Position Paper, Values, ethics and sustainability shape much of the more interesting news events. Scan the press, magazines, on-line news sources, idea handout sheets, and TV, and choose a topic from
The Paradox of Communicating CSR in India:Minimalist and Strategic ApproachesGanga S. Dhanesh
Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore
This study explores the viewpoints of practitioners in socially responsible companies in India
about the ethical dilemmas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication, especially in
the paradoxical context of stakeholders’ high regard for socially responsible companies and low
regard for companies’ deliberate, conspicuous communication about CSR. Findings, based on 19
interviews with key decision-makers in 16 companies from the Standard & Poor India ESG Index,
revealed that practitioners in India foregrounded the importance of an implicit, minimalist approach
to communication that privileged responsible corporate behavior over rhetoric. They also engaged in
the strategic communication of their CSR efforts to involved stakeholders, largely avoiding publicity
and aggressive media relations. Implications for public relations theory and practice are discussed.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), theorized as an integral component of strategic issues
management (SIM) (Clark, 2000; Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Heath & Palenchar, 2009), could
lead to positive public relations outcomes such as increased trust, stronger organization–public
relationships, and the creation of social legitimacy and reputational capital (Dhanesh, 2014;
Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011; Kim & Yang, 2009). However, one of the key aspects of the
four step strategic issues management process—research, action, strategic communication,
and evaluation—is the need to align action and communication strategies, encapsulating the idea
of the good organization communicating well (Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Heath, 2001).
Ethical issues arise when there is dissonance between an organization’s actions and its com-
munication strategies, between behavior and rhetoric (Smith, 2013). This disconnect is all the
more pronounced in the context of CSR, when reports of the behavior of corporations are contrary
to their avowed claims of social and environmental performance. Resulting perceptions of corpor-
ate hypocrisy often lead to a backlash from key publics and stakeholders, damaging relationships
and eroding extant reserves of trust, reputation, and legitimacy (Coombs & Holladay, 2013).
Consequently, research has started to focus on managing the paradox of CSR communication:
stakeholders’ simultaneously high regard for companies that are socially responsible and
their low regard for companies’ deliberate, conspicuous communication of CSR (Coombs &
Holladay, 2012; Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008). Most of this research focuses on altering
Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Ganga S. Dhanesh, National University of Singapore, Blk AS6, #03-41, 11
Computing Drive, Singapore 117416, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Public Relations Research, 27: 431–451, 2015
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online
DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2015.1084583 aspects of message design to reduce skepticism of key publics (e.g., de Vries, Terwel, Ellemers,
& Daamen,2013; Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010).
However, perspectives and processes of public relations and, by extension, of CSR
communication vary across different regions of the world according to the culture, media systems,
political ideology, economic systems, and level of activism present in individual countries
(Sriramesh & Verc
ic
, 2009 ). For instance, although companies in the United States of America
tend to engage in explicit communication campaigns aimed at publicizing their CSR efforts, some
companies in Europe choose to stay silent regarding their CSR performance (Van de Ven, 2008).
For countries that tend to adopt a strategy of silence, research that focuses on message con-
struction may not be highly relevant. Given this variance, research is needed to examine various
perspectives of CSR communication across various social, economic, and political contexts. One such context is that of developing nations, where activist publics and advocacy groups are
all the more critical of any divergence between corporate talk and action, especially in areas such
as poverty alleviation, environmental damage, and the destruction of indigenous ways of life
(Bhushan, 2005). For instance, the London Stock Exchange-listed company Vedanta faced
immense backlash in India when the mining company ran a public relations campaign titled
‘‘Creating Happiness’’ showcasing its CSR and sustainability efforts while tribal activists were
trying to protect their sacred mountains in Orissa, India from mining. Activists and investigative
journalists have accused the company of committing human rights violations, wrecking environ-
mental damage, and causing destructive impacts on the tribal communities in the Niyamgiri hills
of Orissa (Bloombergview, 2012).
Such dissonance between corporate talk about social responsibility and corporate actions in
developing nations should be explored. Accordingly, this study aimed to explore the viewpoints
of managers in a developing country, specifically India, about the ethical dilemmas of CSR
communication, especially given its paradoxical nature. India was chosen as the context of the study for multiple reasons, starting with the call for more
research on CSR in Asia (Sriramesh, Ng, Soh, & Lou, 2007). This is important because public rela-
tions and CSR practices vary widely across countries according to the variables of international pub-
lic relations. Judging by how it fares on any of these variables, India is an important site of study.
First, India is the world’s largest democracy by size of the electorate (BBC, 2010). Second, the
Indian economy is projected to be one of the fastest-growing economies in the world since under-
going economic liberalization in the 1990s ( www.eiu.com, India country forecast, 2013). Third,
the immense economic growth, triggered by massive changes in the political and economic
spheres, has not been evenly distributed, further polarizing society and aggravating extant social
divides. Fourth, a spurt in the growth of the mass communication infrastructure, including mobile
telephony, not only reduces the urban–rural disconnect but also increases the audience base for
communication campaigns by organizations. Fifth, these changes in the economic, social, and
media spheres have been associated with increased levels of activism and the subsequent scrutiny
of corporations’ operations, ethical conduct, and social responsibility (Singh, 2000). Finally,
commercial communities in India have a long history of social responsibility marked by a culture
of giving and sharing (Mitra, 2007), and some of the major Indian corporations continue to dem-
onstrate high levels of social responsibility (Lee, 2010) in India and across the world. A combi-
nation of these variables makes it instructive to examine how Indian companies navigate the
complexities of such a dynamic environment and the challenges to the ethical communication
of their socially responsible behavior. 432
DHANESH This study used in-depth interviews with senior managers because in India they are the
main decision makers regarding the conceptualization, enactment, and communication of CSR
(Dhanesh, 2012; Lee, 2010). In-depth conversations with these top-level decision makers enable
the researcher to delve deep into the underlying beliefs and attitudes that drive their communi-
cation of CSR.
Guided by the SIM framework, this study addresses a significant gap in current investigations
of CSR communication from the perspective of managers in India. The findings of this study
will not only help throw light on a significant research problem, but will also add to the body
of knowledge on CSR in Asia, especially India.
LITERATURE REVIEW
SIM as an Overarching Theory for Communicating CSR
SIM’s main propositions include the need for organizations to actively monitor their environ-
ments to identify issues of concern, to respond to and manage these issues through responsible
behavior that aligns stakeholder and organizational interests, and to openly and collaboratively
communicate on these issues, creating a climate of open debate on matters of the marketplace
and public policy. Heath and Palenchar ( 2009) defined SIM as:
the amalgamation of organizational functions and responsive culture that blends strategic business
planning, issue monitoring, best-practice standards of corporate responsibility, and dialogic
communication needed to foster a supportive climate between each organization and those people
who can affect its success and who are affected by its operations. (p. 9)
In their role as boundary-spanning conscience-keepers, public relations practitioners could
enable organizations to stay in tune with stakeholder expectations and to respond ethically,
responsibly, and sensitively to these expectations to manage existing or potential legitimacy gaps.
Legitimacy gap, the central theme in issues management (Roper, 2005) refers to the chasm
between what companies are perceived to be doing and how publics expect them to operate. SIM is not a shotgun approach to managing issues but an aimed approach, targeting specific
stakeholders and stakeseekers most affected by the issue. Although multiple categorizations of
stakeholders exist, such as primary and secondary (Freeman, 2010), apathetic, latent, aware, and
active (Grunig, 1992), and producers, consumers, enablers and limiters (Smith, 2013), a key idea
of SIM is to focus strategic and responsible efforts on those publics who affect the organization
the most and on whom the organization has the most impact. Once the organization has created and implemented a highly customized, targeted response
that addresses the issue in a holistically responsible manner, it is imperative that the organization
communicates its responsible behavior to key stakeholders and target publics. Heath ( 2001)
characterized this as a good organization communicating well. This idea has been likened to
Quintilian’s maxim in the field of rhetoric: the notion of ethos, or the idea that an effective speaker
must be of good character. Indeed, the fundamentals of ethical communication include respon-
sible thinking and decision-making and the development of relationships and communities
(Bowen, 2011).
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 433 Ethical communication, within the context of SIM, employs the use of open, two-way
symmetrical, dialogic strategies to manage communication with key stakeholders and target
publics. This strategy is well suited to an environment marked by diverse, multiple, and
pluralistic voices. Organizations need to enable the creation of open and collaborative com-
municative spaces where multiple voices can debate, with the public interest at heart. However,
communicating the good deeds of a company is plagued with multiple challenges, some of
which are explored below.
CSR Communication: Key Challenges
Companies are often driven to communicate their CSR efforts to create awareness about their
CSR activities and to enhance CSR-based corporate identity, image, and reputation, generating
social capital and legitimacy assurances and strengthening organization-public relationships
(Dhanesh, 2014; Fassin & Buelens, 2011). However, CSR communication is fraught with
multiple problems, the most pressing of which is the misalignment between the actual CSR
efforts and the corresponding communication about those efforts, or the promise-performance
gap, which in turn leads to perceptions of corporate hypocrisy, stakeholder skepticism, and legit-
imacy gaps (Fassin & Buelens, 2011; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013; Van de Ven, 2008).
However, there is a fine line between bragging about one’s CSR activities and keeping
stakeholders informed (Van de Ven, 2008). Companies that tout their CSR initiatives and
portray themselves as models for engaging with the pressing social problems of the time may
be perceived as engaging in self-serving image-building exercises. Their CSR policies and
programs could be criticized as window-dressing if it is discovered that corporate words are
not commensurate with deeds (Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005).
The web of scrutiny has extended beyond companies in traditionally controversial sectors such
as mining, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Activists and investigative journalists today examine
issues of child labor, sweatshops, and human rights violations across industries, in upstream
and downstream business processes reaching into supply, production, sales, and delivery
(Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Hence, given the context of heightened scrutiny and the possibility
of stakeholder backlash in cases of perceived dissonance between corporate talk and action,
companies need to exercise immense care in the management and communication of CSR.
Managing the Paradox of Communicating CSR
A thorough review of the literature across the disciplines of advertising, marketing, public rela-
tions, and organizational communication revealed multiple approaches to managing the paradox
of communicating CSR. As previously mentioned, the decisions of whether to communicate CSR
and the extent of that communication often vary across geographical regions. Firms operating in
Europe exhibit reluctance to actively market their CSR efforts, adopting silence rather than CSR
communication (Van de Ven, 2008). They also adopt the do-good-and-let-others-talk-about-it
approach, allowing endorsed communication from expert third parties (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
Ideally, a company can address the CSR communication paradox by dynamically adjusting its
CSR messages to align with changes in its business conduct, until the company’s public image
matches its desired image (Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005). This is best done using an inside-out
434
DHANESH approach, wherein companies center their CSR communication on ensuring employee commitment
internally before they start communicating about their CSR activities to external stakeholders
(Morsing et al.,2008).
Researchers have found that socially involved stakeholders’ main objection is to ostentatious,
deliberate, conspicuous, CSR communication campaigns, and not to subtle, sophisticated modes
of communication (Coombs & Holladay, 2013; Morsing et al., 2008). Indeed, some consumers
find the use of advertising to communicate CSR-based identities rather repulsive. Subsequently,
a minimalist, subtle, understated approach to communicating CSR might be more effective
than conspicuously overt and direct CSR communication campaigns (Morsing et al., 2008;
Schlegelmilch & Pollach, 2005).
In addition to examining these various approaches to CSR communication, research, mostly
conducted within the fields of advertising and marketing communication, has focused on trying
to fix the problem of the disconnect between talk and action from an instrumental perspective. For
instance, research has found that organizations can boost the credibility of CSR messages and
reduce stakeholder skepticism by communicating the fit between the organization’s core compe-
tencies and the cause in which it engages (van Rekom, Go, & Calter, 2014), acknowledging econ-
omic motives for engaging in CSR (de Vries et al., 2013), foregrounding the cause and not the
brand in advertising messages (Du et al., 2010), and customizing messages according to the char-
acteristics of the target public (Dawkins, 2004). These rhetorical strategies could help deliver the
strategic issues management maxim of the good organization communicating well.
This intense focus on designing CSR messages in the fields of advertising and marketing
communication also maps well with the stakeholder-information strategy of CSR communi-
cation (Morsing & Schultz, 2006), which was built upon Grunig and Hunt’s ( 1984) models
of public relations. The three CSR communication strategies proposed by Morsing and Schultz
( 2006 )—stakeholder information, response, and involvement—are founded on the notion of
dialogue as a communicative approach to CSR. Companies adopting the one-way stakeholder-
information strategy engage in active media relations, disseminating information and news of
their CSR activities to the news media and through brochures, pamphlets, and magazines.
The primary strategic purpose of this strategy is to effectively communicate corporate CSR
actions to key stakeholders. On the other hand, the stakeholder-response strategy of CSR communication, built upon the
two-way asymmetric model of public relations, seeks feedback from stakeholders to the extent
that it supports and reinforces extant corporate actions and identity. This model is still sender-
oriented in that feedback from stakeholders is not intended to change the organization’s behavior,
but only to incorporate insights to enhance effectiveness of future communication. Finally, the stakeholder-involvement strategy, built upon the two-way symmetric
communication model, assumes a dialogue between organizations and their stakeholders. Ongoing
dialogue between organizations and their key stakeholders is necessary to ensure inclusivity in CSR
policy and decision-making processes and to bring about mutual understanding and agreement. Although Grunig and Hunt ( 1984) had proposed a fourth model of public relations, the press
agentry =publicity model, wherein practitioners ‘‘spread the faith of the organization involved,
often through incomplete, distorted, or half-true information’’ (p. 21), Morsing and Schultz
( 2006 ) did not consider this an appropriate model for CSR communication because it ‘‘erodes
the very ambition of CSR communication, which is to present the company as an ethical and
transparent socially responsible organization’’ (p. 326).
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 435 CSR Communication and Public Relations in India
Although some studies have explored CSR in India (Dhanesh,2012,2014 ; Pio, 2005), only a
few have focused on CSR communication in India, such as Chaudhri and Wang ( 2007) and
Chaudhri ( 2014). Although Chaudhri ( 2014) explored the communication imperative for CSR
in India and found an important role for communication, she did not examine perceptions and
perspectives of practitioners in the context of the promise–performance paradox, as is the focus
in this study. Much of the body of work that has explored CSR communication or the interactions between
public relations and CSR in India has focused on who leads CSR and not on CSR communi-
cation per se. For instance, although Sagar and Singla ( 2004) found that public relations practi-
tioners drive CSR efforts in most companies in India, Dhanesh ( 2012) examined a set of socially
responsible companies in India and found that CSR was often led by an exclusive CSR head or
by senior management from fields such as human resources, marketing, and sometimes public
relations and corporate communications. However, in most cases the fields of CSR and public
relations did not intersect. This finding was paralleled by Patwardhan and Bardhan ( 2014), who
found that meeting CSR demands had the lowest mean score among all issues rated by public
relations practitioners in India and that meeting growing CSR needs was not seen as one of the
top public relations leadership challenges. One of the reasons Dhanesh ( 2012) identified for the disconnect between the fields of CSR
and public relations in India is the notion of image building, a staple of public relations practice
in the days before economic liberalization in India in the 1990s (Bardhan, 2003; Bardhan &
Sriramesh, 2006). The negative perceptions of public relations as a spin industry could poten-
tially challenge the ethical practice of public relations (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002) and hinder
its acceptance as the field that houses CSR (Dhanesh, 2012).
However, research has found that the practice of public relations in India is transitioning from
the earlier style of image building and tactical media relations to an increased focus on a pro-
market style of professionalization by subscribing to global professional norms and practices
of public relations while adapting to local needs (Gupta, 2007). Indeed, the most recent research
has found that the Indian public relations industry is ‘‘trying to navigate the global scene as well
as develop at the domestic level’’ (Patwardhan & Bardhan, 2014, p. 410).
Some characteristics of public relations in India relate well to the variables of international
public relations. Despite growth in mass communication infrastructure, constraints on variables
such as media outreach and media access have made public relations practitioners adopt indigen-
ous and folk methods of communication to effectively reach rural publics (Kaul, 2011). Further,
with increasing activism and demands for social change have come heightened scrutiny of the
ethical conduct and social responsibility of corporations, who in response will have to incor-
porate higher levels of accountability and transparency in their actions and communication
(Singh, 2000).
Moreover, in the practice of public relations in India, as explained by Sriramesh’s ( 1991)
personal influence model, primacy has been afforded to interpersonal communication and rela-
tionships with influential individuals, groups, or publics. Research has found that although the
four models of public relations are present in India, there is hardly any support for the notion of
communication symmetry (Sriramesh, 1991), a basic tenet for excellence in public relations.
436
DHANESH India seems to lack the openness this function demands, as mostly asymmetrical models of
public relations are practiced (Singh,2000).
To summarize, the review of literature has highlighted the key tenets of SIM within which CSR
communication has been integrated; the specific challenges of CSR communication; and the
diverse approaches to handling these challenges, ranging from direct and explicit campaigns on
the one end, to silence on the other end, with implicit, subtle forms of communication in between.
Research also has theorized about probable models of communicating CSR based on Grunig and
Hunt’s (1984) models of public relations. Research has found support for these models of public
relations in India, too (Bardhan, 2003). However, there is sparse research on CSR communication
in India, and most focus on whether CSR is located within public relations. Moreover, as
Sriramesh and Verc
ic
(2009 ) have argued, the practice of public relations varies widely according
to the political ideology, economic systems, activism, culture, and media environment of individ-
ual countries. Hence, it is imperative to study practices in individual countries, such as India.
Further, a fairly large portion of research has focused on the instrumental approach to fixing
the problem of dissonance by working on message design. Although the problem of perceived
dissonance between corporate rhetoric and behavior has huge implications for practitioners
who are instrumental in the decision-making and implementation of CSR and CSR communi-
cation, hardly any research has focused on examining practitioners’ perspectives. Studies that
have examined the perceptions of practitioners on the communication of CSR (Arvidsson,
2010 ; Chaudhri, 2014) have not sufficiently explored practitioners’ ethical stances and normative
beliefs on CSR communication. Accordingly, the following research question was posited to
guide the study: What are the perceptions and ethical stances of CSR managers in India on
communicating CSR, especially given the context of heightened stakeholder criticism of
divergence between corporate rhetoric and behavior?
METHODOLOGY
The qualitative interview method was chosen because it is congruent with this study’s ontologi-
cal position that regards social actors’ viewpoints, understandings, experiences, and interactions
as properties of the social reality that the research question seeks to explore. It also resonates
with the epistemological position that a reasonable way to generate data on these ontological
properties is to talk and listen to social actors and to attempt to understand their thoughts and
articulations on the topic under study (Mason, 1996). Further, this study adopted the qualitative
interview method over other qualitative research methods such as participant observation, nar-
rative analysis, content analysis, and discourse analysis because in-depth interviews or focused
conversations (Kvale, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 2005) with experts or elites closely associated with
the phenomena under study can elicit instructive responses as to their thought processes related
to the topic under study (Odendahl & Shaw, 2002). Moreover, Bryman ( 2004) argued that
among other advantages, qualitative interviewing helps to delve into issues that are resistant
to observation. The topic of this research focused on exploring the beliefs and attitudes that
underlie senior managers’ thought processes on communicating the good deeds of their organi-
zations. In such a case, asking social actors about their views on the research topic is perhaps one
of the most legitimate ways of generating data.
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 437 Sampling and Sampling Frame
This study employed a purposeful sampling strategy because in qualitative research, the focus of
sampling is not on statistical adequacy but on accessing data sources that can generate rich, deep
data that can throw light on the questions under study (Bryman,2004).
Because this study sought to examine the viewpoints of managers of socially responsible
organizations on CSR communication, a prerequisite was that the companies ought to have
demonstrated some level of CSR activity. Hence, the sampling frame chosen was the Standard
& Poor India ESG Index, a list of 50 companies chosen from the top 500 companies on the
National Stock Exchange of India in terms of market capitalization. The companies were chosen
for their practices in the domains of environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and respon-
sible governance, aspects that closely correspond to widely accepted definitions of CSR.
Recruitment Procedures
Because there was a good possibility that gatekeepers might block access to business elites, I
approached the companies directly. Through cold calling, I obtained the e-mail addresses of
the individuals heading CSR in the companies. I then e-mailed, along with the IRB-approved
participant information sheet, a request to conduct the research. I used strategies recommended by Dillman (1978; in Rada, 2001) to increase the legitimacy of
the request, such as using the university’s letterhead in digital form and my digital signature in
blue ink. To increase their confidence in consenting to be interviewed, I highlighted that the
research was supervised by three senior professors from Singapore and the United States, and
gave URL links to the professors’ web sites. Because monetary rewards may not be the most suit-
able incentive for participation for this particularly elite demographic, I appealed to their sense of
goodwill and their interest in contributing to the body of knowledge on CSR in India. These stra-
tegies were successful, as the companies were very responsive to the request, and I gained access
to over 20 companies. I stopped conducting interviews at the point of theoretical saturation,
achieved at 19 interviews across 16 companies.
Profile of Participating Companies and Sites of Research
There was an equal number of manufacturing and service sector companies, with eight in the
manufacturing sector and eight in the services sector. I managed to gain access to one of the two
public-sector companies on the list. The companies in the manufacturing sector represented diverse
industries such as pharmaceuticals, steel, cement, and power generation; the companies in the ser-
vices sector represented industries such as information technology, banking, and telecommunication.
Many of the participating companies were among the top three in their respective industries in terms
of market capitalization, employing anywhere from 2,500 to more than 100,000 employees. I conducted the qualitative interviews predominantly in three major Indian cities—Mumbai,
New Delhi, and Bangalore—because, although the companies had operations across India and
often outside India, these three cities housed most of the headquarters of the participating com-
panies and the heads of CSR were located at the headquarters. Except for a couple of telephone
interviews, all the other interviews were conducted face-to-face in the interviewees’ offices in
the three cities. 438
DHANESH Profile of Interviewees
The people interviewed in these companies were the senior-most managers in charge of CSR
because in India CSR is spearheaded by top management (Lee,2010). They usually headed a
separate CSR function or another function such as public relations, corporate communications,
or human resources management with additional responsibility for CSR. Most of them reported
to the managing director or the CEO and were often on the companies’ boards of directors.
These managers were chosen because they set the boundaries for their corporations’ engagement
with CSR and were the main decision-makers for the policy-making, practice, and communi-
cation of CSR in their companies. In a couple of Fortune 500 companies, the CEOs, who are
well-known in India and abroad for their commitment to CSR, were also interviewed. Wherever
the company had a separate foundation handling its CSR activities, the head of the foundation
was also interviewed.
Interview Guide
Because the findings reported in this article are part of a larger study on CSR and public
relations in India, the interview guide given here has been extracted from the complete
interview guide used in the study. As part of the larger interview guide, interviewees had first
been asked about their definitions of CSR in the Indian context, key drivers of CSR, underly-
ing tensions between social and other corporate r esponsibilities, perceived organizational
enablers that facilitate the adoption and implem entation of CSR programs, and the key benefits
derived from being socially responsible. The y were then asked questions relating to CSR
communication. The specific interview questions asked on CSR communication for this study
were the following:
.Who are your key stakeholders along the CSR journey, and how do you communicate
with them? In their reply, most interviewees did not mention media and the general
public in terms of reputation building. Further, in response to a previous question on
drivers of CSR, some of them had mentioned that companies often engage in one-off
charity drives only to derive quick publicity. So, the question on publicizing CSR efforts
followed fairly naturally.
.Often, companies are accused of engaging in CSR practices only for the publicity they
can gain from it, in terms of reputation, brand recognition, etc. What are your thoughts
on this?
Most interviews ranged from 40 to 90 min, with the average length being around 60 min, and
generated over 300 pages of transcript.
Data Analysis
The researcher employed both etic and emic codes during data analysis to generate themes
reflective of both the data generated and the theoretical domain under study. Strategies employed
to produce codes and themes included examining the data for metaphors and analogies, and
similarities and differences across units of data. These strategies, along with examining
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 439 for in-vivo codes and theory-related codes, are effective ways of producing themes (Ryan
& Bernard,2003). I arranged data segments into little piles that seemed to go together and
named each pile, thus producing codes such as Action talksorDo and talk . This processing
technique of cutting and sorting is one of the most versatile in producing codes (Ryan &
Bernard, 2003). While coding, I wrote memos at the end of the transcript whenever ideas arose
in my mind with regard to comparisons or any thought that led toward greater abstraction. These
twin processes, reducing large amounts of data into bite-sized codes and expanding on these
codes to a higher level of abstraction, reduce and expand the data at the same time (Morse &
Richards, 2002).
I used a participant-by-concept matrix to summarize the codes for the research question. I
then engaged in focused coding, wherein several of these multiple, related codes were grouped
together and labeled as more abstract ideas such as minimalist communicationandbehavior as
communication . I also actively identified similarities and contrasts between the service and
manufacturing sectors because participants had pointed to such a distinction and because cross
comparison would further enhance data interpretation. I employed strategies such as member validation and maintaining detailed logs for auditing to
ensure the quality of the data generation and analysis processes. Although member validation is
usually conducted after the initial interview, in this case the chances of obtaining a second inter-
view with business elites were rather slim. Hence, as the interview proceeded, I paraphrased and
checked some of the interviewees’ responses. For instance, in one case, the participant had given
the answer to one of the questions related to CSR communication while answering an earlier
question on drivers of CSR. So instead of repeating the question on CSR communication, I said,
‘‘I think you have answered this question already. Let me paraphrase it [the response] for you.’’
However, the participant objected to the paraphrasing and went on to answer the question in full.
Similarly, no assumptions were made at any time about what the participants meant. Instead,
member validation helped to clarify and ensure that I had rightly captured what the
participant intended to convey. Further, two professors conducted regular audits of the research
logs.
RESULTS
Most of the findings reported here are about practitioners’ beliefs of and attitudes toward ethical
CSR communication in the context of the paradox of communicating CSR. The findings also
cover the key stakeholders and channels of communicating with them.
Attitudes Toward CSR Communication
When questioned about their beliefs and ethical stances regarding the communication of CSR
initiatives, the majority of interviewees from both manufacturing and service sectors shared
four predominantly normative approaches: (a) behavior-based communication, (b) minimalist
communication, (c) behavior as communication, and (d) utilitarian. During the discussion, they
also mentioned some of the reasons behind adopting these approaches. 440
DHANESH Behavior-Based Communication Approach
Interviewees indicated that it was acceptable to communicate CSR activities as long as there was
a good match between a corporation’s social deeds and communication. The SIM maxim of the
good organization communicating well appeared to be the underlying principle behind this per-
spective. To illustrate, one participant, the head of CSR for a large manufacturing company, said:
Having done it right, I think it’s worth showcasing it. I think that’s where there is a link between the
CSR team projecting positively what they have done because the world wants to know it, also
because somebody else could find this a model to work with and do it right. Me [sic] as the CSR
head is working very closely with the corporate communications team because even they need
to know, you know, what is this social performance we need to be talking about. So I think that
consulting with corporate communications may be required because the world wants to know.
Everybody wants to know.
An idea introduced in this quote and discussed in detail later is the working relationship
between the CSR and public relations teams. As evidenced in this quote, the CSR team delivers
the CSR initiatives and then works ‘‘very closely’’ with the corporate communications teams
when it comes to communicating these CSR efforts, indicating a clear demarcation in ownership
between the action and communication phases of CSR as strategic issues management. To give
yet another example, a head of CSR expressed a similar idea, making a distinction between
individuals and corporations who are socially responsible:
You know, there are lots of people who say, ‘‘Fine, I am donating this money, but don’t link it back to
me because I don’t like any publicity.’’ But that’s okay for individuals. I guess for corporates you know
you are making an effort, and yes, should we talk about it? When you are asked, you should talk about it.
Participants also touched upon the reasons for communicating their CSR efforts. Some shared
that one of the core drivers for communicating CSR efforts was their commitment to raise the
standards of their industry. They opined that communicating CSR initiatives, models, and success
stories was necessary to share best practices with their industry and to engender employee com-
mitment to CSR initiatives. One participant, talking about the motive behind communicating
CSR, said, ‘‘The intent is not to just create an island and just forget about it. The intent is to make
sure that people can derive benefit out of our learnings and out of what we have set out to do.’’
Another participant asserted, ‘‘At least to your own employees you must communicate what you
are doing. You must actually excite them in participating more and more.’’ This perspective
supports Heath and Ni’s ( 2010) contention that communicating CSR efforts leverages CSR as
a tool for employee engagement and increased employee volunteerism. Although participants advocated a behavior-based communication approach, they qualified
their stance on ethical CSR communication with minimalist communication approach.
Minimalist Communication Approach
In this approach, interviewees said it is imperative to limit one’s CSR communication to the
facts and to not embellish because ‘‘people will see through it quickly.’’ A long-time champion
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 441 of CSR from one of the largest conglomerates in the service sector voiced a concern with
determining an appropriate level of CSR communication, advocating fact-based communication
while carefully sidestepping any attempt at puffery. ‘‘To the external world, to the media, you
must be very careful,’’ he said. ‘‘Do not exceed what you are doing....Limit your communi-
cation to what the facts are. That is absolutely legitimate. You can communicate what you are
doing.’’ The minimalist approach to CSR communication was also preferred by a CSR head of
one of India’s largest private-sector companies:
Organizations should make sure that what they do is reported for what is done, rather than a kind of
a camouflage for what is going on and then use [sic] PR to pretend that you are doing something
very great.
This group of interviewees voiced their apprehension about mixing or muddling CSR
communication with public relations or marketing communication, because those functions were
often perceived to generate communicative =symbolic benefits highly disproportionate to the
action =behavior. Participants seemed to be intensely aware of the potential backlash from key
publics if they tried to embellish actual CSR efforts with empty rhetoric or spin.
One of the reasons given for advocating a minimalist approach to communication was the
belief that CSR refers to corporations’ basic responsibility, from which they ought not to strive
to generate benefits. The head of a foundation articulated this idea fairly elegantly:
I don’t believe in going into town tom-tomming that this is what we are doing. After all, you say
‘‘corporate social responsibility’’ and you are discharging your responsibility, right? And that’s what
we have all agreed to, and that’s why we use this term. If we didn’t agree to it, we shouldn’t say we
are engaged in CSR. And if you are doing something, which you feel is your responsibility, then you
are doing nothing great. Fine, you are doing something, which is expected out of you.
In addition to the behavior-based communication and minimalist approaches, some participants
shared a third perspective that leaned toward organizational silence and third-party endorsement.
Behavior-as-Communication Approach
A few interviewees emphasized there is no need to actively seek publicity—that good deeds
will speak for themselves. A participant said, ‘‘If you create value, you do not have to make any
conscious effort to strive for publicity.’’ The head of CSR for a large conglomerate explained:
We don’t believe in that [publicizing CSR efforts] because, see, we believe that our work should talk for
us. We are not a chest-thumping company, you know. And people know about us. We have got a string
of awards for our good work in CSR, including [name of award], and we have got [name of award], once
for [a] poverty alleviation project in [name of organization] and then once for our education project at
[name of organization]. ...So even without talking, people know. So we don’t believe in publicity.
In another example, the head of CSR for one of the oldest and largest companies in the
service sector said:
You tell about the branding benefit that we have also seen. Indirectly that has come ...whether you
like it or not. ...See, you know, we are one of the two [name of the group] companies in India in the
442 DHANESH Standard and Poor 50 Index and Dow Jones Sustainability Index. I mean we didn’t know this.
Suddenly one day we found that we are included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. And that’s
what I mean. You know, that’s how your accolade should come.
Yet another head of the CSR foundation of one of India’s largest private-sector companies
said:
If the publicity comes on its own, then well and good. If it doesn’t come, it doesn’t matter. See, when
you start initially, when you are young, probably it may be important and all. We have 13-15 years
since this work [sic], you know, and no day we have worked for that [sic] ...but I know when you
work whole-heartedly and you become so much involved in your work, automatically people will
talk about it.
Although the three approaches just presented either accorded equal status to ethical behavior
and rhetoric, or prioritized CSR performance over communication, some participants went on to
articulate an alternative—the utilitarian approach.
Utilitarian Approach
A few interviewees expressed the consequentialist notion that communicating CSR was
acceptable even if corporations were acting in socially responsible ways only to garner publicity,
as long as they were delivering some social good in the process. For instance, one of the founders
of a large multinational company in the service sector expressed this outlook:
My view is, in every population, there will always be a small percentage of people who would do the
[good] things for the wrong reason. It is inevitable. This is not a perfect world. I don’t want to throw
the baby with the bath water. And again, even if they are doing it for publicity, they are doing it! And
while doing it and while experiencing all the good things out of that, the youngsters in a company,
the ones with their heart in the right place in the company, they will protest and will want to stop it
at some stage. So in other words, for whatever reason you started it, as long as the outcomes are
beneficial to the society, as long as you are creating a body of thinking in the company that these
are good things for us, I think its fine.
In another instance, the head of CSR for one of the largest and oldest service sector compa-
nies in India reiterated this stance: ‘‘Because I feel there is so much to be done, if every company
does it, ...we can produce an impact.’’
After exploring participants’ ethical stances regarding CSR performance and communication,
I asked questions about the main stakeholders in their CSR journey and the channels used in
communicating with them.
Key Stakeholders in the CSR Space and Stakeholder Communication
Although a majority of the interviewees from service-sector companies identified employees as
the primary stakeholder, interviewees from manufacturing companies identified the local
community as their primary stakeholder. The second-most important stakeholder for both sectors
was the government. The third-most important stakeholder group for service-sector companies
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 443 included local communities and shareholders; for manufacturing companies it included employ-
ees and vendors. Interestingly, the order of importance is almost reversed in the two sectors.The most important finding regarding communication with stakeholders was that the majority
of interviewees from both sectors communicated CSR activities only to the primary stakeholders
associated with their CSR programs, such as the direct beneficiaries, employees, local communi-
ties, and the local, state, and national governments, and not to the media or the general public.
Aggressive media relations were not pursued as a communication strategy. For instance, the head
of corporate communications and CSR for one of the oldest companies in India said, ‘‘We put
[our CSR efforts] in our annual reports, and locally we communicate. See, if we are doing a pro-
ject in Gujarat, then we will tell the Gujarat people that this is what we are doing and all that.’’
A wide variety of channels was employed for communicating CSR to key beneficiaries and
associated primary stakeholders, depending on the stakeholder group. For example, regular
reports, personal dialogues, seminars, and conferences were the primary channels of communi-
cation with governments and government agencies. Internal communication channels such as
Intranets and videos were used to communicate CSR activities to employees. Web sites were used
mostly to disseminate information to nongovernmental organizations that may be exploring
opportunities for funding or partnerships. The president of a CSR foundation for a large
private-sector bank shared:
We will create a web site in 2 to 3 months, and we will put [on it] the projects we are working on,
what are the areas we are focusing, so that more and more education-oriented NGOs can come and
reach us, because [otherwise], they will not know.
On the other hand, with local communities, companies employed more strategies for beha-
vioral engagement than for symbolic engagement. They had regular dialogue sessions and =or
participated in community events and activities, such as local festivals. One participant said:
[In] various parts of town we have community committees, and we have constant interaction process
with them to learn or to understand this community’s problems and to try and solve them. So every
six months to a year we meet these community committees.
The head of CSR for one of India’s largest service-sector companies, which runs schools
across rural and urban locations, shared the company’s policy of using different strategies to
communicate with different stakeholder groups:
Well, I think at different levels we do different things. ...Donors are given continuous information
about what is happening, specifically in the areas to which they have donated. ...At the community
level, there is a deep engagement with the community. We have a monthly parent-teacher meeting.
... One Saturday of every month there is some community activity. ...As far as government is
concerned, we sent them regular reports.
In summary, if the various approaches to communicating CSR are placed along a continuum,
with silence at one end; explicit, overt, ostentatious communication on the other end; and a range
of implicit, subtle, minimalist, silent, and third-party endorsement approaches in between, then
Indian participants’ viewpoints would fall across the entire range of views, ranging from silence 444
DHANESH or behavior-as-communication to a utilitarian approach to communication. However, as a group,
they clearly preferred an implicit, minimalist, and subtle approach to CSR communication, with
the majority of viewpoints clustered along the middle of the spectrum.DISCUSSION
This study offered insights into managers’ views on the ethical communication of socially
responsible actions of corporations in India in the light of the paradoxical nature of CSR
communication, set within the theoretical framework of strategic issues management. Practitioners in India appeared to understand ethical CSR communication within a broader
SIM framework that includes adoption of high standards of corporate responsibility and dialogic
communication to create a climate of mutual understanding between an organization and its
stakeholders, which in turn offers assurances of legitimacy to the organization. Two aspects
of these findings illustrate key SIM principles: (a) the action bias in communicating socially
responsible deeds and (b) the emphasis on strategic communication while steering away from
publicity and aggressive media relations. First, the approaches to CSR communication identified in this study clearly favored action or
doing CSR over communication. This apparent dichotomization of talk and action has been chal-
lenged by communication scholars, who argue that corporate rhetoric, even when it is merely
aspirational, can induce action on the part of organizations (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen,
2013 ). However, the participants in this study do not appear to subscribe to this perspective of
CSR communication and, instead, accord CSR deeds primacy over CSR communication. Second, and most relevant to this study, although findings revealed that communicating CSR
engenders the creation of legitimacy capital, as suggested by SIM theory, participants’ approach
to communicating CSR did not match the tenet of SIM that advocates the creation of open
and collaborative spaces for debating issues from the perspective of the marketplace and public
policy. In line with the tenets of SIM theory, according to which communicating CSR performance to
involved stakeholders engenders returns of legitimacy to corporations (Roper, 2005), parti-
cipants appeared to derive legitimacy capital from other members of the industry by positioning
their corporations as leaders in the CSR space, from the government by constructing themselves
as responsible corporate citizens who partake in social development and nation building, from
local communities by earning a reputation as neighbors of choice, and from employees by brand-
ing themselves as employers with a social conscience. However, participants appeared averse to the generation of publicity through active media
relations and stakeholder-information models. They seemed to appreciate the paradox of
communicating CSR (Morsing et al., 2008) and steered away from the American model of more
explicit CSR communication campaigns. Instead, they moved toward the European model (Van
de Ven, 2008): subtle, minimalist, and implicit, sometimes preferring third-party endorsement
subsequent to CSR performance (Morsing et al., 2008). Chaudhri’s ( 2014) study on CSR
communication in India has confirmed this preference for a more subtle style of communicating
the socially responsible actions of corporations.
Instead of focusing on publicity campaigns, they engaged in strategic communication with
involved stakeholders, using a mix of interpersonal communication, localized media, and
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 445 stakeholder-involvement strategies. The employment of interpersonal communication, such as
dialogues and seminars with the government, could be attributed to the prevalence of the personal
influence model in the practice of public relations in India (Sriramesh,1991), wherein interperso-
nal communication and relationships with key individuals, organizations, and publics are critical
to the success of the organization. Further, probably due to the nature of the media environment in
India, including constraints on mass media outreach and media access, practitioners might have
coupled the use of interpersonal communication strategies with indigenous and folk media to
reach out to key stakeholders, especially within rural communities (Kaul, 2011).
However, especially in their interactions with local communities, corporations seemed to
adopt stakeholder-involvement strategies that foregrounded a dialogic, open model of communi-
cation, the mode of communication recommended by SIM. But, these open, dialogic forms of
communication may not be truly symmetrical. Dhanesh ( 2012) found that although practitioners
in socially responsible companies in India often played the role of the postmodern public relations
activist who balances the needs of the organization with those of its key stakeholders, the enact-
ment of open, dialogic interactions, especially with local communities, is often bounded by the
organization’s priorities, goals, and mission. Indeed, it could be the lack of symmetry in the practice of Indian public relations (Patwardhan
& Bardhan, 2014) or of an open and collaborative ethos (Singh, 2000) that prevents corporations
from engaging with the media and creating open spaces for debate and discussion on matters of
public policy. The ethos of open and transparent communication that aims to uncover organiza-
tions, with all their imperfections, might not be compatible with an asymmetrical approach to
communication and building relationships with key stakeholders. Further, this article argues that the reason why organizations largely avoid an aggressive media
relations strategy aimed at the general public can be traced to the nature of CSR in India and its
similarities and differences with SIM theory. Heath and Palenchar ( 2009) theorized CSR com-
munication within the context of SIM theory, conceptualizing CSR as holistic corporate responsi-
bility, born in response to activism and civil unrest in the pluralistic and turbulent environments of
the 1960s. Corporations in the United States were faced with criticism from activists and journal-
ists, so companies had to speak up to avoid leaving a communicative vacuum that would lead to
an overwhelming representation of opinions other than theirs. Such a volatile context called for
the development of dialogic, symmetrical models of communication that encouraged the diversity
of opposing voices. However, CSR work in India was not created in response to negative public opinion. Instead, it
often sprang from proactive attempts to create harmonious and long-lasting relationships with
key stakeholders (Dhanesh, 2014). Indeed, CSR in India is equated with social development.
Although social development has traditionally been the domain of the government, companies
in India entered these spaces from the early days of industrialization, driven by both moral and
economic imperatives. An integral part of this involvement was the intent to manage legitimacy
gaps or acquire a ‘‘license to operate’’ and to live in harmony with multiple constituencies in their
environment (Dhanesh, 2014). This article argues that because CSR was not conceptualized as a
reactive response to demands from activists and investigative journalists demanding change,
companies likely did not feel the need to communicate their socially responsible actions to a
wider audience, except to involved stakeholders such as beneficiaries and the government. However, this article argues that as the infrastructural, cultural, and media environments in
India continue to evolve, the strategy of silence with respect to communicating CSR to a wider 446
DHANESH audience might have to change. With transformations occurring in the economic sphere, increas-
ing levels of activism, and a growing mass communication infrastructure, corporations may
have to expand CSR communication from a focus on involved stakeholders such as beneficiaries
and government to include others such as activists, consumers, and investors. In such a scenario,
companies might have to employ CSR communication as a tool to proactively, and sometimes
reactively, counter increasingly hostile publics in pluralistic environments.In such a context, the relevance of public relations might also increase. Findings from this
study revealed that participants were rather wary of interactions between the fields of CSR and
public relations. The participants’ stated preference for a behavior-based, minimalist approach
that delicately balances action and communication also prompted them to steer clear of the public
relations function, because it has traditionally been associated with media relations and the press
agentry =publicity model of communication, especially in India (Bardhan & Sriramesh, 2006).
However, in the context of CSR, especially in the realm of community relations, public relations
has the capability to manage both the action and communication components of the issues
management process (Heath & Ni, 2010).
Historically, the need for public relations increases when organizations face hostile outside
forces (Broom & Sha, 2013). As the infrastructural, cultural, and media environments in India
change, the need for professional public relations will increase (Singh, 2000). Indeed, Patwardhan
and Bardhan ( 2014) found that public relations in India is in a state of flux and is transitioning
from the earlier public-sector style of functioning to a more professional style of functioning, deli-
cately managing the dialectic between the local and the global. As these changes occur, CSR com-
munication could be used as a tool for building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders
including consumers. As a result, the interactions between the functions of public relations and
CSR might increase.
Implications for Theory
The study offers evidence for conceptualizing CSR communication within the context of SIM
in India, offering points of similarities and differences. Although findings confirmed that the
approaches toward CSR communication in India matched the tenets of SIM, such as the primacy
of ethical action over communication, engagement of local communities using stakeholder
involvement strategies, and the creation of legitimacy capital with key stakeholders, there were
points of difference too. Although SIM elegantly articulates the need for organizations to engage
in open debates and discussions that challenge organizations to engage in greater transparency,
this study found that socially responsible corporations in India shun publicity and, instead, prefer
to engage in strategic communication with involved stakeholders. Some of the reasons for these
differences could be traced to variables of international public relations, such as culture, media
environment, and level of activism that could affect the practice of strategic issues management
in different contexts.
Further, although the models of public relations (Grunig & Hunt, 1984) and the strategic issues
management process (Heath & Palenchar, 2009; Smith, 2013) can be applied to the practice and
communication of CSR, research needs to further clarify the interactions between the fields of CSR
and public relations. Although early research considered CSR as a specialized activity of public
relations, emerging research, especially from India (Dhanesh, 2012; Patwardhan & Bardhan,
COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA 447 2014), has shown that the two fields may not intersect as much as theorized earlier. However,
findings from this study suggest that as the field of public relations matures, CSR might be
practiced within an issues management framework with a focus on alignment between action
and communication strategies. These findings have implications for future theorizing on the
intersections between CSR and public relations.
Implications for Practice
The participants in this study were leaders in the CSR space in India. Although they emphasized
the importance of sharing best practices with industry and raising the standards of CSR practices
in the country, they could do more. Many of the participants were leaders of industry associations
and played an active role in discussions on public policy. They could create more open platforms
for debates and discussions on businesses’ role in society and nation building and could bring
issues of CSR to the forefront of sustainable businesses. In the meantime, they could continue
sharing best practices that could not only help other members of the industry but also add to
the teaching of CSR in educational institutions. Companies could maintain the focus on action and on minimalist modes of communication,
which will help to ward off allegations of puffery. They could adopt some of the communication
strategies offered by research on message design such as communicating the fit between the orga-
nization’s core competencies and the cause in which it engages (van Rekom et al., 2014)and
acknowledging economic motives for engaging in CSR (de Vries et al., 2013) in their CSR
communication messages. While focusing on action and maintaining a minimalist style of communicating CSR, compa-
nies could reach out to larger audiences to proactively build a bank of goodwill, instead of waiting
for the environment to get turbulent. As companies reach out to larger audiences, however chal-
lenging it might be, it is imperative to maintain two-way dialogic channels of communication
with multiple stakeholders, thus enabling open spaces of communication.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this study has advanced understanding of participants’ beliefs of and ethical stances
toward CSR communication, it is not without limitations. First of all, this study examined the view-
points of senior managers in companies that are known to be socially responsible. This would be a
special subset of the general population of companies in India. Replicating this study with a general
population might generate different insights regarding stances toward ethical CSR communication. Second, the findings of this study are limited to what participants say, rather than what they do.
Although learning what managers say is important to arriving at insights into their perspectives on
CSR communication, future research could validate some of these stances through a content
analysis of actual CSR communication to study the models employed in communication outputs.
CONCLUSION
Although CSR has been conceptualized as an integral component of SIM theory, developed in the
United States in the 1970s, practices and processes of public relations and CSR communication 448
DHANESH can vary according to the variables of international public relations, such as level of activism,
media environment, and culture. This study contributed to the literature by examining approaches
to ethical CSR communication in India in light of the paradox presented in CSR communication.
The findings revealed that approaches to the ethical communication of CSR in India matched
some of the tenets of SIM theory such as the primacy accorded to responsible behavior and
the generation of legitimacy capital from communicating CSR efforts. However, unlike the
maxim of SIM theory to create spaces of open communication and collaboration for debating mat-
ters of public interest, findings from this study revealed that socially responsible corporations in
India advocated a subtle, minimalist, strategic communication approach that focuses only on
involved stakeholders. These findings have important implications not only for theorizing CSR
within the SIM framework but also for theorizing interactions between the fields of CSR and
public relations.ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Milagros Rivera, Dr. Linda M. Perry, the Editor, and the anonymous
reviewers whose valuable comments and suggestions greatly strengthened the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams inlarge companies. Journal of Business Ethics ,96 , 339–354. doi:10.1007 =s10551-010-0469-2
Bardhan, N. (2003). Rupturing public relations metanarratives: The example of India. Journal of Public Relations
Research ,15 , 225–248. doi:10.1207 =S1532754XJPRR1503
2
Bardhan, N., & Sriramesh, K. (2006). Public relations in India review of a programme of research. Journal of Creative
Communications ,1, 39–60. doi:10.1177 =097325860500100103
BBC. (2010). India-the world’s largest democracy . Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/zqw2hyc
Bhushan, C. (2005, September). Presentation at the strategic planning workshop, Copenhagen Business School,
Copenhagen . Retrieved from http://bdsnetwork.cbs.dk/publications/ChandraBhushan.pdf
Bloombergview. (2012). Mining company’s PR campaign backfires in India . Retrieved fromhttp://www.bloombergview.
com/articles/2012-04-24/mining-company-s-pr-campaign-backfires-in-india
Bowen, S. A. (2011). Ethics and public relations . Retrieved fromhttp://www.instituteforpr.org/ethics-and-public-
relations/
Broom, G. M., & Sha, B. L. (2013). Cutlip and center’s effective public relations (11th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson
Education.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chaudhri, V. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and the communication imperative: Perspectives from CSR managers. Journal of Business Communications , 247–250. Prepublished August, 28, 2015. doi:10.1177=
2329488414525469 .
Chaudhri, V., & Wang, J. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility on the Internet: A case study of the top 100 information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly,21 , 232–247.
doi:10.1177 =0893318907308746
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization,20 , 372–393.
doi:10.1177 =1350508413478310
Clark, C. E. (2000). Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public Rela-
tions Review ,26 (3), 363–380. doi:10.1016=S0363-8111(00)00053-9
Coombs, T. W., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Managing corporate social responsibility: A communication approach .
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA
449 Coombs, T. W., & Holladay, S. J. (2013). The pseudo-panopticon: The illusion created by CSR-related transparency and theInternet. Corporate Communications: An International Journal ,18 , 212–227. doi:10.1108 =13563281311319490
Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management,
9 (2), 108–119. doi:10.1108=13632540510621362
De Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2013). Sustainability or profitability? How communi- cated motives for environmental policy affect public perceptions of corporate greenwashing. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management ,22 , 142–154. doi:10.1002=csr.1327 . Published online in Wiley
Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
Dhanesh, G. S. (2012). Better stay single? Public relations and CSR leadership in India. Public Relations Review,38 ,
141–143. doi:10.1016 =j.pubrev.2011.09.002
Dhanesh, G. S. (2014). Why corporate social responsibility? An analysis of drivers of CSR in India. Management
Communication Quarterly ,29 , 114–129. doi:10.1177 =0893318914545496
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The
role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. doi:10.1111 =j.1468-2370.
2009.00276.x
Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011). The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision-making: A model of corporate social responsibility and business ethics practices. Management Decision,49 , 586–600.
doi:10.1108 =00251741111126503
Freeman, E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Gupta, S. (2007). Professionalism in Indian public relations and corporate communications: An empirical analysis. Public
Relations Review ,33 , 306–312. doi:10.1016 =j.pubrev.2007.05.011
Heath, R. L. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of public relations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L., & Ni, L. (2010). Community relations and corporate social responsibility. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE
handbook of public relations (pp. 557–568). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as
organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research ,14 ,
57–84. doi:10.1207 =S1532754XJPRR1401 3
Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J. L., & May, S. (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility . West
Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Kaul, V. (2011). Development communication in India: Prospect, issues and trends. Global Media Journal,2(2), 1–31.
Kim, H. K., & Yang, S. (2009). Cognitive processing of crisis communication: Effects of CSR and crisis response strategies on stakeholder perceptions of a racial crisis dynamics. Public Relations Journal,3(1), 1–39.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause .
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, S. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in India: A case study for the Oxford-Achilles working group on corpor-
ate social responsibility . Retrieved fromhttp://www.xjjz.co.uk/achilles/downloads/research/India.pdf
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitra, M. (2007). It’s only business! India’s corporate social responsiveness in a globalized world . New Delhi, India:
Oxford University Press.
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review ,15 , 323–338. doi:10.1111 =j.1467-8608.2006.0460.x
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications ,14 , 97–111. doi:10.1080 =13527260701856608
Odendahl, T., & Shaw, A. M. (2002). Interviewing elites. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of inter-
view research: Context and method (pp. 299–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
450 DHANESH Patwardhan, P., & Bardhan, N. (2014). Worlds apart or a part of the world? Public relations issues and challenges inIndia. Public Relations Review ,40 , 408–419. doi:10.1016 =j.pubrev.2014.01.001
Pio, E. (2005). Eastern karma: Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Journal of Corporate Citizenship,19 , 65–78.
doi:10.9774 =GLEAF.4700.2005.au.00011
Rada, V. D. (2001). Mail surveys using Dillman’s TDM in a southern European country: Spain. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research ,13 , 159–172. doi:10.1093 =ijpor =13.2.159
Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony? Journal of Public
Relations Research ,17 , 69–86. doi:10.1207 =s1532754xjprr1701
6
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods,15 , 85–109. doi:10.1177 =
1525822x02239569
Sagar, P., & Singla, A. (2004). Trust and corporate social responsibility: Lessons from India. Journal of Communication
Management ,8, 282–290. doi:10.1108 =13632540410807691
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Pollach, I. (2005). The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics. Journal of
Marketing Management ,21 , 267–290. doi:10.1362 =0267257053779154
Singh, R. (2000). Public relations in contemporary India: Current demands and strategy. Public Relations Review,26 ,
295–313. doi:10.1016 =S0363-8111(00)00049-7
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of
Business Research ,66 , 1831–1838. doi:10.1016=j.jbusres.2013.02.004
Smith, R. D. (2013). Strategic planning for public relations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sriramesh, K. (1991). The impact of societal culture on public relations: An ethnographic study of south Indian organiza-
tions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Sriramesh, K., Ng, C. W., Soh, T. T., & Luo, W. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and public relations: Perceptions
and practices in Singapore. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsi-
bility (pp. 119–134). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sriramesh, K., & Verc
ic
, D. (2009). A theoretical framework for global public relations research and practice. In
K. Sriramesh & D. Verc
ic
(Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–
21). New York, NY: Routledge.
van de Ven, B. (2008). An ethical framework for the marketing of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics ,82 , 339–352. doi:10.1007 =s10551-008-9890-1
Van Rekom, J., Go, F. M., & Calter, D. M. (2014). Communicating a company’s positive impact on society-Can plausible explanations secure authenticity? Journal of Business Research,67 , 1831–1838. doi:10.1016=j.jbusres.2013.
12.006 COMMUNICATING CSR IN INDIA
451 Copyright
ofJournal ofPublic Relations Researchisthe property ofTaylor &Francis Ltdand
its
content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the
copyright
holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail
articles
forindividual use.
