Cited by 135Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingCorporate Social Responsibility and SustainabilitySustainable Supply Chain Management

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication

Open access
Morsing, Mette, Spence, Laura J·2019·Human Relations

Abstract

Businesses that promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) through their supply chains by requiring their suppliers to report on and otherwise communicate their CSR are doing a great thing, aren’t they? In this article, we challenge this assumption by focusing on the impact on small and medium sized enterprise (SME) suppliers when their large customer firms pressurize them to make their implicit CSR communication more explicit. We expose a ‘dark side’ to assumed improvements in CSR reporting within a supply chain. We present a conceptual framework that draws on previous research on communication constitutes organization (CCO) theory, implicit and explicit CSR, and Foucault’s governmentality. We identify and discuss the implications of three resulting dilemmas faced by SMEs: authenticity commercialization, values control and identity disruption. The overarching contribution of our article is to extend theorizing on CSR communication and conceptual research on CSR in SME suppliers (small business social responsibility). From a practice and policy perspective, it is not ultimately clear that promoting CSR reporting among SMEs will necessarily improve socially responsible practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018726718804306

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Organizations and politicians are often reproached by media and other stakeholders for being unambitious in goal-setting and visions for the future.

    “Organizations (and politicians) are often reproached by media and other stakeholders for being unambitious when it comes to goalsetting and visions for the future (e.g.Hoffman, 2014; White, 2015, see also Morsing & Spence, 2019).”

    From Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication (2020) · cites this paper as Morsing & Spence, 2019

    The Identity disruption section discusses SMEs responding to external expectations, and the Discussion discusses public CSR declarations and organizational visions. Neither says that media or other stakeholders often reproach organizations or politicians for unambitious goals or visions; searches for those terms and close paraphrases found no such passage. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Ashcraft KL, Kuhn TR and Cooren F (2009) Constitutional amendments: 'Materializing' organi- zational communication. The Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 1-64.
  2. Austin JL (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Baden D, Harwood I and Woodward D (2011) The effect of procurement policies on 'downstream' Corporate Social Responsibility activity: Content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner/managers. International Small Business Journal 29(3): 259-277.
  4. Barratt E (2008) The later Foucault in organization and management studies. Human Relations 61(4): 515-537.
  5. Baumann-Pauly D, Wickert C, Spence L and Scherer A (2013) Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics 115(14): 693-705.
  6. Blackburn R and Smallbone D (2008) Researching small firms and entrepreneurship in the UK: Developments and distinctiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32(2): 267-288.
  7. Boje DM, Oswick C and Ford JD (2004) Introduction to special topic forum. Language and organi- zation: The doing of modern discourse. Academy of Management Review 29(4): 571-577.
  8. Bromley P and Powell WW (2012) From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals 6(1): 483-530.
  9. Cabantous L, Gond J-P, Harding N and Learmonth M (2016) Reconsidering critical performativity. Human Relations 69(2): 197-213.
  10. Castelló I and Lozano JM (2011) Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics 100(1): 11-29.
  11. Christensen LT, Morsing M and Thyssen O (2013) CSR as aspirational talk. Organization 20(3): 372-393.
  12. Christensen LT, Morsing M and Thyssen O (2015) The polyphony of values and the value of polyphony. ESSACHESS -Journal for Communication Studies 8(1): 9-25.
  13. Crane A, Knights D and Starkey K (2008) The conditions of our freedom: Foucault, organization, and ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(3): 299-320.
  14. Dean M (2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.
  15. Fang T (2012) Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review 8(1): 25-50.
  16. Fleming P and Jones M (2012) The End of Corporate Social Responsibility: Crisis and Critique. London: SAGE.
  17. Foucault M (1982) Technologies of the self. In: Rabinow P (ed.) Michel Foucault: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. The Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. New York: The New Press, 223-252.
  18. Foucault M (1991) Governmentality. In: Burchell G, Gordon C and Miller P (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 87-104.
  19. Foucault M (2010) The Government of Self and Others. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  20. Frandsen S, Morsing M and Vallentin S (2013) Adopting sustainability in the organization: Managing processes of productive loose coupling to achieve internal legitimacy. Journal of Management Development 32(3): 236-246.
  21. Gilbert DU, Rasche A and Waddock S (2011) Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(1): 23-44.
  22. Goffee R and Scase R (2015) Corporate Realities: The Dynamics of Large and Small Organisations. Routledge Revivals. Originally published 1995. London: Routledge.
  23. Guthey E and Morsing M (2014) CSR and the mediated emergence of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Ethics 120(4): 555-569.
  24. Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and Rationalization of Society. McCarthy T (trans.). London: Heinemann.
  25. Ihlen Ô, Bartlett JL and May S (eds) (2011) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  26. Jenkins H (2004) A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. Journal of General Management 29(4): 55-75.
  27. Jenkins H (2006) Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3): 241-256.
  28. Kallio K, Kallio TJ, Tienari J and Hyvönen T (2015) Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations 69(3): 685-709.
  29. Kim YH and Davis GF (2016) Challenges for global supply chain sustainability: Evidence from conflict minerals reports. Academy of Management Journal 59(6): 1896-1916.
  30. Knudsen J (2013) The growth of private regulation of labor standards in global supply chains: Mission impossible for Western small-and medium sized firms? Journal of Business Ethics 117(2): 387-398.
  31. Kuhn T (2012) Negotiating the micro-macro divide: Thought leadership from organizational communication for theorizing organization. Management Communication Quarterly 26(4): 543-584.
  32. Kuhn T, Ashcraft K and Cooren F (2017) The Work of Communication: Relational Perspectives on Working and Organizing in Contemporary Capitalism. New York: Routledge.
  33. Lähdesmäki M and Suutari T (2012) Keeping at arm's length or searching for social proximity? Corporate social responsibility as a reciprocal process between small businesses and the local community. Journal of Business Ethics 108(4): 481-493.
  34. Lähdesmäki M, Siltaoja M and Spence LJ (2017) Stakeholder salience in the local small business context: A social proximity perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 13 October. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3707-z. · DOI
  35. Li PP (1998) Towards a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies 19(5): 829-861.
  36. Lockett A, Moon J and Visser W (2006) Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 115-136.
  37. Logsdon J and Wood D (2008) Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 155-187.
  38. Matten D and Moon J (2008) Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a compara- tive understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33(2): 404-424.
  39. Miller P and Rose N (2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity.
  40. Mitchell R, Agle B, Chrisman J and Spence L (2011) Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(2): 235-255.
  41. Moisander J, Groß C and Eräranta K (2018) Mechanisms of biopower and neoliberal governmen- tality in precarious work: Mobilizing the dependent self-employed as independent business owners. Human Relations 71(3): 375-398.
  42. Morsing M and Perrini F (2009) Editorial. CSR in SMEs: Do SMEs matter for the CSR agenda? Business Ethics: A European Review 18(1): 1-6.
  43. Morsing M and Schultz M (2006) Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4): 323-338.
  44. Morsing M, Midttun A and Palmås K (2007) Corporate social responsibility in Scandinavia -a turn towards the business case? In: May S, Cheney G and Roper J (eds) The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98-127.
  45. Morsing M, Oswald D and Stormer S (2018) The ongoing dynamics of integrating sustainabil- ity into business practice: The case of Novo Nordisk A/S. In: Lenssen G and Smith NC (eds) Managing Sustainable Business: An Executive Education Textbook. London: Springer, 641-674.
  46. Murillo D and Lozano JM (2006) SMEs and CSR: An approach to CSR in their own words. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3): 227-240.
  47. Nielsen AE and Thomsen C (2009a) Investigating CSR communication in SMEs: A case study among Danish middle managers. Business Ethics: A European Review 18(1): 83-93.
  48. Nielsen AE and Thomsen C (2009b) CSR communication in small and medium sized enterprises: A study of the attitudes and beliefs of middle managers. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14(2): 176-189.
  49. O'Connor A, Parcha JM and Tulibaski KL (2017) The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility communication: An intra-industry comparison of MNCs' and SMEs' CSR reports. Management Communication Quarterly 31(4): 503-532.
  50. O'Donnell A, Gilmore A, Carson D and Cummins D (2002) Competitive advantage in small to medium sized enterprises. Journal of Strategic Marketing 10(3): 205-223.
  51. Parker CM, Bellucci E, Zutshi A, Torlina L and Fraunholz B (2015) SME stakeholder relationship descriptions in website CSR communications. Social Responsibility Journal 11(2): 364-386.
  52. Perrini F (2006) SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 67(3): 305-316.
  53. Porter ME and Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review 89(1/2): 62-77.
  54. Prahalad C (2006) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Chennai: Pearson.
  55. Putnam LL and Boys S (2006) Revisiting metaphors of organizational communication. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TB and Nord WR (eds) SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE, 541-576.
  56. Resnick SM, Cheng R, Simpson M and Lourenço F (2016) Marketing in SMEs: A '4Ps' self- branding model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 22(1): 155-174.
  57. Roberts J (1991) The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(4): 355-368.
  58. Robichaud D, Giroux H and Taylor JR (2004) The metaconversation: The recursive property of language as a key to organizing. Academy of Management Review 29(4): 617-634.
  59. Sauder M and Espeland WN (2009) The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review 74(1): 63-82.
  60. Schaefer S and Wickert C (2016) On the potential of progressive performativity: Definitional purity, re-engagement and empirical points of departure. Human Relations 69(2): 215-224.
  61. Schmeltz L (2017) Getting CSR communication fit: A study of strategically fitting cause, consum- ers and company in corporate CSR communication. Public Relations Inquiry 6(1): 47-72.
  62. Searle JR (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Siltaoja M, Malin V and Pyykkönen M (2015) 'We are all responsible now': Governmentality and responsibilized subjects in corporate social responsibility. Management Learning 46(4): 444-460.
  64. Soundararajan V and Brown JA (2016) Voluntary governance mechanisms in global sup- ply chains: Beyond CSR to a stakeholder utility perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 134(1): 83-102.
  65. Soundararajan V, Jamali D and Spence LJ (2017) Small business social responsibility: A criti- cal multi-level review, synthesis and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(4): 934-956.
  66. Spence LJ (2016) Small business social responsibility expanding core CSR theory. Business and Society 55(1): 23-55.
  67. Spence LJ, Schmidpeter R and Habisch A (2003) Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 47(1): 17-29.
  68. Stokes D and Lomax W (2002) Taking control of word of mouth marketing: The case of an entrepreneurial hotelier. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 9(4): 349-357.
  69. Vallentin S and Murillo D (2012) Governmentality and the politics of CSR. Organization 19(6): 825-843.
  70. Wickert C, Scherer A and Spence LJ (2016) Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational costs. Journal of Management Studies 53(7): 1169-1196.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morsing, M., & Spence, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Morsing, Mette
  • Spence, Laura J
Venue
Human Relations
Published
2019-01-24
Volume
72
Issue
12
Pages
1920-1947
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
OpenAlex
W2913373080
Cited by
135
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8
FWCI
23.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Relations (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Stiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk Forskning (Center for Sustainable Markets)
  • Copenhagen Business School (World Class Research Environment Governing Respons)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Keywords
CSR communication, small and medium-sized enterprises, governmentality, Michel Foucault, supplier pressure, identity disruption, corporate social responsibility disclosure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review