The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

Institutionalization
Institutionalization of corporate of CSR
social responsibility within
corporate communications
9
Combining institutional, sensemaking and
communication perspectives
Friederike Schultz
Institute for Media and Communication Studies, Free University Berlin,
Berlin, Germany, and
Stefan Wehmeier
Institute for Marketing and Management, Syddanskuniversitet Denmark,
Odense, Denmark

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to develop a new framework depicting the incorporation of
concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) within corporate communication as a process
that called “institutionalization by translation”. The paper aims to develop a micro-meso-macro-
perspective to analyze why and how organizations institutionalize CSR with which effects.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper brings together institutional, sensemaking and
communication theories. The paper builds on neo-institutionalism to frame the external conditions that
foster or hinder the institutionalization of CSR on the macro- and meso-level. And the paper uses
sensemaking and communication theories to describe this process on the meso- and micro-level. The
paper illustrates the analysis by describing the CSR strategies of a large European energy company.
Findings – CSR can be regarded as an empty concept that is based on moral communication and filled
with different meanings. The analysis describes how CSR is internally translated (moralization and
amoralization), which communication strategies are developed here (symbolic, dialogic, etc.) and that
CSR communications are publicly negotiated. The analysis shows that the institutionalization of CSR
bears not only opportunities, but also risks for corporations and can, therefore, be described as a
“downward spirale of legitimacy and upward spiral of CSR institutionalization”. Finally, alternative
ways of coping with external demands are developed (“management by hypocrisis” and “defaulted
communication”).
Practical implications – The paper shows risk and explains more effective ways of building
organizational legitimacy.
Originality/value – The originality lays in the macro-meso-micro-perspective on the
institutionalization of CSR. It allows the description of this process and its effects from the
background of constraints and sensemaking and offers a new perspective on organizational legitimacy
building.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Corporate communications, Trust
Paper type Research paper
Corporate Communications: An
1. Introduction International Journal
Vol. 15 No. 1, 2010
In academia, one finds different approaches to analyzing the increased importance pp. 9-29
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in society. By using a strongly organization- 1356-3289
centred view, many business and communication scholars regard CSR as a special DOI 10.1108/13563281011016813
CCIJ corporate program that is carried out in order to deal with different stakeholders
15,1 (Signitzer and Prexl, 2008). The literature shows various and, over time, changing
definitions (Carroll, 1999; Frederick, 1986, 1998). However, many emphasize
responsibilities and responsiveness, like, for instance, the definition of Black and
Härtel (2004, p. 125). They define CSR as “[. . .] the firm-wide ability to adapt to the social
environment by recognizing and responding effectively to the responsibilities inherent
10 in firm-stakeholder relationships”. This leads, primarily, to instrumental concepts,
interpretations, and understandings of CSR, whereby CSR is seen as a strategic tool
used in obtaining legitimacy from stakeholders (Freeman, 2004) and competitive
advantages (Porter and Kramer, 2003; Jensen, 2001; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001).
As Bovens (1998), Lammers (2003) and Beschorner (2004) suggest, this stakeholder
management perspective usually fails to consider the institutional conditions that
confront organizations in contradictory ways on the macro-level, like, for instance,
investing money in clean production processes and being a cost leader at the same time.
Public expectations and communications, especially, are not taken into account.
Furthermore, the negotiated meanings, on the micro-level, which have an impact on the
behaviour of organizations, are not analyzed in this approach. By looking at
sociological and communication studies, on the one hand, one finds studies describing
the forces fostering the institutionalization of CSR on the macro-level (Lammers, 2003;
Campbell, 2007). On the other hand, scholars regard CSR as a social construct that
emerges out of communication (Gond and Matten, 2007; Roberts, 2003). These
theoretical frameworks, however, do not explain how CSR is institutionalized and
rarely with which effects.
The key contribution of this paper, therefore, lies in developing a general,
theoretical framework for institutionalization processes, which allows to depict the
institutionalization of CSR within corporate communications holistically and from a
non-functionalist perspective. This is accomplished by building on neo-institutionalism,
sensemaking and communication theories where a macro-approach with a meso- and
micro-perspective are combined. Hereby, we provide a framework that:
.
explains why organizations institutionalize CSR;
.
describes how CSR is incorporated, negotiated and carried out; and
.
focuses on the consequences of CSR as a construct of moral communications
(Schultz, 2005, 2009).

The paper starts developing this theoretical framework by explaining the process of
institutionalization. By combining neo-institutionalism and sensemaking theories, we
follow others who tried to bridge the macro-micro-gap (Giddens, 1984; Schimank, 1985;
Turner and Boyns, 2006) but take a different path. We argue that neo-institutionalism
explains on the macro- and meso-level, why concepts are institutionalized. However, it
rarely analyzes the role of communication. To fill this gap, we develop a communication
and sensemaking perspectives that focuses on the dimension of meaning on the
micro-level. Both perspectives are not logically incompatible, but “ripe with intriguing
connections” (Weber and Glynn, 2006, p. 1640). Here, we present a framework, which
we call “institutionalization as translation”.
We use this to explain the general external conditions fostering or hindering the
institutionalization of CSR and to afterwards describe how corporations translate these
external conditions internally and which communication solutions they hereby develop.
We then present some pitfalls and paradoxes that arise when CSR is framed by Institutionalization
traditional business and public relations (PR) communication approaches, which of CSR
overrate the sender communication and underscore the importance of sensemaking. We
conclude with suggestion on alternative ways for coping with complexity: “hypocrisy”
and what we call “defaulted communication”. To illustrate our theoretical approach, we
briefly present the case of the large Swedish energy company Vattenfall Europe AG,
which is operating in many European countries. Since 2006, Vattenfall was publicly 11
criticized in Germany for its pricing policies and for incidents at several nuclear power
plants. As a result of this bad publicity, the firm finally started institutionalizing CSR.

2. Theoretical perspectives: institutionalization of CSR within corporate

communications
2.1 Bridging macro- and meso-levels: the theory of institutionalization
By referring to organizational neo-institutionalism, the interplay between
organizational action, official organizational statements and environmental
expectations is in the centre of scholarly analysis. Neo-institutionalists see
institutions as routines, beliefs, norms, cultural rules or ideas that give collective
meaning (sensegiving). Organizations follow such rules of appropriateness in order
to gain legitimacy for their actions (March and Simon, 1993; Meyer and Rowan, 1977;
Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975). They adopt practices “[. . .] they believe their institutional
environment deems appropriate or legitimate regardless of whether these practices
increase organizational efficiency or otherwise reduce costs relative to benefits”
(Campbell, 2004, p. 18). This process, “by which a given set of units and a pattern of
activities come to be normatively and cognitively held in place, and practically taken for
granted as lawful” is called institutionalization (Meyer et al., 1994, p. 10). Within the
institutionalization, organizational action is not limited to one institutional norm only.
Institutions such as rationality, bureaucracy or efficiency sometimes have to be actively
combined, even though they may be conflicting. Therefore, for organizations “[. . .] it is
not always clear precisely which rules are appropriate” (March and Simon, 1993, p. 12).
Even worse, they are not able to make a rational decision because they have to follow all
of them – at least to a minimum extent (Brunsson, 1985, 2002). Beneath such divergent
rules and institutional environments, organizations operate in relational networks
that also encourage efficiency (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). From the background of this
double structure and resulting conflicts between ceremonial rules and efficiency,
organizations use two strategies – “decoupling” and “trust building” (“logic of
confidence”) – to shield their core activities bound on material contexts by building a
façade of legitimacy within the symbolic field (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, p. 356).
Although deeply rooted in social constructionism, most of the neo-institutional
literature focuses on structures, practices and institutions. A central deficit herein, is
that it concentrates on macro-level processes, whereby the role of the communication
and the sensemaking of actors as interpreters and the way meaning connects actions
to actors is not explored in most studies (Zilber, 2002; Maitlis, 2005). These
methodological limitations have created the understanding of institutionalization as
“diffusion” – a model that is guided by the assumption that practices are adopted
intact, by the various actors (Sahlin-Andersson, 1996; Zilber, 2002, 2006) according to
predefined rules. By linking neo-institutionalism to communication and sensemaking
CCIJ theories, we offer another perspective of institutionalization that incorporates the
15,1 receiver dimension.

2.2 Bridging meso- and micro-levels: a communication and sensemaking perspectives

Following Lammers and Barbour (2006), who contribute towards filling the
12 communication gap in neo-institutionalism, communication is fundamental to the
processes of institutionalization: organizational knowledge is communicated in
corporate settings and corporate philosophies. Later on, PR reflects prevailing
institutional settings. Moreover, institutions become manifest in corporate guidelines,
manuals or handbooks that are designed to guide the new member’s actions (Lammers
and Barbour, 2006). This perspective, however, remains communicator-centred: it
focuses on practices carried out by human relations and/or PR departments and
underscores the reception processes, which are central to communication.
On a very fundamental level, communication can be defined as symbolic interaction
(Schultz, 2005; Krotz, 2007). Actors, in their interactions, use the symbolic to display,
which means objects or things have for them. In turn, they act based on their
interpretations of the symbolic world; on their definition of situations, expectations and
reality constructions (Blumer, 1986; Schmidt, 2003). Therefore, meaning itself cannot be
determined or controlled. Actors interpret messages by using different codes
(dominant, negotiating or oppositional) (Hall, 1999) and do not necessarily accept the
intended version.
Building on a symbolic interactionist perspective, sensemaking theory also
describes acts of constructing interpretations within signification processes, and,
furthermore, implicitly discusses the role of institutions. Following Weick (1993, p. 635),
“the basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that
emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs”.
Organizational members construct their environment in and through interactions with
others. By doing this, they construct accounts that allow them to comprehend the world
and to act collectively (Maitlis, 2005). From this perspective, “even stable institutions
are best seen as dynamic equilibria that need to be continuously reaffirmed” (Weber
and Glynn, 2006, p. 1647). They can be regarded as being emergent from bottom-up
sensemaking processes (Weick, 1995; Scott, 2008). Based on this, it can be argued that
social structures and cultural rules are not cognitive constraints, as institutional theory
would claim. As far as human beings are symbol processing entities and not trivial
machines (von Foerster, 1993), institutions are not fixed scripts with fixed meanings
and do not determine sensemaking processes automatically (Weber and Glynn, 2006) in
a sensegiving way. They always need to be interpreted, translated into practices and
are, hereby, sometimes altered, like actors in a play interpret their role and alter the
screenplay.
To describe the process of institutionalization, the metaphor of “translation” is more
appropriate than that of “diffusion” (Creed et al., 2002; Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996;
Sahlin-Andersson, 1996; Zilber, 2006, p. 283):
Whereas the “diffusion” metaphor comes from physics and connotes transmission to a given
entity from one area to another, the “translation” metaphor comes from linguistics and
connotes an interaction that involves negotiation between parties and reshaping what is
finally [. . .] institutionalized.
Here, the idea is that cultural schema are re-interpreted, but not re-cited; that Institutionalization
ambiguous “translocal ideas” are translated, but not reproduced identically in local of CSR
settings (for a similar but rare neo-institutional argumentation, see Jepperson, 1991).
To summarize, institutionalization can be described as the interplay between
(communicative) actions, meanings and actors and the mutual observations and
expectations. What triggers institutionalization processes within organizations is the
interaction of external conditions, negotiated definitions of problems and mutual 13
constructions of expectations between corporations and other organizations. Although
socially constructed, institutions are gaining power, to a certain extent, since they lead
actions prospectively and legitimize them retrospectively.

2.3 Building a model: institutionalization of CSR as a multilevel, dynamic process

By cross-fertilizing institutionalism, sensemaking and communication theories, and by
using the “translation”-metaphor, we are now able to develop a broader perspective
and a model of the institutionalization of concepts such as CSR within corporate
communications. This perspective describes major processes of the institutionalization
of CSR on the micro-level (actors of organizations), meso-level (corporations,
organizations, publics and audiences) and macro-level (environment and institutions)
(Figure 1). CSR cannot be seen as a fixed script or tool that might be used by
corporations in order to produce fixed effects such as legitimacy. Instead, it represents
a dynamic continuum of competing meanings. It is part of public discourses, a
construct and “symbolic resource”, which is alternately and often competitively used
by a variety of players, such as corporations or non-profit organizations, and for

Institutions
Macro Environment Institutions
environmental
Institutions
level
Expectations/constructions

Expectations/constructions

CSR ... CSR ... CSR ... CSR ...

legitimization

legitimization

as a concept as action as action as a concept

Observation

Observation
Imitation

as a myth as symbolic as symbolic as a myth

Imitation

as a script communication communication as a script

as dynamic as dynamic
equilibria equilibria

Meso Corporation Organizations,

organizational publics, audience
level
CSR ... CSR ... CSR ... CSR ...
is internally as internally as internal is internally
translated/ practice/ practice/ translated/
interpreted/ redesign and redesign and interpreted/
implementation implementation
of rules of rules

Figure 1.
Micro Individuals/members of Individuals/members of Institutionalization as
individual
level and roles in a corporation and roles in a corporation a multilevel process
CCIJ a variety of purposes (Shamir, 2005; Beaulieu and Pasquero, 2002). On the macro-level,
15,1 the institutionalization of CSR can be described as a multilevel process between several
actors with an uncertain outcome. It is triggered by different external expectations and
conditions as described within institutional theory. On the micro-level, organizational
actors translate and interpret the institution internally according to their personal
values, organizational roles and constructions of reality. While incorporating and
14 translating CSR, a specific version of the institution becomes part of corporate life and,
when publicly communicated or practiced, changes the notion of CSR itself. According
to Stachowiak’s (1965) seminal work on a theory of models, models simplify in order to
emphasize certain aspects. In our model, we emphasize the corporation that is, on the
one hand, confronted with CSR as an institution and, on the other hand, with the
question of how to cope with this institution and how to internalize it. In order to
simplify, the general environment is modelled as the interface between the observed
corporation, other organizations and the public/the audience.
The theoretical framework is mobilized in order to address the following research
questions:
RQ1. What are external triggers for the institutionalization of CSR?
RQ2. In which way is CSR as a concept internally translated?
RQ3. Which strategies and meanings are developed?
RQ4. In which way are CSR communications externally “translated” and what are
possible pitfalls in the incorporation of CSR by firms?
In order to answer these questions from a theoretical perspective, we now unfold the
illustrative case of Vattenfall Europe AG.

3. Illustrative case: Vattenfall Europe AG

Information was obtained on the actions and communications of the Swedish,
state-owned energy company, Vattenfall Europe AG, through the reading of German
newspapers, the analysis of the corporation’s web site, as well as through two main
CSR documents: the CSR report Vattenfall Europe AG (2006) and a CSR presentation
(2008). Furthermore, a Vattenfall PR Manager was interviewed and the findings of
more than 800 corporate and media articles were also used (Patriotta et al., 2008).
After the liberalization of the German energy market, Vattenfall started operating in
Germany from August 2002 and onwards, via the merger of four traditional German
energy corporations. Diverse controversies on incidents in nuclear power plants and
pricing politics in 2006 and 2007 led to disruptions of the corporation’s social order,
triggered corporate sensemaking processes aimed at image restoration, and finally led
to the institutionalization of social responsibility in different fields (Patriotta et al.,
2008). The debate on the security of nuclear power plants started with a short circuit in
the Forsmark nuclear power plant (Sweden) in July 2006. Social actors and politicians
from the green and the leftist parties, in particular, regarded Vattenfall as being
irresponsible because it was prepared to risk the public’s security by running
technologically defective nuclear power plants, while at the same time refusing to
deliver important information. Also, Vattenfall was seen as an unfair and profit-driven
corporation that was misusing an oligopolistic market structure to raise prices
(Patriotta et al., 2008). The legitimacy of Vattenfall Europe was further disrupted Institutionalization
through incidents in two German nuclear power plants (Brunsbüttel and Krümmel) in of CSR
June 2007. Vattenfall Europe reacted to the critique and the loss of public trust by firing
the German chief executive officer (CEO) and the German head of corporate
communications in July 2007 and installing a new CEO. His attempt to regain
legitimacy through dialogic communication strategies was accompanied by a further
massive loss of customers. In total, Vattenfall lost 250,000 customers in 2007 15
(Tagesspiegel, 2008). Only six months later, the new CEO was replaced by another
CEO, who publicly claimed, “We are hungry for growth” (Tagesspiegel, 2008). In the
following months, and according to these huge discrepancies between verbal
statements and actual behaviour, as well as between recognized legal and moral norms,
the public again reacted very critically toward Vattenfall Europe (see, e.g. the
Greenpeace online initiative[1]). In the next sections, we further unfold the theoretical
framework and illustrate it with this case.

4. Expectations and triggers on the macro-level

For an appropriate understanding of the institutionalization process, the interplay
between organizations and environments will be analyzed by regarding the external
conditions and, afterwards, by relating them to the actors involved and their
sensemaking of CSR. Campbell (2007) points out eight major conditions that either
foster or hinder the process. We combine and partly reinterpret them to produce four
lines of argumentation that have similarities with the well-known general
neo-institutional approaches of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Scott (2008) who see
mimetic, regulative, normative and cognitive ways of institutionalizing (Table I).

Dominant
Triggers Institutionalization is more likely. . .: strategy Level of action

1. Competition In complex environments and market Symbolic Talk

(mimetic) situations, but not if there is too low or communication
high competition (no need for
behaving well, too costly). CSR as a
new practice is invented by one
corporation and imitated by
competitors without exactly knowing
whether or why this might be a
successful strategy
2. Regulative norms If rules exist to protect nature, to give Defaulted Decisions and
(regulative) rights to employees or to enforce communication actions
strong self-regulation
3. Professional norms If organizations are members of larger Defaulted Decisions and
(normative) associations that have a set of member communication actions
rules and if the hired personnel
undertake a standardized qualification
process where reflexive thinking is
included
4. Public pressure If watchdog organizations or mass Dialogic Talk, decisions Table I.
(cognitive) media play a vital role in the public communication and actions Institutionalization
sphere processes and strategies
CCIJ The first condition, institutionalization by competition, can often be observed,
15,1 since many corporations use environmental and social reporting to demonstrate
responsibility publicly, without being forced by law, and without knowing whether it is
something they will benefit from. Corporations that act in turbulent environments
tend to follow innovators and branch leaders. The institutionalization of CSR can
be triggered by the development of financial indexes mirroring the behaviour
16 of corporations (Entine, 2003) and specific stock indexes, like the Dow Jones
Sustainability-Index (www.sustainability-index.com), the KLD Global Climate Index
(www.kld.com/indexes/gc100/index.html) and the KLD Global Sustainability Index
(www.kld.com/indexes/gsindex/index.html). At the same time, other external actors
make sense of the concept by relating it to improved financial performance, thereby
enforcing mimesis. As Matten and Moon (2008) point out with the growing importance
of financial markets for business success, CSR may be regarded as a prerequisite for
attracting global capital. The more European companies source their capital globally,
the more they have to comply with the requirements of international investors,
particularly of those in the USA. According to Schultz and Wehmeier (2009), PR
consultancies also push CSR forward as a topic, claiming that it increases the financial
value of the firm in the long run. Another form of mimetic institutionalization occurs
through rating systems, guidelines and models for the implementation within
corporations (Waddock, 2000) and CSR-platforms like www.econsense.de. This
platform, however, is only a very weak form of self-regulation; in no way is it a law-like
regulation.
Regulative institutionalization of CSR takes place if organizations are forced by
law to behave responsibly. Examples are established measures in occupational
health, as well as prescriptive values for the emission of CO2 in the car market.
In Germany, an ecological, legal code that binds several fragmented regulations
together is being developed, at present. Furthermore, law-like activities, like strong
self-regulation in special branches, might foster not only the institutionalization of
CSR, but also expectations on possible legal consequences. Political institutions, such
as the European Commission (2001), demonstrate strong interest in CSR by
promoting a framework for its implementation within corporations, hereby putting
pressure on corporations. Although CSR seems to be related to ethical values, as
terms like “voluntary”, “responsible” or “social” reveal, the concept shall serve to
improve the European Union’s competitiveness, social coherence and the growth of
communities of value creation and of employment in that area (European
Commission, 2001).
Institutionalization by professional norms is fostered by the discussion of CSR
in academia and beyond. There are many scientific organizations that produce
legitimating accounts for the mimesis processes by presenting CSR to students and
professionals as a means to enhance financial performance and competitiveness
(Gond and Matten, 2007; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007). There are also business and
communication schools (e.g. the International Centre for CSR at Nottingham University
Business School and the Center for CSR at Copenhagen Business School) that teach the
ethical basis of CSR in a more reflexive way. They are interdisciplinary think tanks
that set international standards in the field of CSR by studying the topic from
different theoretical perspectives like philosophy, anthropology, business
economics, organisation theory and discourse analysis (Morsing et al., 2008).
The institutionalization of CSR is also triggered by the membership of associations or Institutionalization
mutual contact with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field. of CSR
Organizations, like Global Compact (www.unglobalcompact.org), try to bridge the gap
between the United Nations and business, and initiatives, like Globalreporting.org
(www.globalreporting.org), set international standards for sustainability reporting.
Institutionalization through public pressure: since social reality is mainly mass
medial constructed reality (Merten et al., 1994), mass medial discourses play a crucial 17
role within these processes of definition and negotiation. Public expectations of
corporations, of social responsibility and of CSR are negotiated and themselves
institutionalized through the interplay between corporate and media communications
(Shamir, 2005). This kind of institutionalization is especially triggered by NGOs like
Greenpeace or Attac that regularly create public awareness through the use of powerful
campaigning strategies (Löding et al., 2006; Vowe, 2001) and often claim to advocate the
general public interest and ethical concerns. Such organizations can be described as
“moral” corporations: They aim at dealing with good conscience and reputation. The
mass media itself can also bolster up trends, not only by observing, reporting and
criticizing in media articles, but also through CSR-rankings (www.manager-magazin.
de/unternehmen/csr/) that are created by the media based on their own methods.
In the Vattenfall case, CSR was mostly triggered by public pressure and regulative
institutionalization: NGOs, customers and politicians criticized the company for the use
of oligopolistic power, unethical pricing strategies and for hiding information.
Regulative institutionalization came into play as a solution discussed by politicians in
case the company would not react voluntarily to the public pressure. Politicians tried to
force Vattenfall to shut down the nuclear power plants and forced it to cut its prices
(Patriotta et al., 2008).

5. Meso- and micro-level: translations, communication strategies and

(a)moralization
5.1 Institutionalization by translation: a “messy affair”
The process of institutionalization of CSR within corporations and corporate
communications can be described as the “translation” of such perceived triggers and
institutional rules. But this “translation” cannot be regarded as guided by a kind of
overall concept of CSR. In contrast, it can be described as a multilevel process in
different organizational spheres (corporate communications, politics and society) and
as a “messy affair” (Jonker et al., 2004, p. 6): it is based on a series of (non)intentional
actions and choices made by changing internal and external actors, that are constantly
struggling with the translation trying to develop a more encompassing understanding
of the concept as a whole, while, at the same time, implementing bits and pieces that
they deem relevant.
The Vattenfall Europe AG (2008, p. 2), for example, developed its own formal
definition of CSR, according to its vision and mission, by “translating” the European
Commission’s CSR definition[2]:
It is our job and responsibility to provide energy solutions that meet our customers’ needs and
that contribute to sustainable development in society. These solutions must include
consideration for the environment, customers, employees, and society in general.
In line with this formal translation, the concept is related to certain fields of action such
as economic, social and environmental sustainability, and these terms, in turn, are
CCIJ translated into concrete practices. They are strategically institutionalized CSR
15,1 practices, whereby CSR is related to the core business. This can be seen in the CSR
report, which is centrally developed in Sweden, or in the CO2-free power plant in
Germany. Furthermore, there are department-related practices that are not always
interpreted as CSR activities initially, but are seen as thus afterwards, such as local,
social and culturally sponsored activities. Finally, there are spontaneous practices,
18 driven by single actors, such as, for example, the initiative of board members to collect
money for cyclone victims in Burma (Myanmar) in 2008 (Interview Vattenfall PR
Manager 2008).

5.2 Symbolic CSR communication and (a)moralization of corporate culture

Although this process of institutionalization can be regarded as “messy affair”, there
are dominant strategies, such as trust building, that finally lead to the translation of
CSR into formal and informal understandings. According to institutional theory,
the process of institutionalization can be regarded as the result of the double structure
of institutional and material environments and as based on the strategies of
“decoupling” and trust building (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). To shield their main
activities and to avoid public pressure, organizations try to build trust through a
symbolic façade that provides evidence that the demands of various actors must be
dealt with. This façade consists of ritualized justifications in social balance sheets and
CSR reports, organizational philosophies and the concept of corporate citizenship,
moral advertisement and, finally, in the institutionalization of CSR departments
and managers. This, in turn, can be described as “moralization” of corporate
communications (Schultz, 2005, 2006): corporations developed idealistic definitions of
CSR within their self-presentations and refer to ethical or civic accounts and general
social or environmental ills, such as climate change.
In contrast to this formal understanding and communication of CSR (as an end in
itself) and based on the assumed shielding effect, CSR is informally translated and
interpreted as a solution to a complex range of specific corporate problems, such as
reputation problems. It is seen as a means of saving profitability by repairing the
corporation’s image in the external dimension and by enhancing employee motivation
and identification with the corporation in the internal dimension (Schultz, 2006).
Accordingly, the “moralization” of corporate communication can be accompanied by
an “amoralization” of corporate culture (Schultz, 2006). Internally and by the help of
external organizations, the public’s understanding of social responsibility is often
translated into more functionalist concepts, such as “brand loyalty”, “social
investment”, and “community empowerment” (Shamir, 2005, p. 241). Furthermore,
there is a general lack of moral meaning for organizational members, since individual
morality is subjugated to the functionally specific rules and roles of the organization
(Crane, 2000). Interestingly, both meanings are intertwined, wherein CSR is regarded as
a win-win-solution for both formally and informally defined problems.

5.3 Dialogic CSR communication: symmetric and asymmetric approaches

The idea of building trust by using symbolic (Schultz, 2005) or ceremonial (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977) practices and communications that claim, in a more idealized and less
reasoned way, that the corporation would behave in a socially responsible manner,
needs to be criticised. It is mainly based on a simplistic and rationalist model of
communication, which focuses on information transmission (Morsing and Schultz, Institutionalization
2006), thus corresponding to the notion of “mechanical” fabrication of trust of CSR
(Hundhausen, 1951; Bernays, 1947) and the one-way communication model (Grunig
and Hunt, 1984). PR researchers, in particular, doubt the assumed effects of such
symbolic communication and stress the necessity of stakeholder involvement and
dialogue in order to build trust (Grunig and Hunt, 1984).
By building on the Grunig and Hunt (1984) model of asymmetric and symmetric 19
two-way communication, Morsing and Schultz (2006) develop dialogic models for CSR
communication. The asymmetrical two-way communication strategy (“stakeholder
response strategy”) serves as an evaluative mode to measure the understanding of and
commitment to the company. Since public feedback is only used to serve the corporation
in finding better persuasion strategies, this strategy remains sender-oriented. The
symmetric model, in turn, is about consensus finding, rational agreement and mutual
understanding. CSR communication following this “stakeholder involvement strategy”
allows concurrent negotiation and exploration of concerns while also accepting
changes, if necessary. Morsing and Schultz (2006), for example, regard the dialogue
strategy, in general, as an effective combination of culturalist-oriented sensemaking
and instrumentally oriented sensegiving strategies. This allows a more subtle and
indirect and, therefore, effective communication. The dialogue strategy also fits well
with the theory of public trust (Bentele, 1994; Bentele and Seidenglanz, 2008). Here, it
is claimed that trust can be built if, for example, the actions and public communication
of an organization are congruent[3] or if the organization speaks with one voice or if
the organization acts transparently in public and is adaptive to external demands.
These models do not only occur in academia. They are, for example, but also
implemented by PR-agencies that claim to offer tools and strategies for trust building
(Schultz and Wehmeier, 2009). They are not, however, consistently used in PR practice
(Morsing and Schultz, 2006). This can be also seen in the Vattenfall case. Here, CSR is
partly regarded as a means to repair the firm’s reputation and to unite employees
because of huge public pressure on the corporation. Under the former head of
communication, there were merely idealistic and symbolic image campaigns designed
to present Vattenfall as a socially and ecologically responsible corporation. This
triggered the institutionalization of CSR. In 2007, under the successor of the fired CEO,
and after a series of crises and further critique, Vattenfall launched an asymmetric
dialogic communication campaign to improve the corporations’ image.
The company developed a dialogue campaign, took out many ads in leading
German newspapers, started a consumer consulting promotion tour for more than five
million euros and developed a media partnership between Vattenfall and National
Geographic to foster ideas for climate protection in schools. The ads, in particular, were
designed to demonstrate the willingness of the company to get in contact with its
public. The dialogue-strategy, however, was more symbolic than factual. While the left
half of the ads presented the number of a special service hotline, the right half was
made up of frequently asked questions concerning the ecological responsibility of the
corporation. The questions were both asked and answered by the corporation. The
openness offered on the left half was immediately constrained by the corporation’s
monologue or auto-communication (Christensen, 1997). This kind of CSR
communication uses discourse strategically, in order to maintain hegemonic power
CCIJ and communication managers doing this are, therefore, criticized as discourse
15,1 technologists (Motion and Leitch, 1996; Motion and Weaver, 2005).

6. Pitfalls and paradoxes: the limits of moral communication, dialogue

and trust
From a sensemaking perspective and, on the background of the macro-level analysis,
20 we will now analyze the effects of the different communication strategies. In general, the
one- and two-way approaches of internal and external PR communication, as well as the
common trust building approaches (Taylor and Kent, 2002; Bentele et al., 1996), need to
be questioned because they are based on the rationalist paradigm that argue both in a
linear and causal manner. If, for example, discrepancies between corporate talk and
corporate action are avoided, trust is built up. As a consequence, trust is regarded as
something that can be manufactured by organizations in a rational sensegiving process.
However, building on the sensemaking and communication perspectives, meaning
is neither transferable nor controllable, but is negotiated within sensemaking processes
on the micro-level. The consequence is an enhanced horizon of indeterminacy and
contingency evolves. Especially, in such value-laden fields of communication as CSR,
there is much room for indeterminacy. As presented in Section 2, communication
activities can be translated by internal and external stakeholders, not just with the
dominant code (the corporation is seen as responsible), but also with the negotiating
code (the corporation is seen as responsible only in some concerns) or the oppositional
code (the corporation is seen as irresponsible and its communications are viewed as
manipulation). We argue that dominant codes are used by recipients who, for example,
have a low involvement or interest in social concerns, in order to avoid disruptions and
discrepancies in their social constructions of reality. Oppositional or negotiating codes,
in turn, are particularly used by recipients who feel suppressed by corporations trying
to develop a dominant frame of their action. Dominant frames are sensegiving frames
that evolve in using rationalist communication strategies, like integrated
communication and trust building through avoidance of discrepancies. Building or
regaining trust through consistency in all corporate communication arenas is
somewhat unnatural because corporations consist of many voices that cannot be
disciplined in all departments and over time (Christensen et al., 2008). Speaking with
one voice might appear necessary to the PR department, but organizations who limit
themselves to being consistent in all terms are inflexible. This, especially, is a license to
fail in an age of global markets and fast life cycles (Christensen et al., 2007).
First, and taking this into account, the one-way communication model will not
automatically lead to legitimacy and trust. A too simplistic mirroring, recitation or
translation of social expectations in the dominant code easily leads to mere symbolic
communication. A too intensive claiming of legitimacy is easily seen as very idealised
and increases distrust, especially if today’s recipients of corporate communication
know the informal corporate motives and do not really expect corporate altruism.
As Ashford and Gibbs (1990) show, legitimating attempts will be seen more sceptically
where the general legitimacy is perceived as very low. In these cases, external and
internal public opinion sometimes re-translate the corporate communications
opportunistically. Watchdog organizations, in particular, use strategies of negating
(Malchow and Schulz, 2008). In the case of Vattenfall’s new environmental initiative,
Greenpeace did not view the Vattenfall campaign as an offer to start a dialogue.
They saw it as a challenge and opportunity to take over the lead in the public discourse Institutionalization
by imitating the design of the campaign and undermining everything that was claimed of CSR
by Vattenfall.
Second, there are also pitfalls within dialogue communication. The asymmetrical
model, in particular, shares the assumption of fixed meanings that are transmitted
from one actor to the other (sensegiving). In addition, the model of two-way symmetric
communication cannot be regarded as a blueprint for corporate communications and 21
can be criticized as idealized (L’Etang and Pieczka, 1996; Merten, 2000). Social reality is
rarely negotiated through rational argumentations in the Habermasian way, but is
often constructed by emotionalized and moral communications. Such emotionalized
communication is often used by protest movements and does not aim at finding a
consensus, but at breaking up dialogue and, therefore, the mutual negotiation of social
reality (Schultz, 2005, 2006; Sandeep and Kucuk, 2009). From this perspective,
involvement and dialogue with stakeholders might lead to paralyzing effects on
organizations and their stakeholders, preventing them from reaching consensus and
action. Furthermore, this strategy is very time consuming and expensive. And finally,
it can also easily lead to cynicism and distrust when it is instrumentally and
superficially employed and not genuinely adopted (Crane and Livesey, 2003).
There are also problems from the background of the macro-level analysis. As
argued elsewhere (Nothhaft and Wehmeier, 2007), linear and causal models might be of
value in environments of low complexity, where the involved stakeholders can
possibly be known. In turbulent environments, however, these models might fail
because corporations act in complex environments (Weyer, 1993; Busch and Busch,
1992; Degele, 1997)[4]. The future of the relations between a corporation and its
environment is only probabilistic. When conditions change at a fast pace or when
corporations are facing antagonistic expectations, balancing all stakeholder demands
and having mutual dialogic relationships with all relevant publics turns out to be
illusionary, if not paradoxical. The Vattenfall case is a good example of how a
corporation tries to deal publicly with conflicting demands. Whereas the interims CEO
tried to demonstrate social responsibility towards the public, the first public statement
of the new CEO was: “We are hungry for growth” – revealed the opposite. Here,
conflicting demands (transparency, responsibility and economic growth) led to
tensions in stakeholder communication and action. In such situations, causal and linear
strategies to gain legitimacy and trust may fail because they are invented to show
responsibility to all stakeholders simultaneously.
To summarize, the internal and external moralization of corporate communication
as one-way communication or asymmetric or symmetric two-way communication does
not, consequently, foster more legitimacy or higher financial performance. On the
contrary, corporations are taking the enormous risk of increasing delegitimization. By
assuming, they could control meanings and perceptions among stakeholders through
CSR communication; they will invest in CSR and incorporate CSR communication,
thereby binding themselves to certain rules. This confronts them with rising and
exaggerated public expectations and produce distrust. Therefore, this process can
become a vicious circle: the downward spiral of legitimacy (Crane and Livesey, 2003)
leads to an upward spiral of further institutionalization of CSR (Hiß, 2006) that, in turn,
might lead to less legitimacy.
CCIJ 7. Coping with complex and conflicting demands
15,1 Based on these possible consequences of CSR communications, the question at hand is
how organizations might be able to cope with such complex and partly antagonistic
demands. One way to deal with situations like these is to follow the concept of
organized hypocrisy. Brunsson coined this term in order to describe organizational
behaviour that cannot be explained in functionalist terms. Organized hypocrisy means
22 “a difference between words and deeds, the eventuality that organizations may talk in
one way, decide in another and act in a third” (Brunsson, 2002, p. XIII). Organizations
can meet conflicting demands by using different approaches and by oscillating
between talk, decision and action. While some demands are answered by symbolical or
dialogical talk (saying that the organization will do something in the future), others are
answered by decision (presenting a new CEO as a symbol for a new beginning) and
some by action (a price rise). As the analysis of the organizational level shows,
hypocrisy already starts within the process of translating CSR formally and informally
and might end in such fragmented communications. However, we do not say that this
“management by hypocrisy” was a strategic response. It was, probably, just
“muddling through” (Lindblom, 1969) a crisis.
Especially, when it comes to such sensitive programs as CSR, simply being good
might be more appropriate than being good and talking about it. “Defaulted
communication” is, therefore, a valuable communication option for avoiding a
downward spiral of legitimacy. The term “defaulted communication” is introduced
here to characterize silent CSR strategies as used by most of the Danish companies
(Morsing, 2003). Silent communication strategies avoid “sensegiving” and, possibly
sceptically regarded approaches. They also avoid making promises and
communicatively constructing fixed future realities that might never be achieved.
By doing so, disappointments can be avoided. On the contrary, it opens the process of
institutionalization for stakeholders’ interpretations and sensemaking processes.
Co-constructions of multiple social realities might evolve that, in turn, can trigger even
more involvement. Furthermore, we argue, that corporations can strategically combine
all communication strategies according to the perceived triggers and the recipient’s
social constructions of reality. Symbolic communication can be used to get target
groups’ attentions but not to convince (competition). Dialogue might be used to answer
concrete criticism (public pressure) and defaulted communication should be chosen
while implementing CSR practices that are regarded as a matter of course (regulative
and professional norms).

8. Conclusion and future research

By linking institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives, the study
developed a general understanding of the institutionalization of CSR on the societal
and the organizational level. In the latter, we characterize institutionalization as the
translation of expectations, definitions of CSR and constructions of institutional norms.
As demonstrated with the neo-institutional framework, corporations experience
enormous tensions between conflicting economic, ecological and social demands.
These demands often remain incompatible and trigger decoupling and trust building
processes. They foster a gap between formal and informal behaviour and lead to an
increasing moralization, amoralization, and institutionalization of CSR within
corporate communications. Here, the meaning of CSR is socially negotiated by the
different actors. As demonstrated, the widely encompassing communication models – Institutionalization
one-way communication, dialogic communication and trust building – often remain of CSR
deficient while, at the same time, opening room for distrust and delegitimization.
Organizations should think twice before proclaiming their own responsibility because,
if they do so, they will be held accountable by the public and by politicians. The public
(at least in non-socialist countries) does not expect corporations to be social service
agencies. Through talking about different and potentially conflicting demands of 23
stakeholders, corporations not only show that they listen to public demands, but they
also demonstrate that they can have a share in the demythologization of such
normative positions argumentatively. Finally, strategic flexibility between talk,
decisions and actions, as well as combinations of symbolic, dialogic or defaulted
communication, according to the recipient’s social constructions of reality, might be a
way to better cope with antagonistic demands.
This analysis facilitates many opportunities for further research. First, the
institutionalization of CSR has to be grounded empirically through qualitative methods
as, for example, qualitative actor-network analysis (Hollstein and Strauss, 2006; Latour,
2005). Here, actors are not regarded as black boxes, but compatible with our developed
theoretical framework as mediators who “transform, translate, distort, and modify the
meaning they are supposed to carry” (Latour, 2005, p. 39). Second, the theoretical
framework serves as a basis for detailed descriptions of the cultural and national
differences between CSR-concepts, cultures and their institutionalization. Third,
research should concentrate on the idea of CSR as a social construct and try to develop a
less normative and more realistic understanding of the different communication
processes. PR-oriented research, in particular, should look at the reception of CSR
communication in order to obtain knowledge about the public constructions of
CSR. Fourth, research needs to focus on the unveiling of the strategy of “defaulted
communication” and of hypocrisies as well as on their effects. Finally, the interplay
of the three levels, as well as the sensemaking processes as part of the strategies, has to
be analyzed in different situations, such as in crisis situations, in which the common
interplay between an organization and its stakeholders gets disrupted.
Notes
1. The Vattenfall web site: http://climatesignature.vattenfall.com/; the critical Greenpeace
web site: www.klimaunterschrift-vattenfall.de/
2. Within its CSR presentation Vattenfall Europe AG (2008, p. 2) makes use of the “translation”
vocabulary.
3. The thoughtful notion that organizations emerge out of communication and therefore a
division of action and communication is not fruitful, is noticed here, but not very helpful in
our argumentation that focuses on the behavior of the organization and the (strategic)
communication.
4. Neo-institutionalists rarely use the term environment. Instead they talk about organizational
fields (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) when describing the structure the organization is
embedded in. Although following neo-institutional lines of argumentation, we decide not to
use the term organizational fields, because it is rarely defined.

References
Ashford, B.E. and Gibbs, B.W. (1990), “The double-edge of organizational legitimation”,
Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-94.
CCIJ Beaulieu, S. and Pasquero, J. (2002), “Reintroducing stakeholder dynamics in stakeholder
thinking: a negotiated order perspective”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 6, pp. 53-69,
15,1 special issue on Stakeholder Responsibility.
Bentele, G. (1994), “Öffentliches Vertrauen: Normative und soziale Grundlage der Public
Relations” (“Public trust: normative and social foundation of public relations”),
in Armbrecht, W. and Zabel, U. (Eds), Normative Aspekte der Public Relations.
24 Grundlagen und Perspektiven. Eine Einführung (Normative Aspects of Public Relations:
Foundations and Perspectives), Westdeutscher, Cologne, pp. 131-58.
Bentele, G. and Seidenglanz, R. (2008), “Trust and credibility: prerequisites for communication
management”, in Zerfass, A., van Ruler, B. and Sriramesh, K. (Eds), Public Relations
Research: European and International Perspectives and Innovations, VS Verlag,
Wiesbaden, pp. 49-62.
Bentele, G., Steinmann, H. and Zerfaß, A. (1996), Dialogorientierte Unternehmenskommunikation.
Grundlagen, Praxiserfahrungen, Perspektiven (Dialogue Oriented Corporate
Communication. Foundations, Practical Experiences, Perspectives), Vistas, Berlin.
Bernays, E.L. (1947), “The engineering of consent”, Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, Vol. 250, pp. 113-20.
Beschorner, T. (2004), “Unternehmensethische Untersuchungen aus gesellschaftlicher Perspektive.
Von der gesellschaftsorientierten Unternehmenslehre zur unternehmensorientierten
Gesellschaftslehre” (“Analysis of corporate ethics from a societal perspective. From social
centred corporate studies to corporation centred social studies”), Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-
und Unternehmensethik, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 255-76.
Black, L.D. and Härtel, C.E.J. (2004), “The five capabilities of social responsible firms”, Journal of
Public Affairs, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 125-44.
Blumer, H. (1986), “The methodological position of symbolic interactionism”, in Blumer, H. (Ed.),
Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, University of California Press, Berkley,
CA, pp. 1-60.
Bovens, M (1998), The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex
Organizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brunsson, N. (1985), The Irrational Organization: Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational
Action and Change, Wiley, Chichester.
Brunsson, N. (2002), The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in
Organizations, Abstrackt & Liber, Oslo.
Busch, J.A. and Busch, G.A. (1992), Sociocybernetics: A Perspective for Living in Complexity,
Social Systems Press, Jeffersonville, IN.
Campbell, J.L. (2004), Institutional Change and Globalization, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Campbell, J.L. (2007), “Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 946-67.
Carroll, A.B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct”,
Business and Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95.
Christensen, L.T. (1997), “Marketing as auto-communication”, Consumption, Markets & Culture,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 197-227.
Christensen, L.T., Firat, A.F. and Torp, S. (2007), “The organisation of integrated
communications: toward flexible integration”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42,
pp. 423-52.
Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Cheney, G. (2008), Corporate Communications: Convention, Institutionalization
Complexity, and Critique, Sage, London.
of CSR
Crane, A. (2000), “Corporate greening as amoralization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 673-96.
Crane, A. and Livesey, S. (2003), “Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication
and the risks and rewards of dialogue”, in Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and
Rahman, S.S. (Eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2: Relationships, Communication, 25
Reporting and Performance, Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp. 39-52.
Creed, W.E., Scully, M.A. and Austin, J.R. (2002), “Clothes make the person? The tailoring of
legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity”, Organization Science, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 475-96.
Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996), “The travel of ideas”, in Czarniawska-Joerges, B. and
Sevon, G. (Eds), Translating Organizational Change, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 13-48.
Degele, N. (1997), “Zur Steuerung komplexer Systeme. Eine soziokybernetische Reflexion” (“On
the control of complex systems. A soziocybernetic reflexion”), Soziale Systeme, Vol. 3,
pp. 81-99.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 147-60.
Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational
behavior”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18, pp. 122-36.
Entine, J. (2003), “The myth of social investing: a critique of its practice and consequences for
corporate social performance research”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 352-68.
European Commission (2001), “Promoting a European framework for corporate social
responsibility”, Green Paper, Industrial Relations and Industrial Change Series, Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Frederick, W.C. (1986), “Toward CSR3: why ethical analysis is indispensible and unavoidable in
corporate affairs”, California Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 126-41.
Frederick, W.C. (1998), “Creatures, corporations, communities, chaos, complexity: a naturologic
view of the corporate social role”, Business and Society, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 358-89.
Freeman, R.E. (2004), “The stakeholder approach revisited”, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und
Unternehmensethik, Vol. 5, pp. 228-41.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Gond, J.-P. and Matten, D. (2007), “Rethinking the business-society interface: beyond the
functionalist gap”, ICCSR Research Paper Series No. 47, Nottingham University Business
School, Nottingham.
Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, Holt, Hart and Winston,
New York, NY.
Hall, S. (1999), “Kodieren/Dekodieren” (“Encoding/decoding”), in Bromley, R., Göttlich, U. and
Winter, C. (Eds), Grundlagentexte zur Einführung (Cultural Studies: Basic Texts),
Zu Klampen, Lündeburg, pp. 92-112.
Hiß, S. (2006), Warum übernehmen Unternehmen gesellschaftliche Verantwortung? Ein
soziologischer Erklärungsversuch (Why do Corporations Take Over Social Responsibility?
A Sociological Approach), Campus, Frankfurt am Main.
CCIJ Hollstein, B. and Straus, F. (2006), Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse (Qualitative Network Analysis),
VS, Wiesbaden.
15,1
Hundhausen, C. (1951), Werbung um öffentliches Vertrauen: Public Relations (Bidding for Public
Trust: Public Relations), Giradet, Essen.
Jensen, M.C. (2001), “Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function”, Journal of Corporate Applied Finance, Vol. 14, pp. 8-21.
26 Jepperson, R.L. (1991), “Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism”, in Powell, W.W.
and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 143-63.
Jonker, J., Cramer, J. and van der Heijden, A. (2004), “Developing meaning in action:
(re)constructing the process of embedding corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
companies”, ICCSR Research Paper Series No. 16, Nottingham University Business School,
Nottingham.
Krotz, F. (2007), Mediatisierung: Fallstudien zum Wandel von Kommunikation (Mediatization:
Case Studies in the Change of Communication), VS, Wiesbaden.
Lammers, J.C. (2003), “An institutional perspective on communicating corporate responsibility”,
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 618-24.
Lammers, J.C. and Barbour, J.B. (2006), “An institutional theory of organizational
communication”, Communication Theory, Vol. 16, pp. 356-77.
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
L’Etang, J. and Pieczka, M. (1996), Critical Perspectives in Public Relations, International
Thomson Business Press, London.
Lindblom, C.E. (1969), “The science of ‘muddling through’”, in Etzioni, A. (Ed.), Readings on
Modern Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 154-73 (reprint).
Löding, T., Schulze, K. and Sundermann, J. (2006), Konzern, Kritik, Kampagne! Ideen und Praxis
für soziale Bewegungen (Big trusts, Critique, Campaign! Ideas and Practices for Social
Movements), VSA Verlag, Hamburg.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 117-27.
Maitlis, S. (2005), “The social process of organizational sensemaking”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 21-49.
Malchow, T. and Schulz, J. (2008), “Emergenz im Internet. Protest, Konflikt und andere Formen
verständigungsloser Kommunikation im WWW” (“Emergence on the internet. Protest,
conflict, and other forms of miscarried communication in the world wide web”),
in Thimm, C. and Wehmeier, S. (Eds), Organisationskommunikation online. Grundlagen,
Praxis, Empirie (Organizational Communication Online: Foundations, Practice, Empirical
Research), Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 61-83.
March, J.G. and Simon, H. (1993), Organizations, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), “‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: a conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 2, pp. 404-24.
Merten, K. (2000), “Die Lüge vom Dialog. Ein verständigungsorientierter Versuch über
semantische Hazards (“The lie about dialogue. An understanding oriented approach on
semantic hazards”), Public Relations Forum, Vol. 6, pp. 6-9.
Merten, K., Schmidt, S. and Weischenberg, S. (1994), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien. Eine Institutionalization
Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft (The Reality of Mass Media: An
Introduction to Communication Studies), VS, Wiesbaden. of CSR
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63.
Meyer, J.W., Boli, J. and Thomas, G.M. (1994), “Ontology and rationalization in the western
cultural account”, in Thomas, G.M., Meyer, J.W., Ramirez, F.O. and Boli, J. (Eds), 27
Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-27.
Morsing, M. (2003), “Conspicuous responsibility: communicating responsibility – to whom?”,
in Morsing, M. and Thyssen, C. (Eds), Corporate Values and Responsibility – The Case of
Denmark, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp. 145-54.
Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder
information, response and involvement strategies”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 4, pp. 323-38.
Morsing, M., Eder-Hansen, J. and Jensen, E.C. (2008), cbsCSR Report 2002-2007, CBS Center for
Corporate Social Responsibility, available at: http://frontpage.cbs.dk/csr/csr_aarsrapport_
2008.pdf (accessed 12 February 2009).
Motion, J. and Leitch, S. (1996), “A discursive perspective from New Zealand: another world
view”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 297-309.
Motion, J. and Weaver, C.K. (2005), “A discourse perspective for critical public relations research:
life sciences network and the battle for truth”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 49-67.
Nothhaft, H. and Wehmeier, S. (2007), “Coping with complexity: sociocybernetics as a framework
for communication management”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 151-68.
Patriotta, G., Schultz, F. and Gond, J.P. (2008), “The institutional work of justification: how actors
make sense of disruptive events”, paper presented at the Conference European Group of
Organization Studies (EGOS), Amsterdam, 10-12 July.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2003), “The competitive advantage of corporate philantrophy”,
Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility, Harvard Business School, Boston,
MA, pp. 27-64.
Roberts, J. (2003), “The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: constructing corporate
sensibility”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 249-65.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996), “Imitating by editing success: the construction of organization
fields”, in Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (Eds), Translating Organizational Change,
de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 69-92.
Sandeep, K. and Kucuk, S.U. (2009), “Anti-branding on the internet”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1119-26.
Scherer, A. and Palazzo, G. (2007), “Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility:
business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1096-120.
Schimank, U. (1985), “Der mangelnde Akteurbezug systemtheoretischer Erklärungen
gesellschaftlicher Diffe-renzierung. Ein Diskussionsvorschlag” (“The lack of actors in
systems theory driven explanation of social differentiation”), Zeitschrift für Soziologie,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 421-34.
CCIJ Schmidt, S.J. (2003), Geschichten und Diskurse. Abschied vom Konstruktivismus (Stories and
Discourses: Farewell to Construtivism), Rowohlt, Hamburg.
15,1
Schultz, F. (2005), “Symbolische Praxen in der Wirtschaftskommunikation. Menschenbilder,
Kulturdefinitionen und moralische Kommunikation als Grundlage von Corporate Social
Responsibility” (“Ideas of man, cultural definitions and moral communication as a
foundation of corporate social responsibility”), unpublished Master thesis, Berlin.
28 Schultz, F. (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility als wirtschaftliches Evangelium.
Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Betrachtung des normativen Konzeptes” (“Corporate
social responsibility as a business gospel: a communication studies oriented analysis of a
normative concept”), in Ruckh, M.F., Noll, C. and Bornholdt, M. (Eds), Sozialmarketing als
Stakeholder-Management. Grundlagen und Perspektiven für ein beziehungsorientiertes
Management von Nonprofit-Organisationen (Social Marketing as Stakeholder
Management: Foundations and Perspectives for a Relationship Oriented Management of
Nonprofit Organizations), Haupt, Bern, pp. 173-85.
Schultz, F. (2009), “Moral communication and organizational communication: on the narrative
construction of social responsibility”, paper presented at the International Communication
Association (ICA), Chicago, IL, 21-25 May.
Schultz, F. and Wehmeier, S. (2009), “The role of public relations agencies in the social
construction and institutionalization of corporate citizenship: a narration and storytelling
perspective”, in Rogojinaru, A. and Wolstenholme, S. (Eds), Current Trends in
International Public Relations, Communicare Media, Bucharest.
Scott, W.R. (2008), Institutions and Organizations, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shamir, R. (2005), “Mind the gap: the commodification of corporate social responsibility”,
Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 229-53.
Signitzer, B. and Prexl, A. (2008), “Corporate sustainability communications: aspects of theory
and professionalization”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20, pp. 1-19.
Stachowiak, H. (1965), “Gedanken zu einer allgemeinen Theorie der Modelle” (“Thoughts on a
general theory of models”), Studium Generale, Vol. 18, pp. 432-63.
Tagesspiegel (2008), “250000 Kunden weniger, ein Chef mehr” (“250000 clients less, one CEO
more”), Tagesspiegel magazin, 11 December, available at: www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/
art271,2436783
Taylor, M. and Kent, M. (2002), “Toward a dialogic theory of public relations”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Turner, J.H. and Boyns, D. (2006), “The return of grand theory”, in Turner, J.H. (Ed.), Handbook of
Sociological Theory, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 353-78.
Vattenfall Europe AG (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2006. What We Want. What
We Are Doing. What We have Achieved, Vattenfall AB Author, Stockholm.
Vattenfall Europe AG (2008), CSR for Vattenfall, Presentation of the Corporation, Vattenfall
Europe AG, Berlin.
von Foerster, H. (1993) in Schmidt, Siegfried J. (Ed.), Wissen und Gewissen (Knowledge and
Conscience), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Vowe, G. (2001), “Feldzüge um die öffentliche Meinung: Politische Kommunikation in
Kampagnen am Beispiel von Brent Spar und Muroroa” (“Campaigns to win the public
opinion: political communication in campaigns – the cases of Brent Spar and Muroroa”),
in Röttger, U. (Ed.), PR-Kampagnen. Über die Inszenierung von Öffentlichkeit (PR
Campaigns: About the Making of Public Opinion), Westdeutscher, Wiesbaden, pp. 121-40.
Waddock, S.A. (2000), “Performance characteristics of social and traditional investments”, Institutionalization
Journal of Investing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-38.
Weber, K. and Glynn, M.A. (2006), “Making sense with institutions: context, thought and action
of CSR
in Karl Weick’s theory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 1639-60.
Weick, K. (1993), “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster”,
Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol. 38, pp. 628-52.
Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 29
Weyer, J. (1993), “System und Akteur. Zum Nutzen zweier soziologischer Paradigmen bei der
Erklärung erfolgreichen Scheiterns” (“System and actor. On the usefulness of two
sociological paradigms in the explanation of successful failure”), Kölner Zeitschrift für
Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Zilber, T.B. (2002), “Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors:
the case of a rape crisis centre in Israel”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 234-54.
Zilber, T.B. (2006), “The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: translations of rational
myths in Israel High Tech”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 281-303.

About the authors

Friederike Schultz studied Communication Science at the University of Arts, Berlin, Germany in
2003-2006. Since 2006, he is a PhD candidate at the University Greifswald, Free University of
Berlin. He worked as a Visiting Fellow (Research Term) at the Nottingham University Business
School (UK), University of Cambridge (UK), and University of St Gallen (Switzerland) from 2006
to 2007. Between 2006-2008, he worked as a Research Assistant at the International Center for
CSR (Nottingham University Business School, UK). Since 2008, he worked as a Research
Assistant at the Department for Organizational Communication, University Greifswald
(Germany). Since 2007, he is a Lecturer at the Institute for Communication Studies, University
Greifswald (Germany). Since 2008, he is a Research Assistant and a Lecturer at the Department
for Organizational Communication, Free University Berlin (Germany). His research areas are
organizational communication, CSR, and marketing communication. Friederike Schultz is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: friederike.schultz@fu-berlin.de
Stefan Wehmeier studied Communication Science, History and Economic Policy, at
Westfälische Wilhelms-University Münster, Germany. Since, he has been a Business to Business
Journalist (1998), Public Relations Practitioner (Bertelsmann Subsidiary) (1999). From 2000 to
2006, he was an Assistant Professor at the Department of Public Relations, University of Leipzig.
Since 2007, he is a Junior Professor at the Department of Communication, University of
Greifswald, Germany, 2008 Interim Chair of Communication Studies at the Department of
Communication, University of Greifswald, Germany. Since September 2008, he is an Adjunct
Professor at the Department of Marketing and Management, University of Southern Denmark.
His research areas are PR, CSR, online communication, media systems, and international media
markets.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints