1. Introduction
When it comes to corporate communications, CSR is frequently seen as a specialized field targeted at specific stakeholders. However, CSR communication stands out from other forms of corporate communication in that failing to "walk the talk" can have serious ramifications for the business. The identity that a company can project to its major stakeholders is based on its values. The organization's values must reflect the values of its stakeholders in order for it to succeed [1]. Line Schmeltz presents framing to operationalize CSR communication strategies. This study could lead to a more in-depth study of the effect of value-based scoping strategies on consumer perceptions of CSR messaging [2]. Line Schmeltz gave a study that can be used to spark future research into how value-based framing methods influence consumer acknowledge of CSR marketing. All of her survey participants were Danish, and she came to the conclusion that this had an impact on the study's potential to be generalized. She believes that additional qualitative study is necessary to acquire a more complete understanding of how framing, particularly the framing of competence, affects readers' perceptions of their own relevance, the veracity of the material, and the likeability of the organization behind it [2]. The motivation is that this affected the study's capacity for generalization, according to the investigation in this publication.
2. Literature Review
This paper is going to focus on the effect of value framing in CSR communication, and the content will go through three parts: Value framing of a CSR message to the perception of the message, values for a CSR facilitator and how the role of culture context affect communication CSR. In the first part, the study will include some participants, and they are asked to assess four modified texts that represent four different company-generated CSR frames. The procedure will be described using a conceptual model of the research design. The second part of the paper will describe values for a CSR facilitator. Meeting consumer requests and integrating consumers in CSR discourse can be accomplished with the use of a platform based on values for communicating CSR [3]. The third part talks about the role of culture context affect CSR communication. Numerous studies show that cultural elements affect the amount and type of CSR communication that is regarded suitable in a given cultural environment [4].
3. Application of Value Framing
3.1. Value Framing
Values are firmly held convictions about what is significant. These ideals guide the frames that have the biggest impact on how we see the world. The technique of relating an issue to strongly held values is known as value-based framing. The objective is to define your issue in a way that connects to and resonates with what people already believe, rather than trying to persuade them to believe something different.
3.2. The Importance of a CSR Message's Framing to the Message's Perception
The concept of CSR is perhaps already came deep-rooted into young consumers’ minds. Young customers' changing views and features, in particular, would imply that their personal frames do not align with the conventional CSR frame. They typically view CSR as a more organic component of contemporary company life. Therefore, communication can affect the audience's view of a certain issue by using framing in a strategic communication framework.
There is empirical research that shows how framing impacts readers' perceptions of CSR messaging and how it was influenced by the conventional experimental procedure. In the study, the participants are asked to assess four modified texts that represent four different company-generated CSR frames. Figure 1 displays a theoretical model of the research design [2].
Figure 1: Framing model of CSR messages.
The premise that a message's framing may affect its perceived relevance and credibility - referred to as the level of respondents' trust in the message and the organization behind it - is illustrated in Figure 1. The company that produces CSR messaging will be seen differently depending on how credible the CSR message is perceived to be [5].
Thus, a company's reputation or perception in relation to CSR is the result of the legitimacy and applicability of the messaging it promotes. The argument put forward here is that a firm will be perceived more favorably by the public the more credibility and relevance its CSR communications can generate. Investigating the effects and results of various variable combinations within the initial framing box of the figure is so intriguing [2].
Therefore, while developing and producing CSR messaging, thought must be given to how to phrase messages in a way that they reflect values significant to customers. Communication strategies can be used to structure messages to contain those values and so increase relevance by finding the values that a firm and its youthful clients share. Convoke CSR with customers at the same time. The incentive to process information is raised by emphasizing values that the consumer finds interesting and relevant.
3.3. Value for a CSR Facilitator
According to the stakeholder engagement strategy, meeting consumer demands and integrating consumers in CSR discourse can be accomplished with the using a platform with values to communicate CSR [3]. Those two effects will result from the inclusion of values that matter to consumers because they serve as heuristic cues that encourage favorable processing of CSR messaging. This study views values as the parameter that can enable CSR congruence between customers and businesses [6].
People are drawn to businesses that share and exhibit the values they hold dear [7], and customers frequently assess a company's CSR efforts in comparison to their own standards and values [8]. Consumers are more motivated to comprehend information when values are emphasized that are exciting and relevant to them. The degree to which a corporation "meets the values that are important to an individual, organization, or community" affects how the public perceives that company's reputation. According to Siltaoja, the study on the relationship between CSR and business standing. Therefore, while developing and producing CSR messaging, thought must be given to how to phrase messages in a way that they reflect values important to customers [9].
According to Line Schmeltz, CSR messaging may enable going from the strategic to the operational level of CSR communication by using a framework related to value-theoretical [2]. By include a Focus of communication, Table 1 illustrates how the notions of values might be connected with the Morsing and Schultz suggested tactics [3].
Table 1: CSR communication strategies and values.
Stakeholder’s knowledge scheme | Stakeholder’s reaction scheme | Stakeholder’s participate scheme | |
Characteristics of communication | Inform on positive CSR initiatives and actions taken by the company (Sense-giving) | Showing stakeholders how the business incorporates their issues | Engaging in regular, organized, and proactive discussion with stakeholders |
Focal point of communication | Corporate principles. Creating legality means doing the bare minimum. | Both consumer and corporate values. Combining the two to prevent conflict | Both consumer and corporate values. combining the two values of co-creation |
For the purpose of transferring CSR communication from the scheme to the operating level, a value-theoretical framework can be used as a base. As communication is heavily reliant on informing on the firm's terms, the stakeholder information strategy focuses communication on essential business principles. As a result, the communication's recipients are not given much thought in this situation. Customers and their values are more taken into account in the stakeholder response plan as the company tries to include consumer issues in its CSR involvement. This indicates the message incorporates both business and consumer values. Since the goal of communication in the stakeholder engagement approach is debate and co-creation of values, it is now impossible to discern between corporate and consumer values since they have gotten so entangled [2].
3.4. How the Role of Culture Context Affect CSR Communication
Numerous studies demonstrate that cultural factors like as history, societal structure, and economic system have an impact on how much and what kind of CSR communication is deemed appropriate in a given cultural context [10].In light of this, it's critical to pay special attention to the cultural and sociopolitical framework in which CSR communication is ingrained [11].
The terms "implicit" and "explicit" techniques of CSR are well-known and, respectively, can be broadly categorized as American and European approaches to CSR [12]. According to several researchers working with and speaking about CSR differs significantly across Europe. The opposing strategies are distinguished by being either highly quiet, receptive Latin (Southern-European) strategies or more proactive, open Anglo-Saxon strategies, respectively [13].
The Danes are wary. Denmark is a significant case study, and it may indicate a specific northern European or Scandinavian style of CSR communication. Previous study has revealed that Danish stakeholders are skeptical of CSR communication and prefer sophisticated communication strategies [14]. Morsing and Thyssen found that although Danes believe CSR to be a critical factor in business reputation, they are less certain of the volume and channels via which businesses should convey their CSR efforts [15]. Stakeholders contend that businesses should utilize CSR less frequently in their communication strategies, while others detest its prominence in advertising and PR campaigns.
Danish businesses are now faced with the challenging task of figuring out how to show their CSR commitment without disclosing it. Particularly in respect to young customers, the obvious causes of this resistance to explicit CSR communication have not been sufficiently investigated empirically; maybe there is more anxiety about how CSR is communicated than whether it is done at all. To put it another way, it's possible that people's negative reactions to CSR communication are not a result of their hate of CSR communication per se, but rather of their distaste of the manner in which businesses approach this topic. Because they disagree with the corporate strategy of promoting morally and socially responsible values, it's possible that Danish consumers of a younger generation find it annoying when businesses discuss CSR. Young customers may be more likely to respond favorably to CSR marketing that is defined by competence-focused ideals since they do not only view CSR as a moral issue aimed toward society; rather, they see it as a natural part of conducting business. Furthermore, they reportedly have a keen interest in any prospective personal gains (both direct and indirect) that come from business CSR programs [15]. This shows that focusing on values that are personally focused rather than socially oriented will be more favorably received.
By employing Denmark as a crucial case [16], the likelihood of analytical generalization is generated, indicating that readers of the research can recognize and apply understandings, patterns, or ideas developed in certain settings to other contexts with a similar setting [17]. It is feasible that framing methods for attaining consumer and corporate consensus on CSR-related issues in other national or cultural contexts with less skepticism about CSR communication than that seen in the Danish context will be successful if they can be identified. Furthermore, this suggests that culture or the cultural environment was not regarded as a separate variable in the study, but rather served as a backdrop against which analytical generalizations might be derived [2].
4. Limitations and Future Outlook
As all the participants in the survey were Danish, the result may be limited and result in some inaccurate results by using the Danish survey to predict the implementation would be broadly applicable to other European nations. For greater rigour and preciseness, a large-scale investigation in Europe can be undertaken for this investment.
To learn more about how framing, especially the framing of competence, affects readers' perceptions of their own relevance, the veracity of the material, and the likeability of the organization behind it, more qualitative research is required.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the study's findings show that young customers favor organizations that promote CSR and that they generally believe the data is true and reliable. By focusing on Denmark as a case study for CSR communication, the findings are expected to be broadly applicable to other European countries that commonly choose the implicit strategy. This study recommends that corporate CSR frameworks prioritize competence more highly. By referencing business skills, the CSR framework places an emphasis on a professional involvement rather than a moral and conceivably political commitment. It appears logical to suppose that the significant application of ethically centered, individual, and political ideals typically assigned to CSR may help to explain both the reluctance of businesses to communicate and the muted response from corporate audiences. Additionally, the different characteristics of younger clientele support the idea that a new CSR framework would be useful. The possibility of successfully engaging target audiences is boosted by crafting CSR messages to seek harmony comparing customer expectations of business capabilities in relation with a CSR involvement.
References
[1]. Dawkins, J.: Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management 9(2), 108–119 (2004).
[2]. Schmeltz, L.: Introducing value-based framing as a strategy for communicating CSR. Social Responsibility Journal 10(1), 184–206 (2014).
[3]. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M.: Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Stakeholder Information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4), 323–338 (2006).
[4]. Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M. and Schmidpeter, R.: Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe, Springer, Berlin (2005).
[5]. Waddock, S. and Googins, B.K.: ‘‘The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsibility’’, in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J.L. and May, S. (Eds), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 23-44 (2011).
[6]. Golob, U., Lah, M., & Jančič, Z.: Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 83–96 (2008).
[7]. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L.: A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 39(9/10), 956–977 (2005).
[8]. Green, T., & Peloza, J.: How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing 28(1), 48–56 (2011).
[9]. Siltaoja, M. E.: Value priorities as combining core factors between CSR and reputation – a qualitative study. Journal of Business Ethics 68(1), 91–111 (2006).
[10]. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A.: Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497–514 (2002).
[11]. Gupta, S.:Consumer stakeholder view of Corporate Social Responsibility: A comparative analysis from USA and India. Social Responsibility Journal 7(3), 363–380 (2011).
[12]. Matten, D., & Moon, J.: “implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33(2), 404–424 (2008).
[13]. Tixier, M.: Soft vs. hard approach in communicating on corporate social responsibility. Thunderbird International Business Review 45(1), 71–91 (2003).
[14]. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U.: The ‘catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 97–111 (2008).
[15]. Morsing, M. and Thyssen, C.: Corporate Values and Responsibility. The Case of Denmark (2003).
[16]. Halkier, B.: The challenge of qualitative generalisations in communication research. Nordicom Review 24(1), 115–124 (2003).
[17]. Höijer, B.: Ontological assumptions and generalizations in qualitative (audience) research. European Journal of Communication 23(3), 275–294 (2008).
Cite this article
Wang,J. (2023). The Application of Value Framing in Communicating CSR. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,13,23-28.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Business and Policy Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).
References
[1]. Dawkins, J.: Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management 9(2), 108–119 (2004).
[2]. Schmeltz, L.: Introducing value-based framing as a strategy for communicating CSR. Social Responsibility Journal 10(1), 184–206 (2014).
[3]. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M.: Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Stakeholder Information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4), 323–338 (2006).
[4]. Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M. and Schmidpeter, R.: Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe, Springer, Berlin (2005).
[5]. Waddock, S. and Googins, B.K.: ‘‘The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsibility’’, in Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J.L. and May, S. (Eds), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 23-44 (2011).
[6]. Golob, U., Lah, M., & Jančič, Z.: Value orientations and consumer expectations of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 83–96 (2008).
[7]. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L.: A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 39(9/10), 956–977 (2005).
[8]. Green, T., & Peloza, J.: How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing 28(1), 48–56 (2011).
[9]. Siltaoja, M. E.: Value priorities as combining core factors between CSR and reputation – a qualitative study. Journal of Business Ethics 68(1), 91–111 (2006).
[10]. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A.: Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497–514 (2002).
[11]. Gupta, S.:Consumer stakeholder view of Corporate Social Responsibility: A comparative analysis from USA and India. Social Responsibility Journal 7(3), 363–380 (2011).
[12]. Matten, D., & Moon, J.: “implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33(2), 404–424 (2008).
[13]. Tixier, M.: Soft vs. hard approach in communicating on corporate social responsibility. Thunderbird International Business Review 45(1), 71–91 (2003).
[14]. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U.: The ‘catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 97–111 (2008).
[15]. Morsing, M. and Thyssen, C.: Corporate Values and Responsibility. The Case of Denmark (2003).
[16]. Halkier, B.: The challenge of qualitative generalisations in communication research. Nordicom Review 24(1), 115–124 (2003).
[17]. Höijer, B.: Ontological assumptions and generalizations in qualitative (audience) research. European Journal of Communication 23(3), 275–294 (2008).