Advertisement

When Corporate Responsibility Meets Digital Technology: A Reflection on New Discourses

  • Georgiana Grigore
  • Mike Molesworth
  • Francisca Farache
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility book series (PSGLR)

Abstract

References to the transformative aspects of digital technologies within academic corporate responsibility discourses have recently emerged, including discussion of interactive corporate social responsibility communication, of virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs and of corporate social responsibility in the network societies. In this chapter we reflect on such new discourses and suggest that the language they use and subsequent claims made may further fragment the field of corporate responsibility, and may ignore aspects of contemporary online cultures. We agree that there must be engagement between the extensive literature on online community, communication, and indeed power relations, and the work on CSR. We conclude this chapter with our own advice on how to go about researching and understanding how online community might be understood as important for the project of CSR.

Keywords

Corporate responsibility Digital technology Virtual Interactivity Network societies 

References

  1. Bechmann, A., and S. Lomborg. 2013. Mapping Actor Roles in Social Media: Different Perspectives on Value Creation in Theories of User Participation. New Media & Society 15 (5): 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blowfield, M., and A. Murray. 2008. Corporate Responsibility: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brenkert, G. 1998. Marketing and the Vulnerable. Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 297–306.Google Scholar
  4. Brogi, S. 2014. Online Brand Communities: A Literature Review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 109: 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capriotti, P. 2011. Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility Through the Internet and Social Media. In The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, ed. Øyvind Ihlen, Jennifer Barlett, and Steve Kent May, 358–378. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castelló, I., M. Morsing, and F. Schultz. 2013. Communicative Dynamics and the Polyphony of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Network Society. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (4): 683–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho, C.H., M.L. Martens, H. Kim, and M. Rodrigues. 2011. Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (4): 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, L.T., M. Morsing, and O. Thyssen. 2013. CSR as Aspirational Talk. Organization 20 (3): 372–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford, K. 2009. Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 23 (4): 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day, A., and E. Thompson. 2012. Live from New York, It’s the Fake News! Saturday Night Live and the (Non) Politics of Parody. Popular Communication 10 (1–2): 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denegri-Knott, J., and M. Molesworth. 2010. Concepts and Practices of Digital Virtual Consumption. Consumption, Markets and Culture 13 (2): 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eberle, D., G. Berens, and T. Li. 2013. The Impact of Interactive Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (4): 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fieseler, C., M. Fleck, and M. Meckel. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics 91 (4): 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frome, J. 2009. The Ontology of Interactivity. In Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games Conference 2009, ed. John Richard Sageng. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  15. Gorenflo, N. 2015. How Platform Coops Can Beat Death Stars Like Uber to Create a Real Sharing Economy. Disponible en línea: http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-platform-coops-can-beat-death-stars-like-uber-tocreate-a-real-sharing-economy
  16. Grigore, G., and A. Stancu. 2011. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Building Employer’s Brand. Transformation in Business & Economics 10: 741–753.Google Scholar
  17. Grigore, G., M. Molesworth, and R. Watkins. 2017. New Corporate Responsibilities in the Digital Economy. In Corporate Social Responsibility in the Post-Financial Crisis Era, 41–62. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Grunig, J.E., and T. Hunt. 1984. Managing Public Relations. Vol. 343. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, D.L., T.P. Novak, and M. Peralta. 1999. Building Consumer Trust Online. Communications of the ACM 42 (4): 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, S., ed. 1998. Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Community and Technology. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Kent, M.L., and M. Taylor. 1998. Building Dialogic Relationships Through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review 24 (3): 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kingston, L.N., and K.R. Stam. 2013. Online Advocacy: Analysis of Human Rights NGO Websites. Journal of Human Rights Practice 5 (1): 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korschun, D., and S. Du. 2013. How Virtual Corporate Social Responsibility Dialogs Generate Value: A Framework and Propositions. Journal of Business Research 66 (9): 1494–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Langley, P., and A. Leyshon. 2016. Platform Capitalism: The Intermediation and Capitalisation of Digital Economic Circulation. Finance and Society 1: 1–21.Google Scholar
  26. Marcuse, H. 1968. One-Dimensional Man: The Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. London: Sphere Books.Google Scholar
  27. McMillan, S.J. 2006. Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, and Systems. In The Handbook of New Media, 205–229. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Morahan-Martin, J., and P. Schumacher. 2003. Loneliness and Social Uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior 19 (6): 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups. New Media & Society 6 (2): 259–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rafaeli, S. 1988. From New Media to Communication. Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science 16: 110–134.Google Scholar
  31. Rheingold, H. 1993. The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Chicago: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Salen, K., and E. Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Scherer, A.G., and G. Palazzo. 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): 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scholz, T., ed. 2012. Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Scullion, R., D. Jackson, and M. Molesworth. 2013. Performance, Politics, and Media: How the 2010 British General Election Leadership Debates Generated “Talk” Among the Electorate. Journal of Political Marketing 12 (2–3): 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shields, R. 2003. The Virtual. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tüfekçi, Z. 2016. The Real Bias Built in at Facebook. The New York Times, May 19.Google Scholar
  38. Yeager, N.J., and R.E. McGrath. 1996. Web Server Technology: The Advanced Guide for World Wide Web Information Providers. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgiana Grigore
    • 1
  • Mike Molesworth
    • 2
  • Francisca Farache
    • 3
  1. 1.Henley Business SchoolGreenlands, Henley-on-ThamesUK
  2. 2.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Brighton Business SchoolBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations