CSR as Common Sense Issue? A Theoretical Exploration of Public Discourses, Common Sense and Framing of Corporate Social Responsibility

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)

Abstract

The article aims to explore and define Corporate Social Responsibility as common sense related discourse in corporations and amongst organizations and their stakeholder and discusses the potential of CSR as “communication content” for media and communication studies. To theoretically capture CSR as “common sense”, issues in general are conceptualized as ‘fields’ in Bourdieu’s sense, complemented by an innovative concept of framing. From a content related perspective, the theoretical reflections enable the definition of CSR as common sense issue by differentiating it from neutral positions and hegemonic frames.

Keywords

Public sphere Discourse Issue Hegemony Framing CSR Bourdieu Giddens 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition, and Juergen Habermas. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 73–98). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, R. (1999). Field theory in comparative context: A new paradigm for media studies. Theory and Society, 28, 463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergman, M. (2009). Experience, purpose, and the value of vagueness: On C.S. Peirce’s contribution to the philosophy of communication. Communication Theory, 19, 248–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1987). Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1998). On television. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P., Beister, H., & Schwibs, B. (2001). Soziologische Fragen (Dt. Erstausg., 1. Aufl). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. Brouwer, D. C., & Asen, R. (2010). Introduction: Public modalities, or the metaphors we theorize by. In D. C. Brouwer & R. Asen (Eds.), Public modalities: Rhetoric, culture, media, and the shape of public life (pp. 1–32). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  11. Butler Breese, E. (2011). Mapping the variety of public spheres. Communication Theory, 21, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynism. The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Coleman, J. S. (1995). Grundlagen der Soziologie (Bd. 2, Körperschaften und die moderne Gesellschaft). München, Wien.Google Scholar
  14. Condit, C. M. (1994). Hegemony in a mass-mediated society: Concordance about reproductive technologies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11(3), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corlett, J. A. (2001). Collective moral responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32, 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing. Theory and typology. Information Design Journal and Document Design, 13, 48–59.Google Scholar
  18. Eder, K. (2006). The public sphere. Theory, Culture and Society (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Pub), 32(2–3), 607–616.Google Scholar
  19. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power. Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Europäische Kommission (Hg.). (2001). Europäische Rahmenbedingungen für die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen. Brüssel: Grünbuch.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, M. R. (2002). Hegemony and discourse. Negotiating cultural relationships through media production. Journalism, 3(3), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fifka, M. S. (Ed.). (2014). CSR und reporting. Nachhaltigkeits- und CSR-Berichterstattung verstehen und erfolgreich umsetzen. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Fischer, J. M. (1986). Moral responsibility. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137–188). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (1992). Mesomobilization. Organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  31. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Goffman, E. (1977/1980). Rahmen-Analyse. Ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  33. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, S. (1980). Cultural studies and the centre: Some problems and problematics. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers on cultural studies (pp. 1972–1979). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, S. (1999). Kodieren/Dekodieren. In R. Bromley, U. Göttlich, & C. Winter (Eds.), Cultural studies. Grundlagentexte zur Einführung (pp. 92–110). Lüneburg: zu Klampen.Google Scholar
  36. Heinrich, P. (Ed.). (2013). CSR und Kommunikation. Unternehmerische Verantwortung überzeugend vermitteln. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J. L., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jenks, C. (2005). Culture (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, R. (1993). Editor’s introduction: Pierre Bourdieu on art, literature and culture. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), The field of cultural production (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  41. Kant, I. (2008). Critique of pure reason (M. Weigelt, Ed. & M. Muller, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  42. Karmasin, M., & Weder, F. (2008). Neue Herausforderungen an Kommunikationsmanagement und PR. Wien: Lit-Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Laslett, P. (1988). Introduction: Locke and hobbes. Two treatises on government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lemos, N. [with Dancy, J., & Haldane, J. (Contributors)]. (2004). Common sense: A contemporary defense. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR. A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (Eds.). (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. McGuigan, J. (2005). The cultural public sphere. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 8, 427. doi: 10.1177/1367549405057827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61(4), 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paine, T. (2004). Common sense. Westminster, MD: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  51. Peters, B. (2007). Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. Herausgegeben von Hartmut Wessler, mit einem Vorwort von Jürgen Habermas. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  52. Reid, T. (1764/1970). An inquiry into the human mind in the principles of common sense. Edinburgh: A. Mullar. New edition: T. Duggan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rescher, N. (2005). Common-sense: A new look at an old philosophical tradition. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Roper, J. (2005). Organisational identities, identification and positioning: Learning from political fields. Public Relations Review, 31(2004), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rousseau, J. J. (1997). In V. Gourevitch (Ed.), The discourses and other early political writings (Vol. 1, Cambridge texts in the history of political thought). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics. A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., & Fan, D. P. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes. Explaining clinton’s public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris & C. McClurg Müller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–611.Google Scholar
  60. Tankard, J. W., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames. Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.Google Scholar
  61. Tengblad, S., Ohlsson, C. (2009). The framing of corporate social responsibility and the globalization of national business systems. A longitudinal case study. Journal of Business Ethics, Online Publikation vom November 11, 2009. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0246-2, April 3, 2011.
  62. Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back. Journal of Communication, 57, 60–78.Google Scholar
  63. Weder, F. (2012). Die CSR-Debatte in den Printmedien. Anlässe, Themen, Deutungen. Wien: Facultas.wuv.Google Scholar
  64. Weintraub, J., & Kumar, K. (Eds.). (1997). Private and public in thought and practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Werther, W. B., & Chandler, D. (2006). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  66. Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media and CommunicationKlagenfurt UniversityKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations