Premium
Soft vs. hard approach in communicating on corporate social responsibility
Author(s) -
Tixier Maud
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
thunderbird international business review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.553
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 1520-6874
pISSN - 1096-4762
DOI - 10.1002/tie.10056
Subject(s) - obligation , corporate social responsibility , public relations , legitimacy , business , social responsibility , stakeholder , legislation , subject (documents) , profit (economics) , corporate communication , confusion , law and economics , law , economics , political science , politics , microeconomics , psychology , library science , computer science , psychoanalysis
These past years, companies have become aware that their mission went beyond mere profit‐making. Corporate social responsibility toward all stakeholders is today, more than ever, an important stake for communication. Companies must know how to communicate if a social or environmental crisis occurs. However, effective communication must be based on facts. Management must consider a new criterion for success: the ability to respond to all the actions of the company, at all levels. Faced with widespread confusion regarding what is conventionally referred to as “corporate social responsibility” and regarding all matters related to the subject, which may or may not be the result of a trend, we opt for a straightforward and practical approach by focusing on one question: Should there be more talk of the social duties of companies, and if so, how are we to tackle the issue? We have observed that there are many conflicting opinions on the matter, at least in certain countries, including France. This raises points hardly spoken of in the numerous works broaching the subject. Opinions may be based on differing attitudes on legitimacy (do companies have an obligation to their community besides being formed to make a profit?), on the legislation provided by countries on “corporate citizenship” (laws of the home and host countries), on the expectations of the society in which the firm exists, and on the logic of those putting forth those opinions. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.