Irina Lock

Deliberative Lobbying? Toward a Noncontradiction of Corporate Political Activities and Corporate Social Responsibility?

Recently, researchers have claimed that food and beverage corporations should be excluded from the development of public health policy because their lobbying activities strategically undermine the promotion of public health. At the same time, recent political corporate social responsibility (CSR) theory holds that corporations have a responsibility to help solve global public issues. We address this described misalignment and show that corporations may fulfill this “new political role” if they turn to novel forms of corporate political activity (CPA) establishing a minimal standard for not contradicting their CSR. Therefore, we put forward a normative concept called deliberative lobbying based on discourse, transparency, and accountability, which aims to resolve public issues and advance CPA. In three lobbying cases, we show misalignments and contradictions that harm both society and the corporation. We position deliberative lobbing as an argument to maintain self-regulation against critics claiming that corporations should be excluded from all political processes.

Where Grass Has No Roots: The Concept of ‘Shared Strategic Communication’ as an Answer to Unethical Astroturf Lobbying

ABSTRACT As researchers pursue connections between strategic communication and management, they need to critique practices to develop norms that increase strategic communication’s long-term contribution to society. Norms of strategic communication are shaped by socially constructed standards of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and guide how strategic communication fosters organization-public relationships (OPR). Such norms are particularly important regarding deliberative strategic communication, which uses political CSR to guide corporations’ political role. Although principles of OPR and political CSR should foster more ethical strategic communication, some practices weaken such standards. To make that case, this article (1) reviews the historical foundations of deliberative discourse, (2) examines principles of OPR and political CSR, and (3) applies normative principles of deliberative discourse (4) to critique three cases of strategic political communication, known as astroturf lobbying, a deceptive lobbying practice that undermines and fakes grassroots movements. We conclude by integrating the findings into theory building that shifts CSR outcomes from advantaging individual organizations adding value to society. This theme uses ‘creating shared value’ to advocate shared strategic communication. This notion includes the normative claims of political CSR (open discourse, participation, transparency, accountability) to arrive at shared strategic communication that supports the ‘good’ organization and society simultaneously.

The game-changing potential of digitalization for sustainability: possibilities, perils, and pathways

records, social media profiles, and many more (Boyd and Crawford 2012) have altered the way humans interact with each other and with their natural environment. Digital technology, as in the example of Big Data, offers new possibilities and pathways of how to shape the future and research (Shah et al. 2015), for instance, through the “information civilization” brought about by monopolistic structures in the corporate sphere (Zuboff 2015). Algorithmic capacities allow for data processing and analysis that open up unseen predictive capabilities, and thus a “time-ontological shift” (Seele 2016a). Digitalization has (positively as well as negatively) incalculable potential to help achieve sustainability of the planetary and human system, or at least help reduce the negative impact of people. ICT and Big Data can help promote sustainability (Gijzen 2013; Hampton et al. 2013), because the societal complexity of the planetary nervous system is strongly connected and these systems may lead to cascading effects that increase vulnerability (Helbing 2012). Via a big data-driven “transnational sustainability agency” (Seele 2016b) or a digital “global participatory platform”, for instance, digitalization can help increase (strong) sustainability in the environmental, social and economic spheres (Helbing 2012). Hence, digitalization bears consequences for transparency and accountability that open up entirely new ways to shape, monitor, communicate, and govern sustainability (e.g., Heemsbergen 2016). In conclusion, both megatrends, sustainability and digitalization, impose major transitions on our world and how we picture it. In this regard, sustainability science is the scientific way of gathering data to analyze pathways towards a (more) sustainable world, by taking into account future generations. Given its transformative nature, sustainability is expected to adapt to the new possibilities and perils of the digital age, or vice versa, digitalization is the driver that When in 2015, 193 countries agreed on 17 sustainable development goals, the nations’ delegates signed a challenging agenda aimed to render this planet livable for future generations within the next 15 years. This process has just begun and implementation and dialogue with different stakeholders is required to bring the SDG to live. This is true, particularly given the past steps to strive for sustainability, which have not yet led to groundbreaking levels of achieving more sustainability (or less unsustainability). Despite many efforts in developing and developed countries, none of the member states of the United Nations has achieved all goals yet (GeSI 2016), so the call for intensifying engagement and transforming societies remains open. This is where Big Data and Digitalization comes in: Digital technologies in the form of e-health services, robotics, or emission reduction solutions could help individuals, organizations, and nations achieve a more sustainable planet in light of the sustainable development goals. Given the stagnation of sustainable development, the overall “sustainability gap” (Lubin and Esty 2014) continues to be a major issue, as the overconsumption of natural resources and its harmful consequences threaten the basis of our existence and that of future generations (WCED 1987). Parallel to this development stands the increasing speed and spread of digital technology in all areas of life. Information and communication (ICT) technology constitute our new “digital age” (Schmidt and Cohen 2013), encompassing a richness of softand hardware and linked processes. Analyses of genetic sequences, personal health data, phone Sustainability and Digitalization: A Game-Changer? Possibilities, Perils, Pathways

Exclusive corporate philanthropy: rethinking the nexus of CSR and corporate philanthropy

Purpose - This article adds to a better understanding of relationship of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate philanthropy. We argue that corporate philanthropy is exclusive to CSR because of their different characteristics. Design/methodology/approach - This article is based on a profound literature review and discusses the relationship of CSR and corporate philanthropy from a theoretical point of view. By conceptually combining the CSR pyramid and the triple bottom line approach we show that corporate philanthropy has a special role outside of the classical CSR concept. Findings - Four fundaments of corporate philanthropy - economic, motivational, creative, and moral – are described that illustrate the importance and outstanding role of corporate philanthropy for today’s businesses. Based on these, we formulate three new forms of corporate giving, volunteering, and foundations, which we subsume under the novel notion of ‘exclusive corporate philanthropy’. Research limitations/implications - The main contribution of this paper for future research is to regard corporate philanthropy as exclusive to CSR. Future studies might therefore consider the different characteristics of corporate philanthropy and engage in an empirical investigation of this new type. Practical implications - Our model of exclusive corporate philanthropy provides practitioners with a better understanding of how corporate philanthropy can be rolled out today. Originality/value - This paper offers a new perspective on the relationship of CSR and corporate philanthropy. Based on the economic, motivational, creative, and moral characteristics of corporate philanthropy, we establish a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Theorizing stakeholders of sustainability in the digital age

Stakeholder theory, originally introduced in 1984 by philosopher Edward Freeman, is among the most influential theories today addressing the complex interplay of societal actors. It underwent several transformations and expansions, but the original Freeman model as well as the latest approaches places the corporation at the center positioning the theory as management driven. In this article—from a sustainability science perspective—we argue that sustainability could also be considered as the center, around which societal actors are grouped, because everyone, individuals as well as stakeholders, have a stake in a ‘common future’ that is built on the transformative concept of sustainability. Next to this shift of perspective from corporation to sustainability at the center, we advance the concept of sustainability stakeholders with the new paradigm of the digital age we (are about to) live in: the proposed sustainability-centered stakeholder theory is developed to incorporate novel parameters as brought about by digitalization (such as big data, real-time transparency, algorithmic correlations, predictive analytics, or changing privacy standards). Hence, we classify the stakeholders of sustainability according to their roles as “big data stakeholders:” collectors, generators, and utilizers of big data. This digital sustainability stakeholder model operationalizes the complex interplay between stakeholders focused on their ‘stake’ in sustainability and a common future and illustrates their roles in the digital age. Thus, it offers a normative framework to analyze stakeholders’ responsibility to contribute to, advance, promote, and achieve sustainability.

CSR governance and departmental organization: a typology of best practices

Purpose – This paper aims to study the state of the art of corporate social responsibility (CSR) governance and operational structure within the most sustainable companies to arrive at a typology of CSR organization. Whether companies consider corporate social responsibility (CSR) a strategic management task is mirrored in the department and governance structure of CSR. Design/methodology/approach – By conducting a web content analysis, the authors apply a “best practice” approach to examine the vertical and horizontal organization of CSR within the “most sustainable companies worldwide” (Robeco SAM, 2013). Findings – The results show that most corporations have in place governance structures for CSR that organize it horizontally in stand-alone departments. Three types of CSR organization best practice emerged: the single-headed, two-headed and infused types. Practical implications – The paper indicates three different ways that companies can organize CSR internally. The authors discuss the feasibility of...

Measuring Credibility Perceptions in CSR Communication: A Scale Development to Test Readers’ Perceived Credibility of CSR Reports

Credibility is central to communication but often jeopardized by “credibility gaps.” This is especially true for communication about corporate social responsibility (CSR). To date, no tool has been available to analyze stakeholders’ credibility perceptions of CSR communication. This article presents a series of studies conducted to develop a scale to assess the perceived credibility of CSR reports, one of CSR communication’s most important tools. The scale provides a novel operationalization of credibility using validity claims of Habermas’s ideal speech situation as subdimensions. The scale development process, carried out in five studies including a literature review, a Delphi study, and three validation studies applying confirmatory factor analysis, resulted in the 16-item Perceived Credibility (PERCRED) scale. The scale shows convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and nomological validity and is the first validated measure for analyzing credibility perceptions of CSR reports.