A conceptual foundation for expectations of corporate responsibility

Abstract

Purpose -Ability to identify and meet stakeholder expectations is seen as imperative for succeeding in corporate responsibility (CR). However, the existing literature of CR communication treats expectations predominantly as positive constructions. The article addresses this positivity bias and offers insights for a more profound conceptual and empirical understanding of stakeholder expectations.Design/methodology/approach -The article presents findings from a targeted literature search and empirical illustrations from a thematic analysis of interview data with a focus on the media sector.Findings -The conceptual understanding of expectations is advanced by exploring positive (optimistic and hopeful), and negative (cynical and pessimistic) expectations. The empirical examples portray expectation analysis and how it becomes more complex when expectations turn negative.Research limitations/implications -The data is limited to one sector but implications are discussed with a wider lens to aid future studies in addressing expectations of CR with less positivity bias and, instead, with more conceptual and empirical precision. IntroductionThere is a wide-spread agreement in the literature of corporate responsibility that identifying and meeting stakeholder expectations and societal expectations is an important factor for succeeding in corporate responsibility (e.g., introductions to literature by Scherer and Palazzo, 2007;2011).More specifically, corporate responsibility is often explained as conformance to societal expectations or as anticipation of societal expectations (e.g., . Essentially, the value in fulfilling expectations of moral and ethical behavior is the trust and legitimacy it can generate (Adams et al., 2010). Trust, by definition, is based on positive expectations despite a possible risk (Lewicki et al., 1998;Rousseau et al., 1998).However, trust is not automatically generated by CR actions and by actively communicating (or Olkkonen: A conceptual foundation for expectations of corporate responsibility advertising) them-instead, efforts to communicate CR can backfire due to perceived hypocrisy, spin or lack of credibility (Waddock and Googins, 2014 Expectations as a forward-looking phenomenon are an area that can explain both the success and pitfalls of this negotiation as they set the frame for assessing CR efforts, their communication and future development. This article departs from this background.The article has a conceptual tone as it aims to investigate the details of expectations as a concept and how to approach expectations in empirical research. First, a targeted literature search in communication journals is presented to map the use of expectations in the current literature of CR communication. As will be discussed in the article, despite the wide circulation and use of expectations in the literature, the conceptual understanding of expectations tends to be narrow and biased in the sense that expectations are understood solely or, at least, predominantly as positive anticipations that ...

28 Public relations and expectation theory: Introducing Relationship Expectation Theory (RET) for public relations

“…Concepts are the building blocks in theory construction (Walker and Avant 2011;Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton 2013); therefore, we continue our theoretical endeavor from the conceptual level of defining expectations. Considering how often and how widely expectations are connected to public relations, existing literature gives us surprisingly few actual definitions of expectations in public relations (Olkkonen 2017;Olkkonen 2015a;Olkkonen and Luoma-aho 2015). Often, the role of expectations is cursory in that it explains other concepts and relations between concepts; for example, that meeting expectations of corporate responsibility is crucial for maintaining reputations and legitimacy (Olkkonen 2017).…”

“…Considering how often and how widely expectations are connected to public relations, existing literature gives us surprisingly few actual definitions of expectations in public relations (Olkkonen 2017;Olkkonen 2015a;Olkkonen and Luoma-aho 2015). Often, the role of expectations is cursory in that it explains other concepts and relations between concepts; for example, that meeting expectations of corporate responsibility is crucial for maintaining reputations and legitimacy (Olkkonen 2017). Therefore, to offer a solid foundation for building theory on expectations in public relations, we take another step outside the scope of public relations, this time by reviewing literature on customer management and customer satisfaction, which are areas with detailed conceptual insight on expectations and illustrative introductions to the positive and negative elements of expectations.…”

Theorizing expectations as enablers of intangible assets in public relations: Normative, predictive, and destructive

“…Based on the literature review and analysis, we conclude that expectation theories do appear, but are not strongly utilized in public relations research. Papers focused on conceptual development (Heath, 2006; Olkkonen, 2017; Olkkonen and Luoma-aho, 2015; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010) and expectation measurement (Bruning et al, 2006; Ledingham et al, 1999; Lee and Chung, 2018; Roh, 2017; Sung and Kim, 2014) were both rare, even though our sample spans multiple decades. This observation further widens the gap in public relations related to expectations – not only are expectations rarely conceptualized but public relations scholars also have limited exposure to expectation theories.…”

“…One of the most pressing gaps in the current understanding of expectations in public relations arises because expectations are treated predominantly (and often only) as positive anticipations that organizations can fulfill to develop or maintain important intangible assets. This ‘positivity bias’ can make analyses of expectations less precise because it ‘demerits expectations close to observable data and presumes that one automatically know what is meant by expectations and how to identify what they are’ (Olkkonen, 2017: 28). Thus, we argue that the public relations literature lacks analytical thinking that recognizes expectations as positive and negative constructs, manifested in expectations as predictive assessments.…”

Distrust in corporate communications: does it matter?

“…Yet, when trust is reduced, suspended or lost, we have comparatively little academic insight. Organisational distrust is alluded to as a negative outcome of corporate issues and crises (Kim and Ferguson, 2019;Kim et al, 2018;Straub, 2017;Olkkonen, 2016); however, it is rarely, if ever, defined or conceptualised as its own construct. A limited understanding of distrust has implications for corporate communication scholars and practitioners.…”