Download Document 8917979

 Communicating Responsibility: Audience reception of CSR communication on social media Master Thesis 30 hp (Vårterminen 2014) Submitted May 26, 2014 Author: Lindsey Oredsson Supervisor: Yvonne Andersson D e p a r t m e n t o f M e d i a S t u d i e s i Abstract
This study offers insight into international audience reception of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) communication. Swedish companies are currently reaching international audiences
through a variety of social media channels and this study analyzes how audiences in Sweden and
the U.S. respond to specific messages.
Qualitative interviews with professionals offer background information on how CSR is currently
communicated while audience responses to CSR communication are gathered through a webbased survey and focus groups consisting of American and Swedish citizens.
Results indicate that the two countries have more similarities than differences. Americans have a
slightly more positive outlook on the communication and they are more likely to look up
information about CSR initiatives after hearing a corporate message. This might indicate a more
profound interest. Cultural and social differences are given as a possible explanation for the key
differences.
Keywords: Audience Reception, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR Communication,
Business Ethics, Digital Marketing, Global Marketing, Online Communication, Public Relations
i Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Yvonne Andersson. Thank you for always
answering my questions thoroughly and for giving me a clear direction in my research. Your support gave
me confidence during the difficult times when turning in a complete study, which reflected all my efforts,
seemed impossible.
Thank you to informants who gave their time to participate in interviews and focus groups. I am grateful
to John Ambrose, Thomas Bergmark, Mark Boutros, Malin Ekefalk, Erik Hedén, Heather Johnson,
Pontus Staunstrup, and Henrik Sundström for the professional insight into CSR communication, which
was invaluable to this study.
ii Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Aims and Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 3 2. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Public Relations and Social Media ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Facebook ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Instagram ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Pintrest ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Twitter ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1.5 YouTube .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility .......................................................................................................... 8 2.3 CSR Communication on Social Media ................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Cause-­‐Related Marketing ................................................................................................................... 10 3. Theoretical Frame and Literature Review ............................................................................ 11 3.1 Encoding and Decoding ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 The Uses and Gratification Theory Applied to Social Media ................................................... 12 3.3 Previous Research on CSR Communication .................................................................................. 13 3.4 Cultural Differences ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.4.1 Swedish culture .................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.2 American history and charity .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.3 Social issues in the U.S. .................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4.4 Americans and advertising ............................................................................................................................... 18 4. Methodology and Materials ....................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 20 4.2.1 Interviews with internal CSR executives .................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 Interviews with CSR consultants ................................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 4.3.1 Survey distribution .............................................................................................................................................. 24 4.5 Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................................... 25 4.6 Material .................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.7 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................................ 28 4.7.1 Validity and reliability of interviews ............................................................................................................ 28 4.7.2 Survey validity and reliability ......................................................................................................................... 29 5. Results and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32 5.1 Interview Results .................................................................................................................................. 32 iii 5.1.1 How corporations use social media networks to communicate CSR ................................................. 32 5.1.2 Dominate discourses in CSR communication discussions .................................................................... 35 5.1.3 Challenges corporations face when communicating to an international audience ........................ 37 5.2 Survey and Focus Group Results ...................................................................................................... 39 5.2.1 How audiences respond to CSR messages communicated via social media ................................... 41 5.2.2 How corporate messages about CSR affect audience opinions ........................................................... 45 5.2.3 Motivations for sharing CSR messages on social networks ................................................................. 46 5.2.4 Differences between American and Swedish responses ........................................................................ 47 6. Conclusion and Reflection .......................................................................................................... 51 6.2 Limitations and Proposal for Further Research ......................................................................... 54 References ............................................................................................................................................ 55 Appendix A – Interviews .................................................................................................................. 61 Appendix B -­‐ Survey .......................................................................................................................... 62 Survey ............................................................................................................................................................... 62 Survey Translated to Swedish .................................................................................................................. 67 Survey Results – Tables and Frequencies ............................................................................................ 73 Appendix C – Focus Group Material ............................................................................................. 75 iv 1. Introduction
Although the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR)1 is not new, its significance to
multiple stakeholder groups and the way corporations communicate it has changed over time
(Cramer 2002). Jacqueline Cramer (2002) asserts that globalization triggered more CSR
communication. “The globalization of the economy and the increasing reliance on market forces
are placing a greater social responsibility on the shoulders of trade and industry” (2002: 105).
Cramer accurately predicted that the demand for sustainable business practices would
continue. “We are ... moving towards a network society in which regulation by civil society
plays an important role alongside regulation by government” (2002: 105). With the increasing
use of social media networks, the visibility of CSR communication to publics is presently even
more evident (Phillips & Young 2009). Social media networks offer platforms for engaging with
audiences (Phillips & Young 2009; Yaxley 2012).
While there is a great deal of research about CSR, the research about CSR
communication is more limited. This study will not argue merits and limitations of increased
CSR. Instead, it focuses primarily on CSR communicated through social media and audience
reception. In order to find out more about CSR communication, the methodology includes
interviews with communication professionals and CSR consultants. “The advent of social media
has a range of implications for organizations attempting to position themselves as ethically
engaged” (Phillips & Young 2009: 253). Heather Yaxley explains that companies need to decide
on social media strategies and appropriate approaches in order to accurately take part in
communication to build relationships with stakeholders (2012: 233). “This requires an approach
which eschews a publicity model in favour of relationship with publics, who are treated with
respect” (Yaxley 2012: 233).
In order to narrow down the focus for the study, Electrolux, Ericsson, H&M and IKEA’s
CSR communication on social media is addressed. These corporations were chosen because
three are within the top ten biggest corporations in Sweden2. IKEA, however, is not listed as one
of the top ten biggest corporations in Sweden, but was founded in Sweden and now operates in
1
Corporate Social Responsibility is “the concept that an enterprise is accountable for its impact on all relevant stakeholders. It is the continuing
commitment by business to behave fairly and responsibly and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the
work force and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.” according to the Commission of European Communities
(Dahlsrud, 2008: 8).
2
Sveriges största företag (2012) Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Foretagande/Naringslivet/Sverigesstorsta-foretag.
1 43 countries.3 IKEA communicates CSR on their Facebook and Twitter pages in different
languages. The decision to include them is based on their size and the amount of global attention
their CSR communication receives on social media platforms. CSR messages are communicated
online through their corporate websites, social media, online news sources and other websites.
Because social media communication is seen by a large audience and not only by specific
stakeholder groups, audience reception informants live in one of the corporation’s markets and
are not necessarily a member of any of the corporation's target markets. The survey is distributed
in the U.S. and Sweden.
Because social media communication is seen by a large audience and not only by specific
stakeholder groups, audience reception informants live in one of the corporation’s markets and
are not necessarily a member of any of the corporation's target markets. The survey is distributed
in the U.S. and Sweden.
The term “Corporate Social Responsibility” can have different meanings. In this study,
the definition used by the Commission of European Communities is applied. As Alexander
Dahlsrud (2008: 7) states, the Commission of European Communities CSR definition is:
CSR is the concept that an enterprise is accountable for its impact on all relevant
stakeholders. It is the continuing commitment by business to behave fairly and
responsibly and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life
of the work force and their families as well as of the local community and society at
large.
Sustainable business practices are often lumped together with CSR. In this study, sustainable
business practices are seen as part of CSR. A few examples of sustainable business practices are
giving workers fair wages, recycling and reducing waste.
Corporations are required by law to adhere to a level of responsibility. Sustainable
business practices are monitored to ensure businesses are not engaging in illegal behavior. While
Electrolux, Ericsson, H&M and IKEA’s communication about sustainable business practices is
explored in this study, emphasis is placed on cause-related marketing campaigns. The survey and
focus group places emphasis on audience reception of cause-related marketing because
contribution to a cause involves doing more than what a corporation is required to do by law.
3
Franchisor.IKEA.com, (2014). Inter IKEA Systems B.V. - IKEA retailing facts and figures. [online] Available at:
http://franchisor.IKEA.com/Whoweare/Pages/IKEA-retailing-facts-and-figures.aspx [Accessed 3 May. 2014]. 2 Corporations engage in a ‘cause-related marketing campaign’ when they donate a potion of sales
to a cause (Barone, Miyazaki & Norman 2007: 437-445).
1.1 Aims and Research Questions
One reason for choosing this topic is because the art of communicating CSR can be seen as
challenging. “One of the dangers of CSR is that it is often seen as at best buying off a guilty
conscience, or worse as a publicity stunt. The transparency and scrutiny of social media critiques
makes this even more of a challenge” (Phillips and Young 2009: 253). One aim is to discover the
current landscape of CSR communication by answering the fist set of questions: How do
corporations use social media networks to communicate CSR, which discourses presently
dominate CSR communication discussions and what specific challenges do corporations face
when communicating to an international audience. The choice to use social media to
communicate CSR to a large international audience could be considered an interesting
phenomenon. While Public Relations (PR) practitioners are encouraged to embrace social media
(Phillips & Young 2009: 270), this exposure can place them in unpredictable situations. As
Yaxley asserts, CSR is a major PR issue that will continue to be relevant in the future (2007).
Therefore, this study is conducted with the aim to contribute to the academic knowledge on
contemporary CSR communication practices and professional perspectives.
The subject of this study is inspired in part by a study aimed at exploring “corporate
responsibility advertising as a social and cultural phenomenon” (Schrøder, Drotner, Kline &
Murray 2003: 107). Kim Schrøder et al. examined consumer reception of corporate responsibility
print ads. Their reception study concluded that, “it is doubtful whether corporate responsibility
advertising, addressing public opinion impersonally through the mass media, is an appropriate
strategy for achieving… a relationship of trust” (2003: 107). Because social media is now a
common channel for communicating CSR, the current study examines communication about
CSR on social media to see if audience responses to this are different than those responses
documented in the print ad study. Another aim of this study, therefore, is to explore how
audiences interpret CSR communicated through social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram,
Pintrest, Twitter and YouTube. The results contribute to increasing knowledge on social media
reception.
3 The last aim is to compare and contract CSR communication reception in two different
markets. Analyzing how audiences in different markets respond to corporate communication is
expected to aid in further illustrating the cultural phenomenon. The main research questions and
sub questions are:
1. How do corporations use social media networks to communicate CSR?
• Which discourses presently dominate CSR communication discussions?
• What specific challenges do corporations face when communicating to an
international audience?
2. How do audiences respond to CSR messages communicated via social media?
• How do corporate messages about CSR affect audience opinions?
• What motivates sharing corporate CSR messages on social networks?
3. What similarities and differences can be detected between the responses of audiences in
the United States and Sweden?
2. Background
Before presenting the theoretical framework and literature review, the rise of social media use
and the channels discussed in the study will be addressed. Background information regarding
Electrolux, Ericsson, H&M and IKEA’s CSR communication practices is also given along with
examples of cause-related marketing.
With the rise in Smartphone use, the time individuals spend online is increasing. In Sweden,
Smartphone penetration is approximately 63% according to research commissioned by Google
and performed by Our Mobile Planet (Our Mobile Planet 2014). In the U.S., Smartphone
penetration is approximately 56% (Our Mobile Planet 2014). People in the U.S. spend
approximately 7.6 hours on social media per month (Statistic Brain 2014) and 15-44 year olds in
Sweden spend an average of 156 hours on the Internet per month (Nordicom 2014). Audiences in
both countries are therefore likely exposed to digital public relations on social media platforms.
The typical social media user may see communication about CSR through friends’ feeds, online
advertisements and through news feeds. “As more people have mobile devices than computers”
David Phillips and Philip Young assert that “[mobile internet] is an important development for
PR practice” (2009: 18). Phillips and Young explain that companies’ plans need to “fluid” (2009:
196) in order to manage the unpredictable (2009: 204). In a brief on page 204, they summarize
by saying that “many management teams are wary of the internet and see it as a threat. For some
there is no doubt that it is a threat and needs management” (2009: 204).
4 2.1 Public Relations and Social Media
Paul Smith and Jonathan Taylor explain the need for a more integrated approach to marketing.
“...the academic world has not yet provided a sufficiently strong theoretical framework … to
support a totally integrated approach to the study of marketing communication…” (2004: vii).
They argue that digital communication creates a need to integrate marketing tools (2004: vii).
Their point about integration is cited here to explain how a TV advertisement circulated on social
media about CSR might be labeled ‘public relations’. TV commercials about CSR, which a
corporation created for TV and then circulated through a link on social media networks, are
considered advertisements and public relations in the current study.
Marketing tools include advertising, sales promotion, public relations, direct marketing,
and personal selling (Bains & Fill & Page 2011: 409). Both online advertising and public
relations on social media will be discussed in this study. Prior to Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest,
Twitter, and YouTube, online advertising was prevalent through direct email and banner ads on
sites target markets frequented (Zeff & Aronson 1999: 69-93). TV advertisements shared on
corporate social media channels could be seen as advertising and public relations4.
Communication that is considered less in line with traditional advertising in this study
includes Pintrest boards which give environmental information, corporate tweets which mention
CSR initiatives, and YouTube clips that are not in line with traditional TV ads. Building public
relations through online mediums, which reach an international audience, can be challenging.
This is because of the importance of creating relationships (Zeff & Aronson 1999: 290).
Developing relationships through dialogs can be increasingly difficult if the dialogs need to be
interpreted by audiences who speak different languages (Zeff & Aronson 1999: 290). Some of
the corporations in this study use multiple languages to communicate CSR through advertising
and PR on digital platforms.
Yaxley asserts that the public relations division of a corporation is most suited to
communicate CSR because their role is to communicate with stakeholders. She notes that
“Public relations is the function that is most involved with communicating with key stakeholders
and is therefore in the best position to find out their views and expectations of how an
organisation should interact with its environment” (Yaxley 2012: 207). Rex Harlow asserts his
4
Many corporations categorize social media communication as public relations (Inc.com, 2014).
5 working definition of public relations in Building a Public Relations Definition (1977: 34-42).
“Public relations is a distinctive management function which helps establish and maintain mutual
lines of communication, understanding, acceptance and co-operation between an organization
and its publics…” (Harlow 1977: 36). Although channels have changed since this definition was
written, it is still used by more contemporary academics.
Dr. Johanna Fawkes quotes Harlow’s definition, among others, when explaining how
difficult it can be for one working in public relations to explain what she does (Fawkes 2012: 7).
Social media offers a vast array of opportunities to deliver corporate messages and build an
ethically responsible brand image. International corporations can be found online on an
increasing number of social networks. Social media platforms offer an opportunity to
corporations to communicate openly with stakeholders. One advantage to using these channels is
that they allow corporations the opportunity to engage with their target markets. They can
receive feedback, build their brand image, and get others to share their communication (Yaxley
2012: 232-234).
Emma Wood and Ian Sommerville explain that, “The ‘stakeholder model’ is so named
because those who propose it argue that the task of the corporate manager is to balance the
interests of all the different groups who have a ‘stake’ in the company” (2012: 113). Because
profit is only one consideration of one stakeholder group, businesses, which use this model, must
take into account other stakeholder considerations such as social responsibility (Sommerville &
Wood 2012: 113). Wood and Somerville assert that this model is needed to make “genuine
attempts to discover the requirements of community stakeholders and help companies be more
responsive to social needs” (2012: 117). Even when the stakeholder model is in place and a
company is engaging in business in a responsible way, there may still be difficulty in deciding
how much to communicate. “We would argue that telling partial truths is inherent to PR practice,
whether online or in any other forum or channel, and that deciding where the distinction lies
between partial truth and deception is an individual decision.” (Phillips & Young 2009: 227).
“Social media … allow everyone to publish and to participate in multithreaded conversations
online” (Weber 2009: 5). Larry Weber discusses how companies need to address complaints on
social media in his book Marketing to the Social Web. He advises corporations to let people
criticize them openly where the corporations have a presence on social media and listening to
feedback (Weber 2009: 51-58). He also says to digital marketers that, “Instead of continuing as
6 broadcasters, marketers should – and will—become aggregators of customer communities
(Weber 2009: 3).
2.1.1 Facebook
Facebook, founded in 2004, has more than one billion active users. It is available in 70 languages
and is used by both Americans and Swedes (Facebook 2014). According to Lucia Moses,
sourcing The Cassandra Fall/Winter 2013 Report, “Facebook is the preferred platform for people
to hear about brands” (2014), making it an interesting platform for corporations to communicate
CSR.
Table 1: Corporate Presence on Facebook*
Sweden Page
U.S. Page Global Page
Corporations
Facebook Likes
Electrolux
2,339,694
14,613
n/a
Ericsson
n/a
n/a
63,480
H&M
n/a
n/a
18,000,000
IKEA
323,807 3,580,621
n/a
*Recorded on May 4, 2014
As can be observed in Table 1, all four corporations have a presence on Facebook. While
H&M and Ericsson have global pages in English, Electrolux and IKEA chose to create market
specific pages. Therefore, they can communicate specific communication to their U.S. audience
in English and specific communication to their Swedish audience in Swedish.
2.1.2 Instagram
Instagram is a social networking service that enables users to share photos and videos. Users can
include captions with their photos and videos. They can also comment on and “like” photos and
videos. Instagram was launched in 2010 and now has more than 200 million monthly active users
(Instagram 2014). On the press page of Instagram's website, there is information for corporations
with promotional purposes on how to use official screenshots and logos (Instagram 2014). Each
corporation in this study has at least one Instagram account (Instagram 2014).
2.1.3 Pintrest
The Pintrest website launched in 2010 and the Pintrest iPhone app launched a year after, in 2011
(Business Insider 2012). Marketers can use Pintrest to promote brands through Pintrest boards. A
Pintrest board on the Electrolux Pintrest profile page communicates ways to reduce water waste.
This information can be seen as an effort to increase water conservation by informing others.
7 Another example of a board on Pintrest is the Electrolux “Vac of the Sea” board (Appendix C –
Focus Group Material).
2.1.4 Twitter
Twitter was created in 2007 and now has 241 million active users (Twitter 2014). Users of the
micro-blogging site can publish “Tweets”, which are 140-characters long or less. These tweets
can share or request information (Yongjian 2012: 103) and users can also communicate with
brands by tweeting to them. They can also circulate CSR messages further by re-tweeting
communication. The four corporations this study focuses on each have a Twitter account
(Twitter 2014).
2.1.5 YouTube
The video-sharing site YouTube was founded in 2005 (Time 2006). It is now available in 61
languages and has more than 1 billion active users (YouTube 2014) who view and/or upload
material. Among these users are corporations sharing videos. These videos can give information
about CSR initiatives. Over 6 billion hours of YouTube video is viewed each month and
YouTube reaches more US adults ages 18-34 than any cable network (YouTube 2014; and
Neilson). Two of the examples used as material for the focus group were Facebook posts which
contain links to corporate videos on YouTube. Promoting corporate videos on Twitter and
Facebook seems to be a common practice to get more viewers.
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility
In addition to adhering to the Global Reporting Intuitive from the United Nations, ensuring
companies report on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) through annual reports and CSR reports,
corporations are also watched by organizations like Swedwatch, a non-profit organization
specializing in monitoring Swedish companies sustainability practices abroad. “Many companies
publish annual CSR or sustainability reports, e.g. BAT, GSK, SSL International. Increasingly
governments and supranational organizations actively encourage CSR initiatives…” (Baines, Fill
& Page 2011). Each corporation explored in this study report on the TBL. Put simply, each
corporation reports on people, planet and profit.
“The best way to avoid being cheated is to be honest. This piece of advice goes beyond
karma and ‘everything goes around comes around.’ It is good Viking business. You must be
forewarned, forearmed, ready for bloodshed, and honest” (Strid & Andreasson, 2008: 134). In
8 their book entitled, The Viking Manifesto, Strid and Andreasson make generalizations about the
‘Scandinavian approach’ to business, citing both IKEA and Ericsson as examples. “The strength
of a brand is a major factor in both price and profit margin. Higher labour costs can easily be
offset by other features such as higher quality and social responsibility” (2008: 117). Negative
publicity about Scandinavian corporations contributing to societal problems is not unheard of,
however. H&M received negative CSR publicity on Twitter in 2010. Both their ethical integrity
and their handling of the negative tweets were criticized. Some branding professions stated that
they should have been quicker to respond to the negative tweets (Forstater 2014).
2.3 CSR Communication on Social Media
In 2010, H&M received negative publicity on Twitter after a New Yorker reported a local store
to The New York Times for intentionally destroying merchandise and throwing it away instead of
following store procedures properly. The story was tweeted by popular tweeters and the incident
was downloaded over 12,000 times (Forstater 2014). The incident, therefore, became widely
known and H&M received criticism for not contributing the clothes to people who could use
them. As one additional example of negative CSR publicity, ActionAid has criticized H&M for
not paying a fair amount of taxes to Bangladesh, where much of their merchandise is produced,
due to the way the company is structured (Actionaid 2014).
Because the four corporations in this study have a variety of situations when it comes to
how susceptible they are to criticism of this nature, they also have varying approaches for
communicating. Electrolux has won awards for sustainability (Electrolux 2014). However, their
CSR efforts are not visible in predominate places on their websites (Electrolux 2014). This may
be because of the product category. They are not a fast fashion company like H&M. Other
companies in their category also do not predominately place corporate responsibility information
on their websites according to Sundström, VP Sustainability Affairs at Electrolux (Mr. H
Sundström 2014, pers.comm., 5 March).
IKEA could be seen as more vocal about their CSR initiatives than Electrolux. They
participate in cause-related marketing and communicate these campaigns on Facebook.
However, The Berne Declaration has accused IKEA of avoiding taxes (IKEA, eBay Avoid
Paying UK Taxes, Reports Allege, 2014). Although they communicate a great deal about solar
powered roofs (Danko 2013) and participate in cause-related campaigns (see appendix C – Focus
9 Group Material), it is possible that audiences do not respond as well to these when they also hear
negative stories from Huffington Post and other highly circulated news source (IKEA, eBay
Avoid Paying UK Taxes, Reports Allege, 2014).
Ericsson is a B2B company and therefore perhaps interested in communicating online for
different reasons than the B2C companies. Their communication on social media is, however,
seen by a much larger audience than their primary stakeholders, such as the businesses that they
sell to, alone. As one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies, they have a big
impact on the markets where they have a presence and this might be why a large international
audience follows their communications through social media.
2.4 Cause-Related Marketing
Theaker discusses cause-related marketing in her Public Relations Handbook. She explains that
Business in the Community (BITC) defines cause-related marketing (CRM) as “a commercial
activity by which business and charities or causes form a partnership with each other to market
an image, product or service, for mutual benefit” and asserts that this is more than a sponsorship.
She explains that CRM is gaining importance and gives evidence of this by giving survey results
from BITC. One interesting result was that “74 per cent of consumers think that it is acceptable
for companies to involve a charity or good cause in their marketing.” Other interesting survey
results from BITC included results from surveys sent to charity representatives. For example,
“65 per cent had been involved in CRM” and “ 92 per cent felt that it would increase in
importance in achieving fundraising objectives” (Theaker 2001: 190). Two cause-related
campaigns communicated on Facebook are given as examples in Image 1 and 2.
Image 1: IKEA Sweden Facebook Post
Image 2: IKEA U.S. Facebook Post
10 These posts communicate different cause-related campaigns benefiting children. The U.S. post
encouraged Americans to buy a stuffed fairy to help children get “access to quality education” on
December 7, 2013. On December 13, 2013, the Swedish page encouraged their audience to buy
two vaccines for children in need from IKEA as Christmas presents. Both posts gave a link,
which led to more information
3. Theoretical Frame and Literature Review
Hall’s encoding and decoding theory (1980) will be discussed in this chapter. Additionally,
fundamental theoretical points taken from the uses and gratification theory are addressed because
they are seen as relevant to answering some of the audience reception questions. The stakeholder
involvement strategy is explained because it aids in illustrating the significance using social
media networks has to corporations. Literature on CSR communication and previous reception
studies are reviewed in this chapter as well. Lastly, cultural and societal differences between
Sweden and the U.S. are explained because they are used as a framework for analyzing potential
differences in the survey and focus groups.
3.1 Encoding and Decoding
Start Hall asserts that media producers encode meanings in Encoding/decoding (1980)5. Before
he initially introduced his theory in 1973, mass communication was more generally considered a
loop involving the sender, the message and the receiver. Hall’s Theory of Encoding and
5 By the time Encoding/decoding was published, Hall was already well known for this theory (Hall, 2007)
Hall, S. (2007). 22 Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. CCCS Selected Working Papers, 2, p.386. 11 Decoding explains that messages carry with them a preferred reading. According to Hall, the
meanings that audience members make can be described as ‘dominant’, ‘negotiated’ or
‘oppositional’ (1980: 136-138). Dominant meanings derived by audience members are more
closely in line with preferred meanings encoded by the sender. Instead of the terms ‘dominant’,
‘negotiated’ or ‘oppositional’, the terms ‘positive’, ‘neutral’ and ‘negative’ replace them
respectively in the current study.
Hall explains that meaning making is imperative for consumption. “If no ‘meaning’ is
taken, there can be no ‘consumption’. If the meaning is not articulated in practice, it has no
effect” (1980: 128). This point signifies the importance of the delivery of the message. It is also
indicative of why corporate communicators often package communication in a way that makes it
easy to understand. Although Hall primarily addresses TV audience reception, some of his ideas
may be seen to cover elements of social media reception as well.
Critics of Hall say that the theory is flawed. Justin Wren-Lewis points out that it can be
difficult to decipher the preferred meaning. He also discusses previous research and suggests that
decoders’ opinions will be swayed because they know that they are participating in a study and
will, therefore, likely be more critical than usual (Wren-Lewis 1983: 196). “…Problems are…
less likely to crop up if the interview revolves around the decoders reconstruction…”(WrenLewis 1983: 196). Therefore, the interviewer takes a more passive role in the focus groups and
attempts to keep all questions open and non-leading when trying to stimulate conversation. In
this study, it is presumed that preferred meanings of the CSR communication examples given in
the survey and in focus groups includes one or more of the following: ‘this is a good initiative’,
‘this is a socially responsible corporation’, ‘this is a good corporation’, ‘I will make a positive
contribution if I buy from them’.
3.2 The Uses and Gratification Theory Applied to Social Media
The uses and gratification theory is used to guide the audience reception aim of this study. This
theory specifically aids in addressing the question regarding the motivation for sharing CSR
communication on social media. Rubin explains that the uses and gratification theory involves an
active audience, which chooses media to gratify specific needs (Rubin 2009: 165-167). The
theory allows researchers to say something about someone’s needs based on her media choice
because the active audience’s media choice is influenced by their psychological and/or social
12 needs. “The assumptions of uses and gratifications underscore the role of the audience initiative
and activity. Behavior is largely goal directed and purposive” (Rubin 2009:167). Rubin explains
that critics of the theory argue that it implies that the audience is too active in their media
selections and that self-reported data is relied on too much (2009: 169), but that contemporary
studies have shown progress with applying the theory (2009 :170). Contemporary studies have
also found ways to use the theory while introducing “similar motivation measures” (Rubin 2009
:170).
For example, the uses and gratification theory was expanded by Shyam Sundar and
Anthony Limperos to include internet-specific gratifications (2013). Sundar and Limperos use
the existing theory and add gratifications such as ‘community building’ and ‘agencyenhancement’ (Sundar & Limperos, 2013: 518). These gratifications could be seen to pertain to
the reception and sharing CSR communication. Social media users who interact with brand
communication online may do so in order to be part of a community or to have a chance to voice
an opinion.
Furthermore, spreading CSR communication could be seen as activism if a user uses
social media to share a negative reading of CSR messages. Conversely, a user could share
thoughts about an ethically engaged corporation, possibly communicating a dominant reading of
a CSR message. Sundar and Limperos oppose criticism that the new gratifications can be
categorized as ‘information-seeking’ by explaining that the older ‘information-seeking’
gratification is too general. They argue that it can explain almost everything users do online
(2013: 521).
3.3 Previous Research on CSR Communication
Research by Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) illustrate how consumers can be influenced by CSR
communication. Consumer responses are tied to how closely their personal characteristics and
values match the characteristics and values portrayed in a company's CSR message. Although
their research clearly focused on consumers in particular, their findings could be seen to extend
to audiences in general. The more the meaning resonates with the audience, the more likely the
audience will have a positive opinion of the company. Because the poverty level is higher and
the quality of education is lower in the United States, American audiences are expected to have a
stronger and more positive reaction to companies which communicate initiatives addressing
13 social issues like these. This may help to explain why an audience in a specific market could
respond better to a message if the issues addressed are more common and visible in that market.
Figure 1: Sen and Bhattacharya’s Conceptual Framework (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001: 227)
Figure 1 illustrates how C-C congruence (consumer-company congruence) plays a role in how a
person responds to a CSR message. C-C congruence stands for consumer-company congruence
and represents how similar the consumer is to the company. A person is more likely to buy from
a company, which is understood to value similar things. CA stands for corporate ability and
refers to a consumer’s perception of a company’s ability. According to this illustration, a
consumer could potentially decide to purchase based on CSR and CA beliefs. C-C congruence,
as illustrated here, can play a key role in the consumers’ evaluation of a company. One challenge
for corporations, therefore, is to formulate and effectively communicate a message with a
meaning that resonates with their target market. A corporation may communicate on social
media to reach a large audience in the hopes of communicating a cause that their stakeholders
can sympathize with.
The way a CSR message resonates with an audience member might be influenced by how
much they sympathize with the victim. CSR messages displaying an image of a child, whom
14 audience members can easily associate with innocence, might increase their sympathy. Höijer
explains that audiences respond with more sympathy to media depictions of victims who are in
line with their vision of an innocent victim (2004: 513). Global compassion plays a vital role in
the success of some cause-related campaigns. The compassion an audience member feels for a
victim can depend in part on how well the victim fits the viewer’s idea of what a victim looks
like (Höijer 2004: 513). One of the YouTube CSR messages shown in the focus group
communicates a cause-related campaign benefiting UNICEF.
According to Chaudhri and Wang (2007), the internet “offers organizations the
opportunity to design messages that do not have to follow the dictates of gatekeepers”. It also
gives all internal and external stakeholders – from community activists to employees – the ability
to interact (Chaudhri & Wang 2007: 235). Chaudhri and Wang argue that this is positive for
businesses. However, it could be argued that this open communication is negative. For example,
the case of the H&M Twitter critics previously discussed.
Morsing and Schultz present results from a study on CSR Communication in Scandinavia
and introduce three strategies for communicating CSR based on Grunig & Hunt’s original public
relations model (2006). One of these three strategies is “The stakeholder involvement strategy”
(2006: 326). Using social media could be seen as a stakeholder involvement tactic because, as
previously stated, social media allows corporations to engage with stakeholders. They present
national survey results and found that about 50% of Scandinavians wanted open communication
about CSR, while 50% either wanted little or no communication. Morsing and Schultz encourage
third party endorsement and involving external stakeholders (2006: 336).
Morsing and Schultz state that “Companies must ‘give sense’ as well as ‘make sense’”,
an argument against solely adopting the stakeholder involvement strategy (Morsing & Schultz,
2006:336). They do not suggest that the stakeholder involvement strategy is the only appropriate
strategy. Morsing and Schultz explain that “messages claiming to represent a true picture of
corporate initiatives such as CSR would benefit from a third party endorsement, i.e. from
external stakeholders becoming involved and expressing their support of corporate CSR
initiatives by taking an active part in both the sensegiving and the sensemaking process”
(Morsing and Schultz 2006:336). Using the stakeholder involvement strategy and social media
may allow corporations to discover audience and stakeholder values in order to adjust their
15 messages to them. Communicating on social media is therefore a tactic used by corporations
which have adopted a stakeholder involvement strategy.
The study mentioned earlier which involves examining consumer reception of corporate
responsibility print ads is interesting to consider because of its similarities to the current study.
Schrøder et al explain that, “corporate responsibility advertising…enables a company to enter the
realm of politics in order to express its concerns as one responsible citizen to other citizens, not
just about market affairs, but also about urgent social and political issues” (2003: 108). Their
reception study concluded that, “it is doubtful whether corporate responsibility advertising,
addressing public opinion impersonally through the mass media, is an appropriate strategy for
achieving… a relationship of trust” (Schrøder et al, 2003: 107). The researchers conducted
individual interviews with 16 British informants and 16 Danish informants. They found that the
majority of the respondents were cynical6 (Schrøder et al, 2003: 115) and that none of the British
participants fell into the ‘sympathetic’7 category (Schrøder et al, 2003: 117). Additionally,
Danish participants were less cynical. “In line with the argument about class consciousness
above, the British informants believed that progress requires struggle; the companies are
basically not to be trusted, therefore, ‘we’ must be ready to fight…” (Schrøder et al, 2003: 119).
So, corporations analyzed in the present study may also have difficulty concerning trust when
communicating CSR. When communication by IKEA, Electrolux, Ericsson, and H&M was
presented in the Background section, the challenge of using social media to reach international
audiences was briefly addressed. In order to consider how cultural differences might play a role
in the current study, the Swedish and American cultures will now be addressed.
3.4 Cultural Differences
A few cultural and societal differences may affect audience reception. “Americans expect
companies to … engage selectively in cultural and political life” (Brønn & Vrioni, 2001: 213).
However, less might be expected from companies in Sweden because it is a welfare state. “In
Scandinavia, social responsibility joins the list of state duties” (Brønn & Vrioni, 2001: 213).
Along with this fundamental difference, there are other differences. Prior research was explored
6 The term ‘cynical’ in
7
Schrøder’s study equates to the ‘negative’ label in the current study. The term ‘sympathetic’ in Schrøder’s study equates to the ‘positive’ label in the current study.
16 and collected for the following comparison, but it should be noted that differences were difficult
to pinpoint because it is difficult to label any large group of people (Daun 1996).
3.4.1 Swedish culture
“Anyone seeking a ‘Swedish culture’ will find a multicultural Sweden, not necessarily a single,
uniform national culture” (Daun 1996 :12). Daun explains that “culture is a system of codes”
(1996: 17) and that outsiders may see Swedes as ‘socially closed’ and ‘spiritually empty’ based
on their own system of codes. They come to these conclusions when making value out of
messages they receive and process based on their own cultural backgrounds (1996: 16-17).
Stereotypes include speaking slowly, being punctual and complacent. Americans, therefore,
might see a Swede “as ‘self-satisfied’ or even ‘smug’, a misinterpretation that is made when
people ethnocentrically judge others’ character traits by their own code system.” (1996: 18).
An example of how greatly the receivers’ cultural background can affect their own
interpretations is a Finns reading of Swedish men. Daun explains that Finns use the term
‘homosexual’ in a derogatory way to describe how Swedish men talk easily “with anyone about
anything – a trait usually ascribed by Finns to women” (1996: 18). He explains that Finns
generally communicate slower and with more “communication anxiety” believing that “a real
man should not talk unnecessarily” (1996: 18). Finns, according to Duan, are generally quieter
than Swedes. Therefore, their interpretations are much different from Americans. Americans
have much the opposite characteristic when it comes to communication in general. They are
stereotyped as loud and even boastful (Pessoa & Pessoa, 2014).
3.4.2 American history and charity
In Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History, Lawrence Friedman and Mark
McGarvie explain the impact Calvinistic and Christian values had on ideas about social
responsibility. They give a historical guide for understanding impacts on dominant views on
philanthropy and charity in the U.S. (2003). The “…Puritan view of a Christian society
encompassed Calvin’s vision of a holy commonwealth in which every aspect of social life was
filled with spiritual purpose and every man pursued his vocation as a divine calling” (Friedman
& McGarvie 2003: 54). Friedman and McGarvie also address women’s role in early
philanthropies in America. As women acquired more freedom in the 1820s, they began
antislavery campaigns and other philanthropies (Friedman & McGarvie 2003: 88).
17 There are still many charities operating in the U.S. and Americans can be stereotyped as
compassionate (Pessoa & Pessoa, 2014). Birgitta Höijer states, “A global discourse of
compassion has extended and developed at the point of intersection between politics,
humanitarian organizations, the media and the audience/citizens” (2004: 513). It should be noted
that the involvement Americans’ have in charities might seem more significant when compared
to a smaller country like Sweden merely due to the fact that there are more people in the U.S.
and, therefore, a greater number of people might equate to a higher number of activists.
Compared to Swedish corporations, an American company could be seen as louder when
communicating CSR. While Americans are stereotyped as less skeptical and more hopeful than
Swedes, they can be seen to have a bigger-is-better mentality and boastful demeanor (Pessoa &
Pessoa 2014). It could be extrapolated that American corporate communication might be seen as
boastful when compared to Swedish corporate communications.
3.4.3 Social issues in the U.S.
When comparing education quality, access to healthcare and other social issues, one can see that
there are more societal problems in the U.S. than in Sweden. With the increased level of
communication about distant suffering, there is more awareness of distant suffering (Russell &
Russell, 2010: 67). However, individuals are still more greatly moved by local social issues
(Russell & Russell, 2010: 67). “A large body of literature supports the notion that consumers
would be more concerned with locally focused CSR initiatives that directly affect their lives”
(Russell & Russell, 2010: 67). According to this notion, Americans are likely to be more
interested in CSR initiatives that might address societal problems where they are located.
3.4.4 Americans and advertising
Jerry Kirpatrick rebukes criticism of advertising in his book, In Defense of Advertising, and yet
addresses that advertising cannot be granted moral credit for being altruistic because advertising
in not altruistic by nature.
...Altruism is the theory of ethics that motivates the hostility toward capitalism and
egoism. According to altruism, a morally good action is one that places others above self;
as such, altruism commands self-sacrifice. It does not mean kindness or gentleness, but
the act of giving up a higher value for the sake of a lower value or non-value.” (1994: 18)
18 While Kirpatrick admits that, “altruism can never grant moral value to advertising” (1994: 18),
he defends advertising as a “beacon of the free society” (1994: 154). Daniel Boorstin also
supports that advertising is a symbol of a free society in his book entitled The Image (1992).
While advertising is a symbol for America and therefore perhaps something that Americans can
appreciate, Sweden does not have the same cultural attachment to advertising and therefore
might be less interested in it.
Sweden regulates both political advertising and advertising to children, while the U.S.
allows a particularly “vitriolic and negative approach” (Bains et al. 2011: 710) in political
advertising and does not have as many laws regulating advertising to children (Bains et al. 2011:
711; Ungkonsument.se, 2014). Because Americans are exposed to less regulated advertising,
they might be less critical of CSR messages. It is possible that American audiences are
desensitized to marketing messages that a Swedish audience might consider condemnable.
To conclude this chapter, Hall’s ideas on encoding and decoding are used as an
overarching paradigm in this study. His idea of sorting meanings decoded by audiences into
three categories is adopted in the analysis and discussion of focus group results. The way
audiences decode CSR messages depend on their own cultural background, their thoughts about
CSR in general and how a specific message is communicated. Because the uses and gratification
theory can be applied to new media environments, it is used as a point of departure. The uses and
gratification theory is also used to reach the second and third aim of this study, pertaining to
audience reception. A review of CSR research included Sen and Bhattacharya (2001), Morsing
and Schultz (2006), and Chaudhri and Wang (2007). Lastly, social and cultural differences
between Sweden and the U.S. have been cited. Because there are many aspects to consider when
analyzing this, a multi-method approach is applied which includes interviews, a survey and focus
groups.
4. Methodology and Materials
The methods chosen for the analysis are discussed in this section. The methodology includes
both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to obtain a higher validity. Between-method
triangulation can minimize bias (Denzin 1978: 307). Qualitative interviews contribute insightful
information while surveys can give a broader picture (Siebel 1973: 1358). The methods in this
study work together to contribute insight into different aspects of CSR communication. “Each
19 method implies a different line of action toward reality – and hence each will reveal different
aspects of it…”(Denzin 1978: 292). Information gathered in the interviews was used to create the
survey. As Alan Bryman suggests, “…qualitative research may act as a source of hunches or
hypotheses to be tested by quantitative research” (1995: 134).
4.1 Interviews
In order to answer the first research aim regarding how corporations use social media networks
to communicate CSR, insight was gathered through qualitative interviews with the following
professionals:
1. John Ambrose, Senior Copywriter at JG Communication
2. Thomas Bergmark, Owner at Bergmark Sustainability AB and previously worked as the
Sustainability Manager at IKEA Group
3. Mark Boutros, Director of Corporate Responsibility at Kreab Gavin Anderson
4. Malin Ekefalk, Director of Social Responsibility at Electrolux
5. Erik Hedén, a founder of Sustainable Brand Insight
6. Heather Johnson, Director of Communications and Stakeholder Engagement at Ericsson
7. Pontus Staunstrup, Content Strategy Director at JG Communication
8. Henrik Sundström, VP Sustainability Affairs at Electrolux
In these semi-structured personal individual interviews, professionals shared perspectives
on current challenges and their knowledge about audience reception. Each interview was 30
minutes in duration and conducted in-person at the professional’s office, with the exception of
one, which was conducted over the phone. The interviewer was allowed to ask follow-up
questions. An audio recording was taken of each interview and transcribed following the
interview. There were two incidents where the interview was not recorded due to errors made by
the researcher. Detailed notes were taken and included in the appendix in these cases in place of
transcriptions (see interview notes in appendix A). Information and insight gathered from
interviews was considered when the online survey and focus group guide were designed. An
interview guide was used. It was tailored before interviews to relate directly to the internal CSR
professionals and CSR consultants by citing specific campaigns or their areas of expertise.
4.2.1 Interviews with internal CSR executives
Heather Johnson, Director of Communications and Stakeholder Engagement at Ericsson, was the
first in-house CSR executive interviewed. Ms. Johnson explained her role and how interest in
CSR has grown even more so in the last few years (Ms. H Johnson 2013, pers.comm., 29
20 November). She is the ideal person from Ericsson to interview because her role is to oversee
CSR communication and to engage with stakeholders. She has worked at Ericcson for 15 years
and has led communications and stakeholder engagement at Ericsson for 6 years. Ericsson’s
Connect to Learn initiative was addressed specifically in interview questions.
The other internal interview took place at the Electrolux Headquarters. This interview
was conducted to discover how Electrolux currently communicates CSR online. Henrik
Sundström, VP Sustainability Affairs and Malin Ekefalk, Director of Social Responsibility at
Electrolux were interviewed in order to gather input from other sources other than online
research. This interview took longer to set up than the interview with Ericsson and was,
therefore, unfortunately conducted after the survey link was distributed. However, the insight
gathered in this interview was helpful when designing the focus groups. In this interview
questions were asked about specific Electrolux CSR communication like Electrolux’s “Your
Watermark” Pintrest board.
4.2.2 Interviews with CSR consultants
Mr. Bergmark has the unique ability to speak on a high level about IKEA's CSR communication
because he previously worked as the Sustainability Manager at IKEA Group. He is also currently
a consultant in sustainability and advises companies on CSR communication. Mr. Bergmark was
able to give specific insight into how CSR communication decisions were made at IKEA. He
also discussed some common discussions he has with the companies he advises. Specifically, he
was able to address how transparency is a key component of marketing CSR and he was able to
discuss with authority, through his 20+ years of experience, other key CSR considerations.
As Managing Director & Partner at Sustainable Brand Insight, Hedén is currently in
communication with IKEA as an external resource consulting on CSR communication.
Sustainable Brand Insight helps Swedish corporations by giving them insight and strategies to
“place sustainability in the unique context of their brands”. Hedén was contacted for the
interview because he has the ability to discuss current key discourses within the area of CSR
communication. He attends CSR conferences in both the U.S. and Sweden. Therefore, he might
also be able to compare professional discourses within the two countries. Insight gathered in this
interview was considered when designing the focus groups.
21 Mark Boutros, Director of Corporate Responsibility at Kreab Gavin Anderson, was
unable to disclose the names of the clients he works with due to confidentiality contracts. It can
be said, however, that he works with large Swedish corporations on communicating CSR to
international audiences. Interviewing Mark came about after the researcher heard about a speech
he gave about CSR. The researcher heard that in his speech Boutros discussed being in the Peace
Corps in Africa. He explained that he started to become interested in CSR when he noticed that,
in his experience, NGOs left when things got difficult in certain areas, but the groups backed by
large corporations were the ones which stayed. He is an American who has worked in CSR in
both the U.S. and in Sweden. Along with bringing insight to the question of predominate
discourses he has knowledge about CSR audience reception studies in both countries and may be
able to share information audience reception and give the current study more direction. He has
worked with CSR communication since 2005. While he finished a PhD he worked in CSR at
Ogilvy. He is able to give insight into dominant CSR discourses.
Both John Ambrose, Senior Copywriter at JG Communication, and Pontus Staunstrup,
Content Strategy Director at JG Communication, are knowledgeable about how companies
communicate CSR because of their experiences working at JG Communication. They bring more
detail to the study about how large corporations in Sweden address international differences
when communicating. An interview guide similar to the one used for other professionals was
used. However, slight modifications were made in order to address their area of expertise. JG
Communication is a content consulting agency working with corporations to develop ‘strategic
communication’. The interviews were conducted in order to shed light on strategic CSR
communication.
4.3 Survey
The quantitative survey, conducted with the aim of gauging audience opinions about CSR
messages, took about ten minutes to complete. Two survey versions were created using
SurveyMonkey, an online survey development website. Both versions, the English and Swedish
version, asked the same questions. The survey contained 14 questions aside from demographic
questions. It started by explaining that the purpose of the survey was to gather information on
audience reception of corporate communication. Simple wording was used in order to increase
understanding. The questions were the same and the CSR communication examples were similar.
22 The control question, “Have you lived in the U.S./Sweden for the majority of your life” was
asked. If the respondent had not lived in one of these countries for most of their lives, they were
taken to thank you page and the survey was ended. It was important for the survey reliability that
the respondents were immersed in the culture and society in which they represented.
After the control question, the question, “Do you have memory of seeing a message like
these two examples?” followed. The examples presented earlier, Images 1 or 2 depending on the
survey language, were given of social media CSR communication. If the respondent answered
yes, two questions regarding the most memorable CSR message they heard or saw were asked.
“How did you hear about the most memorable message?” and the yes or no question, “Did you
have a positive reaction to it?” followed.
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ were offered as answers to the statement “If a company engages in
activities aimed at benefiting society, it can make me think more highly of the company”. This
question was presented to both the respondents who remembered seeing a CSR message and
those who did not. It was asked in order to see if CSR communication was reported to potentially
give a higher opinion about a corporation. Answers to this question will aid in answering the
research questions about how CSR messages affect public opinion.
Another question asked how respondents thought CSR should be communicated. This
question gave ‘Annual report’, ‘Corporate website’, ‘Social media’ and ‘other’ as options. If the
respondent answered ‘Other’, she was asked to specify the way she thought CSR should be
communicated. According to Schrøder et al. the way CSR is communicated can have an impact
on if audiences respond the way corporations intend (2006). This is one reason why questions in
the survey inquired about the way respondents heard about CSR messages and how they thought
corporations should communicate CSR. These questions help to gauge audience opinions about
CSR messages communicated through various mediums including social media so that the way
messages are communicated and how this might impact audience responses could be analyzed.
A scale of “highly agree”, “somewhat agree”, “neutral”, “somewhat disagree”, “strongly
disagree” was given for the next seven questions. These questions asked about sharing CSR
communication on social media, what information a company should provide on their website, if
CSR effects respondents’ buying decisions, if respondents look for information about CSR, and
about CSR visuals containing alarming images.
23 As discussed when explaining the theoretical framework of this study, the compassion an
audience has for a victim can depend on how well the victim fits their idea of a victim (Höijer
2004: 513). Examples on the survey referenced cause-related campaigns benefiting children. A
child can be seen as an ideal victim because of her vulnerability (Höijer 2004). The last scale
question asked if respondents were less critical of a company’s social responsibility
communicated by media instead of by the company. This question was included to see if
respondents thought that the corporation was less trustworthy when communicating their CSR
than the media. If the respondent agreed, this might indicate a lack of trust in the credibility of
corporate communications.
The survey allowed respondents to make additional comments about CSR
communication at the end. In this way, respondents could add points that they think are
significant. The question asked if they had any specific thoughts about a company
communicating corporate responsibility. And added, “For example, is there a situation when a
company should not communicate through social media?” Lastly, demographic questions were
given. All respondents received at least two demographic questions to gather the respondents’
age and gender. The survey results were entered into SPSS and results are shown in tables in the
Results section.
4.3.1 Survey distribution
A convenience Snowball sampling method8 was used first. The researcher distributed the survey
link through Facebook, Twitter and emails. Others, in the researcher’s network, passed the link
on to their acquaintances. The researcher’s network in the U.S. is primarily located in the Pacific
Northwest, while the researcher’s network in Sweden is primarily located in Stockholm. When it
was realized that not enough respondents were obtained this way, further efforts were made to
distribute the survey.
In an effort to get more Swedish respondents, a short presentation of the research was
given to a Journalism, Media and Communication first year class at Stockholm University. A
copy of the survey was passed out to students in the class. The researcher also distributed
surveys at the Stockholm University Frescati campus. Approximately 45% of the Swedish
8 This method, like many others, has advantages and disadvantages (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981: 141) and will be
discussed in more detail later in this chapter under the Validity and Reliability heading. 24 surveys were collected in person, while all of the U.S. surveys were collected online. In an effort
to increase the number of U.S. respondents, SurveyMonkey was paid approximately $300 USD
(1 971 SEK) for 212 respondents scattered throughout eight U.S. regions including: New
England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South
Central, Mountain and Pacific.
SurveyMonkey added more demographic questions when they distributed the survey in
the U.S. This is why some of the charts in the appendix include other demographic details such
as location in the U.S., income, and education. SurveyMonkey did not allow any question
requesting an email address. Both Swedish surveys and English surveys distributed by the
researcher asked for respondents’ e-mail addresses. Some of the respondents who gave email
addresses were contacted and asked to participate in a focus group.
4.5 Focus Groups
Attempts to recruit American and Swedish participants for focus groups were also made through
the presentation addressed in the last section, posted flyers, and emails to acquaintances of the
researcher. Attempts were made to include participants who did not know researcher well to
increase the level of validity. Focus groups were conducted with Swedish and American
individuals. Holding focus groups is a suitable method to achieve the second goal of this study,
analyzing audience reception, because focus groups can create a more natural environment for
participants to share their opinions. Enabling participants to interact in an open way is
fundamental to understanding different perspectives (Hansen, Cottle, Negrine, and Newbold
1998: 257). “The generation of meanings and interpretations of media content is ‘naturally’ a
social activity, that is, audiences form their interpretations of media content and their opinions
about such content through conversations and social interaction…” (Hansen et al 1998: 261).
The focus group involves individuals between the ages 20-44. An effort was made to
recruit a majority of participants who are within the age bracket of 20-34 as that these individuals
are likely computer-savvy (William & Page 2011). Williams and Page support this distinction
when they state, “Generation Y was born during 1977-1994... They were born into a
technological, electronic, and wireless society with global boundaries becoming more
transparent” (William & Page 2011). Statistics indicate that the majority of this age group is
active on social media networks including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (Moses 2014).
25 Participants in the first group were students with Swedish citizenship. All participants
lived in Sweden for the majority of their lives, with the exception of one Italian student who has
a good understanding of the Swedish language and was living in Sweden during the time this
focus group took place. Although an original qualification was set to recruit only participants
who had lived in Sweden for the majority of their lives, this requirement was overlooked to
include the Italian student. Swedish students who the researcher knew were not included. Only
two out of ten emailed prospective participants responded positively to attending the focus group.
One student brought two of her friends with her. The Swedish focus group took place on April 2,
2014.
There were four participants:
•
•
•
•
Participant S1: Female, Age: 44, Citizenship: Swedish
Participant S2: Female, Age: 23, Citizenship: Italian, but attending classes in Swedish at
Stockholm University
Participant S3: Female, Age: 21, Citizenship: Swedish
Participant S4: Male, Age: 30, Citizenship: Swedish
Participants in the other two groups were American citizens. Two graduated from Stockholm
University and were living in Sweden during the time the focus group was conducted. One was a
Stockholm University doctorial student at the Criminology Department. Lastly, one of the
American participants was living near San Francisco during the time the focus group took place,
but was visiting Sweden. All American participants spent the majority of their lives in the U.S.
They were, however, acquaintances or friends of the researcher. Although the goal was to recruit
participants who did not have an existing relationship to the researcher, this qualification needed
to be overlooked because the researcher was not able to recruit other participants. There were
two American focus groups comprising of four Americans in total. Two confirmed participants
were unable to attend the first focus group unexpectedly and only two Americans participated.
Therefore, a second focus group was arranged with two other participants.
The first American focus group took place on April 5, 2014 and the following participants
were present:
•
•
Participant A1: Female, Age: 32, Citizenship: American
Participant A2: Female, Age: 32, Citizenship: American
The last American focus group took place on April 13, 2014 and included the following
participants:
26 •
•
Participant A3: Female, Age: 31, Citizenship: American
Participant A4: Female, Age: 32, Citizenship: American
4.6 Material
Specific messages communicated via social media networks by the corporations explored in this
study within 12 months prior to May 2014 are examined in focus groups in order to analyze
responses to recent CSR communication. Examples of CSR communication are given in a survey
and in focus groups. As previously explained in the Background section, communication on
social media can look like advertisements, but often times they do not. This section will explain
the stimuli given on the survey and in focus groups.
The Electrolux Pintrest boards mentioned previously gives water conservation tips and
shares information about pollution. They do not encourage the audience to buy from Electrolux
in an obvious way. A Tweet from H&M (see image 3), which mentions that the corporation is
working towards a goal of paying all workers a fair wage, is discussed in the focus group.
Participants are asked about their thoughts on this tweet specifically and about tweeting this type
of communication. An Ericsson YouTube clip that explains their project connecting refugees
living in Africa is presented. This clip was chosen because the refugees were considered in line
with the dominant idea of “victims” (Höijer 2004: 513).
Communication that is considered more in line with traditional advertising in this study
are two IKEA TV clips circulated through links on Facebook pages in both the U.S. and Sweden.
This link went to a YouTube clip that communicated a United Nations International Children's
Emergency Fund (UNICEF) cause-related promotion. While the Swedish and American
audiences both watched the European TV clip in focus groups, the American focus group was
also given the American version of the ad to see if they related better to the way the ad
communicated the promotion to the U.S. market. These two clips communicated cause-related
marketing campaigns, which donated a portion of profits to UNICEF, a charity for children. As
mentioned earlier, the compassion an audience member feels to a victim can depend in part on
how well the victim fits the viewer’s idea of a victim (Höijer 2004: 513). Children are fitting as
mediatized symbols of innocent victims and therefore can more easily aspire compassion from
the audience.
All of the examples of corporate communication used in the focus groups were found on
social media and were used to encourage conversations. They were chosen because they seemed
27 to be representative of the plethora of CSR communication on social media. Because there was a
limited amount of time, material was kept to a minimum. Only two Pintrest boards, three
YouTube clips and one Tweet were given as examples in the survey and a Facebook post and a
tweet were given as examples on the survey.
The online campaigns shown were used to initiate conversations. A modified tactic used
by Jenny Kitzinger, whereby focus group participants are given cards with advertisements on
them and participants are asked to rank them (1994:106) was applied. Participants were asked to
compare corporate messages communicated via YouTube. Once participants were asked which
“message is most memorable” and which campaigns, if any, make them most “want to be a
customer”. The final rank of the commercials is not important, but it the process of getting there
that maters (Kitzinger 1994: 106). All four corporations, Electrolux, Ericsson, H&M and IKEA
were brought up in questions. Probing was done by asking open-ended questions and asking
participants to talk freely about the campaigns. An audio recording was taken of each focus
group and later transcribed.
4.7 Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of both qualitative methods and the qualitative method will now be
addressed more thoroughly. A method is considered valid if its findings measure what a
researcher set out to measure and a study is considered reliable if results can be duplicated
(Golafshani 2003). In this chapter, the validity of each method is addressed. The reliability of
overall results and the conclusions reached from each method is also discussed in this chapter
while the reliability of individual findings is discussed in the Results and Analysis chapter.
4.7.1 Validity and reliability of interviews
In order to discover dominant professional discourses it was important not to lead professionals
to the same responses. The researcher followed an interview guide and attempted to make the
professional feel comfortable to lead the interview. It was in this way that the researcher hoped
to get authentic responses and reveal dominant discourses about CSR. By choosing an informal
interview approach and often telling the interviewee that they are free to discuss aspects that they
find important, the researcher thinks that the results of the interview are valid. With the
exception of the Electrolux interview when two employees were interviewed simultaneously,
individual interviews were conducted. Individual interviews were considered better to address
28 the first aim of this research because other professionals would not be present who could
possibly influence responses in individual interviews. The method is considered an appropriate
approach to reach a valid conclusion about both what is important to consider in CSR
communication and contemporary challenges when communicating.
Eight professionals were interviewed, instead of only a few, in order to increase the
reliability of the results. In order to encourage conversation, the interviewer actively engaged in
conversation with the professional by nodding, and making comments like, “I understand”.
Therefore, these subtle gestures and exclamations may affect reliability. Expressing interest was
a conscious decision, however, in order to keep the interviews conversational and aid in
establishing an informal environment. If the researcher had a more rigid demeanor, the informal
environment may have been jeopardized. It is possible that another researcher could reach
different dominant discourses and challenges. When reflecting on the approach used, the
researcher continues to consider the approach used best for reaching authentic responses. The
researcher reflects that responses may have been only slightly affected by the interviewer’s
demeanor during the interview and believes that another researcher with a different approach
conducting the interviews would not make a significant difference. The number of interviews is
considered appropriate to reaching a conclusion about dominant discourses with the CSR
communication arena and to reach a conclusion about common challenges.
4.7.2 Survey validity and reliability
“Qualitative research allows the researcher to familiarize him/herself with the problem or
concept to be studied, and perhaps generate hypotheses to be tested”(Golafshani, 2003: 597).
While interviews are located in the interpretive paradigm and appropriate for understanding CSR
as a social and cultural phenomenon, surveys are dominant in the positive paradigm and
“information is gathered in the form of numbers that can be quantified and
summarized”(Golafshani 2003: 597-598). In this study, the interviews allowed the researcher to
gain a better understanding of CSR audience reception in order to create a survey. Qualitative
research is valid when “the means of measurement are accurate and whether they are actually
measuring what they are intended to measure” (Golafshani 2003: 599).
In order to reach a high level of validity, survey questions were tested in a pilot study.
The questions were revised in order to make the questions easier to understand. It is important to
29 ensure that respondents understood what the question is asking in order to properly measure their
opinions. Simple and straightforward wording was used in the survey in order to minimize
misunderstanding. Participants’ opinions of messages about CSR are “regarded as being readily
available in the world of the audience for objective collection through the analyst’s
questionnaire” (Schrøder, Drotner, Kline & Murray 2003: 30).
Sieber asserts, “the ‘obtrusiveness’ of a questionnaire can be assessed and taken into
account in the analyst's interpretations” (1973: 1357). Some respondents may speculate that the
researcher could identify them and this may affect their answers. “In order to classify causal
relations and their validity as clearly as possible the conditions under which the phenomena and
relations under study are controlled as far as possible” (Fink 2006: 13). A limitation, therefore, is
that it is hard to speak in detail about the American respondents because about 200 American
respondents were reached by paying SurveyMonkey for respondents. In this case, the researcher
had no control over distribution. There may be differences between an American respondent who
is paid and a respondent taking the survey while sitting in a university class and this may have an
effect on responses.
Although there were limitations and the validity may be affected, these limitations are
considered and explained in when results are discussed. It is understood that survey respondents
do not represent the whole population of the U.S. and Sweden, but their responses give
indications about what the reality might be like. More than 300 respondents in total help to
increase the likelihood that this survey is reliable and the results are replicable.
4.7.3 The validity and reliability of focus groups
Focus groups are an appropriate approach for exploring audience reception because participants
rely less on the researcher to stimulate the conversation (Frey & Fontana 1991: 184). Focus
groups are often conducted in media studies because they are considered appropriate approaches
for gauging audience reactions (Frey & Fontana 1991). Frey and Fontana assert that researchers
need to consider whether the focus group really measures what you are using it to measure. The
methodological approach in this case was devised to discover audience responses to CSR
messages. The researcher when reflecting upon this approach continues to consider the focus
groups valid because they measured opinions of specific CSR communication. It did not measure
anything similar to this like opinions to ‘advertising’ in general. Respondents’ comments, given
30 in the Results section, were very specific to CSR communication (Appendix C). Both questions
and responses were very closely related to the CSR reception.
One limitation is that there were eight participants in total. The validity of drawing
conclusions based on only eight participants might be questioned. There may be fewer
differences between the countries than the focus groups reflected. A problem with comparing
two different cultures this way is that every individual is unique in their life experiences, beliefs
and aspirations. Therefore conclusions given in the results section focuses on results that are
backed by survey and focus group results and not focus group results alone.
Another aspect to note is that examples used in the focus group and the survey were
chosen because of the way they seemed to be representative of the plethora of CSR
communication on social media. Because there was a limited amount of time to show
participants and not very much material could be examined in the focus group, it is possible that
results could be different if different stimuli were used.
The reliability of focus groups may have been jeopardized slightly if participants changed
their opinions to fit in or did not share their opinions. If this occurred then it would be less likely
that the study could be replicated which has similar results. A common argument against using a
focus group is that focus groups “tend to work towards ‘consensus’ ground” (Hansen et al 1998:
263). The fact that some participants knew each other may play a role in potential similarities in
opinions and perspectives. The focus group is seen as a conditional experiment and it is
understood that the sample does not have a strong relationship to the entire population. Each of
the focus members commented, but the time each participant spent talking varied. American
participants took up relatively equal amounts of time. This may be due to the fact that American
focus groups contained only two participants while the one Swedish focus group contained four.
Size can have an effect on responses. For example, participants in the groups with only
one other member may have felt safer to voice their opinions. The Swedish focus group
contained one member who only commented four times, aside from ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers. This
limited interaction was more natural in a setting with three other participants, but this individual
may have participated more if there was only one other participant. It is especially important to
address the size limitation and discrepancy because “this is especially crucial since group
members will probably know each other and will have already established a patterned
relationship” (Frey & Fontana 1991: 191).
31 This method was considered appropriate to answer questions about CSR reception. The
researcher took a passive role because of the informal setting. Although focus groups have many
benefits, a problem is that “…group interviews require different skills than individual
interviews” (Frey & Fontana 1991: 192). The researcher must “be sensitive to group dynamics”.
Without offering financial compensation, it was difficult to recruit participants. When reflecting
on the focus group structure, the researcher thinks that the size of each of each focus group and
familiarity did not limit the reliability substantially. However, conducting more focus groups
would have been advantageous if time permitted.
5. Results and Analysis
The validity and reliability of the methods used were brought forth in the previous chapter and
will be taken into consideration in the discussion of results. This reflexive approach will aid in
addressing the validity and reliability of specific results. This chapter presents results and
analysis of the empirical research. Research questions are addressed individually. Results from
the interviews are, for the most part, presented first and then the results from the focus group and
survey are presented together as these methods work together to answer the same research
questions regarding audience reception.
5.1 Interview Results
5.1.1 How corporations use social media networks to communicate CSR
Each corporation uses social media to communicate CSR messages in different ways. Each
executive interviewed had different preferences regarding the way they used the words
“sustainability” and “corporate social responsibility”9, but all four corporations explored in this
study engage with stakeholders on social media networks about these topics on social media.
Company specific efforts were discussed briefly in the background section. Qualitative
interviews with professionals aided in furthering the knowledge about specific campaigns and
answering the first set of research question regarding how corporations use social media
networks to communicate CSR.
9
Mr. Boutros preferred to use the term CSR throughout the interview and spoke little about sustainable business practices while Mr. Hedén
spoke about both. Ms. Johnson did not use the term ‘CSR’ at all but spoke about sustainable business practices and being responsible in the
countries where they have a presence. It could be that each corporation has its own way of using these terms to some extent.
32 Engagement was discussed in each interview. Social media lets corporations engage with
their audience. The interviews with professionals showed some consensus about strategies for
communicating CSR. The most discussed aspect of CSR communication discussed in these
meetings was that CSR must be related to the core of the business. For example, Ericsson
provides help after natural disasters by sending employees to the area and setting up networks so
that other aid providers work faster. One tactic that was widely discussed was using social media
to communicate because it can engage an audience. Direct tone and moving images with
information that linked back to corporate sites in many cases was advised (Mr. T Bergmark
2014, pers.comm., 17 February; Mr. Boutros 2013, pers.comm., November 19; Mr. E. Hedén
2013, pers.comm., November 29).
When interviewed on 29 November 2013, Ms. Johnson discussed Ericsson First
Response. The CSR initiative, Ericsson Response, is “a global initiative that works in partnership
with UN agencies to put communications expertise, equipment and resources at their disposal in
times of need” (Ericsson 2014). First Response volunteers sometimes upload videos and images
to social media channels. The Connect to Learn project was also discussed. Connect to learn is “a
global initiative that provides scholarships for girls and boys in impoverished areas to attend
secondary school, and implements mobile broadband technology to connect their classrooms to a
21st century education” (Connect To Learn 2014). These initiatives are communicated on social
media as well as through Ericsson.com, ConnectToLearn.org and other digital channels.
Electrolux referenced a campaign called Vac From the Sea. It was seen as a successful
social media campaign internally because it got their audience talking about them and to them on
social media (Mr. H Sundström 2014, pers.comm. 5 March; Ms. M Ekefalk, 2014, pers.comm. 5
March). CSR consultant, Boutros spoke about how CSR messages should tell an engaging story,
which is what IKEA did through their Vac from the Sea campaign. Electrolux reaches an
international audience by communicating on Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest and Twitter. They
communicate about products, the environment and their campaigns like Vac From the Sea and
Your Watermark. Some of their communications might be seen as informative communication
about the environment. It might be seen as created with an aim of branding the company as
socially responsible.
H&M and IKEA have some similarities in the way that they use social media to
communicate CSR. They both communicate cause-related campaigns and post information about
33 sustainable business practices. The researcher was not able to interview someone from H&M or
IKEA, but interviews with CSR consultants were able to shed more light on some of the
communication tactics that they likely use. It seems that they are attempting to address societal
issues on their channels and position themselves as helping to make things better. Both H&M
and IKEA have been criticized for not being socially responsible. H&M tweets about becoming
more socially responsible in image 3.
Image 3: H&M Tweet
The link in this tweet goes to more information about the H&M initiative to start paying their
workers in other countries a fair living wage in the future.
YouTube circulates Electrolux, Ericsson, H&M and IKEA TV ads. The ads
communicating CSR are sometimes told with subtle music and an air of calmness. The IKEA ad
given as an example of a cause-related campaign in the focus group was linked to from IKEA’s
Facebook page. It was considered a representative example of a cause-related ad. The IKEA ad
contains soft music, and an air of calmness. The music might be seen as comforting and the tone
might be seen as reassuring. The embedded message seems to be that IKEA is a socially
responsible corporation.
Communication professionals refer to Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest, Twitter, and
YouTube as platforms currently used to appropriately communicate corporate responsibility
online. The consultants pointed out that the appropriate platform and tone depend upon the
corporation and the reason for the communication among other factors (Mr. Ambrose 2014,
pers.comm., March 4; (Mr. T Bergmark 2014, pers.comm., 17 February; Mr. Boutros 2013,
pers.comm., November 19; Mr. E. Hedén 2013, pers.comm., November 29; Mr. P. Staunstrup
2014, pers.comm., 4 March).
34 5.1.2 Dominate discourses in CSR communication discussions
Four main points made by consultants about CSR communication are: 1. A CSR initiative that is
seen as related to the core of a business is more memorable, 2. Corporations should engage the
audience when communicating CSR, 3. Communicating good stories on social media can engage
audiences, 4. It is important to consider cultural differences when communicating.
It is important for audiences to see the communicated CSR initiative as closely related to
the corporation’s core (Mr. E. Hedén, pers.comm., November 29, 2013). It has been stated by
scholars as well that a stronger association makes the message more memorable (Sohn, Han &
Lee, 2012). Communicating CSR initiatives can be challenging if the CSR initiative is simply
donating money to a cause that is not closely tied to the company. Therefore, it is not surprising
that when interviewed on 6 March, Mr. Hedén asserted that these good deeds should be rooted in
the company from its inception.
Morsing and Schultz (2006), mentioned earlier, assert the significance of third party
endorsement. A third party endorsement on social media might be seen as UNICEF tweet about
an H&M cause-related campaign.
Image 4: UNICEF USA tweet about a cause-related campaign
Engaging employees to endorse CSR initiative is also advisable (Mr. M Boutros 2013,
pers.comm., 19 November); (Mr. J. Ambrose 2014, pers.comm., 4 March); (Mr. P. Staunstrup
2014, pers.comm., 4 March), (Mr. E Hedén 2013, 29 March).
When interviewed on 4 March 2014, Mr. Staunstrup said that one of the most moving
images he saw capturing a CSR initiative was taken by an employee. It was powerful, he said,
because it was an “amateur shot”. The photo captured a desolate area after it was hit by a storm.
The back of an employee was shown with the company’s logo displayed on the shirt and he is
looking out onto nothing. Nothing was left after the storm devastated the area Mr. Staunstrup
35 explained. In the interview with Mr. Staunstrup, he remarked that Instagram offered an
opportunity to corporations to transcend language boundaries by communicating through images
(Mr. P Staunstrup 2014, pers.comm., 4 March).
One way to engage a large audience is to tell an engaging story. Packaging a CSR
initiative as an interesting story was repeatedly discussed as an appropriate tactic. Storytelling is
used to communicate CSR to large audiences because it can simplify the information and make
the initiate more memorable (M. Boutros, personal communication, November 19, 2013). Many
companies report on social responsibly in annual reports, but it is not clear who reads these
reports and most people do not read annual reports (M. Boutros, personal communication,
November 19, 2013). Even if a large percentage of the public were to get information about
corporate responsibility from these reports, it is unlikely that the communication derived from
this report would be as memorable as an IKEA Facebook post containing a link to YouTube
video showing Jesus online (see Focus Group Material). Storytelling can easily be seen in online
videos like this one and shared by the corporation through mediums like YouTube. Ericsson’s
Connect to Learn video is one example of a video uploaded to their YouTube channel. It tells a
story in a more serious tone (see Focus Group Material).
In three of the interviews, cultural differences were discussed at some length. Mr.
Boutros and Mr. Hedén spoke about how CSR is different in the U.S. than in Sweden. Hedén
asserted that it is more important that corporations address societal issues in the U.S. than in
Sweden because of the differences in the way the countries are governed and how poverty is an
issue in the U.S. They both mentioned that the U.S. is more divided.
Mr. Boutros asserted that the right way to communicate these messages to both markets
is to be open and honest, but mentions that the Swedish audience tends to be more skeptical. He
encourages corporations to tell engaging stories to involve their target market. Mr. Boutros spoke
positively of a number of U.S. CSR campaigns as good ways to communicate CSR by engaging
people. This might indicate that he prefers an American approach to CSR communication rather
than a Swedish approach. Both Mr. Hedén and Mr. Boutros think that American audiences are
less skeptical. The American audience described by Mr. Boutros and Mr. Hedén are more open
to communications about companies aiding in solving societal problems while Swedish
audiences are more critical of these messages.
36 Mr. Staunstrup explained situations where they realized how important it was that they
had images approved by locals before using them in ads in some markets. It is hard sometimes to
realize when there might be a cultural difference because a person sees the world through her
own set of culture codes (Daun, 1996). “It’s very difficult to understand how other cultures will
see things” (Mr. P Staunstrup 2014, pers.comm., 4 March).
5.1.3 Challenges corporations face when communicating to an international audience
Sometimes corporations do not know how to communicate CSR. Environmental aspects
of CSR were disused in the interview with Mr. Hedén. He asserts that companies need to do
more than label products as ‘ecological’. Corporations should explain the benefits ecological
products to the environment, health, etc. However, corporations continue to find it challenging to
communicate to the public and often do not communicate these environmental benefits as much
as they should (Mr. E Hedén 2013, 29 March).
Communicating with publics in different countries can be challenging (Mr. P Staunstrup
2014, pers.comm., 4 March). Corporations need to consider cultural differences and work with
people in the markets who understand local customs (Mr. P Staunstrup 2014, pers.comm., 4
March). It is not possible to cut corners by not conducting market research (Mr. T Bergmark
2014, pers.comm., 17 February). In an interview on 17 February 2014, Mr. Bergmark asserts that
a dialog should be established with stakeholders so that communication addresses their concerns.
When interviewed on February 17 2014, Mr. Bergmark, mentioned that there is often a
question of ‘what’ to communicate along with ‘how’. Some IKEA employees wanted to start
sharing social responsibility earlier than others. The ones who thought that the company should
not actively communicate specific social responsibility initiatives on social media thought that
they should wait until their business practices were even more sustainable in order to avoid
backlash (Mr. T Bergmark 2014, pers.comm., 17 February). Phillips and Young agree that the
best approach in the digital age is openness. “The inherent tension between duty and
consequence is one of the main reasons why there appear to be so many grey areas in ethics…”
(2007: 226). Phillips and Young also assert that the “nature of obligation” and the “nature of
public relations” need to be considered in “any discussion of PR ethics” (Phillips and Young
2009: 226).
Mr. Bergmark encourages companies to communicate in a transparent and open way. He
37 says that it is okay to let audiences post negative comments and the right approach is to respond
to the criticism in an appropriate way (Mr. T Bergmark 2014, pers.comm., 17 February). This
might be a challenge for corporations to allow negative readings of CSR messages on their social
media channels, but corporate communicators are sometimes advised to address the concerns
that are communicated in the negative readings on the channel in order to build and/or repair
relationships (Mr. T Bergmark 2014, pers.comm., 17 February).When this topic came up in two
other meetings, Mr. Ambrose and Mr. Staunstrup agreed that transparency is the best policy (Mr.
Ambrose 2014, pers.comm., March 4); (Mr. P. Staunstrup 2014, pers.comm., 4 March). Phillips
and Young allude to the negative implications that social media has for corporations
communicating CSR (2009), however Phillips, Young, Yaxley and other academics assert that
social media should be used to communicate. Academic and professional opinion seems to be
that it is best to be open and transparent when communicating on social media even though
addressing negative concerns may be challenging.
In the interview with Ms. Johnson, she discussed getting employees involved. It is a
challenge for Ms. Johnson to keep employees informed about sustainability and corporate
responsibility so that they are able to explain the company’s approach on a high level (Ms. H.
Johnson, pers.comm., November 29, 2013). In two other interviews the issue of how to engage
employees and how to communicate CSR internally was addressed. Hedén also spoke about the
importance of engaging employees. “…The bad way is just to send it in a PDF and hope that
they read it. …So we have to do workshops.” Furthermore, he asserts that, “Involvement is really
important. Engage people. How does this affect me as a worker?”
Ericsson’s 20th suitability report lay on the table while the interview with Ms. Johnson
was conducted. “… We’ve been actively externally communicating for 20 years, which I think is
pretty long term for many companies. So I would say it’s not new to us, but it is definitely
growing. I would say stakeholder interest has really grown, even in the past 2-3 years” (Ms. H
Johnson 2013, pers.comm., 29 November). The increase in stakeholder interest in the last few
years might be further indication of the cultural and societal phenomenon regarding the increased
interest in corporate roles within societies at large. They are a B2B company and therefore do not
use social media to promote products to customers. They do, however, still use social media to
communicate. Their main goal with this is to reach stakeholders, but their communication
reaches a much larger audience (Ms. H Johnson 2013, pers.comm., 29 November).
38 Ms. Johnson receives feedback from employees through interviews and a survey question
in order to address to what extent they care. Involving stakeholders and getting them to
communicate their support of corporate CSR initiatives benefits CSR initiatives (Morsing and
Schultz 336: 336). Stakeholders are then able to take part in the “sensegiving and the
sensemaking process” (Morsing and Schultz 336: 336).
When Mr. Boutros was asked for his CSR consulting input regarding what questions
should be asked about CSR audience reception, he responded, “Who cares?”. It is interesting to
find out who cares about these CSR messages communicated on social media. This question
motivated the researcher to explore how much the public cares by finding out how Americans
and Swedes respond to CSR messages communicated via social media, how CSR messages
affect public opinion, and what motivates sharing corporate CSR messages on social networks.
5.2 Survey and Focus Group Results
Similarities between Americans and Swedes were found when it came to their responses to CSR
communication with some exceptions. The majority of survey and focus group comments
showed an understanding of the fundamental concept of CSR communication. Anthony Giddens
explains that sociologists appear to understand the world but people living in a society often
understand even more (1984: 281). In order to answer the second and third aim of this study,
regarding how corporate messages about CSR affect public opinion and if differences can be
detected between U.S. and Swedish audiences, results from the survey were cross tabulated.
There are 375 survey respondents. In both Sweden and the U.S., there are higher
percentages of female respondents. In total, approximately 58% of respondents are female and
42% are male.
Table 2A: Country * Female/ Male Crosstab
Country
U.S.
Female
Female/male
Male
Total
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Cramer’s V=,027, Approx. Sig.=,617, N= 346
Total
Sweden
138
64
202
57,5%
60,4%
58,4%
102
42
144
42,5%
39,6%
41,6%
240
106
346
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
39 Some respondents skipped the demographic questions. SurveyMonkey distributed the survey to
approximately 200 U.S. respondents and SurveyMonkey automatically included additional
demographic questions such as: location in the U.S., education, and income (Appendix B- Table
2B-2D).
Approximately 50 U.S. respondents and 35 Swedish respondents were reached through
the Snowball sampling method discussed in the methodology discussion. The other Swedish
respondents were found through the class presentation and by handing out the survey on campus
as discussed earlier.
Table 3: Age * Country Crosstab
Country
U.S.
>30
30-44
Age
45-60
>60
Total
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Cramer’s V=,505, Approx. Sig.=,000, N= 348
Total
Sweden
59
80
139
24,4%
75,5%
39,9%
72
21
93
29,8%
19,8%
26,7%
69
5
74
28,5%
4,7%
21,3%
42
0
42
17,4%
0,0%
12,1%
242
106
348
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
As seen in Table 3, the respondents came from a variety of age brackets. A higher percentage of
Swedish respondents are younger than 30 years old. This may influence results and findings.
Therefore, the differences indicated by this survey between countries will be compared with
differences between age groups to check the validity of the findings.
Most respondents do not remember seeing or hearing a message about CSR
communication in the past year (see Crosstab 14: CSR Messages in Appendix B). Of those 210
who responded, more chose social media as the medium which delivered the most powerful CSR
message than any other medium.
Graph 1: Which medium delivered the most memorable CSR message?
40 Social Media (74)
TV (26)
Online news (21)
Print media (21
YouTube (17)
WOM (14)
Corporate website (11)
Project website (9)
Radio (8)
Other (8)
Annual report (1)
Missing (157)
N=210, Missing=157
Respondents specified ‘in-store’ or ‘on product label’ as other ways they heard about CSR.
When asked which medium they did remember hearing a CSR message from, 74 respondents
chose “social media” out of ten other options. Quite a lot more Swedish participants chose
‘social media” (59) than Americans (15). This is likely due to the younger Swedish respondents
more than it indicates that Swedes find CSR messages on social media more memorable than
Americans (See crosstab 15 in the appendix).
5.2.1 How audiences respond to CSR messages communicated via social media
The majority of respondents in both countries had a positive reaction to the most memorable
CSR social media communication. Both American and Swedish focus group participants
appreciated when a corporation contributed something of value, like the Electrolux water
conservation Pintrest board because this was seen as something contributed without any obvious
potential for direct financial compensation. These Pintrest boards caused the majority of focus
group participants to think more highly of Electrolux.
Table 4: Thinking highly of a company
Country
U.S.
If a company engages in activities
Yes
aimed at benefiting society beyond
sustainable business practices, it can
make me think highly of that company.
No
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
Total
% within Country
Total
Sweden
33
84
117
97,1%
93,3%
94,4%
1
6
7
2,9%
6,7%
5,6%
34
90
124
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cramer’s V=,072, Approx. Sig.=,423, N= 124
41 Table 4 gives the results to the yes/no statement, ‘If a company engages in activities aimed at
benefiting society beyond sustainable business practices, it can make me think highly of that
company’, A high percentage of respondents, 81% of Americans and 74% Swedes, reported that
CSR communication can make them think more highly of a corporation. The Cramer’s V is
0,184 and the approx. sig. is ,038 so this is considered a weak correlation. Additionally, 250
respondents skipped the question indicating that this question should be reworded. It may be too
difficult to respond to this statement because the respondents’ thoughts about a company might
be dependent upon many other factors.
The majority of respondents in both countries agreed that a corporation’s environmental
impact should be addressed on its corporate website.
Table 5: Environmental Impact Communication
Country
U.S.
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
How a company compensates for
environmental impact should be
communicated on their corporate
website.
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
Total
% within Country
Total
Sweden
17
3
20
6,9%
2,8%
5,7%
2
2
4
0,8%
1,9%
1,1%
29
9
38
11,8%
8,5%
10,8%
55
19
74
22,4%
17,9%
21,1%
142
73
215
58,0%
68,9%
61,3%
245
106
351
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cramer V=,129 Approx. Sig.=,210 N=351
The results to this question indicate that consumers are interested in knowing how a
corporation compensates for environmental impact and that a corporation should communicate
this online, at least through the corporation’s website.
The survey indicates that customers care about how employees are treated. For example,
89.3% of respondents agreed that if a company does or does not engage in fair treatment
influences whether they will buy from that company. These results support Strid and Andreasson
assertion that social responsibility can allow for increased labour costs (2008: 117).
Table 6: Fair Treatment of Employees
Country
Total
42 U.S.
Strongly disagree
Count
% within Country
If a company does/does not
Somewhat disagree
engage in fair treatment of
their employees can have an
1
7
2,5%
0,9%
2,0%
5
8
13
2,0%
7,5%
3,7%
22
7
29
9,0%
6,6%
8,3%
89
50
139
36,5%
47,2%
39,7%
122
40
162
50,0%
37,7%
46,3%
244
106
350
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Count
Neutral
% within Country
effect on if I buy from that
company.
6
Count
% within Country
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
Total
% within Country
Sweden
Cramer V=,184 Approx. Sig.=,018 N=350
The majority of survey respondents care about the treatment of employees.
One difference between the ways respondents in the two countries answered is observed
when comparing answers regarding if the respondent actively seeks more information after
hearing about a CSR initiative.
Table 7: Actively Seeking More Information
Country
U.S.
Strongly disagree
After I hear a message about social
Somewhat disagree
responsibility, I actively look for more
information about the initiative (by
Neutral
clicking a link, performing a Google
search or inquiring in another way).
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Total
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Total
Sweden
20
21
41
8,2%
19,8%
11,7%
26
23
49
10,7%
21,7%
14,0%
56
26
82
23,0%
24,5%
23,4%
104
29
133
42,6%
27,4%
38,0%
38
7
45
15,6%
6,6%
12,9%
244
106
350
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cramer’s V=,263 Approx. Sig.=,000 N=350
Hedén discussed that, according to his experience, Americans expect companies to contribute
more to society due in part to the greater presence of societal problems in the U.S. (Mr. E Hedén
2014, pers.comm). The survey showed that a greater percentage of Americans are more likely to
43 seek information about a specific initiative after hearing CSR communication. This could
indicate that they are more interested.
One questions compared CSR communicated by corporations with communication about
CSR from news sources. According to Table 8, higher percentage of both Swedes and Americans
trust CSR communicated by news sources more than social responsibility communicated by a
corporation. More than 50% of Americans were less skeptical about social responsibility
communicated by a news source than by a company. Similarly, more than half of the Swedes
surveyed trusted news sources more. This may indicate a lack of trust in CSR communication.
The receiver is influenced by the way they receive the message. Respondents to this survey may
take into account that the corporations likely have a ‘preferred meaning’ (Hall 1980: 136-138)
and that the meaning, if the audience chooses to accept it, will ultimately help the corporation.
The corporations likely want the audiences to think ‘this is a socially responsible company’ or ‘I
should want to buy from them’ after hearing a CSR message while news sources might be seen
to have less bias.
Table 8: News VS corporate communication
Country
U.S.
Strongly disagree
I am less skeptical of messages
about corporate social
responsibility communicated by
news sources than corporations.
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
Total
% within Country
Total
Sweden
12
3
15
4,9%
2,8%
4,3%
25
6
31
10,3%
5,7%
8,9%
72
22
94
29,6%
20,8%
26,9%
97
48
145
39,9%
45,3%
41,5%
37
27
64
15,2%
25,5%
18,3%
243
106
349
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cramer’s V=,164 Approx. Sig.=,051 N= 349
A news source might be less motivated to deliver a message that promotes the corporation.
Another topic brought up in an interview was imagery. One consultant asserted that
showing disturbing images is not the right approach in messages about CSR (M. Boutros 2013,
pers.comm., November 19). The survey also addressed images. However, answers seem to
reflect a large variety of opinions.
44 Table 9: Alarming images in digital CSR communication
Country
U.S.
Strongly disagree
It is alright if companies use
alarming images in their online
communications. (e.g. photos of
starvation).
Somewhat disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
Total
% within Country
Total
Sweden
46
7
53
18,9%
6,6%
15,1%
65
19
84
26,6%
17,9%
24,0%
68
27
95
27,9%
25,5%
27,1%
50
35
85
20,5%
33,0%
24,3%
15
18
33
6,1%
17,0%
9,4%
244
106
350
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cramer’s V=,261 Approx. Sig.=,000 N=350
More Swedes than Americans agreed that it is ok to feature alarming images (e.g. images of
starvation) in CSR communication or they were neutral. In other words more American
respondents did not think that disturbing images should be in CSR communication. However this
result was discounted when the age of the responses was factored into the cross tabulation and it
was discovered that the youngest demographic agreed more than the older demographics. The
differences between the countries, therefor, likely are a result of the greater percentage 18-29
year-old Swedish respondents (See Appendix B Table 16).
5.2.2 How corporate messages about CSR affect audience opinions
Survey results seem to indicate that a well-executed CSR initiative, which is communicated in
the right way, can increase intent to buy.
Table 10: Purchase Intent
Country
U.S.
Strongly disagree
If I were already considering buying a
product from a specific company, a
Somewhat disagree
campaign about how that company is
socially responsible could increase my
Neutral
interest in making the purchase.
Somewhat agree
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Total
Sweden
6
5
11
2,5%
4,8%
3,2%
9
10
19
3,7%
9,5%
5,4%
17
12
29
7,0%
11,4%
8,3%
98
37
135
40,2%
35,2%
38,7%
45 Strongly agree
Count
% within Country
Count
Total
% within Country
114
41
155
46,7%
39,0%
44,4%
244
105
349
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Cramer's V=,161 Approx Sig.=,061 N= 349
Audiences in both countries think that a CSR campaign could influence their purchase decision.
5.2.3 Motivations for sharing CSR messages on social networks
According to the survey, a significant percentage of respondents are either neutral or agree that
they have shared CSR communication on social media. In the Swedish focus group, the
motivations discussed included sharing negative and positive readings of CSR messages. They
are motivated to share because they think that their message is important for others to hear and/or
because they think others will be interested in the information. Participant S3 said he usually
only shares negative thoughts about CSR communication. Most participants in the American
focus group said they might share a message. One reason for sharing given by Participant A2
was sharing because she thought it contained something interesting that a specific friend might
appreciate.
Table 11: Sharing CSR Communication I
Country
U.S.
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
I have shared communication about
how a company is socially
Neutral
responsible through social media.
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Count
% within Country
Total
Sweden
68
45
113
29,1%
41,5%
32,9%
19
10
29
8,1%
9,4%
8,5%
53
12
65
22,6%
11,3%
19,1%
50
24
74
21,4%
22,6%
21,8%
44
15
59
18,8%
14,2%
17,4%
Cramer V=,185 Approx. Sig.=,040 N=340
According to the table 12, 35.5% of respondents have shared CSR social media
communication. This percentage was calculated by adding participants who answered, “Strongly
agree”, “Somewhat agree”, and “Neutral” in Table 5. It should be noted, therefore, that “neutral”
is subjective. “Neutral” is considered here to mean that perhaps the respondent has liked a
friend’s post on the topic, an act that might lead the post to be more readily seen. If the
46 respondent marked “neutral” it is assumed that she rarely shares CSR communication, but may
have engaged in online behavior that resulted in sharing a CSR message at least once.
Table 12: Sharing CSR Communication II
I have shared
Missing
on social
media
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
36
9,6
9,6
9,6
Has shared
133
35,5
35,5
45,1
Has not shared
206
54,9
54,9
100,0
Total
375
100,0
100,0
One last survey result that is interesting to consider is that Facebook was chosen more
often than any other medium when respondents were asked where CSR should be
communicated. Other options that the researcher expected to see chosen more often were
‘Annual Report’, ‘Corporate website’ and ‘Other’ (See Appendix B—Table 15 and Chart 2).
This could indicate that publics like to hear about CSR on social media. One reason for this
might be because they have the power to communicate their own opinion about the CSR
initiative. Approximately half of the focus group participants have communicated with brands on
social media. The focus groups were conducted to aid in finding out if Americans have a more
profound interest in CSR communication and if they are more positive about corporations
communicating CSR on social media.
5.2.4 Differences between American and Swedish responses
Survey and focus group results show that there are a variety of responses within both the U.S.
and Sweden. There is little national consensus, therefore, regarding CSR communication on
social media. Survey respondents were given the opportunity to add their thoughts about CSR.
Although some American comments included, “It really does not affect weather I will buy a
product or not. I base purchasing a product on need, price and will it work.” from an American
(with the following characteristics: 30-44 years old, male, from the Mid Atlantic, some college
education, making 150,000 USD a year), most comments reflected a more receptive audience. “I
don't think it is all that helpful for companies to shout about, pat themselves on the back, for
simply doing the right thing, but I am receptive to messages of going above & beyond the status
quo, and leading their industry in affecting positive change” from an American (with the
following characteristics: 30-44 years old, Female, Graduate degree from West South Central).
47 Results of the survey and focus groups indicate that the two countries have more
similarities than differences and that negotiated readings of CSR messages are most common.
Although, neutral comments on the survey are most common amongst American and Swedish
respondents, a higher percentage of positive American comments were tallied and the
percentages of positive American comments on the survey and in the focus group are higher.
Some of these positive comments included: “I cannot think of an instance where social media
would be inappropriate [to communicate CSR].” And “I think it is always a good idea to
highlight social responsibility. Integrity is something I am always interested in.”
The majority of Swedish comments were more neutral and sometimes negotiated aspects
they appreciate about CSR communication and the aspects that they dislike. An example of a
neutral Swedish respondents is10: “I feel that they absolutely can share communication about
their social responsibility on social media, but there are definitely situations where it seems
distasteful to communicate via social media when they want you to buy from them after a
catastrophe as they pull wisely and strongly on your emotions.” Sometimes it was hard to
categorize a comment. This Swedish comment is classified as positive by the researcher: “First
and foremost, a corporation should probably take responsibility, so that it becomes known for
being there. But I definitely think that corporations should communicate this [CSR] on their
website or fb [Facebook], [T]witter, and Instagram. Corporations should promote themselves and
not be so svenskt blygsamma [Swedish and modest]. It depends what kind of business the
corporation conducts, there are absolutely activities that may not be suited so well for social
media.” Perhaps this comment could have been categorized as neutral instead of positive.
Because it was difficult to categorize some comments, this may have an effect on the reliability
of this part of the analysis.
Ideas expressed in the survey about using social media to communicate CSR were mixed.
Some Swedes and Americans were positive. However, some comments indicate a negative
perception of this communication. A negative American comment was, “I think most companies
use social media for self serving lightly veiled advertising. I personally give little to zero
attention to corporate social media posting.”
10 Swedish comments were translated by the researcher. 48 The focus groups aided in answering the research question regarding differences between
the U.S. and Sweden further. The focus groups provided further evidence that some subtle
differences exist between the responses to CSR messages in Sweden and the U.S. Topics such as
marketing and corporate wealth were brought up in all the groups. Because of the limited number
of focus group participants, the only results discussed in detail in this thesis are ones that can be
supported by the survey. The two biggest differences detected in the survey are that Americans
are more likely to actively search for more information on a CSR initiative after hearing about it
and that Americans are slightly more positive about CSR communication based on survey
comments. These results are reinforced by the focus group results.
Overall, the Swedish focus group focused more on negative and critical comments about
CSR messages while the US focus groups addressed concern, but voiced a higher percentage of
positive and neutral readings of CSR messages. American focus group participants were more
inclined to change their buying behavior to reward companies for engaging in ethical behavior
than Swedish participants. Mistrust was mentioned more than once in the Swedish focus group.
Although there were negative comments in both Swedish and American focus groups, the
Swedish negativity encompassed the concept of CSR communication in general while American
cynicism was directed to specific corporations.
For example, after viewing an IKEA commercial on YouTube communicating a causerelated campaign, several oppositional comments were recoded in the Swedish focus group. For
example, Participant S4, said, “I always get pretty offended when I see this. So they can afford to
do this to get good will. They give with one hand and they hit with the other. Because they have
some children workers and things so they can afford these things. If they really wanted to change
the world, they would give good salaries. But then they wouldn’t get a good promotion”.
Participant A2, an American focus group participant, directed outrage toward IKEA specifically.
She used the word ‘hate’ and expressed thorough dissatisfaction with their CSR efforts. Her
underlining point was about IKEA’s culpability and she did not dislike cause-related campaigns
in general. “I hate their whole guise of being a foundation and with all their tax invasion, it’s just
a cover for all the crap they do … I would much rather buy from Lush or Body Shop because
their whole entire corporate existence is based on corporate social responsibility. Or others,
which might have huge arms of corporate charities like what IBM used to do — Donate
thousands of computers and open schools. Not like, ‘Here, we’ll donate the other dollar for this
49 7-dollar toy. We made it for 35 cents in China, but we’ll donate the other dollar to kids over in
like… Zimbabwe’…” The same American participant voiced positive readings of CSR
communication examples from other corporations while the Swedish respondent quoted above
did not make any positive comments. Participant A2 also laughed at the IKEA ad and said she
would share it on social media networks because she thought it was funny.
In the American focus group topics such as marketing and corporate greed were
discussed but the topics were taken in a more lighthearted tone. Two laughed at parts in IKEA’s
YouTube communication that were suppose to be funny. This is due perhaps to the fact that
American participants knew each other and the researcher better than the Swedish respondents.
Differences like this will be mostly overlooked, therefore, because of the question of reliability.
The American focus group participants’ meanings were more in line with the assumed
preferred meanings (addressed in the theoretical framework). Three were positive in their
reception of Ericsson and H&M while only one Swedish participant voiced positive comments in
line with preferred meanings about these communications. Two people said that they would
share one of the cause-related advertisements used as an example because they found it funny. A
third American said she would share one message (the Ericsson YouTube clip) because of the
message. She said she would also share the Pintrest board with a few friends because she thought
it was creative and well done.
There are other focus group results that will not be discussed in detail because the results
are not considered to be reliable due to the low number of focus group participants. These results
largely indicated that Americans have a more positive outlook on CSR communication. Other
focus group results included that the Americans, who were given two commercials to view, one
aimed to the U.S. market and one aimed to the Swedish market, thought the second one made
them more interested in buying. This result, along with the other results that are not discussed, is
not considered reliable because of the low number of focus group informants.
Similarities between all the focus groups included a general mistrust of large corporations
and skepticism about cause-related marketing campaigns. When analyzing all comments in
further detail, a more positive attitude toward the concept of CSR can be detected within the
American focus groups. The majority of comments made by focus group members were neutral,
negotiating what they appreciate and the things that do not resonate well with them. The
researcher acknowledges that it may have been difficult to remain completely unbiased because
50 of her previous survey research results and hypothesis that Americans are more positive about
CSR communication. Although every attempt was made to be unbiased by considering each
response and categorizing it individually, it is possible that the researcher saw what she thought
she would see when conducting these focus groups. This might limit the focus groups’ reliability
and validity.
6. Conclusion and Reflection
There is a great deal of consensus among professionals that CSR needs to be related to the core
of the business. This makes the perceived value of a corporation’s initiatives stronger and more
memorable to publics. CSR communication should be told through an engaging story according
to professionals. Therefore, social media was repeatedly mentioned as an acceptable and efficient
way to communicate CSR. It can be challenging to communicate to international audiences, but
all four corporations are engaging in online communication in multiple languages in order to
build relationships with their diverse publics. Some have had more challenges than others and a
few have been criticized for not being better at responding to criticism on social media. Phillips
and Young (2009:253) state that:
Companies are discovering that the link between eco-sustainability and reputation has
new and fundamental implications for how they run businesses; for them, it is the
intersection between companies’ efforts of ‘marketing green’ and actually becoming
green’ in a corporate communications environment that dictates unprecedented levels of
transparency.
None of the participants in the focus group mentioned that the communication seemed too loud
and/or self-congratulatory, which can be a common concern when communicating CSR. This
could be because by their nature these companies have a more “Swedish approach” to
communicating what they are doing well. Whereas some American company might be
considered loud about their efforts, the majority of Swedish corporations might be using a
‘lagom’ (just enough) approach when discussing their CSR efforts.
Giddens uses the word ‘commodifying’ (1991: 9) when discussing what the mass media
does. The act of ‘commodifying’ ethical behavior might be viewed as giving consumers a new
aspiration. “The mass media routinely present modes of life to which, it is implied, everyone
should aspire; the lifestyles of the affluent are, in one form or another, made open to view and
portrayed as worthy of emulation” (Giddens, 1991: 9). These corporate messages might make
51 publics more interested in buying products from companies they consider ethical. The existence
of corporate messages about social responsibility on social media networks reflects the level of
involvement publics have in discussions about social responsibility. From the IKEA ad showing
Jesus online to the Ericsson YouTube communication about connecting refugees in Africa, the
stories are told with subtle music and an air of calmness. The music can be seen as comforting
and the message in both these commercials can be seen as reassuring.
The social and cultural phenomenon explored in this study involves the increased
communication of CSR messages. The interest in these messages seems to have spread from
primary and secondary stakeholders to the general public. This study asserts that social media
has had a substantial role in spreading CSR communication and engaging a larger audience to
take interest in corporate responsibility to society. Whether the communicated CSR initiative is
seen as a way to increase profits affects perception. Ericsson stakeholder interest in sustainability
has increased in the last few years (Ms. H Johnson 2013, pers.comm, 29 November), possibly
indicating an increased interest in corporate roles within societies at large.
Because of the differences between the U.S. and Sweden previously addressed, it is not
surprising that Americans show a greater interest in CSR communication. The last research aim
was to examine audience reception in two different markets. The differences and similarities
given in the results section show that there are more similarities than differences. The main
differences detected are that Americans have a more positive outlook on the communication and
that they are more likely to look up information about CSR after hearing a corporate message.
This could indicate a more profound interest. The survey results offered a picture of more crosscultural similarities than differences, but also indicated that Americans were more interested and
had more positive comments about the communication. Focus groups further confirmed these
differences.
The majority of respondents in both countries reported that a CSR message could
increase their intent to buy. In fact, a larger percentage of respondents agreed that a message
could increase their interest to buy than make them think more highly of a corporation. This
indicates an interesting phenomenon in itself. Perhaps is possible that a well-executed CSR
campaign could increase interest in making a purchase, but not make someone think more highly
of a company. Perhaps a partnership with a charity like UNICEF could entice individuals to
purchase a product even if they do not like UNICEF’s corporate partner. The user and
52 gratifications theory helped to explain that focus group participants and interview respondents
use social media to fulfill emotional and psychological needs. A substantial 33% of survey
respondents shared CSR communication online. Reasons for sharing this communication varied
from wanting to communicate negative readings to wanting to share the meaning the corporation
intended by promoting it in a positive way.
The results of this study indicate that audiences have a mix of positive and negative
readings of CSR messages and that their opinions depend upon how much they believe a
company is truly being authentic. For example, audiences did not react well to IKEA’s causerelated campaign because participants thought IKEA was an unethical corporation. Companies in
this study who received more negative comments were IKEA and H&M while Electrolux and
Ericsson are less criticized. This is likely due to IKEA and H&M’s product category. Sometimes
companies find it challenging to communicate their participation in extra initiatives that can be
considered philanthropic (Dawkins 2004) and it becomes increasingly challenging when
international corporations need to consider that some online messages reach audiences in
multiple countries.
CSR executives recommend communicating CSR on social media through engaging
stories. Hall asserts that the main purpose of any discourse is to make meaning. The idea of
making messages more memorable through storytelling is not new (it can be seen in TV
commercials), but the story seems more transparent when communicated on social media
because specific details about corporate initiates are only a few clicks away from the receiver
and the receiver has the opportunity to post comments reflecting negative readings of the
message. Social media was chosen as one of the mediums that communicated the most
memorable CSR message in the survey. Motivations for sharing corporate CSR messages on
social networks included sharing something humorous, sharing something to specific individuals
who might be interested, and helping spread knowledge about good work especially when it
came to smaller corporations who audiences thought were especially good and not well known.
Negative publicity about CSR does elicit a greater response than positive publicity about CSR.
One reason for this given in a focus group is that it is much easier to focus on the negative in
general because it is more widely reported by the media. The findings illustrate how social media
plays a role in redistributing the power to communicate to large audiences that once belonged to
corporations and not their audiences. One focus group participant said that he often posted
53 negative readings of CSR messages.
According to Hall, corporations have power and control over communication, because
they are able to prevent some information from coming out to the public.11 The researcher asserts
that communicating online might help to bring power to the public and away from large
corporations. When corporations are forced to be transparent, they are not as powerful as they
once were. Social media, therefore, aids in equalizing the power imbalance between the sender
and receiver.
Findings were similar to Schrøder results (2003: 120). The results seem to indicate that
things have not changed based on the change of medium. It remains doubtful that advertising,
even when it is online, is an effective communication strategy for establishing trusting
relationships. The majority of focus group participants did not respond well to IKEA’s causerelated campaign communication online because it was in line with a typical advertisement.
Communication that is seen less as advertising seems to elicit better responses, e.g. Electrolux
Pintrest boards. The YouTube videos linked to from an array of other social media platforms
looked and sounded like traditional TV ads and responses to these were mostly negative.
Although languages can help segment online communications to specific markets, some
digital communications can be difficult to segment. The circulation of social responsibility
communication by corporations is indicative of collective cross-cultural interest in holding
corporations liable for social responsibility. Respondents and participants were very aware of
corporate goals to increase profits indicating a savvy public.
6.2 Limitations and Proposal for Further Research
While there were 240 American respondents to the survey, there were only 106 Swedish
respondents. The lower number of Swedish survey respondents may have limited the study. The
distribution methods should be reworked so that the total number of respondents in each of the
age groups is more similar.
While it was interesting to interview executives and learn more about how audiences
receive online communication about CSR, a content analysis could examine a social media
platform and analyze how audiences respond to messages on the platform. A content analysis of
11 AFL: Resources by Theory (9th Edition). [online] Available at: http://www.afirstlook.com/edition_9/theory_resources/by_theory/Communication_Theory [Accessed 19 May. 2014]. 54 at least one corporation’s online CSR communication would have contributed to a better
understanding of what is currently communicated and how it is communicated.
The communication and cultural theories used in this study could be supplemented with
marketing theories if the study aims were different. There are several communication models
explained by Smith and Taylor (2004), which give evidence of the need for an integrated
approach – one that would aid in establishing marketing approaches. The theories chosen for this
study were related to analyzing the communication as a cultural and societal phenomenon and
not to aid marketers.
Because most CSR reception studies currently focus on developed markets, a future study
might also consider addressing CSR communication audience reception in emerging markets. It
would be interesting to see how audiences in emerging markets view cause-related campaigns.
References
Actionaid.org. 2014. Action Aid tax campaign: Highlights so far | ActionAid. [online] Available at:
http://www.actionaid.org/tax-power/actionaid-tax-campaign-highlights-so-far [Accessed: 14 Apr 2014].
Ambrose, J. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (4th March 2014).
Baines, P., Fill, C. and Page, K. (2011). Marketing. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A., & Norman, A. T. 2007. Consumer Response to Cause Related Marketing Strategies
for Retail Goods: Is More or Less Fit Better?. Journal of Retailing, 83 (4): 437-445.
Bergmark, T. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (17th February 2013).
Biernacki, P, & Waldorf, D 1981, “Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.”
Sociological Methods & Research, 10, 2: 141.
Boorstin, D. (1992). The image. 1st ed. New York: Vintage Books.
Boutros, M. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (19th November 2013). Director of Corporate Responsibility at Kreab
Gavin Anderson Interview.
Bryant, J. & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 165–184). New
York: Routledge.
Bryman, Alan (1995). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge.
55 Brønn, P & Vrioni, A. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: an overview.
International Journal of Advertising, 20(2), pp.207-222.
Carlson, N., 2012. INSIDE PINTEREST: An Overnight Success Four Years In The Making [online]. Available
from http://www.businessinsider.com/inside-pinterest-an-overnight-success-four-years-in-the-making2012-4#ixzz2yaCJnfCj [Accessed 11 April 2014].
Chaudhri, V & Wang, Jian (2007). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on the Internet A Case Study
of the Top 100 Information Technology Companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, vol
21 (2) :232-247.
Cloud, J. (2006). The YouTube Gurus. [online] TIME.com. Available at:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570795-1,00.html [Accessed 11 April 2014].
Connecttolearn.org, (2014). Mission. [online] Available at: http://connecttolearn.org/about-us/mission [Accessed
19 May. 2014].
Cramer, J. (2002). From financial to sustainable profit. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 9(2), pp.99--106.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate
social responsibility and environmental management, 15(1), pp.1--13.
Dawkins, Jenny (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge,
Journal: Journal of Communication Management Volume 9, 108-119.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). “Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and
Implications.” The Academy of Management Review, vol 20(1): 65-91.
Daun, A. (1996). Swedish mentality. 1st ed. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Ekefalk, M. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (5th March 2014). Director Social Responsibility at Electrolux
Interview
Electrolux.se. 2014. Electrolux | Hem. [online] Available at: http://www.electrolux.se/ [Accessed: 14 Apr 2014
Ericsson.com, (2014). Establishing life-saving communications. [online] Available at:
http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/sustainability-corporateresponsibility/enabling-communication-forall/ericsson-response [Accessed 19 May. 2014].
Facebook 2014. About. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info [Accessed 11 April 2014].
Facebook 2014. Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2013 Results. Facebook. January 29, 2014.
Retrieved February 7, 2014.
Fawkes, J., (2012). What is public relations? In: Theaker, A, ed. 2012. The Public Relations Handbook. London:
Routledge. Ch.2.
56 Forstater, M. 2010, Responding to stakeholders 140-characters at a time. Maya Forstater: Blog
Available from: http://hiyamaya.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/ [Accessed: 14 Apr 2014].
Franchisor.IKEA.com, (2014). Inter IKEA Systems B.V. - IKEA retailing facts and figures. [online] Available at:
http://franchisor.IKEA.com/Whoweare/Pages/IKEA-retailing-facts-and-figures.aspx [Accessed 3 May.
2014].
Frey J. and Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science Journal, 28(2), pp.175-187.
Friedman, L. and McGarvie, M. (2003). Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history. 1st ed.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, University of
California Press
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. 1st ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4),
pp.597--607.
Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/decoding.” Culture, Media, Language. Ed. Stuart Hall et al. New York: Routledge, 1980.
128-138.
Hedén, E. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (29th March 2014). Interview on CSR and Sustainable Brand Insight.
Hansen, A., Cottle, S., Negrine, R., & Newbold, C. (1998). Mass communication research methods. Houndmills:
Macmillan.
Höijer, B. (2004). The Discourse of Global Compassion: The Audience and Media Reporting of Human
Suffering. Media, Culture & Society, [online] 26(4), pp.513-531. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443704044215 [Accessed 12 May. 2014].
Inc.com, (2014). Is Social Media Advertising or PR?. [online] Available at: http://www.inc.com/scott-elser/issocial-media-advertising-or-pr.html [Accessed 18 May. 2014].
IKEA, eBay Avoid Paying UK Taxes, Reports Allege. 2014. [online] Available at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/IKEA-ebay-uk-taxes_n_2002016.html [Accessed: 22 Oct
2012].
Instagram 2014. Our story. Available from: http://instagram.com/press/ [Accessed 11 April 2014].
Idowu, S. & Papasolomou, J. (2007) Are the corporate social responsibility matters based on good intentions or
false pretences? An empirical study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK
companies Corporate Governance, Vol. 7 Issue 2, 136-147.
Johnson, H. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (29th November 2013). Director of Communications and Stakeholder
Engagement at Ericsson Interview.
57 Kirkpatrick, J. (1994). In defense of advertising. 1st ed. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.
Kitzinger, J. (1994), The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research
participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16: 103–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Mcmillan, S & Morrison, M 2006. Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration of how the internet
has become an integral part of young people's lives. New Media Society, Vol. 8, No. 1. (1 February 2006),
pp. 73-95.
Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information,
response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), pp.323--338.
Moses, L 2014 Where Teens Spend Their Time Online When Not on Facebook A look at the social network's big
challengers Adweek.com Viewed 5 February, 2014 <http://www.adweek.com/news/advertisingbranding/where-teens-spend-their-time-online-when-not-facebook-155431>.
Nordicom.gu.se, (2014). [online] Available at: http://www.nordicom.gu.se/sites/default/files/medieforskningstatistik/10530_anvandningstid_medier_gnsn_dag_2012.xlsx [Accessed 21 May. 2014].
Persson, S. and Dahl, F. (2008). Communication of CSR: How Swedish consumers' perceptions and behaviour are
influenced by promoted CSR activities.
Pessoa, M. and Pessoa, M. (2014). American Stereotypes. [online] National Stereotype. Available at:
http://www.nationalstereotype.com/american-stereotypes/ [Accessed 13 May. 2014].
Phillips, D. and Young, P. (2009). Online public relations. 1st ed. London: Kogan Page.
Resources by Theory (9th Edition). [online] Available at:
http://www.afirstlook.com/edition_9/theory_resources/by_theory/Communication_Theory [Accessed 19 May.
2014].
Responding to stakeholders 140-characters at a time. 2014. http://hiyamaya.wordpress.com, [blog] 10 Jan
2010, Available at: http://hiyamaya.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/ [Accessed: 14 Apr 2014].
Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses and Gratifications Perspective on Media Effect. In Bryant J. & M.B. Oliver (Eds.),
Media effects: Advances in theory and research(3rd ed.) (pp. 165–184). New York: Routledge.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication & Society,
3(1), 3-37.
Russell, D.W. & Russell, C.A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility
initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21, 65-81.
Schrader, U., Hansen, U. & Halbes, S. (2006). Why do Companies Communicate with Consumers
about CSR? Conceptualization and empirical insights from Germany. IFSAM World
Congress. September 28-30
Schrøder, Kim, Kirsten Drotner, Steve Kline & Catherine Murray (2003). Researching Audiences. London:
Arnold.
58 Sen, Sankar and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, 225-243.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558626
Sieber, Sam D. (1973) ”The integration of fieldwork and survey methods”. American Sociological Review, vol
78(6), p 1335-1359.
Smith, Andrew N., Eileen Fischer, Chen, Yongjian (2012) How Does Brand-related User-generated Content
Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26(2): 102–113.
Smith, P. and Taylor, J. (2004). Marketing communications. 1st ed. London: Kogan Page.
Sohn, Seok, Han, Jin K., and Lee, Sung-Hack (2012). Communication strategies for enhancing perceived fit in the
CSR sponsorship context. International Journal of Advertising.
Sommerville, I. and Wood, E. (2012). Corporate social responsibility – theory and practice. In: A. Theaker, ed.,
The Public Relations Handbook, 4th ed.
Statisticbrain.com. 2014. Social Networking Statistics | Statistic Brain. [online] Available at:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/social-networking-statistics [Accessed: 14 Apr 2014].
Staunstrup, P. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (4th March 2014).
Strid, S. and Andréasson, C. (2008) The Viking Manifesto, London: Marshall Cavendish.
Sundar, S, & Limperos, A 2013, 'Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media', Journal Of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 4, pp. 504-525, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 12
May 2014.
Sundström, H. Interviewed by: Oredsson, L (5th March 2014). VP Sustainability Affairs at Electrolux Interview.
Sveriges största företag (2012) Retrieved December 2013, from
http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Foretagande/Naringslivet/Sveriges-storsta-foretag.
Theaker, A. (2001). The Public Relations Handbook. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
Theaker, A. (2012). The Public Relations Handbook. 4th ed. London: Routledge.
Twitter About, (2014). About Twitter, Inc. | About. [online] Available at: https://about.twitter.com/company
[Accessed 3 May. 2014].
Weber, L. (2007). Marketing to the social web. 1st ed. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Williams, K. and Page, R. (2011) 'Marketing To The Generations'. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business 3
(1), 37—53
Wren-Lewis, J. (1983). The encoding/decoding model: criticisms and redevelopments for research on decoding.
Media, Culture & Society, 5(2), pp.179--197.
Yaxley, H. (2012). Risk, Issues and Crisis Management. In: A. Theaker, ed., The Public Relations Handbook, 4th
ed. London: Routledge.
59 YouTube 2014. Press Room Available from http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/index.html [Accessed 11 April
2014].
60 Appendix A – Interviews
Thomas Bergmark, Owner at Bergmark Sustainability AB and previously worked as the
Sustainability Manager at IKEA Group
Interview with Thomas Bergmark
(This interview was conducted over the phone. The call was not recorded as planned unfortunately so it is
not possible to include a transcript, but the following are detailed notes from the call.)
• Can you tell me a little about your current position and your background?
• Worked at IKEA as a Managing Director and Business Area Manager.
• Recently working as a consultant to companies
• Both B2C and B2B company consulting
• What does sustainability mean?
• Sustainability involves 3 pillars: people, planet and process and these three pillars need to work
together.
• Sustainability involves reducing cost, increasing profit and becoming proactive.
• This reduces chances of failure, and builds brands when businesses employ sustainable business
practices.
• First, most importantly, homework needs to be done. Good work completed to show sustainability.
Next, the business needs to be very transparent and to share success stories along with challenges.
• Some challenges with IKEA was that we needed to discuss communication strategies. Not everyone
wanted to start communicating because not everything was a success story.
• Others thought that IKEA should start communicating to consumers about it right away. Only
communicating nice stories make audiences think that a company is green washing.
• And what does CSR mean to you?
• It is very similar to sustainability to me. It just depends on how you want to refer to the things we just
discussed. CSR is corporate social responsibility and refers to how companies consider the
environment, people and can involve everything from the types of products used to how the products
can be later recycled.
• What do you think are the biggest challenges with communicating CSR?
• Reporting about it in an honest and transparent way can be difficult. Corporations don’t always know
when and how to communicate.
• How do the companies that you work with usually communicate CSR?
• We encourage companies to be transparent and honest.
• Which mediums do you think are best for this type of communication?
• There are many good ways to communicate on websites and social media
• It is good that social media allows audiences to interact with the brand.
• Even if it is an organization posting negative comments or criticism. It is good that audiences are
interested in the brand. The right way to handle this is to respond and be open and honest.
• How has CSR changed over the years and here do you see things going in the future?
• It is becoming even more concerning to companies how they are perceived matters more and
audiences are critical.
• How do you respond to criticism of CSR? (People who think certain projects are only
• conducted and communicated to camouflage a company’s contribution to societal
• problems?)
• There is a big difference between green washing and really being honest and …
(The number of appendix pages is kept to a minimum for this submission. More is available upon
request.)
61 Appendix B - Survey
Survey
1. Corporate Communication in the U.S.
*1. Have you lived in the U.S. for the majority of your life?
 Yes




 No




2. Communication Page 2
It is common for companies to communicate how they are socially responsible. Here are two examples: IKEA promoted this toy campaign on Facebook on December, 7, 2013.
They donated 1 USD to UNICEF and Save the Children for every soft toy sold.
62 63 64 65 66 Survey Translated to Swedish
67 68 69 70 71 72 Survey Results – Tables and Frequencies
Table 2B: Location in the U.S. (If respondent is located in the U.S.)
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Percent
New England
15 3,7
7,4
7,4
Middle Atlantic
27 6,7
13,3
20,7
East North
35 8,7
17,2
37,9
Central
West North
9 2,2
4,4
42,4
Central
South Atlantic
35 8,7
17,2
59,6
Valid
East South
11 2,7
5,4
65,0
Central
West South
19 4,7
9,4
74,4
Central
Mountain
20 5,0
9,9
84,2
Pacific
32 7,9
15,8
100,0
Total
203 50,4
100,0
Missin
System
200 49,6
g
Total
403 100,0
Table 2C: Education (If respondent is located in the U.S.)
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
High
school
23 5,7
11,4
11,4
degree
Some
63 15,6
31,3
42,8
college
Valid
Associate
or
70 17,4
34,8
77,6
bachelor
degree
Graduate
45 11,2
22,4
100,0
73 Missing
Total
degree
Total
System
201 49,9
202 50,1
403 100,0
100,0
Table 2D: Income (If respondent is located in the U.S.)
Valid
Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
0-24999
12 3,0
6,0
6,0
USD
2500049999
40 9,9
19,9
25,9
USD
5000099999
48 11,9
23,9
49,8
Valid
USD
100000149999
41 10,2
20,4
70,1
USD
150000+
60 14,9
29,9
100,0
Total
201 49,9
100,0
Missing System
202 50,1
Total
403 100,0
Crosstab 14: CSR Messages
Country
U.S.
Sweden
37
90
127
14,6%
78,9%
34,6%
216
24
240
% within Country
Count
85,4%
253
21,1%
114
65,4%
367
% within Country
Cramer’s V=,626, Approx. Sig.=,000, N=367
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
Yes
Do you have any memory of
hearing about hearing or seeing
a CSR message in the last year? No
Total
Count
Total
% within Country
Count
Table 15: Which mediums should
B2C companies communicate CSR
through? (Frequencies)
Annual Report
44
Corporate Website
62
Social Media
88
Other
13
Missing
168
74 Chart: Which mediums should B2C companies communicate CSR through?
Annual Report Corporate Website Social Media Other Missing N=207
Table 16: Images
…
(The number of appendix pages is kept to a minimum for this submission. More charts and tables are
available upon request.)
Appendix C – Focus Group Material
Audience Reception Focus Group Guide
Introduction: The type of corporate social responsibility communication that I am researching can be
thought of as a corporation communicating something they have done to benefit society above what they
are legally obligated to do.
A few examples would be: using organic material in products, and contributing to a social cause.
My research looks at how companies communicate this on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Pintrest and
Twitter.
Stimuli:
Videos
1. IKEA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Q-taDDwFs
2. Ericsson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlAauFU8MH4&list=PL3DDD369426CF84BA&index=22
Stimuli is given and questions like the following are asked
1. Would you “like” or share any of these and why or why not?
2. Which is most memorable?
3. Which tone and visuals did you find most pleasing?
4. Do any of them make you think more highly of the company or more likely to buy from them? If so,
rank
75 Other stimuli given:
Electrolux: http://www.pinterest.com/Electrolux/vac-from-the-sea/
http://www.pinterest.com/Electrolux/your-watermark/
A Tweet:
At this point, the interviewer asks what participants think and tries to get them to discuss these
communications amongst themselves.
Additional questions if there is time:
1. What do you think about these?
2. Do you pay attention to negative csr stories (HM throwing out good clothes) more than positive csr
stories?
3. How much would you say messages like this impact your buying decisions?
4. Have you ever communicated with a brand on social media? why
5. How much do you care about a corporation’s level of social responsibility?
6. Are your purchase and investment decisions affected by this factor? Why or why not?
76