Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 152, Issue 3, pp 627–645 | Cite as

Discursive Tensions in CSR Multi-stakeholder Dialogue: A Foucauldian Perspective

  • Christiane Marie HøvringEmail author
  • Sophie Esmann Andersen
  • Anne Ellerup Nielsen


Corporate social responsibility is a complex discipline that not only demands responsible behavior in production processes but also includes the concepts of communicative transparency and dialogue. Stakeholder dialogue is therefore expected to be an integrated part of the CSR strategy (Morsing and Schultz in Bus Ethics: A Eur Rev 14(4):323–338, 2006). However, only few studies have addressed the practice of CSR stakeholder dialogue and the challenges related hereto. This article adopts a postmodern perspective on CSR stakeholder dialogue. Based on a comprehensive single case study on stakeholder dialogue in a global dairy company, we focus on the complexity of CSR dialogue with multiple stakeholders. Drawing on a critical reflexive methodology (Alvesson and Kärreman in Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1265–1281, 2007), we develop the research question: How is CSR multi-stakeholder dialogue practiced, experienced, and articulated in an empirical context? The purpose is to understand the underlying assumptions, expectations, and principles guiding CSR multi-stakeholder dialogue in an empirical setting, as we focus on how key stakeholders articulate and anticipate the values of stakeholder dialogue and how the actual stakeholder dialogues are enacted. The findings of the study differ significantly from the ideals of transparent and agenda-free stakeholder dialogue. Rather, the study shows an overall tension between ideal and practice, supporting the progressive importance of the dialogue process in itself as an essential part of the end goal. The implication of this is a growing pressure on creating transparency about the (re)positioning and negotiation of roles throughout the dialogue process.


Case study Communication CSR Dialogue Discourse Foucault Multi-stakeholder Tension 


  1. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology. New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Arla Foods. (2013). Corporate Responsibility Report 2013. Retrieved from
  4. Arla Foods. (2014). Corporate Responsibility Report 2014. Retrieved from
  5. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2012). Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in business-NGO relationships through stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). CSR, co-optation and resistance: The emergence of new agonistic relations between business and civil society. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2011). Interrogating the communicative dimensions of corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 491–504). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Crane, A., & Livesy, S. M. (2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, S. Rahman, & B. Husted (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication reporting and performance (pp. 39–52). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deetz, S., & Simpson, J. (2004). Critical organizational dialogue: Open formation and the demand of ‘otherness’. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorising difference in communication studies (pp. 141–158). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gadamer, H. G. (1980). Dialogue and dialectic: Eight hermeneutical studies on Plato. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garcia-Marza, D. (2005). Trust and dialogue: Theoretical approaches to ethics auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Glozer, S., Hibbert, S., & Caruana, R. (2013). From monologue to dialogue: Mapping dialogical traditions within co-creation and corporate social responsibility (CSR). ICCSR Research Paper Series 65. Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School.Google Scholar
  21. Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  22. Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility. Communication and Dialogue. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 231–251). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2014). Critical points of CSR related stakeholder dialogue in practice. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(3), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, E., Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C., & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: Quo vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gond, J.-P., & Matten, D. (2007). Rethinking the business-society interface: Beyond the functionalist trap. ICCSR Research Paper Series 47. Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School.Google Scholar
  26. Grant, D., & Nyberg, D. (2011). The view from organizational studies: A discourse-based understanding of corporate social responsibility and communication. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett, & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 534–549). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1980). Discourse ethics: Notes on philosophical justification. Moral, consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Reason and the rationality of society (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Lifeworld and system (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2004). Discourse and power. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 219–318). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Heath, R. L., Pearce, W. B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J. R., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., et al. (2006). The processes of dialogue: Participation and legitimation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 341–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heracleous, L., & Hendry, J. (2000). Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53(10), 1251–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Isaacs, W. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Berman, S. L., & Post, J. E. (2003). Re-examining the concept of ‘‘stakeholder management’’. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 145–161). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonker, J., & Nijhof, A. (2006). Looking through the eyes of others: Assessing mutual expectations and experiences in order to shape dialogue and collaboration between business and NGOs with respect to CSR. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(5), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaptein, M., & van Tulder, R. (2003). Towards effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawrence, A. T. (2002). The drivers of stakeholder engagement: Reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility, engagement (pp. 185–200). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Ljungqvist, O., van Gossum, A., Sanz, Miquel L., & de Man, F. (2010). The European fight against malnutrition. Clinical Nutrition, 29(2), 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  44. Maslow, A. (1973). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  45. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.Google Scholar
  48. Mouffe, C. (2000). For an agonistic model of democracy. In N. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Political theory in transition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Nichol, L. (2003). The essential David Bohm. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Payne, S. L., & Calton, J. M. (2002). Towards a managerial practice of stakeholder engagement. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 6, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pedersen, E. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pettigrew, A. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 13(4), 331–503.Google Scholar
  55. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis. Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational discourse: Domains, debates and directions. The Academy of Management Annals, 102, 1–47.Google Scholar
  57. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.Google Scholar
  58. Pruzan, P. (2001). The question of organizational consciousness: Can organizations have values, virtues and visions? Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world—a review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 889–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combing institutional, sense making and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships. Understanding the selection, design and institutionalization of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Strand, R., & Freeman, R. E. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomas, G. (2011). Case studies. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2008). The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(5), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Marie Høvring
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sophie Esmann Andersen
    • 1
  • Anne Ellerup Nielsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Communication, School of Business and Social SciencesAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations