In our last post, “1. Communicating corporate responsibility: three ways”, we provided an overview of three main ways of approaching the riddle wrapped in an enigma that is communicating corporate responsibility. Let’s now take a closer look at the first one.
Most corporations acknowledge that their social and environmental responsibility will be judged according to the contemporary moral landscape. Some of them approach communication with the intention of signalling compliance with shared norms and expectations.
Communication on corporate social responsibility is often adopted as a means to gain social acceptance, or appear legitimate. For example, organisations that have a negative environmental performance may choose to report on their charitable contributions.
This is not to suggest that all businesses engage in corporate social responsibility as a manipulative exercise. Many genuinely care, act affirmatively and report accordingly. Or communicate about changes that have been made within the company because they have embraced and responded to shifts in expectations.
Nonetheless, motivation is a slippery subject and raises ethical questions as to why an organisation is engaging in communicating about corporate responsibility.
There are evident implications for credibility when, rightly or wrongly, the audience may interpret communication as window dressing or greenwashing.
In our next post, “3. Corporate responsibility as strategic activity”, we will examine the idea of corporate responsibility, including its communication, as strategic business activity.
