Communication of CSR

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Definition of CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility is a concept that first appeared in the latter half of the 20th century in the United States of America (Crane, Matten 2010). By the time of the arrival of Corporate Social Responsibility, both corporations and society had developed an opinion where corporations should have responsibilities towards society in addition to their already financial obligations, like taxes. However, no matter how wide this opinion that later turned into a general demand spread the lack of a clear definition of CSR remained. Many researchers and experts in the field have tried to catch the essential meaning of CSR by constructing numerous definitions but yet the concept is perceived in as many different ways. Dahlsrud (2008) has made extensive research in this particular area. He conducted research on 37 different definitions of corporate social responsibility from a time period of twenty years.

Types of CSR

Just as we have explained in the previous paragraphs, the definitions of CSR as well as the benefits of incorporating a Corporate Social Responsibility program in ones company are many. Just as there are many different definitions and benefits of CSR there are different types of Corporate Social Responsibility. When one speaks of CSR there are both internal CSR activities as well as external CSR activities. Internal CSR activities are actions related to questions about human resource management, in other words questions that concern the employees at the company (Hidayati, 2011). Moreover, internal CSR activities are often out of sight for consumers, which is why we have chosen to focus on the external activities of Corporate Social Responsibility. External CSR activities are related to Corporate Social Responsibility concerning stakeholders like investors, the local community, suppliers and consumers, and so on (Hidayati, 2011).

Corporate Philanthropy

Corporate philanthropy is a concept created to allow companies to give back to society by setting up charity programs themselves or donating money to, for example, charities or non-profit organizations (Frost, 2015). An example of a company that has been extremely charitable is the Coca-Cola Company who has set up a program they call the Replenish Africa Initiative (RAIN). It is a program that the Coca-Cola Company has committed $30 million in to, together with NGO’s and governments, address water issues in communities by focusing on areas like sanitation and hygiene. The RAIN initiative is also focusing on enhancing sustainable water management practices as well as promoting efficient and sustainable use of water for economic development (Coca-Cola Company CSR).

Consumers as Stakeholders

In this thesis we are going to focus on the consumer segment of stakeholders, considering the fact that they are particularly susceptible to Corporate Social Responsibility and the communication of it. In addition to that, if CSR is communicated properly, corporations have a better chance of reaping the benefits of their engagement in socially responsible activities. For example, Bhattacharya (2010) presented the results from a survey conducted in 2007, which showed that as many as 87 % of the consumers in the United States of America would be willing to switch to another brand or product if it became evident that the company behind that brand or product took their Corporate Social Responsibility seriously. The same survey also showed that consumers would almost be just as willing to abandon a brand or product if they were to find out that the company behind that brand or product did not engage in any socially responsible activities. What this survey tells us is that consumers are extremely rewarding if companies engage in Corporate Social Responsibility as well as they are extremely punishing towards companies who are not socially responsible.

Cause Fit Communication

As a result of the poor understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility amongst managers, who looked at CSR as merely a cost and charitable deed that they found hard to justify, Porter & Kramer (2006) suggested that companies should approach Corporate Social Responsibility in the same way that they approach their core business choices. This has developed into a concept that is now popularly referred to as core business alignment of Corporate Social Responsibility. What this concept really suggests is a more strategic and accounted for sort of Corporate Social Responsibility where the activities companies engage in are connected to the corporation’s core competencies. To phrase this in a more understandable way McElhaney (2009) suggested that companies should choose social causes to support to which they can be part of the solution.

Table of Contents :

• 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Problem Statement
  • 1.3 Purpose
  • 1.4 Delimitations
  • 1.5 Outline of the thesis
• 2 Frame of Reference
  • 2.1 Definition of CSR
  • 2.2 Types of CSR
    • 2.2.1 Corporate Philanthropy
    • 2.2.2 Cause Related Marketing
  • 2.3 Stakeholders
    • 2.3.2 Consumers as Stakeholders
    • 2.3.2.1 Consumer Skepticism
  • 2.4 Communication of CSR
    • 2.4.1 Cause Fit Communication
    • 2.4.2 Cause Commitment Communication

• 3 Method & Methodology
  • 3.1 Research Philosophy
  • 3.2 Research Approach
  • 3.3 Research Purpose
  • 3.4 Research Method
  • 3.5 Data Collection
    • 3.5.1 Literature Review
    • 3.5.2 Survey
  • 3.6 Sampling Design
    • 3.6.1 Sample Size
  • 3.7 Constructing the Survey
    • 3.7.1 Creating Fictional Companies
    • 3.7.2 Sections of the Survey
      • 3.7.2.1 Gender & Age
      • 3.7.2.2 Cause Fit Communication on CRM
      • 3.7.2.3 Cause Commitment Communication on CRM
      • 3.7.2.4 Cause Fit Communication on Corporate Philanthropy
      • 3.7.2.5 Cause Commitment Communication on Corporate Philanthropy
• 3.8 Data Analysis
  • 3.8.1 Google Docs
  • 3.8.2 Percentages
  • 3.8.3 Frequency distribution
  • 3.8.4 Cross Tabulations
• 3.9 Research validity
• 4 Empirical Findings
  • 4.1 Section I
    • 4.1.1 Statement
    • 4.1.2 Statement
    • 4.1.3 Statement
  • 4.2 Section
    • 4.2.1 Statement
    • 4.2.2 Statement
    • 4.2.3 Statement
  • 4.3 Section
    • 4.3.1 Statement
    • 4.3.2 Statement
    • 4.3.3 Statement
  • 4.4 Section
    • 4.4.1 Statement
    • 4.4.2 Statement
    • 4.4.3 Statement
• 5 Analysis
  • 5.1 Gender- & Age Distribution
  • 5.2 Analysisof Cause Fit Communication
    • 5.2.1 Consumer Perception of CFC on CRM
    • 5.2.1.1 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.2.1.2 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.2.1.3 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.2.1.4 Thoughts of CFC on CRM
    • 5.2.2 Consumer Perception of CFC on Corporate Philanthropy
    • 5.2.2.1 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.2.2.2 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.2.2.3 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.2.2.4 Thoughts of CFC on Corporate Philanthropy
  • 5.3 Analysis of Cause Commitment Communication
    • 5.3.1 Consumer Perceptions of CMM on CRM
    • 5.3.1.1 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.3.1.2 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.3.1.3 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.3.1.4 Thoughts of CMM on CRM
    • 5.3.2 Consumer Perceptions of CMM on Corporate Philanthropy
    • 5.3.2.1 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.3.2.2 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.3.2.3 Analysis of Statement
    • 5.3.2.4 Thoughts of CMM on Corporate Philanthropy
• 6 Conclusion
• 7 Discussion
  • 7.1 Guidelines for Cause Fit Communication
  • 7.2 Guidelines for Cause Commitment Communication
• 8 Suggestions for Further Research
  • References

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Reducing Consumer Skepticism when Communicating CSR