Abstract
This case study explores corporate social responsibility (CSR) through the perspective of communication professionals at a large financial services firm. These employees rely on both external communication through formal reporting as well as informal internal communication to understand CSR activities, and tend to describe CSR by what it means within their organization. We find that communication employees perceive that CSR is obligatory, rarely questioned or explained, labeled as “voluntold,” and mainly employed for good press due to its philanthropic focus. We offer theoretical and practical implications that center on making CSR operational, not additive, and ideas for educators teaching CSR.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is at the forefront of corporate efforts to be viewed as accountable, responsible, and ethical by stakeholder groups and society at large. CSR includes the actions taken by organizations that go beyond business interests to further social good (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). CSR encourages companies to make a positive impact on their environment, marketplace, communities, stakeholders, and investors, while taking responsibility for corporate actions.
As the demand for CSR by stakeholders has increased, more companies have begun implementing these efforts into their business agendas, and scholarship continues to burgeon. While CSR is studied in various disciplines and widely influenced by scholars dating back to the 1930s and 1940s, the concept has only recently become a popular topic in communication research (Fyke et al., 2016). Typically, the focus of CSR is external, as studies have analyzed the outward communication efforts from the perspectives of marketing, public relations (PR), and issues management (Fyke et al., 2016). While emerging literature (e.g.,Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014;Haski-Leventhal, 2012;Mory et al., 2016) has begun exploring the internal dimension of CSR, what has still been largely neglected is the key internal stakeholder: employees. Specifically,May (2011)argued that scholars lack an incredibly important perspective on CSR—the insider’s view.
The employee perspective is critical not only in terms of ensuring that employees understand CSR and how it affects their work but also because, taking a step back, college graduates are increasingly looking to be part of companies that do well by doing good. Current research confirms that prospective employees, most notably millennials, expect to find meaningful work (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010) and are often attracted to a potential employer’s CSR reputation and dedication (seeNg et al., 2010).
Using interviews with several communication employees at a large financial services company, this case study takes an insider’s view of CSR by analyzing how these efforts are communicated to employees internally, and how these communication professionals view them as a result. We integrate organization sensemaking as a theoretical framework to explore how this stakeholder group understands CSR generally, how they make sense of it within their company, and how it is made meaningful to them in their work. In the end, we offer implications not only for companies looking to engage employees in CSR efforts but also for educators responsible for teaching CSR.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Viewpoints and Audiences
CSR fundamentally provides companies a way to consider their impact on the world beyond profitability. However, the question around what is the proper role of businesses in society (Fyke et al., 2016) remains, while CSR has become a dominant paradigm in which this relationship is negotiated (Carroll et al., 2012;Frederick, 2006). CSR can be defined as “the responsibility of a company for the totality of its impact, with a need to embed society’s values into its core operations as well as into its treatment of its social and physical environment” (May et al., 2007, p. 30).
One of the primary drivers behind engaging in CSR activities includes responsiveness to stakeholder influence. Typically, one core assumption of CSR is that engaging in socially responsible activities will “improve businesses’ image and reputation which, in turn, strengthens their legitimacy” (Fyke et al., 2016, p. 224). While this remains true, more recently, CSR has also been recognized as instrumental in talent attraction and retention and, in some cases, a way to improve an organization’s employee competencies (Fyke et al., 2016). Scholars in various fields recognize that companies need to address societal values, and that these are dynamic. For instance, a recent study bySmith (2017)revealed an interesting shift in CSR-related terminology featured on the websites ofFortune500 companies from 2011 to 2017. Terms with widespread use in 2011 as CSR headings such ashealth and wellness, community, andenvironmenthave been replaced by terms such assupply chain, volunteer involvement, andtraining and development. The largest decrease in usage was health and wellness (down 21%), while the largest increase was supply chain (up 50%). So, while content directed externally indicates that companies can and do often shift to reflect changing values, companies also need to ensure their employees are engaged in CSR efforts. Accordingly, although CSR theory and practice have traditionally focused on external stakeholders, the mirror is beginning to turn around to see how CSR affects employees.
Corporate Social Responsibility Internally
Recent research has drawn criticism for primarily investigating the viewpoints of external stakeholders (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014) without taking into account one of the most (if notthemost) important stakeholder groups, employees. According toChen and Hung-Baesecke (2014), there has been too much focus on outcomes, rather than processes, and external audiences, rather than internal targets, making CSR within an organization appear to be “a formality requested externally rather than a virtue rooted internally” (p. 211).
Bhattacharya et al. (2008)have argued that CSR programs are extremely effective when the company is the enabler and the employees are the actual enactors. Other researchers, such asChen and Hung-Baesecke (2014), have identified motivational factors for employee engagement and participation in CSR activities, broken down into activity, organizational, and personal levels. With CSRactivities, engagement is generated when CSR is perceived as (a) being in line with corporate culture (Lee et al., 2013), (b) having a link to the corporate purpose or mission (Sagawa & Segal, 2000), and (c) being jointly created by employees (Dobson, 2011). A feworganizationaldrivers include (a) effective internal communication about CSR efforts specifically that includes a genuine message (Mamantov, 2009); (b) proof of participation by the organization itself, perhaps in the form of corporate giving and other macrolevel engagement (Haski-Leventhal, 2012); and (c) support from leadership (The Giving Campaign, 2009).Personalmotivation factors for employee participation in CSR can include the following: “positively perceived organizational commitment and attitude toward CSR” (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014, p. 212), as well as “fewer perceived barriers to participate (Haski-Leventhal, 2012)” (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014, p. 212).
Evident in these motivational factors, and germane to the present study, is the importance of employee sensemaking and understanding of CSR. Particularly for those tasked with communicating organizational CSR efforts and enabling how these activities are meant to be understood by others, it is important to understand the motivation behind these individuals’ engagement with and attitude toward CSR. In turn, although existing research (Kim et al., 2010) has focused on employees’ perceptions of CSR and how CSR initiatives may affect employee-company identification, the understanding or sensemaking of, and support for, CSR by employees remains unclear. Key to understanding CSR from employees’ perspectives is to understand their sensemaking about these initiatives, primarily through internal messages that are communicated regarding CSR.
Organizational Communication and Sensemaking
Few communication-based reviews of CSR have been developed, relative to other perspectives (e.g., management and leadership, PR), even though it is an increasingly popular area of research for scholars in the field and critics of organizations have had long-standing interest in issues of social responsibility and ethics (May & Roper, 2014). Organizational communication is a natural home for CSR research with an internal focus because organizational communication has a long-standing interest in employee communication and experience internally. An organizational communication approach, especially through the lens of sensemaking, provides an avenue for analyzing dialogue of CSR (May, 2011) within an organization.
Understanding the internal dynamic of CSR from the employee perspective requires an exploration of how CSR is communicated, talked about, made meaningful, and understood by communication professionals inside the organization. Therefore, sensemaking helps take the insider’s view, advocated for byMay (2011).Weick (1995)noted that organizations are “social systems where the collective creation of shared meanings socializes participants” (as cited inCollier & Esteban, 2007, p. 27). Organizations have their own languages and symbols that have important effects on sensemaking. In other words, how messages are communicated, both visually and nonvisually, affects the way stakeholders understand processes, events, goals, and so forth within their organizations. Employees attach meaning to things within their organization through sensemaking as part of a constant, reflexive process.
Sensemaking is appropriate for exploring the internal dynamic of CSR because it examines how these activities become meaningful for employees inside the organization. Whereas previous studies have focused on the content and outcomes (e.g., external reports) of CSR communication, the sensemaking of CSR by internal audiences is critical to understanding how CSR is processed, understood, and talked about within an organizational setting. Sensemaking involves “placing stimuli into some kind of framework” (Weick, 1995, p. 4), allowing employees to comprehend, understand, explain, predict, and make connections. For example, initiatives that an organization takes on, perhaps in terms of philanthropic efforts, may serve as a type of CSR framework that audience members refer to when making sense of these activities.
Organizations are complex, often hard to make sense of and understand, and are composed of equivocal concepts and activities. Equivocality refers to the existence of multiple interpretations of events, actions, processes, and so on. Communication reduces equivocality as organizations use internal messages directed at employees to eliminate a variety of meanings and make their environments more predictable. Importantly, sensemaking is an individual and collective activity. Employee sensemaking helps something come into being within an organization by attaching meaning, and then talking about it as interaction is a key part of the sensemaking process.Weick (1995)argued that sensemaking is inherently social, particularly in an organizational context. Specifically, members make sense of things in their organizations through conversing with others, reading and paying attention to communication messages from others, and exchanging ideas (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). In other words, sensemaking begins with the individual sensemaker, but as meanings materialize in an organization, it becomes a collective action. Therefore, communication professionals charged with communicating CSR help make sense of these activities for others in the organization.
Summary and Research Questions
To date, most research focuses on external issues and does not seek to understand CSR from an employee’s viewpoint. This study seeks to fill this void by examining communication employees’ views and understanding of CSR. A sensemaking perspective is particularly salient when seeking to take employee understanding into account because it allows for a consideration of how employees attach meaning to CSR efforts. Therefore, we pose two research questions:
Method
To examine employee sensemaking around CSR, we present a case study utilizing a combination of qualitative and rhetorical methods: interviews with employees and rhetorical analysis of company documents written by employees. Investment Group (IG) is a financial services firm located in the Midwestern United States. IG is a large company with approximately 7,500 employees nationwide as of late 2017 and provides a number of services including wealth and asset income protection, education planning, investment advising, and retirement planning, among others.
The research used multiple methods concurrently—both interviewing and rhetorical analysis. Seven employees from IG’s strategic philanthropy and communication teams were interviewed (seeTable 1). As reported by employees, these two departments work closely together in the implementation and communication of CSR-specific efforts at IG. To understand how employees talk about and make sense of CSR in their organization, we used semistructured, open-ended interviews. Prior to securing the interviews, we secured approval from the institutional review board (IRB). Participant comments were reproduced by permission. Interviews ranged from 32 to 62 minutes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, with participant names masked with pseudonyms, resulting in approximately 70 single-spaced pages and 2,583 lines of text. Although we examined a relatively small sample size, we believe that as a case study it contributes a localized, situated, and explanatory exploration of CSR as understood by a specific population of communication professionals, regardless of the “small N” (seeSteinmetz, 2004, p. 372).
Participant Profile.
Early on in data collection, several employees interviewed referenced, and suggested we reference, IG’s annual report and corporate citizenship report, suggesting these were key documents in employees’ sensemaking of CSR efforts. Incorporating rhetorical methods allowed for a more robust and complete study of IG’s CSR communication efforts. Indeed,May (2011)has called for research that can simultaneously “explore the integration, or lack thereof, between CSR communication that is externally and internally focused” (p. 102). These documents were accessed through the website and the company’s character/community and annual reports, as referred to by individuals during interviews. In all, we analyzed approximately 73 total pages of rhetorical artifacts for this case study.
According to IRB approval, we were able to reproduce participant comments through direct quotation. The aforementioned documents were both publicly accessible or provided directly from participants during one-on-one interviews. While our rhetorical analysis came from publicly available sources, explicitly naming and listing these documents would be a violation of IRB conditions, as this would inevitably expose the organization we used as a case and therefore could threaten exposure of participants.
Results
Research Question 1: How Is CSR Communicated by and to Employees?
As noted above, employees consistently referenced written documents—specifically, the corporate citizenship report, annual report, and company website—as important to understanding CSR at IG. While primarily external forms of communication, each may influence internal stakeholders as well, and indeed appeared to do so based on the number of mentions by employees. Externally, IG relies on communicating its CSR efforts through formal reports. Internally, the company relies on conversation, signage, internal channels, and stories.
Corporate Citizenship Report
The 2014 report begins by stating that, as a financial security company, “we feel fortunate that the work we do every single day builds stronger and better communities.” This use of “we,” referring to a feeling of oneness the employees and executives feel at IG, is used throughout the entire report, particularly when referring to the business and CSR priorities of the organization. This is a clear example of identity rhetoric using the transcendent or assumed “we,” (Burke, 1984;Cheney, 1983) in which rhetors create a sense that all audience members are important and share the views of the organization.
Through the use of images and statistics, the content of the next several pages highlights that IG’s dedication to building financially sustainable families is a cyclical effect—ultimately benefiting the company and community at large. This dedication to local communities with an emphasis on building financially stable families is connected to IG’s values, as expressed by all employees in the interviews. However, when asked what IG as a company values and prioritizes, one employee, Wendy, included the value of diversity and inclusion. However, this value was not included or expressed in any way in either the corporate citizenship or annual report.
The following sections of the corporate citizenship report include another two-page spread discussing IG’s commitment to its hometown. Here, three of IG’s four CSR focus areas are included and expanded on, including employee volunteering/donating, rebuilding local neighborhoods, and dedication to education. These three CSR initiatives align perfectly with those described by employees. Most pertinent to CSR in the corporate citizenship report was the last two-page spread on IG’s signature, national CSR platform: fighting childhood cancer. The page is entitled “we’re bringing hope to thousands of children and families through our national philanthropic program to fight childhood cancer.” The word “philanthropic” is used to describe the effort.
Annual Report
A company’s annual report is a comprehensive document reporting an organization’s activities, primarily financial, from the preceding year. By law, public companies in the United States are required to disclose only financial results (Singh, 2011). However, the majority of annual reports today are increasingly including social responsibility, corporate giving, and sustainable practices (Singh, 2011). IG’s 2014 report was not one of them. While incorporating company values and emphasizing company-client relationships, the main focus in the report was on business and financial outcomes. On the back of the report packet, a small reference to the corporate citizenship report was included with a short message stating, “learn about the good we do—for more examples of how we’re building stronger families and communities, see our new citizenship report.” Additionally, statistics on the success of IG’s national philanthropic program to fight childhood cancer since its inception were listed. The heading of this back cover states, “Strong Cause. Stronger Families”—once again connecting the CSR platform back to a fundamental company value.
Singh (2011)explained the current big push for nonfinancial reporting, particularly due to public demand for transparency, the rise of social media, and the current economic environment. Consequently, companies can “pick and choose if and how they share their charitable works, community involvement, commitment to diversity or environmental stewardship in their annual report” (Singh, 2011, para. 4). Companies beginning to include CSR in their reports may realize that this effective, transparent communication is key to engaging current and prospective shareholders while enhancing the company’s reputation and brand.
Corporate Website
IG’s corporate website includes CSR initiatives in an easy, accessible way. On various tabs, the site shares the company’s values, priorities, and commitments. Emphasis was put on the organization’s dedication to diversity and inclusion, which was rarely mentioned by employees in interviews and not referenced as one of IG’s core CSR focus areas. One tab titled “Our Community Impact” contains information strictly on IG’s CSR focuses: the company foundation, childhood cancer, education, investing in urban neighborhoods, making our hometown great, and employee volunteer work. Although the Our Community Impact tab is a bit difficult to locate, the information it contains on IG’s CSR initiatives is informative and emotionally appealing, while aligning with those activities described by employees.
In summary, the citizenship report, annual report, and website, although thought of as primarily externally focused, clearly comprise an important sensemaking vehicle for employees since they were often recommended. Internally, we found a combination of formal and informal channels through leadership and strategy talk, stories, and connecting to IG’s mission and values.
Through the “Halls and Walls.”
How CSR is enacted and understood can be explored by analyzing the various channels used to communicate it internally. Specifically, five of the seven employees interviewed are primarily responsible for creating and distributing communication messages focused on the company’s CSR initiatives. Of a communication department made up of approximately 100 individuals, four we interviewed were solely responsible for CSR communication—both internal and external. However, all seven employees gave consistent answers when asked the question “How is CSR communicated to you?” by discussing the use of internal corporate communication channels. Employees used the term “halls and walls” to explain how employees learn, understand, and know the company’s foundational values. This centers on the idea that CSR messages are constant, and employees often learn about such efforts both formally and informally through various media and/or conversations inside their company. Specifically, IG consistently uses the employee intranet, internal news releases, an internal news channel, and an internal social media channel. Furthermore, IG has other analog means such as posters and signs that showcase CSR activities, such as volunteer hours in a given quarter. For example, Rob explained how IG has used its internal social media to promote various “days of sharing” in which nonprofits are listed and employees are encouraged to vote, with the top organization receiving a large donation from the company—and the top five being awarded grants. According to Rob, this had been a successful first-time use of the channel for CSR-specific initiatives and actively involving internal audiences as a “great way for employees to feel engaged with the philanthropy of the company and what we are doing.”
All told, employees agreed that these means allow for a surround sound effect of sorts, a “constant, positive disturbance,” as one employee put it, that kept them aware and accountable. Indeed,Austin et al. (2006)argued that if employees are aware of the responsible practices and activities, like philanthropic efforts, of their employer, feelings of pride in the company and increased dedication to CSR efforts are formed.
Debbie was just one of the employees who expressed the importance of leaders or executives as champions for CSR, an idea often highlighted in extant CSR research.Maclagan (1999)argued that participative leadership in an organization can contribute to employee understanding of CSR. Therefore, top-down communication by executives contributes to the overall communicative structure and can be very effective at sharing CSR messages.
As described by employees, communication around a topic like CSR is done tactically through digital or nondigital communication channels, through leadership advocacy and messaging, and simply through constant conversation by employees to one another. What makes these messages engaging, however, is the use of stories that these professionals create.
Through Stories and Connecting to Values
IG attempts to communicate its CSR efforts through the use of storytelling.Gill (2015)argued that storytelling is an effective means of communicating internally with employees. Furthermore, he described the use of stories as a means to motivate people and create a message persuasive and meaningful enough to engage individuals. These comments connect toChen and Hung-Baesecke’s (2014)study on motivational factors for employee-CSR engagement. Specifically, the idea of employee pride relates to the personal motivational factor of a positively perceived organizational commitment to CSR. Additionally, the storytelling element relates to the organizational driver to employee CSR engagement of a genuine message communicated by the organization internally.
For Lydia, communicating values at IG is also most effective through storytelling. She considers the organization’s values “tribal” because they are not always communicated in writing. Similarly, CSR may be seen as tribal, a characteristic that is known but not always written down in every communication effort. As the leader of internal CSR messaging, Lydia highlighted the importance of connecting any communication back to IG’s values. So when asked how employees know what the values of the organization are, Lydia stated, We reference our mission statement that is etched on the lobby wall, but I think when we are working on communication planning I think the values are inherent in some of the messaging . . . it’s more a part of how we communicate something and we try to ladder it up to doing what’s right.
Boje (1991)argued that storytelling is an effective strategy for delivering communication that is both engaging and relevant internally, regardless of each employee’s individual role and personal background, as stories can resonate with one’s own experience. Interviews also revealed the importance of communicating a company’s CSR priorities and goals internally, while connecting to company values as a way for these efforts to resonate with current and prospective employees, as well as the public at large. Both Rob and Heather said IG creates a narrative around their philanthropy—including being visible about the number of hours employees have dedicated to volunteering, asking for participation in certain events, and getting employees to “feel good” about and “support” IG’s CSR. As Rob put it, “We actively work to make sure our employees know about our CSR stories . . . we know and we believe it increases employee engagement when employees feel pride in what their company is doing or giving back to.”
Rob said he believes that externally, it is important to tell the story in a very humanistic way and in a way of who is being impacted and affected, not just tell him a story of giving a certain amount of money because “x amount of dollars” out of context doesn’t mean a whole lot to people. [B]ut when you tell a story of a little girl for instance, [it creates an emotional connection]. That is a much more compelling way for employees to understand why this cause is so important.
Overall, connecting the values and mission of an organization to core CSR efforts reduces equivocality and aids sensemaking around different meanings of CSR, as employees understand the importance of these activities to the company. Research Question 2 explores how these communication professionals make sense of their organization’s CSR.
Research Question 2: How Do Communication Professionals Make Sense of CSR?
We found that although buying into CSR-related activities is not required necessarily as a condition of employment, employees are nonetheless pressured to buy in via the CSR tradition at IG. Additionally, we found that CSR is a consistent but positive “disturbance,” primarily about philanthropy, and although somewhat tied to and ingrained in company values, teeters the line between strategic and random.
Perception That CSR Participation Is “Voluntold.”
An interesting theme that emerged from employee interviews was the importance of a CSR tradition at IG. For the majority of employees, CSR within the company starts with IG’s primary value, but then extends to leadership support. As Rob put it, “I think we have buy-in of CSR all the way to the CEO’s office . . . our leaders are champions of the CSR work we are doing.” When asked how IG argues for the importance of CSR, one employee used the term “voluntold” to describe the feeling of employee participation and engagement in CSR. By definition, the word voluntold seems to suggest that although the activity is framed or conceptualized as voluntary, there is still a sense of expectation or obligation, and it is even somewhat forced from an operational standpoint. This employee continued by focusing strictly on how she believes employees view CSR in general at IG: I feel like for employees that have worked here for even just a few years, let alone the people who have been here for dozens of years, there’s this feeling that it is just something that is expected of you to participate in. But, for new employees who don’t feel that same level of expectation . . . you can be overwhelmed by it. Because you don’t have that same tradition.
Thus, it seems that employees, at some level, feel pressure to participate and buy into CSR activities, primarily volunteering, at their company, or they feel pressured by the sense of CSR tradition held by tenured employees. While employees expressed a feeling of “untold expectations” surrounding CSR at IG, only one employee, Debbie, referenced the company’s history in describing why IG takes on these initiatives and believes in the importance of CSR.
In general, responses illustrated an unclear understanding and connection between the importance of CSR within their company (i.e., how well it connects with IG’s values and its visibility/promotions) and the specific reason for pursuing those CSR activities. Debbie was the only employee interviewed to trace this argument back to the company’s history, while other employees credited a sense of expectation and tradition, or once again adhering to CSR’s alignment with IG’s values and mission. Since communication is a way to reduce equivocality in order to aid sensemaking processes, it would seem that effectively communicating the history and reason behind CSR at a company would be crucial. This would provide employees with meaning and purpose to help them make sense of CSR efforts.
Perception That CSR Is Philanthropic and for Good PR
Employees felt that CSR activities are primarily philanthropic and community based. Keeping in mind the terms employees associated with CSR—giving back, financial giving, volunteerism, corporate citizenship, philanthropy, generosity, and so on—CSR efforts at IG appear to be for good PR or image. When asked what CSR initiatives IG takes on, almost all employees responded by naming four or five focus areas: making its hometown a great destination for prospective employees and tourists, partnering with local school districts, working closely with local neighborhoods, promoting employee volunteerism, and curing childhood cancer. Undoubtedly, each of these focus areas is primarily philanthropic or community outreach based. In other words, there is an external element to them. The explanations of IG’s CSR efforts by employees suggest a strong philanthropic presence.
Additionally, one employee emphasized the benefit of communicating CSR activities in terms of reputation and press, while highlighting the company’s primary philanthropic effort: Especially when you look at Childhood Cancer, it’s the kind of CSR that weaves into everyone but it’s a problem that’s everywhere. So regionally we are considered a good citizen and that’s great, but then nationally we are shining light on a cause that affects a lot of people that can maybe help you fix whatever your cause is which is the main goal, but it’s all having people say “IG did a nice thing, that’s good.” It would be silly to think that part of this isn’t for good PR. It’s also nice that people see a good thing out of us.
Debbie emphasized the importance of “legitimizing” your CSR activities. This likely refers to how these activities will be viewed externally by shareholders and societal members, relating again to the idea that CSR efforts at IG are primarily for good PR. Similarly, Rob said that even 10 years ago, “we were much more quiet about giving back, but now our story of philanthropy has gotten louder because we get out there and tell people who we are and also who we are as a corporate citizen as well.”
Perception That CSR Is Backed by Employees
As employees make sense of CSR within their organizations, it appears that they may start to feel connected to these initiatives and the values that are attached to them. For IG communication professionals, feelings of connectedness, passion, pride, and engagement manifested themselves in employees, who assumed the role of ambassadors or champions for CSR. Research has established the importance of leadership in an organizational communication context, so it makes sense that employees look to leaders when making sense of CSR within their organizations. For Rob, CSR buy-in and support starts with the company’s leadership: “It is crucial to build advocates on our top leadership levels . . . They are champions of the CSR work we are doing.” Wendy echoed Rob’s opinion on the importance of leadership support, claiming that it will encourage participation and engagement from employees at all levels of the organization. While Wendy highlighted the importance of leadership, when asked about the best way for companies to communicate about their CSR activities, she primarily stressed employee presence as ambassadors. Throughout all seven interviews, it was clear that employees felt a strong sense of pride and engagement in terms of IG’s CSR efforts.
Perception That CSR Is Tribal Yet Programmatic
As employees describe CSR activities to be foundational, historic, and distinct to IG, it appears these efforts are tribal—namely, CSR is a characteristic of the organization’s members and system and is embedded in the company’s culture. However, these efforts are also very programmatic or, in other words, campaign based and one-off.
When asked how IG’s CSR initiatives align with the company’s mission and values, one employee referred to organizational culture while touching on the idea of voluntold by stating that leaders are basically required to take part in community outreach activities, which influences employees at all levels. Specifically, two employees suggested that IG’s CSR initiatives—primarily, philanthropic and volunteerism efforts—have always been part of the company’s core culture. Various responses suggest that CSR is systemic and embedded in IG’s talk and culture. However, activities are very programmatic and campaign based. In fact, all employees who were interviewed described the company’s CSR efforts in terms of volunteerism. Therefore, a tension exists. If an employee feels expected and pressured to participate in volunteering or campaign-based events, then these efforts are programmatic. So while CSR appears to be ingrained in the culture and connected to company values, how can it be if it is entirely programmatic and one-off?
Perception That CSR Is Lacking Rationale
While CSR is constantly communicated and highly visible in IG’s infrastructure, it does not seem to be communicated effectively between employees. In fact, CSR activities appear to be so common that they are unquestioned. When askedwhytheir company takes on these specific initiatives, employees expressed confusion.
For example, Lydia said that CSR initiatives are strategic, but she did not explain why or how. The employees could name IG’s four or five key CSR focus areas, but they were unable to give the strategic reasoning behind why and how those initiatives were chosen. Most referenced the company’s identity and history but were still unable to give a clear, specific reason behind IG’s CSR initiatives. Especially for those individuals tasked with creating communication messages around CSR activities, it seems important for them to know the company’s reasons and strategies behind choosing them. As many of the employee responses in our findings illustrated, these individuals may have to think of the “why” for themselves when creating messages or writing them down in different reports.
In contrast, Caroline automatically refers back to the PR side of initiating CSR programs. When asked why IG takes on these specific activities, her response was They benefit us by getting our name into different communities . . . so when we are giving back and doing stuff for these communities, you can see the progress and [community members] enjoy it, but that then comes back here in the long run as a positive for us.
Her automatic response is to think that these initiatives are taken on as a mutually beneficial effort to build external relationships and a reputable image in the community.
Implications for Research, Practice, and Pedagogy
This study presented a number of findings related to the internal dimension of CSR in an organizational setting in line with calls for such research (seeMay, 2011). Employees are often the first stakeholder group to be introduced and confronted with CSR messages by the organization, asking them to be advocates and communicators for the causes supported by the organization’s foundation and strategic philanthropy departments. External messages communicated to the public are undeniably preceded by conversations occurring internally within the “halls and walls” of organizations and their employees. Thus, we contribute an in-depth look inside an organization’s CSR practices.
Theoretical Contributions
Interviews with IG’s communication professionals reflected best practices in terms of defining CSR conceptually and communicating these efforts both internally and externally. Additionally, this study adds to the conversation on the topic of CSR in literature by contributing a glimpse into its internal dimension through the employee perspective. Beyond these general points, two specific theoretical contributions are noteworthy. Given that the focus of this study was on a single organization, we also position each contribution as a direction for further study.
First, results suggest a tribal-programmatic tension in terms of IG’s CSR. At first, hearing the great amount of communication efforts dedicated to CSR was positive, and CSR efforts appeared systemic and ingrained in the organizational culture. As employees were unable to answer the “why” question to their company’s CSR activities, this gave additional insight into the organization’s culture and its incorporation of CSR. Indeed, CSR appears to be unspoken, assumed, and unquestionable. This relates toSchein’s (2017)three levels of culture model, where level three describes the unconscious assumptions and beliefs of an organization. IG’s CSR efforts and values appear to be tribal and rooted in tradition, while also being constantly communicated. However, its CSR values are a foundational and basic assumption of the organization, so they rarely get talked about in depth or questioned.
Our findings reveal a specific tension around CSR at IG that is worthy of further research. While these activities seem to be foundational as an assumption of the company’s culture, they are also very programmatic and one-off. Almost all employees emphasized the philanthropic and campaign-based element to each of the company’s CSR focus areas. This seems to be partly due to employees’ general understanding of CSR as a concept—the good work a company does in terms of community involvement, having an impact and giving back, and philanthropy. Thus, the specific call for further research centers on an in-depth exploration of the tension between CSR in a company’s core culture versus CSR activities that are programmatic and one-off.
Second, IG’s CSR does not appear to be part of the organization’s identity. Rather, results suggest that these efforts are additive due to the programmatic focus and appearance that its CSR is merely for good PR. As a result, IG’s CSR activities may not be included in important conversations, connecting toDeetz’s (2003)work on the inclusion of social values in the organizational decision chain. In other words, since these activities are additive, they might not be prioritized in decision-making conversations in order to be truly embedded in the organization’s identity. For Deetz, workplaces must become appropriate places for value debate in order to be socially responsible and positive institutions. More specifically, CSR can be made possible within an organization by including multiple social values in the decision-making processes as well as in the development and execution of communication efforts. In order for this to be possible with the inclusion of broader social values, like CSR, into corporate decision-making, organizations must include stakeholders. In other words, employees, for example, and the social values they represent should be included in decision-making conversations. We urge researchers to concretely apply Deetz’s ideals to an organization that does CSR well—one that appears to identify and honor multiple stakeholder values and voices at the table.
Practical Implications
This study uncovered pragmatic findings centered on how CSR is viewed and made sense of internally by communication professionals at IG. It is important for organizations to understand how their communication of CSR affects employee sensemaking and how the internal dimension relates to or affects external messaging. Practical implications center on how communication professionals make sense of CSR efforts and how they view and communicate these efforts to be meaningful within their organizations. Our goal here is to offer insights and practical questions that companies could ask about their CSR programs, as well as provide some concrete suggestions. Additionally, we take a step back and discuss the pedagogical implications around CSR, highlighting the role educators can play.
Can We Answer the “Why” of Our CSR?
Generally, especially for communication professionals, it may be good to question organizational activities and have dialogue around the “why.” CSR needs to be part of employee sensemaking in order to be talked about and made meaningful. Employee interviews revealed that CSR participation at IG appears traditional and expected; one individual even used the term “voluntold” to describe employee involvement. While employees may support and positively view CSR in their company, there may be a downside to tradition-laden CSR. Indeed, if CSR is voluntold at other companies, like it was at IG, we find that tradition-laden CSR rationales (e.g., “this is just what we do”) do not resonate with new employees. In all, it is important for employees to know the rationale so they can see why and how CSR connects with the organization’s strategy and be able to communicate how it makes a strategic difference. We suggest that companies have open dialogue to help frame CSR, perhaps through town hall meetings between different departments and levels of the organization or by facilitating more conversations between members of the communication department and the philanthropic foundation team.
For instance, take employee volunteerism—a common form of CSR. Intentionally framing messages and explaining to employees why the company chose and supports each focus are essential to employee ambassadorship and involvement.Fairhurst (2011)described framing as an act that constructs a reality and views communication as a dialogue that constructs meaning based on a situation. Therefore, framing is the ability to articulate something that translates into action. Fairhurst argued that communication messages must be carefully framed through specific language, stories, and other methods. Framing CSR messages will help define these activities and aid sensemaking so employees will understand CSR the way in which the company intended. Therefore, employee CSR participation is both symbolic and instrumental in an organizational context. On one hand, employee buy-in and association speak well to the organization’s culture and work environment. On the other hand, employee participation and, particularly, volunteerism are instrumental to the CSR activity and simultaneously provide the company with a social return on investment. Perpetuating this symbolic-instrumental connection internally will ultimately project externally as part of the company’s image and identity.
Have Our Views of CSR Adequately Evolved?
Once referred to as just “social responsibility,” CSR has taken on new definitions in the form of corporate responsiveness, citizenship, sustainability, ethics, and labor relations, among others. At IG, individuals and their work in communication roles have not quite caught up to how CSR is defined and thought of today. In other words, CSR is more than just philanthropy, both in general and in how organizations are starting to view these efforts. Therefore, communication professionals must ensure that they too evolve in their communication practices around CSR activities.
Through analyzing external CSR messages as well as those internal efforts described by communication professionals, we found IG’s CSR communication to represent a two-way, asymmetrical model—one of the CSR communication strategies described byMorsing and Schultz (2006). This means that the communication department identifies relevant stakeholders, particularly those outside the organization, and these individuals are assured that the company is ethical, is socially responsible, and thus provide external endorsement to the organization. Additionally, these stakeholders simply respond to the actions of the company, without being fully involved and integrative in the communicative and organizing processes around the organization’s CSR.
We propose that organizations transition from this stakeholder response (asymmetrical) strategy to the stakeholder involvement (two-way symmetric) strategy of CSR communication. This strategy assumes that stakeholders, including employees, coconstruct the company’s CSR efforts in which they participate and even suggest actions. Unlike the stakeholder response strategy, in which communication professionals are charged with identifying which stakeholder groups are relevant, this involvement strategy assumes that the communication department builds relationships with its stakeholders around CSR.Morsing and Schultz (2006)have argued that “stakeholders need to be involved in order to develop and promote positive support as well as for the company to understand and concurrently adapt to their concerns, i.e. to develop its CSR initiatives” (p. 328). This way, both parties are involved in the dialogue around CSR.
Is CSR Tied to Our Core Operations?
As communication professionals at IG consistently described these activities to be philanthropic or campaign based and undoubtedly for good PR or press, companies would be wise to assess whether CSR appears to just be an added function in order for the company to look good to both internal and external audiences, including the surrounding public. Additionally, communication professionals and those charged with designing IG’s foundational CSR work have a very narrow conceptual definition of CSR, automatically reverting to volunteerism of philanthropy. While these examples (volunteerism, corporate giving, philanthropic campaigns) are definitely pillars of CSR efforts,Rangan et al. (2015)argued that initiating CSR programs must go beyond the philanthropic focus.
Specifically, CSR efforts should also improve operational effectiveness and transform a company’s business model. For example, companies should invest in sustainability initiatives, employee working conditions, and social or environmental challenges.Rangan et al. (2015)stated that companies must develop coherent CSR strategies that are made an essential part of a CEO’s or other leader’s job. While IG seems to have a secure grasp on the philanthropic pillar, organizations must also pursue other CSR activities in order to “alter its social or environmental impact and financial performance” (Rangan et al., 2015, para. 9). Once a company has developed a coherent and comprehensive CSR strategy, communication professionals can better position these programs through two-way, symmetric communication and involve stakeholders.
Pedagogical Implications
Due to the growing interest in and attention to business ethics and issues of CSR specifically, considerable attention is being given to keeping employees engaged in CSR activities once on the job and educating students entering the corporate world (Tormo-Carbó et al., 2016). First, in an age of widespread social movements and increased attention on social issues, companies must continue to find ways to engage authentically with issues their employees can get behind. The results fromSmith’s (2017)study of CSR topics changing from 2011 to 2017 on company websites seem to indicate that companies are aware of shifting needs. It is important that companies find ways to build programs and communicate internally about the ways in which they are engaging and demonstrating leadership on these issues, and then allow employees to participate in these efforts.
Taking a step back from CSR in the workplace, according toDellaportas et al. (2006), effectively teaching such topics at the university level is particularly pertinent and crucial in shaping business professionals. While CSR is incredibly ambiguous, students should begin considering how CSR “can be developed in practice”—beginning in the classroom (Córdoba & Campbell, 2008, p. 428). From this study, we see that CSR continues to be a difficult concept to define and, therefore, rationalize. However, as individuals entering the workforce, particularly as communication professionals in a corporate setting, effectively communicating such efforts will be salient to students’ future work. Apart from solely external communication of CSR to publics from a PR perspective, perhaps employees can play a part in further integrating and aligning social responsibility practices with internal, core business activities.
Conclusion
This study explored CSR from the perspective of communication employees at a large financial services firm, IG. At IG, employees are both symbolic and instrumental for CSR efforts. They need to understand the efforts and be ambassadors for CSR programs and initiatives. The challenges facing CSR communicators center on truly understanding and framing these activities, addressing the “why” behind them, and perpetuating a culture in which CSR is systemic, strategic, and supported; but this culture must also promote open dialogue to aid employee sensemaking. Scholars across multiple areas of professional communication are thus in a powerful position to continue to zoom in on CSR messages and practices and offer suggestions to communicate and execute them effectively.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Marquette University (Approval No. HR-2993). Participant comments and quotations from written documents are reproduced by permission.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biographies