663708

research-article2016
BCQXXX10.1177/2329490616663708Business and Professional Communication QuarterlyCho et al.

Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility

Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly
Communicating Corporate 2017, Vol. 80(1) 5269
2016 by the Association for
Social Responsibility on Business Communication
Reprints and permissions:
Social Media: Strategies, sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2329490616663708
Stakeholders, and Public journals.sagepub.com/home/bcq

Engagement on Corporate
Facebook

Moonhee Cho1, Lauren D. Furey2, and Tiffany Mohr3

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore what corporations with good reputations
communicate on social media. Based on a content analysis of 46 corporate Facebook
pages from Fortunes Worlds Most Admired Companies, this study found that
corporations communicate noncorporate social responsibility messages more
frequently than corporate social responsibility (CSR) messages. When communicating
CSR activities, corporations employed an informing strategy more often than an
interacting strategy and included internal publics activities more than external
publics. This study also found that publics engage more with noncorporate social
responsibility messages than CSR messages, which may reflect public cynicism of CSR
communication.

Keywords
corporate social responsibility, CSR communication, social media

Due to the growth of social media, corporations are eager to adopt it for daily com-
munication with their publics (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Social Media Usage,
2012). Compared with traditional media, social media have strengthened
organizations abilities to engage with their publics beyond simply disseminating

1University of Tennessee, USA

2CaliforniaState Polytechnic University, USA
3University of Florida, USA

Corresponding Author:
Moonhee Cho, School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Tennessee, 476 Communications
Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Email: mcho4@utk.edu
Cho et al. 53

information, which publics have come to expect from them (Cone Communications,
2008; Kelleher & Miller, 2006). Gone are the days when corporate websites were suf-
ficient means of disseminating information to the media and other stakeholders
(Callison, 2003). Todays corporations take advantage of the opportunity to engage
with publics by actively utilizing various types of social media, and of those media,
Facebook is the most popular (Sareah, 2015).
Social media also allow publics to easily express their expectations or opinions about
an organization and its practices. In this sense, CEOs from Fortune 50 companies and
many others view social media not as emerging but mature enough to be actively used and
monitored to better understand public expectations (Arthur W. Page Society, 2013). While
understanding the raison dtre of profit organizations, publics also have expected corpo-
rate citizenship. To meet such expectations, it is imperative that corporations not only
conduct but also communicate their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.
Tang, Gallagher, and Bie (2015) have asserted that CSR can be understood as a dis-
course, or an interrelated set of texts, and the practices of their production, dissemina-
tion, and reception, that brings an object into being (as cited in Phillips & Hardy, 2002,
p. 3). Yet constructing this discourse or communicating CSR is challenging because
corporations need to gratify different expectations from various publics, which often-
times conflict (e.g., shareholders vs. community members; Carroll, 1991; Porter &
Kramer, 2002). More importantly, publics are quick to criticize CSR activities and have
negative attitudes toward explicit CSR communication, as they are perceived as self-
serving for the corporation rather than truly caring for the community (Coombs &
Holladay, 2012; Waddock & Googins, 2011; Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). However,
communicating CSR is still crucial to enhancing corporate reputation and public support
(Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011). In particular, utilizing inter-
active media to communicate CSR issues is considered an effective means for building
organization-public relationships and gaining legitimacy from publics (Capriotti &
Moreno, 2007; Esrock & Leichty, 1998; Fieseler, Fleck, & Meckel, 2010).
The main purpose of this study was to explore what CSR efforts corporations
deemed to have good reputations are communicating on Facebook. More specifically,
this study examined CSR communication, by adopting Morsings (2006) informing
and interacting strategies. It also explored the major stakeholders portrayed in CSR
activities and how stakeholders engage with CSR messages on Facebook. In doing so,
this study provides academic and practical implications for CSR communication.
More specifically, for those who teach business communication in an academic or
organizational setting, this study could provide knowledge about how corporations are
and should be communicating their CSR activities on Facebook.

Literature Review
Defining CSR and CSR Communication
The concept of CSR has been actively used in modern business practice, although the
term has evolved over several decades (Carroll, 1991). CSR has often been used
54 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

interchangeably with corporate citizenship or corporate sustainability that incorporates

corporate economic, social, and environmental commitment, but there is no clear defini-
tion of the term (van Marrewijk, 2003). However, Laasch and Conaway (2015) distin-
guish CSR from corporate sustainability and argue that sustainability, responsibility, and
ethics performance comprise a definition of responsible business. Regardless of the dis-
crepancies in definitions, most literature and practices highlight the importance of mak-
ing proactive efforts to facilitate both business success and social well-being. While
Carrolls (1991) four dimensions of CSReconomic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
have been widely used to explore corporate socially responsible activities, there are
some scholars who have tried to refine CSR activities by distinguishing economic
responsibility activities from other performances because these activities, such as prod-
uct quality and customer satisfaction, heavily focus on business success but not greater
social benefits (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Kim, Kim, & Sung, 2014). For example, after an
extensive review of literature, Dahlsrud (2008) specified CSR activities with five dimen-
sions: environmental, social, economic, stakeholder, and voluntariness. Similarly, Kim
etal. (2014) proposed six categories of CSR, such as environmental stewardship, philan-
thropic contribution, educational commitments, community/employee involvement,
public health commitments, and sponsorship of cultural/sports activities. So, while the
concept and practice of CSR is difficult to define and a unified or widely accepted defini-
tion does not exist, CSR is nonetheless pervasive in business practices and communica-
tion and thus warrants scholarly attention.
As CSR has become increasingly important in business management, CSR com-
munication has also become a hot topic (Bartlett, 2011; Moreno & Capriotti, 2009),
given that all knowledge and ideas are formed, accepted, or rejected through commu-
nication (Ihlen etal., 2011). To understand and meet their publics expectations, cor-
porations should not only act socially responsible but also communicate their CSR
activities strategically (Brnn & Vrioni, 2001; Unerman & Bennett, 2004). Yet many
corporations that are indeed committed to CSR efforts often fail to communicate their
good deeds effectively (Lewis, 2003).
Communicating CSR poses a unique challenge because it may generate stakeholder
skepticism of an organizations intentions for engaging in CSR (Farooq, Merunka, &
Valette-Florence, 2013). This occurs when publics perceive CSR as an instrument for
glossing corporate images (Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Ihlen etal., 2011; K. Lee, Oh,
& Kim, 2013; Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005; Waddock & Googins, 2011). Moreover,
corporations often deal with conflicting expectations from various stakeholders. For
example, investors may expect high financial performance, whereas community mem-
bers anticipate corporate philanthropic or volunteer activities. OConnor and Shumate
(2010) found that CSR communication also varies by industryspecifically that cor-
porations in the mining and chemical industries focus CSR communication on respon-
sibility to employees and the environment, while industries such as retailing tend to
emphasize philanthropic and education-related CSR.
Thus, corporations should carefully develop CSR communication plans to provide
consistent information, satisfy the expectations of each stakeholder, and ultimately
build public trust. In order to avoid public skepticism of CSR and build trusting
Cho et al. 55

relationships with publics, corporations need to communicate authentic CSR efforts at

the core of corporate values (Waddock & Googins, 2011).

CSR Communication in the Digital Media Age

Social media have changed information sharing and relationship building practices
online by allowing previously passive information consumers to become their own
creators and transmitters of information (K. Lee etal., 2013). They have also opened
up a new door for businesses to reach stakeholders. Social media are attractive to orga-
nizations because of the opportunities they provide to interact with publics (Kelleher
& Miller, 2006; Kent & Taylor, 1998; Yang & Lim, 2009).
In general, three characteristics of social media have reshaped corporations public
identities (K. Lee etal., 2013). First, social media allow a company to maintain rela-
tionships with its stakeholders (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Unerman & Bennett, 2004).
Second, social media are uncontrollable, meaning the information flow is multidirec-
tional and hardly predictable, as social media users can easily create, share, and even
alter information (Friedman, 2006). Last, social media make all contentgood and
badeasily searchable and accessible to anyone (K. Lee etal., 2013). These charac-
teristics make it easy for publics to act against any perceived signs of misinformation
and/or manipulation, which poses challenges to companies who decide to use social
media to reach stakeholder groups.
Even with these challenges, many scholars have highlighted the positive effects of
message or media interactivity on organization-public relationships, brand/corporate
attitudes, and publics support (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Ko, Cho, &
Roberts, 2005; H. Lee & Park, 2013; Yang & Lim, 2009). Focusing on CSR commu-
nication, social media allow corporations to set and present a CSR agenda without
being modified by traditional media or gatekeepers. They also change the communica-
tion patterns from traditional one-to-one or one-to-many communication to any-to-any
and many-to-many communication (Capriotti, 2011; Springston, 2001).
Because of these benefits, it is recommended that businesses communicate CSR
activities through interactive media, yet research has found that corporations use of
social media is limited in terms of volumes and topics (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007;
Etter, 2013; Fieseler etal., 2010; Moreno & Capriotti, 2009). To explore the current
state of CSR communication on social media, this study addressed the following
research question:

Research Question 1: How often do corporations communicate CSR issues on

Facebook?

CSR Communication Strategies: Informing Versus Interacting

Despite extensive research on CSR, researchers have rarely explored CSR message
strategies. Filling this gap, Morsing and Schultz (2006) introduced three CSR com-
munication strategies that describe different levels of stakeholder engagement:
56 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

information, response, and involvement. These strategies are rooted in three public
relations models suggested by Grunig and Hunt (1984): public information, two-way
asymmetry, and two-way symmetry. They also proposed the press agentry/publicity
model as a primitive public relations practice, but this model does not describe CSR
communication well because it does not embrace ethical and transparent communica-
tion (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Simplifying Morsing and Schultzs (2006) strategies
to informing and interacting strategies, Morsing (2006) proposed a model for strategic
CSR communication. The two CSR communication strategies have seven core issues
to be integrated in CSR communication.
First, the informing strategy involves providing coherent messages with both inter-
nal and external publics to enhance corporate visibility and public trust (Morsing,
2006). To meet this goal, there are four issues the informing strategy should address:
(a) emphasis of CSR as a shared concern between a business and its publics, (b) link-
ing CSR to core corporate business, (c) visible evidence that demonstrates corporate
support, and (d) CSR results. These four CSR issues are identified internally and
announced to external publics without expecting feedback from publics (Grunig &
Hunt, 1984; Morsing, 2006; Morsing & Schultz, 2006).
Alternatively, a main focus of the interacting strategy is corporate efforts to engage with
publics in developing and implementing CSR programs (Morsing, 2006). The interacting
CSR strategy includes (a) having social partnerships with community leaders and non-
profit organizations; (b) local articulation, which is denoted as corporate engagement with
a community by inviting or being invited to external publics for open communication; and
(c) receiving proactive endorsements from external publics about corporate good deeds.
These two CSR communication strategies are compatible with public relations one-
way and two-way communication models (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Even though corpora-
tions can disseminate trustworthy CSR information, the informing strategy is limited to
unidirectional communication, from an organization to publics. Corporations taking this
approach try to give sense to their publics (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Morsing &
Schultz, 2006). However, the interactive strategy allows corporations to have open com-
munication to reflect public feedback in building and implementing CSR initiatives.
Through a continuous dialogic loop of communication (Morsing & Schultz, 2006), both
corporations and publics cocreate sense with the interactive strategy.
Scholars assert that corporations should utilize two-way communication to highly
engage publics (Capriotti, 2011; Capriotti & Moreno, 2007; Morsing, 2006; Morsing
& Schultz, 2006). However, given that the existing literature has not explored CSR
communication strategies on social media and that social media offer various interac-
tivity opportunities, the following research question was posed:

Research Question 2: Of the two CSR communication strategies, which strategy

is the most frequently used in CSR communication on Facebook?

Some corporations manage specialized social media accounts to only deal with
CSR-related issues, which, in many cases, are managed by CSR experts within the
organization. Etter (2013) found that, compared with general Twitter accounts,
Cho et al. 57

corporations engage more with their publics via CSR-specific Twitter accounts.
Reflecting the previous studies, this study further addresses the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Corporations use a more interactive CSR strategy on their CSR-

specific pages than on general Facebook pages.

Major Stakeholders in CSR Communication

Along with the CSR message strategies, it is imperative to involve actions and voices
of both internal and external stakeholders in CSR communication, to ensure these
efforts are successful and minimize public cynicism toward CSR programs
(Cornelissen, 2004; DeKay, 2011; Morsing, 2006; Waddock & Googins, 2011). First,
from an organizations internal aspect, even though CEOs and top senior managers
usually determine CSR initiatives, employees voices are often directly or indirectly
reflected in the programs (Morsing, 2006; S. Young & Thyil, 2009). Employees active
involvement in fundraisers or volunteer programs has become a common CSR prac-
tice, which enables corporations to demonstrate that the company, as a whole, is con-
cerned about social well-being. Additionally, given that publics trust regular employees
more than CEOs (Edelman, 2013), corporations should involve voices from various
internal stakeholders to demonstrate genuine CSR efforts.
The importance of including external stakeholders in CSR communication is also
well documented (Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008;
Waddock & Googins, 2011). According to Edelman Trust Barometer, publics trust
CSR information more when it comes from activist consumers or independent organi-
zations over a corporate internal spokesperson (Edelman, 2013). This means CSR
messages that include a third-party endorsement or involvement in CSR programs
help corporations decrease public criticism, making CSR information more trustwor-
thy. To explore which stakeholders corporations include in their CSR messages, this
study proposed the following research question:

Research Question 3: Who are the main stakeholders involved with CSR com-
munication (e.g., CEOs, senior managers, employees, nonprofit organizations,
community members, and suppliers)?

Three Engagement Levels on Facebook

Facebook is a leading social media site, as more than 1 billion people had Facebook
accounts as of 2012 (Grandoni, 2012). Like other social media, one of the most significant
benefits of Facebook is the engagement opportunity it provides between an organization
and its publics. Specifically, Facebook offers three distinct engagement toolsLike,
Share, and Commentthat allow Facebook users to interact with each other.
These three engagement features represent different levels of engagement between
an organization and its publics on Facebook (Cho, Schweickart, & Haase, 2014). As a
low level of engagement, the Like tool is used when people like, enjoy, or agree with
58 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

certain posts without the extra effort to show verbal expression. Also adopting this
conceptualization of Like, Jiang, Huang, Wu, Choy, and Lin (2015) have examined the
liking behavior of publics during an organizational crisis. By clicking the Share but-
ton, a medium level of engagement, publics can voluntarily disseminate organizational
information and even express their own opinions or thoughts to their Facebook friends.
Finally, the Comment tool is considered the highest level of engagement, as it requires
more effort and allows publics to directly engage with an organization and other pub-
lics by responding to organizational postings.
Wei, Xu, and Zhao (2015) adopted the three levels of engagement on Facebook in
a study of China Fortune 500 firms. The results indicated that information overload
from information updates led to decreasing levels of engagement by publics (Wei
etal., 2015, p. 626). Kim etal. (2014) also used Like, Share, and Comment as a way
to examine publics participation in dialogue with Fortune 100 companies on Facebook,
finding that fans liked posts more often when the Facebook messages were personal-
ized. More specifically, seeking specific responses from Facebook fans increased the
frequency of likes and comments as well as how often companies responded to their
fans. In a study of nonprofits Facebook messages, publics were more likely to com-
ment on the messages based on two-way symmetric communication than ones based
on either public information or two-way asymmetric communication (Cho etal.,
2014). Adopting the three engagement tools offered by Facebook for CSR communi-
cation, the current study posits the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Publics are more likely to click to Like, Share, and Comment on the
CSR messages based on an interactive strategy than those based on the informing
strategy.

With the popularity of social media, both scholars and practitioners are eager to
learn peoples motivations for following corporate social media. One of the main rea-
sons publics become a Facebook fan of brands is to show their loyalty, receive promo-
tional benefits, and get regular updates (Bosker, 2013; Porterfield, 2010). Because of
public skepticism toward CSR-related messages or activities (Coombs & Holladay,
2012; Ihlen etal., 2011; Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005; Waddock & Googins, 2011),
CSR messages may not be viewed as favorably as noncorporate social responsibility
(non-CSR) messages, like freebies, promotions, or corporate updates. Thus, the fol-
lowing hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Publics are more likely to click Like, Share, and Comment on non-
CSR messages than CSR messages.

Method
Research Design and Sample
To address the hypotheses and research questions, a quantitative content analysis was
conducted. For the sample, the study purposively focuses on corporations that practice
Cho et al. 59

high CSR performances. Even though many corporations are reluctant to communi-
cate their CSR activities to avoid possible public cynicism (Coombs & Holladay,
2012; Ihlen etal., 2011; Waddock & Googins, 2011), corporations with long-term
commitments to CSR and a good reputation may communicate their social values
more often. In this regard, this study adopted the 2013 list of Fortunes Worlds Most
Admired Companies. This list represents the companies with good corporate reputa-
tions, and CSR performance is one of the key factors to being selected.1 Previous stud-
ies have also adopted this list to explore corporate reputation (Musteen, Datta, &
Kemmerer, 2010).
Of the 50 corporations listed, 44 have official corporate Facebook pages. In addi-
tion, two (Chase Bank and Home Depot) have CSR-specialized Facebook pages,
which were added to the sample for a total of 46 pages. As most CSR studies are cross-
sectional, short term, and have a single level of analysis (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), this
study sought to extensively analyze CSR-focused messages for a 1-year period (from
January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013). The unit of analysis in this study is corporate
Facebook messages. A total of 3,766 corporate messages were collected for final data
analysis.

Measures
CSR Communication Strategy. Morsings (2006) two CSR communication strategies,
informing and interactive, were used to measure CSR communication strategy. The
informing CSR strategies are further exemplified with four CSR communication
issues, including (a) corporate promise to consider CSR as a core concern of business,
(b) plans for how to incorporate CSR activities into corporate values, (c) visible evi-
dences for corporate support, and (d) CSR results accomplished. Facebook messages
that (a) announce corporate partnership with community leaders and nonprofit organi-
zations, (b) highlight corporate engagement with local communities, and (c) include
external publics endorsement were coded as the interactive CSR strategy.
Additionally, Kim etal.s (2014) six categories were adopted to classify the CSR
topics or issues. The topics include environmental stewardship, philanthropic contri-
bution, educational commitments, community/employee involvement, public health
commitments, and sponsorship of cultural/sports activities. These topics include both
internal and external CSR commitments that were communicated via Facebook.
Facebook postings that did not fall into any of these categories were coded as non-
CSR issues, which include product/service information, corporate information, holi-
day/events/condolences, and legal compliance.

CSR Major Stakeholders. The study coded the major stakeholders in CSR messages into
two categories: internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders were further
classified into CEO, C-suite/top management, employees, and corporate general,
whereas nonprofit organizations, community members, and suppliers were coded as
external publics. The study also counted whether postings included endorsements and
identified the endorsers.
60 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

Three Engagement Levels on Facebook. To measure the levels of engagement, the num-
ber of Likes, Shares, and Comments on each posting was coded. Additionally, basic
information about the Facebook pages, such as the number of people who liked the
Facebook page, the number of people talking about it, and the number of people who
visited it, was coded.

Intercoder Reliability
Two trained coders assessed intercoder reliability by selecting 10% of the total sample
data. Scotts was used to measure reliability, and the average scores were .94, rang-
ing from .89 to .98.

Results
Descriptive Analysis of Data
At the time period of coding, an average of 16923088.45 (SD = 33846420.83)
people liked the sampled corporations, ranging from a minimum of 12,883 to a
maximum of 141,555,999 Likes. An average of 406804.52 (SD = 1561585.30) peo-
ple were talking about the corporate pages, ranging from 96 to 7,538,037 people.
Additionally, an average of 1883560.50 (SD = 4201389.26) people visited the cor-
porate Facebook pages, ranging from 2,740 to 10,449,009 visits. On average, the
corporations created 83.67 new posts (SD = 28.88) over the 1-year period, with the
frequency ranging from 14 to 157 posts. Out of 702 CSR messages, 556 (79.2%)
were presented on corporate Facebook pages and 146 (20.8%) were placed on
CSR-specialized Facebook accounts.

Evidence for Hypotheses and Research Questions

To answer Research Question 1 that addressed to what extent corporations communi-
cate CSR messages on Facebook, frequency counts were checked. As Table 1 shows,
non-CSR issues (n = 3,064 or 81.4%) were communicated more than CSR messages
(n = 702 or 18.6%).
More specifically, the majority of non-CSR messages was related to product/ser-
vice information (n = 2,268 or 74.0%) or corporate information, such as governance
and employment (n = 354 or 11.6%). A total of 440 (14.4%) of the non-CSR messages
was related to holiday greetings, national/international events (e.g., NFL, PGA,
NASCAR, Womens Day, etc.), sharing photos, condolences, and time change remind-
ers. Two Facebook messages addressed corporate legal compliance (0.0%).
Turning to CSR messages, most were related to corporate community/employee
involvement (n = 167 or 23.8%), followed by philanthropic contribution (n = 149 or
21.2%), public health commitment (n = 117 or 16.7%), environmental stewardship (n
= 109 or 15.5%), educational commitment (n = 91 or 13.0%), and sponsorship of cul-
tural/sports activities (n = 69 or 9.8%).
Cho et al. 61

Table 1. Frequency of Corporate Facebook Postings.

Posting types Items Frequency (n) Percentage

Non-CSR-related Product/service information 2,268 74.0
messages Corporate information 354 11.6
Holidays/events/condolences 440 14.4
Legal compliance 2 0.0
Total 3,064 100
CSR-related messages Environmental stewardship 109 15.5
Philanthropic contribution 149 21.2
Educational commitments 91 13.0
Community/employee involvement 167 23.8
Public health commitment 117 16.7
Cultural/sports sponsorship 69 9.8
Total 702 100

The second research question examined which CSR communication strategy was
the most frequently used on Facebook. From a total of 702 CSR messages, 493 (70.3%)
adopted the informing CSR strategy and 209 (29.8%) utilized the interacting CSR
strategy. Of the informing strategy, 181 (25.8%) Facebook posts contained visible
evidence for corporate support, followed by corporate promise to CSR as a shared
concern (n = 153 or 21.8%), and corporate plans to link CSR to corporate value. Only
28 (4.0%) Facebook messages reported the actual results of CSR programs. In the
interacting strategy, 178 (25.4%) posts announced a corporate partnership with com-
munity leaders and nonprofit organizations, while 66 (9.4%) portrayed corporate
engagement with communities, and 16 (2.3%) included endorsements from external
publics.
The first hypothesis anticipated that the interacting CSR strategy would be used
more often in CSR-specialized Facebook pages than general corporate accounts. Chi-
square tests demonstrated significant differences between the two types of Facebook
pages in terms of CSR strategies. While the CSR-specialized Facebook accounts uti-
lized interacting strategies more than informing strategies, corporate Facebook pages
used informing strategies more often, 2(1, n = 702) = 37.80, p < .001. As a result,
Hypothesis 1 was supported.
The third research question explored which stakeholders were prominent in CSR
messages. From a total of 702 CSR messages, about 70% (n = 492) included internal
stakeholders CSR involvement, while 210 portrayed external publics CSR activities.
Among the CSR messages focusing on internal publics, most (n = 406 or 57.83%)
described major stakeholders as corporate overall or corporate special CSR cam-
paigns, followed by employees participation in CSR activities (n = 64 or 9.1%). The
number of CSR messages that portrayed CEO and C-suite/top managers were 10
(1.4%) and 12 (1.7%), respectively. Among the external publics, nonprofit organiza-
tions (n = 154 or 21.9%) were the main stakeholders, followed by community mem-
bers (n = 51 or 7.3%) and suppliers (n = 5 or 0.7%).
62 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

To test the second hypothesis that explored different levels of engagement (number of
Likes, Shares, and Comments) between the informing and interacting CSR strategies, a
series of independent t tests was used. Results indicated no differences between the two
CSR strategies in the number of Likes, t(700) = 0.45, p > .05; Shares, t(700) = 0.61, p >
.05; and Comments, t(700) = 0.59, p > .05). More specifically, the informing strategies (n
= 2276.89, SD = 15295.70 for Like; n = 268.83, SD = 2015.04 for Share) outnumbered
the interacting strategies (n = 1834.93, SD = 5861.03 for Like; n = 188.54, SD = 1106.25
for Share) in the number of Likes and Shares, whereas the number of Comments for the
interacting strategies (n = 208.43, SD = 1794.73) exceeded the informing strategies (n =
140.96, SD = 1126.08). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Hypothesis 3, which predicted different levels of engagement (the number of Likes,
Shares, and Comments) between non-CSR and CSR messages, also used a series of
independent t tests. First, for the low level of engagement (Like), this study found
there was a statistically significant difference between non-CSR messages, M =
8027.26, SD = 27501.47, and CSR messages, M = 2113.20, SD = 12645.99, t(3,764) =
5.56, p < .001. More specifically, non-CSR messages received higher numbers of
Likes than CSR messages, and similar results were presented for Share and Comment.
Publics shared non-CSR messages more often, M = 820.11, SD = 3855.98, than CSR
messages, M = 239.09, SD = 1734.37, t(3,764) = 3.90, p < .001, and non-CSR mes-
sages, M = 308.05, SD = 1371.47, received more comments than CSR messages, M =
165.95, SD = 1410.28, t(3,763) = 2.46, p < .01. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore how corporations with good reputations com-
municate their CSR activities and how publics engage with CSR messages on
Facebook. To this end, the study analyzed Facebook postings of companies from the
2013 list of Fortunes Worlds Most Admired Companies.
Of the total sample of Facebook postings, less than 20% of the messages portrayed
CSR activities; the focus was mainly on non-CSR communication. These findings are
consistent with previous studies (Etter, 2013; Fieseler etal., 2010; Kim etal., 2014).
While Fortune 500 companies have a tendency to actively communicate CSR mes-
sages on their websites to reinforce their corporate reputation (Esrock & Leichty,
2000), these companies did not use similar strategies on Facebook.
Publics perceptions and use of social media may provide a possible explanation for
the importance of CSR communication. Publics, in general, have negative attitudes
toward corporate social media marketing and consider it as invasive (Cohen, 2012).
This, coupled with publics tendencies to have a high level of skepticism toward CSR,
could explain why corporations, even with good reputations, may want to avoid CSR
communication, in order not to harm corporate legitimacy (Colleoni, 2013; Coombs &
Holladay, 2012; Etter, 2013).
To examine CSR communication strategies on Facebook, this study adopted
Morsings (2006) communication strategies and found that the majority of CSR-
related posts utilized an informing strategy rather than an interacting one. This echoes
Cho et al. 63

previous research, which asserted that organizationsacross the sectors of corporate,

nonprofit, and governmentdo not utilize the benefits social media offer (e.g., engag-
ing with publics and building relationships; Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Culnan, McHugh,
& Zubillaga, 2010; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; Waters & Williams, 2011).
Like organizations from other sectors, corporations use social media to supplement
traditional media. While scholars have asserted that communication between organi-
zations and publics should move from a one-way to a two-way direction, the findings
show a gap between this concept and reality. These findings reveal that corporations
are likely unwilling to engage with publics in an effort to minimize public criticism.
This study also explored two Facebook pages dedicated solely to CSR activities.
Results indicated that the CSR pages used interacting strategies more often. The small
number of CSR-specialized accounts could result from a lack of resources or impor-
tance placed on CSR activities; however, having a separate CSR account allows cor-
porations to directly communicate and engage with specific publics who are more
interested in learning about corporate good deeds (Etter, 2013). This could also allow
them to receive a higher volume of public attention and participation in their CSR
programs.
This study further explored the main stakeholders in CSR communication and
found corporations clearly favor the use of internal publics, specifically, emphasizing
the corporations general role in CSR activities when communicating on Facebook. In
other words, CSR communication failed to include various publicsboth internal and
externalpossibly influencing/being influenced by CSR activities (Cornelissen,
2004). For example, employees provide great input to complete CSR programs (Liu,
Liston-Heyes, & Ko, 2009). Also, involvement of community members and nonprofits
is crucial to help corporations build the credibility of their CSR programs (Edelman,
2013; Morsing etal., 2008). A failure to portray CSR activities with high involvement
of multiple stakeholders may invoke a sense of skepticism toward the corporation and
its CSR activity, making the CSR communication solely self-serving and less
credible.
Applying the three engaging featuresLike, Share, and Commentthat Facebook
offers, this study also examined whether there were differences in the interactivity
levels between the two CSR communication strategies. Although a recent study found
that adopting a two-way communication strategy increased publics engagement lev-
els with nonprofit Facebook (Cho etal., 2014), the similar assumption was not sup-
ported in the corporate settings for CSR communication. Given the overflowing public
distrust toward the sincerity of CSR, publics may not react to CSR messages, which
are often based on corporate self-serving motives to justify their goodwill.
This explanation is more plausible with the studys finding that publics have a greater
tendency to engage with non-CSR messages than CSR messages. In other words, pub-
lics liked, shared, and commented more on non-CSR messages, such as product/service
information, corporate information, and governance than socially responsible contribu-
tions by corporations. Corresponding with the existing literature, one of the main reasons
for publics to friend or follow corporate social media is to receive promotional deals and
follow corporate updates (Bosker, 2013; Porterfield, 2010).
64 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

By exploring corporate use of Facebook for CSR communication, this study

revealed that corporations do not optimize the social media venue, despite its potential
value. Rather, corporations rarely communicate CSR activities and heavily rely on a
one-way communication strategy with an emphasis on internal voices when they
reluctantly communicate about this issue.
These findings demonstrate the dark side of todays CSR communication: corpo-
rate reactiveness to communicate CSR activities with publics and publics indifference
to CSR messages on social media. Based on the findings, this study urges corporate
public relations professionals to develop CSR communication strategies that encour-
age publics to engage with corporations and demonstrate various aspects of CSR by
including both internal and external publics involved in the programs. More specifi-
cally, this study provides corporate public relations managers and academics teaching
CSR communication with a possible solution to reduce the gap between the ideal and
reality of CSR communication: proposing the use of CSR-specialized Facebook
accounts. By focusing on concerned publics on the CSR-designated page, corpora-
tions may easily create public awareness and positive attitudes toward corporations
and their CSR programs without dealing with apathetic or skeptical publics. However,
more empirical research is needed to test the effectiveness of CSR-specialized
Facebook accounts and other social media platforms to identify other possible solu-
tions to addressing skeptical publics.

Pedagogical Implications
In addition to providing business communication managers with practical solutions for
improving CSR communication on Facebook, this study also offers relevant topics to
discuss in the classroom. In a review of public relations and business and professional
communication literature, Penrose (2015) revealed the overlaps between theory and prac-
tice of the two disciplines and also identified how public relations can enrich business and
professional communication instructors and curriculum. The author provided sample
assignments that encapsulate both public relations and business and professional com-
munication, one of which suggests that students analyze a corporate website for its posi-
tion regarding corporate social responsibility (Penrose, 2015, p. 506). This is clearly a
valuable exercise for students to complete in order to understand the varying positions of
corporations regarding CSR. However, it lacks the added benefit that analyzing CSR
communication on social media providesnamely, understanding how varying CSR
positions are perceived and evaluated by relevant stakeholders. This study demonstrates
that not all CSR positions and communication are uniformly received by stakeholders.
Furthermore, Tang etal. (2015) stated that CSR is a discourse constructed through the
constant dialogue and negotiation between corporations and their different stakeholders
(p. 205). As such, business and professional communication students would benefit from
examining CSR positions and communication on social media that provide a platform for
examining constant dialogue between corporations and stakeholders. In the same vein,
the September 2012 issue of Business Communication Quarterly included in the My
Favorite Assignment section a valuable social media assignment that has students
Cho et al. 65

conduct research on a companys social media use and provide recommendations for
improvement (Whalen, 2012). There is clear value in enhancing students understanding
and education of social media as it relates to business and professional communication
(Knight, 2014), particularly because it leads to increased marketability for students in the
job market (A. M. Young & Hinesly, 2014).
Despite the contributions to corporate public relations and CSR communication, this
research has several limitations that should be noted. First, this study provides only an
overview of the current state of CSR communication by corporations via Facebook. It
does not, however, look at other social media platforms or seek any factors for the effects
of this communication on behaviors, attitudes, and the like. Future research should con-
sider the ever-changing social media environment and choose digital platforms for anal-
ysis that are being used for CSR communication accordingly. Employing various
research approaches, future research should explore the causal effects of CSR communi-
cation and public engagement with CSR messages. Additionally, this study serves as a
platform for future researchers to use a qualitative approach for analyzing CSR mes-
sages. In terms of generalizability, the studys findings can be applied to large corpora-
tions with good reputations. This study will hopefully encourage future analyses of CSR
communication by expanding to various business sizes and settingssmall- and
medium-sized enterprises or international corporationsto build a strong body of
knowledge of CSR communication strategies and public engagement.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments and suggestions.

Authors Note
This article is based on a paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal, Canada, 2014.

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.

References
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and dont know about corporate social respon-
sibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932-968.
Arthur W. Page Society. (2013). The CEO view: The impact of communications on corpo-
rate character in a 247 digital world. Retrieved from http://www.awpagesociety.com/
thought-leadership/ceo-view-2013
66 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

Bartlett, J. L. (2011). Public relations and corporate social responsibility. In . Ihlen, J. Bartlett,
& S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility
(pp. 67-86). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environ-
mental advocacy groups Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317-319.
Bosker, B. (2013, June 27). Why your friends go around liking brands on Facebook. The
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/brands-face-
book-survey_n_3510760.html
Brnn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related market-
ing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and
consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company web sites
assist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29, 29-41.
Capriotti, P. (2011). Communicating corporate social responsibility through the Internet and
social media. In . Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and
corporate social responsibility (pp. 358-378). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance
and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public Relations
Review, 33, 84-91.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral man-
agement of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
Cho, M., Schweickart, T. L., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organiza-
tions on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40, 565-567.
Cohen, D. (2012, February 23). Brands, maintain a Facebook page, but dont bother me. Social
Times. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/facebook-page-consum-
ers/382017
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social
media. Corporate Communications, 18, 228-248.
Cone Communications. (2008, September 25). Cone finds that Americans expect compa-
nies to have a presence in social media: Harder-to-Reach audiences are ripe for social
media interaction. Business Wire. Retrieved from http://www.businesswire.com/news/
home/20080925005160/en/Cone-Finds-Americans-Expect-Companies-Presence-Social
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Managing corporate social responsibility: A com-
munication approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications: Theory and practice. London, England: Sage.
Culnan, M. J., McHugh, P. J., & Zubillaga, J. (2010). How large U.S. companies can use Twitter
and other social media to gain business value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9, 243-259.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 defini-
tions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13.
DeKay, S. H. (2011). When doing whats right becomes messy. Business Communication
Quarterly, 74, 412-414.
Edelman. (2013, January 20). Edelman Trust Barometer: Annual Global Study [Presentation
slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/global-deck-2013-edel-
man-trust-barometer-16086761
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-
presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24, 305-319.
Cho et al. 67

Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000). Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and func-
tions. Public Relations Review, 26, 327-344.
Etter, M. (2013). Reasons for low levels of interactivity: (Non-) interactive CSR communication
in Twitter. Public Relations Review, 39, 606-608.
Farooq, O., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2013). Employees response to corporate
social responsibility: An application of a non linear mixture REBUS approach. Springer
Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 56, 257-268.
Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the blogo-
sphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 599-614.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (Rev. ed.).
New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initia-
tion. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
Grandoni, D. (2012, October 4). Facebook has 1 billion users, Mark Zuckerberg announces in
a status update. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/
facebook-1-billion-users_n_1938675
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Ihlen, ., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication.
In . Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate
social responsibility (pp. 3-22). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jiang, J., Huang, Y.-H., Wu, F., Choy, H.-Y., & Lin, D. (2015). At the crossroads of inclusion
and distance: Organizational crisis communication during celebrity-endorsement crises in
China. Public Relations Review, 41, 50-63.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportuni-
ties of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations
outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59, 172-188.
Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational
strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11,
395-414.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide
Web. Public Relations Review, 24, 321-334.
Kim, S., Kim, S.-Y., & Sung, K. H. (2014). Fortune 100 companies Facebook strategies:
Corporate ability versus social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 18,
343-362.
Knight, M. (2014). Managing risk and crisis communication. Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly, 77, 355-356.
Ko, H., Cho, C.-H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equa-
tion model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57-70.
Laasch, O., & Conaway, R. (2015). Principles of responsible management: Glocal sustainabil-
ity, responsibility, and ethics. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Lee, H., & Park, H. (2013). Testing the impact of message interactivity on relationship manage-
ment and organizational reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25, 188-206.
Lee, K., Oh, W.-Y., & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis
of Fortune 500s Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. Journal of Business Ethics,
118, 791-806.
68 Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 80(1)

Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication

Management, 7, 356-366.
Liu, G., Liston-Heyes, C., & Ko, W.-W. (2009). Employee participation in cause-related mar-
keting strategies: A study of management perceptions from British consumer service indus-
tries. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 195-210.
Moreno, A., & Capriotti, P. (2009). Communicating CSR, citizenship and sustainability on the
web. Journal of Communication Management, 13, 157-175.
Morsing, M. (2006). Strategic CSR communication: Telling others how good you are. In J.
Jonker & M. de Witte (Eds.), Management models for corporate social responsibility
(pp. 238-246). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder
information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15,
323-338.
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The Catch 22 of communicating CSR:
Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14, 97-111.
Musteen, M., Datta, D. K., & Kemmerer, B. (2010). Corporate reputation: Do board character-
istics matter? British Journal of Management, 21, 498-510.
OConnor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis
of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly,
24, 529-551.
Penrose, J. M. (2015). Understanding and using the relationships between business and pro-
fessional communication and public relations. Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly, 78, 494-510.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social con-
struction (Vol. 50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.
Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-68.
Porterfield, A. (2010, October 29). Study reveals why consumers fan Facebook pages. Social
Media Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/study-reveals-
why-consumers-fan-facebook-pages/
Sareah, F. (2015, July 26). Interesting statistics for the top 10 social media sites. Small Business
Trends. Retrieved from http://smallbiztrends.com/2015/07/social-media-sites-statistics.
html
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Pollach, I. (2005). The perils and opportunities of communicating cor-
porate ethics. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 267-290.
Social media usage plateaus among marketers: Mobile and location-based marketing are newer
growth areas. (2012, July 18). eMarketer. Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/
Article.aspx?R=1009197&ecid=a6506033675d
Springston, J. K. (2001). Public relations and new media technology: The impact of the Internet.
In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 603-614). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Tang, L., Gallagher, C. C., & Bie, B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility communication
through corporate websites: A comparison of leading corporations in the United States and
China. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 205-227.
Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the Internet: Towards
greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 29, 685-707.
Cho et al. 69

van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:
Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95-105.
Waddock, S., & Googins, B. K. (2011). The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsi-
bility. In . Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate
social responsibility (pp. 23-43). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat
of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6),
77-91.
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review,
35, 102-106.
Waters, R. D., & Williams, J. M. (2011). Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing
the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs,
11, 353-363.
Wei, J., Xu, J., & Zhao, D. (2015). Public engagement with firms on social media in China.
Journal of Information Science, 41, 624-639.
Whalen, D. J. (2012). Selections from the ABC 2011 Annual Convention, Montreal, Canada.
Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 318-340.
Yang, S.-U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on
relational trust. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 341-359.
Young, A. M., & Hinesly, M. D. (2014). Social media use to enhance internal communication:
Course design for business students. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,
77, 426-439.
Young, S., & Thyil, V. (2009). Governance, employees and CSR: Integration is the key to
unlocking value. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47, 167-185.

Author Biographies
Moonhee Cho is an assistant professor in the School of Advertising and Public Relations at the
University of Tennessee.
Lauren D. Furey is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at California
State Polytechnic University.
Tiffany Mohr is a doctoral student in the College of Journalism and Communications at the
University of Florida.