#Sustainability on Twitter: Loose Ties and Green-Washing CSR

Part of the Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility book series (PSGLR)


This chapter questions and discusses Twitter’s role in enabling the formation of an international community of interest surrounding the sustainability hashtag. In doing so, the chapter also focuses on the characteristics of the hashtag community – its main actors and their connections – and the emerging discourses and themes associated with the hashtag as a way of discovering concerns, issues and key conceptual associations. The chapter will first discuss the concept of online communities, by briefly identifying the definitions associated with the concept and reviewing some of the studies applying it. It will then proceed to discuss sustainability and communication about sustainability online, linking this further with research undertaken about CSR, digital media and/or online communities. The chapter will then proceed to making the case for this study, presenting its methodology and findings and discussing their relevance. Exploring the hashtag network will enable readers to question and understand how Twitter communities work. The discursive exploration of the sustainability messages allows the readers to identify this community’s understanding of sustainability by identifying the most frequent associations with the concept.


  1. Adi, Ana. 2015. #publicrelations on Twitter: Pushers, Talkers, Influencers on Spamming PR and Job Hunting. Revista Română de Comunicare şi Relaţii Publice 17 (3): 41–57.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2018. #CSR on Twitter: A Hashtag Over-Simplifying a Complex Practice. In Digital Social Responsibility: The Role of Digital in Communicating and Managing Corporate Social Responsibility, ed. Adam Lindgreen, Joelle Vanhamme, and Rebecca Watkins. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Adi, Ana, Kristofer Erickson, and Darren G. Lilleker. 2014. Elite Tweets: Analyzing the Twitter Communication Patterns of Labour Party Peers in the House of Lords. Policy & Internet 6 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, Danah, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan. 2010. Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE, 1–10. IEEE.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H-C. 2010. A New Perspective on Twitter Hashtag Use: Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Paper Presented at ASIST 2010, October 22–27, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  6. Faraj, Samer, Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Ann Majchrzak. 2011. Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities. Organization Science 22 (5): 1224–1239. Accessed on 30 May 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher, D., M. Smith, and H. Welser. 2006. You Are Who You Talk To. In HICSS ‘06, Hawaii, Accessed 31 May 2017.
  8. Gruzd, Anatoliy, Barry Wellman, and Yuri Takhteyev. 2011. Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist 55 (10): 1294–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Highfield, T. 2012. Talking of Many Things: Using Topical Networks to Study Discussions in Social Media. Journal of Technology in Human Services 30 (3–4): 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Honey, Courtenay, and Susan C. Herring. 2009. Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on IEEE, 1–10. IEEE.Google Scholar
  11. Lazar, Jonathan, and Jenny Preece. 1998. Classification Schema for Online Communities. AMCIS 1998 Proceedings: 30. Accessed 29 May 2017.
  12. Lechner, Ulrike, and Yao-Hua Tan Katarina Stanoevska-Slabeva. 2002. Communities in the Digital Economy. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6 (3): 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Norris, Pippa. 2002. The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. 3–13. Accessed 1 June 2017.
  14. Petkoski, D., and N. Twose. 2003. Public Policy for Corporate Social Responsibility. WBI Series on Corporate Responsibility, 7–25. Accessed 31 May 2017.
  15. Plant, R. 2004. Online Communities. Technology in Society 26 (1): 51–65. Accessed on 30 May 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Preece, J. 2001. Sociability and Usability: Twenty Years of Chatting Online. Behavior and Information Technology Journal 20 (5): 347–356. Accessed on 30 May 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prieto-Carrón, Marina, Peter Lund-Thomsen, Anita Chan, Ana Muro, and Chandra Bhushan. 2006. Critical Perspectives on CSR and Development: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and What We Need to Know. International Affairs 82 (5): 977–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reilly, Anne H., and Katherine A. Hynan. 2014. Corporate Communication, Sustainability, and Social Media: It’s Not Easy (Really) Being Green. Business Horizons 57 (6): 747–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reilly, Anne, and Amanda Weirup. 2012. Sustainability Initiatives, Social Media Activity, and Organizational Culture: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Sustainability and Green Business 1: 1.Google Scholar
  21. Van Marrewijk, Marcel. 2003. Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics 44 (2): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang, Youcheng, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. 2003. Assessing Motivation of Contribution in Online Communities: An Empirical Investigation of an Online Travel Community. Electronic Markets 13 (1): 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams, Ruth L., and Joseph Cothrel. 2000. Four Smart Ways to Run Online Communities. MIT Sloan Management Review 41 (4): 81. Accessed on 30 May 2017.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang, Jun, Mark S. Ackerman, and Lada Adamic. 2007. Expertise Networks in Online Communities: Structure and Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, 221–230. ACM. Accessed on 31 May 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Adi
    • 1
  1. 1.Quadriga University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations