Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore CEO corporate social responsibility (CSR) rhetorical choices in response to stakeholder pressures. CEOs often search for legitimacy through CSR rhetoric. It contributes to maintaining or developing pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy in a post‐crisis world where CSR concerns are gaining in importance.Design/methodology/approachA content analysis of various CEO discourses is performed. Press articles are analyzed to identify the nature of stakeholder pressures. Covariance analyses are conducted to study how CEO CSR rhetorical strategies vary between communication channels dedicated to specific stakeholders. Regression analyses are conducted between stakeholder pressures and rhetorical strategies.FindingsThe paper identifies three types of CEO CSR rhetorical categories: values rhetoric to develop moral legitimacy, normative rhetoric to improve cognitive legitimacy, and instrumental rhetoric to enhance pragmatic legitimacy. Values CSR rhetoric is used most often with employees or societal stakeholders. It increases when stakeholders' satisfaction is already quite high regarding financial performance, strategy, and products and services. Normative CSR rhetoric is rarely used. It is only devoted to societal stakeholders and it increases with stakeholder satisfaction with the quality of management, leadership and governance. Instrumental CSR rhetoric is mainly used with boards of directors, financial investors and shareholders. Its importance increases with stakeholder satisfaction with CSR but decreases with stakeholder satisfaction with financial performance and corporate vision/strategy.Originality/valueThe paper provides key contributions for CEOs on how to communicate on CSR. The empirical design based on qualitative and quantitative analyses innovates in operationalizing CSR rhetorical categories and stakeholder pressures.

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueThis study seeks to capture the influence of national institutions and industry characteristics on CSR reporting. To explore national institutions, the paper compares CSR reporting in France and Australia characterized respectively as state‐led market economies (SLMEs) and liberal market economies (LMEs). Comparisons are also made between high‐risk and low‐risk industries. The interaction between the two main variables is also analyzed.Research Findings/InsightsUsing corporate published data from a sample of 220 Australian and French companies in 2009, the research finds that CSR reporting is stronger and CSR practices more transparent in France compared to Australia. CSR reporting is also stronger in high‐risk industries than in low‐risk industries. It also found that industry characteristics override the influence of national institutions in high‐risk industries. However, these conclusions vary depending on the sub‐categories of CSR reporting and the implicit versus explicit form of this type of communication.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThis study develops a new model of CSR reporting using 99 items. It provides empirical support for the institutional perspective for understanding differences in reporting whilst demonstrating the interaction between industry risk characteristics and national institutions.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThe study offers insights to policy makers interested in promoting CSR accountability and transparency. It especially raises the importance of regulation to develop corporate reporting practices. It also provides insights to managers to identify relevant CSR practices within their country/industries and the different communication strategies that they can adopt in responding to institutional pressures.

Managing diversity is a challenge for many organizations and their diversity initiatives are often criticized for an inability to produce tangible outcomes. One reason for such mixed results is the fact that espoused diversity policies are often implemented in multi-objective contexts in which various stakeholders perceive of diversity and its place in the organization in different ways, thus affecting organizational outcomes. To shed new light on these challenges, we apply paradox theory to diversity management. Based on a series of interviews with all key stakeholder groups of one organization that successfully implemented a diversity initiative in a challenging context, we are able to provide a systematic account of differences between stakeholder groups in terms of both the tensions they perceive in diversity management and the solutions they prefer. Our data show that stakeholders perceive of tensions in a nested fashion, where some only see one or two categories of tensions, whereas others perceive a much wider range. This nested fashion re-appears in the coping strategies which different stakeholders prefer. Here, we found that 'observers' and 'makers' – that is, the two groups who are, respectively, least and most involved with the policy – favour strategies that accept the paradoxical tensions, whereas 'beneficiaries' tend to emphasize strategies to resolve them. We conclude our paper by discussing managerial implications of our findings, as well as avenues for future research.

International audience ; This paper explores how a diversity policy is legitimized along moral, pragmatic and cognitive dimensions in a challenging environment (conflicting demands with regard to diversity). In this case study-based paper, we use evidence gathered from 92 interviews with members of key stakeholder groups, observation, and secondary data sources in a French business school. We find that perceptions about the legitimacy of a diversity policy may be ambivalent when legitimacy is evaluated along several dimensions. We conclude that legitimizing a diversity policy requires step-by-step management, with the organization selecting and combining various legitimization strategies over time. ; Este artículo explora cómo se legitima una política de diversidad en términos morales, pragmáticos y cognitivos en un entorno desafiante. Un estudio de caso de una Escuela de Negocios francesa se hizo a través de la recolección de datos primarios – 92 entrevistas y observación – y datos secundarios. Encontramos que las percepciones de la legitimidad de una política de diversidad pueden ser ambivalentes cuando se evalúa la legitimidad en varias dimensiones. Así, la legitimación de una política de diversidad requeriría una gestión gradual, durante la cual se seleccionarían y combinarían varias estrategias de legitimación a lo largo del tiempo. ; Cet article explore comment une politique de diversité est légitimée en termes moral, pragmatique et cognitif dans un environnement difficile (exigences contradictoires en matière de diversité). Une étude de cas d'une Ecole de Management française est conduite par le recueil de données primaires – 92 entretiens avec des parties prenantes et observation – et de données secondaires. Nous constatons que les perceptions de la légitimité d'une politique de diversité sont ambivalentes lorsque la légitimité est évaluée sur plusieurs dimensions. La légitimation d'une politique de diversité nécessiterait un management pas-a-pas, sélectionnant et combinant diverses stratégies de ...

International audience ; This paper explores how a diversity policy is legitimized along moral, pragmatic and cognitive dimensions in a challenging environment (conflicting demands with regard to diversity). In this case study-based paper, we use evidence gathered from 92 interviews with members of key stakeholder groups, observation, and secondary data sources in a French business school. We find that perceptions about the legitimacy of a diversity policy may be ambivalent when legitimacy is evaluated along several dimensions. We conclude that legitimizing a diversity policy requires step-by-step management, with the organization selecting and combining various legitimization strategies over time. ; Este artículo explora cómo se legitima una política de diversidad en términos morales, pragmáticos y cognitivos en un entorno desafiante. Un estudio de caso de una Escuela de Negocios francesa se hizo a través de la recolección de datos primarios – 92 entrevistas y observación – y datos secundarios. Encontramos que las percepciones de la legitimidad de una política de diversidad pueden ser ambivalentes cuando se evalúa la legitimidad en varias dimensiones. Así, la legitimación de una política de diversidad requeriría una gestión gradual, durante la cual se seleccionarían y combinarían varias estrategias de legitimación a lo largo del tiempo. ; Cet article explore comment une politique de diversité est légitimée en termes moral, pragmatique et cognitif dans un environnement difficile (exigences contradictoires en matière de diversité). Une étude de cas d'une Ecole de Management française est conduite par le recueil de données primaires – 92 entretiens avec des parties prenantes et observation – et de données secondaires. Nous constatons que les perceptions de la légitimité d'une politique de diversité sont ambivalentes lorsque la légitimité est évaluée sur plusieurs dimensions. La légitimation d'une politique de diversité nécessiterait un management pas-a-pas, sélectionnant et combinant diverses stratégies de légitimation au cours du temps.