No abstract

In communication research on transparency, information has been predominantly regarded as an objective and ascertainable construct – for example, evaluated by its amount – resulting in the neglect of highly subjective and intersubjective considerations of situational factors such as crises, organization types, and larger external environments that include laws, regulations, and social norms, in addition to stakeholders’ perspectives. In reviewing the relevant literature, we first find that transparency has developed from an instrumental to an intrinsic value, and then locate the current inquiry into transparency in an area of overlap between the two approaches – implicating objective certainty and subjective value, respectively. Based on this review, we present the significance of integrating the two additional parameters of situational factors and stakeholders’ perspectives by focusing more on normative, rather than instrumental, perspectives. For the purpose of creating a comprehensive theoretical framework of transparency, we propose an operational definition of transparency as a process, as well as a research framework.

Researchers have become increasingly interested in the strategic value of transparency in corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication in recent years. However, transparency research in CSR communication is still scarce. In particular, little research has examined whether the effects of transparency may depend on contextual factors, such as whether an organization is associated with a stigmatized industry. Grounded on legitimacy theory, this experiment examined the effect of CSR messages on supportive communication intent, purchase intent, and skepticism. Results reveal a main effect of transparency on purchase intent and a main effect of stigmatization on skepticism. Most importantly, there was an interaction, such that a higher level of transparency reduced skepticism when a more stigmatized industry was involved. The results contribute to further contextualizing transparency and CSR research.

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of business news coverage of corporate social responsibility (CSR) within a comparative international context by investigating two business newspapers, The Wall Street Journal from the United States and The Financial Times from the United Kingdom. Drawing on the news framing research and the implicit and explicit CSR framework of Matten and Moon, this content analysis shows that business news coverage of CSR in the United States and in the United Kingdom differs in terms of news framing (thematic vs. episodic), motive attributions of CSR as a concept, motive attributions of referenced companies in relation to CSR, general tone toward the concept of CSR, and the general tone toward referenced companies in relation to CSR. Most significantly, findings suggest that business news plays different roles in constructing and legitimizing CSR in the two countries. In the United States, CSR’s legitimacy and its conceptual positivity may be more implied through the coverage of singular events or actors (episodic framing), whereas in the United Kingdom, CSR’s illegitimacy and its conceptual negativity may be more exposed for further discussion through the coverage of larger societal contexts (thematic framing). Other theoretical as well as practical implications are also discussed.

No abstract