about to embark on its
third run, with the continuing aim of promoting social innovation to support
development”; “the Orange Foundation has been working hard to make the world more
accessible and facilitate greater social integration for individuals”; and “the Orange
Group operates [and] provides the poorest villages with three essential infrastructures
for everyday life: a water source, a health center and a school.”
Data collected from BNP Paribas’s official Facebook wall and Blog result in a
Leximancer map with six main topics related to Carroll’s (1991) economic and
philanthropic dimensions and to Kim and Rader’s (2010) CAS: “support,” “project,”
“services,” “education,” “business” and “children” (cf. Figure 5). The theme “support” is
the most relevant, with 100 percent connectivity; the main related themes are
“development,” “financial,” “local” and “awareness.” “Project” is connected to
“employees,” “association,” “corporate” and people. “Services” link to “range,”
“organization,” “development,” “training” and “mission.” The content of these
messages relates to corporate responsibility: “Ms. XYZ is an employee at BNP
Paribas (Canada) in Montreal, and has just returned from a humanitarian mission to El
Salvador”; “The Belgian non-profit association Close the Gap will be supplied with over
50,000 devices by BNP Paribas Fortis Foundation, as part of a three-year agreement.”

4.3 Content analysis about online reputation with Social Mention™

In the results provided by Social Mention (Table IV), Renault stands out as the company
with the best scores in terms of “strength,” “sentiment” and “reach” (green). BNP Paribas
best performs in terms of “passion” (green). Orange reached the lowest percentage in
“sentiment” (red). The best scores go to companies with a strong presence and intensive
activity in social media, with the exception of BNP Paribas; in spite of its high activity in
social media networks, this company has low scores in “strength,” “sentiment” and “reach.”

Company Strength (%) Sentiment Passion (%) Reach (%)

Renault 44 66:1 24 59
Danone 30 35:1 34 56
Orange 42 1:1 32 49 Table IV.
BNP Paribas 3 6:1 73 11 e-Reputation scores
MD 5. Case analysis
54,2 5.1 Link between communication strategies on social media and e-reputation
We first clarify that CSR communication affects online reputation positively in three
cases: Danone, Renault and Orange. Indeed, as noted by Leximancer’s variable
“sentiment,” we can see that the majority of the firms have more positive than negative
insights. Similarly, the “strength” of the relation between the companies and their
380 customers is at a high level for three of them, as well as the “reach.”
Danone chooses, for example, to develop specific CSR programs distinct from the
company’s global social media channels: “Down to Earth,” “Danone Communities” and
“Danone Ecosystems” have their own social communities. These channels elaborate the
point that Danone has been using its CSR strategy as an integral part of its corporate
strategy for quite some time. These programs increase the scores generated by Social
Mention. BNP Paribas has the lowest evaluation in Social Mention for three out of four
dimensions. Although we know that the company is active on social networks, it
appears that its CSR communication is not considered relevant by its customers.
The cases show a correlation between companies using social media to present their
CSR communication, and their e-reputation. Establishing a targeted conversation and
communication content adapted to each category of social media user has become
critical to gain attention and to be effective on social media. Our results allow the
further assumption that the CSR effect does not depend on the number of channels used
by each company. Rather, it is much more linked with the number of channels
conveying specific CSR messages. BNP Paribas has, for instance, a high number of
active social networks, but it only posts CSR content on Facebook and on the corporate
blog; consequently, BNP Paribas’ scores in e-reputation are low. The interaction
between a brand, its “followers,” and its (current and potential) customers in the Web
2.0 world is crucial for more proximity with stakeholders and more commitment from
them, particularly in the case of a CSR communication strategy. In other words,
companies anticipate the effect on end-users and tailor CSR messages accordingly. We
know that companies introduce a specific CSR communication strategy for each social
network, targeting specific stakeholders. This specialization strategy makes it possible
to identify indirectly a twofold maturity assessment: in the domain of social media
communication and in the design of affecting CSR strategies.
Results show that the link is positive for three out of four companies. P1 is therefore
accepted and amended for further research with the nuances introduced supra.

5.2 Difference between communication strategies

We elaborate here on indicators proposed by Kim and Rader (2010), and on the
subsequent distinction between CAS and CSRS-related data. Results show that the four
companies enact both social corporate responsibility and ability communication
strategies at the same time, yet with a difference: Danone, Orange and BNP Paribas
focus on their CSR communication strategies while Renault implements a CAS
strategy. As presented in Table II, Renault has a better evaluation from Social Mention
for three out of four criteria. In other words, its e-reputation is better than the
e-reputations of Danone, Orange or BNP Paribas.
We can therefore validate the reference to Kim and Rader (2010) indicators and
our CAS vs CSRS definitions for further research. P2 seems to have a great potential
for generalization.
However, we still have a conceptual problem: does better e-reputation lead to better
performance? Even if the goal of this study was not to investigate a link between these
two notions, we also contextualized our data with the evolution of revenue of the CSR
four firms and their respective market (cf. Table V). For the three companies that communications
choose the CSRS communications strategies, only Orange performs better than the
market (−4.5 percent compare to −6.8 percent). Renault (the only one to implement a
strategies
CAS strategy) not only performs better than the market (+0.4 percent as compared to
−5.7 percent) but also experiences a (positive) growth against contractions for its
competitors. Of course, it is impossible here to correlate the positive growth to CAS 381
strategy only, but this occurrence is important enough to notice considering the issues
at hand with the 2015 Volkswagen experience.
The last point of discussion deals with the differences between the three companies
that mostly use CSRS communications strategies. Kim and Rader (2010) found that the
differences in the use of CSRS vs CAS strategies might relate to company size. As we
analyze only four large international companies, our study is not conclusive in this
respect. In our investigation, the preferences in the use of CSRS vs CAS strategies could
be affected by the actual negative image that food and bank companies have in the
society or by the perception of risks imposed by these activities on customers’ lives.
In these domains, CSR online communications would better support the transmission of
socially desired responsible corporate identity content to the stakeholders (Rolland and
Bazzoni, 2009).

6. Implications and conclusion

Our exploratory study is among the first to investigate the influence of CSR
communication strategies on e-reputation with actual data. It investigates how
companies’ actions on social media can change their perception by their customers.
It also completes the current literature by defining how CSR communications strategies
should be executed to influence customers. From this perspective, we complement the
theoretical model and the subsequent results introduced by Lyon and Montgomery
(2013) with the introduction of further assumptions generated with our exploratory
case study analysis. They generated a model explaining that social media will reduce
the incidence of corporate “green washing.” Our results support their propositions, yet
with some additional precisions.
As presented previously, both strategies (ability and CSR) can be used and have a
direct influence on e-reputation. If a company wants to develop its online reputation, it
should focus its communication on products, services and the quality of its actions
because these items are the ones that customers consider most. This is the domain of
market-related outcomes and capabilities. Our study adds therefore to the five levels of
measurement defined by Igalens and Gond (2003) by adding social media and online
measurement to the list.
It is important to stress here that the companies investigated in this paper appear to
have developed integrated communication plans. Qualitative research should be
implemented to confirm the assessment introduced with our quantitative analysis.
Duncan and Everett (1993, p. 33) described this concept as “the strategic co-ordination

Firm Danone (%) Renault (%) Orange (%) BNP Paribas (%)
Table V.
French Revenue evolution (2013 vs 2012) −2.4 +0.4 −4.5 −5 Evolution of
French Market evolution (2013 vs 2012) +0.6 −5.7 −6.8 +1.1 financial results
MD of all messages and media used by an organization to influence its perceived brand
54,2 value.” For them, defining integrated communications among different channels would
generate synergies and create a consistent perception of the e-reputation of the
organization. These implications are in line with Simoes et al. (2005), for whom an
integrated communication process, guided by the company’s philosophy and mission,
diminishes the probability of inconsistent messages. Careful management of company
382 messages is critical because organization’s publics will integrate these messages and,
from this base, they will create their corporate associations (Simoes et al., 2005).
Here, we can raise the differentiation between “green washing” and extensive
(or integrated) CSR policies again (cf. Lyon and Montgomery, 2013); each category of
stakeholder will appraise the relevance of the CSR communication on its own, each
individual considering social network(s) through his/her specific prism. The global
perspective on the company’s (eventual) effectiveness with CSR communication will
emerge from the consolidation of all local appraisals by different stakeholder categories.
This consolidation process will then eventually divulge loops or inconsistencies in a
company’s CSR strategy (and the associated communication plan), thereby exposing any
eventual “green washing” or other instrumental use of CSR terminology. The subsequent
negative effects on the integrated communication plan should be sufficient to deter any
false or unattainable promises (“Versprechen”) introduced by a company (Blink, 2015).
Another important implication lies in the crucial need for organizations to
understand that they must be prepared to change their strategy. Corporate
communication strategies can change the traditional business of an organization;
moreover, using the Web or any social media platform efficiently (to take advantage of
viral potential) will once again transform the organization. This change is crucial for
the organization, its employees and their commitment to CSR strategies. New behavior
is the key (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001). Here, we confront the necessity of analyzing with
suitable tools and associated metrics the anticipated effects of CSR communication
strategies on stakeholders. This topic requires a specific study; however, we can
already identify a series of perspectives to be investigated further. The most important
are associated with the identification of bridges between social media and content
management to be able to address as many different stakeholders as required for the
business of the company. Each social medium deserves its own criteria and specific
measurements, which must be adapted to its associated uses and practices. The second
aspect addresses the analysis of the internal consistency of the content used for all
these stakeholders to develop a consistent series of messages supplementing one
another and avoiding any feeling that the “promises” or claims of the CSR-related
strategy have been betrayed. A CSR communication plan contributes to the expansion
of trust between a brand and its consumers; there is a huge asymmetry between the
investment in time required for the expansion of trust and the tiny number of seconds
that could potentially destroy it if consumers feel that the company has played false or
engaged in a deceptive strategy. Relevant metrics should cover both the internal
consistency and the issue of trust.
Although our findings prove some valuable insights into CSR communications
strategies on social media, we acknowledge some limits. This study is based on only
four companies (from four different industries) and would profit from a larger base for
analysis. After validating the orientation and refining our hypotheses with the
abductive method and a comparative analysis with exploratory case studies, there is a
need now for a new research protocol with comprehensive statistical analysis. Second,
the content we analyzed was generated by the companies on their own social media;
it would profit from the inclusion of external data. Third, a qualitative investigation CSR
strategy should be implemented to confirm the current data investigation with targeted communications
interviews and strategy surveys. More precisely, as noted in the results and discussion
sections, the study reveals that even with similar characteristics in communication,
strategies
firms have different perceptions and evaluations of e-reputation. It could be relevant to
develop our perspective further in studying the effects/merits of obtaining a greater
e-reputation to focus on the customers’ perception. Focus variables might be greater 383
engagement or satisfaction, for example. No study has investigated this link thus far;
available research focusses on the effect of social media communication on the firms’
reputation (e.g. Floreddu et al., 2014) or on the commitment within social media
platforms (Brodie et al., 2013). A last perspective for further development is associated
with the variety of digital channels investigated. This study only used two digital
channels as content providers for Leximancer, although these were the channels with
the greater volume of data/content. It would be useful to compare more channels in a
next step. Forthcoming field research should also include more companies from
different sectors and compare brands with different histories or ages (historic vs
emerging companies or historic vs emerging markets).

References
Acquier, A. and Aggeri, F. (2008), “Une généalogie de la pensée managériale sur la RSE”, Revue
Française de Gestion, Vol. 11 No. 180, pp. 131-157.
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012), “What we know and don’t know about corporate social
reponssiblity: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 932-968.
Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L. and Benn, S. (2010), “Leadership styles and CSR practice: an
examination of sense making, institutional drivers and CSR leadership”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 189-213.
Arshad, R., Othman, S. and Othman, R. (2012), “Islamic corporate social responsibility, corporate
reputation and performance”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1070-1074.
Atakan-Duman, S. and Ozdora-Aksak, E. (2014), “The role of corporate social responsibility in
online identity construction: an analysis of Turkey’s banking sector”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 862-864.
Balmer, J.M. and Gray, R.E. (2000), “Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a
competitive advantage”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 256-262.
Beckman, T., Colwell, A. and Cunningham, P.H. (2009), “The emergence of corporate social
responsibility in Chile: the importance of authenticity and social networks”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 86, pp. 191-206.
Blink, A. (2015), “Corporate responsibility als Versprechen: Empirische Ergebnisse sur Stärkung
einer neuen versprechenbasierten Theorie des Unternehmens”, in Maring, M. (Ed.), Vom
Praktisch-Werden der Ethik in interdisciplinärer Sicht: Ansätze and Beispiele der
Institutionalisierung, Konkretisierung und Implementierung der Ethik, Chapter 6, Vol. 7,
ZTWE, KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe, pp. 105-134.
BNP Paribas (2013), available at: www.secure.bnpparibas.net/banque/portail/particulier/
HomePage?type¼site
Bowen, H.R. (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Boyd, B.K., Bergh, D.D. and Ketchen, D.J. (2010), “Reconsidering the reputation-performance
relationship: a resource-based view”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 588-609.
MD Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,
54,2 pp. 105-114.
Brousseau, J., Chiagouris, L. and Fernandez Brusseau, R. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility:
to yourself be true”, Journal of Global Business and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-63.
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the product: corporate associations and
384 consumer product responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D.A. (2006), “Identity, intended image,
constructed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested
terminology”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106.
Campbell, C., Pitt, L.F., Parent, M. and Berthon, P.R. (2011), “Understanding consumer
conversations around ads in a Web 2.0 World”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 87-102.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral
management of organisational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 39-47.
Carroll, C.E. and McCombs, M.E. (2003), “Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s
images and opinions about major corporations”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 36-46.
Castellano, S. and Dutot, V. (2013), “Une analyse de l’e-réputation par analogie ou contraste
avec la réputation: une approche par les medias sociaux”, Revue française du Marketing,
Vol. 243 Nos 4/5, pp. 35-51.
Castelló, A. and Ros, V. (2012), “CRS communication through online social media”, Revista Latina
de Comunicaciòn Social, Vol. 67, pp. 47-67.
Chun, R. (2004), “The e-Reputation mix: building and protecting retailer brands online”, European
Retail Digest, Vol. 41, pp. 1-4.
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2001), “e-Reputation: the role of mission and vision statements in
positioning strategy”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8 Nos 4/5, pp. 315-333.
Clarkson, M.E. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance”, Academy Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Cohen, J., Hodler-Webb, L. and Nath, L. (2011), “Retail investors’ perceptions of the decision-usefulness
and economic performance, governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures”,
Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 109-129.
Crofts, K. and Bisman, J. (2010), “Interrogating accountability: an illustration of the use of
Leximancer software for qualitative data analysis”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 180-207.
Dann, S. (2010), “Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial marketing
definitions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 147-153.
Danone Corporation (2013), available at: www.danone.com/en/company/introduction.html
Davis, K. (1960), “Can business afford to ignore social corporate responsibility?”, California
Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 70-76.
De Salas Nestares, M.I. (2010), La estrategia de comunicación basada en valores ecológicos como
instrumento de la RSC, Dykinson, Madrid.
Divol, R., Edelman, D. and Sarrazin, H. (2012), Demystifying Social Media, 2nd ed., McKinsey
Quarterly.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
evidence and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Dowling, G.R. (2004), “Corporate reputations: should you compete on yours?”, California CSR
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 19-36.
communications
Duncan, T.R. and Everett, S. (1993), “Client perceptions of integrated marketing strategies
communications”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 30-39.
Dutot, V. (2013), “A new strategy for customer engagement: how do French firms use social
CRM?”, International Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 54-67.
Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (2006), “Building corporate associations: consumer 385
attributions for corporate social responsibility programs”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-157.
Fauzi, H. (2009), “Corporate social and financial performance: empirical evidence from American
companies”, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract¼1489494
Flammer, C. (2013), “Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance?
A regression discontinuity approach”, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2146282
Floreddu, P.B., Cabiddu, F. and Evaristo, R. (2014), “Inside your social media ring: how to
optimize online corporate reputation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 737-745.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value From the Corporate Image, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-258.
Frochot, D. and Molinaro, F. (2008), “Livre blanc sur l’e-réputation”, Les infostratèges, available
at: www.les-infostrateges.com
Fylkelnes, T.K. (2006), “Abducing abduction”, Logic Journal of the IGPL: Abduction, Practical
Reasoning, and Creative Inferences in Science, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 179-188.
Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility theories mapping the territory”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-71.
Giannarakis, G., Sariannidis, N. and Litinas, N. (2011), “An analysis of corporate social
responsibility in the greek telecommunications sector”, Global Business & Organizational
Excellence, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 40-49.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), Discovery of Grounded Theory, Strategy for Qualitative
Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Gotsi, M. and Wilson, A. (2001), “Corporate reputation management: ‘living the brand’”,
Management Decision, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 99-104.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review
and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.
Griffin, J.J. and Mahon, J.F. (1997), “The corporate social performance and corporate financial
performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research”, Business and Society,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Hasen Thuhin, M. (2014), “Does corporate social responsibility expenditure affect financial
performance of Islamic banks in Bangladesh”, Middle East Journal of Business, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 44-50.
Ho, C.-W. (2014), “Consumer behavior on Facebook : does consumer participation bring positive
consumer evaluation of the brand?”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 252-267.
Igalens, J. and Gond, J.P. (2003), “La mesure de la performance sociale de l’entreprise: une analyse
critique et empirique des données arese”, Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines,
Vol. 50, pp. 111-130.
MD Jones, B. (2009), “Corporate reputation in the era of Web 2.0: the case of primark”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 927-939.
54,2
Kim, S. and Rader, S. (2010), “What do they can do versus how much they care, assessing
corporate communication strategies on Fortune 500 web sites”, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-80.
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C. and Mitrook, M. (2007), “Understanding influence on corporate reputation:
386 an examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial
performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective”, Journal of Public
Relations Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 147-165.
Kweh, Q.L., Lu, W.-M., Azizan, N.A. and Wang, W.-K. (2014), “The S in corporate social
responsbility and performance of the US telecommunications industry”, Knowledge &
Process Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 151-158.
Lee, S.Y. and Carroll, C.E. (2011), “The emergence, variation, and evolution of corporate social
responsibility in the public sphere, 1980-2004: the exposure of firms to public debate”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 115-131.
Lichy, J. and Kachour, M. (2014), “Understanding the culture of young internets users in a rapidly
changing society”, International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Liedtka, J. (2008), “Strategy making and the search for authenticity”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 237-248.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Dias Sardinha, I.M. and Reijnders, L. (2012), “The effect of corporate social
responsibility on consumer satisfaction and perceived value: the case of the automobile
industry sector in Portugal”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 37, December, pp. 172-178.
Lyon, T.P. and Montgomery, A.W. (2013), “Tweetjacked: the impact of social media on corporate
greenwash”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 747-757.
McShance, L. and Cunningham, P. (2012), “To thine own self be true? Employee judgements of the
authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 81-100.
Madinabeitia, E. (2010), “La publicidad en medios interactivos. En busca de nuevas estrategias”,
available at: http://sociedadinformacion.fundacion.telefonica.com/seccion¼1268&idioma¼
es_ES&id2010020211580001&activo¼6.do
Mallin, C., Farag, H. and Ow-Yong, K. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance in Islamic banks”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 103,
Supplement, pp. 21-38.
Mathies, C. and Burford, M. (2011), “Customer service understanding: gender differences of
frontline employees”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 636-648.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
2nd expanded ed., Sage, London.
Milne, M. and Adler, R. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental
disclosure content analysis”, Accounting, auditing, & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 237-256.
Nair, M. (2011), “Understanding and measuring the value of social media”, The Journal of
Corporate Accounting & Finance, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 45-51.
Niiniluoto, I. (1999), “Defending abduction”, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 66, pp. S436-S451.
O’Leary, D.E. (2011), “The use of social media in the supply chain: survey and extensions”,
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 121-144.
Orange Corporation (2013), available at: www.orange.com
Paquerot, M., Queffelec, A., Sueur, I. and Biot-Paquerot, G. (2011), “L’e-réputation ou le CSR
renforcement de la gouvernance par le marché de l’hôtellerie?”, Revue Management et
Avenir, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 294-331.
communications
strategies
Pfarrer, M.D., Pollock, T.G. and Rindova, V.P. (2010), “A tale of two assets: the effects of firm
reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 1131-1152.
Pinillos, A. (2009), “RSC 2.0. Una herramienta de competitividad para el futuro”, available 387
at: http://sociedadinformacion.fundacion.telefonica.com/telos/cuadernograbar.asp@
idarticuo¼6&rev¼79.htm
Pomering, A. and Jonhson, L. (2009), “Constructing a corporate social responsibility reputation
using corporate image advertising”, Australian Marketing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 106-114.
Posnikoff, J.F. (1997), “Disinvestment from South Africa: they did well by doing good”,
Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 76-86.
Prieto, L.C., Phipps, S.T.A. and Addae, I.Y. (2014), “Is Wal-Mart a social enterprise? An
exploration of the relationship between corporate reputation, corporate social
responsibility & financial performance”, Academic of Strategy Management Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 51.
Proulx, S., Millette, M. and Heaton, L. (2012), Media sociaux enjeux pour la communication, édition
Presses de l’université du Québec.
Renault Corporation (2013), available at: www.renault.com/en/pages/home.aspx
Rindova, V.P., Williamson, I.O., Petkova, A.P. and Sever, J.M. (2005), “Being good or being known:
an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
organizational reputation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1033-1049.
Roberts, P.W. and Dowling, G.R. (2002), “Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1077-1093.
Rolland, D. and Bazzoni, J.O.’K. (2009), “Greening corporate identity: CSR online corporate identity
reporting”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 249-263.
Safi, A. and Ramay, M.I. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility and consumer behavior: a study
from Pakistan”, International Management and Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 194-202.
Schramm-Klein, H., Morschett, D. and Swoboda, B. (2015), “Retailer corporate social
responsibility”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43
Nos 4/5, pp. 403-431.
Sheinin, D.A. and Biehal, G.J. (1999), “Corporate advertising pass-through onto the brand: some
experimental evidence”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 10, February, pp. 63-74.
Simoes, C., Dibb, S. and Fisk, R. (2005), “Managing corporate identity: an internal perspective”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 153-158.
Śmigielska, G. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility of European retail chains in Poland”,
Review of International Comparative Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 127-137.
Smith, A.E. (2006), “Concept-based mining to enhance the scope and speed of archival qualitative
research”, paper presented at the Australian Consortium for Social and Political Research
Incorporated (ACSPRI) Social Science Methodology Conference, Sydney, December 10-13.
Smith, A.E. and Humphreys, M.S. (2006), “Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of
natural language with Leximancer concept mapping”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 262-279.
Stenger, T. (2014), “Social media and online reputation management as practice: first steps
towards social CRM?”, International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 49-64.
MD Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
54,2 Teoh, S.H., Welch, I. and Wazzan, C.P. (1999), “The effect of socially activist investment policies
on the financial markets: evidence from the South African boycott”, Journal of Business,
Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 35-89.
Thomas, G. (2010), “Doing case study: abduction not induction, phronesis not theory”, Qualitative
inquiry, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 575-582.
388 Thorne, D.M., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2011), Business and Society: A Strategic Approach to
Social Responsibility, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Vernuccio, M. (2014), “Communicating corporate brands through social media: an exploratory
study”, International Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 211-233.
Villafañe, J. (2009), “Reputación corporativa y RSC. Bases empíricas para un análisis”, available
at: http://sociedadinformacion.fundacion.telefonica.com/telos/cuadernograbar.asp@
idarticulo ¼ 3&rev ¼ 79.htm
Wang, W.-K., Lu, W.-M., Kweh, Q.L. and Lai, H.-W. (2014), “Does corporate social responsibility
influence the corporate performance of the US telecommunications industry?”,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 580-591.
Waters, R., Burnett, E., Lammb, A. and Lucas, J. (2009), “Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 102-106.
Weman, E. (2011), “Consumer motivations to join a brand community on Facebook”, doctoral
dissertation, Haken School of Economics, Helsinki.
Werther, W.B. Jr and Chandler, D. (2006), Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wright, P. and Ferris, S. (1997), “Agency conflict and corporate strategy: the effect of divestment
on corporate value”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-83.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zinkhan, G.M., Ganesh, J., Jaju, A. and Hayes, L. (2001), “Corporate image: a conceptual
framework for strategic planning”, AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings,
Vol. 12, pp. 152-161.

Web references
BNP Paribas, available at: www.bnpparibas.com/en/news/press-release/bnp-paribas-group-
results-31-december-2013
Danone, available at: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/95/95168/press/20022014_
Danone_2013_Results_ENG.pdf
Market, available at: https://acpr.banque-france.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/acp/publications/
analyses-syntheses/201405-Situation-grands-groupes-bancaires-francais-fin-2013.pdf
Market, available at: www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/marc-an2013/obs-annuel-2013-
def-080115.pdf
Market, available at: www.challenges.fr/entreprise/20140102.CHA8835/le-marche-automobile-
francais-a-recule-de-5-7-en-2013.html
Market, available at: www.usinenouvelle.com/article/l-agroalimentaire-francais-en-berne-en-2013.
N254955
Orange, available at: www.zonebourse.com/ORANGE-SA-4649/pdf/422587/ORANGE%20SA_
Rapport-financier.pdf
Renault, available at: http://group.renault.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/rapport-annuel-2013-
en.pdf
Further reading CSR
Balmer, J.M.T. (2006), “Comprehending corporate marketing and the corporate marketing mix”, communications
working paper, Bradford School of Management, Bradford.
strategies
Hsu, K. (2012), “The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation
and brand equity: evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 189-201.
Laufer, W. (2003), “Social accountability and greenwashing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43 389
No. 3, pp. 253-261.
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweis, T. (1988), “Corporate social responsibility and firm
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 854-872.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and society. The link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12,
pp. 78-91.
Social Mention (2013), available at: http://socialmention.com/faq#1
Vallens, A. (2008), “The importance of reputation”, Risk Management, April, pp. 36-43.
Walton, C.C. (1996), Corporate Social Responsibilities, Wadsworth, CA.
Wang, A. (2007), “Priming, framing, and position on corporate social responsibility”, Journal of
Public Relations Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 123-145.
Wang, A. (2009), “Perceptions of corporate social responsibility practices on mobile phone
companies”, International Journal of Mobile Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-68.

About the authors

Vincent Dutot is an Associate Professor and Co-Head of Chair D-Cube at the ESG Management
School, Paris, France. He holds a PhD from the Laval University (Québec). His areas of research
are in social media, IT strategy, strategic alignment of information technology, electronic
commerce and knowledge diffusion. He also worked as an IT consultant for SME, government
and in private sector for almost ten years. Vincent is the author of 10+ articles published in
scientific journals and books, 15+ communications to academic conferences, 20+
communications in professional journals and four guest editorships for CNRS journals.
Vincent Dutot is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: v.dutot@psbedu.paris.fr
Eva Lacalle Galvez is an Account Manager SEM at the Keyade (France). She holds a MBA in
e-business from MBA ESG as well as a Master of Communication program at the Business School
of the University of Queensland.
David W. Versailles, an Economist (Dr 1998; Hab 2008), joined ESG Management School in
September 2013 as a Professor in Strategic Management after more than 20 years experience
in universities, in the French Ministry of Defense, and in consulting firms. David has specialized
in the aeronautics and defense domains for more than 15 years now. He is the author of
25+ articles in scientific journals and books, 50+ contributions at academic conferences,
20+ invited conferences, one book and two guest editorships for CNRS journals.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.